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
`
`17/695,361
`
`03/15/2022
`
`HIROSHI YAHATA
`
`P65860
`
`8800
`
`GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN,P.L.C.
`1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
`RESTON, VA 20191
`
`TRAN, LIEN THUY
`
`ART UNIT
`
`1793
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/05/2024
`
`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)
`
`

`

`
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`Wwww.Uspto.gov
`
`BEFORE THE PATENTTRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Application Number: 17/695,361
`Filing Date: 15 Mar 2022
`Appellant(s): Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd.
`
`James Bonnamy
`For Appellant
`
`EXAMINER’S ANSWER
`
`This is in response to the appeal brief filed 1/15/24.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 3
`
`(1) Groundsof Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal
`
`Every ground of rejection set forth in the Office action dated 7/17/23 from which the appeal is
`
`taken is being maintained by the examiner except for the groundsof rejection (if any) listed under the
`
`subheading “WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS.” New groundsof rejection (if any) are provided under the
`
`subheading “NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION.”
`
`The following ground(s) of rejection are applicable to the appealed claims.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`1.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
`
`(a) INGENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and
`of the manner and process of making and usingit, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
`enable any person skilled inthe art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to
`make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint
`inventor of carrying out the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and
`process of making and usingit, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person
`skilledin the art to whichit pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the
`same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), first paragraph, as
`
`failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not
`
`described in the specification in such a way as to enable oneskilled in the art to which it pertains, or
`
`with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
`
`Factors for Assessing Enablement(a.k.a. The Wands Factors)
`
`These factors include, but are not limited to:
`
`1. Breadth of the claims;
`
`2. Nature of the invention;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 4
`
`3. State of the prior art;
`
`4. Level of one of ordinaryskill;
`
`5. Level of predictability in the art;
`
`6. Amountof direction provided;
`
`7. Existence of working examples; and
`
`8. Quantity of experimentation needed.
`See: MPEP §2164.01(a); Inre Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
`
`The claims are directed to a method for controlling the food printer to produce food having a
`
`certain pattern based on the chewing/swallowing data. The print patternis changed based on the
`
`number of chewsandafirst print patter. However, the breadth of the claims is too broad. The claims
`
`do not provide any specificity to enable one skilled in the art to carry out the method. While the claims
`
`recite to print food based on the chewing/swallowing cycle, there is no specificity to the data and howit
`
`is usedto affect the pattern. The chewing and swallowing of food can vary amongdifferent people. The
`
`amendmentrecites “one user” but the method is not just restricted toone user only. The sensing of
`
`the data is for one user ata time but the method is not just for one same person. There is no teaching
`
`of how the sensing is changed to target different populations. For instance,if the one user is a 5 years
`
`old, how does the sensing differ from the one user who is 80 years old. One person can takea 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.
`
`Itis not
`
`known which population is targeted as chewing/swallowingdiffers among people and how the data is
`
`used to make the second food. There is no disclosure of correlation between the data and the food
`
`printed. For instance, if the number of chewsis 20, how does that number translate to printing the food
`
`versus a chewing numbers of 19 or 16 or 15, etc.. The specification does not disclose how a
`
`predetermined number of chews is determined. What factors are involved in the determination of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page5S
`
`predetermined number of chews. For instance, claim5 recites the size of the chunks. But, thereis no
`
`teaching of how the sizeis determined. What factors are involved in the determination of the size. The
`
`nature of the invention is too variable and unpredictable. The chewing and swallowing pattern are
`
`unlikely to be consistent from different populations and habit. For instance, the specification discloses
`
`the acceleration sensoris attached to chopstick, fork or spoon and detects the beginning of the swallow
`
`cycle from the time the utensil is picked up to the timeit is lower. However, picking up and lowering the
`
`utensil does not necessarily mean the food is put in the mouth and swallow as a person can very well
`
`picking up and lowering the utensil without eating a food. For instance, a child can play at meal time by
`
`playing with the utensil and not actually eating the food which will make the data collected to be
`
`inaccurate to form the second food. The instant specification does not have any teaching to accountfor
`
`variation in such instance. There is no baseline of pattern or mass or volume established for thefirst
`
`food and how such pattern, or mass or volume should be varied based on the swallowing/chewing cycle.
`
`There is no working example set forth in the disclosure. There is no direction provided. Thefield of
`
`printing of food is relatively new. The printing of food in relation to swallowing/chewingcycle is not
`
`prevalent in the art. Thus, undue experimentation would be required to form the food meeting a
`
`required pattern based on the data as the specification provides no direction of how to use the datato
`
`form the food. What patternor volume or size or mass are required? How should the pattern, volume,
`
`size or mass be changed based on the data? The specification discloses the second hardness can be
`
`changed such as increasing or decreasing the number of holes. However, the specification does not
`
`disclose the cause of the holes and how the holes can be increased or decreased and how much of an
`
`increase or decrease is needed. Thereis no disclosure of any formulation for the food.
`
`It is unclear
`
`what the food is made of. Thereis no disclosure of ingredients or any composition. The specification
`
`discloses the hardness can be adjusted by controlling or specifying the temperature. However,itis a
`
`general disclosure without any specific teaching. The specification generally discloses a computer
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 6
`
`programmingto print the food. But, there is no teaching of how the data inputted is used toform the
`
`food. Thereis not a single example in the specification to demonstrate how the methodis carried out.
`
`Based on the broadness and generalization of the methad,it is not enabling to one skilled in the art.
`
`3.
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
`matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
`conditions and requirementsofthis title.
`
`The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a
`
`method of forming a second printed food having a pattern based on the chewing/swallowing
`
`information from a sensing device. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application
`
`because the methad only provides broad general steps without any specificity to actually carryout the
`
`method. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
`
`significantly more than the judicial exception because.
`
`The claims are directed to a method for controlling the food printer to produce food having a
`
`certain pattern based on the chewing/swallowing data. However, the breadth of the claims is too
`
`broad. The claims do not provide any specificityto carry out the method. While the claims recite to
`
`print food based on the chewing/swallowing cycle, there is no specificity to the data. Itis not known
`
`which population is targeted as chewing/swallowing differs among people and how the data is used to
`
`make the second food. There is no disclosure of correlation between the data and the food printed. For
`
`instance,if the number of chew is 20, how does that number translate to printing the food versus a
`
`number of chews 19 or 16 or 15, etc.. Thereis variation and unpredictability that can affect the
`
`outcome. The claimed method doesnot disclose all the variables. The chewing and swallowing pattern
`
`are unlikely to be consistent from different populations. For instance, the specification discloses the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 7
`
`acceleration sensoris attached to chopstick, fork or spoon and detects the beginning of the swallow
`
`cycle from the time the utensil is picked up to the time it is lower. However, picking up and lowering the
`
`utensil does not necessarily mean the food is put in the mouth and swallow as a person can very well
`
`picking up and lowering the utensil without eating a food. For instance, a child can play at meal time by
`
`playing with the utensil and not actually eating the food which will make the data collected to be
`
`inaccurate to form the second food. The instant specification does not have any teaching to accountfor
`
`variation in such instance. There is no baseline of pattern established for the first food and how such
`
`pattern should be varied based on the swallowing/chewing cycle. There is no working example set forth
`
`in the disclosure. There is no direction provided in the specification. What patternis acceptable? How
`
`should the pattern be varied based on the data? How canthe pattern be changed? Thespecification
`
`discloses the second hardness can be changed such as increasing or decreasing the number ofholes.
`
`However, the specification does not disclose the cause of the holes and how the holes can be increased
`
`or decreased and how much of an increase or decrease is needed. There is no disclosure of any
`
`formulation for the food.
`
`It is unclear what the food is made of. There is no disclosure of ingredients or
`
`any composition. The specification generally discloses a computer programming to print the food. But,
`
`there is no teaching of how the data inputted is used to form the food. There is not a single example in
`
`the specification to demonstrate how the methodis carried out.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`4.
`
`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 forthin 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 8
`
`5.
`
`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 claimsat issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`6.
`
`Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardee(
`
`2018/0116272) in view of Conor ( 2020/0152312)
`
`For claims 1,2, Hardee discloses a method for printing a food material by a processor. The
`
`method comprises the steps of receiving a request to 3D print a food item, receiving information
`
`associated witha consumer for the food item and printing the requested food item based on the
`
`information associated with the consumer of the food item. The information received from the
`
`consumer is used to modify the food item being printed. The information received is transmitted tothe
`
`food printer via network to print the food item according to the information received. Sensor can be
`
`included to device layer. The 3D printing of food item is customized based on information associated
`
`with the consumersof the food items. The information can be based on health, medical history, dietary
`
`restriction etc.. (see paragraphs 0004,0012,0014,0015,0046,0050,0054,0055,0060,0061, 0064)
`
`Hardee doesnot disclose sensing the chew/swallowing to determine the swallow cycle to make
`
`printed food with a determined patternas in claims 1,2, the sensing parameters as inclaims 3-15, the
`
`food as in claims 16-18 , the baking as in claim 19 , the gelled food of claim 20 and the holes feature as in
`
`claim 21.
`
`Connor discloses systems for nutritional monitoring and management. Connordiscloses
`
`different sensors to monitor food in nutrition monitoring. The sensors include camera on eyewear,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 9
`
`earwear, ring etc., spectroscopic sensor, wearable biometric sensor including EMG, smart utensil which
`
`collects data concerning food item consumed by a person etc.. The food utensil can tract the number of
`
`times that a utensil is put down or weigh each bite or mouthful. Smart utensil can use motion senor to
`
`measure the lifting and lowering of the utensil. The nutritional monitoring can include a device which is
`
`worn on or around a person neck. The smart collar can have a microphone which monitors sounds
`
`associated with eating such as chewing, swallowing. ( see paragraphs
`
`0022,0023,0027,0029,0031,0050,0144)
`
`Hardee discloses the printing of the food is customized based on the information received.
`
`Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to input information to obtain different
`
`patternor food depending on the sensory attribute and food types desired. The information inputted
`
`can vary depending on consumer preference. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to input
`
`different data based on a previous consuming food when such sensory attribute is desired to be
`
`changed. Hardee discloses various sensor devices can be used in connection with the system.
`
`It would
`
`have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the sensing devices taught in Connor to measure
`
`various parameterson eating and to customize the food printed based on the eating preference
`
`measured. Applicant is combining known concept with expected result. It would have been obvious to
`
`form food having various different layers, different hardness , different size so as to occupy different
`
`volume as an obvious matter of preference. The hole in food can vary depending on the type of food. It
`
`would have been obvious to increase or decrease the holes depending on the textural feel desired. The
`
`hole canbeindicative of the porous nature of the food.
`
`It would have been obvious to print a food of
`
`less or more porous to obtain a desirable texture. Hardee discloses different types of food canbe
`
`printed.
`
`It would have been obvious to print gelled food as an obvious matter of preference.
`
`It would
`
`also have been obvious to control the temperature in baking. This parameter would have been readily
`
`apparent to one skilled in the art.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`(2) Response to Argument
`
`Page 10
`
`On page 18 of the appeal brief, appellant argues the 103 rejection. Appellant argues that the
`
`rejection includes no articulated reasoning with any rational underpinning to support the legal
`
`conclusion. This argumentis not persuasive. Hardee teaches a method to print food items based on
`
`inputting information associated witha consumer. The requested food item is 3D printed based on the
`
`information associated withthe consumer of the food item. The consumer can customize the selection
`
`based on their personal preferences, dietary, restriction etc.. Hardee discloses in paragraph 0075 “ the
`
`information mayinclude various types of data that may be used by the 3D food printer to customize the
`
`requested food item. Examples include but are notlimited to dietary restriction/preference, preferred
`
`ingredient characteristics“. This disclosure clearly suggests that different information can be inputted
`
`to make the food. The information can be based ondietary restrictions, health, medical history etc..
`
`The type of information inputted can vary. For instance, a person who has medical condition of
`
`dysphagia will want to measure and input swallowing and chewing foods to thereby altering the
`
`hardness of the food to allow for easier swallowing and chewing. It would also have been obvious to
`
`measure the swallowing and chewingof food to determine the textural attribute of the food and to
`
`change such textural feel based on the measurement depending on the texture desired. Connor teaches
`
`the measurementof swallowing and chewing by using sensors that measure the eating habit of a
`
`person. For instance, in paragraph 0036, Connordiscloses sensors that measure the speed, rate, or pace
`
`of food consumption via motion sensor and image analysis. In paragraph 0144, Connor discloses “a
`
`system caninclude a motion sensor which detects hand gesture associated with eating. Inan example,
`
`these gesture can include reaching for food, grasping food, raising food up to the mouth,tilting a hand
`
`to move food into the mouth, pausing to chew or swallow food and then lowering a hand”. Thus,
`
`sensing data related to chewing and swallowing and using that data for the benefits of the consumer are
`
`known as demonstrated in Connor.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 11
`
`input chewing/swallowing data because measurementof such parameter is known as shown in Connor.
`
`The motivation to input the data resides in the eating habit of the individual consumer and Hardee
`
`provides for such variation in the teaching that the food can be printed based on information associated
`
`with consumer. The Connorreferenceis also relied upon for the teaching of different sensors. Hardee
`
`discloses various sensor devices can be used in connection with the printing system.
`
`It would have been
`
`obvious to one skilled in the art to use the sensing devices taught in Conor to measure various
`
`parameterson eating and to customize the food printed based on the eating preference measured.
`
`On page 19, appellant further argues evenif the skilled artisan would modify Hardee to input
`
`hardness data as asserted, any resultant combination would not determine a second printed food to be
`
`harder thana first hardness. This argumentis not persuasive. The making of the food to be harder
`
`would depend on what is wanted and one can change the input to obtain a different food. One of the
`
`food that can be printed in Hardee is pizza. For example,if during the consumption of a pizza and it is
`
`determined by the consumer through the use of the sensor of Connor or through regular sensory
`
`chewing/swallowing that the pizza is too soft, one can change the input to be different from previous
`
`input to obtain acrispier, harder pizzacrust. Hardee discloses in paragraph 0015, “information
`
`associated withthe consumer is retrieved by the system. The food itemis 3D printed based on the
`
`information associated with the consumer.
`
`On pages 20-21 of the appeal brief, appellant makes the same argumentfor claim 1, 3-21. The
`
`argumentis not persuasive for the same reasonas for claim 2. Appellant comments that the office
`
`action does not set forth any rationale for the rejection of claims 3-21. The claims are rejected as set
`
`forth in the rejection. Appellant does not argue the specifics of claims 3-21.
`
`On pages 23-24 of the appeal brief, appellant argues the 112 enablement rejection. Appellant
`
`argues an abstract assertion of breadth is not enough to prove non-enablement. This argumentis not
`
`persuasive. The claims do not provide any specificity to carry out the method. While the claims recite to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 12
`
`print food based on the chewing/swallowing cycle, there is no specificity to the data. Itis not known
`
`which population is targeted as chewing/swallowing differs among people and how the data is used to
`
`make the second food. Appellant states a finding of non-enablement requires concrete identification of
`
`at least some embodiment or embodiment asserted not be enabled. Appellant argues the rejection fails
`
`to identify any such embodiment. This argument is not persuasive because the different aspects of why
`
`the claims and specification are not enabling are analyzed in the rejection.
`
`Appellant argues regardless of population, a number of chews may be determined and a
`
`hardness of a second printed food may be increased when the number of chewsis less than a target
`
`number. Appellant does not claim specific or optimum embodiment for each population. This
`
`argumentis not persuasive. The number of chews can be determined regardless of the population.
`
`However, there is no teaching of how that number of chewsis translated to printing of the foods. The
`
`second food is harder but what is the parameter to determine the hardness. There is no baseline of
`
`hardness for the first food and how much harder is the second food required to be? Thereis no
`
`disclosure of correlation between the data and the food printed. For instance,if the swallowing timeis
`
`20, how does that number translate to printing the food versus a swallowing time of 19 or 16 or 15,etc..
`
`The instant specification and claims do not even define the target number of chews. How doesone of
`
`ordinary skill in the art identify the target number of chews. How many chewsare required? The
`
`specification discloses a method that raises many questions in order tocarry out the steps andthe
`
`answers are not disclosed. Appellant contends that such assertion would not prevent the skilled artisan
`
`from making and using the claimed invention. However, this statement is unsupported. Appellant does
`
`not address the concern raised and simply concludes that the skilled artisan can make the food. But, the
`
`specification provides no direction in this regard. Appellant states that “ appellant does not claim, nor
`
`conveyto be in possession of a standard for optimizing and improving chewing and swallowing
`
`functions. The question raisedis not standard for optimizing and improving chewing and swallowing
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 13
`
`functions. Appellant’s claims require the steps of determining a number of chews and determining
`
`basedon thefirst hardness and the number of chews, a second hardness for a second printed food.
`
`However, the specification does not provide any guidance on how the data on the number of chewsis
`
`translatedtothe printing of food. How does one determine what second hardness is appropriate for
`
`certainnumber of chews?
`
`Thereis variation and unpredictability that can affect the outcome. The claimed method does
`
`not disclose all the variables. The chewing and swallowing pattern are unlikely to be consistent from
`
`different populations. For instance, paragraph 0024 discloses the acceleration sensoris attached to
`
`chopstick, fork or spoon and detects the beginning of the swallow cycle from the time the utensil is
`
`picked up to the time itis lower. However, picking up and lowering the utensil does not necessarily
`
`mean the food is put in the mouth and swallow as a person can very well picking up and lowering the
`
`utensil without eating a food. For instance, a child can play at mealtime by playing with the utensil and
`
`not actually eating the food which will make the data collected to be inaccurate to form the second
`
`food. The instant specification does not have any teaching to account for variation in such instance.
`
`Appellant only concludes that the claim is surely enabled to the skilled artisan without any explanation
`
`or addressesthe questions raised in the rejection. There is no baseline of hardness established for the
`
`first food and how such hardness should be varied based on the swallowing/chewing cycle. There is no
`
`working example set forth in the disclosure. There is no direction provided in the specification. What
`
`level of hardness is acceptable? How should the hardness be varied based on the data? Howcan the
`
`hardness be changed? Appellant repeatedly states that “ appellant does not claim nor convey to be in
`
`possession of a perfect standard for optimizing and improving chewing and swallowing functions. Again,
`
`this statementis not relevant to the issue raised and does not address any of the specific question
`
`regarding enablement. Appellant argues the concern/issue raised by the examiner does not relate to
`
`the claimed invention. Itis unclear how the concern/issue raised is not related to the claimed invention
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 14
`
`when they involved the specifics of how the claimed methodis carried out. Appellant states that
`
`appellant does not claim tobe in possessionthe baseline of hardness. However, the baseline of the
`
`hardness is a criticalelement. How does one know to increase the hardness if there is no knowledge of
`
`the hardness to start out.
`
`On page 25 of the appeal brief, appellant argues the skilled artisan could certainly acquire a
`
`number of chews and determine a harder, hardness of a second printed food when the number of
`
`chewsis less thana target number. This argument lacks persuasive reasoning and only bases on
`
`attorney’s conclusion. First of all, one does not even know what the target number of chewsis. Thus, it
`
`not possible to determine a harder hardness of a second printed food based on number of chews. Also,
`
`the hardness of a food is relative when there is no objective parameter todefine hardness. What
`
`hardness is one aiming for and how does one know that such hardness is reached when printing the
`
`second food. The instant specification does not give any guidance on how hard is appropriate hardness
`
`for the second printed food and how does one determine such hardness from the number of chew.
`
`On pages 25-25, appellant argues numerous prophetic examples are set forth. Appellant points
`
`to decreasing a number of holes, varying a hardness of layers and/or adjusting a baking temperature
`
`would surely change the hardness of a printed food within the level of the skilled artisan. This argument
`
`is not persuasive. Paragraph 0036 discloses the second hardness can be changed such as increasing or
`
`decreasing the number of holes. However, the specification does not disclose the cause of the holes
`
`and how the holes can be increased or decreased and how much ofan increase or decrease is needed.
`
`Thereis no disclosure of any formulation for the food.
`
`It is unclear what the food is made of. Thereis
`
`no disclosure of ingredients or any composition. Paragraph 0042 discloses the hardness can be adjusted
`
`by controlling or specifying the temperature. However,it is a general disclosure without any specific
`
`teaching. There is no definite disclosure that adjusting a baking temperature would surely change the
`
`hardness of a printed food because there is no disclosure of formulation for the foods. Thus, it is not
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 15
`
`known if adjusting a baking temperature would surely change the hardness. It is not clear what varying a
`
`hardness of layers encompassesor how the variationis obtained. The specification generally discloses a
`
`computer programmingto print the food. But, there is no teaching of how the data inputted is used to
`
`form the food. Thereis not a single example in the specification to demonstrate howthe methadis
`
`carried out. Appellant argues the disclosure provides numerous methodologies for sensing the
`
`chewing/swallowing information, determining the number of chewsandincreasing the hardness of the
`
`second printed food. This argument is not persuasive. The sensing of the chewing/swallowing
`
`information is only one stepin the method. There is no teaching of how the sensing is used to make the
`
`food. For instance,if one user is a 5 years old, how does the sensingdiffer if the one user is 80 years
`
`old. There is no teaching of correlation between the chewing/swallowingoffirst printed food and the
`
`hardness of the second printed food. There is no teaching of how to makethefirst food; how hard does
`
`it have to be. What is the base line for hardness of the first printed food. What are the formulations for
`
`the first printed food and second printed food. Appellant argues that the claims not require such
`
`correlation. However, without the teaching of the correlation, how does oneskilled in the art make the
`
`food. For instance, how hard does one makethe first food.
`
`If the chewing/swallowingis 18 times, how
`
`hard is the second food need to be. How does one know when sufficient hardness is reached? If the
`
`chewing/swallowingis 19, or 20, or 21 etc.., howis hardness adjusted. The specification discloses
`
`generalsteps without any specific disclosure for one skilled in the art to carry out the method. There
`
`are no examples. Nothing is disclosed on ingredients or formulations for the food. The specification
`
`describes that the food material is made of gelled food material or paste. But, there is no teaching of
`
`what formulations to use to make gelled food or pasta. It is not known what will constitute gelled food.
`
`The specification does not give any example. Appellant argues that the features as claimed would not
`
`require undue experimentation for the skilled artisan. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth
`
`above, the specification does not provide any direction on manyaspects of the claimed method. One
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 16
`
`skilled in the art can obtained the sensing/swallowing data. But, once the data is obtained, there is no
`
`specific teachings of how the data is used to obtain the foods.
`
`On page 27 of the appeal brief, appellant makes the same argumentfor claim 1. The argument
`
`is not persuasive for the same reasonas for claim 2. Appellant comments that the office action does
`
`not even set forth any rejection of claims 3-21. The claims are rejected as set forth in the rejection.
`
`Appellant does not argue the specifics of claims 3-21.
`
`On page 31 of the appeal brief, appellant argues claims 1-21 are not directed to abstract idea.
`
`Appellant states none of the first printed food, the sensing device which acquires the chewing
`
`information of the user, the number of chews madeby the one user within the swallow cycle duration,
`
`the second printed food nor the transmission of the print control information to the food printer via the
`
`network is abstract. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to a method which
`
`give general outline of steps without any limitation of the specificity of the method steps. Thus, the
`
`claimed method is an abstract idea. The only