Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
As a result of the amendments to the claim, the 112(b) rejection over Claims 1-7 have been withdrawn.
All rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro et al. (US 6,709,256).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Tashiro discloses a method of forming a food product comprising:
supplying a bar-like food item (see abstract) from a supply device downwardly through a shutter device (shutter members 11) onto a support member (food-receiving apparatus 17), the shutter device including a plurality of shutter pieces capable of opening and closing (first control motor m1 to open and close the plurality of shutter, see abstract), the shutter device and the support member being vertically movable (see Col. 7 ln. 40-44),
supporting the bar-like food item by the support member (see 17 of Fig. 2), and
closing the plurality of shutter pieces to cut the bar-like food item (as per Claim 5, see Col. 1, ln. 65-Col. 2, ln. 4).
Tashiro does not specifically recite: before said supplying process, determining a vertical movement model pattern of the support member, calculating an uppermost position of the support member with an arithmetic equation including a target weight of the food product and a thickness of the shutter piece, and determining a vertical movement trajectory of the support member by fitting the calculated uppermost position with the vertical movement model pattern. However, Tashiro is directed to a support member and shutter pieces that are both vertically movable, and also contemplates adjusting the operation to respond to variations in production (see Col. 7, ln. 19-35). Also, since Tashiro is directed to a process of forming a food-product of a particular shape formed by shutter pieces, the uppermost position of the support member would have been routinely determined based the amount of food, and the thickness of the shutter piece, because the amount of food would have directly determined the size of the final product. This is evident by Fig. 3C which depicts the movement of the conveyor thus showing a determination of a lowermost point and an uppermost point. In any case, it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the uppermost position of the support member based on the desired serving portion size. The determination would have necessarily involved at least some arithmetic equation to determine a distance that results in a food product having a desired size.
Regarding Claim 4, Tashiro further teaches the selected vertical-movement model pattern, and the vertical-movement trajectory are readably stored as one memory group (Col. 2, ln. 37-40). Tashiro does not specifically recite storing the target weight, the thickness of the shutter piece, and the maximum stroke of the support member; however, since the vertical-movement trajectory would have been indirectly dependent on the size of the food being cut, and the thickness of the shutter, the target weight and the thickness of the shutter pieces would have necessarily been a factor in determining the vertical-movement model pattern. In any case, since Tashiro already comprise a memory device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to store additional information used to determine the vertical-movement model pattern based on engineering design choice.
Regarding Claim 7, Tashiro does not specifically recite further comprising; comparing the target weight with an actual weight of the food product, and adjusting a supply amount of the bar-like food item supplied from the supply device so that the difference between the target weight and the actual weight is reduced. However, the limitation is merely reciting a method of optimization through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A). In this case, since Tashiro is already concerned with adjustable components to account for variations during processing (Col. 7, Ln. 19-35), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have also adjusted the components to achieve a formed food product having a desired portion size. In other words, when the final products do not meet the required specifications, it would have been reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the apparatus to arrive to the desired portion size. Note that the limitation of Claim 7 is necessarily met if the target weight and the actual weight are the same.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tada et al. (WO 2019/031558 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Tada discloses a method of forming a food product comprising:
supplying an outer material (sheet-like outer covering material DD, see page 7, second to last paragraph) of a food item from a supply device downwardly through a shutter device (cutting device 15) onto a support member (See Fig. 7a, 7b, and 7c, where 47 is the support member), the outer material having an upper surface onto which an inner material has been disposed (solid S, see page 8, fifth paragraph), the shutter device including a plurality of shutter pieces capable of opening and closing (page 4, fourth paragraph), the shutter device and the support member being vertically movable (“movable up and down”, page 4, fourth paragraph, and page 8, second to last paragraph),
supporting the outer material from its lower side by the support member (see 47 of Fig. 7b), and
by closing the plurality of shutter pieces to seal a periphery of the outer material above the inner material (as per claim 6, see Fig. 7c), so that the food product is formed.
Tada does not specifically recite: before said supplying process, determining a vertical movement model pattern of the support member, calculating an uppermost position of the support member with an arithmetic equation including a target weight of the food product and a thickness of the shutter piece, and determining a vertical-movement trajectory of the support member by fitting the calculated uppermost position with the vertical movement model pattern. However, Tada notes that the device is capable of supplying solid substances one by one or a predetermined amount (see Technical-Field, page 1). Also, Tada teaches a device where both the support member, and the shutter are movable vertically, thereby being capable of making vertical adjustments to accommodate a range of sizes (see page 4, fourth paragraph and page 8, second to last paragraph). Therefore, the uppermost position of the support member would have been routinely determined based the amount of food, and the thickness of the shutter piece, because the amount of food would have directly determined the size of the final product, thereby allowing the shutter pieces to sufficiently seal the outer material around the inner material. In any case, it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the uppermost position of the support member based on a size of the food for the purpose of sealing the outer material around the inner material with accuracy. The determination would have necessarily involved at least some arithmetic equation to determine a distance that results in a food product having a desired size.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art as applied to Claim 1, with respect to Tada et al. or, alternatively, Tashiro et al.
Regarding Claim 2, Tada and Tashiro further teaches wherein the support member has a structural lowest vertical-movement position (see Fig. 5 of Tada and Fig. 2 of Tashiro), wherein when a distance between the uppermost position and the structural lowest vertical-movement position of the support member does not exceed a set maximum vertical stroke, the lowermost position of the support member is determined to be the structural lowest vertical-movement position and fitted with a vertical movement model pattern to determine the vertical movement trajectory that vertically moves the support member between the uppermost position and the lowermost position (see Fig. 3C of Tashiro and Figs 7a-7c of Tada), and wherein when the distance between the uppermost position and the structural lowest vertical- movement position of the support member exceeds the set maximum vertical stroke, the lowermost position of the support member is determined to be a position lowered from the uppermost position by the maximum vertical stroke and fitted with the vertical movement modal pattern to determine the vertical movement trajectory that vertically moves the support member is vertically moved between the uppermost position and the lowermost position. That is, the claim reads on the support member moving vertically between its full range of vertical stroke because the term “when” is construed such that the limitations that follow do not necessarily happen.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tada as applied in Claim 2, further in view of Tashiro et al.
Regarding Claim 4, Tada is silent to wherein the target weight of the food product, the thickness of the shutter piece, the maximum stroke of the support member, the selected vertical-movement model pattern, and the vertical-movement trajectory are readably stored as one memory group. Tashiro teaches the selected vertical-movement model pattern, and the vertical-movement trajectory are readably stored as one memory group (Col. 2, ln. 37-40). Tashiro does not specifically recite storing the target weight, the thickness of the shutter piece, and the maximum stroke of the support member; however, since the vertical-movement trajectory would have been indirectly dependent on the size of the food being cut, and the thickness of the shutter, the target weight and the thickness of the shutter pieces would have necessarily been a factor in determining the vertical-movement model pattern. In any case, since Tashiro already comprise a memory device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to store additional information used to determine the vertical-movement model pattern based on engineering design choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 19 Sep 2025 has been considered, but is not persuasive over the prior art for the following reasons:
Applicant argues that amended Claim 1 specifies the algorithm for positioning the food items. However, the arguments are not persuasive because the claim merely recites “an arithmetic equation” which is not sufficient to overcome the prior art because both Tashiro and Tada have support members with vertical movements that have been determined prior to the process. Therefore, the determined vertical movement would have necessarily involved arithmetic equations to arrive to a vertical movement to achieve the desired bar-like or filled product. In any case, determining the vertical movement pattern would have been an obvious engineering design choice, especially since the prior art achieves a similar formed food product using vertical movements of a support member in sync with a shutter device. For these reasons, the prior art has been maintained.
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 THANH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0346. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792