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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“The purpose there of is …” in paragraph [0025] should read “The purpose thereof is ….”
The examiner suggests “Accordingly, with prior wrapping the stuffing 132 inside the wrapper 112 …” should read “Accordingly, with the stuffing 132 previously wrapped inside the wrapper 112 ….”
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
In particular, the abstract is objected to because it fails to present a concise summary of the technical disclosure. Specifically, the abstract emphasizes advantages and purported improvements over the prior art (e.g., replacing a prior-art rolling method, maintaining the shape of non-strip stuffing, and solving technical problems associated with automation of plate-shaped stuffing foods) rather than summarizing the structure and operation of the disclosed apparatus. In addition, the abstract refers to the prior art and does not adequately identify the essential technical features of the disclosed stuffing food forming apparatus. Appropriate correction is required.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “shaping unit” in claims 6 and 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the term “shaping unit” in claims 6 and 7, the limitation recites the functions of flattening the wrapper and making the stuffing evenly distributed in the wrapper without reciting sufficient structure for performing the recited functions. The recited functions are flattening the wrapper and making the stuffing evenly distributed in the wrapper. The corresponding structure is disclosed, in paragraph [0030], which states: “The shaping unit 170 is employed to flatten the wrapper 112 and make the stuffing 132 evenly distributed in the wrapper 112. Preferably, the shaping unit 170 is a flat plate for flattening the appearance.” Therefore, the corresponding structure includes at least a flat plate configured to flatten the wrapper and distribute the stuffing, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the at least one flipping hook” in lines 1-2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites two flipping units, each comprising “at least one flipping hook.” Therefore, it is unclear which flipping hook or group of flipping hooks is being referenced in claim 3. In addition, the limitation “the set of protrusions” in line 4 lacks proper antecedent basis because it is unclear whether it refers to the set of protrusions associated with one of the two flipping units recited earlier in the claim. Claim 7 is also rejected for the same reason due to its dependency on claim 3. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets “the at least one flipping hook” as meaning “the at least one flipping hook of one of the two flipping units,” and “the set of protrusions as the pivot” as meaning “the set of protrusions of one of the two flipping units as the pivot.”
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the set of protrusions” in lines 1-2 lacks proper antecedent basis because claim 1 recites two flipping units, each comprising a set of protrusions, and it is unclear which set of protrusions is being referenced. Further, the limitation “the pair of protrusions” in lines 2-3 lacks proper antecedent basis because no antecedent basis for a pair of protrusions is provided in the claims. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets “the set of protrusions are arranged on both sides …” as meaning “the sets of protrusions of the two flipping units are arranged on both sides …,” and “the pair of protrusions move toward the wrapper …” as meaning “the protrusions move toward the wrapper ….”
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pomara (US 6170391), in view of Watanabe (US 4439124).
Regarding claim 1, Pomara discloses, in Fig. 1,
a stuffing food forming apparatus (100, “folding machine”; abstract: “apparatus for preparing a folded food product”), comprising:
a wrapper receiving area (114, “entry point”), receiving a wrapper (20: “food wrap”);
a main conveyor belt (112, “conveyor”), transporting the wrapper (20) in a first direction (annotated Fig. 1: d1, “first direction”; the examiner annotates an arrow indicating forward moving direction as d1) (annotated Fig. 1 shows the wrapper is transported on the main conveyor belt in a first direction);
a stuffing feeder (128, “filling machine”), employed to extrude a stuffing (30, “filling”) onto the wrapper (20) (abstract: “a filling machine (128) operable to deposit a filling (30) on a food wrap (20)”) when the main conveyor belt (112) transports the wrapper (20) to the stuffing feeder (128) (Fig. 1 shows the operation);
two side folding plates (Fig. 4: 214, “folding belt”; Fig. 4 shows the configuration of the folding belt having two sides to fold both sides of side sections 24), employed to respectively fold a first part and a second part (Fig. 3: 24, “a pair of side sections”) of the wrapper (20), which are perpendicular to the first direction (d1), toward the stuffing (30) (Fig. 3 shows the folding direction of side sections is perpendicular to the first direction, toward the filling 30) when the main conveyor belt (112) transports the wrapper (20) to the two side folding plates (214) (Fig. 5 shows the operation); and
two flipping units (annotated Fig. 7: 160a, “first folding element” and 160b, “second folding element”; as shown in annotated Fig. 7, the first folding element 160a comprises lift plate 330, folding finger 332 and air cylinder 334, and the second folding element 160b comprises lift plate 338, folding finger 344, and air cylinder 346; col. 5, lns. 56-61: “the combination of folding fingers 332 [& 334], lift plate 330 [& 338] and air cylinder 334 [& 346] may be referred to as a mechanical lifting mechanism. The mechanical lifting mechanisms and the mechanical folding mechanisms, described above, may be generically referred to as folding elements”), each of which comprises at least one flipping hook (annotated Fig. 7 shows the first folding element 160a comprising folding finger 332 and the second folding element 160b comprising folding finger 344), and the at least one flipping hook (332, 344) flips the wrapper (20) upward and then toward an opposite direction of the first direction (d1) (annotated Fig. 7 shows the flipping operation of the lift plates 330 and 338 in the opposite direction of the first direction, annotated as d1) when the main conveyor belt (112) transports the wrapper (20) to one of the two flipping units (160) (Fig. 7 shows the operation).
Regarding claim 1, Pomara does not explicitly teach each of the two flipping units comprises a set of protrusions which abuts against the wrapper and serve as a pivot.
However, Watanabe teaches, in Fig. 16, a stuffing food forming apparatus (abstract: “machine for automatically making rolled food products”) wherein the flipping units (120, “first and second rolling mechanisms”) comprises a set of protrusions (121, 122, 127, 141; col. 16, lns. 38-54: “Each rolling mechanism 120 comprises an end block 123, a lower finger member 121 extending … in a direction towards the other rolling mechanism 120, a generally outwardly tapered upper finger member 122 … a stopper member 127 protruding … a retainer finger member 141 protruding …”) which abuts against the wrapper (Fig. 20(XII): 124, “food block”; Fig. 20(XII) shows food block 124 including the crepe wrapper is held between the protruding members of the rolling mechanisms) and serve as a pivot while the wrapper is folded (col. 21, lns. 38-42: “While this condition is maintained, the first and second rolling mechanisms 120 holding the food block 124 are rotated through 720° about the rotary shafts 126 to roll up the second corner portion of the crepe d' around the body”; Fig. 20(XIII); the examiner interprets the protruding members 121, 122, 127 and 141 as serving as the pivot structure because they support and hold the food block 124 while the wrapper is folded and rolled about the rolling mechanisms during the wrapping operation).
Pomara and Watanabe are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a food preparation apparatus for automatically folding or wrapping a food wrapper around a stuffing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the flipping units of Pomara to include protruding support members that abut against the wrapper and serve as pivot structures during the flipping operation as taught by Watanabe, in order to support and control the wrapper during folding, for the purpose of “forming the products with the food stuffing closely packed, … [and] retaining their shape for a prolonged period of time.” Watanabe, col. 2, lns. 19-22.
PNG
media_image1.png
487
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Pomara, annotated
PNG
media_image2.png
492
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 3-5 of Pomara
PNG
media_image3.png
215
760
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Pomara
PNG
media_image4.png
498
1132
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
356
754
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Pomara, annotated
PNG
media_image6.png
326
577
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 16 of Watanabe
PNG
media_image7.png
556
548
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 20 of Watanabe
Regarding claim 2, Pomara in view of Watanabe teaches, in Fig. 7 of Pomara, the stuffing food forming apparatus (Pomara: 100) according to claim 1, wherein a pre-pressor (326, “second air cylinder” & 328, “crease plate”) is further arranged behind (Figs. 5 and 6 show the arrangement) the two side folding plates (214) on the main conveyor belt (112) for pressing the wrapper so that at least one pressed mark (26, “crease”) perpendicular to the first direction (d1) is formed on the wrapper (20) (Pomara, col. 5, lns. 33-38: “a second air cylinder 326 to extend a crease plate 328 down against food wrap 20 … Crease plate 328 places a crease 26 along food wrap 20 that is generally perpendicular to the folds made by folding belt 214”; Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 3, Pomara in view of Watanabe teaches
the stuffing food forming apparatus (Pomara: 100) according to claim 2, wherein the at least one flipping hook (Pomara: 332, 344, “folding fingers”) cooperates with the set of protrusions (Watanabe: 121, 122, 127, 141) of one of the two flipping units (Pomara: 160) sequentially abutting against the at least one pressed mark (Pomara: 26, “crease”; col. 5, lns. 35-36: “Crease plate 328 places a crease 26 along food wrap 20”) to flip the wrapper (Pomara: 20) upward and then toward an opposite direction of the first direction (Pomara: d1) (Pomara: Fig. 7 shows the flipping sequence with directions indicated with arrows) with the set of protrusions (Watanabe: 121, 122, 127, 141) as the pivot (col. 21, lns. 38-42: “While this condition is maintained, the first and second rolling mechanisms 120 holding the food block 124 are rotated through 720° about the rotary shafts 126 to roll up the second corner portion of the crepe d' around the body”; Fig. 20(XI)-(XIII); the examiner interprets the protrusions 121, 122, 127 and 141 as supporting and retaining the wrapper at the fold location during the folding operation and serving as pivot structures about which the wrapper is folded, thereby sequentially engaging portions of the wrapper adjacent the crease corresponding to the pressed mark while the wrapper is flipped).
Regarding claim 4, Pomara in view of Watanabe teaches, in Fig. 6 of Pomara,
the stuffing food forming apparatus (Pomara: 100) according to claim 1, wherein the main conveyor belt (312, “conveyor”) comprises a plurality of sub-conveyor belts (318, “belts”), and there is a groove between every two of the plurality of sub-conveyor belts (the examiner interprets the spaces between adjacent belts 318, shown in Fig. 6, as corresponding to the claimed grooves; Pomara, col. 5, lns. 22-23: “Belts 318 are positioned generally parallel to and spaced apart from each other”) for receiving the at least one flipping hook (332, 344) (Fig. 6; col. 5, lns. 48-50: “Lift plate[s] 330 [& 338] ha[ve] a number of [folding] fingers 332 [& 344] that extend … perpendicularly from lift plate 330 under belts 318,” whereby the spaces between adjacent belts 318 are configured to receive the folding fingers 332 & 344 during the folding operation).
Regarding claim 5, Pomara in view of Watanabe teaches the stuffing food forming apparatus (Pomara: 100) according to claim 4, wherein the set of protrusions (121, 122, 127, 141; col. 16, lns. 38-54: “Each rolling mechanism 120 comprises an end block 123, a lower finger member 121 extending … in a direction towards the other rolling mechanism 120, a generally outwardly tapered upper finger member 122 … a stopper member 127 protruding … a retainer finger member 141 protruding …”) are arranged on both sides of the main conveyor belt (Pomara: 312), and the pair of protrusions move toward the wrapper (Pomara; 20) to contact the wrapper (Pomara: 20) (Watanabe, col. 16, lns. 33-38: “the rolling device i comprises a pair of first and second rolling mechanisms 120 … positioned one on each side … and arranged in symmetrical relation to each other”) when the wrapper (Pomara: 20) is transported to the two flipping units (Pomara: 160) (Watanabe, Fig. 20(XI)-(XII); col. 20, ln. 65-col. 21, ln. 2: “the hollow shafts 128 are moved … in a direction close towards each other with the lower finger members 121 and the stopper members 127 consequently projecting … in the direction towards each other”).
Regarding claim 8, Pomara and Watanabe teaches
the stuffing food forming apparatus (Pomara: 100) according to claim 1, wherein the set of protrusions (121, 122, 127, 141; col. 16, lns. 38-54: “Each rolling mechanism 120 comprises an end block 123, a lower finger member 121 extending … in a direction towards the other rolling mechanism 120, a generally outwardly tapered upper finger member 122 … a stopper member 127 protruding … a retainer finger member 141 protruding …”) of each of the two flipping units (Watanabe, Fig. 16: 120, “first and second rolling mechanisms”; col. 16, lns. 33-38: “the rolling device i comprises a pair of first and second rolling mechanisms 120 … positioned one on each side … and arranged in symmetrical relation to each other”) move toward the wrapper (Watanabe, Fig. 20: d’, “crepe”) from both sides of the main conveyor belt (Pomara: 312) perpendicular to the first direction (Pomara: d1) to abut against the wrapper (Watanabe: d’) when the main conveyor belt (Pomara: 312) transports the wrapper (Watanabe: d’) to the two flipping units (Watanabe: 120) (Watanabe, Fig. 20(XI)-(XII); col. 20, ln. 65-col. 21, ln. 2: “the hollow shafts 128 are moved … in a direction close towards each other with the lower finger members 121 and the stopper members 127 consequently projecting … in the direction towards each other”).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pomara (US 6170391), in view of Watanabe (US 4439124), further in view of Geissler (DE 3625578).
Regarding claim 6, Pomara in view of Watanabe teaches, in Fig. 7 of Pomara, the stuffing food forming apparatus (Pomara: 100) according to claim 1, wherein a shaping unit (336, “press wheel”) is further arranged after the two flipping units (160) on the main conveyor belt (312) to flatten the wrapper (20) and make the stuffing (30) evenly distributed in the wrapper (20) (Pomara, col. 5, ln. 62-col. 6, ln. 1: “Belts 318 next move food wrap 20 under a press wheel 336. Press wheel 336 is positioned over belts 318 such that it slightly compresses and flattens the portion of food wrap 20 containing the majority of filling 30. Press wheel 336 may be fabricated from a soft material, such as foam, to prevent damage to or excessive flattening of food wrap 20 and filling 30”).
Pomara discloses the position of the press wheel 336 is between successive flipping operations rather than after the second flipping unit, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the press wheel after the final flipping operation, because Pomara already discloses the press wheel as a shaping component that compresses and flattens the wrapped food product (col. 5, lns. 63-65). Relocating the press wheel to a downstream position after the final flipping operation would merely constitute a rearrangement of known elements performing the same known function to obtain the predictable result of shaping the completed food product and promoting a uniform distribution of the filling within the wrapper. See MPEP 2144.04.
Geissler further discloses, in Fig. 2, a shaping unit (16, “stamp”) is arranged at the end of the main conveyor belt (12, “conveyor”) to flatten the wrapper (3, “dome”) and the stuffing (6, “filling”) evenly distributed in the wrapper (3) (Geissler (translation), p. 2, lns. 13-16: “the dough piece 9 reaches the area of a stamp 16, which gives it the shape of the yeast dumpling in FIG. 1 … Through this deformation, the filling 6 is largely distributed in the center of the yeast dumpling”). The examiner interprets Geissler as teaching the placement of the shaping unit (16) downstream of the food forming operations along the conveyor so that substantially completed stuffed food product is flattened and shaped while promoting distribution of the filing within the wrapper. Pomara, Watanabe and Geissler are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of forming stuffed food products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to modify the stuffing food forming apparatus taught by Pomara and Watanabe by locating the shaping unit after the flipping operations as taught by Geissler. Such modification would have involved arranging known food processing components according to their established functions to obtain the predictable result of a flattened and more uniformly filled food product. Geissler (translation), p. 2, lns. 15-16.
PNG
media_image8.png
463
691
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1-2 of Geissler
Regarding claim 7, Pomara in view of Watanabe teaches, in Fig. 7 of Pomara, the stuffing food forming apparatus (Pomara: 100) according to claim 3, wherein a shaping unit (336, “press wheel”) is further arranged after the two flipping units (160) on the main conveyor belt (312) to flatten the wrapper (20) and make the stuffing (30) evenly distributed in the wrapper (20) (Pomara, col. 5, ln. 62-col. 6, ln. 1: “Belts 318 next move food wrap 20 under a press wheel 336. Press wheel 336 is positioned over belts 318 such that it slightly compresses and flattens the portion of food wrap 20 containing the majority of filling 30. Press wheel 336 may be fabricated from a soft material, such as foam, to prevent damage to or excessive flattening of food wrap 20 and filling 30”).
Pomara discloses the position of the press wheel 336 is between successive flipping operations rather than after the second flipping unit, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the press wheel after the final flipping operation, because Pomara already discloses the press wheel as a shaping component that compresses and flattens the wrapped food product (col. 5, lns. 63-65). Relocating the press wheel to a downstream position after the final flipping operation would merely constitute a rearrangement of known elements performing the same known function to obtain the predictable result of shaping the completed food product and promoting a uniform distribution of the filling within the wrapper. See MPEP 2144.04.
Geissler further discloses, in Fig. 2, a shaping unit (16, “stamp”) is arranged at the end of the main conveyor belt (12, “conveyor”) to flatten the wrapper (3, “dome”) and the stuffing (6, “filling”) evenly distributed in the wrapper (3) (Geissler (translation), p. 2, lns. 13-16: “the dough piece 9 reaches the area of a stamp 16, which gives it the shape of the yeast dumpling in FIG. 1 … Through this deformation, the filling 6 is largely distributed in the center of the yeast dumpling”). The examiner interprets Geissler as teaching the placement of the shaping unit (16) downstream of the food forming operations along the conveyor so that substantially completed stuffed food product is flattened and shaped while promoting distribution of the filing within the wrapper. Pomara, Watanabe and Geissler are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of forming stuffed food products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to modify the stuffing food forming apparatus taught by Pomara and Watanabe by locating the shaping unit after the flipping operations as taught by Geissler. Such modification would have involved arranging known food processing components according to their established functions to obtain the predictable result of a flattened and more uniformly filled food product. Geissler (translation), p. 2, lns. 15-16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pomara (US 5263407), Li at el. (CN 115251103), Zhang et al. (CN 111053271), Robert (US 20120152130), Pol et al. (NL 9400019), Goodman et al. (US 4483242).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights