DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement set forth in the office action mailed on 1/8/2026 is hereby withdrawn. All of the claims are now being examined together in this Office 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 Objections
Claims 1, 4-7 and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 6, the phrase “deemed to be completed” is awkward and unclear. The examiner suggests amending to “determined by the control device to be completed” or something similar.
Claims 4 and 9 recite determining times at which the beginning of the first second-program product format reaches “respective output of the processing sections arranged one behind the other”, and then carrying out the program change “at the processing section following the respective output.” The problem is that the last section has no “processing section following the respective output”. Perhaps the applicant could amend to recite “respective outputs of processing sections that are followed by another processing section” or “an output of a respective upstream processing section, wherein the program change is carried out at the immediately downstream processing section”?
Claims 5 and 10, the problem with these claims is similar to the problem with claims 4 and 9, but in reverse. If “respective inputs” includes the input of the first processing section, there is no preceding processing section. Further, “this processing section” and “this preceding processing section” creates confusion because multiple upstream/preceding sections are mentioned in the same limitation. Perhaps the applicant could amend to recite that the relevant input is “an input of a downstream processing section” and the program change occurs at “the immediately upstream processing section”?
Claim 5 recites that “the product format processed first in accordance with the second product program is present at an output”, while claim 10 more specifically recites “the beginning of the product format first processed in accordance with the second product program”. There exists confusion as to whether “present” means the beginning has reached the output, any portion is present, the entire product format is present, or the end has reached the output. Perhaps the applicant could amend to match claim 10’s “if the beginning of the product format first processed in accordance with the second product program is present at an output …”?
Claim 7 recites “a product format of the product formats” but claim 6 does not clearly introduce “the product formats”.
Appropriate corrections are 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 6-10 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.
As per claim 6, the claim recites a “first processing section” of a dough processing system, but then refers to “each respective processing section of the processing sections following in the production direction” with first positively reciting that the dough processing system includes a plurality of processing sections arranged in the production direction. The examiner suggests amending claim 6, before the activating step, so that the dough processing system includes “a plurality of processing sections arranged one behind the other in a production direction”, to match claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by BOTZENHARDT, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0242297 A1 (‘297).
As per claim 1, ‘297 discloses a processing system (the term “dough”, with respect to “dough processing system”, is being treated as a non-limiting or, alternatively, as not patentably distinguishing over ‘297’s processing system feature because the claim does not recite any specific dough contacting, dough forming, or dough specific structure, and therefore the claimed structure or control features are adequately taught by ‘297’s processing system) comprising:
a plurality of processing sections arranged one behind the other in a production direction, which are configured to execute different product programs for producing different product formats (e.g., See ‘297; [0008] and [0014], which disclose a processing line having work stations arranged along a production direction and using recipes for different formats); and
a control device connected to the processing sections for activating the product programs at the processing sections (e.g., See ‘297; [0008], which discloses a control device connected to the work stations and setting recipe parameters for the work stations),
wherein a program change from a first product program respectively set thereon to a new, second product program can be activated at the processing sections by the control device (e.g., See ‘297; [0008], which discloses the control device changing the processing line from a first recipe to a second recipe),
wherein, by activating the program change at the processing section arranged in first place in the production direction, the control device is configured to automatically carry out the program change in successive steps at each respective processing section of the processing sections following in the production direction at a time at which, within the respective processing section, processing of a product format last processed in accordance with the first product program is deemed to be completed (e.g., See ‘297; [0008] – [0011], [0052] and [0054], which disclose the control device changing the processing line from the first recipe to a second recipe by first changing an upstream work station and then carrying the recipe change through successive downstream work stations as the last work cycle produced under the first recipe clears the respective downstream work stations).
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 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOTZENHARDT, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0242297 A1 (‘297), in view of Wiker, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0012307 A1 (‘307).
As per claim 1, ‘297 discloses a processing system (e.g., See ‘297; [0008], which discloses a processing line with multiple work stations) comprising:
a plurality of processing sections arranged one behind the other in a production direction, which are configured to execute different product programs for producing different product formats (e.g., See ‘297; [0008] and [0014], which discloses a processing line having work stations arranged along a production direction and using recipes for different formats); and
a control device connected to the processing sections for activating the product programs at the processing sections (e.g., See ‘297; [0008], which discloses a control device connected to the work stations and setting recipe parameters for the work stations),
wherein a program change from a first product program respectively set thereon to a new, second product program can be activated at the processing sections by the control device (e.g., See ‘297; [0008], which discloses the control device changing the processing line from a first recipe to a second recipe),
wherein, by activating the program change at the processing section arranged in first place in the production direction, the control device is configured to automatically carry out the program change in successive steps at each respective processing section of the processing sections following in the production direction at a time at which, within the respective processing section, processing of a product format last processed in accordance with the first product program is deemed to be completed (e.g., See ‘297; [0008] – [0011], [0052] and [0054], which disclose the control device changing the processing line from the first recipe to a second recipe by first changing an upstream work station and then carrying the recipe change through successive downstream work stations as the last work cycle produced under the first recipe clears the respective downstream work stations).
However, ‘297 does not specifically disclose the processing system to be a dough processing system.
‘307 discloses this missing feature (e.g., See ‘307; [0002] and [0051], which disclose a conveyor oven for baking pizzas, including conveying a raw pizza through the oven to produce a fully baked pizza).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have applied ‘297’s recipe change process to ‘307’s pizza baking processing system in order to provide automated recipe changes for a dough-based food processing system, thereby improving production flexibility and reducing downtime when changing between different dough product formats.
As per claim 2, ‘297’s combined system (‘297 in view of ‘307) further discloses that the control device is configured to determine, based on measured values of at least one approach circuit sensor assigned to the processing sections for detecting a beginning and/or an end of a product format of the product formats moving into the processing sections and based on a belt speed set for this product format at the processing sections, at which point the beginning and/or the end of the product format is located within a respective processing section of the processing sections (e.g., See ‘307; [0055], [0063], [0065] – [0066] and [0169], which disclose at least one position sensor as the at least one approach circuit sensor, the at least one position sensor detecting the beginning of the product format on a conveyor and sending signals to the control device, and the control device using conveyor movement information to determine the position of the product format within the respective work station).
As per claim 3, ‘297’s combined system further discloses that the at least one approach circuit sensor comprises at least one approach circuit sensor assigned to each of the processing sections (e.g., See ‘307; [0063], [0065], [0072] and [0074], which disclose the at least one position sensor comprising a respective position sensor assigned to each of the work stations).
As per claim 4, ‘297’s combined system further discloses that the control device is configured to determine respective times at which the beginning of a product format first processed according to the second product program along the production direction reaches respective outputs of the processing sections arranged one behind the other, wherein the control device is prompted at these times to automatically carry out the program change at the processing section following the respective output if the processing of a product format preceding the product format first processed in accordance with the second product program and last processed in accordance with the first product program is deemed to be completed at this processing section, or to delay the automatic program change at this processing section until the aforementioned condition is fulfilled at this processing section (e.g., See ‘297; [0009] – [0011] and [0051] – [0052], which discloses the control device carrying the recipe change to the following work station when a first work cycle produced under the second recipe reaches the following work station, provided the last work cycle produced under the first recipe has cleared the following work station, or delaying the recipe change until the following work station is cleared).
As per claim 6, ‘297 discloses a method for automatically carrying out a program change on a processing system (e.g., See ‘297; [0024], which discloses a method for carrying out a recipe change on a processing line), the method comprising:
activating, by a control device, a program change from a first product program set on the processing system to a new, second product program on a first processing section of the dough processing system connected to the control device and mounted in first place in a production direction (e.g., See ‘297; [0024], which discloses the control device carrying out a recipe change from a first recipe to a second recipe by performing a first control step at a first work station),
wherein by activating the program change at the processing section arranged in first place in the production direction, the control device is prompted to automatically carry out the program change in successive steps at each respective processing section of the processing sections following in the production direction at a time at which, within the respective processing section, processing of a preceding product format last processed in accordance with the first product program is deemed to have been completed (e.g., See ‘297; [0024] – [0026] and [0054], which disclose the control device carrying the recipe change through successive downstream work stations after a preceding work cycle produced under the first recipe clears the respective downstream work stations).
However, ‘297 does not specifically disclose the processing system to be a dough processing system.
‘307 discloses this missing feature (e.g., See ‘307; [0002] and [0051], which disclose a conveyor oven for baking pizzas, including conveying a raw pizza through the oven to produce a fully baked pizza).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have applied ‘297’s recipe change process to ‘307’s pizza baking processing system in order to provide automated recipe changes for a dough-based food processing system, thereby improving production flexibility and reducing downtime when changing between different dough product formats.
As per claim 7, ‘297’s combined system (‘297 in view of ‘307) further discloses that the control device determines, based on measured values of at least one approach circuit sensor assigned to the processing sections for detecting a beginning and/or an end of a product format of the product formats and based on a belt speed set for this product format at the processing sections, a position at which the beginning and/or the end of the product format is located within a respective processing section of the processing sections (e.g., See ‘307; [0055], [0063], [0065] – [0066] and [0169], which disclose at least one position sensor as the at least one approach circuit sensor, the at least one position sensor detecting a beginning of a work cycle on a conveyor and sending signals to the control device, and the control device using conveyor movement information to determine the position of the work cycle within the respective work station).
As per claim 8, ‘297’s combined system further discloses that the at least one approach circuit sensor comprises at least one approach circuit sensor assigned to each of the processing sections (e.g., See ‘307; [0063], [0065], [0072] and [0074], which disclose the at least one position sensor comprising a respective position sensor assigned to each of the work stations).
As per claim 9, ‘297’s combined system further discloses that the control device determines respective times at which the beginning of a product format first processed according to the second product program along the production direction reaches respective outputs of the processing sections arranged one behind the other, wherein the control device is prompted at these times to automatically carry out the program change at the processing section following the respective output if the processing of a product format preceding the product format first processed in accordance with the second product program and last processed in accordance with the first product program is deemed to have been completed at this processing section, or to delay the automatic program change at this processing section until the aforementioned condition is fulfilled at this processing section (e.g., See ‘297; [0025], [0051] – [0052] and [0054], which disclose the control device carrying the recipe change to a following work station when a first work cycle produced under the second recipe reaches the following work station, provided the preceding work cycle produced under the first recipe has cleared the following work station, or delaying the recipe change until the following work station is cleared).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 10 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.
As per claim 5, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest that the control device is configured to determine respective times at which the end of a product format last processed according to the first product program along the production direction reaches respective inputs of the processing sections arranged one behind the other, wherein the control device is prompted at these times to carry out the program change automatically at the processing section preceding the respective input if the product format processed first in accordance with the second product program is present at an output of one of the processing sections preceding this processing section, or to delay the automatic program change until the aforementioned condition is fulfilled at this preceding processing section, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed.
As per claim 10, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest that the control device determines respective times at which the end of a product format last processed according to the first product program along the production direction reaches respective inputs of the processing sections arranged one behind the other, wherein the control device is prompted at these times to automatically carry out the program change at the processing section preceding the respective input if the beginning of the product format first processed in accordance with the second product program is present at an output of a processing section preceding this processing section, or to delay the automatic program change until the aforementioned condition is fulfilled at this preceding processing section, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 5,440494 A, which discloses processing equipment that automatically changes machine settings for different article types before allowing further line operations;
(2) US 5,432,702 A, which discloses workstation controllers selecting process recipes for products based on product identification data;
(3) US 5,121,331 A, which discloses a multi station machine that tracks each part and its processing record as the part moves through different stations;
(4) US 8,579,494 B2, which discloses a dough extrusion system that uses sensors and controller feedback to adjust dough processing equipment;
(5) US 5,179,265 A, which discloses a conveyor control system which monitors product movement and adjusts conveyor speed during food processing; and
(6) US 2017/0190345 A1, which discloses a robotic food assembly line that uses conveyors, workstations, and control system to assemble food products.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 July 5, 2026;
/RDH/
Prosecution Insights