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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritsch (EP-2103217) in view of Van Blokland (US-20190223452) and Brandauer (US-20180249721).
Regarding claim 1, Fritsch teaches:
Device for rolling dough ([0046] – [0057]; Figs. 1-2), comprising:
- A conveyor, in particular an endless conveyor belt, for conveying a dough sheet in a direction of conveyance ([0046] – [0057]; Figs. 1-2 #9);
- A roller, for rolling the dough sheet ([0046] – [0057]; Figs. 1-2 #3);
wherein
- The device is configured for varying the distance between the upper surface of the conveyor and the roller during rolling according to any predetermined distance pattern as a function of the position of the dough roller in a direction perpendicular to the direction of conveyance ([0046] – [0057]; Figs. 1-2)
Fritsch does not teach:
the roller rolling the dough sheet with at least a directional component perpendicular to the direction of conveyance, that is: its width direction; and
the device is characterized in that
- at least a part of a support surface over which the conveyor is guided is provided with a height pattern or curvature at the position where the roller is situated for varying the distance between the upper surface of the conveyor and the roller during rolling.
However, Van Blokland, in a similar field of endeavor, a device for rolling dough, teaches:
the roller ([0018]; Fig. 2, #5) rolling the dough sheet ([0018]; Fig. 2, #4) with at least a directional component perpendicular to the direction of conveyance ([0018]; Fig. 1, #6), that is: its width direction ([0018]; Fig. 2, #9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roller of Fritsch to incorporate the teachings of Van Blokland and have it roll the dough sheet with at least a directional component perpendicular to the direction of conveyance, that is: its width direction. The purpose, as stated by Van Blokland, being to take away the disadvantages of the prior art or to provide a suitable alternative to the existing devices, dough lines and methods ([0005]), these disadvantages being by such (non-perpendicular) roller has the tendency to have an unequal homogeneity in a direction perpendicular to the direction of conveyance, that is: its width direction. This leads to a larger variation in the weight of the separate dough pieces. In order to meet individual product specifications, especially minimum weight requirements, safe margins are used when cutting individual products. This however does not solve the spread in specifications of the individual products and leads to the use of more dough than strictly required ([0004]).
Fritsch in view of Van Blokland does not teach:
the device is characterized in that
- at least a part of a support surface over which the conveyor is guided is provided with a height pattern or curvature at the position where the roller is situated for varying the distance between the upper surface of the conveyor and the roller during rolling.
However, Brandauer, in a similar field of endeavor, a device for shaping dough using a conveyor, teaches:
the device is characterized in that
- at least a part of a fixed ([0051]; Fig. 3D, #380) support surface over which the conveyor is guided is provided with a height pattern or curvature ([0051]; Fig. 3C, #322) at the position where the roller is situated for varying the distance between the upper surface of the conveyor and the roller during rolling ([0047] - [0051]). The belt on top in Brandauer ([0051]; Fig. 3C, #304), in particular the upper support that forms the top shape of the dough ([0051]; Fig. 3C, #324) is equivalent to the rollers of Fritsch and Van Blokland because it is used as an upper device to roll the dough and shape it. Brandauer teaches using the fixed support surface ([0051]; Fig. 3C, #22) which is located under the top belt to adjust the height and shape of the dough ([0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Fritsch in view of Van Blokland to incorporate the teachings of Brandauer and have at least part of a fixed surface provided with a height pattern or curvature. The purpose, as stated by Brandauer, being that one or more parameters of the forming assembly can be automatically (via the controller) or manually adjusted to affect the shape of the discharged dough ([0051]).
Regarding claim 2, Fritsch in view of Van Blokland and Brandauer teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Brandauer further teaches:
wherein the support surface with the height pattern or curvature extends at least over a width of the roller ([0051]; Fig. 3C, #322 and #324).
Regarding claim 3, Fritsch in view of Van Blokland and Brandauer teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends on. Brandauer further teaches:
wherein the support surface with the height pattern or curvature is exchangeable, in order to use the device according to the present invention for creating various patterns or curvatures ([0051]; Fig. 3C, #322 and #324).
Regarding claim 4, Fritsch in view of Van Blokland and Brandauer teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends on. Fritsch further teaches:
comprising a suspension along which the roller is guided in a direction perpendicular to the direction of conveyance, wherein the suspension is movable in a direction from and toward the conveyor ([0046] – [0057]; Figs. 1-2 #13).
Regarding claim 5, Fritsch in view of Van Blokland and Brandauer teaches:
Dough line comprising a device according to claim 1, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 03/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 on pages 3-5, under in view of Van Blokland (US-20190223452) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Fritsch (EP-2103217) in view of Van Blokland (US-20190223452) and Brandauer (US-20180249721).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748