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 .
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.
Claim 1, 3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16, 18-19, 21, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trostmann et al [Pat. No. 4,073,953] in view of Cheung [Pat. No. 5,161,458] and Prows et al [Pat. No. 4,608,919].
Trostmann et al teach method and system for the production of rolled food products (title) comprising a filling station with a horizontal belt for placing a filling onto a flat wrap (Figure 1-2, #1, 16-17), an air blast station including an air supply which provides a blast of air to lift up the leading edge of the wrap (Figure 1-2, #18), a front fold station with crimping rails for pressing and crimping the wrap around the filling (Figure 1-2, #11-12), a first and second side folding station with curved and angled rails for guiding the wrap sides up over the filling (Figure 1-2, #13, 19), and the filling being a frozen block (column 3, line 27; Figure 1-2, #17).
Trostmann et al do not explicitly recite a tortilla or burrito (claim 1, 11), a second horizontal belt and a gap for the air blast (claim 1, 11, 21, 31), rollers at the front fold station (claim 1, 11, 21, 31), separate side folding stations (claim 1, 11, 21, 31), a block forming station using pressure (claim 5, 15), a freezing station (claim 6, 16), rollers above the second belt (claim 8, 18), burrito filling ingredients (claim 13).
Prows et al teach a burrito machine (title) comprising a tortilla with burrito filling ingredients (Figure 1, #32, 46), a first horizontal belt with a filling station using pressure (Figure 1, #22, 38), a lifting station located at a gap between the two belts (Figure 1-5, #58), a front fold station with a second horizontal belt (Figure 1, #51; Figure 3-6, #72), a first side fold station with a curved rail (Figure 9, #122), and a subsequent second side fold station with a curved rail (Figure 9, #124).
Cheung teaches a system for forming filled dough products (title) comprising a first horizontal belt with a filling station using pressure (Figure 1-2, #71, 23), a moulded block of filling deposited on a wrap (Figure 1-2, #25, 63), a second belt with a front fold station and vertically spaced rollers for creasing the wrap (Figure 1-3, #77; Figure 4, #105), an air blast station in the gap between the belts for lifting the wrap (Figure 1-3, #93), and a side fold station (Figure 3, #37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed tortilla, burrito fillings, block forming station, and freezing station into the invention of Trostmann et al, in view of Prows et al and Cheung, since all are directed to systems for making wrapped food products, since burritos were a type of wrapped food item commonly made from tortilla and filling as shown by Prows et al, since many consumers desired the flavor and texture of burritos, since Trostmann et al already included a frozen block of filling (Figure 1, #17; column 3, line 26) but simply did not describe how it was made, since burrito systems commonly included a filling station using pressure (Figure 1, #22, 38) as shown by Prows et al, since wrapped food systems also commonly included a filling station using pressure (Figure 1-2, #71, 23) and a moulded block of filling deposited on a wrap (Figure 1-2, #25, 63) as shown by Cheung, and since freezing a filling block after moulding would have enabled the blocks to be pre-made and stored for longer periods of time with less deterioration of flavor in the system of Trostmann et al.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed the second belt, gap, and rollers into the invention of Trostmann et al, in view of Cheung and Prows et al, since all are directed to systems for making food wraps, since Trostmann et al already included a first belt, an air blast element below the belt, and means for pressing and creasing the front fold (Figure 1-2, #1, 18, 11-12), since wrap systems commonly included a second belt with a gap as shown by both Cheung and Prows et al, since multiple belts would have provided more flexibility in choosing an appropriate speed for each separate station of Trostmann et al, since a gap would have eliminated the need for an air permeable belt which would be prone to clogging from debris and would require frequent cleaning as compared to a conventional impermeable belt material, since wrapped food systems commonly included rollers above the second belt for providing the creases in the wrap material (Figure 1-4, #105) as shown by Cheung, and since the substitution of one known element (ie creasing roller) for another (ie creasing rail) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed separate side folding stations into the invention of Trostmann et al, in view of Cheung and Prows et al, since all are directed to wrapped food systems, since Trostmann et al already included a side fold station for both sides (Figure 1, #13, 19), since wrapped food systems commonly included two separate and sequential stations for side folding (Figure 9, #122, 124) as shown by Prows et al, since simultaneous folding could cause the two flaps to become crumpled or interfere with each other, and since sequential side folding would ensure that the two sides did not interfere with each other when folded up over the filling of Trostmann et al.
In conclusion, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2, 10, 12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trostmann et al, in view of Cheung and Prows et al, as applied above, and further in view of Karner [Pat. No. 7,537,793].
Trostmann et al, Cheung, and Prows et al teach the above mentioned concepts and components. Trostmann et al do not explicitly recite an angled filling conveyor (claim 2, 12), and the belts synchronized (claim 10, 20). Karner teaches a wrapped food system comprising a first conveyor for a wrap (Figure 1, #16, 18) and an angled conveyor above the first conveyor for supplying a block of filling to the wrap (Figure 1, #114, 10), and the conveyors synchronized by a controller (Figure 1, #24; column 4, lines 30-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed synchronized angled conveyor into the invention of Trostmann et al, in view of Cheung, prows et al, and Karner; since all are directed to wrapped food systems, since Trostmann et al already included a block of filling but simply did not explain how it was placed on the wrap, since wrapped food systems commonly included an angled conveyor above the first conveyor for supplying a block of filling to the wrap (Figure 1, #114, 10) and the conveyors synchronized by a controller (Figure 1, #24; column 4, lines 30-46) as shown by Karner, and since an automated means for placing the filling of Trostmann et al would have enabled accurate and efficient production.
Claims 4, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trostmann et al, in view of Cheung and Prows et al, as applied above, and further in view of Gibson [Pat. No. 4,973,492].
Trostmann et al, Cheung, and Prows et al teach the above mentioned concepts and components. Trostmann et al do not explicitly recite a binding agent (claim 4, 14). Gibson teaches a process for making meat patties by use of a binding agent (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed binding agent into the invention of Trostmann et al, in view of Gibson, Cheung, and Prows et al; since all are directed to methods of making food products, since Trostmann et al already included a block of filling, since Cheung already included a moulding station for the filling, since food products commonly included a binding agent as shown by Gibson, and since a binding agent would have helped the filling block of Trostmann et al retain its shape during subsequent processing.
Claims 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trostmann et al, in view of Cheung and Prows et al, as applied above, and further in view of Kragh [US 2004/0159079A1].
Trostmann et al, Cheung, and Prows et al teach the above mentioned concepts and components. Trostmann et al do not explicitly recite plural air jets (claim 7, 17). Kragh teaches a wrapping system comprising plural air jets which lift and fold the leading edge of the wrap material (Figure 1-5, #12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed plural air jets into the invention of Trostmann et al, in view of Kragh, since both are directed to wrapping systems, since Trostmann et al already included an air jet (Figure 1, #18), since wrap systems commonly used plural air jets as shown by Kragh, and since plural air jets would provide greater control and more accurate placement in the folding of the leading edge of Trostmann et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an open ended burrito) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that the references do not disclose separate side fold stations. However, Prows et al clearly disclose a first side fold station with a curved rail (Figure 9, #122), and a second side fold station with a curved rail (Figure 9, #124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed separate side folding stations into the invention of Trostmann et al, in view of Cheung and Prows et al, since all are directed to wrapped food systems, since Trostmann et al already included a side fold station for both sides (Figure 1, #13, 19), since wrapped food systems commonly included two separate and sequential stations for side folding (Figure 9, #122, 124) as shown by Prows et al, since simultaneous folding could cause the two flaps to become crumpled or interfere with each other, and since sequential side folding would ensure that the two sides did not interfere with each other when folded up over the filling of Trostmann et al.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed tortilla, burrito fillings, block forming station, and freezing station into the invention of Trostmann et al, in view of Prows et al and Cheung, since all are directed to systems for making wrapped food products, since burritos were a type of wrapped food item commonly made from tortilla and filling as shown by Prows et al, since many consumers desired the flavor and texture of burritos, since Trostmann et al already included a frozen block of filling (Figure 1, #17; column 3, line 26) but simply did not describe how it was made, since burrito systems commonly included a filling station using pressure (Figure 1, #22, 38) as shown by Prows et al, since wrapped food systems also commonly included a filling station using pressure (Figure 1-2, #71, 23) and a moulded block of filling deposited on a wrap (Figure 1-2, #25, 63) as shown by Cheung, and since freezing a filling block after moulding would have enabled the blocks to be pre-made and stored for longer periods of time with less deterioration of flavor in the system of Trostmann et al.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed the second belt, gap, and rollers into the invention of Trostmann et al, in view of Cheung and Prows et al, since all are directed to systems for making food wraps, since Trostmann et al already included a first belt, an air blast element below the belt, and means for pressing and creasing the front fold (Figure 1-2, #1, 18, 11-12), since wrap systems commonly included a second belt with a gap as shown by both Cheung and Prows et al, since multiple belts would have provided more flexibility in choosing an appropriate speed for each separate station of Trostmann et al, since a gap would have eliminated the need for an air permeable belt which would be prone to clogging from debris and would require frequent cleaning as compared to a conventional impermeable belt material, since wrapped food systems commonly included rollers above the second belt for providing the creases in the wrap material (Figure 1-4, #105) as shown by Cheung, and since the substitution of one known element (ie creasing roller) for another (ie creasing rail) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In conclusion, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792