DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendments have overcome the objections to the Abstract and Specification and the Claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) stated in the last Office action mailed on 3/16/26.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are pending and being examined on their merits. Claims 2-9, and 12-13 have been newly canceled. Claims 1, 10, and 11 have been amended with claim 1 now requiring the limitations and features of canceled claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, and 12-13. Claim 1 has been further amended to include the new limitations for the type of meat product being pork and beef each requiring different amount of day ranges for the refrigerated aging and the additional aging in the dry ager.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu [KR20170108773A], in view of Shon [KR20200126147A], Cai et al. [CN110100877A], hereinafter Cai, Kim et al. [KR20170120873A], hereinafter Kim, and Cho et al. [KR20190008488A], hereinafter Cho.
Regarding claim 1, Ryu teaches a processing method for aging meat [Ryu, Abstract], comprising performing ultrasonication [Ryu, 0036, 0039, Fig.2] on vacuum-packaged meat [Ryu, 0037, Fig.2] using ultrasonic waves [Ryu, abstract, 0034, 0039], at a water temperature [Ryu, 0038, 0040] ranging from 1-3°C [Ryu, 0046]; and aging the ultrasonicated meat in a refrigerated state at a temperature of 4-6°C [Ryu, 0047].
Ryu does not teach ultrasonication for 40-120 minutes at a water pressure ranging from 10 atm to 15 atm.
Shon teaches an apparatus and method for aging meat [Shon, Title, Abstract], comprising: performing ultrasonication using ultrasonic waves [Shon, 0013] for 1-24 hours (60-1440 minutes) [Shon, 0034] on a meat while being immersed in a liquid (water based or aqueous aging solution) [Shon, 0036, 0063-0064, 0078] at a pressure range of from 1-100 atm [Shon, 0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform ultrasonication for 60 minutes to 1440 minutes at a water pressure ranging from 1-100 atm as taught by Shon, in the method of Ryu, since both are directed to methods of aging meats immersed in liquids while using ultrasonication under pressure, because the time of ultrasonication treatment would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization in the method of Ryu due to various factors of the process such as the size of the meat being treated, temperature, pressure, type of meat, and the intensity of the ultrasonic waves, which would promote the aging process and increase meat tenderness (reduction of the bonding strength between the muscles and proteins in the pork) in a short period of time [Shon, 0034], and further because Shon teaches that the application of pressure from 1-100 atm shortens the aging process and reduces the amount of additional aging ingredients [Shon, 0037].
Modified Ryu does not teach ultrasonic waves at a power of 2,000 W to 3,000 W.
Cai teaches a method for keeping meat (beef) fresh [Cai, Abstract], particularly matured or preserved (aged) meat [Cai, 0002] comprising a step of applying ultrasonic waves of 2200-2800 W [Cai, 0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply ultrasonic waves of 2200-2800 W as taught by Cai, in the method of modified Ryu, since all are directed to methods of treating preserved or aged meats immersed in liquids while using ultrasonication and pressure and packaged under vacuum, and because Cai teaches that the application of ultrasonic waves of 2200-2800 W aid with meat preservation [Shon, 0017, 0019].
Ryu teaches the processing method for aging vacuum-packaged meat [Ryu, 0037, Fig.2], and Ryu in view of Shon teaches a step of performing an additional aging (second aging) after the first aging [Shon, 0050, 0052], where it is known in the art that the aging process may be a dry aging [Shon, 0005], but are silent regarding a specific step of removing the vacuum packaging after the aging of the ultrasonicated meat in the refrigerated state, and the additional aging of the meat in a dry ager.
Kim teaches processing method for aging vacuum-packaged meat, wherein the process comprise a step of removing the vacuum packaging and performing additional dry aging in a dry warehouse (equivalent to performing additional aging in a dry ager) after a refrigerated or low temperature immersion wet type aging [Kim, abstract, 0063, 0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the vacuum packaging and performing additional aging in a dry ager after the aging of the ultrasonicated meat in the refrigerated state as taught by Kim, in the method of Ryu, because modified Ryu in view of Shon already teach that it is known in the art to perform dry aging [Shon, 0005], and additional or one or more aging steps [Shon, 0050, 0052], and further because Kim teaches that removing the vacuum packaging and performing an additional dry aging step increase the flavor of the meat by directly exposing the meat to the air, thereby reducing the moisture content of the meat [Kim, 0064].
Ryu teaches wherein when the meat is pork (pigs) [Ryu, abstract, 0001], the aging of the ultrasonicated pork meat in the refrigerated state is performed for 3-6 days [Ryu, 0004], but does not teach the additional aging of the meat in the dry ager is performed for 3 days to 14 days.
Kim teaches a processing method for aging vacuum-packaged meat, and removing the vacuum packaging and performing additional dry aging in a dry ager after a refrigerated aging [Kim, abstract, 0063, 0070] as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the removing the vacuum packaging [Kim, 0063] and performing of additional aging of the meat in the dry ager are performed for 6 days to 8 days [Kim, 0014, 0020, 0070], wherein the meat type includes pork meat [Kim, claim 7, 0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the vacuum packaging and performing additional aging in a dry ager for 6 days to 8 days as taught by Kim, in the method of Ryu, because Kim teaches that this will provide the effect of minimizing the loss of meat juice, thereby obtaining pork meat that is soft and tender without being dry or tough [Kim, 0027], as well as dry aging for an appropriate period of time/days to ensure a suitable moisture in the meat, which would in turn promote the enhancement of the meat flavor [Kim, 0075].
Ryu teaches wherein when the meat is beef (cows) [Ryu, abstract, 0001, 0003], the aging of the ultrasonicated meat in the refrigerated state is performed for 7-10 days for beef [Ryu, 0004], and Ryu modified by Kim teaches removing the vacuum packaging and performing additional dry aging in a dry ager after a refrigerated aging [Kim, abstract, 0063, 0070] as discussed above, but are silent regarding the additional aging of the meat in the dry ager is performed for 14 days to 28 days.
Cho teaches a dry aging process for beef, wherein the dry aging may be performed for 15-25 days [Cho, abstract, claim 1, 0019], however the dry aging is not limited to this 15-25 days [Cho, 0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform an additional aging of the meat in the dry ager for 15-25 days as taught by Cho, in the method of modified Ryu, because Cho teaches the amount of days for the dry aging is not limited [Cho, 0055] and the method provides optimal dry aging conditions (including amount of aging time) for each part or cut type of beef (i.e., loin, round, low-fat cuts) [Cho, 0001, 0013, 0035] since different parts or cut types of beef require different shorter or longer aging periods [Cho, 0070], thereby improving meat quality, creating high added value to the beef processed by the method [Cho, 0001].
Regarding claims 10-11, Ryu teaches the processing method for aging meat discussed in claim 1 rejection above, but is silent regarding the dry ager maintaining a temperature of 0°C to 10°C as required by claim 10, and the dry ager maintaining a humidity of 70% to 90% as required by claim 11.
Kim teaches the processing method for aging vacuum-packaged meat, including performing a dry aging in a dry ager as discussed in claim 1 rejection above, wherein the dry ager maintains a temperature of 1-2°C, at a humidity of 70-85% [Kim, 0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain a temperature of 1-2°C, and a humidity of 70-85% in the dry ager as taught by Kim, in the method of Ryu, because Kim teaches that performing the dry aging at the disclosed process parameters (temperature, humidity) increase the flavor of the meat by directly exposing the meat to the air, thereby reducing the moisture content of the meat [Kim, 0064] and using temperatures and humidity parameters in the aging process that promotes flavor enhancement of the meat and reduce meat spoilage [Kim, 0071-0074].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The rejection has been amended by virtue of Applicant amendments to claim 1. The limitation for when the meat type is pork with the refrigerated aging days (1-7 days as claimed) is taught by Ryu, the dry aging days (3-14 days as claimed) for pork is taught by Kim, when the meat type is beef with the refrigerated aging days (7-14 days as claimed) is taught by Ryu, and the dry aging days (14-28 days as claimed) for beef is taught by Cho.
In pages 9-11 Applicant urges that the claimed water pressure of 10-15 atm is a critical parameter for preserving the physical integrity (prevent damage) of the meat when ultrasonic waves of 2,000-3,000 W are employed. This argument is not persuasive because while the instant specification provides data for only one point of pressure (i.e., 100 m water or about 10 atm) in Examples 1-1 and 1-2 for pork meat being treated at a pressure of 100 m of water (which is a pressure of about 10 atm, see [43, 47] instant specification), and Examples 2-1 and 2-2 for beef meat being treated at a pressure of 100 m of water (which is a pressure of about 10 atm, see [68, 72] instant specification), there are no other examples showing pressure treatments that encompass the claimed range of 10-15 atm (i.e. at pressures of 100-155 m of water which is from about 10-15 atm pressure). Furthermore, Ryu teaches aging meat using ultrasonication, wherein the meat is inside a container under water [Ryu, 0028-0030], and Ryu does not teach a limit of the container size or the level (certain level of water inside container [Ryu, 0038]) of water being filled inside the container. Therefore, since the meat is submerged under water inside the container, it is understood that the meat is under the effect of water pressure, where the water pressure would depend on the size (i.e., depth) of said container holding the meat under water and/or the level (i.e., height) of water being filled in the container holding the meat.
In pages 12-13 Applicant urges that Ryu fails to teach using the claimed ultrasonic waves at a power of 2,000-3,000 W and pressure of 10-15 atm. This argument is not persuasive because as explained above Shon teaches performing ultrasonication using ultrasonic waves on a meat while being immersed in a liquid (water based or aqueous aging solution) at a pressure range of from 1-100 atm, and Cai teaches a method for keeping matured or preserved (aged) meat comprising a step of applying ultrasonic waves of 2200-2800 W. While no single reference teach using all the claimed limitations of claim 1 (i.e., a 35 U.S.C. 102 reference) nonetheless the combination of reference teach each and every limitation present in claim 1 along with motivation for combining such parameters for aging meats based on factors such as types of meats and size or amount of meat being processed.
In pages 14-15 Applicant urges that Shon fails to teach using the claimed ultrasonic waves at a specific power of 2,000-3,000 W and pressure of 10-15 atm both in combination. This argument is not persuasive because while the reference of Shon (being relied upon for teaching using ultrasonic waves on a meat while being immersed in a liquid (water based or aqueous aging solution) at a pressure range of from 1-100 atm) does not explicitly recites ultrasonic waves at a power of 2,000-3,000 W, Shon teaches using ultrasonic waves at an intensity of 5-100 W/cm2 [Shon, 0034]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of higher or lower amounts of power based on the amount or size of the meat being processed. For example, ultrasonic intensity defined as power per unit area expressed as I= P/A (see evidentiary reference of OpenStax, p.2, not relied for the rejection of record and only cited as evidence for showing I= P/A), where I= intensity, P= Power, and A= surface Area, then P= I x A, when using an intensity of 100 W/cm2 and an area of 20 cm2, P= (100 W/cm2) x (20 cm2)= 2,000 W, and when using an intensity of 5 W/cm2 and an area of 600 cm2, P= (5 W/cm2) x (600 cm2)= 3,000 W, since Shon teaches the meat may be cut into certain size [Shon, 0023] and none of the references being relied upon limit the size of the meat product being processed or aged.
In pages 16-17 Applicant urges that the references of Cai, Arihara and Kim fail to teach the claimed process parameters as similarly argued above for the references of Ryu and Shon, and that Cai, Arihara and Kim fail to address the problem of preserving the physical integrity of the meat during high-power ultrasonic treatment. These arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons stated above in the discussion of Ryu and Shon, and further Arihara is no longer cited in the present Office action since the claim was amended to the dry aging being performed for 14-28 days specifically for beef type of meat which is now taught by Cho, since Arihara taught dry aging performed for 21 days to 25 days for pork type meat [Arihara, claim 2, 0012].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights