Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Inventor(s) : Hiroshi YAHATAetal.
`
`Appl. No.
`
`:
`
`17/695,361
`
`Filed
`
`: March 15, 2022
`
`Art Unit
`
`Examiner
`
`Conf. No.
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`1793
`
`Lien Thuy Tran
`
`8800
`
`For
`
`: METHOD FOR CONTROLLING FOOD PRINTER
`
`RESPONSE UNDER37 C.F.R. § 1.111 &
`STATEMENT OF SUBSTANCE OF EXAMINER INTERVIEW
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`Mail Stop Amendment
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Commissioner:
`
`In response to the Office Action of March 28, 2023, in which a three-month shortened
`
`statutory period for response is set to expire on June 28, 2023, Applicant respectfully requests
`
`reconsideration and withdrawal of the outstanding rejections set forth in the Office Action, in view
`
`of the herein-contained remarks.
`
`Amendments to the Claims begin on page 2 ofthis paper.
`
`Statement of Substance of Examiner Interview begins on page 9 ofthis paper.
`
`Remarksbegin on page 10 of this paper.
`
`An eTerminal Disclaimer is submitted herewith.
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`1
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS
`
`Upon entry of the present amendment, the status of the claims will be as is shown below.
`
`This listing of claims replacesall previous versionsandlistings of claimsin the present application.
`
`Listing of Claims:
`
`1. (Currently Amended)
`
`A method for controlling a food printer in a food-material
`
`providing system, the food printer being a food printer that creates a first printed food, the first
`
`printed food being created by the food printer by usingafirst print pattern, the method configured
`
`to be implemented by a computerin the food-material providing system, the method comprising:
`
`acquiring sensing data related to chewing/swallowing information of one user via a
`
`
`network from a sensing device associated with [[a]] the one user, wherein the chewing/swallowing
`
`information of the one user is related to a motion of the one user including chewing [[of]] and
`
`swallowingthe first printed food by the one user when the one usereats the first printed food;
`
`determining based on the chewing/swallowing information of the one user, a number of
`
`chews madebythe one userin eating the first printed food, and determining based onat least the
`
`first print pattern and the numberof chews, a second print pattern used for a second printed food
`
`te-be which is created for the one user by the food printer, the second printed food being harder
`
`than the first printed food when the number of chews made by the one useris less than a target
`
`numberof chewsfor the one user,the first print pattern includingfirst three-dimensional geometry
`
`data representing the first printed food,
`
`the second print pattern including second _three-
`
`dimensional geometry data representing the second printed food; and
`
`transmitting print control information to the food printer via the network, wherein the print
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`2
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`control information is used for causing the food printer to create the second printed food for the
`
`one user using the determined secondprint pattern.
`
`2. (Currently Amended)
`
`A method for controlling a food printer in a food-material
`
`
`
`providing system, the food printer being-afeed-printerthatcreatescreating a first printed food, the
`
`first printed food being created by the food printer by usingafirst print pattern, the method
`
`configured to be implemented by a computer in the food-material providing system, the method
`
`comprising:
`
`acquiring sensing data related to chewing/swallowing information of one user via a
`
`
`network from a sensing device associated with [[a]] the one user, wherein the chewing/swallowing
`
`information of the one user represents a number of chews madebythe one userin eating thefirst
`
`printed food;
`
`determining based onatleast the first print pattern and the numberof chews, a secondprint
`
`pattern used for a second printed food te-be which is created for the one user by the food printer,
`
`the second printed food being harder than the first printed food when the numberof chewsby the
`
`one useris less than a target numberof chewsfor the one user, the first print pattern includingfirst
`
`three-dimensional geometry data representing the first printed food,
`
`the second print pattern
`
`including second three-dimensional geometry data representing the second printed food; and
`
`transmitting print control information to the food printer via the network, wherein the print
`
`control information is used for causing the food printer to create the second printed food for the
`
`one user using the determined secondprint pattern.
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`3
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`3. (Currently Amended)
`
`The control method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the numberof chewsincludes a total number of times chewing is made bythe one user in
`
`eating the first printed food.
`
`4. (Currently Amended)
`
`The control method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the print control information includes a print condition for, if the number of chews made
`
`by the one useris less than a predetermined number of chews, creating the second printed food
`
`that has a smaller mass per unit volumethanthefirst printed food.
`
`5. (Currently Amended)
`
`The control method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`if the first printed food includesa first plurality of chunks of food in a first bite size of less
`
`than or equal to 15 cubic centimeters, and the number of chews made bythe one useris less than
`
`a predetermined number of chews, the print control information includes a print condition for
`
`
`
`creating the secondprinted food that includes a second plurality of chunks of food in a secondbite
`
`
`size of less than or equal to 15 cubic centimeters and that has a second mean volumethatis less
`
`than a first mean volumeofthefirst plurality of chunks of foodin the first bite size includedin the
`
`first printed food.
`
`6. (Currently Amended)
`
`The control method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the print control information includes a print condition for, if the number of chews made
`
`by the one useris less than a predetermined numberof chews, creating the second printed food
`
`
`
`portion that is harder than or equal to a predetermined hardnessofa first volumeofa first portion
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`4
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`in the first printed food.
`
`7. (Original) The control method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the sensing device includes an acceleration sensor, and
`
`the chewing/swallowing information includes acceleration information that represents an
`
`acceleration detected by the acceleration sensor.
`
`8. (Currently Amended)
`
`The control method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the sensing device includes a distance sensor, and
`
`
`
`
`
`the chewing/swallowing information inehides-distancedetectedbytheinformationthatis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`distance-senserandthatrepresents-a-distanceto-askin indicates a distance between the distance
`
`sensor and a skin of the one user that moves in response to chewing by the one user, detected by
`
`the distance sensor.
`
`9. (Original) The control method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the sensing device detects an electromyographic potential, and
`
`the number of chews is determined based on the detected electromyographic potential.
`
`10. (Original) The control method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the sensing device detects chewing sound, and
`
`the number of chews is determined based on the detected chewing sound.
`
`11. (Currently Amended)
`
`The control method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the sensing device includes a camera, and
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`5
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`the number of chews made by the one user is determined based on a result of image
`
`recognition performed by using an-tmage images obtained with the camera.
`
`12. (Currently Amended)
`
`The control method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the sensing device is installed on an autonomousdevice that performs sensing on the one
`
`user.
`
`used.
`
`13. (Currently Amended)
`
`The control method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the sensing device is installed on eyeglasses of the one user.
`
`14. (Currently Amended)
`
`The control method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the sensing device is installed on a device to be worn around a neck ofthe one user.
`
`15. (Currently Amended)
`
`The control method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the sensing device is installed on a device to be worn on anearof the one user.
`
`16. (Original) The control method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the second printed food is created by using a plurality of paste materials, and
`
`the second print pattern specifies where each of the plurality of paste materials is to be
`
`17. (Currently Amended)
`
`The method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the second printed food comprises a three-dimensional structure including a plurality of
`
`layers, the plurality of layers includingafirst layer and a secondlayer, and
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`6
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`the print control information includes a print condition for causing a first paste material
`
`
`used for the first layer to be varied from a second paste material used for the second layer.
`
`18. (Currently Amended)
`
`The method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the second printed food comprises a three-dimensional structure including a plurality of
`
`layers, the plurality of layers including a first layer and a secondlayer, and
`
`the print control information includesa print condition for causing a third print pattern used
`
`for the first layer to be varied from a fourth print pattern used for the second layer,
`
`wherein the third print pattern includes at least one of a hardnessofthe first layer, a paste
`
`material of the first layer, or a three-dimensional geometry ofthe first layer, and
`
`the fourth print pattern includes at least_one of a hardness of the second layer, a paste
`
`material of the secondlayer, or a three-dimensional geometry of the secondlayer.
`
`19. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the print control information specifies a temperature at which to bake the second printed
`
`food.
`
`20. (New)—The method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the first printed food and the second printed food are created by dispensing a gelled food
`
`material in layers.
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`7
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`21. (New)—The method according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the hardness of the second printed food is increased by decreasing a numberofholes in the
`
`second printed food, in comparison with thefirst printed food, or controlling a baking temperature
`
`of the second printed food.
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`8
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`STATEMENT OF SUBSTANCE OF EXAMINER INTERVIEW
`
`Applicant expresses appreciation to Examiner Tran for the courtesies extended to
`
`Applicant’s representatives James Bonnamy and Yuuki Hirose during the telephone interview of
`
`Tuesday, June 20, 2023.
`
`During the telephone interview, proposed amendments to independent claims | and 2 of
`
`the present application were presented, and it was discussed whether the amendments would be
`
`sufficient for overcoming the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101, and 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examinerindicated that the proposed amendments would not be
`
`sufficient to overcome the current grounds of the rejections, and further indicated that the
`
`specification of the present application appears to be deficient such that no amendments are
`
`available for overcoming the rejections. Accordingly, no agreement was reached regarding claim
`
`language for overcomingthe rejections.
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`9
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`REMARKS
`
`Applicant initially expresses appreciation to the Examinerfor the detailed Office Action
`
`provided. Applicant also expresses appreciation for the acknowledgmentof the claims for foreign
`
`priority and receipt of the certified copies of the priority documents, and for the acknowledgment
`
`and consideration of the Information Disclosure Statements filed on September 27, 2022 and
`
`March 15, 2022.
`
`Upon entry of the present paper, claims 1-6, 8, 11-15, and 17-18 will have been amended
`
`and claims 20-21 will have been added. Thus, claims 1-21 will be pending in the present
`
`application, with claims 1 and 2 being in independentform.
`
`The herein-contained amendments and newclaims are not an acquiescencein the propriety
`
`of the outstanding rejections.
`
`Instead, the claims are amended and newly added to even more
`
`clearly and explicitly set forth features of the present application, as a sincere effort to advance
`
`prosecution.
`
`In this regard, it is submitted that the amendments and new claims contain no
`
`prohibited new matter. For example, the amendments and new claims are submitted to be
`
`supported at least by FIG. 4, §[0081], [0093], [0112], 49[0117]-[0118], [0124], and §[0132] of
`
`the presentapplication asfiled ([0085], [0097], [0116], $9[0122]-[0123], [0129], and §[0137]
`
`of corresponding U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2022/0202057).
`
`Applicant addresses the pending rejections below and respectfully requests reconsideration
`
`and withdrawal thereof together with an indication of allowability of claims 1-21 (/e., all pending
`
`claims) in the next Official communication. Such action is respectfully requested and submitted
`
`to be appropriate for at least the reasons provided below.
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`10
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`Application Papers
`
`First, the Office Action Summary pagefails to indicate that the filed drawings are accepted.
`
`Absent an indication to the contrary in the next Official communication, Applicant will presume
`
`the filed drawings to be accepted.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) Claim Rejection
`
`In the Office Action, claims 1-19 (7.e., all examined claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Specifically, it is asserted that the
`
`claims contain subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way to enable
`
`one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention.
`
`Initially, Applicant notes that the claims are amended by the present paper to even more
`
`clearly and explicitly set forth features of the present application. Atleast in this regard, Applicant
`
`respectfully traverses the grounds of the rejection as being improper and/or at least no longer
`
`existing.
`
`For example, the claims generally recite, among other features, that a number of chews
`
`made by oneuserin eating a first printed food is determined. A second printed food is determined
`
`for the one user based on the number of chews, with the second printed food being harderthan the
`
`first printed food when the number of chews made by the one useris less than a target number of
`
`chews for the one user. These features are submitted to surely be enabled for the skilled artisan,
`
`as the present application specifically describes how to makethe first and second printed foods,
`
`how to count the number of chews, and how to increase the hardness. See, e.g., [9 [0081 ]-[0084],
`
`40093], [0124], and 90132] of the present application as filed (Y§[0085]-[0088], [0097],
`
`4[0129], and §[0137] of corresponding U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2022/0202057).
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`The rejection asserts that the chewing and swallowing can vary among different people.
`
`Nevertheless, the amendedclaims clarify that the chewing is determined for one person, and the
`
`specification describes how such chewing may be counted. Specifically, the claims are amended
`
`to recite “one user” in orderto clarify that the second printed food is printed to the single/same
`
`user whoate the first printed food. In this regard, the claim is further amendedto clarify that the
`
`chewing/swallowing information of the one useris related to a motion of the one user including
`
`chewing and swallowing the first printed food by the one user when the one usereats the first
`
`printed food. The amendmentregarding the chewing/swallowing information is submitted to be
`
`supported at least by J{[0064]-[0068] of the present application as filed (§[0068]-[0072] of
`
`corresponding U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2022/0202057). For example, the sensing unit 204 detects
`
`sensing data including information related to the user's chewing and/or swallowing.
`
`The rejection also asserts that, “[t]he term pattern itself is broad and the meaning is not
`
`specific. What exactly does pattern encompasses. The chewing and swallowing of food can vary
`
`among different people. One person can take a long time to chew the same food as opposed to
`
`another individual. There is no disclosure to take into consideration such factor. The instant
`
`specification does not define any formulation of food.” In this regard, the claims are amended to
`
`clarify that the first and second printed foods are generated from first and second print patterns
`
`that include three-dimensional geometry data representing the first and second printed foods. The
`
`three-dimensional geometry data may be used to represent, for example, the holes and/or layers of
`
`printed, gelled material, of which the first and second printed foods consist. See, e.g., [0093],
`
`40112], 4[0124], and 9 [0129] of the present application as filed (4[0093], 4[0116], §[0129], and
`
`4[0134] of corresponding U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2022/0202057),.
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`Moreover, the rejection asserts that there is no correlation between the number of chews
`
`and the second printed food, and that there is no baseline of hardness established for the first food
`
`and how such hardness should be varied based on the swallowing/chewing cycle. Nevertheless,
`
`the claims do not require such specific correlation. Instead, the claims are amendedto clarify that,
`
`when the numberof chewsis greater than the target numberof chews, the hardness of the second
`
`printed food is increased. See, e.g., [[0117]-[0118] of the present application asfiled (F9[0122]-
`
`[0123] of corresponding U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2022/0202057). This is certainly within the
`
`level of the skilled artisan, especially since the present application describes manners for
`
`increasing the hardness.
`
`The rejection further makes assertions regarding a child playing with utensils without
`
`actually eating food. Nevertheless, such assertion is irrelevant to the claimed subject matter.
`
`The rejection also asserts that it is unclear as to what the food is madeof, andthat the field
`
`of printing of food is relatively new. Nevertheless, the specification describes that the food
`
`material is made ofa gelled food material or paste, which may be deposited in layers, and that the
`
`hardness may be increased by, among other methods, increasing a numberofholes in the gelled
`
`food material and/or increasing baking temperature. See, e.g., 4[0093], §[0124], and ¥[0132] of
`
`the present application as filed ([0097], 90129], and 9[0137] of corresponding U.S. Pat. Appl.
`
`Pub. No. 2022/0202057). Moreover, the food hardness levels are disclosed by, for example,
`
`40093] of the present application as filed (¥[0091] of corresponding U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No.
`
`2022/0202057). Again, these features are certainly within the level of the skilled artisan. The
`
`present application does not aim to create a certain, specific food material. The claimed invention
`
`is directed not to the food printer 400 in Figure 4 but to the server 300. That is, the generation of
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`13
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`print control information used in the food printer 300 hasa special feature. The claim is not directed
`
`to the internal control of the food printer 300.
`
`For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the grounds of the above-
`
`captioned rejection are improper and/or at least no longer exist. Thus, it is requested that the
`
`rejection be withdrawnin the next Official communication.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) Claim Rejection
`
`Claims 1-19 (7.e., all examined claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
`
`indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as
`
`the invention. Specifically it is asserted that the phrase “print pattern” is vague, that the phrase
`
`“hard portion” or the term “hard” is/are a relative phrase/term, and that the phrase “distance to a
`
`skin” 1s vague.
`
`By the present paper, the phrase “print pattern” is amendedto clarify that such phrase
`
`includes three-dimensional geometry data representing the first/second printed food. See, e.g.,
`
`40129] of the present application as filed (§[0134] of corresponding U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No.
`
`2022/0202057). The three-dimensional geometry data may be usedto represent, for example, the
`
`holes and/or layers of the printed, gelled material. Such language is submitted to be clear and
`
`definite.
`
`The claims are also amendedto delete any reference to the “hard portion” and further
`
`specify that the second printed food is harder than thefirst printed food. Thus, the claims do not
`
`include a relative phrase/term.
`
`Lastly, claim 8 is amended to more clearly describe the phrase “distance to a skin.” That
`
`is, the phrase is amendedto clarify that the “distance to a skin” indicates the distance between the
`
`distance sensor and a skin of the one user that moves in response to chewing by the oneuser.
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`14
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the grounds of the above-
`
`captioned rejection are also improper and/orat least no longer exist. Thus, it is requested that the
`
`rejection be withdrawnin the next Official communication.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 Claim Rejection
`
`Claims 1-19 (7.e., all examined claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
`
`to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, it is asserted that the claims are directed to a judicial
`
`exception of “a method of forming a second printed food having a pattern based on the
`
`chewing/swallowing information from a sensing device.
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses the grounds of this rejection as being improper. That is,
`
`the identified judicial exception is certainly not a law of nature or a natural phenomena. Moreover,
`
`the identified judicial exception is not an abstract idea, as it is certainly not abstract. None of the
`
`first printed food, the sensing device which acquires the chewing information of the user, the
`
`number of chews, nor the second printed food is abstract. Instead, the claims merely appear to be
`
`rejected for allegedly being non-enabled, as set forth in the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) Claim Rejection
`
`section. Nevertheless, Applicant respectfully submits that this is not an appropriate ground for
`
`rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Accordingly, it is submitted that the grounds of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are
`
`improper, and it
`
`is further requested that this rejection be withdrawn in the next Official
`
`communication.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Claim Rejection
`
`Claims 1-19 (7e., all examined claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2018/0116272 to Hardee et al.
`
`(hereinafter
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`15
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`“HARDEE”)
`
`in view of U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2020/0152312 to Connor (hereinafter
`
`“CONNOR’”).
`
`As generally discussed above, without acquiescing in the propriety of the rejection, the
`
`claims are amended by the present paper. At least in view of the amendments, Applicant
`
`respectfully traverses the groundsof the obviousnessrejection as at least no longerexisting.
`
`That is, among other features, amended independent claim 1 recites that the method
`
`determines a second print pattern used for a second printed food whichis created for the one user
`
`by the food printer, with the second printed food being harder than the first printed food when the
`
`number of chews made bythe one useris less than a target number of chewsfor the one user.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that any proper combination of HARDEE and CONNORfails to
`
`disclose or render obviousat least such feature of amended independentclaim 1, as recited by the
`
`claimed combination.
`
`Instead, HARDEEdiscloses embodiments for 3D printing a food item by a processor. (See,
`
`e.g., HARDEEat Abstract). The embodiments get a request for 3D printing of the food item based
`
`on information associated with a consumer, and 3D print the food item.
`
`(See, e.g., HARDEE at
`
`4[0004]). Nevertheless, the Office Action appears to acknowledge that HARDEEis silent about
`
`sensing any chewing/swallowing information to make a second printed food.
`
`(See Office Action
`
`at page 8, lines 8-10). As such, it is submitted that HARDEEcannot be reasonably interpreted to
`
`disclose or render obvious the above-mentioned feature of amended independent claim 1.
`
`In addition, with respect to CONNOR,it is respectfully submitted that this documentfails
`
`to cure the deficiencies of HARDEE. That is, CONNOR discloses a system for nutritional
`
`monitoring and management which includes various sensors in order to modify a person's food-
`
`related physiological processes to help improvedietary habits and health.
`
`(See, e.g., CONNORat
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`16
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`Abstract).
`
`In the Office Action, the Examiner appears to summarily conclude that the skilled
`
`artisan could use the sensors of CONNORin order to modify the information associated with the
`
`customer of HARDEEto provide a second, harder printed food. Applicant disagrees and is
`
`mindful that the key to supporting any obviousnessrejection is the clear articulation of the reasons
`
`why the claimed invention would have been obvious, with some rationale underpinning.
`
`In the
`
`instant matter, nothing in CONNORdiscloses or suggests that a second printed food would be
`
`harder than a first printed food when a number of chews made by oneuseris less than a target
`
`number of chews for the one user. Absent identification of any underlying rationale which
`
`supports such feature, it is respectfully submitted that the groundsof the rejection are improper.
`
`That is, neither HARDEE nor CONNORdisclose the specific feature, which is the food
`
`printer changes the hardness of the food it produces depending on the swallowing cycle. More
`
`specifically,
`
`there is no disclosure of the claimed feature of determining based on the
`
`chewing/swallowing information of the one user, a number of chews made bythe oneuserin
`
`eating the first printed food, and determining based onat least thefirst print pattern and the number
`
`of chews, a second print pattern used for a second printed food which 1s created for the one user
`
`by the food printer, to be harder than thefirst printed food when the number of chewsis less than
`
`a target number of chewsfor the one user.
`
`For at least these reasons, it is submitted that HARDEE and CONNORfail to render
`
`obvious the combination of features as now recited by amended independent claim 1. Moreover,
`
`since independent claim 2 is amendedto recite a similar feature, it is similarly submitted that this
`
`claim is not rendered obvious. As such,
`
`it is submitted that the grounds of the rejection of
`
`independent claims 1 and 2 at least no longer exist, and it is requested that the rejection be
`
`withdrawn in the next Official communication.
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`17
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`Furthermore, since claims 3-19 are each directly dependent from amended independent
`
`claim 1, it is similarly submitted that these claims are not rendered obvious by HARDEEand
`
`CONNORin view of their dependencies and also in view of their further combinations of recited
`
`features. As such,it is also requested that the rejection of claims 3-19 be withdrawn.
`
`Non-statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejection
`
`Claims 1-19 (i.e., all pending claims) are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-
`
`statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of co-pending
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,392. Claims 1-19 (ie., all pending claims) are also provisionally
`
`rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
`
`over claims 1-18 of co-pending U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,380. Pages 9-10 of the Office Action
`
`indicate that a Terminal Disclaimer may be used to overcome the double patenting rejection.
`
`Without acquiescing in the propriety of the rejections, Applicant submits on even date
`
`herewith an executed eTerminal Disclaimer with respect to the above-identified applications. The
`
`eTerminal Disclaimeris filed merely to remove any issue as to whether the claims of the present
`
`application and those of the above-mentioned applications in any way conflict. Applicant does
`
`not, however, intend to make any representation as to whether any claim of the present application
`
`would have been obvious in view of any claim of the above-mentioned applications, or whether a
`
`double patenting rejection would be appropriate if the eTerminal Disclaimer was notfiled. The
`
`eTerminal Disclaimeris filed only to expedite allowance of the present application.
`
`In view of the filed eTerminal Disclaimer, it is submitted that the grounds of the above-
`
`captioned rejections no longer exist, and it is requested that the rejections be withdrawn.
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`18
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`New Dependent Claims 20-21
`
`New dependent claims 20-21 are presented by the present paper to recite further
`
`combinations of features of the present application. These claims are submitted to be allowable in
`
`view of their dependencies and further combinationsof recited features.
`
`Atleast in view of the above,it is respectfully submitted that each and every pending claim
`
`of the present application (7.e., claims 1-21) meets the requirements for patentability. Thus, the
`
`Examineris respectfully requested to withdraw the outstanding rejections and to indicate the
`
`allowance of each and every pending claim in the present application.
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`19
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`In view ofthe fact that noneofthe art of record, whether considered alone, or in any proper
`
`combination thereof, discloses or renders obvious the pending claims of the present application,
`
`and in further view of the above amendments and remarks, reconsideration of the Examiner's
`
`action and allowance of the present application are respectfully requested and submitted to be
`
`appropriate.
`
`Applicant notes that this amendment
`
`is being made to advance prosecution of the
`
`application to allowance, and should not be considered as surrendering equivalents of the territory
`
`between the claims prior to the present amendment and the amended claims.
`
`Further, no
`
`acquiescenceas to the propriety of the Examiner's rejection is made by the present amendment.
`
`All amendmentsto the claims which have been madein this amendment, and which have not been
`
`specifically noted to overcome a rejection based upon the prior art, should be considered to have
`
`been made for a purpose unrelated to patentability, and no estoppel should be deemedto attach
`
`thereto.
`
`The requisite fee for filing the Terminal Disclaimer is submitted on even date herewith.
`
`However, if for any reason the requisite fee is not associated with this file or the submitted fee is
`
`inadequate, the Commissioneris hereby authorized to charge any fees for the Terminal Disclaimer,
`
`or credit any overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 19-0089.
`
`Should an extension of time be necessary to maintain the pendency of this application,
`
`including any extensionsof time required to place the application in condition for allowance by an
`
`Examiner's Amendment, the Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any additional fee to
`
`Deposit Account No. 19-0089.
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`20
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. P65860
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 17/695,361
`
`If there should be any questions concerning this application, the Examineris invited to
`
`contact the undersigned at the telephone numberlisted below.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/James P. Bonnamy/
`Reg. No. 63,649
`James P. Bonnamy
`
`Bruce H. Bernst