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 .
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. 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 claims. In other words, the process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
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 1-24 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 1 recites “a mold plate that operates at (120) 10” strokes per minute” which renders the claim vague and indefinite. The scope of phrase “(120) 10” strokes per minute” is not defined and one of ordinary skill in the art is not able to apprised the scope of the claim. Is the claim trying to point out that “a mold plate that operates at 10″ stroke length and 120 strokes per minute”? Clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites “whole muscle integrity and retain particle definition” which renders the claim vague and indefinite. The scope of phrases “whole muscle integrity” and “particle definition” is not defined and one of ordinary skill in the art is not able to apprised the scope of the claim.
Claim 2 recites “whole muscle integrity” which renders the claim vague and indefinite. The scope of phrase is not defined and one of ordinary skill in the art is not able to apprised the scope of the claim.
Claim 2 recites “meat between flutes” which renders the clam vague and indefinite because it is not clear if “meat” refers to the previously cited limitation of the same in claim 1 or refers to a new limitation. It appears if the later citation of “meat” to be preceded by “the”, it provides proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. Clarification is required.
Claim 2 recites “spiral screws” which renders the clam vague and indefinite because it is not clear if “spiral screws” refers to the previously cited limitation of the same in claim 1 or refers to a new limitation. It appears if the later citation of “spiral screws” to be preceded by “the”, it provides proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. Clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites “meat is kept more whole” which renders the clam vague and indefinite because it is not clear if “meat” refers to the previously cited limitation of the same in claim 1 or refers to a new limitation. It appears if the later citation of “meat” to be preceded by “the”, it provides proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. Clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites “experiences less damage” which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “less damage” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 recites “feedback of pressure” which renders the clam vague and indefinite because it is not clear if “pressure” refers to the previously cited limitation of the same in claim 4 or refers to a new limitation. It appears if the later citation of “pressure” to be preceded by “the”, it provides proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. Clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites “pressure placed on said meat” which renders the clam vague and indefinite because it is not clear if “pressure” refers to the previously cited limitation of the same in claim 4 or refers to a new limitation. It appears if the later citation of “pressure” to be preceded by “the”, it provides proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. Clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites “improved portion weight control system” in 1st line which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improved” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 6 recites “consistent filling of cavities” in 2nd line which renders the claim indefinite. The term “consistent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation of “said hydraulic” in 1st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim fails to define “hydraulic”. Clarification is requested.
Claim 7 recites the limitation of “quickly reactive with less lag time” which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “quickly” and “less” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation of "this area" in 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is not clear if “this area” refers back to which “area”. Clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites “big said breather” renders the claim indefinite. The term “big” is a relative term and is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “said breather” in 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because even though prior to cited limitation, claim 12 defines “a breather slot”, claim 12 fails to define “a breather”.
Claim 12 recites “proper filling of mold plate cavities” renders the claim indefinite. The term “proper” is a relative term and is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 12 recites “product loss” renders the claim indefinite. The term “loss” is a relative term and is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 13 recites “part of drive” which renders the claim vague and indefinite. The scope of phrase is not defined because it is not clear if “drive” refers to the “driven plate” or a “drive unit” and one of ordinary skill in the art is not able to apprised the scope of the claim.
Claim 13, 15, and 18 recites “feed screws” which renders the clam vague and indefinite because it is not clear if “feed screws” refers to the previously cited limitation of the same in claim 1 or refers to a new limitation. It appears if the later citation of “feed screws” to be preceded by “the”, it provides proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. Clarification is required.
Claim 18 recites “uniform mold cavity filling” renders the claim indefinite. The term “uniform” is a relative term and is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 23 recites “precisely commands position” renders the claim indefinite. The term “precisely” is a relative term and is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 24 recites “rapid clean” renders the claim indefinite. The term “rapid” is a relative term and is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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) 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (US 2005/0103207) in view of Singenberger et al. (US 2021/0329930).
As to claim 1, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) disclose a servo-driven plate forming machine comprising:
- a mold plate (¶ [0109] - ¶ [0110]: the mold plate 32 is reciprocated by a first servo drive motor 138 and controller 23) that operates at 10″ stroke length (¶ [0103]: 10 inches stroke lengths are practically achievable with the apparatus by changing parts) and 120 strokes per minute (¶ [0115]: a mold plate stroke speed of 120 cycles/minute);
- a single hydraulic pump (¶ [0075]: the first food pump 61 includes a hydraulic cylinder 64 and ¶ [0076]: the second food pump 62 is essentially similar in construction to pump 61 and comprises a hydraulic cylinder 84) combined with hydraulic valves (valve manifold 27, ¶ [0075], holds a manifold valve cylinder or tube valve 101 fit into an opening 102 in housing 71, ¶ [0086]) with closed and open loop controls;
- individually controlled feed screws (feed screws 51 and 52, ¶ [0086]) that is capable of controlling whole muscle integrity and retain particle definition;
- a one-piece hopper (a large food material storage hopper 25, ¶ [0063] - ¶ [0064]) capable to assist in providing a substantially leak-proof feed.
Claims 1 recites “control whole muscle integrity and retain particle definition” and “assists in providing a substantially leak-proof feed” which are the recitations of the intended use and do not provide further structural limitations and further patentable weight for the claimed apparatus. The structure of Hansen et al. (US ‘207), as clarified above, is capable of performing said intended use recitations.
Hansen et al. (US ‘207) disclose hydraulic valves (valve manifold 27, ¶ [0075], holds a manifold valve cylinder or tube valve 101 fit into an opening 102 in housing 71, ¶ [0086]), however, fail to disclose the hydraulic valves (valve manifold 27, ¶ [0075]) are proportional valves, as claimed in claim 1.
In the analogous art, Singenberger et al. (US ‘930) disclose a form press configured to form press a meat product comprising a frame having a press plate which defines a longitudinal axis; a reservoir defining a cavity having hydraulic fluid therein; a pump configured to pump the hydraulic fluid from the reservoir; a first die assembly mounted on the frame and configured to form press the meat product along a height of the meat product, the first die assembly including a first die configured to move along a first press axis which is normal to the longitudinal axis; a second die assembly mounted on the frame and configured to form press the meat product along a width of the meat product, the second die assembly including a second die configured to move along a second press axis which is normal to the longitudinal axis and normal to the first press axis; a third die assembly mounted on the frame and configured to form press the meat product along a length of the meat product, the third die assembly including a third die configured to move along a third press axis which is parallel to the longitudinal axis; wherein the press plate and the dies define a press chamber therebetween (page 10, claim 1, lines 1-26); each die assembly comprising a hydraulic cylinder having a housing in which a piston and piston rod are movably mounted, a single proportional directional valve coupled to a bottom side chamber of the hydraulic cylinder and to a rod side chamber of the hydraulic cylinder, wherein the proportional directional valve can be moved to a neutral position wherein hydraulic fluid can flow from the rod side chamber to the bottom side chamber or can flow from the bottom side chamber to the rod side chamber, can be moved to a first position. (page 10, claim 1, lines 27-46)
Therefore, as to claim 1, Singenberger et al. (US ‘930) disclose a single hydraulic pump (the hydraulic fluid flows from the pump 282, ¶ [0062]) combined with proportional hydraulic valves (the proportional directional valve 288, ¶ [0062]) with closed and open loop controls. (see ¶ [0064])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to modify the hydraulic pumping system, as taught by Hansen et al. (US ‘207), through replacing hydraulic valves with proportional hydraulic valves in order to reduce the flow of the hydraulic fluid into the bottom side chamber to slow the forward movement of the mold plate, increase the flow of the hydraulic fluid into the bottom side chamber to speed up the forward movement of the mold plate, stop flow to the hydraulic cylinder, or reverse the flow of the hydraulic fluid to the bottom side chamber to reverse the movement of the mold plate, as suggested by Singenberger et al (US ‘930): ¶ [0069].
As to claim 2, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) disclose the servo-driven plate forming machine for providing more control of whole muscle integrity is capable of not using a feed pump (a food pump system 26, ¶ [0063]) to force meat through to a plunger and pump box (plunger pumps 61, 62, ¶ [0065]), but instead machine traps meat between flutes of spiral screws (drive feed screws 51, 52, ¶ [0070]) and sides of a cylindrical chamber (280, ¶ [0152] - ¶ [0153]), then pushes said meat into a plunger chamber (plungers 66, 68, ¶ [0075] - ¶ [0085]) Claims 2 recites “whole muscle integrity by not using a feed pump to force meat through to a plunger and pump box, but instead said machine traps meat between flutes of spiral screws and sides of a cylindrical chamber, then pushes said meat into a plunger chamber” which are the recitations of the intended use and do not provide further structural limitations and further patentable weight for the claimed apparatus. The structure of Hansen et al. (US ‘207), as clarified above, is capable of performing said intended use recitations.
As to claim 3, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) teach the forming machine is capable to provide a condition so the meat is kept more whole, and experiences less damage to cellular structure. Claims 3 recites “meat is kept more whole, and experiences less damage to cellular structure” which are the recitations of the intended use and do not provide further structural limitations and further patentable weight for the claimed apparatus. The structure of Hansen et al. (US ‘207), as clarified above, is capable of performing said intended use recitations.
As to claim 4, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) disclose the machine uses hydraulic controls to control pressure of meat in the pump box (plunger pumps 61, 62, ¶ [0065]) and mold plate (¶ [0109] - ¶ [0110]: the mold plate 32 is reciprocated by a first servo drive motor 138 and controller 23) and uses closed loop feedback of pressure. (¶ [0082] - ¶ [0083])
As to claim 5, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) teach the hydraulic controls (a hydraulic cylinder 64, 84, ¶ [0075] - ¶ [0077]) provide desired amount of pressure (see ¶ [0082] - ¶ [0083]) placed on the meat in a mold cavity (mold cavities 126, ¶ [0093]).
As to claim 6, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) disclose machine provides improved portion weight control system (¶ [0101]) provides more consistent filling of cavities (mold cavities 126, ¶ [0093]).
As to claim 7, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) disclose the hydraulics (¶ [0075]: the first food pump 61 includes a hydraulic cylinder 64 and ¶ [0076]: the second food pump 62 is essentially similar in construction to pump 61 and comprises a hydraulic cylinder 84) are reactive with less lag time.
As to claim 8, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) teach a servo driven mold plate (¶ [0109] - ¶ [0110]: the mold plate 32 is reciprocated by a first servo drive motor 138 and controller 23) and knock-out (knockout cups 33, ¶ [0106] - ¶ [0107]).
As to claim 9, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) disclose proportional plunger hydraulics (plungers 66 and 68, ¶ [0075] - ¶ [0085]).
As to claim 10, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) teach pneumatically activated seal to stop leaks between mold cover (cover plate 122, ¶ [0093]), receiver and pump box. (plunger pumps 61, 62, ¶ [0065])
As to claim 11, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) disclose an O-ring (a ring seal 1311) located between hopper (25, ¶ [0069] - ¶ [0072]) and receiver that assists in minimizing leakage in this area. Claims 11 recites “that assists in minimizing leakage in this area” which are the recitations of the intended use and do not provide further structural limitations and further patentable weight for the claimed apparatus. The structure of Hansen et al. (US ‘207), as clarified above, is capable of performing said intended use recitations.
As to claim 12, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) teach a configurable breather slot (¶ [0146]: breather holes 216 that are in air communication with the cavities 126) using configurable inserts, the breather slot (¶ [0146]: breather holes 216) is removable to change how big said breather slot (¶ [0146]: breather holes 216) is; said breather slot (breather holes 216) controls breathing in fill system, assists in proper filling of mold plate cavities (mold cavities 126, ¶ [0093]) and reduction in product loss. Claims 12 recites “assists in proper filling of mold plate cavities and reduction in product loss” which are the recitations of the intended use and do not provide further structural limitations and further patentable weight for the claimed apparatus. The structure of Hansen et al. (US ‘207), as clarified above, is capable of performing said intended use recitations.
As to claim 13, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) disclose a feed screw installation (¶ [0070]: two feed screw motors 45, 46 that drive feed screws 51, 52) as part of drive where rear hopper seal plate allows movement so feed screws (¶ [0070]: feed screws 51, 52) self-align when operator closes feed screw gear motors to engage feed screws (¶ [0070]: two feed screw motors 45, 46).
As to claims 14 - 15, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) teach a trapezoidal or pyramid feed screw drive engagement (feed screw motors 45, 46 that drive feed screws 51, 52, ¶ [0070])
As to claim 16, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) disclose flexible hydraulic power unit (hydraulic cylinders 64 and 84, ¶ [0075]) connections that allow the hydraulic power unit (hydraulic cylinders 64 and 84, ¶ [0075]) to rotate out of the machine for services/adjustments without disconnecting hoses.
As to claim 17, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) teach the machine has a two-piece pump box (plunger pumps 61, 62, ¶ [0065]).
As to claim 18, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) disclose four programmable feed screws (feed screws 51, 52, ¶ [0072]) and four round plungers (plungers 66, 68, ¶ [0078]) to minimize leakage and give uniform mold cavity filling ¶ [0073].
As to claim 19, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) teach the machine is capable of producing formed poultry, beef, sausage and plant-based protein. Claims 19 recites “designed to produce formed poultry, beef, sausage and plant-based protein” which are the recitations of the intended use and do not provide further structural limitations and further patentable weight for the claimed apparatus. The structure of Hansen et al. (US ‘207), as clarified above, is capable of performing said intended use recitations.
As to claim 20, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) disclose a mold plate drive train having a single main reducer, driven by a single servo motor (see ¶ [0098] and ¶ [0099]); the main reducer having two output shafts (136a, ¶ [0100]) which split power into two 1:1 direction changing gearboxes (136, ¶ [0100]).
As to claim 21, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) teach a mold plate drive train having a gearbox, servo, reducer/splitter and a gearbox (136, ¶ [0100]). (page 11, claim 9, lines 5-6)
As to claim 22, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) discloses a rotary tube valve (the valve manifold 27, ¶ [0086]) having four holes fed by four plungers (66, 68, ¶ [0078]).
As to claim 23, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) teach the machine commands position and pressure of plungers via a closed loop feedback for position and pressure independently along with open loop feedback for flow rate independent of position and pressure. ¶ [0172]
As to claim 24, Hansen et al. (US ‘207) disclose machine comprises a configuration to have clean preparation wherein guards are opened up, the hopper is tilted, feed screw (51, 52, ¶ [0070]) drives open up, and plungers (66, 68, ¶ [0070]) retract into cleaning position.
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
06/12/2026
Prosecution Insights