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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 February 2026 has been entered.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 17 February 2026. As directed by applicant, only claim 11 is amended. No claims are cancelled or added. This is a Non- Final Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-17 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 11 recites that at least one needle is “permanently affixed to and extending from the base as a single inseparable unit”. Having a needle secured in this way is not disclosed in the disclosure as filed.
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 11-17 and 31-33 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 11 recites that at least one needle is “permanently affixed to and extending from the base as a single inseparable unit”. It is unclear from the specification how the at least one needle would be fixed to the base so as to meet this limitation, i.e. to make it “inseparable”. For purposes of examination, it is understood that the needle is simply “permanently fixed” to the base.
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.
[Note: Strikethrough indicates that the reference does not disclose that limitation]
Claims 11- 16 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Thomas (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/ 0117059) in view of Johnson (U.S. Patent 3,581,651).
Regarding claim 11, Thomas discloses a needle head for use in a meat injection device (Fig. 1) having a brine injecting needle bridge (12), the needle bridge comprising a plurality of needle head cavities (fig. 1, area withing pressure cylinder 20, which is pressurized ), the needle head defining a longitudinal axis (extending vertically) and comprising:
a base (piston 18), wherein the base forms a body configured to be movably received (the piston may be received in any of the pressure cylinders; when these are received, they would have to be repressurized) within any one of the plurality of needle head cavities (cavity that 20 is within in the bridge)
at least one needle (10)
.
However, Thomas does not teach explicitly teach wherein any one of the needle head cavities “has a non-circular cross section, the non-circular cross section lying substantially orthogonally to the longitudinal axis, wherein the non-circular cross section of the base is shaped to correspond to a non-circular cross section of each of the plurality of needle head cavities, and the at least one needle is “permanently affixed to and extending from the base as a single inseparable unit”.
However, Thomas does teach that the squeeze grid (fig. 2, element 24) has square sections for putting pressure on the tube valves. And Johnson, in his device for injecting meat teaches a square reservoir for inputting injectade into the needles which may be pressurized for pushing out the liquid (Johnson, fig. 3; column 3 lines 39-41). Thus, it would be obvious to Modify Thomas in view of Johnson to have square pressure cylinders to put pressure on the liquid to force into the needles in order to, in a conventional way, have the liquid be forced into the needles, in order for the shape of the liquid/pressure chamber to match the shape of the squeeze grid and to have a needle secured to a piston sliding in a pressure chamber in a conventional way, the conventional shape achieving not unexpected results, this shape being common in injecting devices.
And while Thomas in view of Johnson teaches all the above limitations, it still does not teach “the at least one needle is “permanently affixed to and extending from the base as a single inseparable unit”.
However, Johnson, further teaches needles, “permanently affixed to and extending from the base as a single inseparable unit (Johnson, figs. 1, 2; 13 is fixed to the base and the head, see §112 rejections above.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Thomas in view of Johnson, to have the needles fixed to the base, in order to have the needles properly secured within an injection head to be sure that it efficiently pierces the food product in order that the intended injectade goes into the food properly as intended and this is a conventional method used to achieve not unexpected results...
Regarding claim 12, Thomas in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, and further teaches a needle head wherein the periphery of the non-circular cross section comprises at least two arcs that do not share the same center (Thomas, fig. 2, the corners of the rectangle have at least two circular arcs that do not share the same center).
Regarding claim 13, Thomas in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of claim 12, as above, and further teaches a needle head, wherein the periphery of the non-circular cross section comprises a first arc and a second arc, the first arc and the second arcs each defined at least by a curvature and a length, wherein the first and second arcs differ in arc curvature (1st arcs are the corners where the curvatures are the same and non-zero; and the second arcs are the sidewalls where the curvature is zero, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Thomas in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as above, and further teaches a needle head wherein the periphery of the non-circular cross-section periphery comprises at least two first arcs equal in curvature and length, and at least two second arcs equal in curvature and length (Thomas, fig. 2, fig. 2, has several of these mounting elements 26 and thus has at least two of the first arcs and two of the second arcs).
Regarding claim 16, Thomas in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, and further teaches a needle head wherein the needle head base comprises a groove arranged peripherally for releasably attaching sealing means, and wherein a depth or a width of the groove varies along a periphery of the needle head base (Thomas, squeeze grid 24, arranged peripherally for releasable attaching sealing means to close the valves; comprising may mean further added to, and ¶0009, wherein the width, thickness, of the squeeze grid varies around the periphery, for instance, the horizontal connections, as seen in fig. 2, are less thick than the vertical connections, allowing for pressure to bend the horizontal connections and thus seal the tubes and allowing for elasticity §0023.).
Regarding claim 31, Thomas in view of Johnson teaches a needle head according to claim 11, wherein a periphery of the non-circular cross section of the needle head defines a regular curved polygon with a constant width (fig. 2,).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Thomas (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/ 0117059) in view of Johnson (U.S. Patent 3,581,651) and further in view of Henning (U.S. Patent 6,658,990).
Regarding claim 17, Thomas in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, but does not further teach a needle head comprising at least three needles wherein the at least three needles are arranged in the needle head base equidistantly from each other at a 60° angle. However, Henning does teeth at least three needles wherein the insertion points of three needles into the needle head base are arranged at substantially 60° (Henning, fig. 2, the row layout of the needles puts at least three in a triangular configuration that are arranged at substantially 60° to each other ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Corominas with the teachings of Henning, to use the configuration of Henning to place the needles in the needle head, in order to have the needles be tightly fit and closely arranged, in order to arrange the needles in a very compact way, not just in rows and columns, but on the diagonals, which allows for compact spacing given the circular nature of the needles and needle slots.
Claims 15, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Thomas (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/ 0117059) in view of Johnson (U.S. Patent 3,581,651) and further in view of Prosenbauder (U.S. Patent 4,953,456).
Regarding claim 15, Thomas in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, but does not further teach needle head wherein the periphery of the non-circular cross-section comprises three first arcs equal in curvature and length, and three second arcs equal in curvature and length such that the periphery defines a shape with three-fold rotational symmetry. However, it is noted that Johnson already teaches a base of a certain shape (square) and Prosenbauder teaches a base of another shape (round), thus it is known in the art to have different shapes for the base, and particularly one with rotational symmetry. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Johnson in view of Prosenbauder to have the base be of a different shape, and it would have been a matter of design choice to choose a different symmetrical shape, as those are known in the prior art, ant the different shape (three equal arcs) would have worked equally well to effect the injection of the liquid, as Prosenbauder teaches putting a plurality of injection needles on a shaped symmetrical head (Prosenbauder, fig. 2b; see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Regarding claim 32, Thomas in view of Johnson teaches all the limitations of claim 31, as above, but does not further teach needle head wherein the periphery of the non-circular cross section of the needle head defines a Reuleaux triangle. However, it is noted that Thomas already teaches a base of a certain shape (square). And Prosenbauder teaches that needle heads may come in other shapes, such as circular (Prosenbauder, fig. 1). Thus, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Thomas in view of Johnson to have the base be of a different shape, and of the well-known Rouleau triangle, and it would have been a matter of design choice to choose a different symmetrical shape (for at least aesthetic purposes), as those are known in the prior art, and the Rouleau triangle shape would have worked equally well to effect the injection of the liquid , fig. 2b; see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Regarding claim 33, Thomas in view of Johnson and Prosenbauder teaches all the limitations of claim 32, as above, but does not further teach needle head comprising three needles, each needle arranged in proximity to vertices of the Reuleaux triangle. However, given the teachings above, and that Prosenbauder has only 4 needles his symmetrical base (shaped like a circle), it would have been obvious to have one only one needle at the center of each symmetrical corner, in order to be aesthetically pleasing but also inject the injectade in a consistent and predictable matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights