Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 7/9/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-11 are withdrawn.
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 2, 3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 2, lines 2 and 4, claim 3, lines 2 and 4, the limitations of “preferably” and “even more preferably” are recited. The phrases render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2173.05(d). Only the recitations prior to the use of “preferably” are considered to be required.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Drees (WO2015/124229, English translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Drees discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, a machine for forming doughs for oven-baked foodstuff products (page 1, lines 14-16), of the type comprising:
- a forming roller (20) (item 1 in Fig. 1 or 2 (page 6, line 336)), which is rotatable about an axis of rotation (I) and has a plurality of cavities (22) (item 4 in Fig. 1 or 2 (page 6, line 337)) giving out onto its outer lateral surface (20A) (item 3 in Fig. 1 or 2 (page 6, line 337)) and extending in respective radial directions (Ri) of said forming roller (20),
wherein said forming roller (20) comprises a plurality of pistons (24) (item 7 in Fig. 1 or 2 (page 6, line 347)), which are mobile inside the cavities (22), according to a reciprocating motion of translation (page 6, lines 347-351), between a first depth (D1) (e.g., item 8 in Fig. 1 (page 6, line 348)) and a second depth (D2) (e.g., item 9 in Fig. 1 (page 6, line 348)) greater than said first depth (D1),
wherein, when said pistons (24) are located at said first depth (D1), inside said cavities
(22) first forming cavities (Cl) are defined, delimited underneath by said pistons (24) and
having a depth equal to said first depth (D1) (as shown in Fig. 1), and wherein, when said pistons are located at said second depth (D2), inside said cavities (22) second forming cavities (C2) are defined delimited underneath by said pistons (24) and having a depth equal to said second depth (D2) (as shown in Fig. 1),
said machine (100) further comprising:
- a first hopper (40) (item 17 in Fig. 2 (page 7, line 414)) for feeding a first dough to said cavities (22) of said forming roller (20), which is positioned in a first position along the lateral surface (20A) of said forming roller (20) (page 7, lines 419-420), and a second hopper (60) (item 21 in Fig. 2 (page 8, line 455)) for feeding a second dough to said cavities (22) of said forming roller (20), positioned in a second position along the lateral surface (20A) of said forming roller (page 8, lines 455-456), downstream of said first position of said first hopper with respect to the direction of rotation of said forming roller (20) about said axis of rotation (I) (as shown in Fig. 2);
said machine comprising a system for driving said pistons configured to bring said
pistons (24) to said first depth (D1), in a position corresponding to said first hopper (40), and
to bring said pistons (24) to said second depth (D2), in a position corresponding to said second
hopper (60) (page 7, lines 363-364; page 7, lines 382-386; page 7, lines 394-397 (i.e., the driving system includes the connecting rods 11, the rollers 12, the springs 14, and the cam disk 13)),
wherein said machine (100) further comprises a knife (54) (item 23 in Fig. 2 (page 8, line 456)), which is positioned downstream of said second hopper (60) and is configured to carry out an action of scraping on the lateral surface (20A) of said forming roller (20) so as to remove an amount of dough in excess from said second forming cavity (C2) (page 8, lines 455-457),
said machine being characterized in that it further comprises a second knife (52) (item 19, Fig. 2 (page 8, line 424)), which is positioned upstream of said second hopper (60) and downstream of said first hopper (40) and is configured to carry out an action of scraping on the lateral surface (20A) of said forming roller (20) so as to remove an amount of dough in excess from said first forming cavities (Cl) (page 8, lines 424-425).
Regarding claim 4, Drees discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, the machine comprising:
a first presser roller (44) (item 18, Fig. 2 (page 7, line 414)), substantially tangential to said forming roller (20) and set on the side downstream of an outlet (42) of said first hopper (as shown in Fig. 2), with reference to the direction of rotation of the forming roller (20), which is configured for carrying out an action of pressure on the dough so as to fill said first forming cavities (Cl) and compact the dough contained therein (page 7, lines 419-420); and
a second presser roller (64) (item 22, Fig. 2 (page 8, line 455)), substantially tangential to said forming roller (20) and set on the side downstream of an outlet (62) of said second hopper (as shown in Fig. 2), with reference to the direction of rotation of the forming roller (20), which is configured for carrying out an action of pressure on the dough so as to fill said second forming cavities (C2) and compact the dough contained therein (page 7, lines 455-457).
Regarding claim 8, Drees discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the machine comprising a conveyor belt (80) (item 25, Fig. 2 (page 8, line 471)) for feeding the semi-finished products formed in said forming roller to a subsequent processing station, set downstream of said machine (page 8, lines 471-473),
wherein said conveyor belt (80) comes into contact with the lateral surface (20A) of
said forming roller (20) and runs over it, for a predefined stretch, so as to close said second
forming cavities (C2) and prevent exit of said semi-finished products from said second forming
cavities (C2) (as shown in Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drees (WO2015/124229, English translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Drees discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, said second knife (52) is set between said first hopper (40) and said second hopper (60) (as shown in Fig. 2), preferably according to an orientation such that a face (55B) of said second knife (52) facing said forming roller (20) is set in a plane tangential to the lateral surface (20A) of said forming roller (20), and, even more preferably, with an end of said second knife set in contact with said lateral surface (20A) of said forming roller (20) facing downwards (as shown in Fig. 2).
It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include how to position/use the knife in the apparatus of Drees thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that the knife will remove excess dough properly.
Regarding claim 3, Drees discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, said first knife (54) is set downstream of said second hopper (60) (as shown in Fig. 2), preferably according to an orientation such that a face of said first knife (54) facing said forming roller (20) is set in a plane tangential to the lateral surface (20A) of said forming roller, and, even more preferably, with an end of said first knife (54) set in contact with said lateral surface (20A) of said forming roller (20) facing upwards (as shown in Fig. 2).
It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include how to position/use the knife in the apparatus of Drees thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that the knife will remove excess dough properly.
Regarding claim 5, Drees discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, said first knife (54) penetrates between said second presser roller (64) and said forming roller (20) coming into contact with the lateral surface (20A) of said forming roller (20) in a position immediately downstream of a point of tangency, or of minimum distance, between said second presser roller (64) and said forming roller (20) (as shown in Fig. 2).
It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include how to position/use the knife in the apparatus of Drees thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that the knife will remove excess dough properly.
Regarding claim 6, Drees discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, said second knife (52) penetrates between said first presser roller (44) and said forming roller (20) coming into contact with the lateral surface (20A) of said forming roller (20) in a position immediately downstream of a point of tangency, or of minimum distance, between said second presser roller (64) and said forming roller (20) (as shown in Fig. 2).
It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include how to position/use the knife in the apparatus of Drees thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that the knife will remove excess dough properly.
Regarding claim 7, Drees discloses the forming roller 1 having its diameter (page 6, lines 336-338). However, Drees does not explicitly disclose that, the forming roller has a diameter of at least 900 mm.
As explained in MPEP § 2144.05 (II: Routine Optimization), one of ordinary skilled in the art would have arrived at the claimed range/limitations (i.e., the forming roller has a diameter of at least 900 mm) as a result of routine optimization of the result effective variable of the diameter of the forming roller in an effort to improve the throughput of the semi-finished dough parts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights