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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently under examination and the subject matter of the present Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/27/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the Examiner.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DHgate.com Round Sushi Machine (Sushi Roll Making Machine Tabletop Sushi Forming Roller Maker Commercial Manual Seaweed Rice Ball Machines. Obtained from URL:<https://www.dhgate.com/product/sushi-roll-making-machine-tabletop-sushi/ 970683608.html?skuId=1245498089125675030>, on 11/05/2025 and embedded video. Video available Jul 7, 2022.), hereinafter DHgate.
DHgate discloses a sushi roll making machine which reads on the Claim 1 apparatus as indicated in the figure below, marked a-d by the Examiner (p. 2, DHgate). The figure shows a horizontal base with upstanding end walls having a parallel configuration, having guide slots with rests (a); a first roller (b) having a longitudinally extending rod and with guides that slide between the rests; a similar second roller (c) positioned parallel to said first roller; and flexible sleeve (d) wrapped around the first and second rollers. As such, Claim 1 is anticipated by DHgate.
PNG
media_image1.png
442
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, DHgate anticipates the claim as indicated in the figure, marked d) (p. 2).
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 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.
Claims 2, 6-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DHgate, as applied to Claim 1 above.
The teachings of DHgate have been set forth above.
PNG
media_image1.png
442
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, DHgate shows one upstanding end wall with a triangular profile (right side of figure), but not both walls. However, the left side also has a triangular profile with the inclusion of the protruding arm near “c”. The known work in the field of sushi rolling apparatus would have prompted variations of the design based on design incentives or other market forces where the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 6, DHgate renders obvious the claim as follows:
providing the sushi roll forming apparatus of is found in p. 2;
spacing the first roller from the second roller to form an assembly deck is found in p. 3;
placing nori on the assembly deck (p. 4, 19s);
pressing sushi rice onto the nori (p. 4, 19s);
distributing filler ingredients longitudinally along the nori (p. 4, 13s);
urging the first and second rollers together (p. 5, 19s); and
rotating the first and second rollers, thereby rolling the nori around the filler ingredients (pp. 6-8, 21s-23s).
Regarding the sequence of steps iii, iv, and v, the Examiner notes that the Applicant does not disclose the criticality of the steps. The instant situation is amenable to the type of analysis set forth in Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious). In this case, the same sushi product with filling, rice, and nori is created whether the nori is placed on the deck or as shown by DHgate, and the variation of steps would be according to preference of the maker.
Unless Applicant demonstrates the criticality of the order of addition and that the prior art is not the same product as the instant application, changes in sequence of adding ingredients has been rendered to be prima facie obvious Note MPEP § 2144.04 [R-1] In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious).
Regarding Claim 7, DHgate teaches the separation of the rollers to remove the rolled sushi (p. 8, 23s).
Regarding Claim 10, DHgate teaches moving the handle which dislodges the first and second roller from the rests and urge them together (pp. 5-6, 19s and 21s).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DHgate, as applied to Claims 1 and 6 above, and in view of Ouaknine et al. (CA 2804919 A1), hereinafter Ouaknine, and Isobe, G. (US 5,634,396).
Regarding Claims 5 and 9, DHgate does not expressly teach a spatula configured to pass between the first roller and the second roller.
Ouaknine also teaches a sushi making apparatus and teaches a spatula being adapted to slide along the top edges of the three sided perimeter and grade off and remove rice and other sushi ingredients that do not fit within the inner volume (Claim 10; [0015]).
Isobe is in the same field of interest and shows how a flat seaweed sheet is inserted between the rollers to access the recess portion of the belt (Fig. 9; Col. 3, lines 54-61).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a tool such as a spatula that would fit between the two rollers to either push down or remove excess ingredients. One would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectations of success because Ouaknine has taught the use of spatula in an adapted fashion to remove ingredients, and because Isobe has taught that a flat item is inserted to access the recess portion.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DHgate, as applied to Claims 1 and 6 above, and in view of Roller-35 Sushi Rolling Machine by Sushi Machines UK (Obtained on 11/6/2025. Posted Aug. 6, 2013 on URL:<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x158Zu8pp6A>), hereinafter Roller-35.
Regarding Claims 5 and 9, DHgate does not teach the frame teaches moving the handle which dislodges the first and second roller from the rests and urge them together (pp. 5-6, 19s and 21s).
Roller-35 cures the deficiency by teaching the use of a rice frame to get the rice to fit to the nori in the right size, and neatly (14s). The frame is then taken away prior to rolling (16s).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Roller-35 with that of DHgate and use a rice frame as a template to get the rice to fit to the nori and fill it neatly prior to pressing with the rollers to form the sushi roll. Obviousness is 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. See MPEP § 2143.01 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10-6 EST.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.Y.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792