Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
As a result of the amendments to the claim, the 112(a) rejections over claims 1, 4-13 and 15 have been withdrawn.
The prior art has been maintained. See Response to Arguments.
Claims 1, 6-16 are currently pending in this Office Action. Claims 14 and 16 have been withdrawn due to being drawn to the non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 8-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolla (US 2015/0313264) in view of Emerton (Ricotta and Egg Raviolo with Browned Butter, themarybuffet.com), Rowe (US 2018/0103651), Napoleon (NPL reference- HOW TO USE A BURGER PRESS TO MAKE PERFECT STUFFED BURGERS, YouTube video published Jan 4, 2018) and How2Heroes (Spinach, Ricotta & Egg Yolk Raviolo, Youtube.com).
It is noted that the reference characters within parentheses are being construed as having no effect on the scope of the claim. “Generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim” See MPEP 608.01(m).
Regarding Claim 1, Bolla discloses a method of making fresh filled pasta, comprising the steps of:
a) preparing a first sheet of fresh pasta (sheet 4) and laying the first sheet on a flat support (see Fig. 4);
b) depositing a first dose of a first food filling (D1) on said first sheet (see 5 of Fig. 1B);
c) depositing a second dose (D2) of a second food filling different than the first food filling on said first dose of the first food filling (see 6 of Fig. 1B);
d) preparing a second sheet of fresh pasta and laying said second sheet over said first sheet, said first dose, and said second dose of filling (envelope 2, see Fig. 1B),
e) joining said first sheet and said second sheet along a substantially continuous peripheral edge (peripheral edge C) of predetermined shape corresponding to a desired finish product shape (paragraph 48-49);
f) cutting said sheets joined along said peripheral edge to obtain a desired type of fresh filled pasta (paragraph 49).
Bolla further teaches a first filling (meat, fish, eggs, cold cuts, cereals, protein-and-fat-based substances, see paragraph 34), and a second filling in a liquid or gel state (cheese, sauces, see paragraph 34), but is silent to specifically reciting a first filling of said first dose is in a shape-memory pasty state, a step of plastically deforming said first dose to form a single-side upwardly open cavity thereon for receiving and holding said second dose in the liquid or gel state without the second dose overflowing from or leaking out of said upwardly open cavity, wherein said step of g) plastically deforming said first dose is carried out by shaping said first dose with a punch having a bottom end whose shape mates that of said upwardly open cavity and whose size is smaller than that of said first dose, said punch comprising a rotating device to rotate the punch about a vertical axis and also comprises an oscillating device to rotate the punch about a horizontal axis, to reduce the tendency of the punch to adhere to the first dose and removing the first dose from said first sheet and wherein said plastic deformation is carried out on said first dose prior to cooking; wherein said shaping is carried out in a continuous process while keeping said flat support substantially horizontal at a fixed height and imparting a vertical downward movement to said punch by means of a drive device to form said single-side upwardly open cavity.
As to the particular states of the first and second dose, Emerton is relied on to also disclose a fresh-filled pasta product having a first sheet (bottom pasta sheet), a second sheet (top pasta sheet), a first dose (ricotta, see first image on page 2), and a second dose (egg yolk, see second image on page 2), wherein the first dose is in a shape memory pasty state (ricotta) and is plastically deformed to have an upwardly open cavity (“Make a small well”, page 2), and wherein the second dose is in a liquid state (egg yolk). Since both Bolla and Emerton are directed to ravioli products having two distinct food ingredients that are unmixed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the first and second food dose such that the first dose is a shape-memory pasty food product to support a second dose that is in a liquid state, based on flavor preferences.
As to wherein said step of plastically deforming said first dose is carried out by interaction of said first dose with a punch having a bottom end whose shape mates to that of said permanent cavity and whose size is smaller than that of a plan shape of said first dose, it is noted that Emerton’s teaching of making a well within the ricotta cheese large enough to hold an egg yolk suggest using some form of a shaping device such that the well would have mated with the shaping device and would have necessarily included at least some vertical and horizontal movement, and whose shape is smaller than the overall shape of the pasta sheet (see image, page 2). In which case, Rowe is relied on to teach a process of molding a bun to form an upwardly open cavity to contain a liquid-like filling such as sloppy joe filling (see abstract). The bun shape is configured using a punch (i.e. bun press, paragraph 27) having a bottom that mates to the bun and is smaller than the shape of the bun to contain the liquid filling within the cavity thereby reducing mess (see paragraph 19-20). Therefore, since both Bolla in view of Emerton and Rowe discloses the combination of two food materials where a liquid is placed within a cavity of another food product, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form an upwardly open cavity in the first dose using a punch to neatly contain the second dose of filling for the purpose of containing the liquid ingredient.
Emerton further teaches wherein said interaction occurs while keeping said flat support substantially horizontal at a fixed height and imparting a vertical downward movement to said punch to form a single-side upwardly open cavity (see image on page 2 where the pasta sheet with the first dose filling is on a flat surface). Rowe is also further relied on to teach wherein said interaction occurs while keeping said flat support substantially horizontal at a fixed height and imparting a vertical downward movement to said punch to form a single-side upwardly open cavity (see Fig. 2B which is a side view thereby indicating a vertical downward movement, hence “press”).
As to the limitation of wherein said punch comprises a rotating device to rotate the punch about a vertical axis and also comprises an oscillating device to rotate the punch about a horizontal axis, to reduce tendency of the punch to adhere to the first dose and removing the first dose from said first sheet, Napoleon is relied on to teach a punch that is utilized on food products to produce a cavity therein for receiving additional ingredients (i.e. stuffed burgers). The punch (seen in step 3, page 3) presses onto the food product to form an upwardly open cavity, and is removed by “gently twist[ing] the handle to release the meat and reveal the depression to be filled” (step 4, page 4). Since Napoleon is also directed to applying a punch to a moldable food product to form a cavity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rotate the punch about its vertical axis, i.e. twisting, for the purpose of separating the punch from the molded food product. How2Heroes is also relied on to teach a method of forming a fresh filled pasta (similar to Emerton’s method) which involves using a spoon to form an upwardly open cavity on a shape-memory pasty food product (spinach ricotta), and similarly depositing an egg yolk into the cavity formed therein. The spoon in this case uses both a vertical and horizontal motion to form the cavity (see Frame 1 and Frame 2 which shows the spoon moving horizontally). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in to impart both a vertical and horizontal motion on the punch device used to form the openly upward cavity to sufficiently form a cavity for placing an egg yolk therein.
As to the limitations of being a continuous process by means of a drive device, the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04.III). Since the combination of Bolla, Emerton, and How2Heroes similarly produces a fresh filled pasta comprising a first dose having an upwardly open cavity to receive a second dose, the manual activity taught by the prior art is construed to accomplish the same result. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the necessary devices to achieve similar upwardly open cavities based on engineering design choices.
Regarding Claim 8, Bolla is silent to further comprising: step h) depositing a third dose (D3) of a filling (3') other than said second filling (4) and other than or the same as said first filling (3) on said second dose (D2) so as to entirely cover said second dose (D2). However, since Bolla already discloses a first and a second dose, further comprising a third dose would have been a duplication of parts based on desired food preferences. That is, since Bolla explicitly desires multiple food ingredients having distinct heterogeneity (paragraphs 8 and 21), to provide a third dose of a food product different from the first and second dose would have been an obvious matter of choice. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (See MPEP 2144.04.VI.B).
Regarding Claim 9, Bolla further teaches wherein said first dose (D1) in the pasty state is deposited on said first sheet by extrusion (paragraph 64).
Regarding Claim 10, Bolla further teaches wherein said second dose (D2) is deposited by extrusion (see paragraph 64). Since Bolla also teaches depositing the second dose concentrically above the first dose (see Fig. 1B), Bolla necessarily teaches extruding the second dose into the cavity of the first dose in view of the modification with respect to Emerton.
Regarding Claim 11, Bolla further teaches wherein said first filling in the pasty state is obtained by mixing together at least one of the materials selected from the group consisting of: meat, fish, eggs, cheese, vegetables, cereals, protein-based substances, fat-based substances, seasonings, flavors and sauces (paragraph 34).
Regarding Claim 12, Bolla further teaches a second filling in the liquid state (cheese, sauces, see paragraph 34) but is silent to specifically reciting a liquid or gel extracts or concentrates of food products selected from the group consisting of: mushrooms, truffles, herbs, spices, meat, fish, cheese, wine, spirits, distillates, fruit and fruit-based preparations. Emerton is relied on to teach a filling for a ravioli product comprising white truffle oil, which is construed to be a liquid extract of truffles (see ingredient list, page 1). Therefore, since Emerton is also directed to ravioli fillings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate white truffle oil based on flavor preference. Note that Bolla does not distinguish which ingredients are to be solely the first dose or the second dose (paragraph 34), therefore, it would have been within the teachings of Bolla to interchangeably use any of the suitable ingredients as either the first or second dose.
Regarding Claim 13, Bolla further teaches a second filling in the liquid state (sauces, see paragraph 34) but is silent to specifically reciting wherein said second filling (4) in the liquid state comprises a liquid carrier, having dispersed therein in which ingredients selected from the group consisting of: truffles, saffron threads, caviar, sturgeon roe, lumpfish roe, salmon roe, trout roe and botargo. Emerton is relied on to teach a filling for a ravioli product comprising ricotta cheese and white truffle oil(see ingredient list, page 1). In this case, the ricotta cheese is construed to be a liquid carrier, and the truffle oil is construed to be dispersed therein (“combine ricotta, egg yolks, truffle oil, salt and pepper and mix well”, first step, page 2). Therefore, since Emerton is also directed to ravioli fillings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the combination of ricotta cheese and truffle oil in a second liquid filing such as sauce based on flavor preference. Note that Bolla does not distinguish which ingredients are to be in the first dose or the second dose (paragraph 34), therefore, it would have been within the teachings of Bolla to interchangeably use any of the suitable ingredients as either the first or second dose.
Regarding Claim 15, Bolla further teaches wherein said fresh pasta is: ravioli, cappelletti, tortelli, or panzerotti (see abstract).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Hartmut (DE 102011106282- see machine generated translations).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination is silent to wherein said punch (7) is lubricated with non-stick liquids. Hartmut discloses a multi-component food, including pasta (see page 2, 11th paragraph), where a punch is utilized to impart a cavity within a food product (stamp, see page 5, 8th paragraph), wherein the punch is coated with oil which functions as a release agent (page 5, sixth paragraph). Therefore, since both Hartmut and Rowe are directed to imparting a cavity within a moldable food product, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to coat the punch with non-stick liquid such as oil for the purpose of providing a release agent and prevent sticking between the stamp and the foodstuff.
Alternatively, Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Hansen et al. (US 7,335,013).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination is silent to wherein said punch (7) is heated to reduce adherence of the punch (7) to said first dose (D1). Hansen discloses a device for forming molded food products where a punch (knock out cups) comes into contact with the food product, wherein the punch is configured to heat via a heating element 160 to prevent food products from sticking to the punch (Col. 13, Ln. 24-29).
Since both Rowe and Hansen utilizes a press that comes into contact with the food product, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat the punch taught by Rowe for the purpose of preventing food products from sticking to the punch.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Romano (US 2015/0296842 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination is silent to wherein said shaping of said first dose is carried out with said punch having a rod with a plurality of weights whose weight is adjusted according to the shaping required with the first dose of the first filling. Romano is relied on to teach a press configured to compress a portion of a food item to deform the food item (see abstract). The press of Romano similarly punches into a dose of food to form a single-side upwardly facing cavity (see Fig. 3D which illustrates a food “bowl”, paragraph 35). Romano discloses a press comprising a rod (guide rod 412) and a plurality of weights (weight member 413) which is adjusted according to the interaction required with the first dose (“the mass of the weight member 413 could be increased or decreased as appropriate.” paragraph 73). Note that the fact that the weight can be increased or decrease suggest that there is a “plurality” of weights.
Since Romano is also directed to forming a single-side upwardly facing cavity within a food material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pressing means taught by Romano to sufficiently provide the desired pressing effect. The weight member allows the press to function as intended, when merely dropped form a suitable position (see paragraph 41 of Romano).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument in the response filed 2 Dec 2025 has been considered, but is found not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues that Emerton does not teach the step of plastically deforming a first dose to form a single-side upwardly open cavity thereon for receiving and holding a second dose by means of a drive device (page 10-12 of the remarks). Applicant asserts that the images of Emerton shows non-uniform cavities and thus are not made with a forming tool. Applicant submits that the Office Action fails to provide objective evidence to support conclusion of inherency. The argument is not persuasive because the fact that the cavities of Emerton are not uniform is not sufficient to support that no forming tool is being used because the forming is done manually where variations is expected. Furthermore, the Action is not relying on inherency and solely on the Emerton reference; rather, the rejection is based on the combination of Bolla, Emerton, Rowe, and Napoleon as set forth in the Office Action above. That is, Emerton explicitly recites “Make a small well, large enough to hold an egg yolk” thus suggesting one of ordinary skill in the art to form a cavity, whether it is with a utensil or by hand. Even if the well is form by the user’s hand, the forming constitutes a manual activity that can be automated; therefore, when combining with the Bolla reference directed to an automated process of forming a shaped food product, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of determining a forming device to achieve a cavity similar to a cavity form by a hand, as seen in the Rowe and Napoleon references.
Applicant also argues that there is no reason to combine the automated process of Bolla with the manual processes of Emerton, How2Heroes, Rowe, and Napoleon (page 13 of the remarks). The argument is not persuasive because all automated processes are necessarily derived from manual processes. That is, automated processes are designed to achieve a product similar to a product that has been manually formed at a large scale. This is evidenced by the fact that Bolla is directed to an automated process of making a stuffed ravioli product (see abstract); however, raviolis have long been known before the Bolla reference and also have been made manually. Therefore, there is no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be influenced by the teachings of manual processes that form a similar product. For these reasons, the prior art has been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0346. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights