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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 3 the term “de-vices” should be amended to “devices”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Before “the term “method” delete “a” and amend to “the” since the product of the claim is made from the method recited by claim 1.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rendered indefinite since the preamble recites a method for making “dough products” (plural), but the body of the claim appears to describe making a single dough product i.e., the combined first and second dough pieces. It is unclear if the method is actually directed to making a plurality of dough products, or instead to making a single dough product. Further, the body of the claim does not positively recite “dough products”, and therefore it is unclear at which point in the process the “dough products” are actually formed.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the first dough product” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “a first dough piece”, and therefore it is unclear if “the first dough product” of claim 2 is referring to the limitation of claim 1, or some other substance. The rejection can be overcome by amending the claim to instead recite “the first dough piece”.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the first dough product” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated for claim 2. The rejection can be overcome by amending the claim to instead recite “the first dough piece”.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rendered indefinite since it is unclear exactly which part of the process is referred to by the term “conveyed”. Claim 1 recites first and second conveyors, where the first dough piece is provided on the first conveyor and the second dough piece is provided on the second conveyor, and does not positively recite either dough piece being “conveyed”. Likewise, claim 7 is silent with respect to any “conveying” limitation. It is unclear if “conveyed” as recited in claim 10 refers to moving the dough pieces on the first conveyor, the second conveyor, or some other unrecited conveying device. The rejection can be overcome by amending claim 10 to clarify which part of the method is referred to be “conveyed”.
Claims 3-7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 Morgenthaler et al. (US 3,953,613) in view of Chen et al. (CN 104855451 A).
Citations to Chen et al. are taken from the EPO translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, 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).
Surico et al. does not teach depositing a second dough piece on the first dough piece while the first dough piece is disposed on the first conveyor, the second dough piece folded during the depositing.
Chen et al. teaches a method for folding dough sheets back and forth (paragraph 2), where a second folded sheet can be placed over a first folded sheet while transported on conveyor 2 (figure 2; paragraph 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Morgenthaler et al. to deposit a second dough piece on the first dough piece, the second dough piece folded during depositing, since the prior art recognizes that multiple dough sheets can be folded and stacked while being transported by a conveyor, to provide consumers with a known “multi-pack” of the folded dough sheets, since there is no evidence of new and unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and therefore as a duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04 VI.B.
Regarding claim 2, Morgenthaler et al. teaches each dough piece is transferred from the second conveyor 8,9 to the first conveyor 13 (figures 7a-7g). The combination applied to claim 1 teaches stacking first and second folded dough pieces. Therefore, the prior art combination would have necessarily transferred the first dough piece from the second conveyor to the first conveyor in order to allow the second dough piece to be deposited onto the first dough piece.
Regarding claims 4-5, the first conveyor 13 and second conveyor 8,9 are conveyor belts (column 3 lines 33-36).
Regarding claim 6, 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).
Regarding claims 7-8, Morgenthaler et al. does not teach the first and second dough pieces are severed from a dough strand prior to the providing step (claim 7) and transferring step (claim 8).
However, the reference teaches a roller device and transverse cutting device upstream of infeed conveyor 7 (column 4 lines 49-52).
Chen et al. shows dough sheets are provided in the form of a continuous strand from rollers 1 (figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Morgenthaler et al. to sever the first and second dough pieces from a dough strand as claimed since it is well-known that dough sheets are formed by cutting from a continuous dough strand, since there is no evidence of new and unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and to make the dough formation step continuous, see MPEP 2144.04 V.E.
Regarding claim 9, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches stacking first and second dough pieces. Morganthaler et al. teaches each dough piece is supplied from the upstream source to infeed table 7 (column 4 lines 49-52). Therefore, the process of the prior art combination would have necessarily severed the first and second dough pieces consecutively.
Regarding claim 10, the first and second dough pieces are consecutively severed as explained for claim 9. The pieces are then conveyed across conveyor 7 to second conveyor 8,9 (figures 7a-7c).
Regarding claim 11, Morganthaler et al. does not teach the second conveyor has a higher conveying speed in a production direction than the first conveyor during the depositing.
However, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches depositing a second folded dough piece from second conveyor 8,9 onto a first dough piece on conveyor 13. 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 13 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. Further, conveyor 8 moves the dough pieces in the production direction “C” (figure 7h arrows).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Morganthaler et al. to stop conveyor 13 to position the first dough piece under the second piece while second conveyor 8,9 deposits the second piece since the first conveyor 13 is controllable (column 5 lines 40-45), and to ensure the pieces are properly aligned.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgenthaler et al. in view of Chen et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boyle et al. (US 2004/0052908 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Morgenthaler et al. does not teach wrapping the first and second dough pieces after depositing the second piece onto the first piece.
However, the reference teaches the dough Ta is formed from a dough/fat/dough layered product (column 4 line 49), and the method is direction to laminating (column 1 lines 58-60).
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 at the time of the invention to modify the process of Morgenthaler et al. to wrap the first and second dough pieces after depositing since the process is recognized to obtain known products such as croissants, and to obtain a desired shape, pattern, and/or texture of the final product.
Conclusion
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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792