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 § 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 1-14 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 1, “said forming rollers” lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, “said forming rollers forming between them said coupling space” is indefinite because it is unclear what “them” refers to. For examination purposes, “said forming rollers forming between them said coupling space” is being interpreted to mean “said pair of synchronized forming rollers forming between said pair of synchronized forming roll
Regarding claim 2, “said forming rollers” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3, “said first and/or said second rotation shaft” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 4, “said first and/or said second rotation shaft”, “the relative transmission ratio”, and “the same rotation cycle” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, “said transmission ratio” lack antecedent basis. Additionally, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “said maximum transmission ratio being between 1.5 and 4” and “said minimum transmission ratio being between 0.25 and 0.8”, and the claim also recites “said maximum transmission ratio being . . . preferably equal to approximately 2” and “said minimum transmission ratio being . . . preferably equal to approximately 0.5” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 7, “said forming rollers” lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, “a single rotation cycle” is indefinite because it is unclear if “a single rotation cycle” in claim 7 is the same as “a single rotation cycle” in claim 1. For examination purposes, “a single rotation cycle” in claim 7 is being interpreted to be “the single rotation cycle”.
Regarding claim 8, “said forming rollers” and “the filled pasta element” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 9, “said forming rollers”, “the rotation”, “the form”, and “said forming roller” lack antecedent basis. Additionally, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, “the steps”, “the fresh pasta layer”, “the fresh layer of pasta”, and “the step of closing” lack antecedent basis. Additionally, “characterised in that it comprises” is indefinite because it is unclear what “it” refers to. For examination purposes, “characterised in that it comprises” is being interpreted to mean “characterized in that the method comprises”.
Regarding claim 12, “said acceleration step”, “the completion”, and “the element” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13, “the step”, “said compacting step”, and “said closing” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, “said step”, “said acceleration step”, and “said forming rollers” lack antecedent basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, or fairly suggest a machine for making filled pasta comprising: a feeding station configured for feeding a layer of fresh pasta and a predetermined quantity of a semi-finished food product to a coupling space of said machine; a coupling device configured to couple said layer of fresh pasta and said predetermined quantity of semi-finished food product; wherein said coupling device comprises at least one pair of synchronised forming rollers configured to rotate, respectively, on a first and a second rotation shaft; said forming rollers forming between them said coupling space and configured for producing, at each rotation cycle of said forming rollers an element of filled pasta by progressively wrapping said layer of fresh pasta around said predetermined quantity of semi-finished food product; characterised in that said coupling device is configured to rotate said forming rollers at a variable speed, between a maximum speed and a minimum speed, during a single rotation cycle.
The prior art of record that comes closest to teaching these limitations is Bertuzzi et al (US 2015/0366222). Bertuzzi teaches a machine for making filled pasta comprising: a feeding station configured for feeding a layer of fresh pasta and a predetermined quantity of a semi-finished food product to a coupling space of said machine; a coupling device configured to couple said layer of fresh pasta and said predetermined quantity of semi-finished food product; wherein said coupling device comprises at least one pair of synchronised forming rollers configured to rotate, respectively, on a first and a second rotation shaft; said forming rollers forming between them said coupling space and configured for producing, at each rotation cycle of said forming rollers an element of filled pasta by progressively wrapping said layer of fresh pasta around said predetermined quantity of semi-finished food product. However, Bertuzzi fails to teach the machine characterised in that said coupling device is configured to rotate said forming rollers at a variable speed, between a maximum speed and a minimum speed, during a single rotation cycle. Applicant has provided the criticality of the variation in forming roller speed in order to promote a detachment of the semi-finished food product, limiting the settlement of portions of filling on the feeder device (see for example, page 10 of Applicant’s specification). Additionally, it would require an unreasonable combination of references that would not suffice for a realistic case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 2-9, claims 2-9 would be allowable because they contain the allowable subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, or fairly suggest a method for making filled pasta comprising the steps of: feeding a layer of fresh pasta to a coupling space; feeding a predetermined quantity of a semi-finished food product to the coupling space; progressively wrapping said layer of fresh pasta around the predetermined quantity of semi-finished food product in the coupling space whilst the layer of fresh pasta and the predetermined quantity of semi-finished food product are fed through said coupling space; closing the fresh pasta layer around the predetermined quantity of semi-finished food product; characterised in that it comprises a step of accelerating the fresh layer of pasta and the predetermined quantity of semi-finished food product away from the coupling space at least during said step of closing the layer of fresh pasta.
The prior art of record that comes closest to teaching these limitations is Bertuzzi et al (US 2015/0366222). Bertuzzi teaches a method for making filled pasta comprising the steps of: feeding a layer of fresh pasta to a coupling space; feeding a predetermined quantity of a semi-finished food product to the coupling space; progressively wrapping said layer of fresh pasta around the predetermined quantity of semi-finished food product in the coupling space whilst the layer of fresh pasta and the predetermined quantity of semi-finished food product are fed through said coupling space; closing the fresh pasta layer around the predetermined quantity of semi-finished food product. However, Bertuzzi fails to teach the method characterised in that the method comprises a step of accelerating the fresh layer of pasta and the predetermined quantity of semi-finished food product away from the coupling space at least during said step of closing the layer of fresh pasta. Applicant has provided the criticality of the acceleration in forming roller speed in order to promote a detachment of the semi-finished food product, limiting the settlement of portions of filling on the feeder device (see for example, page 10 of Applicant’s specification). Additionally, it would require an unreasonable combination of references that would not suffice for a realistic case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 11-14, claims 11-14 would be allowable because they contain the allowable subject matter of claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571)270-1926. 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.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731