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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. BG113350, filed on 3/23/2021.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 4 and 6 have the limitation “an integral or consisting….”, which should be - - an integral part consisting - -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 has the limitation “as an integral part of them”, which should be - - as an integral part of the inner surface of the mold and/or the outer surface of the punch - -. 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 1-9 and 13-39 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. Claims 2-9 and 13-39 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sides" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8,13-20,22-29 and 31-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dzhalazov (GB2581963).
With regards to claim 1, Dzhalazov discloses a forming socket of a forming and baking machine (mould assembly 200, Fig. 2a), consisting of a body (outer die 202, Fig. 2a), in which a mold (inner forming surface 206, Fig. 2a) is mounted, whereby a punch (inner punch 204, Fig. 2a) is movably positioned in the mold (Fig. 2b), characterized in that, between the punch and the mold are installed one or more forming elements, above and/or on the sides of which a production waste area is formed (waste portion 606 is defined by a gap at the rim by portions of inner punch 204 and outer die 202 which have cooperating annular formations 602 and 604, Fig. 6a,6b).
With regards to claim 2, Dzhalazov discloses a heater is installed in an opening, formed in the punch (heating element 212 is installed in punch 204, Fig. 2a).
With regards to claim 3, Dzhalazov discloses a heater is installed in a cavity, formed in the body, in which the mold is mounted (heating element 210 is installed inside outer die 202, Fig. 2a).
With regards to claim 4, Dzhalazov discloses the forming element is an integral part consisting of two arcs (cooperating annular formations 602 and 604, Fig. 6a,6b).
With regards to claim 5, Dzhalazov discloses in that the lower edge of the forming element is shaped at a certain angle to the body of the forming element (cooperating annular formations 602 and 604 are shaped perpendicular to the surface of the surfaces of mould assembly 200, Fig. 6a,6b).
With regards to claim 6, Dzhalazov discloses in that the forming element is an integral part consisting of a cylindrical tooth (cooperating annular formations 602 and 604, Fig. 6a,6b).
With regards to claim 7, Dzhalazov discloses in that the forming elements are attached to the outer surface of the punch and the inner surface of the mold (cooperating annular formations 602 and 604 are on outer surfaces of outer die 202 and inner punch 204, Fig. 6a,6b).
With regards to claim 8, Dzhalazov discloses in that the forming elements are formed on the inner surface of the mold and on the outer surface of the punch, as an integral part of them (cooperating annular formations 602 and 604 are on outer surfaces of outer die 202 and inner punch 204, Fig. 6a,6b).
With regards to claims 13-20, Dzhalazov discloses in that the mold is in the shape of inverted truncated cone (outer forming surfaces 206 are an inverted truncated cone, Fig. 2a).
With regards to claim 22-29, Dzhalazov discloses in that the punch is in the shape of inverted truncated cone (inner forming surfaces 208 of inner punch 204 is an inverted truncated cone, Fig. 2a).
With regards to claims 31-38, Dzhalazov discloses in that at least two forming sockets are combined in one forming unit, whereby the punches of the forming sockets are mounted to a common plate (four outer dies 202 are combined into forming apparatus 700, whereby punches 204 are mounted to a common plate 704, Fig. 7).
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(s) 9,30 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dzhalazov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carbon et al (US4817513A).
With regards to claim 9, Dzhalazov does not disclosed in that the mold is divided and consists of at least two symmetrical parts.
Carbon et al teaches in that the mold is divided and consists of at least two symmetrical parts (mold assembly 18 includes mold parts 20 and 22, Fig. 7 and 8).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dzhalazov and Carbon et al before him or her, to modify the mold assembly of Dzhalazov to include the mold parts of Carbon et al because the combination allows for easier insertion and retrieval of a food stuff from a mold apparatus.
With regards to claim 30, Dzhalazov discloses in that the punch is in the shape of inverted truncated cone (inner forming surfaces 208 of inner punch 204 is an inverted truncated cone, Fig. 2a).
With regards to claim 39, Dzhalazov discloses in that at least two forming sockets are combined in one forming unit, whereby the punches of the forming sockets are mounted to a common plate (four outer dies 202 are combined into forming apparatus 700, whereby punches 204 are mounted to a common plate 704, Fig. 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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 LANDRUM can be reached at 5712725567. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights