DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 9, 10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elayedath et al. US 2020/0267998.
Regarding claim 8, Elayedath discloses a method of producing a dividable dough sheet piece comprising: directing a sheet of dough (100) along a conveyor and both cutting ([0016]), and perforating ([0020], [0029]) the sheet of dough to create a dough sheet piece defined by a perimeter (cut dough piece 125) along with lines of structural weakness within the perimeter of the dough sheet piece ([0016], Fig. 1, 5, 8). Elayedath discloses that the lines of structural weakness include perforations ([0020], [0029]) and define a plurality of sub pieces within the perimeter of the dough sheet piece (Fig. 5, 8)
Elayedath discloses that wherein both the cutting and the perforating the sheet of dough includes cutting the sheet of dough with an outer blade (220) of a rotary cutter, the outer blade extending radially outward from a shaft ([0019]), and perforating the sheet of dough with a plurality of inner blades (221-229) ([0020]) extending from the shaft within the outer blade, to create the lines of structural weakness including the perforations ([0020], [0029]), wherein the cutting and the perforating of the sheet is performed simultaneously (Fig. 1).
While Elayedath does not specifically separate the sub-pieces of dough prior to baking using the structural lines of weakness, Elayedath does disclose that the lines of structural weakness are perforations that allow the baked dough to break along the lines (Fig. 1, 5, 8, [0030]), thus there is some suggestion in Elayedath that the lines of structural weakness which include perforations are configured to facilitate (capable of facilitating) selective separation of the sub-pieces from the dividable dough sheet.
Regarding claim 9, Elayedath discloses that the perimeter is in the shape of a non- polygon (circle) ([0026]).
Regarding claim 10, Elayedath discloses that the perimeter is in the shape of a circle ([0026]).
Regarding claim 13, Elayedath discloses that the plurality of sub-pieces comprises at least 70% of the dough sheet piece (Fig. 1, 5, 8).
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.
Claims 8, 11, 13, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaschke et al. US 6,280,783 in view of Yusufi US 6,562,389 in view of Cronin US 2012/0247302 in view of Cox et al. US 2005/0220961 in view of Linforth US 2006/0019014.
Regarding claim 8, Blaschke discloses a method of producing a dividable dough sheet piece (Fig.1, col. 1, lines 33-36, col. 6, lines 55-58, col. 8, lines 60-65) comprising: directing a sheet of dough along a conveyor; and both cutting and scoring the dough to create a dough sheet piece defined by a perimeter along with lines of structural weakness within the perimeter of the dough sheet piece, where the lines of structural weakness define a plurality of sub-pieces within the perimeter of the dough sheet piece (once a block (of dough) is extruded it travels along a belt conveyor or similar device, and marker rolls and knives can be used to form grooves as the block of dough passes beneath the rolls and knives. Longitudinal grooves or score lines can be provided by the marker rollers while lateral grooves or score lines are made by the knives. The marker rollers and knives can be shaped or configured to match the type of groove or score line desired…optionally either score lines, grooves or combinations thereof can be made, and one of ordinary skill in the art can configure the marker roller surfaces or knife shape to achieve the desired result. The marker rollers and certain knives can be configured to cut the extruded dough slab into blocks of the desired size) (Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 43-65, col. 2, lines 4-10, col. 7, lines 6-10).
Claim 8 differs from Blaschke in the recitation that the cutting and the scoring the sheet of dough includes cutting the sheet of dough with an outer blade of a rotary cutter, the outer blade extending radially outward from a shaft, and scoring the sheet of dough with a plurality of inner blades extending from the shaft within the outer blade, to create the lines of structural weakness, wherein the cutting and the scoring of the sheet of dough is performed simultaneously.
Yusufi discloses a method of producing a dividable dough sheet piece (6) (Fig. 4) comprising: directing a sheet of dough along a conveyor (Fig. 1); and both cutting and providing lines of weakness in the sheet of dough to create a dough sheet piece defined by a perimeter along with lines of structural weakness within the perimeter of the dough sheet piece, where the lines of structural weakness (15) define a plurality of sub-pieces (16) within the perimeter of the dough sheet piece, wherein both the cutting and the providing lines of weakness in the sheet of dough includes cutting the sheet of dough with an outer blade of a rotary cutter (12/13), the outer blade extending radially outward from a shaft (Fig. 2), and creating lines of weakness in the sheet of dough with a plurality of inner blades (14) extending from the shaft within the outer blade (12/13) (Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 1-14), to create the lines of structural weakness, wherein the cutting and the providing lines of weakness in the sheet of dough is performed simultaneously (col. 2, lines 18-28, 52-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Blaschke such that the cutting and the scoring the sheet of dough includes cutting the sheet of dough with an outer blade of a rotary cutter, the outer blade extending radially outward from a shaft, and scoring the sheet of dough with a plurality of inner blades extending from the shaft within the outer blade, to create the lines of structural weakness, wherein the cutting and the scoring of the sheet of dough is performed simultaneously as suggested by Yusufi, in order to increase the efficiency of the cutting and scoring step and thereby substituting one known method of cutting and forming lines of weakness in dough for another known method of cutting and forming lines of weakness in dough in order to suitably perform the cutting and scoring step. It has been held that “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2141.III.B).
The Examiner notes that Blaschke does not limit the particular method of forming the dough sheet piece and the score lines, it is noted that Blaschke discloses that score lines can be made using any apparatus known to those skilled in the art (col. 5, lines 50-51). Yusufi teaches a known method of cutting and forming lines of weakness in a dough sheet to form a dough sheet piece having lines of weakness that define a plurality of sub-pieces and to utilize the method taught by Yusufi for the same purpose of forming a dough sheet piece having lines of weakness that define a plurality of sub-pieces is merely simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.B). " [A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (MPEP 2145.B). Additionally, Yusufi discloses that the method of Yusufi saves time, energy and labor (abstract), and it is noted that simultaneously cutting and forming lines of weakness can be considered to provide the advantage of saving time.
Claim 8 differs from Blaschke in view of Yusufi in the recitation that the method comprises perforating the sheet of dough and that the lines of structural weakness include perforations.
Cronin discloses to a dough piece to pre-portion the dough and discloses that the score line can be a perforated score line (abstract, [0016]). Cronin discloses that the blade that forms the perforated score line includes notches ([0037], Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the scoring step of Blaschke in view of Yusufi such that the plurality of inner blades of Yusufi form lines of weakness that comprise perforations and such that the method comprises perforating the sheet of dough and that the lines of structural weakness include perforations as suggested by Cronin thereby substituting one method of scoring dough to create lines of weakness with another known method of scoring dough to create lines of weakness to obtain the predictable result of providing lines of weakness in order to define a plurality of sub-pieces within the perimeter of the dough sheet piece to allow a consumer to break apart the sub-pieces. It has been held that “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2141.III.B).
Cox provides teaches that it was well known in the art to provide dough in break apart blocks, wherein predetermined dough portions of appropriate size are partially separated by perforations ([0046]). Thus, Cox teaches that it was well known to utilize lines of perforations which are configured to facilitate the selective separation of sub-pieces from a dividable dough.
Linforth also teaches that it was well known to utilize lines of perforations as lines of weakness which are configured to facilitate the selective separation of sub-pieces from a dividable dough imparting score lines (Fig. 1, 2, [0007], [0040]).
Therefore the prior art as a whole recognizes it was well known to utilize lines of perforations as lines of structural weakness which are configured to facilitate the selective separation of sub-pieces from a dividable dough, and since Blaschke already desires for the lines of structural weakness to allow the dough to be selectively separated (col. 2, lines 4-12), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that the lines of structural weakness which include perforations of Modified Blaschke are configured to facilitate the selective separation of sub-pieces from a dividable dough in order to allow the lines of structural weakness to be utilized for the intended purpose in Blaschke.
Regarding claim 11, Modified Blaschke discloses that each of the plurality of sub pieces is substantially polygonal in shape (square) (‘783, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 18-24) (‘389, Fig. 4, Col. 3, lines 2-8).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Blaschke shows that the plurality sub-pieces form the entirety of the dough sheet piece (‘783, Fig. 1) (‘389, Fig. 4) and therefore is considered to teach that the plurality of sub-pieces comprises at least 70% of the dough sheet piece.
Regarding claim 16, Modified Blaschke discloses packaging the dividable dough sheet (‘783, Fig 1, col. 10, lines 22-45).
Regarding claim 21, Blaschke discloses that a perimeter of each of a plurality of sub-pieces can be wholly defined by one or more of the structural lines of weakness (see inner sub pieces (Fig. 3, Fig. 8). Since the claims do not limit the perimeter of every single sub-piece present in the dividable dough sheet piece to be wholly defined by one or more of the structural lines of weakness, Blaschke teaches the claim limitation.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaschke et al. US 6,280,783 in view of Yusufi US 6,562,389 in view of Cronin US 2012/0247302 in view of Cox et al. US 2005/0220961 in view of Linforth US 2006/0019014 in view of Elayedath et al. US 2020/0267998.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Blaschke discloses that the block of dough can have a circular shape (‘783, claim 1, claim 6). Therefore, the perimeter of the dough sheet piece can have the shape of a non-polygon.
Elayedath discloses a method of producing a dividable dough sheet piece comprising: directing a sheet of dough (100) along a conveyor and both cutting ([0016]), and perforating ([0020], [0029]) the sheet of dough to create a dough sheet piece defined by a perimeter (cut dough piece 125) along with lines of structural weakness within the perimeter of the dough sheet piece ([0016], Fig. 1, 5, 8). Elayedath discloses that the lines of structural weakness include perforations ([0020], [0029]) and define a plurality of sub pieces within the perimeter of the dough sheet piece (Fig. 5, 8)
Elayedath discloses that wherein both the cutting and the perforating the sheet of dough includes cutting the sheet of dough with an outer blade (220) of a rotary cutter, the outer blade extending radially outward from a shaft ([0019]), and perforating the sheet of dough with a plurality of inner blades (221-229) ([0020]) extending from the shaft within the outer blade, to create the lines of structural weakness including the perforations ([0020], [0029]), wherein the cutting and the perforating of the sheet is performed simultaneously (Fig. 1). Elayedath discloses that the perimeter is in the shape of a non- polygon (circle) ([0026]). Elayedath discloses that the perimeter is in the shape of a circle ([0026]).
Thus, Elayedath recognizes it was known in the art to provide a dough sheet piece with a perimeter in the shape of a non-polygon by utilizing an outer blade of a rotary cutter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Blaschke such that the perimeter of the dough sheet piece has the shape of a non-polygon as taught by Elayedath, since Blaschke already discloses that the perimeter can be circular, and Elayedath shows it was known in the art to provide a dough sheet piece with a perimeter in the shape of a non-polygon by utilizing an outer blade of a rotary cutter. It has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2141.III.A).
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons given above as for claim 9.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaschke et al. US 6,280,783 in view of Yusufi US 6,562,389 in view of Cronin US 2012/0247302 in view of Cox et al. US 2005/0220961 in view of Linforth US 2006/0019014 in view of Paaskesen US 3,599,579.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 differs from Modified Blaschke in the recitation that each sub-piece of the plurality of sub-pieces is a hexagon. However, Blaschke already discloses that the sub-pieces can take a variety of different shapes (col. 9, lines 14-22) and that the pieces can be in the shape of polygonal shaped portions (Abstract, col. 2, lines 18-26, col. 9, lines 3-10). Yusufi discloses that the pieces 6 of bread contain three rectangular slices and that other sizes and shapes, for example also polygonal, round or the like are conceivable (col. 3, lines 1-8).
Paaskesen discloses forming polygonal shaped dough pieces, in particular hexagonal dough shaped pieces from a dough band advanced on a conveyor (Abstract, col. 1, lines 31-40, col. 3, lines 25-35). Thus, Paaskesen recognizes that a suitable shape for a piece of dough includes a hexagon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Blaschke such that each sub-piece of the plurality of sub-pieces is a hexagon, as suggested by Paaskesen, since Blaschke and Yusufi already discloses that the sub-pieces can take a variety of different shapes and that the pieces can be in the shape of polygonal shaped portions, and Paaskesen shows a known shape for dough pieces includes a hexagon shape. It has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2141.III.A).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaschke et al. US 6,280,783 in view of Yusufi US 6,562,389 in view of Cronin US 2012/0247302 in view of Cox et al. US 2005/0220961 in view of Linforth US 2006/0019014 in view of Ross US 2004/0086601.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 differs from Modified Blaschke in the recitation that the sheet of dough is specifically suitable for making a pizza crust or for making a pie crust. Ross discloses a similar invention as Blaschke and discloses that the sheet of dough is specifically suitable for making a pizza crust or for making a pie crust ([0005], [0006], [0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Blaschke such that the sheet of dough is specifically suitable for making a pizza crust or for making a pie crust as taught by Ross in order to provide the benefits of the invention of Blaschke for other types of dough products.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross US 2004/0086601 in view of Yusufi US 6,562,389 in view of Cronin US 2012/0247302 in view of Cox et al. US 2005/0220961 in view of Linforth US 2006/0019014.
Regarding claim 23, Ross discloses a method of producing and using a dividable dough sheet, the method comprising: directing a sheet of dough along a conveyor ([0039]) and both cutting and scoring the dough to create a dough sheet piece defined by a perimeter along with lines of structural weakness within the perimeter of the dough sheet piece, where the lines of structural weakness define a plurality of sub-pieces within the perimeter of the dough sheet piece (once a block (of dough) is extruded it travels along a belt conveyor or similar device, and marker rolls and knives can be used to form grooves as the block of dough passes beneath the rolls and knives. Longitudinal grooves or score lines can be provided by the marker rollers while lateral grooves or score lines are made by the knives. The marker rollers and knives can be shaped or configured to match the type of groove or score line desired…optionally either score lines, grooves or combinations thereof can be made, and one of ordinary skill in the art can configure the marker roller surfaces or knife shape to achieve the desired result. The marker rollers and certain knives can be configured to cut the extruded dough slab into blocks of the desired size) ([0039]);
Claim 23 differs from Ross in the recitation that the cutting and the scoring the sheet of dough includes cutting the sheet of dough with an outer blade of a rotary cutter, the outer blade extending radially outward from a shaft, and scoring the sheet of dough with a plurality of inner blades extending from the shaft within the outer blade, to create the lines of structural weakness, wherein the cutting and the scoring of the sheet of dough is performed simultaneously.
Yusufi discloses a method of producing a dividable dough sheet piece (6) (Fig. 4) comprising: directing a sheet of dough along a conveyor (Fig. 1); and both cutting and providing lines of weakness in the sheet of dough to create a dough sheet piece defined by a perimeter along with lines of structural weakness within the perimeter of the dough sheet piece, where the lines of structural weakness (15) define a plurality of sub-pieces (16) within the perimeter of the dough sheet piece, wherein both the cutting and the providing lines of weakness in the sheet of dough includes cutting the sheet of dough with an outer blade of a rotary cutter (12/13), the outer blade extending radially outward from a shaft (Fig. 2), and creating lines of weakness in the sheet of dough with a plurality of inner blades (14) extending from the shaft within the outer blade (12/13) (Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 1-14), to create the lines of structural weakness, wherein the cutting and the providing lines of weakness in the sheet of dough is performed simultaneously (col. 2, lines 18-28, 52-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ross such that the cutting and the scoring the sheet of dough includes cutting the sheet of dough with an outer blade of a rotary cutter, the outer blade extending radially outward from a shaft, and scoring the sheet of dough with a plurality of inner blades extending from the shaft within the outer blade, to create the lines of structural weakness, wherein the cutting and the scoring of the sheet of dough is performed simultaneously as suggested by Yusufi, in order to increase the efficiency of the cutting and scoring step and thereby substituting one known method of cutting and forming lines of weakness in dough for another known method of cutting and forming lines of weakness in dough in order to suitably perform the cutting and scoring step. It has been held that “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2141.III.B).
The Examiner notes that Ross does not limit the particular method of forming the dough sheet piece and the score lines, it is noted that Ross discloses that score lines can be made using any apparatus known to those skilled in the art ([0039]). Yusufi teaches a known method of cutting and forming lines of weakness in a dough sheet to form a dough sheet piece having lines of weakness that define a plurality of sub-pieces and to utilize the method taught by Yusufi for the same purpose of forming a dough sheet piece having lines of weakness that define a plurality of sub-pieces is merely simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.B). " [A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (MPEP 2145.B). Additionally, Yusufi discloses that the method of Yusufi saves time, energy and labor (abstract), and it is noted that simultaneously cutting and forming lines of weakness can be considered to provide the advantage of saving time.
Claim 8 differs from Ross in view of Yusufi in the recitation that the method comprises perforating the sheet of dough and that the lines of structural weakness include perforations.
Cronin discloses to a dough piece to pre-portion the dough and discloses that the score line can be a perforated score line (abstract, [0016]). Cronin discloses that the blade that forms the perforated score line includes notches ([0037], Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the scoring step of Ross in view of Yusufi such that the plurality of inner blades of Yusufi form lines of weakness that comprise perforations and such that the method comprises perforating the sheet of dough and that the lines of structural weakness include perforations as suggested by Cronin thereby substituting one method of scoring dough to create lines of weakness with another known method of scoring dough to create lines of weakness to obtain the predictable result of providing lines of weakness in order to define a plurality of sub-pieces within the perimeter of the dough sheet piece to allow a consumer to break apart the sub-pieces. It has been held that “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2141.III.B).
Cox teaches that it was well known in the art to provide dough in break apart blocks, wherein predetermined dough portions of appropriate size are partially separated by perforations ([0046]). Thus, Cox teaches that it was well known to utilize lines of perforations which are configured to facilitate the selective separation of sub-pieces from a dividable dough.
Linforth also teaches that it was well known to utilize lines of perforations as lines of weakness which are configured to facilitate the selective separation of sub-pieces from a dividable dough imparting score lines (Fig. 1, 2, [0007], [0040]).
Therefore the prior art as a whole recognizes it was well known to utilize lines of perforations as lines of structural weakness which are configured to facilitate the selective separation of sub-pieces from a dividable dough, and since Ross already desires for the lines of structural weakness to allow the dough to be selectively separated ([0044]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that the lines of structural weakness which include perforations of Modified Ross are configured to facilitate the selective separation of sub-pieces from a dividable dough in order to allow the lines of structural weakness to be utilized for the intended purpose in Ross.
Regarding the remaining limitations that “when being used in making a pie employing the entire dividable dough sheet piece as a crust for the pie and when being used in making one or more mini-pies, separating one or more of the sub-pieces from a remainder of the dividable dough sheet piece along the one or more lines of structural weakness and employing each of the one or more sub-pieces as a crust for a mini pie”: Ross discloses that the dough can be a pie crust ([0021]) and discloses that the dough can have a filling ([0059], [0063], Fig. 6). Therefore, the dough sheet (where the dough sheet has a filling) as a whole can be considered a pie, and each of the individual pieces can be considered mini-pies. Ross discloses that the dough can be baked and then separated or the dough pieces can be separated and then baked ([0011]). When Ross discloses that the pie crust dough is baked without separating the pieces this suggests “when being used in making a pie employing the entire dividable dough sheet piece as a crust for the pie”. When Ross discloses that the dough pieces can be separated and then baked this suggests “when being used in making one or more mini-pies, separating one or more of the sub-pieces from a remainder of the dividable dough sheet piece along the one or more lines of structural weakness and employing each of the one or more sub-pieces as a crust for a mini pie”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/10/2025 have been considered, however new references have additionally been relied upon to teach the new limitations, the arguments which still apply are addressed below.
On Pgs. 7-8, Applicant argues that lines 520-528 of Elayedath are not designed (e.g. via shapes or sizes or spacings of its depressions) to facilitate the separation of sub-pieces of dough from the dough sheet piece itself.
This argument has not been found persuasive, while Elayedath does not specifically separate the sub-pieces of dough prior to baking using the structural lines of weakness, Elayedath does disclose that the lines of structural weakness are perforations that allow the baked dough to break along the lines (Fig. 1, 5, 8, [0030]), thus there is some suggestion in Elayedath that the lines of structural weakness are configured to facilitate (capable of facilitating) selective separation of the sub-pieces from the dividable dough sheet.
On Pgs. 9-10 of the remarks Applicant argues that Cronin does not disclose lines of structural weakness configured to facilitate separation of dough sub-pieces but rather lines of structural weakness designed to facilitate separation of baked dough pieces at the point of consumption.
While it is acknowledged that Cronin teaches separating the dough sub-pieces after baking, Cronin has still been relied upon for teaching utilizing perforations for forming sub-pieces in the dough and using a blade having notches to do so, and both Cox and Linforth have been additionally been relied upon for teaching utilizing perforations for separating dough pieces which have not been baked. Therefore the prior art as a whole recognizes it was well known to utilize lines of perforations as lines of structural weakness which are configured to facilitate the selective separation of sub-pieces from a dividable dough, and since Blaschke already desires for the lines of structural weakness to allow the dough to be selectively separated (col. 2, lines 4-12), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that the lines of structural weakness which include perforations of Modified Blaschke are configured to facilitate the selective separation of sub-pieces from a dividable dough in order to allow the lines of structural weakness to be utilized for the intended purpose in Blaschke.
Applicant argues that modifying Blaschke/Yusufi in view of Cronin would change the principle of operation of Blaschke Yusufi.
This argument has not been found persuasive, Blaschke does not limit the particular method of forming the dough sheet piece and the score lines, it is noted that Blaschke discloses that score lines can be made using any apparatus known to those skilled in the art (col. 5, lines 50-51). Cronin discloses to a dough piece to pre-portion the dough and discloses that the score line can be a perforated score line (abstract, [0016]). Cronin discloses that the blade that forms the perforated score line includes notches ([0037], Fig. 5). Therefore, since Cronin recognizes a score line can include a perforated score line, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the scoring step of Blaschke in view of Yusufi such that the plurality of inner blades of Yusufi form lines of weakness that comprise perforations and such that the method comprises perforating the sheet of dough and that the lines of structural weakness include perforations as suggested by Cronin thereby substituting one method of scoring dough to create lines of weakness with another known method of scoring dough to create lines of weakness to obtain the predictable result of providing lines of weakness in order to define a plurality of sub-pieces within the perimeter of the dough sheet piece to allow a consumer to break apart the sub-pieces. It has been held that “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2141.III.B). It is noted that Cox and Linforth have been additionally been relied upon for teaching utilizing perforations for separating dough pieces which have not been baked. Thus, utilizing perforations for forming the lines of structural weakness is not seen to change the principle of operation of Blaschke since the dough pieces can be separated. Additionally, the prior art shows it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide lines of perforations as lines structural weakness for facilitating selective separation of sub-pieces of a dough sheet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3,880,030 teaches a rotary cutting and scoring device, US 0825775 shows a rotary cutting device, WO 2006114578 discloses a cutting device.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 5:30.
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.
/A.A/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights