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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/16/2024.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 1/16/2024, claims 1-9 are pending.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each filling machine” in lines 3-4. It is unclear if the limitation “each filling machine” refers to each of the filling machines or introduces a new filling machine. For examination purposes, the limitation “each filling machine” is construed as “each of the filling machines”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “each outlet nozzle” in line 2. It is unclear if the limitation “each outlet nozzle” refers to each of the each of the outlet nozzles or introduces a new outlet nozzle. For examination purposes, the limitation “each outlet nozzle” is construed as “each of the outlet nozzles”.
Similarly, claim 7 recites the limitation “each passage hole” in line 3 so that claim 7 is rejected by the same reasons as discussed above in claims 1-2. For examination purposes, the limitation “each passage hole” is construed as “each of the passage holes”.
Similarly, claim 9 recites the limitation “each hopper” in line 6 so that claim 9 is rejected by the same reasons as discussed above in claims 1-2 and 7. For examination purposes, the limitation “each hopper” is construed as “each of the at least two hoppers”.
Claims 3-6 and 8 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Teufel (US 20200346241 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Teufel discloses
A food extruding device (1, see fig.2), comprising at least two filling machines (dosing elements 3, see para.0040), wherein each filling machine (each of the dosing elements 3) is connected to an extrusion module (respective lines, including tubes 7a, b, c, d, hoses 8a, b, c, d and nozzles 9a, b, c, d, see para.0040: “The dosing elements 3a, b, c, d are followed by the respective lines, e.g. tubes 7a, b, c, d and/or hoses 8a, b, c, d and/or nozzles 9a, b, c, d” and fig.4) by means of at least one tube (7, see fig.4 and para.0040), wherein each filling machine (each of the dosing elements 3) is configured to push a food substance (pasty mass) through at least one tube (7) that connects each filling machine (each of the dosing elements 3) to the extrusion module (respective lines, including tubes 7a, b, c, d, hoses 8a, b, c, d and nozzles 9a, b, c, d), and wherein the extrusion module (respective lines, including tubes 7a, b, c, d, hoses 8a, b, c, d and nozzles 9a, b, c, d) is configured to extrude the food substance coming from each filling machine (each of the dosing elements 3) through the respective extrusion module outlets (12, see fig.3 and para.0041-0042), the outlets (12) of the extrusion module (respective lines, including tubes 7a, b, c, d, hoses 8a, b, c, d and nozzles 9a, b, c, d) being a plurality of outlet nozzles (9, see fig.3).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teufel in view of Menchik (US 20060127153 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Teufel discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except
each outlet nozzle is connected, by means of a valve , to a first tube connected to one of the at least two filling machines, and to a second tube connected to the other one of the at least two filling machines.
Menchik discloses Apparatus and method for controlling modeling material supply, comprising:
each outlet nozzle (147, see fig.1) is connected, by means of a valve (175, see fig.1), to a first tube (see first tube in annotated fig.1 below and para.004) connected to one of the at least two filling machines (180, see fig.1), and to a second tube (see first tube in annotated fig.1 below and para.004) connected to the other one of the at least two filling machines (other one of 180, see fig.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
676
976
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.1 of Menchik
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the food extruding device of Teufel to incorporate the means of the valve as taught by Menchik so as “each outlet nozzle is connected, by means of a valve, to a first tube connected to one of the at least two filling machines, and to a second tube connected to the other one of the at least two filling machines” as claimed, in order for “efficiently managing the supply of materials for usage” during a process (see para.006 of Menchik).
Regarding claim 3, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth.
Teufel does not expressly disclose a host computer configured to command, through a controller card, the closing of the valve or the opening of the passage of the valve from the first tube or the second tube
Menchik further discloses a host computer (105) configured to command, through a controller card (hardware, see para.0026: “Controller 105 may be implemented using any suitable combination of hardware and/or software”), the closing of the valve (175) or the opening of the passage of the valve (175) from the first tube or the second tube (see first or second tube in annotated fig.1 above. See para.0027).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the food extruding device of Teufel to incorporate the “host computer configured to command, through a controller card, the closing of the valve or the opening of the passage of the valve from the first tube or the second tube” as taught by as taught by Menchik, in order for “efficiently managing the supply of materials for usage” during a process (see para.006 of Menchik).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teufel in view of Repholz US 4954061 A
Regarding claim 6, Teufel discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except a mouth connected to the extrusion module outlets that defines the shape of the product to be obtained.
Repholz discloses an apparatus for the coextrusion of materials to form center-filled products, comprising:
a mouth (60 comprising die inserts 62, see fig.2-9) connected to the extrusion module outlets (outlets of 30 and 35, see fig.2) that defines the shape of the product to be obtained (See fig.1-9 and col. 13 lines 11-16: “Die inserts 62 function to provide the desired shape to center-filled stream By use of die inserts 62, die plate 60 need not be made specific for each particular shape desired, but, rather, die inserts 62 can be produced for each particular shape”)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the food extruding device of Teufel to incorporate the “mouth connected to the extrusion module outlets that defines the shape of the product to be obtained” as taught by Repholz. Doing so allows to obtain the desired shape(s) of the product.
Regarding claim 7, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the mouth comprises a plurality of passage holes, wherein each passage hole is configured to channel the same extruded food substance through a set of outlet nozzles, and the device is configured to extrude, through the mouth, a food with different marbling of food substances determined by the passage holes.
Repholz further discloses the mouth (60 comprising die inserts 62, see fig.2-9) comprises a plurality of passage holes (65), wherein each passage hole (65) is configured to channel the same extruded food substance through a set of outlet nozzles (30 and 35, see fig.2-9), and the device is configured to extrude, through the mouth (60), a food with different marbling of food substances determined by the passage holes (65, see col. 13 lines 11-16) .
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the mouth of Repholz in the invention of Teufel so as “the mouth comprises a plurality of passage holes, wherein each passage hole is configured to channel the same extruded food substance through a set of outlet nozzles, and the device is configured to extrude, through the mouth, a food with different marbling of food substances determined by the passage holes” as taught by Repholz. Doing so allows to obtain the desired shape(s) of the product.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teufel in view of Schmidt (US 20210137154 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Teufel discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except a shear configured to produce cuts in a tube or column of extruded food and conveyed by a conveyor belt .
Schmidt discloses a foodstuff extrusion portioning device, comprising:
a shear (90, see fig.3) configured to produce cuts in a tube or column of extruded food (12, see fig.3) and conveyed by a conveyor belt (100, see fig.3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Teufel invention to incorporate the shear of Schmidt so as the shear configured to produce cuts in a tube or column of extruded food and conveyed by a conveyor belt as taught by Schmidt. Doing so allows to “produce more uniform portions such that when portions are cut that they are much easier to place or to cut and place as products in a more accurate and repeatable manner” (See para.002 of Schmidt).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teufel in view of Hashimoto (US 20160353750 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Teufel discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except at least a first hopper and a second hopper, each of the at least two hoppers being connected respectively to each of the at least two filling machines, each hopper being configured to allow the deposit and conveyance of each food substance to each filling machine.
Hashimoto discloses a shutter piece in a food shaping device, comprising:
at least a first hopper (9, see fig.1) and a second hopper (5, see fig.1), each of the at least two hoppers (each of the combo 5 and 9) being connected respectively to each of the at least two filling machines (7 and 11 ), each hopper (each of the combo 5 and 9) being configured to allow the deposit and conveyance of each food substance to each filling machine (7 and 11, see fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Teufel invention to have the “first hopper and a second hopper, each of the at least two hoppers being connected respectively to each of the at least two filling machines, each hopper being configured to allow the deposit and conveyance of each food substance to each filling machine” as taught by Hashimoto. Doing so allows to for precise blending at the point of filling, improving texture, flavor, and appearance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20050092365 A1 discloses food processing machines, and more particularly to a machine that extrudes fluent food products through an orifice for slicing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights