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
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on 10/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 12 -13, 16-17 are currently amended. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1 – 15 are pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 9, and 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawamitsu (WO 2005082162 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kawamitsu teaches a feed roller (composite roller 7, 8, FIGs. 5-6) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
636
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a main body forming a generally cylindrical outer surface of the feed roller (7, 8) having an end portion and extending in a longitudinal direction (see the annotated copy of Kawamitsu FIG. 6 below):
the generally cylindrical outer surface having raised portions (ridges 10) forming distinct shapes of a certain height (see FIG. 4, height dimension T and lines 119 – 130),
arranged in a pattern that extends circumferentially around the generally cylindrical outer surface (see FIGs. 5-6) and
capable of being configured to retain some dough between the raised portions up to the certain height to transform the generally cylindrical outer surface into a smooth generally cylindrical outer surface (notice that Kawamitsu discloses that the raised portions (ridges 10) have a width of from 0.5 mm to 50 mm, and a depth/height dimensions of from 0.5 mm to 5 mm (see lines 81-89) – similar to Applicant’s feed roller as describe in paragraphs [0029-0031] of the instant application disclosure).
Therefore, the feed roller (7, 8) of Kawamitsu would have been inherently capable of retain some dough between the raised portions (convex ridges 10) up to the certain height (e.g., from the depth dimension of the concave ridges 9, see lines 130) to transform the generally cylindrical outer surface into a smooth generally cylindrical outer surface, anticipating the claimed feed roller as currently claimed. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971), see MPEP 2114 (I) (II).
Regarding claim 2, Kawamitsu teaches the feed roller of claim 1, wherein the distinct shapes are chevron shapes (see FIG. 6), each chevron shape formed of two diagonal legs of raised portions (10) meeting at a point and forming an angle (see FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Kawamitsu teaches the feed roller of claim 2, wherein the height ranges between 1 and 5 mm (see Kawamitsu line 130 “The depth dimension 9 and the height dimension T of the ridge 10 are set from 0.5 mm to 5 mm.”).
Regarding claim 4, Kawamitsu teaches the feed roller of claim 3, wherein the height ranges between 3 and 3.6 mm (see Kawamitsu line 130 “The depth dimension 9 and the height dimension T of the ridge 10 are set from 0.5 mm to 5 mm.”).
Regarding claim 6, Kawamitsu teaches the feed roller of claim 2, wherein the chevron shapes have a width ranging between 5 and 15 mm (see FIG. 4 and Kawamitsu lines 128-129 “width dimension H of the concave ridges 9 and the convex ridges 10 is from 1.0 mm to 50 mm”).
Regarding claim 7, feed roller of claim 6, wherein the width ranges between 9 and 9.6 mm (see FIG. 4 and Kawamitsu lines 128-129 “width dimension H of the concave ridges 9 and the convex ridges 10 is from 1.0 mm to 50 mm”).
Regarding claim 8, Kawamitsu teaches the feed roller of claim 2, wherein the chevron shapes include a plurality of chevron shapes arranged in the pattern and extending circumferentially around the surface (see FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Kawamitsu teaches the feed roller of claim 8, wherein each chevron shape of the plurality of chevron shapes is circumferentially separated by a gap (e.g., concave ridges 9), the gap being between 5 and 15 mm long (see FIG. 4 and Kawamitsu lines 128-129 “width dimension H of the concave ridges 9 and the convex ridges 10 is from 1.0 mm to 50 mm”).
Regarding claim 12, Kawamitsu teaches the feed roller of claim 8, wherein the plurality of chevron shapes extends to the end portion of the generally cylindrical outer surface, and wherein the chevron shapes are connected by joints to form a continuous pattern extending longitudinally (see the annotated copy of Kawamitsu FIG. 6 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
514
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Kawamitsu teaches a feed roller system comprising: a feed roller according to claim 1; and a mold roller (e.g., Kawamitsu discloses that the roller is a composite roller 7, 8) mounted opposite the feed roller (e.g., FIG. 3) configured to receive dough in mold cavities (e.g., concave ridge portions 9) located in the mold roller (see Kawamitsu lines 131-171).
PNG
media_image3.png
425
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Kawamitsu teaches the feed roller of claim 8, wherein the plurality of chevron shapes constitutes a first plurality of chevron shapes, and the chevron shapes include a second plurality of chevron shapes which are arranged circumferentially around the surface (see the annotated copy of Kawamitsu FIG. 6 below).
Regarding claim 15, Kawamitsu teaches the feed roller of claim 1, wherein the distinct shapes form a sinusoidal pattern (e.g., Kawamitsu discloses a modification wherein “the concave ridges 9 and the convex ridges 10 of Example 1 are formed in a gentle S-shaped” curve, analogous to the claimed “sinusoidal pattern” (see Kawamitsu lines 165-171, and FIG. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamitsu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of YAMADA et al. (US 2018/0072528 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 5, Kawamitsu teaches the feed roller of claim 2, except for explicitly disclosing, wherein the chevron shapes have a width ranging between 3 to 10 degrees along an arc on the cylindrical surface.
Yamada teaches a feed roller 1, comprising a substantially cylindrical roller body 2, and raised distinct shapes in the form of chevrons (21) formed on a peripheral surface 5 (see FIG. 3), Yamada [0006] discloses that “it is preferable that the one-end side protruding line portions and the other-end side protruding line portions extend at substantially equal angles relative to the axis of the roller body and the angles of extending directions of the one-end side protruding line portions and the other-end side protruding line portions relative to the axis of the roller body are no less than 5° or more and 15° or less relative to the axis of the roller body.”; Yamada [0038], FIG. 2, further discloses “the radius of the roller body 2 is designed to be 10.62 mm and the angle from the base B of one concave portion CC to the next base B of the other concave portion CC in the circumferential direction is designed to be 9°. However, dimension and angle of each part of the roller body 2 are not particularly limited.” – notice that the width W1, analogous to the claimed “chevron shapes width”, is smaller than 9°, overlapping with the claimed range of between 3 to 10 degrees along an arc on the cylindrical surface. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have modify the feed roller of Kawamitsu by selecting the portion of Yamada’s chevron shapes width range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Claim(s) 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamitsu (WO 2005082162 A1; cited on IDS), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kanatli (EP 3578050 B1, of record).
Regarding claim 10. Kawamitsu teaches the feed roller of claim 8, except for specifically disclosing, wherein an annular ring is formed on the circumferentially extending outer surface between the plurality of chevrons and the end portion of the generally cylindrical outer surface.
Kanatli teaches a feed roller (rotational mold 1 comprising mold cavities for shaping dough (Abstract, FIG. 1), comprising -inter alia- a driving shaft 1.1, a coupling piece 1.2 (analogous to the claimed “annular ring”) of a metal drum 1.3, specially formed mold discs 1.4 (Kanatli lines 139-144);
The coupling piece of the metal drum (1.2) which connects the metal drum (1.3) and the driving shaft (1.1), allowing for a rotational-capable connection between the rotational mold and the driving shaft (Kanatli lines 157-159, 247-252).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify in the same way the feed roller of Kawamitsu with an annular ring (e.g., Kanatli coupling piece 1.2) formed on the circumferentially extending outer surface between the plurality of chevrons and the end portion of the generally cylindrical outer surface, as taught by Kanatli, for the purpose of e.g., creating a rotational connection between the feed roller and a driving shaft, as taught and suggested by Kanatli. See MPEP 2144 (I)(C).
Regarding claim 11, Kawamitsu/Kanatli teaches the feed roller of claim 10, wherein the annular ring extends to the end portion of the generally cylindrical outer surface (see Kanatli FIG. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments are based on newly amended limitations which have been addressed by the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ruhe et al. (US 2023/0146996 A1): discloses “ sheeters used in conjunction with continuously moving conveyor systems” [0068]. See FIGs. 6, 23B, 23C, 27.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742