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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment filed 01/12/2026:
Claims 1-12, 21, and 22 are pending.
Claims 13-20 are cancelled.
Examiner’s Note
The limitation “extruding multiple individual products” (see claim 1 line 1-2 and claim 10 line 3-4” is to be interpreted as either simultaneously extruding a plurality of individual products or sequentially extruding individual products that results in a plurality of individual products being extruded.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradshaw (GB2060468A).
Regarding claim 1, Bradshaw teaches an extruder assembly (Figure 1) comprising:
an extruder (depositing head 6; Figure 1) including a nozzle (nozzle 7; Figure 1) for extruding multiple individual products (“A depositing head 6 is fixed to the lower part of the hopper 4, and the depositing head 6 has a row of nozzles 7”- see pg. 1 line 75-80, the row of nozzles 7 makes the extruder assembly of Bradshaw capable of extruding multiple products); and
a stand (support frame 2 in Figure 1, main frame 1 in Figure 2, connecting bar 23 in
Figure 1, cross-beam 14 in Figure 2, lower cross-beam 19 in Figure 2) for supporting the extruder (“A connecting bar 23 is fixed to the depositing head 6”- see pg. 1 line 115-119), the stand having one point of adjustment (pivot 24; Figure 1) using a height adjuster (height adjusting mechanism 20; Figure 1 and 2) adapted to raise and to lower the nozzle by rotating the stand about a pivot (“The height adjusting mechanisms 20 adjust the height of the outlets from the nozzles 7 above the receiving surface(s)… A connecting bar 23 is fixed to the depositing head 6 and is pivoted at 24 to the ram of a pneumatic piston-and- cylinder assembly 25 whose cylinder is pivoted to the main frame 1 at 26”- pg. 1 line 99-122) to change the weight of the individual products (Bradshaw teaches the structure of raising and lowering the nozzle such that the extruder assembly is capable of changing the product weight, since raising and lowering the nozzle will change the weight of the extruded products) while the extruder is operating (the height adjusting mechanism 20 does not interfere with the extruder operation and would therefore be capable of raising or lowering the nozzle during extrusion; pg. 2 line 100-109).
Regarding claim 2, Bradshaw teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1 wherein the
height adjuster is a manual height adjuster (“The height-adjusting mechanisms 20 can be of any
suitable type, and are shown as having two screw-jacks which can be turned by two
handwheels 22 (as shown) or for instance by a single handle if the screw-jacks are
interconnected by for instance sprockets and a chain” pg. 1 line 108-114).
Regarding claim 3, Bradshaw teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1 wherein the height adjuster is a vernier height adjuster (“The height-adjusting mechanisms 20 can be of any suitable type, and are shown as having two screw-jacks which can be turned by two handwheels 22 (as shown) or for instance by a single handle if the screw-jacks are interconnected by for instance sprockets and a chain” pg. 1 line 108-114; a screw-jack is to be interpreted as a type of Vernier adjustment, as Applicant’s instant specification recites in [0021] “providing a vernier adjustment such as a jack screw 28”).
Regarding claim 4, Bradshaw teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1 wherein the
height adjuster is a jack screw (“The height-adjusting mechanisms 20 can be of any suitable
type, and are shown as having two screw-jacks which can be turned by two handwheels 22 (as
shown) or for instance by a single handle if the screw-jacks are interconnected by for instance
sprockets and a chain” pg. 1 line 108-114).
Regarding claim 5, Bradshaw teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1 wherein the
height adjuster includes a manually operated hand wheel (“The height-adjusting mechanisms
20 can be of any suitable type, and are shown as having two screw-jacks which can be turned
by two handwheels 22 (as shown) or for instance by a single handle if the screw-jacks are
interconnected by for instance sprockets and a chain” pg. 1 line 108-114).
Regarding claim 7, Bradshaw teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1 wherein the
stand includes a top rotatable portion and a bottom stationary portion (Abstract: a support
frame 2 which is in turn pivotally mounted at 3 to the stationary, main frame 1 of the
apparatus; see support frame at top portion in Figure 1 and main frame 1 at bottom portion in
Figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Bradshaw teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1 wherein the
stand has opposite ends, the pivot is one of the opposite ends and the height adjuster is on the
other of the opposite ends (see pivot 26 at one end and height adjusting mechanism at other
end of the extruder assembly in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Bradshaw teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1 wherein the
stand has a second pivot about which the stand rotates (Abstract: a support frame 2 which is in
turn pivotally mounted at 3 to the stationary, main frame 1 of the apparatus).
Regarding claim 10, Bradshaw teaches an extruder assembly (Figure 1) for producing individual extruded products (the extruder assembly is a structure while the extruded cheese products are a material worked upon the structure. “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims” and, therefore, the extruded cheese products do not impart patentability to the claim- see MPEP 2115) comprising:
an extruder (depositing head 6; Figure 1) including a nozzle (nozzle 7; Figure 1) adapted to extrude multiple individual (“A depositing head 6 is fixed to the lower part of the hopper 4, and the depositing head 6 has a row of nozzles 7”- see pg. 1 line 75-80, the row of nozzles 7 makes the extruder assembly of Bradshaw capable of extruding multiple products) products (the extruder assembly is a structure while the extruded cheese products are a material worked upon the structure. “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims” and, therefore, the extruded cheese products do not impart patentability to the claim- see MPEP 2115); and
a stand (support frame 2 in Figure 1, main frame 1 in Figure 2, connecting bar 23 in
Figure 1, cross-beam 14 in Figure 2, lower cross-beam 19 in Figure 2) for supporting the extruder (“A connecting bar 23 is fixed to the depositing head 6”- see pg. 1 line 115-119), the stand having at least one pivot (pivot 24 and pivot 26; Figure 1) and having a height adjuster (height adjusting mechanism 20; Figure 1 and 2) adapted to raise and to lower the nozzle by rotating the stand about the pivot (“The height adjusting mechanisms 20 adjust the height of the outlets from the nozzles 7 above the receiving surface(s)… A connecting bar 23 is fixed to the depositing head 6 and is pivoted at 24 to the ram of a pneumatic piston-and- cylinder assembly 25 whose cylinder is pivoted to the main frame 1 at 26”- pg. 1 line 99-122),
wherein the height adjuster is a vernier adjustment height adjuster (“The height-adjusting mechanisms 20 can be of any suitable type, and are shown as having two screw-jacks which can be turned by two handwheels 22 (as shown) or for instance by a single handle if the screw-jacks are interconnected by for instance sprockets and a chain” pg. 1 line 108-114; a screw-jack is to be interpreted as a type of Vernier adjustment, as Applicant’s instant specification recites in [0021] “providing a vernier adjustment such as a jack screw 28”) having a manually operated hand wheel turned by a user (“The height-adjusting mechanisms 20 can be of any suitable type, and are shown as having two screw-jacks which can be turned by two handwheels 22 (as shown) or for instance by a single handle if the screw-jacks are interconnected by for instance sprockets and a chain” pg. 1 line 108-114) during operation of the extruder (the height adjusting mechanism 20 does not interfere with the extruder operation and would therefore be capable of raising or lowering the nozzle during extrusion; pg. 2 line 100-109) to enable the raising and the lowering of the nozzle to change a weight of the individual products within a target range (Bradshaw teaches the structure of raising and lowering the nozzle such that the extruder assembly is capable of changing the product weight within a target range, since raising and lowering the nozzle will change the weight of the extruded products)
Regarding claim 11, Bradshaw teaches the extruder assembly of claim 10 wherein the
height adjuster is a jack screw (“The height-adjusting mechanisms 20 can be of any suitable
type, and are shown as having two screw-jacks which can be turned by two handwheels 22 (as
shown) or for instance by a single handle if the screw-jacks are interconnected by for instance
sprockets and a chain” pg. 1 line 108-114).
Regarding claim 12, Bradshaw teaches the extruder assembly of claim 10 wherein the
stand includes a first stationary portion (main frame 1; Figure 2) and a second rotatable portion
(support frame 2; Figure 1 and Figure 2) and includes two pivots for rotating the second
rotatable portion of the stand (Abstract: “a support frame 2 which is in turn pivotally mounted
at 3 to the stationary, main frame 1 of the apparatus”, “To the main frame 1 is pivoted for
limited oscillatory motion a support structure or frame 2 for movement about a first, horizontal
axis 3 which is transverse to the movement of the receiving surface(s)”, and “The far end of the
support frame 2 is pivoted to a cross-beam 14 about a third horizontal axis 1 5 which, in the
position shown in Figure 1, is at the same level as the axes 3 and 5”- see pg. 1 line 57-62 and pg.
1 line 96-100).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinrichs et al. (EP2782441).
Regarding claim 1, Hinrichs teaches an extruder assembly (Figure 3) comprising:
an extruder (single-screw extruder 1a; Figure 3) including a nozzle (nozzle 24; Figure 3) for extruding an individual product ([0040] to form the material strand which exits after the stretching section 22 and forms the Mozzarella end product); and
a stand (holder H1 on horizontal base U in Figure 3) for supporting the extruder, the
stand having one point of adjustment using a height adjuster adapted to raise and to lower the
nozzle by rotating the stand about a pivot ([0039] the holder H 1 is additionally provided with
an adjusting device V by means of which the inclination of the single-screw extruder 1a relative
to the horizontal can be varied. The adjusting device V is designed as a pivoting mechanism, as
can be seen from the drawing, and is manually adjustable. It is also possible to associate an
actuating drive with the adjusting device in order to enable a motor-driven adjustment of the
inclination of the single-screw extruder 1a to the horizontal) to change the weight of the
product ([0041] Depending on the adjusted inclination of the single screw extruder 1a relative to the horizontal, the liquid level of the process liquid located in the cylinder space of
the extruder cylinder 2a can be controlled by means of the overflow device 2) while the extruder is operating (the adjusting device V does not interfere with the extruder operation and would therefore be capable of adjusting the extruder inclination relative to horizontal surface U during extrusion).
While Hinrichs fails to explicitly teach the nozzle extrudes multiple individual products, Hinrichs does teach an individual product is extruded (a mozzarella end product), and that the extruder is used for a continuous and industrial scale production of plasticized food products ([0006] the single screw extruder according to the invention is particularly advantageously suitable for the continuous and industrial production of plasticized food products).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the extruder of Hinrichs extrude individual products in a sequential manner to form multiple individual products, for the benefit of forming a plurality of products that are conducive to industrial scale production.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hinrichs teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1 wherein the height adjuster is a manual height adjuster ([0039] The adjusting device V is designed as a pivoting mechanism, as is be seen from the drawing, and is manually adjustable).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hinrichs teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1 wherein the height adjuster is a motorized height adjuster ([0039] It is also possible to associate an actuating drive with the adjusting device in order to enable a motor-driven adjustment of the inclination of the single-screw extruder 1a to the horizontal).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hinrichs teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1 wherein the stand includes a top rotatable portion and a bottom stationary portion (see annotated Figure 3 on pg. 8 of the Office Action mailed 03/25/2025).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hinrichs teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1 wherein the stand has opposite ends, the pivot is on one of the opposite ends and the height adjuster is on the other of the opposite ends (see height adjuster V at one opposite end annotated Figure 3 below).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradshaw (GB2060468A), and further in view of Kraus (US4759704).
Regarding claim 21, Bradshaw teaches an extruder assembly comprising:
an extruder (depositing head 6; Figure 1) including a nozzle (nozzle 7; Figure 1) for extruding individual products (“A depositing head 6 is fixed to the lower part of the hopper 4, and the depositing head 6 has a row of nozzles 7”- see pg. 1 line 75-80, the row of nozzles 7 makes the extruder assembly of Bradshaw capable of extruding multiple individual products); and
a stand (support frame 2 in Figure 1, main frame 1 in Figure 2, connecting bar 23 in
Figure 1, cross-beam 14 in Figure 2, lower cross-beam 19 in Figure 2) for supporting the extruder (“A connecting bar 23 is fixed to the depositing head 6”- see pg. 1 line 115-119) having a height adjuster (height adjusting mechanism 20; Figure 1 and 2) adapted to adjust the height of the nozzle (“The height adjusting mechanisms 20 adjust the height of the outlets from the nozzles 7 above the receiving surface(s)… A connecting bar 23 is fixed to the depositing head 6 and is pivoted at 24 to the ram of a pneumatic piston-and- cylinder assembly 25 whose cylinder is pivoted to the main frame 1 at 26”- pg. 1 line 99-122) so as to change the weight of the individual products to a target range (Bradshaw teaches the structure of raising and lowering the nozzle such that the extruder assembly is capable of changing the product weight to a target range, since raising and lowering the nozzle will change the weight of the extruded products) while the extruder is operating (the height adjusting mechanism 20 does not interfere with the extruder operation and would therefore be capable of raising or lowering the nozzle during extrusion; pg. 2 line 100-109).
While the weight of the individual products are capable of being varied as the height of the nozzle is adjusted, and Bradshaw further teaches the weight is adjusted through adjusting the stroke of the pneumatic piston-and-cylinder assembly 11 (pg. 1 line 81-88), Bradshaw fails to teach the extruder assembly comprises a scale adjacent the nozzle for measuring the weight of the individual products and the height adjuster is adapted to adjust the height of the nozzle relative to the scale so as to change the weight of the individual products to a target range while the extruder is operating.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to extruding foodstuff, Kraus teaches a scale (counter weight 6; Figure 1) adjacent a nozzle (see cheese 4 being extruded from nozzle in Figure 1) for measuring the weight of individual products, and a height adjusted is adapted to adjust the height of the scale relative to the nozzle so as to change the weight of the individual products to a target range while the extruder is operating (col 2 line 56-66). Measuring the extruded product weight adjacent to a nozzle and adjusting the height of the scale relative to the nozzle allows for foodstuff products to be formed with great uniformity and precision (col 1 line 61- col 2 line 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the extruder assembly of Bradshaw comprise a scale adjacent the nozzle for measuring the weight of individual products, as taught by Kraus, and for the height adjuster of Bradshaw adapted to adjust the height of the nozzle relative to the scale so as to change the weight of the individual products to a target range while the extruder is operating, as Kraus suggests, for the benefit of forming foodstuff products with great uniformity and precision.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradshaw (GB2060468A) and Kraus (US4759704), and further in view of Dahms et al. (US3010499).
Regarding claim 22, Bradshaw modified with Kraus teaches the extruder assembly of claim 21. However, Bradshaw fails to teach the extruder assembly further including a controller in communication with the scale and in communication with the height adjuster, the controller receiving the weight of the individual products from the scale and sending a signal to the height adjuster to change the height of the nozzle relative to the scale to maintain the individual products within the target range during operation of the extruder.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming foodstuff products on an industrial scale, Dahms teaches a controller in communication with a scale and in communication with a valve, the controller receiving the weight of the individual products from the scale and sending a signal to the valve to change the material flow to maintain the individual products within the target range during operation of the food conveyor (col 8 line 61- col 9 line 2). The controller provides automatic control for the weight of the individual products in real-time, which reduces the amount of manual control and correction (Abstract: and wherein the machine automatically controls and registers the exact weight of each package, so as to require a minimum amount of manual control and correction).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the extruder assembly of Bradshaw modified with Kraus comprise a controller in communication with the scale and in communication with the height adjuster, the controller receiving a weight of the individual products from a scale, as taught by Dahms, such that a signal is sent to the height adjuster to change the height of the nozzle relative to the scale to maintain the individual products within the target range during operation of the extruder, for the benefit of automatically controlling the weight of the individual products in real-time and reducing the amount of manual control and correction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743