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
Claims 18-22 and 26-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/26/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, 12-17 and 23-25 in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 25 of the specification, reference is made to first working surface 5a and second working surface 5b. No such reference numbers are found in the figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITBA 20130075U1 (Kelz) in view of “Influence of die material on pasta characteristics”, Food Research International, 2008 (Lucisano) and further in view of WO 2021/083990 (Panto) OR US 4394397 (Lometillo) (both cited on the IDS filed 11/22/2023).
Regarding claims 1-3, 23 and 24, Kelz discloses a die insert for the production of a pasta wherein the pasta die allows production of a pasta shape that combines the aesthetic appearance of smooth pasta known in the state of the art with the taste characteristics of a striped pasta. Kelz states that it is known that making the external surface of the pasta grooved allows to obtain a greater surface roughness, as well as a greater surface, and therefore allows to retain a greater amount of seasoning. Nevertheless, the pasta rigata is not used in restaurants because it is considered not very elegant from an aesthetic point of view. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the entirety of the device (100) is referred to as an insert. Grooves are present on the working surface of the first part (1) of insert (100). The dough follows a path of entry via holes (11) and the space from entry via 11 (any of the holes) and proceeding into the space between part (1) and part (2) is considered a through hole forming the extrusion path. Grooves are formed on part (1) along a working surface that comes into contact with the dough as it passes through the die. The grooves (152) can be straight (i.e. parallel to the advancement axis of the dough when it comes out of the die, or inclined with respect to the same axis. The height of the indentation as shown in Figure 4 is less than 1mm, preferably 0.4-0.6mm. Thus, the depth of a groove is less than 1mm which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.05-0.3mm and the ranges of claims 23 and 24. Moreover, the disclosure of 0.4mm is considered so close as to not be patentably distinct from 0.3mm as the structure of the pasta formed by the use of a die with 0.3mm vs. 0.4mm groove depth is not seen to provide a patentable distinction.
Kelz states that it should be noted that pasta, according to what is widely known in the state of the art, is commonly drawn when the dough is still wet and, subsequently, dried. The dimensions indicated therefore, as well as indicative, are to be referred to the wet mixture when it is extruded through the die. The use of water and meal is considered widely known and accepted to form pasta, and Kelz is considered to meet this limitation based on the clear teaching of forming pasta. Additionally, Lucisano discloses that the most suitable ingredient for the production of dried pasta, and the only one allowed by Italian law, is durum wheat semolina whose protein amount and quality are of great importance for the characteristics of the cooked product (Introduction). Thus, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use durum wheat semolina meal to make the pasta as this meal is legally required by Italy and is widely known and used to make pasta.
Kelz does not expressly teach the use of a die of any particular material, but does recognize the desire to form a porous (i.e. roughened) surface as opposed to stripes as discussed above. Lucisano states that traditional dies made entirely of bronze make the pasta surface rough, which helps to capture the sauce, whereas the Teflon insert gives the product an even surface and a smoother texture (abstract). Based upon the desire expressed in Kelz to form a pasta having a rough, but not striped, surface, the use of a bronze die insert would have been obvious as it is recognized to form such a surface and would contribute to the desire for a roughened surface.
Kelz does not disclose the water content of the dough or kneading the dough prior to extrusion with the die. Panto discloses formation of a durum wheat semolina dough by mixing with water to form a dough with 37wt% water, kneading the dough to obtain optimum consistency and plasticity is obtained, and extruding the dough, subsequently drying to a moisture content of 10.5wt% (pages 6, 10-11). Panto discloses that similar doughs may be used with Teflon, POM-C and bronze to form a pasta (Table 1) which also supports the obviousness of using bronze material for the die insert with an expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to form a dough having the water content of Panto and kneading the dough prior to extrusion to obtain the desired consistency as disclosed by Panto with a reasonable expectation of providing a dough suitable for extrusion in the process of Kelz. Kelz expressly states that the dough is “wet” when drawn (extruded) and Panto gives an example of the level of wetness that can be used with a variety of die inserts, thus indicating that such a water content is reasonable to use with expectation of successfully extruding a pasta.
Alternative to Panto, Lometillo discloses forming a pasta product by blending semolina with sufficient water, typically 15-35wt%, and kneading the dough (mechanical working) prior to extrusion and then drying to a moisture content of a maximum of 10% (abstract, col. 2). One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to form a dough having the water content of Lometillo and kneading the dough prior to extrusion to plasticize the mix as disclosed by Lometillo with a reasonable expectation of providing a dough suitable for extrusion in the process of Kelz. Kelz expressly states that the dough is “wet” when drawn (extruded) and Lometillo gives an example of the level of wetness that can be used with a variety of die inserts, thus indicating that such a water content is reasonable to use with expectation of successfully extruding a pasta.
Regarding the moisture content in the dried pasta, Kelz expressly discloses drying the pasta and each of Lucisano, Panto and Lometillo disclose the moisture level of dried pasta after extrusion of less than 12.5wt% (Lucisano Table 1, Panto page 8, Lometillo col. 2). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to dry the pasta of Kelz to a moisture level of less than 12.5wt% based upon the disclosed moisture levels of Lucisano, Panto and Lometillo. These references are indicative of the level of ordinary skill and examples of moisture content in dried pasta after extrusion, thus rendering the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 4, as explained above, the threads (grooves) of Kelz may be inclined relative the direction of the extrusion path. Note that the claim does not limit the transverse nature to a perpendicular orientation with respect to the extrusion path.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the grooves of Kelz are considered to be thread shaped as they are wrapped as shown in Figures 6 and 7 of Kelz. These figures also show that there are a plurality of grooves that are transverse to at least some degree with the extrusion path, and are considered to be shaped as a plurality of cuts since they are grooves, and are parallel (Figures 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 10, the grooves of Kelz extend longitudinally with respect to the direction of the extrusion path.
Regarding claim 12, Panto discloses 37wt% water and Lometillo discloses “typically 15-35wt%” water in the dough. Disclosure of 35wt% is considered so close to 35.5wt% so as to not be patentably distinct as one would reasonably expect the dough to have the same properties based upon the small difference in water (See MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 13, Lometillo discloses blending the ingredients (col. 4), but does not disclose the temperature or length of time for blending. Since blending is not disclosed as occurring with heat, it is understood as being done at room temperature which is encompassed by the claimed temperature range. Regarding the amount of time to mix the ingredients, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mix the ingredients for a time sufficient to incorporate all of the ingredients together and provide a homogeneous dough. Absent a showing that the length of time of 20-30 minutes is critical, routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill is considered to render the time taken to blend the ingredients obvious. Panto further discloses mixing is carried out at a temperature comprised between 20°C and 50°C, more preferably between 30°C and 40°C, for a time comprised between 20 minutes and 30 minutes, thus providing guidance to one of ordinary skill as to the parameters of blending the ingredients.
Regarding claim 15, as discussed above, each of Lucisano, Panto and Lometillo disclose the moisture level of dried pasta after extrusion of less than 11.5wt% (Lucisano Table 1, Panto page 8, Lometillo col. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Lucisano discloses high temperature drying including temperatures of 60-70C (Figure 1) and Panto discloses drying between 50-90C. It would have been obvious to dry the pasta at these known temperatures for drying pasta with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 17 and 25, since the die insert disclosed by Kelz has a similar structure to that claimed, one of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected formation of a pasta with a similar structure to that claimed, namely a roughness of the surface. Kelz expressly disclosed the desirability of the roughness, thus one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to maximize the desired roughness and utilization of a die insert with a similar groove depth would have been reasonable expected to provide a similar roughness value to that claimed.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITBA 20130075U1 (Kelz) in view of “Influence of die material on pasta characteristics”, Food Research International, 2008 (Lucisano) and further in view of WO 2021/083990 (Panto) OR US 4394397 (Lometillo) (both cited on the IDS filed 11/22/2023) and further in view EP 3050439 (Suga).
Kelz, Lucisano, Panto and Lometillo do not disclose a pressure of 60-110 bar for extrusion of the pasta. Suga discloses manufacturing pasta by extruding at 35-100 kgf/cm2 which is 34-98 bar, which overlaps with the claimed range [0011]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extrude the pasta with a known pressure, such as that of Panto or Saga with a reasonable expectation of successfully extruding the pasta.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art of record is Kelz as discussed above, but the structure of the die insert of Kelz differs from the structure of claim 7 where the pin has the second working surface that extends longitudinally inside the through-hole which has the first working surface where the first working surface has grooves. In Kelz, the structure that corresponds to the pin possesses the working surface with grooves. Kelz states that the internal surface of the second part (2) of the die is smooth which forms the outer part of the pasta.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1793
/Jennifer McNeil/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793