www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/695,340
`
`03/15/2022
`
`HIROSHI YAHATA
`
`P65864
`
`1052
`
`GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN,P.L.C.
`1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
`RESTON, VA 20191
`
`LU, HUA
`
`2144
`
`08/02/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`gbpatent @ gbpatent.com
`greenblum.bernsteinplc @ gmail.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Applicant-InitiatedInterview Summary
`
`Application No.
`17/695,340
`Examiner
`HUA LU
`
`Applicant(s)
`YAHATAetal.
`AIA (First Inventor
`to File) Status
`Yes
`
`
`
`Telephonic
`HUA LU
`James Bonnamy(Reg., 63,649) JAttorney
`
`Date of Interview: 29 July 2024
`
`Issues Discussed:
`
`Proposed Amendment(s)
`
`Applicant provided a brief overview of the invention and provided [0124] to support the proposed
`amendments , and arguedthe cited references including Hardee1, Hardee2 and Contant did not teach
`increasing the number of chews or the meal duration for the second printed food when the meal duration
`of the first printed food is less than a predetermined duration. Examinerclarified her position and
`interpretation of claim 1 as a whole, and explained that based on the broad interpretation, Hardee
`teaches customize/modify the printed food based on user's preference, and user's preference may be
`increase or decrease the hardness/size, etc., so the references would read on the claim limitations under
`the Examiner's interpretation of the claim language. No specific agreements regarding allowability were
`made.
`
`[HUA LU/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
`
`37 CFR§ 1.2 Businessto be transactedin writing
`
`Applicant is reminded that a complete written statement as to the substanceof the interview must be made of record in
`the application file. It is the applicants responsibility to provide the written statement, unless the interview wasinitiated
`by the Examiner and the Examiner hasindicated that a written summarywill be provided. See MPEP 713.04
`Pleasefurther see:
`MPEP 713.04
`Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews, paragraph (b)
`
`Applicant recordation instructions: The formal written reply to the last Office action must include the substance of the
`interview. (See MPEP section 713.04). If a reply to the last Office action has already been filed, applicant is given a
`non-extendable period of the longer of one monthor thirty days from this interview date, or the mailing date of this
`interview summary form, whichever is later, to file a statement of the substanceofthe interview.
`
`Examiner recordation instructions: Examiners must summarize the substanceof any interview of record. A complete
`and proper recordation of the substance of an interview should include the itemslisted in MPEP 713.04 for complete
`and proper recordation including the identification of the general thrust of each argumentor issue discussed, a general
`indication of any other pertinent matters discussed regarding patentability and the general results or outcome of the
`interview, to include an indication as to whether or not agreement was reached on the issuesraised.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-413/413b (Rev. Oct. 2019)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20240729
`
`