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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in figure 1, the lead line of the reference number 8 does not point to a hinge. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should avoid using the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,”… Therefore, the legal phrase, “comprises (line 3)” should be changed to “includes”.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1-3, the limitations begin with an upper case letter in the body of the claims should be changed to lower case letter. For example: “Base Plate (claim 1, line 2)” should be changed to -- base plate --.
Regarding line 1 of each of claims 2-6, a comma should be added before “wherein” in each of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Saldana (US 10,709,141).
Regarding claim 1, Saldana disclose a press comprising:
a base plate (A1) having a cavity (see “concave” in col. 2, line 30) formed therein (see col. 2, lines 29-32);
a handle (11) hingedly (at 12) coupled to the base plate (figs. 8-9) at a first end thereof (fig. 8);
a compression plate (10) hingedly (at 14) coupled to the base plate (figs. 8-9) at a second end thereof (fig. 8), the compression plate (10) having a protrusion block (9) formed on a first surface thereof to insert into the cavity (figs. 3-5).
Regarding the recitation "tamale" in the preamble, said recitation is used to describe an intended use of the press device. Recitations of intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art teaches the structures of the claimed invention, then the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, therefore, the prior art meets the claimed limitation. See In Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2111.02 and 2114(11). Saldana discloses that the press is used to form tortilla, then the tortilla is stuffed with filling (see the abstract), it is well known the culinary art that tortillas are typically made from a corn masa dough, and the filling is made before the sides are folded over to create the tamale shape. Tamales are fundamentally made from masa dough. Therefore, the press of Saldana is capable of pressing tortillas for making tamales.
Regarding claim 4, the press of claim 1, Saldana discloses wherein the press is comprised of wood (col. 3, line 5).
Regarding claim 5, the press of claim 1, Saldana discloses wherein the press is comprised of metal (col. 3, line 6).
Regarding claim 6, the press of claim 1, Saldana discloses wherein the press is comprised of plastic (col. 3, line 5).
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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saldana (US 10,709,141) in view of Castaneda (US 5,667,821).
Regarding claim 1, Saldana disclose a press comprising:
a base plate (A1) having a cavity (see “concave” in col. 2, line 30) formed therein (see col. 2, lines 29-32);
a handle (11) hingedly (at 12) coupled to the base plate (figs. 8-9) at a first end thereof (fig. 8);
a compression plate (10) hingedly (at 14) coupled to the base plate (figs. 8-9) at a second end thereof (fig. 8), the compression plate (10) having a protrusion block (9) formed on a first surface thereof to insert into the cavity (figs. 3-5).
Saldana does not expressly disclose the press is used for making tamale. However, Saldana discloses that the press is used to shape a dough (col. 2, lines 63-76).
Castaneda discloses an apparatus (22) is placed on a surface to form a cavity (24) for forming masa dough (col. 6, lines 51-59) in order to make tamale (col. 6, lines 60-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the press of Saldana to make tamale, since it has a cavity for forming a masa dough, as disclosed by Castaneda.
Regarding claim 4, the press of claim 1, Saldana discloses wherein the press is comprised of wood (col. 3, line 5).
Regarding claim 5, the press of claim 1, Saldana discloses wherein the press is comprised of metal (col. 3, line 6).
Regarding claim 6, the press of claim 1, Saldana discloses wherein the press is comprised of plastic (col. 3, line 5).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saldana and Castaneda, in further view of Chapman et al. (hereinafter “Chapman”) (US 2023/0009369 A1).
Modified Saldana discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth above. Saldana does not disclose the compression plate further includes a fulcrum block formed on a second surface thereof, and the handle engages the fulcrum block to apply pressure to the compression plate.
Chapman discloses a dough press (1) comprising a handle (3) including a projecting section (32), a compression plate (23) having a first surface for pressing a dough (fig. 3) and a second surface having a fulcrum block (see a central region of an upper surface of the compression plate (23) in fig. 3, where a reference number 231 pointed to). Chapman discloses when a user of the dough press (1) compresses the dough via the handle (3) and the upper press-plate (23), the projecting section (32) of the handle (3) abuts against and presses a top surface of the fulcrum block (i.e. central region) so that downwardly force exerted by the user is distributed evenly, and the upper press-plate (23) is able to exert a steady compressing force on the dough so that when the user finishes the compression of the dough, the dough has a uniform thickness (see para. 23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handle of Saldana to include a projecting section, and the compression plate of Saldana to include a fulcrum block on a second surface, as taught by Chapman, in order to form a dough having uniform thickness when the handle engages the fulcrum block to apply pressure to the compression plate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show:
US 11,297,843 discloses a press (108) for pressing a corn masa dough.
US 2018/0206506 A1 discloses a device for pressing dough.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725