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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9 – 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/10/2025. Claims 1 – 8 and 11 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/16/2023 and 9/28/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Italian Republic on 3/17/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IT 102022000005207 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “electrically actuated movement means” in claim 5, and “adjustment means” in clam 7.
Applicant’s specification does not describe the structure of the “electrically actuated movement means.”
Applicant’s specification describes the “adjustment means” as follows: “The adjusting means 11 might preferably be constituted by a screw 12 which can be actuated by virtue of a gearbox 13, which can be actuated in turn by virtue of a control motor or by means of a handwheel 14 which can be actuated manually by the operator in order to adjust the position of the panel 10 (and, consequently, the distance of the presser plate 5 from the surface 2)” [page 7, lines 24-28 of the filed specification].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 limitation “electrically actuated movement means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2 and 5 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 2 recites, “wherein said contiguous radial laminas are a plurality.” Claim 1 requires “at least two contiguous radial laminas,” indicating that claim 1 already requires a plurality of contiguous radial laminas. It is unclear what structure corresponds to “wherein said contiguous radial laminas are a plurality” in claim 2.
Claim 5 limitation “electrically actuated movement means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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 – 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visona (EP 1129621) in view of Dalla Fontana et al. (US 2021/0235707).
Regarding claim 1, Visona discloses a device for forming pizza bases (“Dough-rolling Machine, In Particular For The Production Of Dough Shapes For Pizza” [Title]) comprising:
at least one supporting surface (see annotated Fig. 3) on which a predefined quantity of dough is configured to be accommodated,
at least one surface (see annotated Fig. 3) surmounted by a respective supporting frame for at least one pusher (Figs. 3 and 4, pusher comprises “arms 10” and “rollers 11” [0014]) designed to flatten said quantity of dough and to spread the dough (Figs. 1-3 show wherein the dough is flattened and spread),
between said frame and said pusher there being interposed at least one central actuator (Fig. 3, “first actuating means 13 which are mechanically connected to the top end 14 of the shaft 7 so as to move it between a raised position (see Figure 1), where the bottom end 8 is raised away from the mass of dough 3, and a lowered position (see Figures 2 and 3) where the bottom end 8 compresses the mass of dough 3 on the support base 6“ [0016]), configured for a vertical translation of said central body between a first configuration of maximum distance from said supporting surface (Fig. 1) and a second configuration of minimum distance from said supporting surface (Fig. 3), and
at least two external actuators (Fig. 3, “columns 17” and “actuating means 26” [0020]), configured for a vertical translation of the outer edge of a respective said arms between a first arrangement of maximum distance from said supporting surface (Fig. 1) and a second arrangement of minimum distance from said supporting surface (Fig 3).
Visona does not expressly disclose wherein said pusher comprises a presser plate which is constituted by a substantially planar central body, with a footprint having a transverse dimension of less than 150 mm, to which vertices of at least two contiguous radial laminas are hinged, outer edges thereof forming a contour which substantially corresponds to that of a pizza base to be provided.
Dalla Fontana is directed to a “dough-stretching machine” [Abstract]. Dalla Fontana discloses where a pusher comprises a presser plate (Fig. 2a, “plate 22” [0110]) which is constituted by a substantially planar central body (Fig. 2a), to which vertices of at least two contiguous radial laminas are hinged (Fig. 2a, plate 22 comprises a plurality of radial laminas / portions of plate 22 that are each separated by “radial grooves 22a” [0012]; “the plurality of rods 43, which are hinged to the central core 42, causing the compass movement thereof on closing and, thus the sliding of the modelling elements 3 hinged to the ends 43a of the aforesaid rods 43 towards the vertical axis Y along the radial grooves 22a of the plate 22” [0012]), outer edges thereof forming a contour which substantially corresponds to that of a pizza base to be provided (Fig. 2a shows the portions of plate 22 forming a substantially circular contour).
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 said pusher comprises a presser plate which is constituted by a substantially planar central body, with a footprint having a transverse dimension of less than 150 mm, to which vertices of at least two contiguous radial laminas are hinged, outer edges thereof forming a contour which substantially corresponds to that of a pizza base to be provided. In Visona, arms 10 and rollers 11 are rotated to achieve pressing/stretching of the dough. The use of the pressing plate 22 with hinged portions is a known configuration for a dough-pressing plate, applied to a known device, to achieve the same result.
Visona / Dalla Fontana do not expressly disclose a footprint having a transverse dimension of less than 150 mm.
However, 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 footprint having a transverse dimension of less than 150 mm, because the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A.
PNG
media_image1.png
888
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Visona, annotated
PNG
media_image2.png
562
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Visona
PNG
media_image3.png
434
483
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2a of Dalla Fontana
Regarding claim 2, Visona discloses wherein said contiguous radial arms are a plurality (Fig. 4 shows four arms). Additionally, Fig. 2a of Dalla Fontana shows a plurality of portions of plate 22).
Regarding claim 3, Visona does not expressly disclose wherein said substantially planar central body has a substantially circular contour, said at least two contiguous radial laminas being shaped of circular sectors which have an outside diameter that corresponds to a diameter of an internal part of the pizza base to be provided, delimited by a perimetric crust of dough.
Dalla Fontana discloses wherein said substantially planar central body has a substantially circular contour (Fig. 2a), said at least two contiguous radial laminas being shaped of circular sectors (Fig. 2a).
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 said substantially planar central body has a substantially circular contour (Fig. 2a), said at least two contiguous radial laminas being shaped of circular sectors. This is a known configuration for a dough-pressing plate, applied to a known device, to achieve predictable results.
In addition to structural limitations, claim 3 is directed to a material or article worked upon by an apparatus. The material or article work on is “an internal part of the pizza base to be provided, delimited by a perimetric crust of dough.” The courts have held that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). MPEP § 2115. Depending on the diameter of the internal part of the pizza base to be provided, the outside diameter of the circular sectors of Dalla Fontana are capable of having an outside diameter that corresponds to a diameter of an internal part of the pizza base to be provided, delimited by a perimetric crust of dough.
Regarding claim 4, Visona discloses a covering sheath (Fig. 3, “flexible meshwork 32” [0024]) for said presser plate, a face of said sheath that is directed outward being configured to abut against the predefined quantity of said dough (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Visona discloses wherein said at least one central actuator and said at least two external actuators are chosen between pneumatic cylinders, hydraulic cylinders, electrically actuated movement means, and combinations thereof (“actuating means 13 and 26 may consist, for example, of pneumatic pistons” [0021]).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is directed to a material or article worked upon by an apparatus. The material or article work on is “wherein said dough has high hydration, comprising a quantity of water, with respect to the flour, equal to at least 55% by weight.” The courts have held that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). MPEP § 2115.
Regarding claim 8, Visona does not expressly disclose wherein said pusher has a footprint a transverse dimension of which is smaller than 1000 mm, said transverse footprint being defined by an outer perimetric edge of said at least two contiguous radial laminas.
However, 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 said pusher has a footprint a transverse dimension of which is smaller than 1000 mm, said transverse footprint being defined by an outer perimetric edge of said at least two contiguous radial laminas, because the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visona (EP 1129621) in view of Dalla Fontana et al. (US 2021/0235707), further in view of Fusari et al. (US 2013/0243905).
Regarding claim 7, Visona does not expressly disclose wherein said pusher is rigidly coupled to a panel which is coupled to said frame by virtue of adjustment means configured for adjusting a position of the panel, at least in elevation, with respect to the at least one supporting surface on which the predefined quantity of dough can be accommodated.
Fusari is directed to a “machine for folding an edible dough” [Abstract]. Fusari discloses where a pusher (“pusher 4” [0023]) is rigidly coupled to a panel (“contact element 40” [0023]) which is coupled to a frame (“frame 6” [0025]) by virtue of adjustment means (“driving motor 44” [0023]) configured for adjusting a position of the panel, at least in elevation, with respect to the at least one supporting surface on which the predefined quantity of dough can be accommodated (“pusher 4 comprises a contact element 40 with the kneading 2 which lays substantially horizontal being supported by a piston 41 vertically sliding inside a box 42 integral with an arm 43 horizontally movable by means of a driving motor 44. The contact element 40 can thus move vertically and horizontally” [0023]).
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 said pusher is rigidly coupled to a panel which is coupled to said frame by virtue of adjustment means configured for adjusting a position of the panel, at least in elevation, with respect to the at least one supporting surface on which the predefined quantity of dough can be accommodated. This provides an additional range of motion (both vertical and horizontal) for pressing the dough.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaible et al. (US 6,365,210) in view of Fritz-Jung et al. (US 2012/0024170), Visona (EP 1129621), and Dalla Fontana et al. (US 2021/0235707).
Regarding claim 11, Schaible disclose a unit for making pizzas comprising: at least one mixer for providing a food dough (“Conventional batch mix, using a stationary bowl spiral mixer (referenced as Step 24 in FIG. 1), for example of the commercial type” [Col. 11, lines 33-35]), at least one assembly for dividing said dough into predefined distinct quantities (“In the dividing step of the process (step 26 of FIG. 1) a commercially available divider machine (“as shown generally at 100 in FIG. 2; for example, of the commercially available type … is used to take the dough from either of the aforementioned alternate mixing steps” [Col. 11, lines60-66]), at least one apparatus for a transfer of said predefined quantities of dough (“The mixed dough is preferably fed via an endless belt power-driven conveyor (not shown) from the output of the continuous mixer into the receiving hopper 102 of divider 100, and thence internally through a system of cooperative piston, slide and knife mechanisms provided in divider 100 to thereby cut the mix into individual dough pieces of the desired weight and feed them out single file on an endless belt output conveyor of the divider” [Col. 11, line 66 – Col. 12, line 7]).
Schaible further discloses, in the steps shown in Fig. 1, wherein dough pressing is performed (“two stages of pressing are performed with commercially available pizza crust hydraulic forming presses” [Col. 14, lines 12-14]; Fig. 1 shows wherein pressing (at steps 36, 38, and 40) is performed between dividing (at step 26, which includes transferring the divided dough, which is performed before rounding step 28 [Col. 12, lines 7-19]), followed by filling and baking the pizza bases (step 68). The filling and baking are disclosed as being performed at a separate location.
Schaible does not expressly disclose at least one station for the distribution of specific fillings on pizza bases obtained from said predefined quantities of dough and a thermal treatment assembly chosen between an oven, a blast chiller, and a freezer, and further comprising, interposed between said at least one transfer apparatus and said at least one filling distribution station, a device according to claim 1.
Fritz-Jung is directed to an “automated pizza assembly system” [Title]. Fritz-Jung discloses at least one station for the distribution of specific fillings on pizza bases obtained from said predefined quantities of dough (Fig. 3, “sauce station 300, a cheese station 400, a pepperoni station 500” [0054]) and a thermal treatment assembly chosen between an oven, a blast chiller, and a freezer (Fig. 3, “oven 800” [0054]). Fritz further discloses a “dough pressing station (not shown)” [0054]. Fig. 7 shows steps comprising “press dough 82,” followed distributing fillings (“apply sauce 84,” “apply cheese 86,” “apply toppings 88”), followed by “place in oven or manual station 90.”
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 at least one station for the distribution of specific fillings on pizza bases obtained from said predefined quantities of dough and a thermal treatment assembly chosen between an oven, a blast chiller, and a freezer. This is a known, alternative way of assembling and cooking a pizza. That is, in Schaible, the pressed pizza dough is shipped to an alternative location, where it is then filled and baked. In Fritz-Jung, the pressed pizza dough is filled and baked at the same location where the pressing takes place. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the filling and baking stations at the same location as the dough mixing, dividing, and pressing stations, such that a pizza can be cooked and eaten shortly after the dough is made.
While Schaible and Fritz-Jung each disclose a pressing device, Schaible / Fritz-Jung do not expressly disclose “a device according to claim 1.”
However, Visona and Dalla Fontana disclose the device according to claim 1, as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
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 device according to claim 1, as this is a known, alternative configuration of a dough-pressing device, applied to a known unit for making pizzas, to achieve predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2001/0024671 is directed to a method and device for producing pizza..
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