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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been carefully considered. Applicant’s argument on page 9 that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the previous prior art rejections are persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 8 have likewise overcome the previous prior art rejection.
However, Applicant’s amendments to claims 15 and 22, which are different than those to claims 1 and 8, do not overcome the previous prior art rejections for the reasons given in the rejections below.
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 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebenstreit (US 2016/0135471) in view of Campbell et al. (US 2024/0081348; “Campbell”).
Regarding claim 15, Hebenstreit discloses in figures 1 and 2 a method of providing a dough proofing system for continuously dividing a mass of semisolid matter into a plurality of portions, each portion having a preselected target weight (¶¶ [0004]-[0006]), comprising the steps of providing a device (12) that feeds a mass of semi-solid matter to a dividing mechanism (14) and has an operating rate that is controlled by inputting an operating rate control signal (¶¶ [0004], [0017], [0034]), providing the dividing mechanism (14) that divides the matter into portions (¶¶ [0005], [0012], [0017], [0034]), providing a conveyor (no reference numeral, shown in figure 1) configured to receive and transport the portions from the dividing mechanism (14) (¶ [0017]), providing a proofer (20) downstream from the conveyor configured to receive and transport the portions of semi-solid matter from the conveyor to a weigh conveyor (24) (¶ [0017]), providing a load cell (16) to support the weigh conveyor (24) that provides an indication of the weight of the empty weigh conveyor (24) and the weight of the portions on the weigh conveyor (24) (¶¶ [0017], [0023]), the load cell comprising a strain gauge load cell having a counterforce submerged in fluid to provide impact cushioning (¶ [0007]), providing a processor (18) in electrical communication with the device that feeds (12) the semi-solid matter to the dividing mechanism (14) and the load cell (16) (¶¶ [0017], [0031]), the processor (18) programmed to obtain a group of a predetermined number of successive weight indications from the load cell (16) (¶ [0038]), calculate the average weight indication of the group (¶ [0038]), determine whether all of the weight indications in the group fall within a predetermined standard deviation of the average weight indication of the group, and if so, calculating the difference between the average weight and the sum of the target weight and the tare weight of the empty weigh conveyor (24) (¶ [0039]), and if the difference is less than a predetermined tare set point, use the average weight as the tare weight for subsequent weight indications (¶ [0040]), and if the difference is greater than the predetermined tare set point, including the average weight indication of the group in an array of a predetermined number of weight samples, calculate the average of the weight samples in the array, and adjust the operating rate control signal according to the difference between the average sample weight and the sum of the target weight and the tare weight (¶ [0041]).
Hebenstreit discloses a weigh conveyor with a load cell underneath (¶ [0017]) rather than a weigh bucket.
In the same field of endeavor, Campbell teaches an apparatus for producing portions of semi-solid matter wherein the means for weighing is a weighing bucket (34), wherein the portion resting in the weigh bucket (34) is released when the proofer (30) is positioned underneath the weigh bucket (34) (¶¶ [0026]-[0027]; disclosed on page 6 of the provisional and referred to as “gate”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to replace Hebenstreit’s weigh conveyor with Campbell’s weigh bucket for the purpose of maintain the shape of the portion to ensure the weight distribution for each portion is consistent to achieve the predictable result of more accurate weight measurements due to more consistent measurement methods.
Regarding claim 16, Hebenstreit discloses the operating rate control signal corresponds to a numerical value, and the device that feeds (12) the mass of semi-solid matter to the dividing mechanism (14) has an upper operating rate corresponding to an upper operating rate control signal, at which rate portions having maximum weight are divided, and a lower operating rate corresponding to a lower operating rate control signal, at which rate minimum weight portions are divided; and the step of adjusting the operating rate control signal according to the difference between the average weight and the sum of the target weight and the tare weight comprises adjusting the numerical value of the operating rate control signal by an amount equal to the difference between the numerical value of the upper operating rate control signal and the numerical value of the lower operating rate control signal, multiplied by the (sum of the target weight and the tare weight less the average weight), multiplied by a predetermined moderating factor (¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 17, Hebenstreit discloses the predetermined moderating factor is a reciprocal of the target weight (¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 18, Hebenstreit discloses the weigh conveyor (24) is configured to accommodate a single portion and the predetermined number of successive weight indications received from the load cell (16) is selected to encompass a time period less than the interval between loadings of successive portions in to the weigh conveyor (24) (¶¶ [0009]-[0010]).
Campbell further teaches the weigh bucket (34) is configured to accommodate a single portion (¶ [0026]).
Therefore, the combination of Hebenstreit and Campbell discloses the limitation without further modification necessary.
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 19, Hebenstreit discloses the predetermined number of successive weight indications received from the load cell (16) is selected to encompass a time period less than the interval between the loading and unloading of a single portion in the weigh conveyor (24) (¶¶ [0009]-[0010]).
When Hebenstreit is combined with Campbell in the manner of the rejection of claim 15 above, the weigh conveyor is replaced with a weigh bucket without further modification necessary.
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 20, Hebenstreit discloses the predetermined number of successive weight indications received from the load cell (16) is selected to encompass a time period less than the interval between the unloading of a single portion and the loading of the next successive portion in to the weigh conveyor (24) (¶¶ [0009]-[0010].
When Hebenstreit is combined with Campbell in the manner of the rejection of claim 15 above, the weigh conveyor is replaced with a weigh bucket without further modification necessary.
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 21, Hebenstreit providing a tipper (no reference numeral, shown in figure 1) for tipping the proofer (20) to deliver the matter in the proofer (20) to the weigh conveyor (24) (¶ [0017]).
When Hebenstreit is combined with Campbell in the manner of the rejection of claim 15 above, the weigh conveyor is replaced with a weigh bucket without further modification necessary.
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 22, Hebenstreit discloses in figures 1 and 2 a method of continuously dividing a mass of semisolid matter into a plurality of portions, each portion having a preselected target weight (¶¶ [0004]-[0006]), comprising the steps of feeding a mass of semi-solid matter to a dividing mechanism (14) with a feed rate that is controlled by inputting an operating rate control signal (¶¶ [0004], [0017], [0034]), dividing the mass of semi-solid matter into portions using the dividing mechanism (14) (¶¶ [0005], [0012], [0017], [0034]), transporting the portions from the dividing mechanism (14) on a conveyor (no reference numeral, shown in figure 1) (¶ [0017]), receiving the portions from the conveyor on a proofer tray (20) downstream from the conveyor configured to transport the portions from the conveyor to a weigh conveyor (24) (¶ [0017]), measuring the weight of the empty weigh conveyor (24) and the weight of the portions on the weigh conveyor (24) using a load cell (16) that supports the weigh conveyor (24) (¶¶[0019], [0023]), the load cell comprising a strain gauge load cell having a counterforce submerged in fluid to provide impact cushioning (¶ [0007]), inputting the operating rate control signal to the device that feeds (12) the semi-solid matter to the dividing mechanism (14) (¶ [0036]), inputting an initial tare weight for the weigh conveyor (24) (¶ [0019]), obtaining a group of a predetermined number of successive weight indications from the load cell (16), calculating an average weight indication of the group (¶ [0038]), determining whether all of the weight indications in the group fall within a predetermined standard deviation of the average weight indication of the group, and if so, calculating the difference between the average weight and a sum of the target weight and the tare weight of the empty weigh conveyor (24) (¶ [0039]), and if the difference is less than a predetermined tare set point, using the average weight as the tare weight for subsequent weight indications (¶ [0040]), and if the difference is greater than the predetermined tare set point, including the average weight indication of the group in an array of a predetermined number of weight samples, calculating an average of the weight samples in the array, and adjusting the operating rate control signal according to the difference between the average of the weight samples and the sum of the target weight and the tare weight (¶ [0041]).
Hebenstreit discloses a weigh conveyor with a load cell underneath (¶ [0017]) rather than a weigh bucket.
In the same field of endeavor, Campbell teaches an apparatus for producing portions of semi-solid matter wherein the means for weighing is a weighing bucket (34), wherein the portion resting in the weigh bucket (34) is released when the proofer (30) is positioned underneath the weigh bucket (34) (¶¶ [0026]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to replace Hebenstreit’s weigh conveyor with Campbell’s weigh bucket for the purpose of maintain the shape of the portion to ensure the weight distribution for each portion is consistent to achieve the predictable result of more accurate weight measurements due to more consistent measurement methods.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, and 13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious an apparatus for producing a plurality of portions of semi-solid matter as claimed wherein the portion resting in the weigh bucket is released when the proofer is positioned underneath the weigh bucket to a proofer tray other than the proofer tray that delivered the portion to the weigh bucket in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are allowed based on their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious an apparatus for producing a plurality of portions of semi-solid matter as claimed wherein the means for weighing configured to release the portion from the means for weighing when the means for proofing is positioned underneath the means for weighing to a proofer tray other than the proofer tray that delivered the portion to the means for weighing in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Claims 9-11 and 13 are allowed based on their dependence on claim 8.
The closest prior art to Applicant’s invention is Hebenstreit (US 2016/0135471) which discloses tipping the dough from a proofing tray onto a weighing conveyor which then transports the dough to a moulder and then into baking trays rather than another proofing tray.
Campbell (US 2024/0081348) which is relied upon for teaching the claims weighing buckets, explicitly states that after being weighed in the bucket, the dough is then tipped back into the proofing tray from which it originally resided (see e.g. ¶ [00010]) thus teaching away from the claimed weigh bucket releasing the dough into a different tray. The claimed limitation allowed for more flexibility because the weigh bucket can release the dough portion sooner into a new tray rather than waiting for the previous tray to come back around.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Newly cited CA 3071571 (labeled as WO 2018/215549) discloses a conveyance system for dough portions which weighs them in a weigh bucket prior to dropping them in a dough base. The document does not cites a proofer downstream of the dividing mechanism therefore it cannot be fairly interpreted as releasing the portion into a proofer tray other than the proofer tray that delivered the portion to the weigh bucket.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights