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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 15 September 2025. As directed by applicant, claims 11- 17 are amended, claims 1-10 and 18-30 are cancelled, and claims 31-33 are newly added. This is a Final Office action.
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.
Claims 11- 16 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Johnson (U.S. Patent 3,581,651) in view of Prosenbauder (U.S. Patent 4,953,456).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson discloses a needle head for use in a meat injection device (Fig. 1) having a brine injecting needle bridge :
comprising at least one needle head cavity (fig. 1, cavity at edge of 11, where it is covered by 10), the needle head defining a longitudinal axis (extending vertically) and comprising:
a base (H, head), wherein the base forms a body (10 and 10a)) and has a non-circular cross section, the non-circular cross section lying substantially orthogonally to the longitudinal axis, and
at least one needle permanently affixed to and extending from the base (Fig. 1, 13b is affixed to 10);
wherein the non-circular cross section of the base is shaped to correspond to a non-circular cross section of the needle head cavity (Johnson, fig. 3 and fig. 1, the rectangular shape of the head corresponds to the rectangular shape of the opening to the reservoir so it can be closed, seen in fig. 1 how the edges are complementary).
However, Johnson does not teach wherein the base is “configured to be received within the needle head cavity”. In Johnson, the base (10) may be “movably received” around the cavity, as is seen in Figure 1 (Johnson, fig 1 where 10 surrounds 11 where the cavity of the reservoir is within. However, Prosenbauder teaches a “base where the base forms a body configured to be movably received within the needle head cavity” (Prosenbauder, figs. 1,4, pin 4 gets put into groove 3 in take-up means 1, column 4 lines 59-601). 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 with the teachings of Prosenbauder, to have an alternate and easily another way to close the container, either by having the base surround the cavity or be put into the cavity, and it would, and this is a conventional method in the art to achieve the expected result of making the needle head easily removable from the needlehead cavity in the base, and to make sure it is a good fit with a flush connection (see Prosenbauder, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Johnson in view of Prosenbauder teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, and further discloses a needle head wherein the periphery of the non-circular cross section comprises at least two arcs that do not share the same center (the corners of the rectangle have at least two circular arcs that do not share the same center, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Johnson in view of Prosenbauder teaches all the limitations of claim 12, as above, and further discloses 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, Johnson in view of Prosenbauder teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as above, and further discloses 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 (Corominas, 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 15, Johnson in view of Prosenbauder 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 periphery comprises three first arcs substantially equal in curvature and length, and three second arcs substantially 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 16, Johnson in view of Prosenbauder teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, but does not further disclose a needle head wherein the needle head base comprises a groove arranged peripherally for releasably attaching sealing means. However, Prosenbauder teaches a groove arranged peripherally for releasably attaching sealing means (Prosenbauder, 7, column 4 lines 62-65). 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 with Prosenbauder, to have a sealing means attached, in order to fit the head into another device and to keep it snugly fit and liquid tight, in order to have the liquid flow more securely from the liquid source through the needles.
Regarding claim 31, Johnson in view of Prosenbauder 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, somewhere, a regular polygon with a constant width is defined somewhere in there).
Regarding claim 32, Johnson in view of Prosenbauder 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 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 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, 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 33, Johnson in view of 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 square), 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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corominas (U.S. Patent 4,690,046) in view of Prosenbauder (U.S. Patent 4,953,456) and further in view of Henning (U.S. Patent 6,658,990).
Regarding claim 17, Johnson in view of Prosenbauder teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, but does not further disclose a needle head comprising at least three needles wherein the insertion points of three needles into the needle head base are arranged at substantially 60°. It is not quite clear how pins 14 are 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.
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.
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 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