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 .
Response to Arguments
The rejections under 112(b) have been withdrawn in response to the amendments filed 8/5/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zhong does not anticipate the amended features of claim 1 including mold cavities recessed into an outer surface of the dough mold and patterns within the mold cavities. Applicant argues that Zhong describes a rotatable cutting shaft with teeth rather than a dough mold and cavities. Examiner disagrees. Despite the fact that Zhong uses different terminology, the structural features of Zhong meet the corresponding recited features of the claim. The teeth in Zhong are cavities that are recessed into the surface of the mold, see Zhong Figure 5. The cavities are separate from one another and, even though it is the intended use of the apparatus, form individually molded pieces of dough when the apparatus is rotated. As noted by Applicant, the dough is pressed into the teeth of Zhong and forms the molded dough which happens to be in a noodle shape. Since the dough is being pressed into the teeth, the dough is being molded within the apparatus and the teeth act as a cavity. Examiner does agree that Zhong does not teach a pattern within the mold. After further search and consideration, Werner is cited as teaching a relief pattern within the cavity of a dough mold for imprinting a relief pattern onto molded dough. Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-20 also remain rejected.
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.
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: “biasing element” in claim 7, being interpreted as a base or rod as described in [0034] of the specification as filed.
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.
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 § 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, 9-12, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (CN110915847A, see English translation provided with the office action dated 5/13/2026) modified by Werner (US 3,546,770, previously made of record on the office action dated 5/13/2026.)
Regarding claim 1, Zhong meets the claimed, A stand mixer, comprising: a base; a support column coupled to the base and extending upwardly from the base; a head coupled to an upper end of the support column and extending from the support column above the base; (Zhong Figure 6 shows an external drive device having a base, head, and support column) and a dough mold attachment assembly, the dough mold attachment assembly comprising: a dough hopper (Zhong [0038] describes housing 7 for a dough pressing device ) including an inlet for receiving moldable dough therethrough and an outlet for releasing the moldable dough as a molded dough therefrom; (Zhong Figure 3 shows the inlet being the top and the outlet being the bottom) and a dough mold positioned within the dough hopper, the dough mold rotatable relative to the dough hopper (Zhong [0032] describes cutting shafts 31 and 32 rotate) wherein a plurality of mold cavities are recessed within an outer surface of the dough mold and partitioned from each other for forming the moldable dough into the molded dough as separate molded dough pieces as the dough mold is rotated relative to the dough hopper (Zhong [0039] and Figure 5 describes teeth 321 on the shafts 31/32 which shape the dough into individual noodle shapes, Figure 5 shows the teeth are recessed within the outer surface and separated from one another. )
Zhong does not describe patterns on the teeth and does not meet the claimed, a pattern is positioned within one or more mold cavities of the plurality of mold cavities for imprinting upon the moldable dough.
Analogous in the field of dough shaping apparatus, Werner also describes a rotating apparatus having cavities for shaping dough into individual molded pieces and meets the claimed, a pattern is positioned within one or more mold cavities of the plurality of mold cavities for imprinting upon the moldable dough (Werner col. 2 lines 56-67 describes a rotating drum having a plurality of cavities 18. The cavities 18 have a relief pattern on the face of the cavity to provide a desired pattern onto the dough formed within the cavity.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the cavities described in Zhong with the relief pattern described in Werner in order to form a decorative or desired pattern on the molded dough, see Wener col. 2 lines 63-65.
Regarding claim 9, Zhong meets the claimed, The stand mixer of claim 1, the dough mold attachment assembly further comprising: a rotatable drive shaft coupled to a motor of the stand mixer for driving rotation of the rotatable drive shaft, the rotatable drive shaft further coupled to the dough mold such that rotation of the drive shaft results in rotation of the dough mold with the drive shaft (Zhong [0034] describes the external drive device drives a spindle or main shaft 21 which subsequently drives gears 42 and 41 which drive the cutting shafts 31/32.)
Regarding claim 10, Zhong meets the claimed, The stand mixer of claim 1, wherein: the dough mold defines a bearing chamber for receiving a bearing therein; (Zhong Figure 2 shows the cutting shafts 31 and 32 have areas or openings on the end of the shafts where a bearing could be received) the dough hopper defines a bearing opening for receiving the bearing therein, (Zhong Figure 2 and [0036] describe how the transmission device 4 is housed) the bearing opening aligned with the bearing chamber; (Zhong Figure 3 shows how the transmission device 4 and its housing are aligned with the cutting shafts) the dough mold attachment assembly further comprises: an end cap assembly removably coupled to the dough hopper such that the end cap assembly covers the bearing opening, (Zhong [0036] describes the left end cover 14) the end cap including a rotatable bearing portion extending within the dough hopper through the bearing opening and within the bearing chamber of the dough mold; (Zhong Figures 2 and 3 show openings extending through the left support 11 portion of the dough pressing device) and the rotatable bearing portion of the end cap facilitates rotation of the dough mold within the dough hopper (Zhong [0036] describe how the transmission device 4 as a whole works to facilitate the rotation of the various shafts.)
Regarding claim 11, Zhong meets the claimed, The stand mixer of claim 1, the dough hopper of the dough mold assembly further comprising: an inner wall; and wherein: a gap is defined between the dough mold and the inner wall of the dough hopper; (Zhong Figure 5 shows an inner wall and a gap between the frame and the cutting shafts 31 or 32) and rotation of the dough mold moves the moldable dough through the gap and within one or more mold cavities of the plurality of mold cavities of the dough mold to form molded dough (Zhong [0032] explains how the cutting shafts 31/32 rotate to cut the noodle dough into the noodle shape.)
Regarding claim 12, Zhong meets the claimed, The stand mixer of claim 1, wherein: the outlet of the dough hopper is positioned below the dough mold; and the molded dough is released from the one or more mold cavities of the plurality of mold cavities of the dough mold through the outlet when the mold cavity faces the outlet (Zhong Figure 3 shows how the gears are meshed meaning that the dough is fed into the gap 301 and output below once the gears have rotated the cutting shafts.)
Regarding claim 14, Zhong as modified by Werner meets the claimed, The stand mixer of claim 1, wherein the pattern is an emboss or a recess positioned within the one or more mold cavities of the plurality of mold cavities for imprinting upon the moldable dough (Werner col. 2 lines 56-67 describes a rotating drum having a plurality of cavities 18. The cavities 18 have a relief pattern on the face of the cavity to provide a desired pattern onto the dough formed within the cavity.)
Zhong Figure 6 shows the dough pressing device attached to the external drive but does not explicitly meet the claimed, wherein the dough mold attachment assembly is removably coupled to the head, however making a component separable is considered obvious if it is desired to obtain access to the end of the component, see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to make the dough pressing device removable attached to the external drive in order to clean the apparatus or repair the gears.
Regarding claim 15, Zhong meets the claimed, A dough mold attachment assembly for a stand mixer, the stand mixer including a base, a support column coupled to the base and extending upwardly from the base, and a head coupled to an upper end of the support column and extending from the support column above the base, (Zhong Figure 6 shows an external drive device having a base, head, and support column) the dough mold attachment assembly comprising: a dough hopper (Zhong [0038] describes housing 7 for a dough pressing device ) including an inlet for receiving moldable dough therethrough and an outlet for releasing the moldable dough as a molded dough therefrom; (Zhong Figure 3 shows the inlet being the top and the outlet being the bottom) and a dough mold positioned within the dough hopper, (Zhong [0032] describes cutting shafts 31 and 32 that rotate) the dough mold rotatable relative to the dough hopper wherein a plurality of mold cavities are recessed within an outer surface of the dough mold and partitioned from each other for forming the moldable dough into the molded dough as separate molded dough pieces as the dough mold is rotated relative to the dough hopper (Zhong [0039] and Figure 5 describes teeth 321 on the shafts 31/32 which shape the dough into individual noodle shapes, Figure 5 shows the teeth are recessed within the outer surface and separated from one another. )
Zhong does not describe patterns on the teeth and does not meet the claimed, a pattern is positioned within one or more mold cavities of the plurality of mold cavities for imprinting upon the moldable dough
Analogous in the field of dough shaping apparatus, Werner also describes a rotating apparatus having cavities for shaping dough into individual molded pieces and meets the claimed, a pattern is positioned within one or more mold cavities of the plurality of mold cavities for imprinting upon the moldable dough (Werner col. 2 lines 56-67 describes a rotating drum having a plurality of cavities 18. The cavities 18 have a relief pattern on the face of the cavity to provide a desired pattern onto the dough formed within the cavity.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the cavities described in Zhong with the relief pattern described in Werner in order to form a decorative or desired pattern on the molded dough, see Wener col. 2 lines 63-65.
Regarding claim 20, Zhong further meets the claimed, The dough mold attachment assembly of claim 15, further comprising: a rotatable drive shaft coupled to a motor of the stand mixer for driving rotation of the rotatable drive shaft, the rotatable drive shaft further coupled to the dough mold such that rotation of the drive shaft results in rotation of the dough mold with the drive shaft (Zhong [0034] describes the external drive device drives a spindle or main shaft 21 which subsequently drives gears 42 and 41 which drive the cutting shafts 31/32.)
Claims 2, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong modified by Werner as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of König (US 5,486,048.)
Regarding claim 2, Zhong does not describe a feeder block for moving the dough towards the cutting shafts and does not meet the claimed, The stand mixer of claim 1, the dough mold attachment assembly further comprising: a dough feeder block for moving the moldable dough toward the dough mold.
Analogous in the field of dough shaping devices König meets the claimed, The stand mixer of claim 1, the dough mold attachment assembly further comprising: a dough feeder block for moving the moldable dough toward the dough mold (König col. 3 lines 65- col. 4 line 6 describes a pusher member 6 which pushes dough into openings where it is later shaped.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the dough forming apparatus of Zhong with the pusher member of König in order to automatically feed dough into the openings at the correct timing, see König col. 4 lines 6-8.
Regarding claim 13, Zhong does not describe a tray and does not meet the claimed, The stand mixer of claim 12, the dough hopper of the dough mold attachment assembly further comprising: a tray extending below the outlet for receiving the molded dough released through the outlet.
König meets the claimed, The stand mixer of claim 12, the dough hopper of the dough mold attachment assembly further comprising: a tray extending below the outlet for receiving the molded dough pieces released through the outlet (König col. 5 lines 5-9 describe a conveyor belt 40 for catching molded dough pieces when they are ejected from the shaping openings.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the dough shaping apparatus of Zhong with the conveyor belt of König in order to reliably catch the dough pieces as they are ejected, see König col. 5 lines 9-11.
Regarding claim 16, Zhong does not describe a feeder block for moving the dough towards the cutting shafts and does not meet the claimed, The dough mold attachment assembly of claim 15, further comprising: a dough feeder block for moving the moldable dough toward the dough mold.
Analogous in the field of dough shaping devices König meets the claimed, The dough mold attachment assembly of claim 15, further comprising: a dough feeder block for moving the moldable dough toward the dough mold. (König col. 3 lines 65- col. 4 line 6 describes a pusher member 6 which pushes dough into openings where it is later shaped.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the dough forming apparatus of Zhong with the pusher member of König in order to automatically feed dough into the openings at the correct timing, see König col. 4 lines 6-8.
Claims 3-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong modified by Werner and König as applied to claims 2 or 16 above, and further in view of Rauch (US 2022/0039399.)
Regarding claim 3, König describes a dough pusher but describes a linear motion not a pivoting motion and does not meet the claimed, The stand mixer of claim 2, wherein: the dough feeder block is pivotably coupled to the dough hopper; and the dough feeder block moves the moldable dough toward the dough mold when the dough feeder block is pivoted.
Analogous in the field of dough shaping, Ruach also describes an apparatus for feeding dough to rollers to be shaped and meets the claimed, The stand mixer of claim 2, wherein: the dough feeder block is pivotably coupled to the dough hopper; and the dough feeder block moves the moldable dough toward the dough mold when the dough feeder block is pivoted (Rauch [0048]-[0049] describe a pivot element 8 which helps to feed dough to further shaping rollers 2 or cutting roller 6. The pivot element 8 is configured to move the dough while the pivot member 6 is in the pivoted position.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the pusher member of Zhong as modified by König with the pivoting member as described in Rauch in order to control the thickness of the dough provided to the shaping rollers, see Rauch [0048].
Regarding claim 4, Rauch further meets the claimed, The stand mixer of claim 3, the dough mold attachment assembly further comprising: a linear actuator pivotably coupled to the dough hopper or the dough feeder block for facilitating pivoting of the dough feeder block (Rauch [0050] describes a hydraulic cylinder 14 is coupled at the eccentric mechanism 13 such that it can actuate the pivot element 8 at the other end.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the dough shaping apparatus of modified Zhong with the hydraulic cylinder coupled at the eccentric mechanism as described in Rauch so that the hydraulic cylinder can receive power to actuate, see Rauch [0050].
Regarding claim 5, Rauch further meets the claimed, The stand mixer of claim 4, wherein: the linear actuator is pivotably coupled to the dough hopper at a first pivot joint for facilitating pivoting of the dough feeder block relative to the dough hopper (Rauch [0050] describes a hydraulic cylinder 14 is coupled at the eccentric mechanism 13 such that it can actuate the pivot element 8 at the other end.)
Regarding claim 6, Rauch further meets the claimed, The stand mixer of claim 5, wherein: the linear actuator is coupled to the dough feeder block at a second pivot joint for facilitating pivoting of the dough feeder block relative to the linear actuator; (Rauch [0050] describes the hydraulic cylinder 14 is connected at the opposite end to the housing of the pivot lever 81 on the pivot member 8) the linear actuator is moveable between a retracted position and an extended position; and movement of the linear actuator between the retracted position and the extended position results in pivoting of the dough feeder block relative to the linear actuator (Rauch [0050] explains the pivoting via the hydraulic cylinder, Figures 5 and 7 show the hydraulic cylinder 14 in extended or retracted positions and the pivoting of the pivot member 8.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the dough feeder of modified Zhong with the hydraulic cylinder connected at the dough feeder as described by Rauch so that the hydraulic cylinder can actuate the pivoting of the pivot member when extended, see Rauch [0050] and Figure 5 and 7.
Regarding claim 7, Rauch further meets the claimed, The stand mixer of claim 6, the linear actuator of the dough mold attachment assembly comprising a biasing element for moving the linear actuator between the retracted position and the extended position (Rauch Figure 5 and 7 show the hydraulic cylinder 14 has a rod which extends and a base where the hydraulic cylinder is connected at the eccentric mechanism 13.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the dough feeder of modified Zhang with the base and rod of the hydraulic actuator in Rauch in order to extend the rod to actuate the pivoting of the pivot member, see Rauch [0050].
Regarding claim 8, Rauch further meets the claimed, The stand mixer of claim 6, the linear actuator of the dough mold attachment assembly comprising a motor for moving the linear actuator between the retracted position and the extended position (Rauch [0050] describes a motor 12 which powers the eccentric mechanism 13 and in turn the hydraulic cylinder 14.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the dough shaping apparatus and dough feeder of modified Zhong with the motor of Rauch in order to power the hydraulic cylinder and actuate the pivoting movement, see Rauch [0050].
Regarding claim 17, König describes a dough pusher but describes a linear motion not a pivoting motion and does not meet the claimed, The dough mold attachment assembly of claim 16, wherein: the dough feeder block is pivotably coupled to the dough hopper; and the dough feeder block moves the moldable dough toward the dough mold when the dough feeder block is pivoted.
Analogous in the field of dough shaping, Ruach also describes an apparatus for feeding dough to rollers to be shaped and meets the claimed, The dough mold attachment assembly of claim 16, wherein: the dough feeder block is pivotably coupled to the dough hopper; and the dough feeder block moves the moldable dough toward the dough mold when the dough feeder block is pivoted. (Rauch [0048]-[0049] describe a pivot element 8 which helps to feed dough to further shaping rollers 2 or cutting roller 6. The pivot element 8 is configured to move the dough while the pivot member 6 is in the pivoted position.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the pusher member of Zhong as modified by König with the pivoting member as described in Rauch in order to control the thickness of the dough provided to the shaping rollers, see Rauch [0048].
Regarding claim 18, Rauch further meets the claimed, The dough mold attachment assembly of claim 17, further comprising: a linear actuator pivotably coupled to the dough hopper or the dough feeder block for facilitating pivoting of the dough feeder block (Rauch [0050] describes a hydraulic cylinder 14 is coupled at the eccentric mechanism 13 such that it can actuate the pivot element 8 at the other end.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the dough shaping apparatus of modified Zhong with the hydraulic cylinder coupled at the eccentric mechanism as described in Rauch so that the hydraulic cylinder can receive power to actuate, see Rauch [0050].
Regarding claim 19, Rauch further meets the claimed, The dough mold attachment assembly of claim 18, wherein: the linear actuator is pivotably coupled to the dough hopper at a first pivot joint for facilitating pivoting of the dough feeder block relative to the dough hopper; (Rauch [0050] describes a hydraulic cylinder 14 is coupled at the eccentric mechanism 13 such that it can actuate the pivot element 8 at the other end) the linear actuator is coupled to the dough feeder block at a second pivot joint for facilitating pivoting of the dough feeder block relative to the linear actuator; (Rauch [0050] describes the hydraulic cylinder 14 is connected at the opposite end to the housing of the pivot lever 81 on the pivot member 8) the linear actuator is moveable between a retracted position and an extended position; and movement of the linear actuator between the retracted position and the extended position results in pivoting of the dough feeder block relative to the linear actuator (Rauch [0050] explains the pivoting via the hydraulic cylinder, Figures 5 and 7 show the hydraulic cylinder 14 in extended or retracted positions and the pivoting of the pivot member 8.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the dough feeder of modified Zhong with the hydraulic cylinder connected at the dough feeder and the eccentric mechanism as described by Rauch so that the hydraulic cylinder can actuate the pivoting of the pivot member when extended, see Rauch [0050] and Figure 5 and 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights