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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/24/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “foodstuff channel-forming member” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicant’s disclosure describes the foodstuff channel-forming member as follows: “In some instances, the foodstuff channel-forming member 154 may include a wheel arranged at a distance D154 (see, e.g., FIG. 5A) away from a portion of the foodstuff receiving surface 122a of the belt 114a of the first conveyor 112a” (Applicant’s filed specification at paragraph [00164]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 41, 45, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heidel et al. (US 4,741,916).
Regarding claim 41, Heidel discloses a food product manufacturing system (“method of and apparatus for making individual dough pieces” [Abstract]) comprising:
a first conveyor (Fig. 1, conveyor includes “endless conveyor belt 18” [Col. 4, line 30] and rollers shown in Fig. 1 with belt 18 surrounding the rollers) having a proximal end (left side of conveyor 18 in Fig. 1) and a distal end (right side of conveyor 18 in Fig. 1);
a first foodstuff hopper (Fig. 1, “hopper 12” [Col. 4, line 23]) located near the proximal end of the first conveyor (see Fig. 1) and arranged over a portion of a foodstuff receiving surface of a belt of the first conveyor (Fig. 1, belt is “endless conveyor belt 18,” foodstuff receiving surface is surface that receives “dough 16” [Col. 4, line 28]; see also Figs. 2 and 3, showing portion of belt 18 over which dough 16 is deposited);
a second foodstuff hopper (Fig. 1, “dispenser 32”; “dough strip dispenser 32 containing dough 33 under pressure deposits at least one strip of dough 34” [Col. 5, lines 17-19]) located downstream of the first foodstuff hopper and upstream of the distal end of the first conveyor (see Fig. 1), wherein the second foodstuff hopper may be selectively spatially arranged over a portion but not all of a width of the belt of the first conveyor defining the foodstuff receiving surface of a belt of the first conveyor (“Random swirling can be accomplished by, for example, mechanically moving nozzle 35 of dough strip dispenser 32” [Col. 5, lines 27-29]; see Figs. 2 and 3 showing dough 34, which was dispensed by dispenser 32); and
a first slicing blade (Fig. 1, “a pair of cutting elements 40 and 42” [Col. 5, lines 37-38]) located downstream of the second foodstuff hopper and upstream of the distal end of the first conveyor (see Fig. 1), wherein the first slicing blade may be arranged over a portion of the foodstuff receiving surface of a belt of the first conveyor (see Figs. 1, 2, and 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
245
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Heidel
PNG
media_image2.png
502
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 2 and 3 of Heidel
Regarding claim 45, Heidel discloses wherein the first slicing blade is connected to an actuator (actuator / “means (not shown) for momentarily moving cutting elements 40, 42”; “[a]s indicated by the arrows, cutting elements 40, 42 and tamping plate 48 are connected to means (not shown) for momentarily moving cutting elements 40, 42 and plate 48 in the same direction and at the same speed as conveyor belt 18” [Col. 4, lines 54-58]).
Regarding claim 46, Heidel discloses wherein the belt of the first conveyor (Fig. 1, belt 18) is rotatably supported by a proximal roller located at the proximal end of the first conveyor (Fig. 1, belt 18 surrounds a roller on the left side of belt 18) and a distal roller located at the distal end of the first conveyor (Fig. 1, belt 18 surrounds another roller on the right side of belt 18).
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 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidel et al. (US 4,741,916) in view of Pierce et al. (US 4,797,291).
Regarding claim 42, Heidel discloses a foodstuff channel-forming member (foodstuff channel-forming member can be considered as the plow-shaped instrument described below: “means 14 for forming dough rope 16 is provided with a restriction 26 that forms a channel or groove 28 on the top surface of dough rope 16. Other means for forming groove 28 can be used such as pressing into the top surface of rope 16 with a roller, or plowing groove 28 with a stationary plow-shaped instrument” [Col. 5, lines 6-12]) located downstream of the first foodstuff hopper and upstream of the second foodstuff hopper (“[a]fter dough rope 16 is provided with groove 28, rope 16 passes under morsel dispenser 30 from which a metered amount of discrete morsels 31 are deposited into groove 28” [Col. 5, lines 13-16]; Fig. 1 shows wherein dispenser 30 is upstream of second foodstuff hopper 32), wherein the foodstuff channel-forming member may be aligned with the second foodstuff hopper (Figs. 2 and 3 show the location of dough 16, the groove into which morsels 31 are deposited, and dough 34 that is dispensed by second foodstuff hopper 32, indicating that the foodstuff channel-forming member is aligned with the second foodstuff hopper), wherein the foodstuff channel-forming member is arranged at a distance away from the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the first conveyor (since a layer of dough remains on the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt after the groove has been formed, this indicates that the foodstuff channel-forming member is arranged at a distance away from the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt).
Heidel does not expressly disclose wherein the foodstuff channel-forming member may be selectively spatially arranged over a portion but not all of a width of the belt of the first conveyor.
Pierce is directed to a method for producing a layered food product [Abstract]. Pierce discloses wherein a foodstuff channel-forming member may be selectively spatially arranged over a portion but not all of a width of a belt of a first conveyor (Fig. 16 shows foodstuff channel-forming members / “plows 190” arranged over a “belt surface of the first conveyor 51” [Col. 14, lines 10-11]; “The location of the plows 190 across the width of the first conveyor 51 can also be adjusted” [Col. 14, lines 16-17]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the foodstuff channel-forming member may be selectively spatially arranged over a portion but not all of a width of the belt of the first conveyor. This allows for positioning the groove at a desired location in the dough.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidel et al. (US 4,741,916) in view of Atwood (US 4,201,529).
Regarding claim 43, Heidel discloses wherein the first foodstuff hopper (Fig. 1, “hopper 12” [Col. 4, line 23]) may include a sidewall defining a foodstuff-containing cavity (see annotated Fig. 1, below), wherein access to the foodstuff-containing cavity is permitted by an upper opening and a lower opening (see annotated Fig. 1, below).
Heidel does not expressly disclose wherein the first foodstuff hopper includes a pair of metering rollers that are arranged about the lower opening.
Atwood is directed to a metering device for dough [Abstract]. Atwood discloses wherein a first foodstuff hopper includes a pair of metering rollers that are arranged about a lower opening (“A metering device for dough comprising a hopper having an open bottom, a pair of co-acting rollers rotatably mounted in spaced relationship below said open bottom” [claim 1]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first foodstuff hopper includes a pair of metering rollers that are arranged about the lower opening. This allows for repeatedly depositing a desired amount of dough onto a conveyor.
PNG
media_image3.png
261
884
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Heidel, annotated
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidel et al. (US 4,741,916) in view of Martin et al. (US 2003/0113420).
Regarding claim 44, Heidel does not expressly disclose wherein the second foodstuff hopper includes a foodstuff metering valve.
Martin is directed to an “apparatus and method for depositing flowable solids onto articles located on a moving conveyor” [Abstract]. Martin discloses wherein a foodstuff hopper includes a foodstuff metering valve (“Exemplary, but non-limiting flowable solids 19 including spices, seasonings, confections, sprinkles, nuts, powdered coatings, other topical coatings and/or additives, and the like, can be introduced to first surface 14 and/or trough 12 via hopper 11. However, it should be realized that it is possible to introduce any metered and/or unmetered flowable solids 19 by numerous methodologies to surface 14 and/or trough 12 that include, but are not limited to, conveyor belts, screw augers, blades, rotary valves, feeder rolls, chutes, vibratory trays, and combinations thereof” [0031].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the second foodstuff hopper includes a foodstuff metering valve. This is a known means for depositing a desired amount of a food product, applied to a known device, to achieve predictable results.
Claims 47 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidel et al. (US 4,741,916) in view of Loose et al. (US 2121128).
Regarding claim 47, Heidel does not expressly disclose a second conveyor having a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the second conveyor is transversely arranged with respect to the first conveyor and wherein the proximal end of the second conveyor is arranged proximate the distal end of the first conveyor, wherein a first plane aligned with and extending across the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the first conveyor is located spatially above a second plane aligned with and extending across a foodstuff receiving surface of a belt of the second conveyor, wherein the second plane is located spatially below the first plane, wherein a driven direction of the belt of the first conveyor is transverse to a driven direction of the belt of the second conveyor.
Loose is directed to an apparatus for the production of a bakery product [page 1, first col, lines 1-2]. Loose discloses a second conveyor having a proximal end and a distal end (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2; first conveyor comprises belt 6 and rollers 7 and 8 [page 2, first col, lines 26-27]; second conveyor comprises belt 25 [page 2, second col, line 33]), wherein the second conveyor is transversely arranged with respect to the first conveyor (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2) and wherein the proximal end of the second conveyor is arranged proximate the distal end of the first conveyor (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2), wherein a first plane aligned with and extending across the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the first conveyor is located spatially above a second plane aligned with and extending across a foodstuff receiving surface of a belt of the second conveyor, wherein the second plane is located spatially below the first plane (the following excerpt, along with Figs. 1 and 2, indicates that the claimed first plane is located spatially above the claimed second plane: “After the sheet has passed between the rollers 19, it passes between two conveyor members supported on an oscillating frame 20. The conveyor member consists of a conveyor belt 21 and a pair of rollers 22 for supporting this belt, and a second belt 23 supported by a pair of rollers 24. This oscillating frame supports in spaced relationship to each other these conveyors so that as the sheet of dough is fed between the rollers 19 in a sheet 19a, this sheet passes between the two conveyors. This oscillating frame is supported at its upper end and operated to swing transversely of a lower conveyor belt 25. As the frame 20 oscillates back and forth across the conveyor belt 25, the sheet of dough is deposited on the belt in transverse layers extending from one side of the belt to the other. The number of layers deposited one on the other depends upon the speed at which the conveyor belt 25 moves. The manner in which the oscillating frame delivers the sheet of dough to the conveyor belt 25 is illustrated in Figure 4, in which are shown the two lower rollers of the oscillating frame. Between these rollers 22 and 23 the sheet of dough passes, and as these rollers move from one side of the conveyor belt 25 to the other the sheet will be deposited in overlapping layers on the belt. If the belt is stationary the sheet will be deposited directly across the conveyor belt at right angles to the sides thereof, but should the conveyor belt be moving in the direction indicated by the arrow the sheet of dough will be disposed diagonally with respect to the belt” [page 2, second col, lines 18-52]), wherein a driven direction of the belt of the first conveyor is transverse to a driven direction of the belt of the second conveyor (driven direction of belt of first conveyor is to the right of Fig. 2; driven direction of belt of second conveyor is to the bottom of Fig. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second conveyor having a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the second conveyor is transversely arranged with respect to the first conveyor and wherein the proximal end of the second conveyor is arranged proximate the distal end of the first conveyor, wherein a first plane aligned with and extending across the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the first conveyor is located spatially above a second plane aligned with and extending across a foodstuff receiving surface of a belt of the second conveyor, wherein the second plane is located spatially below the first plane, wherein a driven direction of the belt of the first conveyor is transverse to a driven direction of the belt of the second conveyor. The use of a second conveyor transversely arranged with respect to the first conveyor is a known, alternative way of allowing for multiple layers of dough to be provided, applied to a known device, to predictably allow for achieving a desired pastry product.
PNG
media_image4.png
525
788
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1 and 2 of Loose, annotated
Regarding claim 54, Heidel does not expressly disclose wherein the belt of the second conveyor is rotatably supported by a proximal roller located at the proximal end of the second conveyor and a distal roller located at the distal end of the second conveyor.
Loose discloses wherein the belt of the second conveyor is rotatably supported by a proximal roller located at the proximal end of the second conveyor and a distal roller located at the distal end of the second conveyor (see annotated Fig. 3, below).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the belt of the second conveyor is rotatably supported by a proximal roller located at the proximal end of the second conveyor and a distal roller located at the distal end of the second conveyor. This is a known configuration for a conveyor, applied to a known device, to yield predictable results.
PNG
media_image5.png
644
570
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Loose, annotated
Claims 48 – 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidel et al. (US 4,741,916) in view of Loose et al. (US 2121128), further in view of Vanos et al. (US 2009/0029008).
Regarding claim 48, Heidel / Loose does not expressly disclose one or more pairs of compression rollers arranged about the belt of the second conveyor, wherein the one or more pairs of compression rollers may be located near the proximal end of the second conveyor and downstream of a portion of the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor that is aligned with the width of the belt of the first conveyor.
Loose discloses a belt of a second conveyor that is aligned with the width of a belt of a first conveyor (see Fig. 2 of Loose).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the second conveyor that is aligned with the width of the belt of the first conveyor. This is a known configuration of transversely-positioned conveyors, applied to a known device, to achieve predictable results.
Loose does not expressly disclose one or more pairs of compression rollers arranged about the belt of the second conveyor, wherein the one or more pairs of compression rollers may be located near the proximal end of the second conveyor and downstream of a portion of the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor.
Vanos is directed to a method and apparatus for producing crackers [Abstract]. Vanos discloses one or more pairs of compression rollers arranged about a belt of a conveyor (Fig. 1, “1st Reduction Rolls”), wherein the one or more pairs of compression rollers may be located near the proximal end of the conveyor (see Fig. 1, showing location of 1st Reduction Rolls) and downstream of a portion of the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the conveyor (the food will necessarily be received on the surface of the belt before it is reduced in size by the 1st Reduction Rolls).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include o one or more pairs of compression rollers arranged about the belt of the second conveyor, wherein the one or more pairs of compression rollers may be located near the proximal end of the second conveyor and downstream of a portion of the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor. This allows for reducing the thickness of the dough as desired.
Regarding claim 49, Heidel / Loose does not expressly disclose wherein each pair compression rollers of the one or more pairs of compression rollers includes:
an upper compression roller, and
a lower compression roller,
wherein the lower compression roller is arranged adjacent the belt of the second conveyor, wherein a surface of the belt of the second conveyor to which the lower compression roller is arranged adjacent is opposite the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor,
wherein the upper compression roller is arranged in a spaced-apart relationship with respect to the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor, wherein a gap or spacing between the upper compression roller and the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor is defined by a distance.
Vanos discloses wherein each pair compression rollers of the one or more pairs of compression rollers includes:
an upper compression roller (see annotated Fig. 1, below), and
a lower compression roller (see annotated Fig. 1, below),
wherein the lower compression roller is arranged adjacent a belt of a conveyor (see annotated Fig. 1, below), wherein a surface of the belt of the conveyor to which the lower compression roller is arranged adjacent is opposite the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor (see annotated Fig. 1, below),
wherein the upper compression roller is arranged in a spaced-apart relationship with respect to the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor, wherein a gap or spacing between the upper compression roller and the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor is defined by a distance (the upper compression roller of Vanos is necessarily arranged in a spaced-apart relationship with the foodstuff receiving surface, wherein a gap between the upper compression roller and the foodstuff receiving surface exists, since the rollers are described as “reduction rollers”; that is, if a gap did not exist between the upper compression roller and the foodstuff receiving surface, then the dough would not be able to continue moving on the belt past the 1st reduction roller).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein each pair compression rollers of the one or more pairs of compression rollers includes: an upper compression roller, and a lower compression roller, wherein the lower compression roller is arranged adjacent the belt of the second conveyor, wherein a surface of the belt of the second conveyor to which the lower compression roller is arranged adjacent is opposite the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor, wherein the upper compression roller is arranged in a spaced-apart relationship with respect to the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor, wherein a gap or spacing between the upper compression roller and the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor is defined by a distance. The use of compression rollers allows for reducing the thickness of the dough sheet as desired.
PNG
media_image6.png
554
734
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Vanos, annotated
Regarding claim 50, Heidel / Loose does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more pairs of compression rollers includes more than one pair of compression rollers, wherein the distance between the upper compression roller and the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor of adjacent pairs of compression rollers of the more than one pair of compression rollers progressively decreases in dimension.
Vanos discloses wherein the one or more pairs of compression rollers includes more than one pair of compression rollers (Fig. 1 shows 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Reduction Rolls), wherein the distance between the upper compression roller and the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the conveyor of adjacent pairs of compression rollers of the more than one pair of compression rollers progressively decreases in dimension (since the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Reduction Rolls are described as “Reduction” rolls, this indicates that the distance between the upper compression roller and the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the conveyor of adjacent pairs of compression rollers of the more than one pair of compression rollers progressively decreases in dimension, in order to progressively reduce the thickness of the dough as it passes through each pair of reduction rolls).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the one or more pairs of compression rollers includes more than one pair of compression rollers, wherein the distance between the upper compression roller and the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor of adjacent pairs of compression rollers of the more than one pair of compression rollers progressively decreases in dimension. This allows for reducing the thickness of the dough sheet as desired.
Regarding claim 51, Heidel / Loose does not expressly disclose a second slicing blade is located downstream of the one or more pairs of compression rollers and upstream of the distal end of the second conveyor, wherein the second slicing blade is arranged over a portion of the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor.
Vanos discloses a slicing blade (Fig. 1, rotary cutter) is located downstream of the one or more pairs of compression rollers and upstream of the distal end of the conveyor, wherein the slicing blade is arranged over a portion of the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the conveyor (see Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second slicing blade is located downstream of the one or more pairs of compression rollers and upstream of the distal end of the second conveyor, wherein the second slicing blade is arranged over a portion of the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor. This allows for cutting the dough to a desired size / shape after it has been reduced in size to a desired thickness, to achieve a desired final shape / size of the food product.
Regarding claim 52, while Vanos discloses a slicing blade as described in the rejection of claim 51, Vanos does not expressly disclose wherein the slicing blade is connected to an actuator.
However, Heidel discloses wherein a slicing blade is connected to an actuator (actuator / “means (not shown) for momentarily moving cutting elements 40, 42”; “[a]s indicated by the arrows, cutting elements 40, 42 and tamping plate 48 are connected to means (not shown) for momentarily moving cutting elements 40, 42 and plate 48 in the same direction and at the same speed as conveyor belt 18” [Col. 4, lines 54-58]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the second slicing blade is connected to an actuator. This is a known means for causing a cutting action, applied to a known device, to achieve predictable results.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidel et al. (US 4,741,916) in view of Loose et al. (US 2121128) and Vanos et al. (US 2009/0029008), further in view of Haas et al. (US 2014/0352550).
Regarding claim 53, Heidel / Loose / Vanos does not expressly disclose an oven located downstream of the second slicing blade and upstream of the distal end of the second conveyor, wherein the oven arranged about the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor.
Haas is directed to a baking oven comprising a continuous baking belt [Title]. Haas discloses an oven located upstream of a distal end of a conveyor, wherein the oven is arranged about the foodstuff receiving surface of a belt of the conveyor (Fig. 1 shows “baking oven 1” and “continuous belt 2” comprising “front belt deflecting station 3” and “rear belt deflecting station 7” [0041]-[0042]).
Vanos describes that after dough is cut with a rotary cutter, it is baked in a continuous oven ([0063] and Fig. 1). This indicates that the oven in Vanos is located downstream of the slicing blade / rotary cutter. Additionally, Heidel discloses that cut dough pieces are transferred to an oven for baking [Col. 2, line 67 – Col. 3, line 6]. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an oven located downstream of the second slicing blade and upstream of the distal end of the second conveyor, wherein the oven arranged about the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor. The use of an oven located downstream of the second slicing blade and upstream of the distal end of the second conveyor, wherein the oven arranged about the foodstuff receiving surface of the belt of the second conveyor, allows for baking the food product after it has been cut to a desired size / shape, and doing so without needing to transfer the food product to another location for baking.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761