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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the conical bores of claim 6, and the round cheese mold of claim 9, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–3 and 6–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadler et al. (US Pat. 2,942,983) in view of Waldburger (US Pub. 2019/0191659, “Waldburger-2019”).
Claim 1: Sadler discloses a press cover (30) of a cheese mould (21), wherein the press cover has a cross-section corresponding to an interior cross-section of the cheese mould (evident from figs. 1 or 2) and has a one-walled perforated plate (30) having a plurality of perforations (visible in figs. 1 and 2; see also col. 3, lns. 68–69, “perforated follower 30”), wherein the perforated plate is a perforated sheet (see figs. 1 or 2) made of metal (col. 2, lns. 45–46, “a perforated stainless steel follower”).
Sadler does not disclose its perforated plate having a circumferential bent rim bent in a pressing direction.
However, Waldburger-2019 discloses a press cover for a cheese mold (1) having a circumferential rim (14) bent in a pressing direction (¶ 31, “a rim 14 facing towards the cheese mould (FIG. 2)”). Like Sadler, Waldburger discloses its press cover having a plurality of perforations (11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have naturally understood that the bent circumferential rim of Waldburger-2019 would help guide material through the perforations in the press, and would have found it obvious to incorporate the bent rim of Waldburger-2019 into Sadler’s plate for that reason.
Claim 2: Sadler discloses that the press cover is made of steel (col. 2, lns. 45–46, “a perforated stainless steel follower”).
Claim 3: Sadler discloses that the steel is a stainless steel (col. 2, lns. 45–46, “a perforated stainless steel follower”).
Claim 6: Sadler may not explicitly disclose that the perforations of the plurality of perforations are formed as cylindrical, conical, or stepped bores.
However, given the clear round shape shown in the figures, as well as the ¼ inch diameter ascribed to the similar holes of at least the form (col. 3, lns. 17–19), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Sadler clearly suggested a cylindrical perforation.
Claim 7: Sadler does not disclose that each perforation of the plurality of perforations has a hole diameter of 0.6–1.2 mm and wherein the perforations of the plurality of perforations are arranged at a distance of 2–3 mm from each other. Instead, Sadler discloses different values (diameter of 6.35 mm, distance of 63.5 mm, see col. 3, ll. 17–19 showing these values in inches).
However, Waldburger-2019 discloses that each perforation of its plurality of perforations has a hole diameter of 0.6–1.2 mm (¶ 31, “the hole diameter is 0.4–1.0 mm”) and wherein the perforations of the plurality of perforations are arranged at a distance of 2–3 mm from each other (¶ 17, “the individual holes are arranged at a distance of 2–5 mm from each other”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the diameter and distance of Sadler with those values taught by Waldburger-2019 since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that they would be more suitable for pressing certain different types of cheese.
Claim 8: Modified as per claim 1 above, Waldburger-2019 does not disclose that the circumferential bent rim has a height of 8–10 mm. Waldburger-2019 only discloses that its perforated plate wall thickness is approximately 3 mm (¶ 31).
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine, by routine experimentation, the height of the rim that would offer adequate encouragement of material through the perforations without changing too much of the flat plate portion so that that part can be used easily for manipulation from above.
Claim 9: Sadler discloses a combination comprising the press cover according to Claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above) and a cheese mould (21) configured for engaging the press cover, wherein the cheese mould has a base and side walls (see either fig. 1 or 2), and wherein the cheese mould is round or polygonal (the figures show a polygonal mould).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadler in view of Waldburger-2019 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Waldburger (CH 709104 A2, “Waldburger-CH”).
Claim 4: Sadler does not disclose that on a perforated sheet side facing away from the pressing direction, at least three hooks are arranged along a press ring or close to a longitudinal axis of the press cover.
However, Waldburger-CH discloses a similar press cover (1), wherein on a sheet side facing away from the pressing direction, at least three hooks (3) are arranged along a press ring (see figs. 2 and 4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the hooks of Waldburger-CH to the press cover of Sadler to allow it to be manipulated by a press star (as shown in Waldburger) or similar means.
Claim 5: Sadler and Waldburger-CH do not disclose that perforations of the plurality of perforations are provided on the perforated sheet except for in regions of the perforated sheet in which the at least three hooks are arranged, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange Sadler modified by Waldburger-CH such that holes were absent where the hooks are arranged to allow a plain surface so that the hook eyelets 4 of Waldburger-CH can be attached without difficulty.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadler in view of Waldburger-2019 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Waldburger (US Pub. 2014/0087045, “Waldburger-2014”) and Waldburger (US Pub. 2015/0059593, “Waldburger-2015”).
Sadler does not disclose that at least two polygonal cheese moulds are arranged as a cassette, the cheese moulds connected by means of a cover sheet and transverse ribs arranged close to the base, and wherein the cassette further has longitudinal ribs on the base and/or casing ribs in the region of the side walls.
However, cheese mould cassettes are well-known.
Waldburger-2014 discloses at least two polygonal cheese moulds (4) arranged as a cassette (3), transverse ribs being arranged close to the base (labeled as 3 in fig. 1).
Waldburger-2015 shows cheese mould connected by means of a cover sheet (4, shown only in the round mould embodiment of fig. 2, but also applicable to polygonal moulds as per ¶ 30 “round or angled molds”), and wherein the cassette further has longitudinal ribs on the base and/or casing ribs in the region of the side walls (17 and 18, see ¶ 38 and fig. 3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the cassette and its associated elements from Waldburger-2014 and Waldburger-2015 with Sadler’s perforated press cover to join the convenience of simultaneous mould usage with the whey discharge perforations of Sadler.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadler in view of Waldburger-2019, Sudmalis et al. (US Pub. 2013/0216691), and Bryce et al. (US Pub. 2010/0294138)
Sadler discloses a cheese mold made of metal (col. 2, l. 37, “stainless steel”; this mold is not positively recited by this claim) and comprising a one-walled perforated plate (30),
Sadler does not disclose its one-walled perforated plate having a circumferential, bent rim bent in a pressing direction.
However, Waldburger-2019 discloses a press cover for a cheese mold (1) having a circumferential rim (14) bent in a pressing direction (¶ 31, “a rim 14 facing towards the cheese mould (FIG. 2)”). Like Sadler, Waldburger discloses its press cover having a plurality of perforations (11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have naturally understood that the bent circumferential rim of Waldburger-2019 would help guide material through the perforations in the press, and would have found it obvious to incorporate the bent rim of Waldburger-2019 into Sadler’s plate for that reason.
Neither Sadler nor Waldburger-2019 discloses producing its plate by deep-drawing. Instead, Waldburger-2019 discloses its (plastic) plate being produced by milling (¶ 34).
However, using deep-drawing to form a rim is well-known in the art. Sudmalis discloses an example of a structure including a plate (12) with a rim-like structure (14) formed by deep-drawing (¶ 23, “the bottom 12 and the outwardly-angled sides 14 of the pan 11 are formed by deep-drawing an appropriately-sized sheet of metal”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the bent rim of Waldburger-2019 into the metal plate of Sadler using the deep-drawing taught by Sudmalis as a known and effective means for doing so, and as part of retaining the material strength advantage that Sadler’s metal would have over Waldburger’s plastic.
Sadler does not disclose that a plurality of perforations are worked into the perforated sheet.
However, is well-known to produce perforations in a sheet by working them into a sheet, as for example shown in Bryce (see ¶ 31 describing how holes in a sheet may be formed by “drilling”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the perforations of the sheet of Sadler by working (i.e. drilling) them, as taught by Bryce, as a known and effective means of doing so.
Comment: Sudmalis et al. (US Pub. 2013/0216691) also likely renders obvious claims 1 and 11. Its pan 11 has a rim 14 formed by deep-drawing (¶ 23). It also discloses forming its own perforations (¶ 23). The handles 18 prevent it from being used as a press cover of a cheese mold, but it’s overwhelmingly likely that the pan 11, rim 14, and holes 24 are formed before attaching the handles 18. Sudmalis is also effective evidence that deep-drawing is known to produce a piece with a bent rim that is substantially polygonal.
Conclusion
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 John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761