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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 16 - 18 in the reply filed on 07/01/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11, 15, 21, and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 4 recites “a pressure element that is configured to press the seal member against the mould drum” which is considered a means plus function limitation and interpreted under requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The specification indicates “one or more piston/cylinder(s)” as corresponding structure for the claimed generic placeholder of “pressure element”.
Claim 19 recites “a motorized drive means for actuating the valve” a means plus function limitation and interpreted under requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The specification indicates “two feed screw drive motors 2406, 2408 (FIG. 45A)” as corresponding structure for the claimed generic placeholder of “a motorized drive means”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation of “the passage” in in a 1st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 12 fails to disclose “a passage”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 12-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindee et al. (US 8,469,697)
[AltContent: textbox (A mold drum (900))][AltContent: textbox (Venting means (765, 768, 769))]Lindee et al. (US ‘697) disclose the system has a cylindrical mold shell (900) rotated between a fill plate and a wear plate (770). The fill plate is in contact with an outer surface of the wear plate. The wear plate is in contact with an inner surface. Mold cavities are formed when mold shapes are between the fill plate and the wear plate, and include depth corresponding to thickness of the mold shell. The mold cavities include a bottom surface formed by the outer surface. A knock out mechanism (800) comprises a knock out cup (885) placed within a mold cylinder for removing the mold shapes from the mold cavity. (see the abstract)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A sealing plate (707, 760))]
PNG
media_image1.png
489
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Multitude of product cavities (910))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
361
403
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
361
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
370
523
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lindee et al. (US ‘697) further disclose fluid, usually a gas, is supplied to the channels from an external fluid source, and arrives at the surface of the recessed panels via a series of interconnected channels. A porous insert is disposed in the recessed panels. The cylindrical mold shell is disposed around the mold cylinder such that mold shapes, which are arranged in longitudinal rows along the circumference of the mold shell, are situated over the porous inserts that are in the recessed panels. The mold cavity is formed by the mold shape and the porous insert, such that the mold shape forms the configured side walls of the mold cavity, the thickness of the mold shell dictates the depth of the mold cavity, and the porous inserts serve as the bottom surface of the mold cavity. (see column 3, lines 49-60)
Therefore, as to claim 1, Lindee et al. (US ‘697) disclose a food product forming apparatus comprising:
- a mold drum (rotary mold 900, col. 21, lines 7-9) comprising a multitude of product cavities (the mold cavities 910, col. 21, lines 9-11), each of the product cavities (the mold cavities 910, col. 21, lines 9-11) comprising a bottom wall (col. 17, lines 54-67) and a sidewall made totally of a porous material (col. 3, lines 49-60 and col. 18, lines 26-45); and
- a fill plate (760, col. 20, lines 15-18) comprising a sealing mechanism or layer (707, col. 22, lines 21-26) that is a seal plate (707, col. 22, lines 21-26), that sealingly cooperates with a surface of the mold drum (900, col. 21, lines 7-9),
- wherein the seal member (707, col. 22, lines 21-26) comprises a venting means (765, 768, 769; col. 21, lines 35-43 and col. 22, lines 1-2 and lines 2-4).
Lindee et al. (US ‘697) teach a poppet valve (1483) can be used to dose off the connection between the vacuum chamber 1480 and a vacuum source 1485 to preserve the vacuum when the vacuum chamber is pivoted out of contact from the conveying surface 1460. (see column 32, lines 20-24) however, Lindee et al. (US ‘697) is silent on disclosing the valve is a part of the venting means, as claimed in claim 1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to modify the venting means (765, 768, 769; col. 21, lines 35-43 and col. 22, lines 1-2 and lines 2-4), as taught by Lindee et al. (US ‘697), through including a valve for the venting means in order to improve the workability of the venting means through promoting a more efficient and uniform filling of the mold cavities by allowing high pressure filling.
As to claim 2, Lindee et al. (US ‘697) disclose the valve (1483) is configured to vent the product cavities (the mold cavities 910, col. 21, lines 9-11) before and/or during and/or after filling the multitude of product cavities (910). (see column 32, lines 20-24)
Lindee et al. (US ‘697) teach a piston 3060 is disposed in connection with both the pressure chamber 3031 and the pressure channel 3020. Piston 3060 comprises a pressure chamber surface 3061 which moves within the pressure chamber 3060. Piston 3060 also comprises a pressure channel surface 3062 which moves within the pressure channel 3020. The surface area of the pressure channel surface corresponds to the cross-sectional area of the pressure channel. The surface area of the pressure chamber surface corresponds to the cross-sectional area of the pressure chamber. In the embodiment illustrated, the pressure chamber has a greater cross-sectional area than the pressure channel. (See column 11, lines 32-41)
As to claim 4, Lindee et al. (US ‘697) disclose the food forming apparatus comprises a piston (3060) as a pressure element (piston 3060; col. 11, lines 32-37) that is configured to press the seal member (707, col. 22, lines 21-26) against the mold drum (rotary mold 900, col. 21, lines 7-9), wherein the food forming apparatus comprises a control means that is configured to control the pressure element (piston 3060; col. 11, lines 32-37) to influence a size of the gap.
As to claim 5, Lindee et al. (US ‘697) teach the product cavities (the mold cavities 910, col. 21, lines 9-11) are at a circumference of the mold drum (rotary mold 900, col. 21, lines 7-9)
As to claim 7, Lindee et al. (US ‘697) disclose the product cavities (the mold cavities 910, col. 21, lines 9-11) are vented via the porous material (col. 3, lines 49-60 and col. 18, lines 26-45).
As to claim 12, Lindee et al. (US ‘697) teach a passage (765, 768, 769; col. 21, lines 35-43 and col. 22, lines 1-2 and lines 2-4) is located at an upstream end of the seal plate (707, col. 22, lines 21-26), the valve (1483, col. 32, lines 20-24) comprises a movable member that is actuated manually or automatically, and the valve (1483, col. 32, lines 20-24) is opened during and/or after filling the product cavities (the mold cavities 910, col. 21, lines 9-11).
As to claim 13, Lindee et al. (US ‘697) disclose the multitude of product cavities (the mold cavities 910, col. 21, lines 9-11) are arranged in one or more rows, and the food product forming apparatus comprises one valve (1483, col. 32, lines 20-24) per product cavity (the mold cavities 910, col. 21, lines 9-11) in the one or more rows.
As to claim 14, Lindee et al. (US ‘697) teach the multitude of product cavities (the mold cavities 910, col. 21, lines 9-11) are arranged in two or more rows, and the food product forming apparatus comprises one valve (1483, col. 32, lines 20-24) per row of product cavities (the mold cavities 910, col. 21, lines 9-11), wherein the valve (1483, col. 32, lines 20-24) in one row is set differently than the valve (1483, col. 32, lines 20-24) in another one of the rows.
As to claim 16, Lindee et al. (US ‘697) teach the valve (1483, col. 32, lines 20-24) is located upstream from a filling opening.
As to claim 17, Lindee et al. (US ‘697) disclose the seal member (707, col. 22, lines 21-26) comprises a recess that is arranged upstream of the pressure element (piston 3060; col. 11, lines 32-37) that is configured to press the seal member (707, col. 22, lines 21-26) against the mold drum (rotary mold 900, col. 21, lines 7-9).
As to claim 18, Lindee et al. (US ‘697) teach the valve (1483) is arranged in the recess, the valve (1483, col. 32, lines 20-24) is configured to control and/or adjust a vent-gas flow from one or more of the cavities (the mold cavities 910, col. 21, lines 9-11).
As to claim 19, Lindee et al. (US ‘697) disclose the food product forming apparatus comprises a motorized drive means for actuating the valve (1483, col. 32, lines 20-24) so that de-aeration of entrapped air within the multitude of product cavities (the mold cavities 910, col. 21, lines 9-11) takes place during sealing of the multitude of product cavities (the mold cavities 910, col. 21, lines 9-11).
As to claim 20, Lindee et al. (US ‘697) teach the seal plate (707, col. 22, lines 21-26) has a sealing length in a circumferential direction of the mold drum (rotary mold 900, col. 21, lines 7-9), the sealing length is shorter than a length of the product cavity (the mold cavities 910, col. 21, lines 9-11) in a circumferential direction of the mold drum (rotary mold 900, col. 21, lines 7-9).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,769. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter in the instant application is closely like the claimed subject matter in issued patents. Claimed subject matter, particularly in independent claims, in both documents, requires: “a mold drum (6) comprising a product cavity or a multitude of product cavities (7) each comprising a bottom wall and a sidewall made totally of a porous material”, “a seal member (9) that is a seal plate (9) that sealingly cooperates with a surface of the mould drum (6)”, “wherein the seal member (9) comprises a venting means (17 - 20)” and “wherein the venting means comprises a valve”.
Therefore, claimed subject matter in both documents are not patentably distinct from each other.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Der Eerden (WO 2004/002229) disclose a mold cavity is filled with a mass of foodstuff so as to mold a three-dimensional (3D) product. The adhesion forces at all the interfaces between the molded product and boundary of the cavity, are removed simultaneously, to remove product from cavity. (see the abstract)
Van Der Eerden (WO 2004/002229) disclose a mass-distributing device (18) for supplying a mass of foodstuff starting materials suitable for consumption, in particular a meat mass, to one or more mould cavities (44) of a moulding member (16) for moulding three-dimensional products (46) from said mass. The device (18) comprises a housing (30), which has an open side (38) which can be turned towards the moulding member, in which a flexible abutment element (40) for the housing to abut the moulding member is arranged. In the housing (30), a through-passage (34) for said mass extends from an introduction opening (32) in the housing (30) to a discharge (36), which discharge opens at the open side (38) of the housing (18). Pressure means (50) are provided in order to position the flexible abutment element (40) under pressure against the plane (35) of the moulding member (16) comprising one or more mould cavities (44), the pressure means (5) being designed to set contact pressures in separate zones (72, 74, 76, 78) of the flexible abutment element (40). (see the abstract)
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754
09/04/2026
Prosecution Insights