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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “plurality of die openings” as set forth in claim 14 and 15; the “different sized and shaped openings” as set forth in claim 15; “a dusting unit” as set forth in claims 17 and 18; and “a fan” as set forth in claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “said assembly” should read --said mixing assembly--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “5mins.” should read --5 minutes.--. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “one or more mixing elements” in claim 2; “one or more dispensing mechanisms” as set forth in claims 2 and 12; “a dusting unit” as set forth in claim 17; “a packaging assembly” as set forth in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 repeats a limitation of claim 2, upon which claim 12 depends, without adding any further limitations. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim 13 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(d) by virtue of its dependency on claim 13.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 9-16 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manser et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,186,539) in view of Anderson (U.S. Patent No. 5,479,850); and alternatively, additionally in view of Price, IV, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,460,506).
Regarding claim 2, Manser et al. discloses a device capable to be portable, fully automated and produce pasta (title; column 1, lines 13-16), comprising:
a base unit (column 1, lines 13-16 (closed housing) comprising a motor (column 4, lines 23-34 (“drive”);
a mixing assembly operatively associated with the base unit (mixing kneader 1), said assembly comprising a container (housing 2), a mixing outlet (outlet 16) and one or more mixing elements connectable to the motor (work elements 3,4; screws 7, 8, 9, 7’, 8’, 9’; shearing elements 10, 11, 10’, 11’) and configured to extend into and move within the container (column 7, lines 4-58);
a flour dispensing assembly for dispensing a selected volume of flour into the container (figure 6, hopper 30, metering device 31, feed screw 32, feed opening 12);
a water dispensing assembly for dispensing a selected volume of water into the container (figure 6, container 33, pump 34; column 8, lines 3-7);
an additive dispensing assembly comprising one or more sources of additives and one or more dispensing mechanisms for dispensing selected volumes of one or more additives (figure 6, second container 34 with regulated/controlled valve, not labeled; column 8, lines 8-9; column 8, lines 31-34; column 10, lines 35-47; column 11, lines 55-68);
an extrusion assembly operatively associated with the motor (figure 6, pressing screw 36 with arrow at shaft indicating rotation drive by motor), said extrusion assembly having an inlet end (figure 6, feed chute 35; column 8, lines 17-21), an opposed outlet end (figure 6, distributor head 41), a die operatively associated with the outlet end (die 40), an internal bore extending between the inlet end and the opposed outlet end (casing 38) and at least one conveyor screw located therein and axially rotatable relative thereto so as to convey a mixed contents received in the inlet end via the mixing outlet and form a pasta product at the outlet end via the die unit (pressing screw 32; column 8, lines 17-34); and
a controller configured to autonomously control operation of the motor, the mixing and extrusion assembly, the flour dispensing assembly, the water dispensing assembly and the additive dispensing assembly to produce the desired pasta product, comprising determining the selected volumes of the flour and water and the one or more additives required to produce the desired pasta product selected (control 42; column 8, lines 31-34; see examples 1-4, columns 10-12, lines 36-65 with controlled dry product and water metered outputs, controlled screw speeds for both mixer and extruder and controlled type of pasta or dough).
While Manser et al. discloses metering dry components and “a quantity of water calculated” and having production parameters such as temperature, screw metering output, screw speed, pressure, product moisture, and egg quantity, for example (column 8, lines 1-12; columns 10-12, lines 35-65), Manser et al. does not explicitly one or more sensors. Anderson teaches another apparatus for feeding and mixing ingredients for making dough (abstract). Anderson teaches one or more sensors operatively associated with the mixing portion of the container for measuring the selected volumes of flour and water and the one or more additives dispensed into the mixing portion (scale 78; column 2, lines 64-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the sensors of Anderson with the device of Manser et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach apparatuses for feeding and mixing ingredients for producing dough. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a sensor, such as a scale because it more accurately controls and determines the type and amount of ingredients being added to the mixer to ensure the desired final product (Anderson column 1, lines 47-57; column 2, lines 64-67).
While Manser et al. discloses all elements of the production unit are controlled and coordinated by means of a common control (column 8, lines 31-34), including setting the screw speed and type of pasta produced (various examples as set forth in columns 10-12, lines 35-65), Manser et al. does not explicitly disclose a user interface). Anderson teaches a user interface to allow a user to input a desired pasta product to be produced (keyboard control 98). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the user interface of Anderson with the device of Manser et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach apparatuses for feeding and mixing ingredients for producing dough. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a user interface to facilitate the entry of a desired recipe program for generating a bunch of loaves (Anderson column 3, lines 22-24).
Anderson further teaches a controller operatively associated with the user interface and the one or more sensors (processor 18; column 2, lines 64-67; column 3, lines 22-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the processor of Manser et al. to be operatively associated with the user interface and the one or more sensors. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach apparatuses for feeding and mixing ingredients for producing dough. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing to selectively control the ingredient supply according to the desired user selected recipe program (Anderson column 1, lines 54-57; column 3, lines 22-24).
Regarding the limitations in the preamble directed to the device being portable, and fully automated pasta production, those statements recite the intended use of the device and therefore are not given fully patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding the limitations directed to the material or article worked upon within an apparatus (e.g. flour, water, pasta), “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Alternatively, to the extent Manser et al. in view of Anderson does not explicitly disclose a base unit comprising a motor; and the one or more mixing elements connectable to the motor and the extrusion assembly operatively associated with the motor, Price, IV, et al. teaches another pasta maker (title) comprising a base unit (main housing assembly 22) comprising a motor (column 4, lines 56-59); and the one or more mixing elements connectable to the motor and the extrusion assembly operatively associated with the motor (columns 4-5, lines 56-8; column 5, lines 51-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the device of Manser et al. to include a base unit comprising a motor; and the one or more mixing elements connectable to the motor and the extrusion assembly operatively associated with the motor in order to provide a compact easily assembled and disassembled home pasta maker with motor controlled mixer and extruder, and it is well known in the art before the time of filing that a housed motor in a housing is used to drive rotating shafts.
Regarding claim 3, Manser et al. in view of Anderson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Manser et al. as modified by Anderson further discloses wherein the device is configured to produce fresh pasta on demand in a period of about 5 mins (column 11, lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 4, Manser et al. in view of Anderson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Manser et al. as modified by Anderson further discloses wherein the one or more additives comprise one or more flavourings and wherein the device is configured, responsive to user input via the user interface, to dispense selected one or more flavourings into the pasta product (second container 34; column 8, lines 7-9; examples 3, column 11, lines 55-67 (egg flavored pasta)).
Regarding claim 9, Manser et al. in view of Anderson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Manser et al. as modified by Anderson further discloses wherein the mixing outlet is in fluid communication with the inlet end of the extrusion assembly (figure 6, outlet 16 and fall chute 35; column 8, lines 17-21).
Regarding claim 10, Manser et al. in view of Anderson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Manser et al. as modified by Anderson further discloses wherein the extrusion assembly is located at least partially beneath the mixing outlet so that the mixed contents fall through the mixing outlet and into the extrusion assembly (figure 6, pressing screw 36 below outlet 16).
Regarding claim 11, Manser et al. in view of Anderson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Manser et al. as modified by Anderson further discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one load cell on which the container rests and acts on to measure a weight of the flour, water and one or more additives dispensed into the container (Anderson, figure 1, scale 78; column 1, lines 47-57; column 2, lines 64-67). However, to the extent the scale of Anderson is not explicitly a load cell, it is well known in the art before the time of filing that load cells are used as a type of scale to measure the ingredients, and selecting one of known designs for a scale would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing and because said scale being a load cell would operate equally wall as the one disclosed by Anderson.
Regarding claim 12, Manser et al. in view of Anderson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Manser et al. as modified by Anderson further discloses wherein the additive dispensing assembly comprising one or more sources of additives and one or more dispensing mechanisms for dispensing selected volumes of one or more additives (figure 6, second container 34 with regulated/controlled valve, not labeled; column 8, lines 8-9; column 8, lines 31-34; column 10, lines 35-47; column 11, lines 55-68);
Regarding claim 13, Manser et al. in view of Anderson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Manser et al. as modified by Anderson further discloses wherein the one or more additives comprise any one of whole eggs, homogenised eggs, egg extract, oil, salt and one or more flavourings (second container 34; column 8, lines 7-9; examples 3, column 11, lines 55-67 (egg quantity)).
Regarding claim 14, Manser et al. in view of Anderson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Manser et al. as modified by Anderson further discloses wherein the die unit has a plurality of die openings defined therein configured to create a pressure drop during an extrusion process and shape the mixed contents into the pasta product as it is forced through selected die openings (figure 6, die 40 with openings, not labeled; columns 4-5, lines 68-4).
Regarding claim 15, Manser et al. in view of Anderson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Manser et al. as modified by Anderson further discloses wherein the plurality of die openings comprise different sized and shaped openings corresponding to different pasta product types and the plurality of die openings are moveable relative to the outlet end to position and align said selected die openings relative to the outlet end (figure 6, die 40 with openings for pasta vs figure 7, with die openings, not labeled, having a different size for the production of cannelloni or ravioli; column 6, lines 55-59).
Regarding claim 16, Manser et al. in view of Anderson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Manser et al. as modified by Anderson further discloses wherein the die unit further comprises at least one blade for severing the pasta product being extruded once a desired quantity has been dispensed (cutter 62 and 63).
Regarding claim 22, Manser et al. in view of Anderson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Manser et al. as modified by Anderson further discloses wherein the mixing outlet is in fluid communication with the extrusion assembly via an internal passage (figure 6, chute 35).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manser et al. in view of Anderson as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Li (CN210929376U) (with reference to machine translation).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Manser et al. in view of Anderson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose a dusting unit and fan. Li teaches another dough processing device (title). Li teaches a dusting unit operatively associated with the die unit for dusting the dough product as it emerges from the die unit with flour (title; abstract; flour 5) and wherein the dusting unit comprises a fan configured to disperse a selected volume of flour over the dough product and/or assist in at least partially drying to dough product (abstract; powder spraying fan 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the dusting unit with fan of Li with the die unit of Manser et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach dough processing devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a flour dusting unit with fan because evenly colors the finished dough product in an efficient and low intensity method (Li abstract).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manser et al. in view of Anderson as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sun (CN106172573A) (with reference to machine translation).
Regarding claim 19, Manser et al. in view of Anderson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose a packaging assembly. Sun teaches another machine for mixing and forming dough (abstract). Sun teaches a packaging assembly operatively associated with the outlet end of the extrusion assembly and configured to receive and package the dough product as it emerges from the outlet end (collecting box 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the packaging unit of Sun with the extrusion assembly of Manser et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach dough mixing and forming devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a packaging unit because it allows for a user to easily collect and receive the finished product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights