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 –
(a1) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-3, 9-12, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Stoeckli et al. (US 4815959).
Regarding claim 1, Stoeckli discloses
An even speed device (apparatus, fig.1) for a food forming apparatus, comprising: a plate body (bowl 20, fig.1), comprising a plurality of penetrating holes (holes 28, fig.1) for allowing dough to move from a first side (top side) to a second side (bottom side) of the plate body (bowl 20) through the plurality of penetrating holes (holes 28);
wherein arrangement of the plurality of penetrating holes (holes 28, fig.1) at respective locations on the plate body (bowl 20, fig.1) is adjusted according to a penetrating speed of the dough at a location of each of the penetrating holes (holes 28) [holes 28 is adjusted according to the rotation of handle 24, fig.1].
PNG
media_image1.png
544
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Stoeckli discloses
a hole wall (combination of holes 28 and blade 32, fig.1) of each of the plurality of penetrating holes (holes 28, fig.1) possesses an angle, and the angle is between 0 degree and 70 degrees [each hole 28 possesses an angle at least 0 degree].
Regarding claim 3, Stoeckli discloses
the angle is adjusted according to a penetrating speed of the dough at a location of each of the penetrating holes (holes 28, fig.1) [the angle is adjusted according to the rotation of handle 24, fig.1].
Regarding claim 9, Stoeckli discloses
cross-sectional areas of the plurality of penetrating holes (holes 28, fig.1) on the second side are all equal.
Regarding claim 10, Stoeckli discloses
A food forming apparatus (apparatus, fig.6), comprising:
a feeding area (FA, annotated figure below), employed to feed dough;
a conveying area (CA, annotated figure below), connected to the feeding area (FA) to convey the dough; and
a forming area (FOA, annotated figure below), connected to the conveying area (CA), comprising an even speed device (apparatus, fig.4) and a food shaping mold (container 102, fig.6), wherein the dough is pushed to pass through the even speed device (apparatus, fig.4) and the food shaping mold (container 102) in sequence;
wherein the even speed device (apparatus, fig.4) comprises a plate body (feed cylinder 62, fig.6), and the plate body (feed cylinder 62) comprises a plurality of penetrating holes (dispensing holes 88, fig.6) for allowing the dough to move from a first side (top side) to a second side (bottom side) of the plate body (feed cylinder 62) through the plurality of penetrating holes (dispensing holes 88);
arrangement of the plurality of penetrating holes (holes 28, fig.1) at respective locations on the plate body (bowl 20, fig.1) is adjusted according to a penetrating speed of the dough at a location of each of the penetrating holes (holes 28) [holes 28 is adjusted according to the rotation of crank 89, fig.1].
PNG
media_image2.png
595
785
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Stoeckli discloses
a hole wall (combination of wall 56 and dispensing holes 88) of each of the plurality of penetrating holes (dispensing holes 88, fig.6) possesses an angle, and the angle is between 0 degree and 70 degrees [each hole 88 possesses an angle at least 0 degree].
Regarding claim 12, Stoeckli discloses
the angle is adjusted according to a penetrating speed of the dough at a location of each of the penetrating holes (dispensing holes 88, fig.6) [the angle is adjusted according to the rotation of crank 89, fig.6].
Regarding claim 18, Stoeckli discloses
cross-sectional areas of the plurality of penetrating holes (dispensing holes 88, fig.6) on the second side are all equal.
Regarding claim 19, Stoeckli discloses
the even speed device (apparatus, fig.4) and the food shaping mold (container 102, fig.6) are arranged in close contact with each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoeckli et al. (US 4815959) in view of Schaaf (US 5567463).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Stoeckli discloses substantially all the features as set forth above, such as the plurality of penetrating holes, but does not disclose cross-sectional areas of the plurality of penetrating holes on the first side are larger than cross-sectional areas of the plurality of penetrating holes on the second side.
Schaaf discloses an apparatus (apparatus, fig.6A) comprises cross-sectional areas of the plurality of penetrating holes (matrix of holes 122, fig.6A) on the first side are larger than cross-sectional areas of the plurality of penetrating holes (matrix of holes 122) on the second side.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify a plurality of penetrating holes of Stoeckli’s invention, by using plurality of penetrating holes with cross-sectional areas of the plurality of penetrating holes on the first side are larger than cross-sectional areas of the plurality of penetrating holes on the second side, as taught by Schaaf, in order to change the shape of dough.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as the following reasons:
The applicants argue: “…Applicant respectively submits that independent Claims 1 and 10 recite limitations that have not been taught, suggested or motivated by Stoeckli et al. (US 4815959) in view of Schaaf (US 5567463). Amended Claims 1 and 10 recite, in part: “…arrangement of the plurality of penetrating holes at respective locations on the plate body is adjusted according to a penetrating speed of the dough at a location of each of the penetrating holes …”, Remark Pages 5-8.
The examiner’s response: the applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the task of 102 rejections is “a claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference”. Verdagaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,631,2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). In this case, the prior art Stoeckli discloses all the limitations as cited in claims and 10, such as a plate body (bowl 20, fig.1); a plurality of penetrating holes (holes 28, fig.1)… With respect to the limitation “arrangement of the plurality of penetrating holes at respective locations on the plate body is adjusted according to a penetrating speed of the dough at a location of each of the penetrating holes“, it can be broadly read by as arrangement of the plurality of holes can be adjusted that based on a penetrating speed of the dough. In this case, in the figs.1 or 6, plurality of holes 28 or 88 can be adjusted according to the rotation of handle 24 or crank 89, fig.1.
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “…Please refer to paragraph [0032], [0033] and FIG.5 of the present application…”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the limitation “the aforesaid angles that can be employed to adjust the speed of the dough” and “the angles of the penetrating holes and the arrangement in different locations are further adjusted to deal with different dough properties by the arrangement of the penetrating holes” are not recited in the present claim(s).
It is suggested that applicant to amend the independent claim(s) by including the limitation “the angles of plurality of penetrating holes that being employed to adjust the speed of the dough”, in order to overcome the prior art of record.
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 extension fee 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 PHUONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1834. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00am-5.00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on 571-270-5095. 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.
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
01/11/2026
Prosecution Insights