DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/11/25.
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 1-10 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 10 recites the limitation "a kneading bowl" in line 3. Claim 1 also recites "a kneading bowl " at its line 3. The examiner cannot determine whether double inclusion is intended. 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (3,280,681) in view of Boert (WO 2020/094802 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Turner discloses the invention substantially as claimed including a size controller 19 to control a size of food masses discharged one by one; wherein the size controller includes: a space-fixed portion including parallel or substantially parallel separating strips 28 with longitudinal axes extending in a first direction; and a punch 24 movable between an upper position and a lower position and towards the separating strips, and including a base plate 21 to press pieces of the food masses on the separating strips against the separating strips and to comminute the food masses. Turner doesn’t show a kneading bowl, a lifting tipper, which includes at least two cutting tools each including at least two cutting edges. However, Boert teaches the use of a kneading bowl 3, a lifting tipper 2, which includes at least two cutting tools 13 each including at least two cutting edges 20 for the purpose of kneading properly the food mixture and cutting the food mixture. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Turner by providing the above limitations as taught by Boert in order to obtain a device that kneading properly the food mixture and cutting the food mixture.
Also, Turner teaches:
Claim 2; knives are fixed to an underside of the base plate such that longitudinal axes of the knives extend along a second direction at an angle between about 800 and about 1100 relative to the first direction (see Fig. 1-2).
Claim 3; wherein the knives are arranged one behind the other and spaced apart from each other along on a common axis (see Fig. 1-2).
Claim 5; wherein the punch is vertically movable towards the separating strips in order to comminute pieces of the food masses on the separating strips, and the knives are arranged such that in a lowermost position of the punch, one of the knives projects between two of the separating strips (see Fig. 9).
Claim 7; wherein a shortest distance between the separating strips defines a maximum permissible size of the food masses. (see Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (3,280,681) in view of Boert (WO 2020/094802 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sanchez et al. (5,635,235).
The modified device of Turner discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for an inclined plane/feeder. However, Sanchez et al. teaches the use of an inclined plane/feeder 42 for the purpose of facilitating the feeding of the product from one station to another. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Turner by providing the above limitation as taught by Sanchez et al. in order to obtain a device that facilitates the feeding of the product from one station to another.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (3,280,681) in view of Boert (WO 2020/094802 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (2011/0203463).
The modified device of Turner discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for a sensor to detect pieces of the food masses on the separating strips. However, Anderson et al. teaches the use of a sensor 212 for the purpose of detecting pieces (see para. 0100) of the food masses has not transferred. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Turner by providing the above limitation as taught by Anderson et al. in order to obtain a device that detect pieces of the food masses has not transferred.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR FLORES SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday8:00-4:00 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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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.
/OMAR FLORES SANCHEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724