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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/1/2025.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 6, insert “,” after “moving section” to place the claim in better form.
In line 7, insert “,” after “switched to an on state” to place the claim in better form.
In line 7, delete “with” and insert “within”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 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, the limitation “in a state where a temperature-regulating control processing to adjust the temperature of the moving section based on a target temperature-regulating temperature range by a temperature-regulating device is placed in an on state” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the limitation means. It is also unclear what feature(s) of the method are referred to by “placed in an on state” since there is no indication of any device that can switch (on/off) states.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “is included an allowable temperature range” in the last line renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the limitation means, and further unclear what temperatures are encompassed by the “allowable” range. It is unclear if the limitation in question refers to the “target temperature-regulating temperature range” of claim 1, or some other temperature range.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “in a state where a temperature-regulating control processing to adjust the temperature of the moving section based on a target temperature-regulating temperature range by a temperature-regulating device is placed in an on state” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated for claim 1.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima et al. (JP 2004008117 A) in view of Tanguy (US 3,978,781) and Burnell et al. (US 2007/0092618 A1).
Citations to Kitajima et al. are made with respect to the EPO translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a temperature-regulating control processing to adjust the temperature of the moving section based on a target temperature-regulating temperature range by a temperature-regulating device is placed in an on state” is interpreted in view of the specification to mean the temperature of the moving section is adjusted to a target temperature range by a heating device, the adjusting being performed by a controller (paragraph 59).
Kitajima et al. teaches a food manufacturing method (paragraph 14) comprising a temperature-regulating control preparation step of supplying a pastry dough continuously to a moving section of drum oven 10 during the moving section moving cyclically along a movement path (figure 1) for one or more cycles, where the drum is heated by a temperature-regulating device such as an electric heater or gas burner (paragraphs 15 and 17).
Kitajima et al. does not explicitly teach “where adjustment of temperature of the moving section is not performed” with respect to the “temperature-regulating control preparation step”, and “a food ingredient temperature-regulating processing step of supplying the food ingredient continuously to the moving section, after the temperature-regulating control preparation step, in a state where a temperature-regulating control processing to adjust the temperature of the moving section based on a target temperature-regulating temperature range by a temperature-regulating device is placed in an on state”.
However, the reference teaches heating the drum to a temperature sufficient to bake the pastry dough for shape retention, where the drum temperature is maintained within a target range (paragraph 20).
Tanguy teaches a food manufacturing method (abstract) comprising supplying a food ingredient continuously to cooking drum 8 (moving section), where the drum is first heated to a desired temperature (column 8 lines 52-55), and application of the food to the drum causes heat loss (column 8 lines 52-60).
Burnell et al. teaches a food handling method comprising applying a heat load to a food support surface, where a controller identifies a deviation from a zero heat load and applies power to heating means associated with the food support surface based on the deviation (abstract). When there is no load, power is applied to the heating means at sufficient levels to maintain a preset temperature (paragraph 41). When a load is applied, a controller identifies the heat load and applies power to the heating means to increase the temperature of the support surface to achieve a zero heat load as quickly as possible (paragraph 44). The process allows for maintaining minimum desired temperature while treating the food (paragraphs 61-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Kitajima et al. such that temperature adjustment is “not performed” during the preparation step and performed by placing “in an on state” in the processing step since the reference already teaches wanting to maintain a desired temperature range to optimally cook the food, where the prior art recognizes that applying loads to heated surfaces causes temperature drops, and therefore to provide automatic control of the drum temperature such that the undesirable outcomes disclosed by Kitajima et al. are avoided.
Regarding claim 2, Kitajima et al. teaches the heater (temperature-regulating device) heats the moving section and the food ingredient is heated by the moving section as stated for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches continuously supplying the food ingredient in a temperature-regulating control preparation step and a temperature-regulating processing step. The “processing step” would have been performed “after the temperature-regulating control processing is switched to an on state” when the controller identifies the heat load an applies power as taught by Burnell et al. Likewise, the food would have been continuously supplied “in a state where the moving section has a temperature within the target…temperature range” since Kitajima et al. already teaches wanting to maintain the temperature within a target range to ensure proper cooking of the food, and since the controller adjusts the temperature to achieve zero heat load as taught by Burnell et al.
Regarding claim 4, Kitajima et al. teaches multiple heaters arranged inside the drum (paragraph 17), but does not teach the temperature-regulating control processing is switched to an on state “in a state where a difference in temperatures at a plurality of locations of the moving section detected by a temperature sensor is included an allowable temperature range”.
In view of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, the limitation “is included an allowable temperature range” is interpreted to refer to the “target temperature-regulating temperature range” as stated for claim 1.
Burnell et al. teaches monitoring and controlling the temperature of multiple surfaces using multiple temperature sensors (paragraphs 62-63, 110 and 122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Kitajima et al. such that the temperature-regulating control processing is switched to an on state in a state where a difference in temperatures at a plurality of locations of the moving section detected by a temperature sensor is included an allowable temperature range since the prior art recognizes temperature control using multiple temperature sensors associated with multiple heating surfaces, and therefore to ensure every surface is heated to the appropriate temperature such that the undesirable outcomes disclosed by Kitajima et al. are avoided.
Regarding claim 5, Kitajima et al. teaches the moving section performs rotation movement about a rotation axis (figure 1; paragraphs 15 and 17).
Regarding claim 6, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches a food manufacturing method as stated for said claim. The same combination is applied to claim 6 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights