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 Amendment
In the 8/14/2025 amendment, the following has occurred to the claims:
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 have been amended.
Claims 1-10 remain pending.
All objections, and any rejections under 35 USC 112(b) that aren’t in this present Office Action have been overcome by the Applicant’s response.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and the present rejections to the claims under 35 USC 112(b) being maintained in this instant OA, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the previous rejections to claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 under 35 USC 112(a), the Applicant argues that the specification and drawings of the present application provide sufficient disclosure, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make and/or use the present invention (bottom of page 6 of Remarks).
On pp. 7-8 of the Remarks, the Applicant annotates the Applicant’s Drawings to specifically pinpoint specific claimed elements that pertain to the aforementioned 112(a) rejections. Paragraphs 0031, 0035, 0041, 0042, and 0043 have been cited and quoted throughout the Remarks, which specific portions of each paragraph underlined and/or bolded by the Applicant for emphasis.
The ejector (131) and its claimed function per the rejection of claim 4
Turning to the first 112(a) rejection applied to claim 4 (and 9), the Applicant notes on page 10 of the Remarks that the ejector 131 as shown in Figures 4 and 6B is a “semi-circle element.” It’s noted that the specification is silent to saying anything about the ejector being a “semi-circle element.” Presumably, the structure that arrow 131 points to in Figure 4 is a semi-circle, but this can’t be determined from looking at Figure 6B. Moreover, as was noted in the previous rejection and instant Office Action, the issue with claim 4 lies with not only clearly determining what the structure of the ejector 131 is, but how it functions as claimed. Claim 4 recites (emphasis added): “at least one ejector, where when the first mold is pivoted in the first direction with the at least one second pivot point and/or when the second mold is pivoted in the second direction with the at least one second pivot point, the ejector contacts the stuffing food and protrudes a certain distance from a plane of the first mold and/or the second mold, to push the stuffing food away from the first mold or the second mold.” On page 10 of the Remarks, the Applicant cites paragraphs 0035 and 0041, which state:
PNG
media_image1.png
530
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, it is the Examiner’s position that while it is clear that the ejector’s movement or protrusion is based on the elastic member 133 contacting the adjuster 132 (as the written description says), the written description nor the drawings do not provide any additional detail as to how the ejector 131 is structurally connected to the elastic member 133 and 132, i.e. what is the specific structural mechanism or connection between 131, 132, and 133 that specifically causes ejector 131 to move up and down? At best, paragraph 0041 says “When the elastic member 133 contacts the adjuster 132, the ejector 131 protrudes…” However, the Examiner respectfully takes the position that this disclosure does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For these reasons, the rejection to claim 4 (and 9) under 35 USC 112(a) is respectfully sustained by the Examiner.
The elastic member (133) and its claimed function per the 112(a) and (b) rejections of claims 5 and 10
Similar to the rationale provided with respect to the ejector, above, the cited paragraphs by the Applicant don’t provide adequate disclosure. As mentioned in the previous and instant OA, “The written portion of the specification doesn’t disclose any adequate structure to define what the elastic member is, outside of reciting the phrase ‘elastic member,’ verbatim.” Additionally, “None of the Drawings clearly illustrate a specific mechanism or connection between the elastic element 133, and other structure of the stuffing food forming apparatus, that results in prevention of the ejector from contacting a plane of the wrapping sheet per the elastic member and during a non-unclamping operation, e.g. Figure 5A. Against the only figure that shows or points to elastic member 133 is in Figure 6B, and this is clearly in the claimed second unclamping operation.”
In other words, the Drawings and written description, while it’s clear that there’s some a relationship between the ejector 131, elastic member 133, and adjuster 132 as shown in Figure 4 and described in para. 0035 and 0041, it’s not specifically clear how the ejector is 131 is moving based on its connection to the elastic member and adjuster. For example, is the elastic member a spring? Is it something else that has elastic properties? How does the elastic member keep the ejector from contacting the plane vs. allowing it to protrude out of the plane as recited in claim 5? The Examiner respectfully takes the position that this disclosure does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For these reasons, the rejection to claim 5 under 35 USC 112(a) is respectfully sustained by the Examiner. The same applies to the rejection to claim 5 under 35 USC 112(b).
The adjuster (132) and its claimed function per the rejection of claim 5 and 10
Similar to the rationale provided with respect to the elastic member 133, above, the cited paragraphs by the Applicant don’t provide adequate disclosure
It’s noted that claim 5 (and 10) has been amended to read “an adjuster, employed to contact and push the elastic member to adjust the certain distance that the ejector protrudes from out of the plane of the first mold and/or the second mold to perform the second unclamping operation.
A review of the Applicant’s originally filed Specification shows that there’s only support for the adjuster 132 contacting the elastic member 133, but not the adjuster pushing the elastic member. Therefore, this part of claim 5 is deemed to be new matter since there’s no explicit support, nor any clear illustrate in the drawings or implicit disclosure in the written portion of the specification for the adjuster 132 pushing the elastic member 133.
Furthermore, as noted above, it’s not clear exactly what this elastic member is, per se. As noted above, it’s unclear how the elastic member is able to control the ejector’s protruding movement or distance, and similarly unclear how the adjuster’s contact and pushing mechanism controls what would appear to be a resulting mechanism between the elastic member and the ejector. The Examiner respectfully takes the position that this disclosure does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For these reasons, the rejection to claims 5 and 10 under 35 USC 112(a) are respectfully sustained by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 6, line 2 – “conveying unit… to convey a wrapping sheet…” The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is not explicitly pointed out, i.e. the written portion of the specification only recites “conveying unit” (210) verbatim. Looking to Figure 2, element 210 is a conveyor, as one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize.
Claim 6, line 12 – “a finished product conveying unit… to receive the stuffing food released from the clamping mold.” The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is not explicitly pointed out, i.e. the written portion of the specification only recites “finished product conveying unit” (230) verbatim. Looking to Figure 2, element 230 is a conveyor, as one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize.
Claim 6, line 11 – “a stuffing filling unit, employed to fill a stuffing on the wrapping sheet…” The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is not explicitly pointed out, i.e. the written portion of the specification only recites “stuffing filling unit” (220) verbatim. Looking to Figure 2, element 220 is a funnel or cone shaped hopper, as one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize.
Claim 5, lines 3-7 – “an elastic member, keeping the ejector from contacting a plane of the wrapping sheet from the first mold and the second mold when the first mold is not pivoted in the first direction with the at least one second pivot point and/or the second mold is not pivoted in the second direction with the at least one second pivot point to perform the second unclamping operation.” The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is not explicitly pointed out, nor do the drawings sufficiently illustrate element 133 in Figure 4, to clearly suggest adequate structure that constitutes element 133. Figure 4 of the Drawings filed on 07/03/2022 has poor resolution. Looking at Figure 4 of the certified copy of Foreign Priority Application # TW111204697, filed on 09/07/2022, which has a better resolution; it's still not clear what 133 is. Claim 10 also recites “an elastic member” with the same or similar functional language. The same interpretation and analysis is applied.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the 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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the 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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 4, the following limitation (emphasis added) lacks sufficient written description: “at least one ejector, wherein when the first mold is pivoted in the first direction with the at least one second pivot point and/or when the second mold is pivoted in the second direction with the at least one second pivot point, the ejector contacts the stuffing food and protrudes a certain distance from a plane of the first mold and/or the second mold, to push the stuffing food away from the first mold or the second mold.”
Looking to the Applicant’s Drawings, the ejector is shown as element 131 in Figures 4 and 6B. However, 131’s arrow is pointing to an area that is more or less in the vicinity of where the first and second molds (111 + 112) are positioned. The Drawings don’t adequately illustrate where this ejector is specifically located or connected relative to the other structure of the claimed stuffing food forming apparatus, nor do the Drawings illustrate any contact between the ejector and the stuffing food when the stuffing food is pushed away from the first mold or the second mold. The written portion of the specification, and claim 5, does imply that there’s an elastic member (133) that is responsible for preventing the ejector from contacting the plane of the wrapping sheet when there’s the second unclamping operation. Examiner note: this striken-through portion of the rejection is from the previous Non-Final Rejection of 06/17/2025; Applicant’s Remarks clarify this action by pointing to paragraphs 0035 and 0041 of the Applicant’s Specification. However, as noted above under “Response to Arguments,” the Applicant’s disclosure is still insufficient).
Therefore, it’s the examiner’s position that claim 4 is an attempt to claim subject matter that the Applicant didn’t have possession of at the time of filling. The same rejection and analysis are applied to claim 9 which claims “at least one ejector” with the same or substantially the same limitations.
Moreover, to the extent that the Applicant believes this feature is well-known and doesn’t need to be explained in detail; the examiner notes there’s no IDS or evidence filed with the application that suggests this feature is well-known in the art, nor does it appear that it’s common knowledge that this is a well-known feature in the art.
Regarding Claim 5 (and similarly claim 10), the following limitation lacks sufficient written description: “an elastic member, keeping the ejector from contacting a plane of the wrapping sheet from the first mold and the second mold when the first mold is not pivoted in the first direction with the at least one second pivot point and/or the second mold is not pivoted in the second direction with the at least one second pivot point to perform the second unclamping operation;”. The written portion of the specification doesn’t disclose any adequate structure to define what the elastic member is, outside of reciting the phrase “elastic member,” verbatim. Moreover, looking to the Drawings, the elastic member is element 133 as only shown in Figure 4. 133’s arrow points to what appears to be structure, but what is illustrated looks generic and doesn’t adequately suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art, what that generic looking structure actually is outside of the claim/specification calling it an “elastic member.” Moreover, claim 5 requires that this elastic member functions to keep the ejector from contacting a plane of the wrapping sheet from the first mold and the second mold when the first mold is not pivoted in the first direction with the at least one second pivot point and/or the second mold is not pivoted in the second direction with the at least one second pivot point to perform the second unclamping operation. None of the Drawings clearly illustrate a specific mechanism or connection between the elastic element 133, and other structure of the stuffing food forming apparatus, that results in prevention of the ejector from contacting a plane of the wrapping sheet per the elastic member and during a non-unclamping operation, e.g. Figure 5A. Again, the only figure that shows or points to elastic member 133 is in Figure 6B, and this is clearly in the claimed second unclamping operation.
For the reasons noted above, it is the Examiner’s position that claim 5 is directed to subject matter that the Applicant did not have possession of at the time of filing. The same rejection and analysis are applied to claim 10- which claims “an elastic member” with the same or substantially the same limitations.
Regarding Claim 5 (and similarly claim 10), the limitation “an adjuster employed to contact and push the elastic member to adjust the certain distance that the ejector protrudes out of the plane of the first mold and/or the second mold to perform the second unclamping operation.” has a lack of sufficient written description for the following reasons.
The adjuster of claim 5 is required to functionally adjust the certain distance. The certain distance is introduced in claim 4, which claim 5 depends from, and the certain distance is tied to the amount of distance the ejector protrudes from a plane of the first mold and/or the second mold.
The adjuster is element 132 and illustrated in Figures 4, 5A-5C, and 6A-6B. If the adjuster is responsible for adjusting the certain distance of the ejector protruding, then it is the Examiner’s position that the Drawings and/or written disclosure should show adequate structure and/or have sufficient written description to demonstrate the ejector protruding at varying distances, based on a specific connection or mechanism to the adjuster which is affecting the ejector’s varying distance of protrusion. However, as noted above, it’s not clear where or what the ejector is (i.e. element 131 is only shown in Figure 4). Assuming that there is a connection between the ejector 131, the elastic member 133, and the adjuster 132 (all shown in Figure 4), the disclosure doesn’t adequately describe or illustrate how these elements are cooperating amongst one another to ultimately “adjust the certain distance” as required in claim 5.
For the reasons noted above, it is the Examiner’s position that claim 5 is directed to subject matter that the Applicant did not have possession of at the time of filing. The same rejection and analysis are applied to claim 10 which claims “an adjuster” with the same or substantially the same limitations.
As also noted in the “Response to Arguments” section above, a review of the Applicant’s originally filed Specification shows that there’s only support for the adjuster 132 contacting the elastic member 133, but not the adjuster pushing the elastic member. Therefore, this part of claim 5 is deemed to be new matter since there’s no explicit support, nor any clear illustrate in the drawings or implicit disclosure in the written portion of the specification for the adjuster 132 pushing the elastic member 133.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5’s (and similarly claim 10) limitation “an elastic member, keeping the ejector from contacting a plane of the wrapping sheet from the first mold and the second mold when the first mold is not pivoted in the first direction with the at least one second pivot point and/or the second mold is not pivoted in the second direction with the at least one second pivot point to perform the second unclamping operation;” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
However, as noted by the Examiner above, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The same rejection goes for claim 10.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7 and 8 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Zhixuan machinery (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gW57G9Xkp4) and Zhou et al. (CN 205567614 U, hereinafter Zhou) represents the closest prior art of record to claim 6.
Please note that reference will be made to the attached Chinese to English translation of Zhou.
Regarding Claim 6, Zhixuan machinery discloses a stuffing food forming system, comprising:
a stuffing food forming apparatus, comprising:
a mold frame (see the snag-it, below; 0:17 / 1:46) comprising a first pivot point and two second pivot points (see the snag-it, below; there are at least 4 pivot points);
a clamping mold (see the snag-it, below; 0:12 / 1:46), comprising a first mold and a second mold, see the snag-it, below; 0:32 / 1:46); and
a first driver, driving the first mold to pivot in a first direction with the first pivot point (any of the two molds may be considered the first mold, which clearly pivots at a pivot point with an associated driver as can be seen at approximately the 1 minute mark of the video) and the second mold to pivot in a second direction (see both molds pivoting starting at approximately the 1 minute mark of the video) see the formed stuffing foods produced starting at approximately the 1 minute mark of the video);
and a stuffing filling unit, employed to fill a stuffing on the wrapping sheet (see 1:10 / 1:46; the noted stuffing filling unit is a hopper which is at least considered to be an equivalent to the corresponding structure of the claimed stuffing filling unit, interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) above); and
a finished product conveying unit (see the snag-it below; 0:01 / 1:46), arranged below the stuffing food forming apparatus and employed to receive the stuffing food released from the clamping mold (clearly shown).
0:12 / 1:46
PNG
media_image2.png
714
900
media_image2.png
Greyscale
0:17 / 1:46
PNG
media_image3.png
744
646
media_image3.png
Greyscale
0:01 / 1:46
PNG
media_image4.png
784
838
media_image4.png
Greyscale
0:32 / 1:46
PNG
media_image5.png
804
796
media_image5.png
Greyscale
1 minute mark
PNG
media_image6.png
686
742
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Zhixuan machinery doesn’t disclose or clearly shown in the video the following limitations (as also noted above via strike-through):
1) a conveying unit employed to convey a wrapping sheet
2) wherein the first mold and the second mold are respectively connected to the first pivot point; and
3) that the second mold pivots in the second direction, specifically with the first pivot point.
Rather, the first and second molds in Zhixuan machinery pivot via separate pivot points rather than with the same pivot point, i.e. the claimed “first pivot point.”
Examiner is unable to find any prior art and/or reasonable motivation to modify Zhixuan, so that both the first mold and the second mold are respectively connected to the first pivot point, resulting in the second mold pivoting in the second direction with the first pivot point.
Zhou does disclose a moulding tool (see title) with a first mold (dumpling skin cutter 7) and a second mold (dumpling skin cutter hob 8), the first and second molds connected (at least indirectly) to a first pivot point (rotating shaft 2), resulting in both the first and second molds pivoting in respective directions with (at least indirectly) the first pivot point. However, there’s also a worm wheel (10) engaged with a wheel (11), which is engaged with a handle head 13. The handle head 13 can be rotated clockwise and anti-clockwise. During clockwise rotation of handle head 13, dumping skin cutter hob 8 rotates downwards. During counterclockwise rotation of handle head 13, the dumpling skin cutter 7 rotates downwards. It’s also noted that when the worm wheel 10 rotates to a certain angle per clockwise or anti-clockwise rotation of the handle 13, there is a self-locking function that appears to stop rotation of the skin cutter hob 8, or dumpling skin cutter 7, depending on which one is being rotated. See this below noted section of the translation. 3rd page of the translation.
Zhixuan’s first and second molds (watch the video) are intended to simultaneously rotate in towards one another, not sequentially like Zhou. Modifying Zhixuan’s first and second molds to adopt the aforementioned configuration and function of Zhou would diminish or take away from the principal operation intended in Zhixuan, i.e to make wontons with filling. Zhou’s principal operation is directed to cutting skins for dumplings, not making the end product.
For the reasons above, it is the examiner’s position that there is no prior art of record that can be reasonably combined to arrive at the claimed invention as recited in claim 6.
3rd page of the translation
PNG
media_image7.png
397
860
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance of claims 1-3:
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior art of record is Hashimoto et al. (JP 2003-200472, hereinafter Hashimoto).
Reference is made to the attached English translation of Hashimoto.
Hashimoto discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a mold frame, comprising a first pivot point (pivotal shaft 20c, Figs. 1 and 3);
a clamping mold (split molding die 20, Fig. 4), comprising a first mold (die halve 20a, Fig. 1) and a second mold (die halve 20b, Fig. 1), wherein the first mold and the second mold are respectively connected to the first pivot point and employed to (functionally capable of; “employed” is a limitation directed to function or intended use) carry a wrapping sheet (see the open configuration of the split molding die 20 in Figure 3, which holds molded product A. It’s the examiner’s position that a wrapping sheet could take the place of molded product A and therefore 20 could be employed to carry a wrapping sheet, like a wonton or eggroll wrap).
a first driver (die clamping device 40, Figs. 1 and 3), employed to drive the first mold (e.g. 20a) to pivot in a first direction (see the transition between Figs. 1 and 3) with the first pivot point and the second mold (e.g. 20b) to pivot in a second direction (see the transition between Figs. 1 and 3) with the first pivot point (see the abstract – “a die clamping device 40 for moving the molding die 20… to a mold clamping position and a mold opening position…), so that the wrapping sheet is subjected to a first clamping operation (Fig. 1) to be closed to form a stuffing food (a wrapping sheet with pork could clearly be placed between dies 20a and 20b as shown in Figure 3 and subjected to a clamping operation as shown in Figure 1. This would form a dumpling wrapped with pork, or “stuffed food.”)
Hashimoto doesn’t disclose that the mold frame also comprises “at least one second pivot point,” and at least one second driver, employed to drive the first mold to pivot in the first direction with the at least one second pivot point and/or the second mold to pivot in the second direction with the at least one second pivot point to perform a second unclamping operation.
For example, looking to the Applicant’s Drawings, the clamping operation is shown in Figures 5A-5C. There are two molds 111 and 112 which rotate in opposite directions towards each other to clamp or form a sandwich as shown in Figure 5C. This clamping operation and motion of the two molds is the same or very similar to what Hashimoto discloses (i.e. comparing Figs. 1 and 3 of Hashimoto to Figs. 5A-5C of the Applicant’s invention). However, during the claimed unclamping operation, the molds 111 and 112 continue to rotate in the same direction per a second driver and second pivot point (see Figures 6A-6C of the Applicant’s Drawings). This doesn’t occur in Hasihimoto. Rather, looking at Figure 3 of Hashimoto, in order to unclamp, rotation has to occur in directions opposite to the directions during the clamping operation as shown in Figure 1.
Examiner is unable to find any prior art and/or reasonable motivation to modify Hashimoto to arrive at the aforementioned limitations that are lacking in Hashimoto.
For the reasons above, claims 1-3 are allowable.
Examiner finds no prior art to reject claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 with prior art; although they have outstanding rejections.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou et al. (CN 222487173U): See figure 1, which is similar to Figure 1A and 1B of Applicant’s Drawings.
Ning et al. (CN 221689914): dumpling maker.
Li (CN 219762348): automatic dumpling machine.
Chi (CN 221265027): dumping machine.
Zhang et al. (CN 222487183): dumping machine.
Zeng (CN 220047088): dumpling toy
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.
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762