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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Cabrales (U.S. Publication 2010/0129506).
Regarding claim 1, Cabrales teaches an apparatus configured to process foodstuff materials (figure 1 item 10), the apparatus comprising: a material passage (volume inside item 10) having an inlet(opening in item 20 proximate hopper item 62), an outlet (opening in item 20 proximate item 124), and an axis (axes through which item 19 extends), wherein the material passage is configured to facilitate the conveyance of foodstuff materials from the inlet to the outlet (material flows from item 62 through item 20 to item 124); an inner shaft located within the material passage and extending along the axis (item 19), wherein the inner shaft is configured to be rotationally driven about the axis (item 19 is driven along its longitudinal axis by items 12 and 14); and multiple differently shaped protrusions coupled to and extending from the inner shaft and configured to process the foodstuff materials when the inner shaft is rotationally driven (paragraph 81 teaches mixing elements 18, and teaches different widths for items 18a, 18b, and 18c which are considered multiple differently shaped protrusions), wherein each of at least a portion of the multiple differently shaped protrusions extend from the inner shaft at a location of another differently shaped protrusion and in a direction that is opposite the direction of the other differently shaped protrusion (figure 2 shows multiple items 18 oriented in opposite directions from adjacent items 18).
Regarding claim 2, Cabrales teaches wherein the multiple differently shaped protrusions include one or more unfilled hoops, hooks, and paddles (paragraph 117 teaches items 18 as paddles).
Regarding claim 3, Cabrales teaches wherein the multiple differently shaped protrusions include agitation protrusions configured to agitate the foodstuff materials (the tips at the end of item 18 is considered a shape for mixing) and conveyance protrusions configured to convey the foodstuff materials (paragraph 87 teaches an outlet wall item 204 which is used to convey material).
Regarding claim 5, Cabrales teaches wherein at least a portion of the multiple differently shaped protrusions extend from the inner shaft in a helical and imbricated pattern (figure 6 item 30 is considered reading on a helical and imbricated pattern).
Regarding claim 6, Cabrales teaches wherein the foodstuff materials include one or more meat analogue materials (the material is considered intended use, item 10 is considered capable of agitating meant analogue products).
Regarding claim 7, Cabrales teaches a method of processing foodstuff materials (paragraph 1 teaches a method for processing meat), the method comprising: providing foodstuff materials into a material passage having an inlet (opening in item 20 where item 62 feeds), an outlet (opening in item 20 which feeds foodstuff to item 124 ), a central axis (axis through which item 19 extends), a single inner shaft extending along the central axis (item 19 comprises a single shaft, the claim uses comprising language and is not considered excluding multiple shafts), and multiple differently shaped protrusions coupled to and extending from the inner shaft (paragraph 81 teaches mixing elements 18, and teaches different widths for items 18a, 18b, and 18c which are considered multiple differently shaped protrusions); rotating the inner shaft in a first direction while the foodstuff materials are within the material passage (item 19 is rotated in a direction by items 12 and 14), wherein the rotating results in multiple different processing functions of the foodstuff materials by the multiple differently shaped protrusions (material is both conveyed and agitated in item 20 which are considered different processing functions); and collecting the foodstuff materials from the outlet of the foodstuff processing apparatus after the multiple different processing functions have been performed by the multiple differently shaped protrusions (material is connected in item 124 from item 20).
Regarding claim 8, Cabrales teaches wherein the multiple different processing functions include conveying the foodstuff materials through the material passage (material moves from item 62 towards item 124 and therefore considered conveyed through item 20) and agitating the foodstuff materials while the foodstuff materials are within the material passage (paragraph 18 teaches a mixer and mixing elements which are considered agitating the foodstuffs).
Regarding claim 9, Cabrales teaches wherein the multiple differently shaped protrusions include one or more unfilled hoops, hooks, and paddles (paragraph 117 teaches items 18 as paddles).
Regarding claim 10, Cabrales teaches providing water into the material passage while the foodstuff materials are within the material passage to produce a plurality of hydrated foodstuff material particles (paragraph 57 teaches pumping water via item 84 which would inherently hydrate the foodstuff material in item 20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4,12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabrales (U.S. Publication 2010/0129506) in view of Kurina (US Publication 2019/0150476).
Regarding claims 4, Cabrales teaches a water inlet located at the foodstuff inlet (paragraph 57 teaches pumping water via item 84). Regarding claims 4, Cabrales is silent to multiple water inlets located along the exterior of the tube. Regarding claim 4, Kurina teaches a fluid inlet downstream the inlet of the hopper (Figure 2 inlet 5, the water is considered intended use). Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the extruder mixer of Cabrales with the fluid inlet configuration of Kurina in order to achieve the desired texture of food product. Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of water lines feeding into the mixer in order to achieve the desired moisture content of the foodstuff since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 12, Cabrales teaches an apparatus configured to hydrate foodstuff materials (Fig. 1 item 10, paragraph 57 teaches pumping water and chunks of meat which is considered hydrating foodstuffs) the apparatus comprising: a material passage (volume inside item 10) having an inlet(opening in item 20 proximate hopper item 62), an outlet (opening in item 20 proximate item 124), and an axis (axes through which item 19 extends), wherein the material passage is configured to facilitate the conveyance of foodstuff materials from the inlet to the outlet (material flows from item 62 through item 20 to item 124); an inner shaft located within the material passage and extending along the axis (item 19), wherein the inner shaft is configured to be rotationally driven about the axis (item 19 is driven along its longitudinal axis by items 12 and 14); and multiple protrusions extending therefrom that are configured to interact with foodstuff materials when the inner shaft is rotationally driven (paragraph 81 teaches mixing elements 18, which are used to interact with foodstuffs in item 20). Regarding claims 12, Cabrales is silent to multiple water inlets spaced apart between the inlet and outlet. Regarding claim 12, Kurina teaches a fluid inlet downstream the inlet of the hopper (Figure 2 inlet 5, the water is considered intended use). Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the extruder mixer of Cabrales with the fluid inlet configuration of Kurina in order to achieve the desired texture of food product. Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of water lines feeding into the mixer in order to achieve the desired moisture content of the foodstuff since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 13, Cabrales teaches wherein the multiple protrusions include multiple differently shaped protrusions (paragraph 81 teaches mixing elements 18, and teaches different widths for items 18a, 18b, and 18c which are considered multiple differently shaped protrusions) that include one or more unfilled hoops, unfilled hooks, unfilled paddles, or any combination thereof (paragraph 117 teaches items 18 as paddles).
Regarding claim 14, Cabrales teaches wherein at least a portion of the multiple protrusions are configured to process the foodstuff materials into smaller foodstuff particles (items 18 are considered capable of breaking up foodstuffs into smaller particles, paragraph 60 teaches breaking the protein and unraveling the protein).
Regarding claims 15, Cabrales is silent to the water inlet configuration. Regarding claim 15, Kurina teaches a fluid inlet downstream the inlet of the hopper (Figure 2 inlet 5, the water is considered intended use) which would inherently hydrate material as its being broken up, the material is considered intended use. Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the extruder mixer of Cabrales with the fluid inlet configuration of Kurina in order to achieve the desired texture of food product. Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of water lines feeding into the mixer in order to achieve the desired moisture content of the foodstuff since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 16, Cabrales teaches wherein the flow of water is metered based at least in part on the rotation of the inner shaft (paragraph 87 teaches a control system which regulates the metering pumps which is considered capable of metering the water based on the speed of the rotational shaft). Regarding claims 16, Cabrales is silent to multiple water inlets spaced apart between the inlet and outlet. Regarding claim 16, Kurina teaches a fluid inlet downstream the inlet of the hopper (Figure 2 inlet 5, the water is considered intended use). Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the extruder mixer of Cabrales with the fluid inlet configuration of Kurina in order to achieve the desired texture of food product. Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of water lines feeding into the mixer in order to achieve the desired moisture content of the foodstuff since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 17, Cabrales teaches multiple processing regions (processing regions are considered proximate items 18). Regarding claim 17, Cabrales is silent to the water inlet and hydrating region configuration. Regarding claim 17, Kurina teaches a fluid inlet downstream of the inlet hopper (figure 2 inlet 5, water is considered intended use), the fluid inlet considered a hydrating region, and areas where there is no inlet considered processing regions. Regarding claim 17, Regarding claim 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of water lines feeding into the mixer in order to achieve the desired moisture content of the foodstuff since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 18, Cabrales teaches regions where foodstuff is agitated (proximate items 18). Regarding claim 18, Cabrales is silent to the water inlet and hydrating region configuration. Regarding claim 17, Kurina teaches a fluid inlet downstream of the inlet hopper (figure 2 inlet 5, water is considered intended use), the fluid inlet considered a hydrating region and is capable of hydrating material proximate the inlet, and areas where there is no inlet considered processing regions. Regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of water lines feeding into the mixer in order to achieve the desired moisture content of the foodstuff since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 19, Cabrales teaches while the material being worked upon is considered intended use, Cabrales teaches creating new surface areas as the material is processed (paragraph 60 teaches breaking protein strands and unraveling protein which would inherently create new surface areas). Regarding claim 19, Cabrales is silent to the water inlet and hydrating region configuration. Regarding claim 19, Kurina teaches a fluid inlet downstream of the inlet hopper (figure 2 inlet 5, water is considered intended use), the fluid inlet considered a hydrating region and is capable of hydrating material proximate the inlet, and areas where there is no inlet considered processing regions. Regarding claim 19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of water lines feeding into the mixer in order to achieve the desired moisture content of the foodstuff since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 20, Cabrales teaches wherein the material passage includes one fluid passage along surfaces thereof to facilitate the direction of water through the material passage to facilitate hydration of the food material (paragraph 57 teaches pumping water which flows through item 20 and considered hydrating foodstuffs throughout the inner surfaces of item 20).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabrales (U.S. Publication 2010/0129506) in view of Yusa (U.S. Publication 2013/0285273).
Regarding claim 11, Cabrales is silent to the shaft being rotatably in a clockwise and counterclockwise direction. Regarding claim 11, Yusa teaches wherein the inner shaft is configured to be rotationally driven in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions (paragraph 38, screw 20). Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Cabrales with the rotational configuration of Yusa in order to produce the desired degree of agitation. Both references are concerned with conveying material via screws and are considered in the same field of endeavor.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the naming of the passage vs exterior tube and opposite protrusion configuration would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 2 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 2 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the naming of the passage vs exterior tube and opposite protrusion configuration would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 3 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 3 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the naming of the passage vs exterior tube and opposite protrusion configuration would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 4 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 7 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the naming of the passage vs exterior tube and opposite protrusion configuration would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 5 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 10 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the naming of the passage vs exterior tube and opposite protrusion configuration would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 6 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 12 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the naming of the passage vs exterior tube and opposite protrusion configuration would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 7 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 13 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the exterior tube and would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 8 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 14 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the exterior tube and would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 9 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 15 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the exterior tube and would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 10 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 16 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the exterior tube and the multiple water inlets would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 11 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 18 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the exterior tube and the multiple water inlets would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 12 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 7 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the naming of the passage vs exterior tube and protrusion configuration would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 13 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 7 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the naming of the passage vs exterior tube and protrusion configuration would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 13 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 7 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the naming of the passage vs exterior tube, protrusion configuration, and the effect of the agitation would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 14 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 7 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the naming of the passage vs exterior tube, protrusion configuration, and the effect of the agitation would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 15 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 7 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the naming of the passage vs exterior tube, protrusion configuration, and the effect of the agitation would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 16 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 7 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the naming of the passage vs exterior tube, protrusion configuration, and the effect of the agitation would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 17 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 7 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the naming of the passage vs exterior tube, protrusion configuration, and the effect of the agitation would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 18 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 7 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the naming of the passage vs exterior tube, protrusion configuration, and the effect of the agitation would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 19 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 7 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the naming of the passage vs exterior tube, protrusion configuration, and the effect of the agitation would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Claim 20 of the instant application is rejected for being obvious type double patenting since the claim is not considered patentably distinct of claim 7 of U.S. Patent 12,004,536 since the naming of the passage vs exterior tube, protrusion configuration, and the effect of the agitation would not have been restricted if presented in the same application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights