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. Bernstein
`Reg. No. 29027
`
`June 27, 2023
`GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN,P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, VA 20191
`(703) 716-1191
`
`{P65860 05762769.DOCX}
`21
`
`