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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“dough-dispensing device” in claim 1.
“Fat dispensing device” in claim 1.
“one measuring device” in claim 1.
“processing means” in claim 1.
“sampling device” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“dough-dispensing device” is disclosed as a funnel and rollers.
“Fat dispensing device” is disclosed in specification to include a butter pump.
“one measuring device” disclosed in specification to include a line scanner, photocell, ultrasonic sensor, or ccd camera.
“processing means” is not disclosed in the specification.
“sampling device” is not disclosed in the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 includes the limitation, “processing means for…” . This limitation is being interpreted as invoking 112f. The specification does not provide support for the structure required to perform the claimed functions.
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 1-14 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 phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear whether a conveyer belt is required in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if the line scanner must be one of the embodiments further recited.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poppe et al. (US Pat# 3,408,981) in view of Blokland (PGPub# US 2018/0235241 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Poppe teaches a device for providing a dough sheet provided with a layer of fat (figure 1, and abstract), comprising: A conveyor, such as a conveyor belt 19, with a conveying surface extending in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction perpendicular thereto, adapted for displacing goods placed on the conveyor in a conveying direction parallel to the longitudinal direction (figure 1); A dough-dispensing device (26/29/20/21) for applying a continuous dough sheet on the conveyor; A fat dispensing device (78) for applying a layer of fat; wherein The fat is applied on the dough sheet or the dough sheet is applied on the layer of fat (col. 4, lines 17-44 and figures 1-8).
Poppe further teaches the desire to control and maintain the thickness/ratio of dough and fat layers in order to make a uniform composition food product in all dimensions. (col. 1, line 29- col. 3, line 18).
Popper does not explicitly teach at least one measuring device placed above or along the conveyor for the continuous or random measurement of: the local height of the dough sheet at a dough measurement location; and the local height of the layer of fat at a fat measurement location; Processing means for: Determining a measured height of the dough sheet at a position the longitudinal direction on the dough sheet and a height of the layer of fat at the same position on the dough sheet the longitudinal direction; and Determining the dough-fat height ratio and thus the dough-fat volume ratio.
However, Blokland discloses a similar dough manufacturing line. (abstract, figure 1) Blokland discloses the use of one or more measurement sensors (18-23) configured to obtain distance information used by a controller to calculate physical properties of the dough like thickness as it continues to be processed along the manufacturing line. (par. 9-22)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the measurement system and controller of Blokland, to the apparatus of Poppe, in order to control/maintain the appropriate amounts of fat and dough in the manufacturing line as desired by Poppe. The combination of Poppe and Blokland would read on a controller configured to determine thicknesses of each layer and thus also determining ratios of the layers.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Poppe and Blokland teaches a single measuring device, for measuring at a dough measurement location in the direction of transport: the local height of the dough sheet at the dough measurement location; and the local height of the layer of fat at the fat measurement location, wherein the measuring device is configured for measuring the local height of the dough sheet and the local height of the layer of fat at a mutual distance in a direction with at least a directional component in the width direction. (Blokland: par. 9-22, and claim 8)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Poppe and Blokland teaches at least two measuring devices, for measuring at at least two locations located at a distance from each other in the direction of transport, relative to the conveyor: the local height of the dough sheet at a dough measurement location; and the local height of the layer of fat at a fat measurement location. (Blokland: par. 9-22, and claim 8)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Poppe and Blokland teaches wherein the at least one measuring device is configured for determining the dough sheet height and/or the layer of fat height at several locations in the width direction. (Blokland: par. 9-22, and claim 8)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Poppe and Blokland teaches wherein the at least one measuring device comprises a line scanner, in particular embodied by a series of analogue (laser) photocells, a laser line scanner, an ultrasonic scanner, or a ccd distance cam, which extends across the conveyor in a width direction. (claim 8, ultrasonic sensor)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Poppe and Blokland teaches a further dough-dispensing device for applying a continuous dough sheet on the combination of a dough sheet and a layer of fat; or a further fat dispensing device for applying a layer of fat on the combination of a dough sheet and a layer of fat; and at least one further measuring device for measuring a subsequent layer of dough or fat. (Poppe, col. 1, lines 26-62: Poppe discloses that pasties are made up of layers of fat and dough.) The resulting combination of Poppe and Blokland would lead to sensors to measure each subsequent layer to ensure appropriate ratio of fat to dough).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Poppe and Blokland teaches a control device for controlling the dough-dispensing device and the fat-dispensing device, arranged for controlling the dough dispensing device and the fat dispensing device on the basis of the determined dough-fat-height ratio and a desired dough-fat-height ratio. (Poppe discloses maintaining thickness of layers and Blokland teaches a controller for determining the thickness as cited in claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Poppe and Blokland teaches a weighing device for measuring the weight of the dough sheet and/or the layer of fat. (Blokland: Claim 10)
Regarding claim 9, Poppe teaches wherein the dough-dispensing device comprises a funnel followed by at least one pair of rollers. (col. 3, line 35- col. 4 line 10, and figures 1 and 2)
Regarding claim 10, Poppe teaches wherein the fat-dispensing device comprises a fat pump or vacuum pump. (col. 4, lines 17-31)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Poppe and Blokland teaches a folding and/or laminating device for forming puff pastry. (Blokland: Claim 15)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Poppe and Blokland teaches adapted for determining the dough-fat height ratio during transport of the dough sheet with the layer of fat in the direction of transport. (See rejection of claim 1 above)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Poppe and Blokland teaches a sample device placed downstream in the direction of transport relative to the at least one measuring device for manually determining the local height and width or weight of the dough sheet at a dough measuring location and/or the local height and width or weight of the layer of fat at a fat measurement location. (Blockland: claim 10: Weighing stage would read on sample device as claimed.)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poppe et al. (US Pat# 3,408,981) in view of Blokland (PGPub# US 2018/0235241 A1) and Paulucci (US Pat#5,968,570).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Poppe and Blokland teaches wherein the device furthermore comprises a folding device for folding the layer of fat over the dough sheet that extends width-wise beyond the layer of fat. (Blokland: Claim 15)
Poppe in view of Blokland does not explicitly teach wherein the dough-dispensing device and the fat-dispensing device are adapted for applying a layer of fat with a width that is smaller than the width of the dough layer.
However, Paulucci teaches a similar dough manufacturing line. (figure 5) Paulucci teaches adding filling less than the width of the dough layer and subsequent folding operation in order to form a folded pastry product. (figures 5-13, col. 9 lines 1-67)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the filling adaptation of Paulucci, to the apparatus of Poppe in view of Blokland, in order to form a sealed and folded pastry product as disclosed by Paulucci.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Harada et al. (PGPub# US2021/0045391A1) which teaches another dough system with measurement of filling and dough.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights