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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/14/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: "A secondary molding device for meat substitutes, obtaining a secondary molded product" in lines 1-2 of each claim should read "A secondary molding device for meat substitutes[[,]] for obtaining a secondary molded product" . Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwabara (JPH05103593 A; of record), in view of Tada (JP 2004081194 A; translation as provided).
Regarding claim 1, Kuwabara teaches a molding device (Figures 1-2) for food material (soy protein raw material 1), comprising:
a pressing device that pressurizes the food material filled between an upper mold (male mold 12) and a lower mold (female mold 11) at a predetermine pressure (paragraph 0001); and
a heating means for heating the food material between the upper and lower molds (paragraph 0020).
Kuwabara does not disclose a sealed pressurizing and heating chamber; a pressurizing device that pressurizes the food material filled between the upper mold and the lower mold in the pressurizing and heating chamber; nor a high frequency power supply device that supplies a high frequency current to the material in the pressurizing and heating chamber.
Tada teaches a heating molding apparatus (Figures 1-8) for processed meat products (paragraph 0001) by applying an electric current based on the principle of Joule heating (paragraph 0013), comprising: a molding section (1) in which meat is filled; and upper and lower electrodes (3, 4 in Figure 2) disposed in the molding section 1 to supply electricity to the filled meat. Further, the upper and lower electrodes are formed in a piston shape and slidably arranged within the molding cylinder 1 and pressurize the filled meat M the molding cylinder 1 (paragraph 0013). The configuration of Tada provides for increased heating efficiency of the filled meat. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuwabara supplied heating of the food material via Joule heating, as disclosed by Tada; specifically, with upper and lower electrodes with heat and pressurize the food material within molding section (i.e., chamber) for increase heating efficiency.
While Kuwabara, as modified by Tada, does not disclose supplying current at a temperature of 110°C or higher and 140°C or lower within 300 seconds; it is noted said recitation is intended use of the apparatus, and is given little patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP §2114 II. In the instant case, Kuwabara, as modified by Tada, discloses all the structural elements of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Kuwabara, as modified by Tada further discloses the high frequency power supply device supplies a high frequency alternating current to the material (paragraph 0021 of Tada, passing an alternating current through it between the upper electrode 3 and the lower electrode 4) .
Regarding claim 3, Kuwabara, as modified by Tada further discloses the high frequency power supply device comprises a lower electrode plate (4 in Figure 2 of Tada) provided on the lower mold (female mold 11 in Figure 1 of Kuwabara) into which the material is filled, and an upper electrode plate (3 in Figure 2 of Tada) provided on the upper mold (male mold 12 in Figure 1 of Kuwabara).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwabara, in view of Tada and Tang (CN110447842).
Regarding claim 4, Kuwabara, as modified by Tada, teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose a sealed post-treatment chamber connected to the pressurizing and heating chamber, and a cooling device that cools in the post-treatment chamber the secondary molded product molded into the desired shape in the pressurizing and heating chamber.
Tang teaches a method of secondary processing a meat product (Figure 1; paragraph 0009), comprising: molding a meat material under heat and pressure, followed by cooling the meat material (paragraph 0059). The meat material is cooing in a sealed chamber (Figure 2) and a cooling device cools the chamber thereafter (12 in Figure 2). Tang discloses the use of a chamber and cooling device accelerates the cooling speed of the meat material (paragraph 0055). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuwabara/Tada and provided a chamber with a cooling device, as disclosed by Tang in order to accelerate the cooling of material after heating.
Regarding claim 5, Kuwabara, as modified by Tada and Tang further discloses the cooling device supplies cold air into the post-treatment chamber to cool the secondary molded product (paragraph 0055 of Tang, cold air in the conveying state enters the cold air chamber 22).
Regarding claim 7, Kuwabara, as modified by Tada and Tang, teaches all the elements of claim 4, but does not disclose the cooling device cools the secondary molded product by bringing cooling water into contact with the secondary molded product in the post-treatment chamber. However, Tang discloses the use of cold air as fluid to cool the material (paragraph 0055 of Tang). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have used water as fluid cool the material for better efficiency due to water’s higher thermal conductivity over air.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwabara, in view of Tada and Tang as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Gray (US 2003/0017248 A1) .
Regarding claim 6, Kuwabara, as modified by Tada and Tang, teaches all the elements of claim 4, but does not disclose the cooling device cools the secondary molded product by bringing a cooling plate into contact with the secondary molded product in the post-treatment chamber.
Gray teaches a mold for a food material (Figure 13; paragraph 0098), comprising: an upper mold (271U); and a lower mold (270L). Further, each of the upper and lower molds comprise a heating/cooling plate (271P, 270P) in order to cool the food material and aid in shaping. Hence, the use of a cooling plate to cool a food material is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have substitute the cooling means of modified Kuwabara for the cooling plate of Gray and the results of the substitution would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. One would have been motivated to use a cooling plate as modified Kuwabara discloses the use of upper and lower molds to shape the material; hence, one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a cooling plate.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwabara, in view of Tada and Fuchi (US 2005/0276895 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kuwabara, as modified by Tada, teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the lower mold into which the minced material is filled is made of resin. However, the use of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Fuchi teaches a mold for food material (Figure 1; paragraph 0063), comprising: an upper mold (3); and a lower mold (5 in Figure 3). Further, the lower mold is made of resin (paragraph 0175) which provides the benefit being food safe and sufficient elasticity for the food material therein being shaped (paragraph 0175). As modified Kuwabara also relates to shaping of food material, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the lower mold of resin, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to use a resin material for the lower mold for the purpose of providing sufficient elasticity to the mold during shaping, as disclosed by Fuchi. Further, the use of an elastic mold would provide easier removal of the food material after shaping.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwabara, in view of Lin (US 2024/0041065 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Regarding claim 1, Kuwabara teaches a molding device (Figures 1-2) for food material (soy protein raw material 1), comprising:
a pressing device that pressurizes the food material filled between an upper mold (male mold 12) and a lower mold (female mold 11) at a predetermine pressure (paragraph 0001); and
a heating means for heating the food material between the upper and lower molds (paragraph 0020).
Kuwabara does not disclose a sealed pre-treatment chamber; a sealed pressurizing and heating chamber; a pressure reducing device that reduces pressure inside the pre-treatment chamber while the material filled in a lower mold in the pre-treatment chamber is pressed by an upper mold opposed to the lower mold; a pressuring device that pressurizes the material in the sealed pressurizing and heating chamber; nor a saturated steam supplying device that supplies saturated steam into the pressurizing and heating chamber and heats the material.
Lin teaches a production machine for producing artificial meat (1 in Figure 1), comprising: a first motor (2), a raw material mixer (3), a second motor (4), a vacuum pump (5), a raw material storage tank (6), a raw material delivery pump (7), a pressure pump (8), a heating/cooling device (9), a fiberizing cooling mold (10), a forming mold (11), and an outlet (12). The vacuum pump is connected to the storage space of the raw material storage tank to create a vacuum environment of the storage tank (equating toe a pre-treatment chamber and pressure reducing device). The pressure pump is in communication with the raw material delivery pump to pressurize the material received from the raw material delivery pump (paragraph 0027) and delivers the material to the heating/cooling device, which heats the material with high-temperature steam, oil, or the like in the heating conduit of the heating/cooling device for a set time and temperature (equating to a pressurizing and heating chamber and pressurizing device). The heating/cooling device then cools the material with cold water or cold oil in its own cooling duct to a cooled set temperature (paragraph 0028).
Lin discloses that when shaping an artificial meat, first storing the material under reduced pressure and thereafter delivering to a sealed pressurizing and heating chamber for pressurizing and heating said material is advantageous of less energy consumption, small volume, and low requirements on the characteristics of raw materials (paragraph 0035). As Kuwabara relates to shaping via a mould press forming and heating with steam, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuwabara and provided a pre-treatment chamber with a pressure reducing device that reduces pressure inside the pre-treatment chamber and a pressurized heating chamber and a pressurizing and heating chamber with a pressuring device that pressurizes the material therein and a saturated steam supplying device that supplies saturated steam, in the manner disclosed by Lin for the benefit of shaping material with less energy consumption, small volume, and low requirements on the characteristics of raw materials.
While Kuwabara, as modified by Lin, does not disclose the saturated steam supplying device supplies saturated steam at a temperature of 110°C or higher and 140°C or lower within a short time of 300 seconds; it is noted said recitation is intended use of the apparatus, and is given little patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP §2114 II. In the instant case, Kuwabara, as modified by Lin, discloses all the structural elements of claim 9.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Kuwabara, as modified by Lin, teaches all the elements of claim 9, but does not disclose the pressurizing device obtains a pressurizing force for pressurizing the material by a pressure that depends on a mass of the upper mold and a pressure of the high-pressure saturated steam supplied from the saturated steam supplying device; nor the saturated steam supplying device supplies a pressure required to increase an internal pressure of the pressurizing and heating chamber to a pressure necessary for the saturated steam to maintain a predetermined temperature. However, said limitations are intended use of the apparatus. It is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in a coating apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. Ex parte Thibault, 164 U.S.P .Q. 666 (Bd. Pat. App. 1969). A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. In the instant case, Kuwabara, as modified by Lin, teaches all the structural limitations of claim 10 and 11.
Regarding claim 15, Kuwabara, as modified by Lin, teaches all the elements of claim 9, but does not disclose the upper mold comprises an air relief valve. However, considering Kuwabara, as modified by Lin, discloses the mold being contained under pressure to mold the material (paragraphs 0019, 0021), it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have provided a relief valve to the mold as good engineering practice and safety considerations.
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwabara, as modified by Lin and Tang.
Regarding claim 12, Kuwabara, as modified by Lin, teaches all the elements of claim 9, but does not disclose a sealed post-treatment chamber connected to the pressurizing and heating chamber, and a cooling device that cools in the post-treatment chamber the secondary molded product molded into the desired shape in the pressurizing and heating chamber.
Tang teaches a method of secondary processing a meat product (Figure 1; paragraph 0009), comprising: molding a meat material under heat and pressure, followed by cooling the meat material (paragraph 0059). The meat material is cooing in a sealed chamber (Figure 2) and a cooling device cools the chamber thereafter (12 in Figure 2). Tang discloses the use of a chamber and cooling device accelerates the cooling speed of the meat material (paragraph 0055). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuwabara/Lin and provided a chamber with a cooling device, as disclosed by Tang in order to accelerate the cooling of material after heating.
Regarding claim 13, Kuwabara, as modified by Lin and Tang further discloses the cooling device supplies cold air into the post-treatment chamber to cool the secondary molded product (paragraph 0055 of Tang, cold air in the conveying state enters the cold air chamber 22).
Regarding claim 14, Kuwabara, as modified by Lin and Tang, teaches all the elements of claim 4, but does not disclose the cooling device cools the secondary molded product by bringing cooling water into contact with the secondary molded product in the post-treatment chamber. However, Tang discloses the use of cold air as fluid to cool the material (paragraph 0055 of Tang). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have used water as fluid cool the material for better efficiency due to water’s higher thermal conductivity over air.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Theys (US 5,223,297) discloses a lower plate for a mold for shaping food material having a means for cooling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 3/21/2026
Prosecution Insights