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 9-24-2025 Amendment was received. Claims 1-3, 7, and 13 were amended. Claims 4 and 10 were cancelled. Claim 13 was withdrawn. New Claims 14-16 were presented. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-12 and 14-16 are pending and examined in this action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a winding station configured to wind up the dough piece, wherein the winding station comprises a winding mat and/or a winding board and/or a winding band and/or a winding belt and/or one or more hooks,” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Each of these embodiments are not illustrated the figures. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: a blade assembly configured to oscillate and perform indexed lifting action in a substantially vertical direction in Claim 1. The phrase assembly is a generic place holder modified by the functional language oscillate and indexed lifting. The functional language, oscillate and indexed lifting, are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 14-16 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.
In re Claim 1, “wherein the second group of blades is configured to generate the at least one slit such that it extends through the dough sheet,” is indefinite. The use of “its” is indefinite as it is unclear what “its” is referring to.” Further, the claims are directed to the structure of the dough stamping device and do not require the workpiece “a dough sheet.” However, in order to read on the claims, now, the blade must pass through the thickness of the unclaimed workpiece. Yet neither the workpiece, nor the thickness of the workpiece is claimed. As such, whether the claim is infringed depends on the thickness of the workpiece which is not required. Further, the claim requires plural blades and yet one slit. It is unclear how two blades can make one slit. As best understood, in view of Applicant’s disclosure, each blade makes a single slit. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1,800,315 to Olson in view of US 2012/0207899 to Serebryany.
A dough stamping device for severing dough pieces from a dough sheet (see Figs. 1-7 and Col. 1, ll. 1-23), comprising:
a blade assembly (see Figs. 1-2, #7 and #10), which is configured to oscillate and perform indexed lifting actions in a substantially vertical direction (the user moves the blades up and down), wherein the blade assembly has a first group of blades (see Fig. 1, #7/7/7/7), which is configured to at least partially generate an outer contour of a dough piece to be severed (blades #7 cut an outer contour), and the blade assembly has a second group of blades (see Fig. 1, #10/10/10/10), which is configured to generate at least one slit inside of the outer contour of the dough piece (see Fig. 1 showing blades #7 surrounding blades #10), wherein the second group of blades is configured to generate the at least one slit such that it extends through the dough sheet (see Pg. 1, ll. 61-68; see also Fig. 4, #7/10).
Olson is a manual device and therefore does not teach: a support, on which the dough sheet is depositable; and the structure to move the blade assembly up and down.
However, Serebryany teaches that it is known in the art to “automate” the cutting of dough for production. As such, Serebryany teaches a support (see Serebryany, Fig. 8, #48) on which a dough sheet is depositable (see Fig. 8, #58) as well as the structure for moving blade up and down to cut the dough (see Figs. 1-15, #20 or #120).
In the same field of invention, cutting dough, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to automate the cutting blades of Olson. Doing so is applying a known technique to a known device to yield predicable results (see MPEP 2143, I, D). Doing so allows the user to automate the cutting of dough in order to increase the production level of workpieces, allowing more production per unit of time.
In re Claim 2, modified Olson, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the blade assembly is configured such that the first group and the second group engage the dough sheet during the same lifting action (see Olson, Fig. 4, #7/10, showing the edges in the same plane and therefore will enter the workpiece/dough at the same time).
In re Claim 3, modified Olson, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the blade assembly is configured such that the first group and the second group engage the dough sheet simultaneously (see Olson, Fig. 4, #7/10, showing the edges in the same plane and therefore will enter the workpiece/dough at the same time).
In re Claim 7, Olson teaches a method for generating a dough product (see Figs. 1-7 and Col. 1, ll. 1-23), comprising:
severing of a dough piece from the dough sheet by a blade assembly of a dough stamping device (see Figs. 1-2, #7/10), wherein the blade assembly is configured to oscillate and perform indexed lifting actions in a substantially vertical direction (the blade assembly is moved up and down by the user to cut the workpiece/dough), and wherein an outer contour of the dough piece is at least partially generated by a first group of blades of the blade assembly (see Fig. 1, #7/7/7/7); and
generating at least one slit inside of the outer contour of the dough piece by a second group of blades (see Fig. 1, #10/10/10) of the blade assembly, (see Fig. 1 showing blades #7 surrounding blades #10), wherein the at least one slits generated such that it extends through the dough sheet (see Pg. 1, ll. 61-68; see also Fig. 4, #7/10).
Olson is a manual device and therefore does not teach: providing a dough sheet on a support; and the structure to move the blade assembly up and down.
However, Serebryany teaches that it is known in the art to “automate” the cutting of dough for production. As such, Serebryany teaches a dough sheet on a support (see Serebryany, Fig. 8, #48; and #58) as well as the structure for moving blade up and down to cut the dough (see Figs. 1-15, #20 or #120).
In the same field of invention, cutting dough, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to automate the cutting blades of Olson. Doing so is applying a known technique to a known device to yield predicable results (see MPEP 2143, I, D). Doing so allows the user to automate the cutting of dough in order to increase the production level of workpieces, allowing more production per unit of time.
In re Claim 8, modified Olson, in re Claim 7, teaches wherein the severing of the dough piece and the generating of the slit occur during a same lifting action (see Olson, Fig. 4, #7/10, showing the edges in the same plane and therefore will enter the workpiece/dough at the same time).
In re Claim 9, modified Olson, in re Claim 7, teaches wherein the severing of the dough piece and the generating of the slit occur simultaneously (see Olson, Fig. 4, #7/10, showing the edges in the same plane and therefore will enter the workpiece/dough at the same time).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1,800,315 to Olson in view of US 2012/0207899 to Serebryany, and further in view of US 20060107846 to Foulon.
In re Claim 5, modified Olson, in re Claim 1, does not teach and a filling station, which is configured to apply a filling onto the dough piece.
Foulon teaches a filling station, which is configured to apply a filling onto the dough piece ("A filling nozzle 124 (see FIGS. 4A and 7) is supported from the crossbar 90 for releasing an appropriate amount of filling materials (e.g., a mixture of sauce, vegetables, etc.) onto individual shells transported through the filling and folding area 24 by the transport conveyor 48"; Para. [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to include the filling station taught by Foulon in order to "release[ing] an appropriate amount of filling materials onto individual shells" (Para. [0042] of Foulon). Doing so is applying a known technique to a known device to yield predicable results (see MPEP 2143, I, D). Doing so allows the user to automate the making of a food item in order to increase the production level of workpieces, allowing more production per unit of time.
In re Claim 11, modified Olson, in re Claim 7, does not teach further comprising applying a filling onto the dough piece.
Foulon teaches a filling station, which is configured to apply a filling onto the dough piece ("A filling nozzle 124 (see FIGS. 4A and 7) is supported from the crossbar 90 for releasing an appropriate amount of filling materials (e.g., a mixture of sauce, vegetables, etc.) onto individual shells transported through the filling and folding area 24 by the transport conveyor 48"; Para. [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to include the filling station taught by Foulon in order to "release[ing] an appropriate amount of filling materials onto individual shells" (Para. [0042] of Foulon). Doing so is applying a known technique to a known device to yield predicable results (see MPEP 2143, I, D). Doing so allows the user to automate the making of a food item in order to increase the production level of workpieces, allowing more production per unit of time.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1,800,315 to Olson in view of US 2012/0207899 to Serebryany, and further in view of US 20070154604 to Pasch.
In re Claim 6, modified Olson, in re Claim 1, does not teach further comprising a winding station, which is configured to wind up the dough piece.
However, Pasch teaches a winding station, which is configured to wind up the dough piece ("The slab P is passed further in the direction G, in order to, in a manner known per se, be rolled up in the direction H into an elongated roll of dough R when passing underneath the net 15"; Para. [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to include the rolling assembly taught by Pasch to the dough processing assembly taught by Gainer in view of Crosby and Foulon in order to roll the filled dough into a final product (Para. [0034] of Pasch). Doing so is applying a known technique to a known device to yield predicable results (see MPEP 2143, I, D). Doing so allows the user to automate the making of a food item in order to increase the production level of workpieces, allowing more production per unit of time.
In re Claim 12, modified Olson, in re Claim 7, does not teach further comprising winding up the dough piece.
However, Pasch teaches a method further comprising winding up the dough piece ("The slab P is passed further in the direction G, in order to, in a manner known per se, be rolled up in the direction H into an elongated roll of dough R when passing underneath the net 15"; Para. [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to include the rolling assembly taught by Pasch to the dough processing assembly taught by Gainer in view of Crosby and Foulon in order to roll the filled dough into a final product (Para. [0034] of Pasch). Doing so is applying a known technique to a known device to yield predicable results (see MPEP 2143, I, D). Doing so allows the user to automate the making of a food item in order to increase the production level of workpieces, allowing more production per unit of time.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1,800,315 to Olson in view of US 2012/0207899 to Serebryany, and further in view of US 2010/0151093 to Wick.
In re Claim 14, modified Olson, in re Claim 1, does not teach a filling station configured to apply a filling onto the dough piece, wherein the filling station comprises one or more filling nozzles. However, Wick teaches that it is known in the cooked comestible art to provide a filling station (see Fig. 1, #52/54) for introducing a preselected filling composition from a pressurizable reservoir 54(see Wick, Para. 0040).
In the same field of invention, cooked comestible art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a filling station with nozzles in order to fill the workpiece with preselected filling, as taught by Wick. Doing so allows the user to automat chocolate filling or fruit filling or any filling to the dough in order to provide an enticing desert. Doing so is applying a known technique to a known device to yield predicable results (see MPEP 2143, I, D). Doing so allows the user to automate the making of a food item in order to increase the production level of workpieces, allowing more production per unit of time.
In re Claim 15, modified Olson, in re Claim 1, does not teach a winding station configured to wind up the dough piece, wherein the winding station comprises a winding station conveyor.
However, Wick teaches that it is known in the cooked comestible art to provide a winding station (see Wick, Figs. 4-6), wherein the winding station comprises a winding station conveyor (see Wick, Figs. 4-6, #66).
In the same field of invention, cooked comestible art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a winding station with a conveyor. Doing so allows the user to automate a flipping of dough process in order to provide an enticing desert. Doing so is applying a known technique to a known device to yield predicable results (see MPEP 2143, I, D). Doing so allows the user to automate the making of a food item in order to increase the production level of workpieces, allowing more production per unit of time.
In re Claim 16, modified Olson, in re Claim 1, does not teach a winding station configured to wind up the dough piece, wherein the winding station comprises a winding mat and/or a winding board and/or a winding band and/or a winding belt and/or one or more hooks.
However, Wick teaches that it is known in the cooked comestible art to provide a winding station configured to wind up the dough piece (see Wick, Figs. 4-6), wherein the winding station comprises a winding mat and/or a winding board and/or a winding band and/or a winding belt and/or one or more hooks (see Para. 0041, hooks #92/90).
In the same field of invention, cooked comestible art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a winding station with a conveyor. Doing so allows the user to automate a flipping of dough process in order to provide an enticing desert. Doing so is applying a known technique to a known device to yield predicable results (see MPEP 2143, I, D). Doing so allows the user to automate the making of a food item in order to increase the production level of workpieces, allowing more production per unit of time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 5-6, filed 9-24-2025, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection over US 2,246,424 to Gainer and US 2019/0357549 to Crosby have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior rejections, under 35 USC 103, in the 6-25-2025 Non-Final Rejection has been withdrawn.
US 1,800,315 to Olson in view of US 2012/0207899 to Serebryany teaches the dough stamping device with a support and a blade assembly with a group of blades that cutes the perimeter of the dough and a group of blades the cuts slits within the perimeter of the dough – see above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights