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
The amendment filed 05/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11, 15-16, and 19-25 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/06/2026, except where otherwise stated.
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 1-11, 15-16, and 19-25 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.
Claims 1 and 15 fail to meet the written description requirement. The Applicant’s Specification (Paragraph 0078) states “translating the sensed one or more operational parameters of the dough piece forming device 16 into a predicted physical characteristic (e.g., consistency, thickness, viscosity, etc.) of the dough pieces 80 formed from the dough Jumps 70 in the dough piece forming device 16”. However, no mention is made of using a predictive control model to obtain the physical characteristics, and the Specification fails to state that the “inferred at least one physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to baking” is correlated with “(2) the physical parameters associated with the dough pieces formed by the piece forming device prior to the insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven and detected by at least the first sensor, (3) the target parameters of the baked products, (4) the ambient environmental conditions, and (5) the settings and conditions of the tunnel oven” to generate “a first set of baking parameters of the tunnel oven” as is now required my claims 1 and 15. The Applicant’s Specification states (Paragraph 0079) after obtaining data, “the processor of the control circuit 42 of the controller 40 is programmed to correlate the obtained parameters of the dough pieces 80, target parameters of the baked biscuit products 90, ambient environmental conditions, settings and conditions of the piece forming device 16, and the settings and conditions of the tunnel oven 22.” No mention is made of inferred parameters from a predictive control model using operational parameters of the piece forming device. Consequently, claims 1 and 15 are rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement.
Claims 2-11 are rejected as a result of depending upon rejected claim 1.
Claims 16 and 19-25 are rejected as a result of depending upon rejected claim 15.
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(s) 1-11, 15-16, and 19-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “generate, using the predictive control model prior to the baking, and based on a correlation of: (1) the inferred at least one physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to baking, (2) the physical parameters of the dough pieces formed by the piece forming device prior to the insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven and detected by at least the first sensor, (3) the target parameters of the baked products, (4) the ambient environmental conditions, and (5) the settings and conditions of the tunnel oven” and “control the tunnel oven to run the first set of baking parameters, generated by the controller prior to the baking of the dough pieces, based on a correlation of the obtained electronic data representing the operational parameters of the piece forming device prior to the baking of the dough pieces, the physical parameters of the dough pieces prior to the baking of the dough pieces, the target parameters of the baked products, the ambient environmental conditions, and the settings and conditions of the tunnel oven”. Thus, it is unclear is the baking parameters are generated using “(1) the inferred at least one physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to baking” or “the operational parameters of the piece forming device prior to the baking of the dough pieces” or if two different sets of baking parameters based on different correlations are disclosed. Consequently, claim 1 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 2-11 are rejected as indefinite as a result of depending upon rejected claim 1.
Claim 15 states “generating, using the predictive control model prior to the baking, and based on a correlation of: (1) the inferred at least one physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to baking, (2) the physical parameters associated with the dough pieces formed by the piece forming device prior to the insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven and detected by at least the first sensor, (3) the target parameters of the baked products, (4) the ambient environmental conditions, and (5) the settings and conditions of the tunnel oven a first set of baking parameters of the tunnel oven” and “controlling, via the controller, the tunnel oven to run the first set of baking parameters, generated by the controller based on a correlation, prior to the baking of the dough pieces, of the obtained electronic data representing the operational parameters of the piece forming device detected by at least the first sensor prior to the baking of the dough pieces, the physical parameters associated with the dough pieces, the target parameters of the baked products, the ambient environmental conditions, and the settings and conditions of the tunnel oven”. Thus, it is unclear is the baking parameters are generated using “(1) the inferred at least one physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to baking” or “the operational parameters of the piece forming device prior to the baking of the dough pieces” or if two different sets of baking parameters based on different correlations are disclosed. Consequently, claim 15 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 16 and 19-25 are rejected as indefinite as a result of depending upon rejected claim 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henson (US 3486694 A) in view of Manchuliantsau (US 20190183155 A1), Bufton (US 20130202773 A1), and Minvielle (US 20160350715 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Henson teaches (Col. 1, lines 35-40) an oven control system, for controlling the treatment of a product passing through an oven, such as a baker's oven, in order to obtain desired characteristics of the treated (baked) product. Henson further teaches (Col. 4, lines 4-12, 65-68; Col. 5, lines 1-2; Fig. 6 #101, 103, 124, 125, 126, 127) an embodiment of the invention wherein a sponge mix is prepared by feeding its ingredients through meters 125 controlled by panel 124 to a mixer 126 (where an unshaped mass of dough material in a mixer such as the sponge mix is understood to be a dough lump; and wherein the device understood to be capable of operation multiple times and therefore configured to form dough pieces by reshaping multiple dough lumps when new dough is used in subsequent operations) and thence to a sponge depositor 127 (where the system comprising the meters, mixer, and depositor is understood to be a piece forming device), wherein sponge depositor 127 deposits a portion of sponge (dough piece) as a continuous strip or carpet 102 (dough piece reshaped from dough lump) adjacent the entrance to the oven, which are subsequently conveyed on an endless belt 103 continuously through the oven 101, each portion progressively changing in state as it progresses through the oven until a certain final moisture content and colour of the Swiss roll sponge (baked product) is achieved on completion of the process as each portion leaves the oven (where an oven that conveys a product from an opening to a separate exit is understood to be a tunnel oven comprising at least one section). Furthermore, while the sponge depicted in Figure 6 is a continuous product, individual dough pieces/precursors of the baked products may be made into baked products by the device, where Henson teaches (Col. 3, lines 5-9) bread, biscuits, and the like, may be spaced apart on the conveyor band. Also, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 22-27; Fig. 6 #106) a moisture content sensing device 106 (first sensor) for sensing the moisture content of the sponge (physical parameter of the dough piece) is positioned at the entrance to the oven (prior to insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven and baking of the dough pieces). Additionally, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 13-15; Col. 6, lines 13-15) a control system is provided for the oven which includes a computer 104 (programmable processor) arranged to receive signals from sensing means, wherein in the event of a change in the moisture content of the batter entering the oven the computer can signal for a suitable adjustment to compensate for it. Also, Henson teaches (Col. 5, lines 4-17) computer 104 is arranged to control the ingredients and nature of mixing via the metering devices 125 (where the system comprising the meters, mixer, and depositor is understood to be a piece forming device), and the type and time of mixing employed (operational parameters of the piece forming device). Since computers operate by transmission and storage of electronic data, the use of a computer to control operational parameters of the piece forming device inherently requires obtaining electronic data representing operational parameters of the piece forming device. Henson further teaches (Col. 6, lines 3-5) indicators may be associated with the control circuits to indicate the operating and desired (preset) values including moisture content and colour (electronic data representing target parameters of the baked products to be manufactured from the dough pieces in the tunnel oven). In addition, Henson teaches (Col. 4, line 34-37, 48-49; Fig. 6 #108, 114) humidity inside the oven is measured by a humidity indicator 108 which sends an output signal to the computer 104, and temperature sensitive elements 114 located in the oven are connected to the computer 104 (obtaining electronic data representing settings and conditions of the tunnel oven). Henson further teaches (Col. 4, lines 69-75; Col. 5, lines 1-4, 23-25; Col. 6, lines 10-15) computer 104 controls the humidity and temperature within the baking chamber (settings and conditions of the tunnel oven), the amount of turbulence or forced convection in the oven, and the time each portion of sponge spends in the oven, i.e., the oven-conveyor speed (first set of baking parameters of the tunnel oven) to maintain the moisture content and colour of the Swiss roll emerging from the oven (target parameters of the baked products), wherein sensing means arranged to measure the moisture content of the strip or carpet of batter before it enters the oven feeds this information to the computer so that in the event of a change in the moisture content of the batter entering the oven the computer can signal for a suitable adjustment to compensate for it. Additionally, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 69-75; Col. 5, lines 1-22) computer 104 controls factors including the aforementioned first set of baking parameters in multiple ways including controlling the ingredients and nature of mixing via the metering devices 125 (where the system comprising the meters, mixer, and depositor is understood to be a piece forming device), and the type and time of mixing employed (operational parameters of the piece forming device), wherein corrections to the operating conditions may take place simultaneously with others under the control of the computer 104 (i.e., obtained electronic data representing the operational parameters of the piece forming device, the parameters of the dough pieces, the target parameters of the baked products, and the settings and conditions of the tunnel oven are correlated to generate the first set of baking parameters). While Henson does not explicitly state that a predictive control model is used, a computer control system that receives inputs and provides corresponding outputs necessarily uses a model (e.g., programmed control logic or mathematical formulae) to produce the outputs based on the inputs. Furthermore, Henson teaches (Col. 5, lines 20-22; Col. 6, lines 10-15) sensing means arranged to measure the moisture content of the strip or carpet of batter before it enters the oven feeds this information to the computer so that in the event of a change in the moisture content of the batter entering the oven the computer can signal for a suitable adjustment to compensate for it, and corrections to the operating conditions may take place simultaneously with others under the control of the computer 104. Thus, Henson discloses both that the computer compensates for changes based on measurements made prior to baking the dough pieces, and that changes to the operating conditions may be made simultaneously with others, thus indicating that generating the baking parameters based on a correlation of the obtained electronic data may occur prior to the baking of the dough pieces, and therefore, Henson is understood to disclose a predictive control model. Also, Henson teaches (Col. 1, lines 37-40) continuously controlling the treatment of a product passing through an oven, such as a baker's oven, in order to obtain desired characteristics of the treated product, and therefore, in a continuous process, the obtaining of electronic data and generation of baking parameters will necessarily occur before baking at least some of the dough pieces being continuously produced and baked.
Henson only discloses detecting one parameter of the dough piece with the first sensor, rather than multiple parameters. Henson is silent on also configuring the first sensor to detect operational parameters of the piece forming device comprising at least one of current, voltage, power, torque, speed, pressure, die roll speed, die roll gap, or knife height of the piece forming device detected during operation of the piece forming device to form the dough pieces, obtaining electronic data representing the operational parameters of the piece forming device detected by at least the first sensor prior to the insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven, applying the operational parameters of the piece forming device detected by at least the first sensor prior to the insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven as inputs to the predictive control model to infer at least one physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to baking, and generating the first set of baking parameters based on a correlation including the inferred at least one physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to baking. Henson is further silent on obtaining electronic data representing the ambient environmental conditions and generating the first set of baking parameters based on a correlation including the ambient environmental conditions.
Manchuliantsau teaches (Paragraph 0007, 0051) systems and methods for system for upcycling solid food wastes and by-products into food-grade nutritional products, wherein a system 200 can include a computing device 120 and one or more sensors for controlling the operation of any or all devices used in system 200, and sensors can measure a conveying speed of the extruder (piece forming device), while computing device 120 can adjust operation of any of pre-processing devices 110, the extruder, or post-processing devices 115 to make sure that the food ingredient 135 is of predetermined quality or has predetermined parameters, such as, that it became sterile and palatable (infer at least one physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to baking). Manchuliantsau further teaches (Paragraph 0050, 0052, 0064) a conveyor may convey the food ingredient from the extruder to the post-processing, wherein the post-processing may include baking.
Bufton teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0048-0051, 0054) a method for the manufacture of a food bar, wherein a foodstuff is extruded onto a moving deposit location, such as a conveyor belt to transport the food bar from the extrusion apparatus (piece forming device) for further processing such as baking. Bufton further teaches (Paragraph 0064) the speed of a conveyer belt should be measured as compared to the speed at which the foodstuff is being extruded, and the relative motion between the deposit location and the extruded strands is significant, since strands moving more quickly than the surface is moving away from deposit location will bend and compact together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson to detect operational parameters including speed of the piece forming device (e.g. in addition to or as a substitute for detection of other operational parameters of the piece forming device disclosed above by Henson) with a sensor prior to insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven, obtain electronic data prior to the insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven of operational parameters including speed, apply the operational parameters of the piece forming device detected by at least the first sensor prior to the insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven as inputs to the predictive control model to infer at least one physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to baking, and generate the first set of baking parameters based on a correlation including the inferred at least one physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to baking in view of Manchuliantsau and Bufton, since each of Henson, Manchuliantsau, and Bufton is directed to an apparatus and method comprising a piece forming device depositing a food item onto a conveyor that conveys the food item to baking, since detecting the speed of a piece forming device prior to the insertion of the dough pieces into a baking device, where effects on physical parameters including sterility and palatability can be inferred from the speed, and controlling operations including baking based on the detected speed with a computing device (which requires obtaining electronic data) is known in the art as shown by Manchuliantsau, since the relative motion between the deposit location and the extruded strands is significant, since strands moving more quickly than the surface is moving away from deposit location will bend and compact together (Bufton, Paragraph 0064), since adjusting the operation of post-processing devices (baking device) with a computing device based on inferred physical parameters of the dough pieces determined using the conveying speed of the extruder will ensure that the food ingredient is of predetermined quality or has predetermined parameters including sterility and palatability (Manchuliantsau, Paragraph 0051), and since failing to account for operational parameters of the piece forming device when generating the baking parameters may lead to undesirable results in the appearance or quality of the dough pieces due to effects like bending resulting from the depositing speed of the piece forming device relative to the conveying speed through the tunnel oven.
Minvielle teaches detecting multiple physical parameters of dough pieces, obtaining electronic data representing ambient environmental conditions, and generating baking parameters based on a correlation including the ambient environmental conditions. Specifically, Minvielle teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0141; Fig. 6 #510, 520, 540) systems and methods managing and using information regarding the nutritional, organoleptic, or aesthetic values of a nutritional substance, wherein a conditioner system 510 receives nutritional substance 520 for conditioning before it is delivered to consumer 540. Minvielle further teaches (Paragraph 0107, 0175; Fig. 6 #570) conditioning protocols include baking, and exemplary conditioning operations including baking bread dough into baked bread with a conditioner 570, which may be a convection oven. Also, Minvielle teaches (Paragraph 0022) information collected by sensors of, or sensors communicating with, a storage and conditioning appliance, can collect all types of physical attribute data of the nutritional substance by sensing a nutritional substance including size, shape, temperature, color, smell, weight data, among others (physical parameters of the nutritional substances/dough pieces). Additionally, Minvielle teaches (Paragraph 0180) sensors may detect parameters of the nutritional substances including weight, starting temperature, moisture, and color, and a controller may vary a recipe based on the sensed parameters. Furthermore, Minvielle teaches (Paragraph 0273) adapting a conditioning protocol 610 to factors including nutritional data, sensed attributes of a specific nutritional substance, and geographic location data (ambient environmental conditions) regarding the location of the food that can be used to determine the ambient pressure, elevation, humidity, or other location based factors that may be relevant to conditioning a nutritional substance 520 and changes in the resulting nutritional, organoleptic, or aesthetic values from conditioning, wherein the data may be provided to controller 530. Additionally, Minvielle teaches (Paragraph 0266, 0275) controller 530 creates, or retrieves from the nutritional substance industry database, adaptive conditioning parameters that are responsive to: the nutritional, organoleptic, and aesthetic value information retrieved from the nutritional substance industry database using the nutritional substance attribute library including adjustments made as necessary for the sensor attribute data and the consumer input obtained through the dynamic nutritional substance menu panel, wherein these adaptive conditioning parameters, also referred to herein as adaptive preparation sequence, are then communicated to the consumer for implementation through the dynamic nutritional substance menu panel, or alternatively, automatically implemented by the controller, or adapted based on feedback from the attribute sensors 591 in the conditioner 57, and mathematical models may be developed based on experimental data for conditioning certain types of foods (i.e., a control model is generated based on correlating electronic data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson to detect multiple physical parameters of the dough piece with the first sensor, obtain electronic data representing the ambient environmental conditions, and generate the first set of baking parameters using a control model based on a correlation including the ambient environmental conditions in view of Minvielle, since both are directed to devices for treating food products including dough products with methods including baking by controlling the treatment process with a controller based on sensed parameters of the food items, since detecting multiple physical parameters of dough pieces, obtaining electronic data representing ambient environmental conditions, and generating baking parameters based using a control model on a correlation including the ambient environmental conditions is known in the art as shown by Minvielle, since certain climates may be more humid or certain geographic locations may have significantly different elevations that substantially affect cooking (Minvielle, Paragraph 0274), since some foods are harder to condition to perfection without sensing the attributes of the actual nutritional substance about to be conditioned (Minvielle, Paragraph 0275), since the location of the conditioner 570 may be utilized to determine the ambient pressure and other characteristics that are important to cooking times (Minvielle, Paragraph 0275), and since some dough pieces may initially differ in multiple physical parameters including moisture, color, temperature, etc. that will affect the resulting baked product if not accounted for.
It is noted that the first sensor detects both operational parameters of the piece forming device and physical parameters of the dough pieces. As shown above, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use sensors to detect both operation parameters of the piece forming device and physical parameters of the dough pieces, where such sensors would be positioned prior to the tunnel oven. Furthermore, making multiple sensors integral would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the use of a one piece construction instead of the multiple sensors disclosed by the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (See MPEP 2144.04 V. B).
Regarding claim 3, Henson teaches (Col. 4, line 34-37, 48-49; Fig. 6 #108, 114) humidity inside the oven is measured by a humidity indicator 108 which sends an output signal to the computer 104, and temperature sensitive elements 114 located in the oven are connected to the computer 104 (settings and conditions of the tunnel oven).
Regarding claim 4, Henson teaches (Col. 6, lines 3-5) indicators may be associated with the control circuits to indicate the operating and desired (preset) values including moisture content and colour (target parameters of the baked products).
Regarding claim 6, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 61-68) computer 104 is also arranged to control a panel 124 (where computers operate by transmitting signals) controlling the ingredients of the mix for the sponge, wherein the sponge mix is prepared by feeding its ingredients through meters 125 controlled by panel 124 (control of meters is understood to comprise control of operational parameters) to a mixer 126 and thence to a sponge depositer 127 (where the system comprising the meters, mixer, and depositor is understood to be a piece forming device) located adjacent the entrance to the oven.
While Henson is silent on operational parameters of the piece forming device comprising at least one of current, voltage, power, torque, speed, pressure, die roll speed, die roll gap, or knife height of the piece forming device detected during operation of the piece forming device to form the dough pieces, as shown above with regard to claim 1, Manchuliantsau teaches (Paragraph 0007, 0051) systems and methods for system for upcycling solid food wastes and by-products into food-grade nutritional products, wherein a system 200 can include a computing device 120 and one or more sensors for controlling the operation of any or all devices used in system 200 (which would include the operational parameters of the piece forming device), and sensors can measure a conveying speed of the extruder (piece forming device), while computing device 120 can adjust operation of any of pre-processing devices 110, the extruder, or post-processing devices 115 to make sure that the food ingredient 135 is of predetermined quality or has predetermined parameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson to control the operational parameters of the piece forming device including speed in view of Manchuliantsau since both Henson and Manchuliantsau teach methods for controlling operation parameters of piece forming devices for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1 (e.g., since the relative motion between the deposit location and the extruded strands is significant, since strands moving more quickly than the surface is moving away from deposit location will bend and compact together) and since using a controller to control operations of the piece-forming device would provide convenience to users and prevent potential errors by human operators.
Regarding claim 15, Henson teaches (Col. 1, lines 35-40) controlling the treatment of a product passing through an oven, such as a baker's oven, in order to obtain desired characteristics of the treated (baked) product. Henson further teaches (Col. 4, lines 4-12, 65-68; Col. 5, lines 1-2; Fig. 6 #101, 103, 124, 125, 126, 127) an embodiment of the invention wherein a sponge mix is prepared by feeding its ingredients through meters 125 controlled by panel 124 to a mixer 126 (where an unshaped mass of dough material in a mixer such as the sponge mix is understood to be a dough lump; and wherein the device understood to be capable of operation multiple times and therefore configured to form dough pieces by reshaping multiple dough lumps when new dough is used in subsequent operations) and thence to a sponge depositor 127 (where the system comprising the meters, mixer, and depositor is understood to be a piece forming device), wherein sponge depositor 127 deposits a portion of sponge (dough piece) as a continuous strip or carpet 102 (dough piece reshaped from dough lump) adjacent the entrance to the oven, which are subsequently conveyed on an endless belt 103 continuously through the oven 101, each portion progressively changing in state as it progresses through the oven until a certain final moisture content and colour of the Swiss roll sponge (baked product) is achieved on completion of the process as each portion leaves the oven (where an oven that conveys a product from an opening to a separate exit is understood to be a tunnel oven comprising at least one section). Furthermore, while the sponge depicted in Figure 6 is a continuous product, individual dough pieces/precursors of the baked products may be made into baked products by the device, where Henson teaches (Col. 3, lines 5-9) bread, biscuits, and the like, may be spaced apart on the conveyor band. Also, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 22-27; Fig. 6 #106) a moisture content sensing device 106 (first sensor) for sensing the moisture content of the sponge (physical parameter of the dough piece) is positioned at the entrance to the oven (prior to insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven and baking of the dough pieces). Additionally, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 13-15; Col. 6, lines 13-15) a control system is provided for the oven which includes a computer 104 (programmable processor) arranged to receive signals from sensing means, wherein in the event of a change in the moisture content of the batter entering the oven the computer can signal for a suitable adjustment to compensate for it. Also, Henson teaches (Col. 5, lines 4-17) computer 104 is arranged to control the ingredients and nature of mixing via the metering devices 125 (where the system comprising the meters, mixer, and depositor is understood to be a piece forming device), and the type and time of mixing employed (operational parameters of the piece forming device). Since computers operate by transmission and storage of electronic data, the use of a computer to control operational parameters of the piece forming device inherently requires obtaining electronic data representing operational parameters of the piece forming device. Henson further teaches (Col. 6, lines 3-5) indicators may be associated with the control circuits to indicate the operating and desired (preset) values including moisture content and colour (electronic data representing target parameters of the baked products to be manufactured from the dough pieces in the tunnel oven). In addition, Henson teaches (Col. 4, line 34-37, 48-49; Fig. 6 #108, 114) humidity inside the oven is measured by a humidity indicator 108 which sends an output signal to the computer 104, and temperature sensitive elements 114 located in the oven are connected to the computer 104 (obtaining electronic data representing settings and conditions of the tunnel oven). Henson further teaches (Col. 4, lines 69-75; Col. 5, lines 1-4, 23-25; Col. 6, lines 10-15) computer 104 controls the humidity and temperature within the baking chamber (settings and conditions of the tunnel oven), the amount of turbulence or forced convection in the oven, and the time each portion of sponge spends in the oven, i.e., the oven-conveyor speed (first set of baking parameters of the tunnel oven) to maintain the moisture content and colour of the Swiss roll emerging from the oven (target parameters of the baked products), wherein sensing means arranged to measure the moisture content of the strip or carpet of batter before it enters the oven feeds this information to the computer so that in the event of a change in the moisture content of the batter entering the oven the computer can signal for a suitable adjustment to compensate for it. Additionally, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 69-75; Col. 5, lines 1-22) computer 104 controls factors including the aforementioned first set of baking parameters in multiple ways including controlling the ingredients and nature of mixing via the metering devices 125 (where the system comprising the meters, mixer, and depositor is understood to be a piece forming device), and the type and time of mixing employed (operational parameters of the piece forming device), wherein corrections to the operating conditions may take place simultaneously with others under the control of the computer 104 (i.e., obtained electronic data representing the operational parameters of the piece forming device, the physical parameters of the dough pieces, the target parameters of the baked products, and the settings and conditions of the tunnel oven are correlated to generate the first set of baking parameters).While Henson does not explicitly state that a predictive control model is used, a computer control system that receives inputs and provides corresponding outputs necessarily uses a model (e.g., programmed control logic or mathematical formulae) to produce the outputs based on the inputs. Furthermore, Henson teaches (Col. 5, lines 20-22; Col. 6, lines 10-15) sensing means arranged to measure the moisture content of the strip or carpet of batter before it enters the oven feeds this information to the computer so that in the event of a change in the moisture content of the batter entering the oven the computer can signal for a suitable adjustment to compensate for it, and corrections to the operating conditions may take place simultaneously with others under the control of the computer 104. Thus, Henson discloses both that the computer compensates for changes based on measurements made prior to baking the dough pieces, and that changes to the operating conditions may be made simultaneously with others, thus indicating that generating the baking parameters based on a correlation of the obtained electronic data may occur prior to the baking of the dough pieces, and therefore, Henson is understood to disclose a predictive control model. Also, Henson teaches (Col. 1, lines 37-40) continuously controlling the treatment of a product passing through an oven, such as a baker's oven, in order to obtain desired characteristics of the treated product, and therefore, in a continuous process, the obtaining of electronic data and generation of baking parameters will necessarily occur before baking at least some of the dough pieces being continuously produced and baked.
Henson only discloses detecting one physical parameter of the dough piece with the first sensor, rather than multiple physical parameters. Henson is silent on the first sensor also detecting operational parameters of the piece forming device comprising at least one of current, voltage, power, torque, speed, pressure, die roll speed, die roll gap, or knife height of the piece forming device detected during operation of the piece forming device to form the dough pieces, obtaining electronic data representing the operational parameters of the piece forming device detected by at least the first sensor prior to the insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven, applying the operational parameters of the piece forming device detected by at least the first sensor prior to the insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven as inputs to the predictive control model to infer at least one physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to baking, and generating the first set of baking parameters based on a correlation including the inferred at least one physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to baking. Henson is further silent on obtaining electronic data representing the ambient environmental conditions and generating the first set of baking parameters based on a correlation including the ambient environmental conditions.
Manchuliantsau teaches (Paragraph 0007, 0051) systems and methods for system for upcycling solid food wastes and by-products into food-grade nutritional products, wherein a system 200 can include a computing device 120 and one or more sensors for controlling the operation of any or all devices used in system 200, and sensors can measure a conveying speed of the extruder (piece forming device), while computing device 120 can adjust operation of any of pre-processing devices 110, the extruder, or post-processing devices 115 to make sure that the food ingredient 135 is of predetermined quality or has predetermined parameters, such as, that it became sterile and palatable (infer at least one physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to baking). Manchuliantsau further teaches (Paragraph 0050, 0052, 0064) a conveyor may convey the food ingredient from the extruder to the post-processing, wherein the post-processing may include baking.
Bufton teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0048-0051, 0054) a method for the manufacture of a food bar, wherein a foodstuff is extruded onto a moving deposit location, such as a conveyor belt to transport the food bar from the extrusion apparatus (piece forming device) for further processing such as baking. Bufton further teaches (Paragraph 0064) the speed of a conveyer belt should be measured as compared to the speed at which the foodstuff is being extruded, and the relative motion between the deposit location and the extruded strands is significant, since strands moving more quickly than the surface is moving away from deposit location will bend and compact together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson to detect operational parameters including speed of the piece forming device (e.g. in addition to or as a substitute for detection of other operational parameters of the piece forming device disclosed above by Henson) with a sensor prior to insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven, obtain electronic data prior to the insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven of operational parameters including speed, apply the operational parameters of the piece forming device detected by at least the first sensor prior to the insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven as inputs to the predictive control model to infer at least one physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to baking, and generate the first set of baking parameters based on a correlation including the inferred at least one physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to baking in view of Manchuliantsau and Bufton, since each of Henson, Manchuliantsau, and Bufton is directed to an apparatus and method comprising a piece forming device depositing a food item onto a conveyor that conveys the food item to baking, since detecting the speed of a piece forming device prior to the insertion of the dough pieces into a baking device, where effects on physical parameters including sterility and palatability can be inferred from the speed, and controlling operations including baking based on the detected speed with a computing device (which requires obtaining electronic data) is known in the art as shown by Manchuliantsau, since the relative motion between the deposit location and the extruded strands is significant, since strands moving more quickly than the surface is moving away from deposit location will bend and compact together (Bufton, Paragraph 0064), since adjusting the operation of post-processing devices (baking device) with a computing device based on inferred physical parameters of the dough pieces determined using the conveying speed of the extruder will ensure that the food ingredient is of predetermined quality or has predetermined parameters including sterility and palatability (Manchuliantsau, Paragraph 0051), and since failing to account for operational parameters of the piece forming device when generating the baking parameters may lead to undesirable results in the appearance or quality of the dough pieces due to effects like bending resulting from the depositing speed of the piece forming device relative to the conveying speed through the tunnel oven.
Minvielle teaches detecting multiple physical parameters of dough pieces, obtaining electronic data representing ambient environmental conditions, and generating baking parameters based on a correlation including the ambient environmental conditions. Specifically, Minvielle teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0141; Fig. 6 #510, 520, 540) systems and methods managing and using information regarding the nutritional, organoleptic, or aesthetic values of a nutritional substance, wherein a conditioner system 510 receives nutritional substance 520 for conditioning before it is delivered to consumer 540. Minvielle further teaches (Paragraph 0107, 0175; Fig. 6 #570) conditioning protocols include baking, and exemplary conditioning operations including baking bread dough into baked bread with a conditioner 570, which may be a convection oven. Also, Minvielle teaches (Paragraph 0022) information collected by sensors of, or sensors communicating with, a storage and conditioning appliance, can collect all types of physical attribute data of the nutritional substance by sensing a nutritional substance including size, shape, temperature, color, smell, weight data, among others (physical parameters of the nutritional substances/dough pieces). Additionally, Minvielle teaches (Paragraph 0180) sensors may detect parameters of the nutritional substances including weight, starting temperature, moisture, and color, and a controller may vary a recipe based on the sensed parameters. Furthermore, Minvielle teaches (Paragraph 0273) adapting a conditioning protocol 610 to factors including nutritional data, sensed attributes of a specific nutritional substance, and geographic location data (ambient environmental conditions) regarding the location of the food that can be used to determine the ambient pressure, elevation, humidity, or other location based factors that may be relevant to conditioning a nutritional substance 520 and changes in the resulting nutritional, organoleptic, or aesthetic values from conditioning, wherein the data may be provided to controller 530. Additionally, Minvielle teaches (Paragraph 0266, 0275) controller 530 creates, or retrieves from the nutritional substance industry database, adaptive conditioning parameters that are responsive to: the nutritional, organoleptic, and aesthetic value information retrieved from the nutritional substance industry database using the nutritional substance attribute library including adjustments made as necessary for the sensor attribute data and the consumer input obtained through the dynamic nutritional substance menu panel, wherein these adaptive conditioning parameters, also referred to herein as adaptive preparation sequence, are then communicated to the consumer for implementation through the dynamic nutritional substance menu panel, or alternatively, automatically implemented by the controller, or adapted based on feedback from the attribute sensors 591 in the conditioner 57, and mathematical models may be developed based on experimental data for conditioning certain types of foods (i.e., a control model is generated based on correlating electronic data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson to detect multiple physical parameters of the dough piece with the first sensor, obtain electronic data representing the ambient environmental conditions, and generate the first set of baking parameters using a control model based on a correlation including the ambient environmental conditions in view of Minvielle, since both are directed to treating food products including dough products with methods including baking by controlling the treatment process with a controller based on sensed physical parameters of the food items, since detecting multiple physical parameters of dough pieces, obtaining electronic data representing ambient environmental conditions, and generating baking parameters using a control model based on a correlation including the ambient environmental conditions is known in the art as shown by Minvielle, since certain climates may be more humid or certain geographic locations may have significantly different elevations that substantially affect cooking (Minvielle, Paragraph 0274), since some foods are harder to condition to perfection without sensing the attributes of the actual nutritional substance about to be conditioned (Minvielle, Paragraph 0275), since the location of the conditioner 570 may be utilized to determine the ambient pressure and other characteristics that are important to cooking times (Minvielle, Paragraph 0275), and since some dough pieces may initially differ in multiple physical parameters including moisture, color, temperature, etc. that will affect the resulting baked product if not accounted for.
It is noted that the first sensor detects both operational parameters of the piece forming device and physical parameters of the dough pieces. As shown above, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use sensors to detect both operation parameters of the piece forming device and physical parameters of the dough pieces, where such sensors would be positioned prior to the tunnel oven. Furthermore, making multiple sensors integral would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the use of a one piece construction instead of the multiple sensors disclosed by the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (See MPEP 2144.04 V. B).
Regarding claim 20, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 61-68) computer 104 is also arranged to control a panel 124 (where computers operate by transmitting signals) controlling the ingredients of the mix for the sponge, wherein the sponge mix is prepared by feeding its ingredients through meters 125 controlled by panel 124 (control of meters is understood to comprise control of operational parameters) to a mixer 126 and thence to a sponge depositer 127 (where the system comprising the meters, mixer, and depositor is understood to be a piece forming device) located adjacent the entrance to the oven.
While Henson is silent on operational parameters of the piece forming device comprising at least one of current, voltage, power, torque, speed, pressure, die roll speed, die roll gap, or knife height of the piece forming device detected during operation of the piece forming device to form the dough pieces, as shown above with regard to claim 1, Manchuliantsau teaches (Paragraph 0007, 0051) systems and methods for system for upcycling solid food wastes and by-products into food-grade nutritional products, wherein a system 200 can include a computing device 120 and one or more sensors for controlling the operation of any or all devices used in system 200 (which would include the operational parameters of the piece forming device), and sensors can measure a conveying speed of the extruder (piece forming device), while computing device 120 can adjust operation of any of pre-processing devices 110, the extruder, or post-processing devices 115 to make sure that the food ingredient 135 is of predetermined quality or has predetermined parameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson to control the operational parameters of the piece forming device including speed in view of Manchuliantsau since both Henson and Manchuliantsau teach methods for controlling operation parameters of piece forming devices for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1 (e.g., since the relative motion between the deposit location and the extruded strands is significant, since strands moving more quickly than the surface is moving away from deposit location will bend and compact together) and since using a controller to control operations of the piece-forming device would provide convenience to users and prevent potential errors by human operators.
Claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henson (US 3486694 A) in view of Manchuliantsau (US 20190183155 A1), Bufton (US 20130202773 A1), and Minvielle (US 20160350715 A1), and further in view of Karwowski (US 20080003340 A1), Faa (US 20060003071 A1), and Addington (US 20050226984 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Henson, as modified above, is silent on the piece forming device including a kibbler, and wherein the controller is operatively coupled to the kibbler to control at least one of current, voltage, power, torque, speed, and pressure of the kibbler.
Karwowski teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0063) production of composite food products, such as snacks and ready-to-eat cereals, wherein dough is passed through a kibbler prior to sheeting so as to eliminate lumps.
Faa teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0018) production of a low carbohydrate sheetable dough, wherein, following mixing, the dough is routed to a Kibbler device that breaks the dough into smaller dough pieces to facilitate sheeting.
Addington teaches (Paragraph 0008, 0030) a method and apparatus for making a snack food product comprising cutting character-shaped forms from a dual-sheeted dough, wherein a computer 20 sends electronic control signals to a cutter assembly 40 to control the rotational speed, position, and cutting pressure of the cylinder cut-outs against the dual-sheeted dough.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson, as modified above to configure the piece forming device to include a kibbler wherein the controller is operatively coupled to the kibbler to control at least one of current, voltage, power, torque, speed, and pressure of the kibbler in view of Karwowski, Faa, and Addington, since each of Henson, Karwowski, Faa, and Addington are directed to dough processing devices, since treating dough with kibblers is known in the art from Karwowski and Faa, since dough shaping devices that have speed and pressure controlled by a controller is known in the art as shown by Addington, since passing dough through a kibbler eliminates lumps (Karwowski, Paragraph 0063), since a kibbler breaks the dough into smaller dough pieces to facilitate sheeting (Faa, Paragraph 0018), since controlling properties such as speed and pressure with the controller removes potential human error and provides convenience in operation, and since controlling speed and pressure can ensure that the dough has desired properties in size, shape, etc.
Regarding claim 16, Henson, as modified above, is silent on the piece forming device including a kibbler, and wherein the controller is operatively coupled to the kibbler to control at least one of current, voltage, power, torque, speed, and pressure of the kibbler.
Karwowski teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0063) production of composite food products, such as snacks and ready-to-eat cereals, wherein dough is passed through a kibbler prior to sheeting so as to eliminate lumps.
Faa teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0018) production of a low carbohydrate sheetable dough, wherein, following mixing, the dough is routed to a Kibbler device that breaks the dough into smaller dough pieces to facilitate sheeting.
Addington teaches (Paragraph 0008, 0030) a method and apparatus for making a snack food product comprising cutting character-shaped forms from a dual-sheeted dough, wherein a computer 20 sends electronic control signals to a cutter assembly 40 to control the rotational speed, position, and cutting pressure of the cylinder cut-outs against the dual-sheeted dough.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson, as modified above to configure the piece forming device to include a kibbler wherein the controller is operatively coupled to the kibbler to control at least one of current, voltage, power, torque, speed, and pressure of the kibbler in view of Karwowski, Faa, and Addington, since each of Henson, Karwowski, Faa, and Addington are directed to dough processing methods, since treating dough with kibblers is known in the art from Karwowski and Faa, since dough shaping devices that have speed and pressure controlled by a controller is known in the art as shown by Addington, since passing dough through a kibbler eliminates lumps (Karwowski, Paragraph 0063), since a kibbler breaks the dough into smaller dough pieces to facilitate sheeting (Faa, Paragraph 0018), since controlling properties such as speed and pressure with the controller removes potential human error and provides convenience in operation, and since controlling speed and pressure can ensure that the dough has desired properties in size, shape, etc.
Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henson (US 3486694 A) in view of Manchuliantsau (US 20190183155 A1), Bufton (US 20130202773 A1), and Minvielle (US 20160350715 A1), and further in view of Rosenbrock (US 5253564 A).
Regarding claim 5, Henson, as modified above, is silent on the at least one section of the tunnel oven including at least one zone independently controllable by the controller.
Rosenbrock teaches (Claims 2-3) a control device for an oven having at least one cooking region, wherein said cooking region comprises a plurality of zones, and each of said zones has at least one respective zone heating means controllable independently of the other said zone heating means. Rosenbrock further teaches (Col. 1, lines 16-20) the invention relates to conveyor ovens, and more particularly to devices for regulating the temperature and product transport speed in the conveyor type ovens typically used in food service and food product manufacturing applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson, as modified above, to provide the at least one section of the tunnel oven with at least one zone independently controllable by the controller, as taught by Rosenbrock, since both are directed to conveyor ovens for heating food products, since providing at least one section of the oven with at least one zone independently controllable by the controller is known in the art as shown by Rosenbrock, since it may be desirable to cook the upper portion or surface of the product at a temperature different from that of the lower portion or surface (Rosenbrock, Col. 1, lines 28-30), since it may also be desirable to cook the product at different temperatures during portions of the cooking cycle (Rosenbrock, Col. 1, lines 30-32), since independently controllable zones provide greater control over the cooking process and the properties of the resulting baked product, and since operating zones at independently allows the temperature at which the product is heated to be adjusted without having to wait for a temperature increase or decrease in the entire section.
Regarding claim 19, Henson, as modified above, is silent on the at least one section of the tunnel oven including at least one zone independently controllable by the controller.
Rosenbrock teaches (Claims 2-3) a method of operating an oven using a control device for an oven having at least one cooking region, wherein said cooking region comprises a plurality of zones, and each of said zones has at least one respective zone heating means controllable independently of the other said zone heating means. Rosenbrock further teaches (Col. 1, lines 16-20) the invention relates to conveyor ovens, and more particularly to devices for regulating the temperature and product transport speed in the conveyor type ovens typically used in food service and food product manufacturing applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson, as modified above, to provide the at least one section of the tunnel oven with at least one zone independently controllable by the controller, as taught by Rosenbrock, since both are directed to methods of operating conveyor ovens for heating food products, since providing at least one section of the oven with at least one zone independently controllable by the controller is known in the art as shown by Rosenbrock, since it may be desirable to cook the upper portion or surface of the product at a temperature different from that of the lower portion or surface (Rosenbrock, Col. 1, lines 28-30), since it may also be desirable to cook the product at different temperatures during portions of the cooking cycle (Rosenbrock, Col. 1, lines 30-32), since independently controllable zones provide greater control over the cooking process and the properties of the resulting baked product, and since operating zones at independently allows the temperature at which the product is heated to be adjusted without having to wait for a temperature increase or decrease in the entire section.
Claim(s) 7-10, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henson (US 3486694 A) in view of Manchuliantsau (US 20190183155 A1), Bufton (US 20130202773 A1), and Minvielle (US 20160350715 A1), and further in view of Dingman (US 20190128743 A1).
Regarding claim 7, as shown above, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 13-15; Col. 6, lines 13-15) a control system is provided for the oven which includes a computer 104 arranged to receive signals from sensing means, wherein in the event of a change in the moisture content of the batter entering the oven the computer can signal for a suitable adjustment to compensate for it. Henson further teaches (Col. 6, lines 3-5) indicators may be associated with the control circuits to indicate the operating and desired (preset) values including moisture content and colour (electronic data representing target parameters of the baked products to be manufactured from the dough pieces in the tunnel oven). In addition, Henson teaches (Col. 4, line 34-37, 48-49; Fig. 6 #108, 114) humidity inside the oven is measured by a humidity indicator 108 which sends an output signal to the computer 104, and temperature sensitive elements 114 located in the oven are connected to the computer 104 (obtaining electronic data representing settings and conditions of the tunnel oven). Henson further teaches (Col. 4, lines 69-75; Col. 5, lines 1-4, 23-25; Col. 6, lines 10-15) computer 104 controls the humidity and temperature within the baking chamber (settings and conditions of the tunnel oven), the amount of turbulence or forced convection in the oven, and the time each portion of sponge spends in the oven, i.e., the oven-conveyor speed (first set of baking parameters of the tunnel oven) to maintain the moisture content and colour of the Swiss roll emerging from the oven (target parameters of the baked products), wherein sensing means arranged to measure the moisture content of the strip or carpet of batter before it enters the oven feeds this information to the computer (electronic data representing the physical parameters of the dough pieces formed by the piece forming device prior to insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven and detected by the first sensor) so that in the event of a change in the moisture content of the batter entering the oven the computer can signal for a suitable adjustment to compensate for it. Thus, Henson discloses that electronic data representing the parameters of the dough pieces formed by the piece forming device and detected by the first sensor, electronic data representing target parameters of the baked products to be manufactured from the dough pieces in the tunnel oven, electronic data representing settings and conditions of the tunnel oven, and electronic data representing the first set of baking parameters generated by the controller is passed to the computer control system, where it is well known that data passed to computers is stored at least temporarily.
Furthermore, as shown above, providing data for multiple physical parameters of the dough piece and data representing ambient environmental conditions to a control system is known in the art from Minvielle, and would be obvious to include with the apparatus of Henson for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1.
Henson, as modified above, does not explicitly state that the above mention types of electric data are stored in an electronic database in communication with the controller.
Dingman teaches (Paragraph 0037; Fig. 1 #106, 108, 124) an intelligent oven wherein a parameter database 124 can be accessed by one or more input devices 108 via a direct connection and/or the one or more networks 104, wherein the parameter database 124 can comprise information relating to one or more bakes performed by the one or more ovens 106, wherein, associated with each identified bake, the parameter database can store baking parameters (settings and conditions of the tunnel oven and baking parameters), item parameters (parameters of the untreated food items), and/or product parameters (target parameters of the baked products), wherein, the term “baking parameter” can refer to one or more settings implemented by an oven 106 during a bake, including, but not limited to: temperature of the oven, duration of the bake, humidity of the oven during the bake, variations in temperature during the bake, whether a quenching process is conducted subsequent to the bake, material details regarding any subsequent quenching process (e.g., a type of coolant used), pressure, flow rate, one or more proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controls, a combination thereof, and/or the like., wherein the term “product parameter” can refer to one or more characteristics (e.g., physical and/or chemical properties) of an item baked in accordance with one or more baking parameters, including, but not limited to: the final temperature of the item at the conclusion of the bake, the hardness of the item subsequent to the bake, the composition of the item (e.g., the molecular alignment elements comprising the item) subsequent to the bake, the amount of heat absorbed by the item during the bake, the rigidity of the item subsequent to the bake, the malleability of the item subsequent to the bake, the size of the item subsequent to the bake, the color of the item subsequent to the bake, the elasticity of the item subsequent to the bake, a combination thereof, and/or the like, and wherein, the term “item parameter” can refer to one or more characteristics (e.g., physical and/or chemical properties) of an item to be baked by a subject oven 106, including, but not limited to: a temperature of the item prior to the bake, the hardness of the item prior to the bake, the composition of the item (e.g., the molecular alignment elements comprising the item) prior to the bake, the rigidity of the item prior to the bake, the malleability of the item prior to the bake, the size of the item prior to the bake, the color of the item prior to the bake, the elasticity of the item prior to the bake, a combination thereof, and/or the like. Dingman further teaches (Paragraph 0038; Fig. 1 #130) the one or more ovens 106 can comprise one or more controllers 130 that can receive baking parameters and/or item parameters from the one or more input devices 108 (the electronic database is in communication with the controller via the input device 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson, as modified above to provide an electronic database in communication with the controller and configured to store electronic data including: the electronic data representing the physical parameters of the dough pieces formed by the piece forming device prior to insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven and detected by at least the first sensor; the electronic data representing target parameters of the baked products to be manufactured from the dough pieces in the tunnel oven; the electronic data representing settings and conditions of the tunnel oven; the electronic data representing ambient environmental conditions; and electronic data representing the first set of baking parameters generated by the controller in view of Dingman since both are directed to oven apparatuses for baking food products according to electronic data provided to controllers, since an electronic database in communication with a controller and configured to store electronic data including: electronic data representing the parameters of the food; electronic data representing target parameters of the baked products; electronic data representing settings and conditions of the tunnel oven; and electronic data representing baking parameters is known in the art as shown by Dingman, since the one or more controllers can adjust one or more settings of the oven in accordance with one or more received baking parameters and/or item parameters (Dingman, Paragraph 0038), thus ensuring improved baking and more accurate or desired results, and storing such data in an electronic database would allow for access in subsequent baking processes to ensure consistent quality, since data stored in the database can be used to determine if a food item has the same parameters as a food item previously baked, and, if so, the same baking parameters can be used without modification (Dingman, Paragraph 0045), providing convenience to the user by removing the need to determine and input settings for the oven, since recommendations for baking can be made based on data stored in the database (Dingman, Paragraph 0050), and since sensor measurements can be compared to stored database information to determine the identity of food items (Dingman, Paragraph 0058).
It is noted that Dingman does not explicitly mention storing ambient environmental conditions, however, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also store such data in an electronic database in communication with the controller, since providing data regarding ambient environmental conditions to a controller is known in the art as shown above by Minvielle, and since such data would also be beneficial to access from a database for similar reasons to the data types disclosed above by Dingman, e.g., for determining the settings of the oven, for making recommendations for the baking process, etc.
Regarding claim 8, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 22-34) sensing means 105 for sensing the moisture content of the Swiss roll sponge at the discharge end of the oven and photoelectric cell 107 which is positioned adjacent the moisture content sensing means 105 and which is adapted to scan across the width of the conveyor band, wherein the photoelectric cell 107 is arranged to produce an output voltage which is dependent upon the colour of the baked Swiss rolls emerging from the oven and which is fed to the computer 104 (i.e., where color and moisture are physical parameters associated with the baked products coming out of the tunnel oven detected by sensing means 105 and 107 (second sensor)). Henson further teaches (Col. 4, lines 13-20) computer 104 is arranged to receive signals from sensing means arranged to sense the final state or condition of the product (obtain electronic data representing the detected parameters associated the baked products coming out of the tunnel oven and detected by the second sensor) and in turn signals if necessary for a change in the various operating conditions of the oven in order to ensure that as the strip or carpet leaves the oven it is the correct desired moisture content and colour (generate a second set of baking parameters of the tunnel oven predicted by the controller to cause the tunnel oven to produce, from the dough pieces inserted into the tunnel oven, the baked products with the target parameters). Additionally, Henson teaches (Col. 5, lines 25-29) any slight changes (the detected physical parameters of the baked products coming out of the tunnel oven do not match the target parameters of the baked products) from the desired moisture content and colour (target parameters of the baked products) are rapidly and automatically corrected by an appropriate change in the supply of gas to the burners, speed of conveyor band, position of dampers or like adjustment (second set of baking parameters). In addition, Henson teaches (Col. 4, line 34-37, 48-49; Fig. 6 #108, 114) humidity inside the oven is measured by a humidity indicator 108 which sends an output signal to the computer 104, and temperature sensitive elements 114 located in the oven are connected to the computer 104 (settings and conditions of the tunnel oven). Additionally, Henson teaches (Col. 6, lines 10-15) sensing means arranged to measure the moisture content of the strip or carpet of batter before it enters the oven (physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to the insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven) feeds this information to the computer so that in the event of a change in the moisture content of the batter entering the oven the computer can signal for a suitable adjustment to compensate for it (i.e., obtained electronic data representing the physical parameters of the dough pieces prior to the insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven, the target parameters of the baked products, and the settings and conditions of the tunnel oven are correlated to generate the first set of baking parameters). While Henson does not explicitly state that a control model is used, a computer control system that receives inputs and provides corresponding outputs necessarily uses a model (e.g., programmed control logic or mathematical formulae) to produce the outputs based on the inputs.
Henson only discloses generating the baking parameters based on one physical parameter of the dough piece prior to the insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven, rather than multiple parameters. Henson is further silent on generating the second set of baking parameters based on a correlation including the ambient environmental conditions.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson in view of Minvielle to generate the second set of baking parameters based on a control model correlating the above mentioned parameters with multiple physical parameters of the dough piece and ambient environmental conditions for substantially the same reasons stated for generating the first set of baking parameters as shown above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 22-34) sensing means 105 for sensing the moisture content of the Swiss roll sponge at the discharge end of the oven and photoelectric cell 107 which is positioned adjacent the moisture content sensing means 105 and which is adapted to scan across the width of the conveyor band, wherein the photoelectric cell 107 is arranged to produce an output voltage which is dependent upon the colour of the baked Swiss rolls emerging from the oven and which is fed to the computer 104 (i.e., where color and moisture are parameters associated with the baked products coming out of the tunnel oven detected by sensing means 105 and 107 (second sensor)).
It is noted that Henson discloses two separate, adjacent sensors for detecting the parameters associated with the baked products coming out of the tunnel oven, rather than a single, integrated sensor. However, the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (See MPEP 2144.04 V. B).
Regarding claim 10, as shown above with regard to claim 8, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 13-20) computer 104 is arranged to receive signals from sensing means arranged to sense the final state or condition of the product (obtain electronic data representing the detected physical parameters associated with the baked products coming out of the tunnel oven and detected by the second sensor) and in turn signals if necessary for a change in the various operating conditions of the oven in order to ensure that as the strip or carpet leaves the oven it is the correct desired moisture content and colour (generate a second set of baking parameters of the tunnel oven predicted by the controller to cause the tunnel oven to produce, from the dough pieces inserted into the tunnel oven, the baked products with the target parameters).,
Henson, does not explicitly state that the electronic data representing the detected physical parameters associated with the baked products coming out of the tunnel oven and detected by the second sensor; and electronic data representing the second set of baking parameters generated by the controller are stored in an electronic database in communication with the controller.
As stated above with regard to claim 7, Dingman teaches (Paragraph 0037; Fig. 1 #106, 108, 124) an intelligent oven wherein a parameter database 124 can be accessed by one or more input devices 108 via a direct connection and/or the one or more networks 104, wherein the parameter database 124 can comprise information relating to one or more bakes performed by the one or more ovens 106, wherein, associated with each identified bake, the parameter database can store baking parameters, and/or product parameters (parameters associated with the baked products coming out of the oven), wherein, the term “baking parameter” can refer to one or more settings implemented by an oven 106 during a bake, including, but not limited to: temperature of the oven, duration of the bake, humidity of the oven during the bake, variations in temperature during the bake, whether a quenching process is conducted subsequent to the bake, material details regarding any subsequent quenching process (e.g., a type of coolant used), pressure, flow rate, one or more proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controls, a combination thereof, and/or the like, and wherein the term “product parameter” can refer to one or more characteristics (e.g., physical and/or chemical properties) of an item baked in accordance with one or more baking parameters, including, but not limited to: the final temperature of the item at the conclusion of the bake, the hardness of the item subsequent to the bake, the composition of the item (e.g., the molecular alignment elements comprising the item) subsequent to the bake, the amount of heat absorbed by the item during the bake, the rigidity of the item subsequent to the bake, the malleability of the item subsequent to the bake, the size of the item subsequent to the bake, the color of the item subsequent to the bake, the elasticity of the item subsequent to the bake, a combination thereof, and/or the like. Dingman further teaches (Paragraph 0038; Fig. 1 #130) the one or more ovens 106 can comprise one or more controllers 130 that can receive baking parameters and/or item parameters from the one or more input devices 108 (the electronic database is in communication with the controller via the input device 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson, as modified above to provide an electronic database configured to store electronic data including: electronic data representing the detected physical parameters associated with the baked products coming out of the tunnel oven and detected by the second sensor; and electronic data representing the second set of baking parameters generated by the controller in view of Dingman since both are directed to oven apparatuses for baking food products according to electronic data provided to controllers, since an electronic database in communication with a controller and configured to store electronic data including: electronic data representing parameters of the baked products and electronic data representing baking parameters is known in the art as shown by Dingman, since the one or more controllers can adjust one or more settings of the oven in accordance with one or more received baking parameters and/or item parameters (Dingman, Paragraph 0038), thus ensuring improved baking and more accurate or desired results, and storing such data in an electronic database would allow for access in subsequent baking processes to ensure consistent quality, since data stored in the database can be used to determine if a food item has the same parameters as a food item previously baked, and, if so, the same baking parameters can be used without modification (Dingman, Paragraph 0045), providing convenience to the user by removing the need to determine and input settings for the oven, since recommendations for baking can be made based on data stored in the database (Dingman, Paragraph 0050), and since sensor measurements can be compared to stored database information to determine the identity of food items (Dingman, Paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 21, as shown above, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 13-15; Col. 6, lines 13-15) a control system is provided for the oven which includes a computer 104 arranged to receive signals from sensing means, wherein in the event of a change in the moisture content of the batter entering the oven the computer can signal for a suitable adjustment to compensate for it. Henson further teaches (Col. 6, lines 3-5) indicators may be associated with the control circuits to indicate the operating and desired (preset) values including moisture content and colour (electronic data representing target parameters of the baked products to be manufactured from the dough pieces in the tunnel oven). In addition, Henson teaches (Col. 4, line 34-37, 48-49; Fig. 6 #108, 114) humidity inside the oven is measured by a humidity indicator 108 which sends an output signal to the computer 104, and temperature sensitive elements 114 located in the oven are connected to the computer 104 (obtaining electronic data representing settings and conditions of the tunnel oven). Henson further teaches (Col. 4, lines 69-75; Col. 5, lines 1-4, 23-25; Col. 6, lines 10-15) computer 104 controls the humidity and temperature within the baking chamber (settings and conditions of the tunnel oven), the amount of turbulence or forced convection in the oven, and the time each portion of sponge spends in the oven, i.e., the oven-conveyor speed (first set of baking parameters of the tunnel oven) to maintain the moisture content and colour of the Swiss roll emerging from the oven (target parameters of the baked products), wherein sensing means arranged to measure the moisture content of the strip or carpet of batter before it enters the oven feeds this information to the computer (electronic data representing the physical parameters of the dough pieces formed by the piece forming device prior to insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven and detected by at least the first sensor) so that in the event of a change in the moisture content of the batter entering the oven the computer can signal for a suitable adjustment to compensate for it. Thus, Henson discloses that electronic data representing the physical parameters of the dough pieces formed by the piece forming device and detected by at least the first sensor, electronic data representing target parameters of the baked products to be manufactured from the dough pieces in the tunnel oven, electronic data representing settings and conditions of the tunnel oven, and electronic data representing the first set of baking parameters generated by the controller is passed to the computer control system, where it is well known that data passed to computers is stored at least temporarily.
Furthermore, as shown above, providing data for multiple physical parameters of the dough piece and data representing ambient environmental conditions to a control system is known in the art from Minvielle, and would be obvious to include with the apparatus of Henson for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1.
Henson, as modified above, does not explicitly state that the above mention types of electric data are stored in an electronic database in communication with the controller.
Dingman teaches (Paragraph 0037; Fig. 1 #106, 108, 124) an intelligent oven wherein a parameter database 124 can be accessed by one or more input devices 108 via a direct connection and/or the one or more networks 104, wherein the parameter database 124 can comprise information relating to one or more bakes performed by the one or more ovens 106, wherein, associated with each identified bake, the parameter database can store baking parameters (settings and conditions of the tunnel oven and baking parameters), item parameters (parameters of the untreated food items), and/or product parameters (target parameters of the baked products), wherein, the term “baking parameter” can refer to one or more settings implemented by an oven 106 during a bake, including, but not limited to: temperature of the oven, duration of the bake, humidity of the oven during the bake, variations in temperature during the bake, whether a quenching process is conducted subsequent to the bake, material details regarding any subsequent quenching process (e.g., a type of coolant used), pressure, flow rate, one or more proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controls, a combination thereof, and/or the like., wherein the term “product parameter” can refer to one or more characteristics (e.g., physical and/or chemical properties) of an item baked in accordance with one or more baking parameters, including, but not limited to: the final temperature of the item at the conclusion of the bake, the hardness of the item subsequent to the bake, the composition of the item (e.g., the molecular alignment elements comprising the item) subsequent to the bake, the amount of heat absorbed by the item during the bake, the rigidity of the item subsequent to the bake, the malleability of the item subsequent to the bake, the size of the item subsequent to the bake, the color of the item subsequent to the bake, the elasticity of the item subsequent to the bake, a combination thereof, and/or the like, and wherein, the term “item parameter” can refer to one or more characteristics (e.g., physical and/or chemical properties) of an item to be baked by a subject oven 106, including, but not limited to: a temperature of the item prior to the bake, the hardness of the item prior to the bake, the composition of the item (e.g., the molecular alignment elements comprising the item) prior to the bake, the rigidity of the item prior to the bake, the malleability of the item prior to the bake, the size of the item prior to the bake, the color of the item prior to the bake, the elasticity of the item prior to the bake, a combination thereof, and/or the like. Dingman further teaches (Paragraph 0038; Fig. 1 #130) the one or more ovens 106 can comprise one or more controllers 130 that can receive baking parameters and/or item parameters from the one or more input devices 108 (the electronic database is in communication with the controller via the input device 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson, as modified above to provide an electronic database in communication with the controller and configured to store electronic data including: the electronic data representing the physical parameters of the dough pieces formed by the piece forming device prior to insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven and detected by at least the first sensor; the electronic data representing target parameters of the baked products to be manufactured from the dough pieces in the tunnel oven; electronic data representing ambient environmental conditions; the electronic data representing settings and conditions of the tunnel oven; and electronic data representing the first set of baking parameters generated by the controller in view of Dingman since both are directed to methods for baking food products in oven apparatuses according to electronic data provided to controllers, since an electronic database in communication with a controller and configured to store electronic data including: electronic data representing the parameters of the food; electronic data representing target parameters of the baked products; electronic data representing settings and conditions of the tunnel oven; and electronic data representing baking parameters is known in the art as shown by Dingman, since the one or more controllers can adjust one or more settings of the oven in accordance with one or more received baking parameters and/or item parameters (Dingman, Paragraph 0038), thus ensuring improved baking and more accurate or desired results, and storing such data in an electronic database would allow for access in subsequent baking processes to ensure consistent quality, since data stored in the database can be used to determine if a food item has the same parameters as a food item previously baked, and, if so, the same baking parameters can be used without modification (Dingman, Paragraph 0045), providing convenience to the user by removing the need to determine and input settings for the oven, since recommendations for baking can be made based on data stored in the database (Dingman, Paragraph 0050), and since sensor measurements can be compared to stored database information to determine the identity of food items (Dingman, Paragraph 0058).
It is noted that Dingman does not explicitly mention storing ambient environmental conditions, however, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also store such data in an electronic database in communication with the controller, since providing data regarding ambient environmental conditions to a controller is known in the art as shown above by Minvielle, and since such data would also be beneficial to access from a database for similar reasons to the data types disclosed above by Dingman, e.g., for determining the settings of the oven, for making recommendations for the baking process, etc.
Regarding claim 22, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 22-34) sensing means 105 for sensing the moisture content of the Swiss roll sponge at the discharge end of the oven and photoelectric cell 107 which is positioned adjacent the moisture content sensing means 105 and which is adapted to scan across the width of the conveyor band, wherein the photoelectric cell 107 is arranged to produce an output voltage which is dependent upon the colour of the baked Swiss rolls emerging from the oven and which is fed to the computer 104 (i.e., where color and moisture are detected physical parameters associated with the baked products coming out of the tunnel oven detected by sensing means 105 and 107 (second sensor)). Henson further teaches (Col. 4, lines 13-20) computer 104 is arranged to receive signals from sensing means arranged to sense the final state or condition of the product (obtain electronic data representing the detected parameters associated with the baked products coming out of the tunnel oven and detected by the second sensor) and in turn signals if necessary for a change in the various operating conditions of the oven in order to ensure that as the strip or carpet leaves the oven it is the correct desired moisture content and colour (generate a second set of baking parameters of the tunnel oven predicted by the controller to cause the tunnel oven to produce, from the dough pieces inserted into the tunnel oven, the baked products with the target parameters). Additionally, Henson teaches (Col. 5, lines 25-29) any slight changes (the detected parameters of the baked products coming out of the tunnel oven do not match the target parameters of the baked products) from the desired moisture content and colour (target parameters of the baked products) are rapidly and automatically corrected by an appropriate change in the supply of gas to the burners, speed of conveyor band, position of dampers or like adjustment (second set of baking parameters). In addition, Henson teaches (Col. 4, line 34-37, 48-49; Fig. 6 #108, 114) humidity inside the oven is measured by a humidity indicator 108 which sends an output signal to the computer 104, and temperature sensitive elements 114 located in the oven are connected to the computer 104 (settings and conditions of the tunnel oven). Additionally, Henson teaches (Col. 6, lines 10-15) sensing means arranged to measure the moisture content of the strip or carpet of batter before it enters the oven (physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to the insertion of the dough pieces into the tunnel oven) feeds this information to the computer so that in the event of a change in the moisture content of the batter entering the oven the computer can signal for a suitable adjustment to compensate for it (i.e., obtained electronic data representing the parameters of the dough pieces, the target parameters of the baked products, and the settings and conditions of the tunnel oven are correlated to generate the first set of baking parameters). While Henson does not explicitly state that a control model is used, a computer control system that receives inputs and provides corresponding outputs necessarily uses a model (e.g., programmed control logic or mathematical formulae) to produce the outputs based on the inputs.
Henson only discloses generating the baking parameters based on one physical parameter of the dough piece, rather than multiple physical parameters. Henson is further silent on generating the second set of baking parameters based on a correlation including the ambient environmental conditions.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson in view of Minvielle to generate the second set of baking parameters based on a control model correlating the above mentioned parameters with multiple physical parameters of the dough piece and ambient environmental conditions for substantially the same reasons stated for generating the first set of baking parameters as shown above with regard to claim 15.
Regarding claim 23, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 22-34) sensing means 105 for sensing the moisture content of the Swiss roll sponge at the discharge end of the oven and photoelectric cell 107 which is positioned adjacent the moisture content sensing means 105 and which is adapted to scan across the width of the conveyor band, wherein the photoelectric cell 107 is arranged to produce an output voltage which is dependent upon the colour of the baked Swiss rolls emerging from the oven and which is fed to the computer 104 (i.e., where color and moisture are parameters associated with the baked products coming out of the tunnel oven detected by sensing means 105 and 107 (second sensor)).
It is noted that Henson discloses two separate, adjacent sensors for detecting the parameters associated with the baked products coming out of the tunnel oven, rather than a single, integrated sensor. However, the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (See MPEP 2144.04 V. B).
Regarding claim 24, as shown above with regard to claim 22, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 13-20) computer 104 is arranged to receive signals from sensing means arranged to sense the final state or condition of the product (obtain electronic data representing the physical parameters associated with the baked products coming out of the tunnel oven and detected by the second sensor) and in turn signals if necessary for a change in the various operating conditions of the oven in order to ensure that as the strip or carpet leaves the oven it is the correct desired moisture content and colour (generate a second set of baking parameters of the tunnel oven predicted by the controller to cause the tunnel oven to produce, from the dough pieces inserted into the tunnel oven, the baked products with the target parameters).,
Henson, as modified above, does not explicitly state that the electronic data representing the detected physical parameters of the baked products coming out of the tunnel oven and detected by the second sensor; and electronic data representing the second set of baking parameters generated by the controller are stored in an electronic database.
As stated above with regard to claim 21, Dingman teaches (Paragraph 0037; Fig. 1 #106, 108, 124) an intelligent oven wherein a parameter database 124 can be accessed by one or more input devices 108 via a direct connection and/or the one or more networks 104, wherein the parameter database 124 can comprise information relating to one or more bakes performed by the one or more ovens 106, wherein, associated with each identified bake, the parameter database can store baking parameters, and/or product parameters (parameters associated with the baked products coming out of the oven), wherein, the term “baking parameter” can refer to one or more settings implemented by an oven 106 during a bake, including, but not limited to: temperature of the oven, duration of the bake, humidity of the oven during the bake, variations in temperature during the bake, whether a quenching process is conducted subsequent to the bake, material details regarding any subsequent quenching process (e.g., a type of coolant used), pressure, flow rate, one or more proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controls, a combination thereof, and/or the like, and wherein the term “product parameter” can refer to one or more characteristics (e.g., physical and/or chemical properties) of an item baked in accordance with one or more baking parameters, including, but not limited to: the final temperature of the item at the conclusion of the bake, the hardness of the item subsequent to the bake, the composition of the item (e.g., the molecular alignment elements comprising the item) subsequent to the bake, the amount of heat absorbed by the item during the bake, the rigidity of the item subsequent to the bake, the malleability of the item subsequent to the bake, the size of the item subsequent to the bake, the color of the item subsequent to the bake, the elasticity of the item subsequent to the bake, a combination thereof, and/or the like. Dingman further teaches (Paragraph 0038; Fig. 1 #130) the one or more ovens 106 can comprise one or more controllers 130 that can receive baking parameters and/or item parameters from the one or more input devices 108 (the electronic database is in communication with the controller via the input device 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson, as modified above to provide an electronic database configured to store electronic data including: electronic data representing the physical parameters associated with the baked products coming out of the tunnel oven and detected by the second sensor; and electronic data representing the second set of baking parameters generated by the controller in view of Dingman since both are directed to methods of operating oven apparatuses for baking food products according to electronic data provided to controllers, since an electronic database in communication with a controller and configured to store electronic data including: electronic data representing parameters of the baked products and electronic data representing baking parameters is known in the art as shown by Dingman, since the one or more controllers can adjust one or more settings of the oven in accordance with one or more received baking parameters and/or item parameters (Dingman, Paragraph 0038), thus ensuring improved baking and more accurate or desired results, and storing such data in an electronic database would allow for access in subsequent baking processes to ensure consistent quality, since data stored in the database can be used to determine if a food item has the same parameters as a food item previously baked, and, if so, the same baking parameters can be used without modification (Dingman, Paragraph 0045), providing convenience to the user by removing the need to determine and input settings for the oven, since recommendations for baking can be made based on data stored in the database (Dingman, Paragraph 0050), and since sensor measurements can be compared to stored database information to determine the identity of food items (Dingman, Paragraph 0058).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henson (US 3486694 A) in view of Manchuliantsau (US 20190183155 A1), Bufton (US 20130202773 A1), and Minvielle (US 20160350715 A1), and further in view of Khalaf (US 20050260319 A1).
Regarding claim 11, as shown above, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 4-12, 65-68; Fig. 6 #101, 103, 124, 125, 126, 127) an embodiment of the invention wherein a sponge mix is prepared by feeding its ingredients through meters 125 controlled by panel 124 to a mixer 126 (where an unshaped mass of dough material in a mixer such as the sponge mix is understood to be a dough lump) and thence to a sponge depositor 127 (where the system comprising the meters, mixer, and depositor is understood to be a piece forming device), wherein sponge depositor 127 deposits a portion of sponge (dough piece) as a continuous strip or carpet 102 (precursors of the baked products) adjacent the entrance to the oven.
Henson does not explicitly state that the piece forming device deposits the continuous mass via extrusion.
Khalaf teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0004) manufacture of baked dough products, wherein a quantity of dough (dough lump) is formed, the dough is extruded to form a thin ribbon (continuous mass), and the ribbon is passed through a heated chamber (tunnel oven) to cook it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson as modified above to reshape the dough lumps into the dough pieces by extruding the dough lumps into a continuous mass as taught by Khalaf since both are directed to devices for shaping dough into a continuous mass which is passed through a tunnel oven, since reshaping the dough lumps into the dough pieces by extruding the dough lumps into a continuous mass is known in the art as shown by Khalaf, since the dough may be extruded as a thin ribbon (Khalaf, Paragraph 0004), i.e., extrusion can be used to control the thickness of the dough to produce a baked product with the desired thickness, since, if desired, a very wide strip may be produced (Khalaf, Paragraph 0008), i.e., extrusion can be used to control the width of the dough to produce a baked product with the desired width, and since extrusions as a continuous mass allows for continuous operation, increasing the production rate.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henson (US 3486694 A) in view of Manchuliantsau (US 20190183155 A1), Bufton (US 20130202773 A1), and Minvielle (US 20160350715 A1) and Dingman (US 20190128743 A1), and further in view of Khalaf (US 20050260319 A1).
Regarding claim 25, as shown above, Henson teaches (Col. 4, lines 4-12, 65-68; Fig. 6 #101, 103, 124, 125, 126, 127) an embodiment of the invention wherein a sponge mix is prepared by feeding its ingredients through meters 125 controlled by panel 124 to a mixer 126 (where an unshaped mass of dough material in a mixer such as the sponge mix is understood to be a dough lump) and thence to a sponge depositor 127 (where the system comprising the meters, mixer, and depositor is understood to be a piece forming device), wherein sponge depositor 127 deposits a portion of sponge (dough piece) as a continuous strip or carpet 102 (precursors of the baked products) adjacent the entrance to the oven.
Henson does not explicitly state that the piece forming device deposits the continuous mass via extrusion.
Khalaf teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0004) manufacture of baked dough products, wherein a quantity of dough (dough lump) is formed, the dough is extruded to form a thin ribbon (continuous mass), and the ribbon is passed through a heated chamber (tunnel oven) to cook it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Henson as modified above to reshape the dough lumps into the dough pieces by extruding the dough lumps into a continuous mass as taught by Khalaf since both are directed to methods of using devices for shaping dough into a continuous mass which is passed through a tunnel oven, since reshaping the dough lumps into the dough pieces by extruding the dough lumps into a continuous mass is known in the art as shown by Khalaf, since the dough may be extruded as a thin ribbon (Khalaf, Paragraph 0004), i.e., extrusion can be used to control the thickness of the dough to produce a baked product with the desired thickness, since, if desired, a very wide strip may be produced (Khalaf, Paragraph 0008), i.e., extrusion can be used to control the width of the dough to produce a baked product with the desired width, and since extrusions as a continuous mass allows for continuous operation, increasing the production rate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-19, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11, 15-16, and 19-25 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Henson’s control scheme is directed to feedback-based adjustment of oven operating conditions in response to sensed product characteristics, rather than predictive determination of oven parameters prior to baking, , the Examiner notes, as shown above with regard to claims 1 and 15, that Henson teaches (Col. 5, lines 20-22; Col. 6, lines 10-15) sensing means arranged to measure the moisture content of the strip or carpet of batter before it enters the oven feeds this information to the computer so that in the event of a change in the moisture content of the batter entering the oven the computer can signal for a suitable adjustment to compensate for it, and corrections to the operating conditions may take place simultaneously with others under the control of the computer 104. Thus, Henson discloses both that the computer compensates for changes based on measurements made prior to baking the dough pieces, and that changes to the operating conditions may be made simultaneously with others, thus indicating that generating the baking parameters based on a correlation of the obtained electronic data may occur prior to the baking of the dough pieces. Also, Henson teaches (Col. 1, lines 37-40) continuously controlling the treatment of a product passing through an oven, such as a baker's oven, in order to obtain desired characteristics of the treated product, and therefore, in a continuous process, the obtaining of electronic data and generation of baking parameters will necessarily occur before baking at least some of the dough pieces being continuously produced and baked.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Henson does not disclose or suggest a system that: (1) obtains, prior to insertion of the dough pieces into the oven and prior to baking the dough pieces, electronic data representing the operational parameters of the piece forming device; (2) applies those operational parameters as inputs to a predictive control model to infer at least one physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to baking; or (3) correlates the obtained operational parameter data, the inferred physical parameters, and the settings and conditions of the tunnel oven to generate, based on a control model, prior to the baking of the dough pieces, a set of baking parameters predicted to cause the tunnel oven to produce the baked products with the target parameters, the Examiner notes that, while such limitations are not disclosed by Henson, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Henson to satisfy these claim limitations in view of Manchuliantsau and Bufton for the reasons stated above with regard to claims 1 and 15.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Manchuliantsau is not directed to an industrial baking process control system because Manchuliantsau's post-processing operations, which may include baking as one option among many, are aimed at ensuring that the food ingredient achieves predetermined parameters such as sterility and palatability, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact that Manchuliantsau discloses embodiments for methods and apparatuses as an alternative or in addition to baking machines and processes does not negate the fact that Manchuliantsau’s system can be used to perform baking, and, is, therefore, a baking process control system.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Manchuliantsau does not disclose the specific inferential and predictive steps, and that merely knowing the extruder conveying speed and generically adjusting downstream processing operations is categorically different from applying machine-level operational parameters of a piece forming device to a predictive control model to infer dough piece physical characteristics and using those inferences to pre-set specific tunnel oven baking parameters, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Manchuliantsau states (Paragraph 0051) “sensors can measure a temperature and a conveying speed of the extruder, while computing device 120 can adjust operation of any of pre-processing devices 110, the extruder, or post-processing devices 115 to make sure that the food ingredient 135 is of predetermined quality or has predetermined parameters (e.g., that it became sterile and palatable)”. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand, that adjusting operations based on a measured conveying speed to “make sure” the food has predetermined parameters, requires knowing the relationship between the speed and the food parameters (i.e., the parameters are inferred based on the speed) and a computing device performing such adjustments is performing computations based on that known relationship to achieve a desired end result, and is therefore using a predictive control model as claimed. Additionally, the Applicant has neither defined nor claimed “machine-level” operational parameters in a manner that is distinct from any other type of operational parameter.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Bufton does not remedy the deficiencies of Henson and Manchuliantsau with respect to Applicant's claimed system, the Examiner notes that Manchuliantsau is not deficient for the reasons stated above. The Applicant further argues that Bufton's teaching regarding conveyor speed (see par. [0064]) is concerned solely with the physical deposition geometry, specifically, whether extruded strands will bend and compact together based on the relative motion between the extrudate and the conveyor, which is a mechanical concern about the shape and physical integrity of the deposited food bar on the conveyor, not a teaching or suggestion about using operational parameters of a forming device as inputs to a predictive control model to infer physical characteristics of dough pieces. However, the Examiner notes that bending and compaction of the dough pieces are or relate to physical parameters (shape, density), which provides further evidence of the relationship between the speed of the piece forming device and the physical parameters of the dough product.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Minvielle is directed to consumer-level food preparation appliances and information management for nutritional substances, rather than industrial baking process control systems such as those addressed by the present application, and, therefore, Minvielle is not reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the present application, the Examiner notes that, as shown above with regard to claims 1 and 15, Minvielle teaches (Paragraph 0107, 0175; Fig. 6 #570) conditioning protocols include baking, and exemplary conditioning operations including baking bread dough into baked bread with a conditioner 570, which may be a convection oven. Additionally, Minvielle teaches (Paragraph 0180) sensors may detect parameters of the nutritional substances including weight, starting temperature, moisture, and color, and a controller may vary a recipe based on the sensed parameters. Thus, in recipes for conditioning operations comprising baking, Minvielle controls the oven parameters pre-baking. Additionally, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both the claimed invention and Minvielle concern methods and apparatuses for cooking food products comprising collection and evaluation of detected parameters. Though the scale or configuration of the invention of Minvielle may not be strictly identical to that claimed by the Applicant, the Examiner maintains that Minvielle is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of controlling the operations of a cooking device based on detected parameters.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that none of the four references, individually or in combination, teaches or suggests: (1) applying operational parameters of a piece forming device as inputs to a predictive control model to infer at least one physical parameter of the dough pieces prior to baking; and (2) generating, prior to baking, a first set of tunnel oven baking parameters based on a correlation that includes both those inferred physical parameters and the directly detected physical parameters of the dough pieces, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated above.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the modification of Henson in view of Manchuliantsau, Bufton, and Minvielle proposed in the Office Action attempts to replace Henson's reactive (i.e., post-baking) feedback oven settings control model, which is the fundamental principle of Henson's system, with Applicant's claimed predictive (i.e., pre-baking) upstream oven settings control model, which is a replacement that is not only not disclosed or suggested in Henson, Manchuliantsau, Bufton, or Minvielle, but requires substantial reconstruction and fundamentally alters Henson's stated principle of operation, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously stated, Henson’s system is not merely a reactive control model. Henson teaches (Col. 5, lines 20-22; Col. 6, lines 10-15) sensing means arranged to measure the moisture content of the strip or carpet of batter before it enters the oven feeds this information to the computer so that in the event of a change in the moisture content of the batter entering the oven the computer can signal for a suitable adjustment to compensate for it, and corrections to the operating conditions may take place simultaneously with others under the control of the computer 104. Thus, Henson discloses both that the computer compensates for changes based on measurements made prior to baking the dough pieces, and that changes to the operating conditions may be made simultaneously with others, thus indicating that generating the baking parameters based on a correlation of the obtained electronic data may occur prior to the baking of the dough pieces. Also, Henson teaches (Col. 1, lines 37-40) continuously controlling the treatment of a product passing through an oven, such as a baker's oven, in order to obtain desired characteristics of the treated product, and therefore, in a continuous process, the obtaining of electronic data and generation of baking parameters will necessarily occur before baking at least some of the dough pieces being continuously produced and baked.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that, in Henson, the computer responds to a change in measured pre-baking moisture content to compensate for it, but this is feedforward correction of a single dough attribute, not the generation of a comprehensive set of pre-baking oven parameters based on a multivariate correlation that includes inferred dough physical parameters derived from machine operational data, directly sensed dough physical parameters, target product parameters, ambient conditions, and oven settings, the Examiner reiterates Henson teaches (Col. 5, lines 20-22; Col. 6, lines 10-15) sensing means arranged to measure the moisture content of the strip or carpet of batter before it enters the oven feeds this information to the computer so that in the event of a change in the moisture content of the batter entering the oven the computer can signal for a suitable adjustment to compensate for it, and corrections to the operating conditions may take place simultaneously with others under the control of the computer 104. Correcting multiple operating conditions simultaneously with information that may be provided prior to baking constitutes a correlation of multiple types of operational data that reads on the claimed invention. While Henson does not disclose a correlation of every parameter outlined in the claimed invention (inferred physical characteristic and environmental conditions) doing so would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Minvielle, Manchuliantsau, and Bufton for the reasons stated above with regard to claims 1 and 15. Moreover, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, claims 1, 15, and all dependent claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Villota (US 20070148302 A1) teaches a method of preparing nutritionally enhanced pasta, wherein one method for determining acceptable elasticity or rheological characteristics of the nutritionally enhanced dough is through the measurement of pressure in the extruder or press during manufacture of the pasta shapes.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN P TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2652. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/AUSTIN PARKER TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights