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 .
Priority
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 1/2/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-15 and 21-25 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 1, line 9 recites “the level”; claim 7, line 3 recites “the interval time”; claim 8, line 3 recites “the time to release”; claim 10, line 2 recites “the speed”; claim 11, line 2 recites “the HMI”; claim 13, line 4 recites “the hopper level”; claim 14, line 3 recites “the volume”; claim 15, lines 4-5 recites “the high target level”; claim 24, line 3 recites “the minimum shutdown level”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-15, line 1 recites “a feeding device” which should be amended to “the feeding device” because a feeding device was recited earlier in claim 1.
Claim 11, line 2 recites “HMI”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the acronym HMI is. It is suggested to clearly define HMI in the claims.
Claims 21-23 and 25 are also rejected because they are dependent upon claim 1.
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.
Claim 1-15 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Morand (FR3055522) in view of Dieter (DE102005036331). An English machine translation of Morand (FR3055522) in view of Dieter (DE102005036331) is included with the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Morand teaches a dough portioning machine with a feeding device having a dough run time controller and sensor system as components in a commercial baking system (title, abstract), comprising: a portioner (Figs 12, 13, application head 300, 0040); a dough (food dough, 0015-0018) feeder machine (filling device 712, 0041) providing dough to the portioner (300); a controller (inherently having a controller); a hopper (storage container 800, 0041) coupled to (supply system 500, conduit 502, 0036, 0041) the portioning machine (300) and receiving dough from the dough feeder machine (712); and a hopper demand or level sensor that determines the level (low level sensor 708, high level sensor 710, 0041) of the dough in the hopper of the feeder machine, the dough portioner machine (300) utilizes dough in the portioning machine hopper (800), as the level of dough decreases to a level below a low setting relative to a start value, the controller senses, through the hopper demand or level sensor the low setting and the feeder is activated to provide dough to increase the level of dough in the portioning machine hopper, when and until the dough level reaches a stop or upper target level in the hopper whereby the dough feeder machine stops (0041, conversely when it does not detect food dough, it commands its indicator to display a signal of red color. Thus, an operator can know precisely when he must refill the storage container 800 using the filling device 712, as well as the quantity to be poured to reach the high level sensor 710). Morand discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly showing a controller and as the level of dough decreases or below a low setting relative to a start value, the controller senses through the hopper demand or level sensor the low setting and the feeder is activated to provide dough to increase the level of dough in the portioning machine hopper.
However, a controller and as the level of dough decreases or below a low setting relative to a start value, the controller senses through the hopper demand or level sensor the low setting and the feeder is activated to provide dough to increase the level of dough in the portioning machine hopper is known in the art. Dieter, for example, discloses a control unit (0057, first paragraph, control unit…light barrier sensor, which is activated because a light path through the elongated hole 27 is possible, detects the presence of the baked goods, whereupon the filling process from the storage containers 8 is stopped) working in conjunction with refill sensor to increase the level of ingredients in a container (0057, fourth paragraph, if the light barrier sensor detects that there is no more baked goods above the receiving wall 20, the control unit initiates a further refill from the storage containers 8) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the dough portioning machine of Morand having a level sensor silent to a controller with a controller and as the level of dough decreases or below a low setting relative to a start value, the controller senses through the hopper demand or level sensor the low setting and the feeder is activated to provide dough to increase the level of dough in the portioning machine hopper of Dieter for the purpose of forming a known controller / sensor configuration that automatically controls a refilling operation (0057) of dough portioning machine.
With respect to the limitations of claims 21 and 23, Morand in view of Dieter discloses the controller (Dieter, 0057, control unit) is configured to determine sufficiency of a reserve quantity of dough based on at least one of elapsed refill cycle time, conveyor operating speed, or hopper level response (Morand, low level sensor 708, high level sensor 710, 0041);
the controller (Dieter, 0057, control unit) is configured to generate an alert when the hopper level falls below an alarm threshold above a minimum shutdown level (Morand, 0041, when it does not detect food dough, it commands its indicator to display a signal of red color…it can be associated to each level sensor an audible warning device 718).
Claims 2-15, 22, 24 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Morand (FR3055522) in view of Dieter (DE102005036331) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Daester (US 3,822,866).
With respect to the limitations of claim 4, Morand in view of Dieter discloses the claimed invention except for further comprising an at least one conveyor feeding the hopper. However, Daester discloses further comprising an at least one conveyor feeding the hopper (Col 4, Lines 40-48, the level of the material still stored in the hopper 23 is preferably monitored by a detector (not shown), said detector triggering an alarm when the hopper needs to be refilled and starting a conveyor means (not shown) for automatically replenishing the contents of the hopper) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the dough portioning machine of Morand silent to a conveyor with the further comprising an at least one conveyor feeding the hopper of Daester for the purpose of providing a known conveying means that automatically refills the hopper based on detector low level feedback.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday [8:00-4:00].
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.
/THIEN S TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/26/2026