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 .
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 1-2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes (US 2,823,625) in view of Morgenthaler et al. (US 3,953,613).
Regarding claim 1, Oakes teaches a method of producing laminated sheets of dough to form bakery products (column 1 lines 15-20), where a continuous sheet of dough S is received on conveyor belt 18 then passed through a cutting roll 26 to obtain shorter sheets S1-3 (column 3 lines 1-2 and 12-15), the sheets are then transferred onto transverse conveyor 24 such that the sheets overlap in a non-folded state (figures 1 and 3). Conveyor 24 is construed to be the “first conveyor”, where the respective dough pieces would have been successively supplied to and deposited onto said first conveyor (figure 3).
Oakes does not teach supplying a second dough piece on a second conveyor and the second dough piece is folded during depositing.
Morgenthaler et al. teaches a method for making dough products by lamination (abstract; column 1 lines 58-60) comprising a first conveyor 13, conveyors 8 and 9, collectively construed to be the “second conveyor”, and dough piece Ta (figure 7a), where the dough piece is supplied to the second conveyor, folded, and then provided to first conveyor 13 (figures 7b-7g; column 4 line 49 to column 5 line 68). The reference further teaches folding the dough band forms “double laminated” structures (column 5 lines 67-68), and that it is desirable to obtain laminated dough “which consists of a great number of very thin dough layers and fat layers” (column 1 lines 16-18 and 25-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Oakes to include a second conveyor and fold the second dough piece while depositing on the first dough piece since the reference teaches a desire to obtain a “great many number” of layers without overworking the dough, where folding the dough is recognized to at least double the number of layers as shown by Morgenthaler et al., and in order to provide greater control over the number of layers formed into the dough product, thereby allowing the number of layers to be adjusted based on the type of product made and desired texture/mouthfeel.
Regarding claim 2, Oakes teaches transferring the dough pieces to the first conveyor 24, and Morgenthaler et al. as applied to claim 1 teaches “second conveyor” 8/9, where the combination would result in each dough piece successively transferred onto the “second conveyor” 8/9 prior to depositing on the first dough piece.
Regarding claim 4, Oakes does not explicitly teach first conveyor 24 is a conveyor belt.
However, the reference teaches conveyors 14 and 18 are belts (column 2 line 65 to column 3 line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Oakes such that the first conveyor 24 is a belt since the reference already teaches conveyor belts in other parts of the process, since the feature is well-known in the art for transporting dough sheets, and therefore as a selection from known transport methods/devices, see also MPEP 2143I. (E).
Regarding claim 5, Morgenthaler et al. as applied to claim 1 teaches the “second conveyor” is a conveyor belt (column 3 lines 33-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Oakes such that the second conveyor is a belt for the same reasons stated for claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Oakes teaches a production direction associated with conveyor 24 (figure 3 arrow).
Morgenthaler et al. teaches the dough piece has a fold pointing in direction “C” (figure 7h), construed to be the production direction “P” as disclosed by Applicant (figure 2). The combination applied to claim 1 places “second conveyor” 8/9 of Morgenthaler et al. between conveyors 18 and 24 of Oakes. The combination does not specify the direction of the folds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Oakes such that a fold points in a production direction of the first conveyor 24 since the reference discloses the conveyor passes the stacked sheets through additional gauging rolls such that the sheets are rolled at a right angle to the direction in which they were formed (column 3 lines 64-68), and therefore to provide additional layers while maintaining the desired orientation of the sheets, and since there is no evidence that the feature yields unexpected results.
Regarding claims 7-9, Oakes teaches the first and second dough pieces S1-2 are consecutively severed from a dough strand S by cutting roll 26 prior to the providing step and transferring step (figure 1; column 2 lines 59-60; column 3 lines 12-16).
Regarding claim 10, Oakes teaches the dough pieces are consecutively severed by a severing device comprising cutting roll 26 and conveyor 18, where the dough pieces are conveyed on the conveyor 18 after severing (figure 1; column 3 lines 12-16).
Regarding claim 11, the combination applied to claim 1 does not teach the second conveyor has a higher conveying speed in the production direction than the first conveyor during the dispensing.
However, the combination teaches depositing a second folded dough piece from second conveyor 8,9 onto a first dough piece on a first conveyor. One of ordinary skill would have understood that the first piece must be placed in the correct position such that the second piece is correctly deposited on the first piece. Stopping first conveyor 24 of Oakes while depositing the second piece would facilitate accurate alignment of the sheets. The second conveyor would necessarily have a higher conveying speed than the stopped first conveyor.
Oakes further teaches the conveyor 24 is driven “at slow speed” for intermittent depositing of the dough sheets in an overlapping manner (column 3 lines 57-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Oakes such that the second conveyor has a higher conveying speed in the production direction than the first conveyor during the dispensing to ensure proper alignment of the deposited sheets and to ensure the second dough piece is appropriately folded when deposited.
Regarding claim 12, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches the method as stated for said claim. The method would have necessarily obtained a dough product.
Claims 3 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes in view of Morgenthaler et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boyle et al. (US 2004/0052908 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Oakes does not teach wrapping the first and second dough pieces after depositing the second piece onto the first piece.
Boyle et al. teaches a laminated dough product comprising alternating fat and dough layers (abstract), where the laminated dough is sheeted and then rolled (wrapped) to obtain a desired shape (paragraphs 73-75). The layers provide desired texture for known products such as croissants and other flaky pastry type bread products (paragraph 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Oakes to wrap the first and second dough pieces after depositing since the reference is directed to a laminated dough as stated for claim 1, where the claimed wrapping process is recognized by the prior art to be applied to laminated dough for obtaining known products such as croissants, and to obtain a desired shape, pattern, and/or texture of the final product.
Regarding claim 13, the combination applied to claims 1-2 renders obvious a method for making a dough product as recited for said claim. The same combination is applied to claim 13 and would have been obvious for the same reasons. It is noted that the “first conveyor” of claim 1 is construed to be the “additional conveyor” of claim 13. Likewise, the “second conveyor” of claim 1 is construed to be the “conveyor” of claim 13.
Claim 13 further recites wrapping the first and second dough pieces, after the second dough piece has been deposited on the first dough piece to make the dough product. The combination applied to claim 1 does not teach the recited feature.
However, the combination applied to claim 3 renders obvious wrapping the first and second dough pieces as claimed. The same combination is applied to claim 13 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 14-15, the modification applied to claims 4-5 renders obvious conveyor belts as stated for said claims. The same modification is applied to claims 14-15 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, Oakes teaches a conveying direction for conveyor 24 (figure 3), and the modification applied to claim 6 renders obvious a fold that points in the production direction. The same modification is applied to claim 16 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 17-18, Oakes teaches the first and second dough pieces S1-2 are consecutively severed from a dough strand S by cutting roll 26 prior to the providing step and transferring step (figure 1; column 2 lines 59-60; column 3 lines 12-16).
Regarding claim 19, Oakes teaches conveyor 24 (additional conveyor) is disposed below the conveyor 18 (figure 1), and Morgenthaler et al. teaches conveyor 13 (additional conveyor) is disposed below conveyors 8/9 (figures 7a-h).
Regarding claim 20, the combination applied to claim 13 does not teach the second conveyor has a higher conveying speed in the production direction than the first conveyor during the dispensing.
However, modification of Oakes to perform the claimed feature would have been obvious for the same reasons stated for claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but the amendment to claim 1 and new claims 13-20 necessitated new grounds of rejection. Morgenthaler, while still relied upon to teach folding, is no longer cited as the primary reference. Oakes is now relied on as the primary reference to show that severed dough sheets can be moved by conveyors and stacked for lamination without folding the first sheet. Chen is no longer relied upon.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Morikawa et al. (5,266,341 A) teaches a method for supplying a strip of bread dough (abstract) comprising severing the strip into pieces and depositing the pieces onto a conveyor in overlapping arrangement (figure 3).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
/B.K/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights