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 .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
When there are drawings, there shall be a “brief description of the several views of the drawings” (See 37 C.F.R. 1.74.).
The section heading “brief description of the several views of the drawings” as set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.74 is missing. Please correct.
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.
Claims 17-36 are 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 17 recites the limitation "the food pieces" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the plurality of food pieces".
Please correct this issue for all claims.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the sorting station" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the at least one sorting station". Please correct this issue for all claims.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the sorting device" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the at least one sorting device ". Please correct this issue for all claims.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first processing station" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the at least a first processing station ". Please correct this issue for all claims.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the largest food device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "a largest food device". Please correct this issue for all claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “no more than 20%”, and the claim also recites “no more than 15%”, “no more than 10%” and “no more than 1%” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the extruding device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the at least one extruding device". Please correct this issue for all claims.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the separating device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the at least one separating device". Please correct this issue for all claims.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the separated food pieces" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "separated food pieces".
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the conditioning device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the at least one conditioning device". Please correct this issue for all claims.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the separating device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the at least one separating device". Please correct this issue for all claims.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the measurands" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the one or more measurands". Please correct this issue for all claims.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the physical properties" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the one or more physical properties". Please correct this issue for all claims.
Clarification and/or correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-19, 21-23, 27-30, 32-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (CN 113397103).
Regarding claim 17, Wang (‘103) teaches an apparatus for processing plant-based proteinaceous food items, including: at least one extruding device configured to provide at least one plant-based proteinaceous extrudate; at least one separating device configured to separate the extrudate into a plurality of food pieces; and at least one sorting station configured for sorting the food pieces based on one or more criteria (See Abs., p. 3, ll. 14-27, p. 5, l. 15 - p. 6, l. 4, claims 1-10, apparatus for processing high protein rice.).
Regarding claim 18, Wang (‘103) teaches wherein the sorting station includes at least one sorting device which is configured to classify the food pieces into one or more classes of a plurality of classes based at least on the one or more criteria (See Abs., p. 3, ll. 14-27, p. 5, l. 15 - p. 6, l. 4, claims 1-10.).
Regarding claim 19, Wang (‘103) teaches wherein the sorting station includes at least one sorting device which is configured to classify the food pieces into one or more classes of a plurality of classes based on the one or more criteria, wherein the sorting device is configured to allocate the food pieces based on the one or more criteria such that food pieces which are classified into a first class by the sorting device are fed to at least a first processing station and food pieces which are classified into a second class by the sorting device, which is different from the first class, are fed to at least a second processing station which is different from the first processing station (See Abs., p. 3, ll. 14-27, p. 5, l. 15 - p. 6, l. 4, claims 1-10.).
Regarding claim 21, Wang (‘103) teaches wherein the one or more criteria relate to one or more physical properties of the food pieces (See Abs., p. 3, ll. 14-27, p. 5, l. 15 - p. 6, l. 4, claims 1-10.).
Regarding claim 22, Wang (‘103) teaches wherein the one or more physical properties of the food pieces are detectable by at least one detecting device (See Abs., p. 3, ll. 14-27, p. 5, l. 15 - p. 6, l. 4, claims 1-10.).
Regarding claim 23, Wang (‘103) teaches wherein the one or more criteria relate to at least one of the following: a size of the food pieces and a water content of the food pieces (See Abs., p. 3, ll. 14-27, p. 5, l. 15 - p. 6, l. 4, claims 1-10.).
Regarding claim 27, Wang (‘103) teaches wherein the separating device is configured to separate the extrudate into a plurality of food pieces in a manner such that the separated food pieces vary in at least one or more of the following physical properties: size and one or more dimensions (See Abs., p. 3, ll. 14-27, p. 5, l. 15 - p. 6, l. 4, claims 1-10.).
Regarding claim 28, Wang (‘103) teaches at least one conditioning device configured to condition at least one of the extrudate and the food pieces to one or more target states of at least one of the extrudate and the food pieces (See Abs., p. 3, ll. 14-27, p. 5, l. 15 - p. 6, l. 4, claims 1-10.).
Regarding claim 29, Wang (‘103) teaches wherein the conditioning device is configured to condition at least one of the extrudate and the food pieces by controlling one or more of the following: at least one temperature, at least one colour and at least one structural property of at least one of the extrudate and the food pieces (See Abs., p. 3, ll. 14-27, p. 5, l. 15 - p. 6, l. 4, claims 1-10.).
Regarding claim 30, Wang (‘103) teaches wherein the conditioning device is configured to provide a duration until at least one of the extrudate and the food pieces are processed in a processing step which is downstream of at least one of the extruding device and the separating device, respectively (See Abs., p. 3, ll. 14-27, p. 5, l. 15 - p. 6, l. 4, claims 1-10.).
Regarding claim 32, Wang (‘103) teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to control the one or more process parameters based on one or more measurands related to a device of at least one of the apparatus, the extrudate, and the food pieces (See Abs., p. 3, ll. 14-27, p. 5, l. 15 - p. 6, l. 4, claims 1-10.).
Regarding claim 33, Wang (‘103) teaches wherein the measurands include at least one of: one or more physical properties of at least one of the food pieces and the food items, wherein the one or more physical properties are detectable by at least one detecting device, wherein the measurands include one or more physical properties of a raw material of the extrudate fed into the extruding device, wherein the one or more physical properties are detectable by at least one detecting device, wherein the physical properties include one or more of the following: at least one water content, and at least one particle size of one or more particles in the raw material; wherein the one or more physical properties are detectable by at least one detecting device, wherein the physical properties include one or more of the following: at least one water content and at least one particle size of one or more particles in the raw material; and one or more of the following parameters of the extruding device: at least one temperature imparted to the raw material of the extrudate, at least one residence time of the raw material of the extrudate in the extruding device, at least one pressure of the extrudate in the extruding device; and one or more of the following parameters of the extrudate: at least one temperature of the extrudate, at least one size of the extrudate, at least one moisture content of the extrudate (See Abs., p. 3, ll. 14-27, p. 5, l. 15 - p. 6, l. 4, claims 1-10.).
Regarding claim 34, Wang (‘103) teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to control one or more of the following: a temperature in at least a section of the extruding device, a duration until at least one of the extrudate and the food pieces are processed in a processing step which is downstream of at least one of the extruding device (See Abs., p. 3, ll. 14-27, p. 5, l. 15 - p. 6, l. 4, claims 1-10.).
Regarding claim 35, Wang (‘103) teaches a set of food items produced from at least one plant-based proteinaceous extrudate, the food items being produced by the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the food items differ in one or more physical properties of the food items (See Abs., p. 3, ll. 14-27, p. 5, l. 15 - p. 6, l. 4, claims 1-10.).
Regarding claim 36, Wang (‘103) teaches a method of processing plant-based proteinaceous food items by means of the apparatus, the method including the following steps: providing at least one plant-based proteinaceous extrudate by means of at least one extruding device; separating the extrudate into a plurality of food pieces by means of at least one separating device; and sorting the food pieces at at least one sorting station based on one or more criteria (See Abs., p. 3, ll. 14-27, p. 5, l. 15 - p. 6, l. 4, claims 1-10.).
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.
Claim(s) 20 and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 113397103).
Regarding claim 20, Wang (‘103) teaches the apparatus discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the sorting device is configured such that a size of the largest food piece of the first class is no more than 20% or no more than 15% or no more than 10% or no more than 1% larger than a size of the smallest food piece of the second class.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing one relative size distribution over another. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide any relative size distribution, including that set forth in the claim, based on consumer preference. The selection of size distribution would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art to satisfy the preference of a consumer.
Regarding claim 24, Wang (‘103) teaches the apparatus discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the extrudate is one or more of the following: a high-moisture extrudate comprising at least 35 wt % water, and a fibrous structure.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing one moisture content over another. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide any moisture content, including that set forth in the claim, based on consumer preference. The selection of moisture content would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art to satisfy the preference of a consumer.
Regarding claim 25, Wang (‘103) teaches the apparatus discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose further including at least one re-feed device configured to feed one or more of the food pieces to an upstream position relative to at least one of the extruding device and the separating device to re-feed the food pieces to at least one of the extruding device and the separating device.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing one configuration over another. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide any configuration, including that set forth in the claim, based on processing requirements. The selection of configuration would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art to satisfy the preference of a consumer.
Regarding claim 26, Wang (‘103) teaches the apparatus discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the apparatus is configured such that one or more of the food pieces are re-fed to at least one of the extruding device and the separating device based on the one or more criteria.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing one configuration over another. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide any configuration, including that set forth in the claim, based on processing requirements. The selection of configuration would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art to satisfy the preference of a consumer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 July 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights