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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group II in the reply filed on 5/29/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that groups I-II would work the same, even without a second roller. This is not found persuasive because the method of group II can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, such as a device without a second roller. Examination of both groups would present an undue burden on the examiner as it would require separate searches. Applicant also argues that the “dough” of group II does not require an edible material. This admission is acknowledged by the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-2, 6-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Abstract consists of a single sentence and does not adequately describe he claimed invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3, 5, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hausman [US 2,970,339].
Hausman teaches a method including a calender roll having adjustable crown (title) by pressurizing the interior of a first roller to 1500-200 psi or 103-137 bar (Figure 2, #1; column 4, line 63), and rolling a dough material into a sheet (column 4, lines 43-47).
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.
Claims 4, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hausman.
Hausman teaches the above mentioned concepts, as well as a drain line closed by a valve (Figure 2, #48-49). Hausman does not explicitly recite stopping rolling and actuating the valve to an open position to release pressure in the roller (claim 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to open the valve and release pressure in the roller of Hausman after rolling has stopped as this was the common purpose of drain lines and valves in the art, since rolling devices were commonly stopped for cleaning and maintenance services, since relieving the pressure after rolling had ended would have extended the life of any seals, springs, and/or gaskets of the pressurized roller of Hausman, and since draining the roller of flid and replacing it with new fluid would have enabled better control over the fluid qualities such as heat transfer, in the system of Hausman.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Caridis teaches a dough sheeting machine with convex/concave rollers (Figure 5A-B), Whittum teaches rolling sheet material with convex/concave rollers (Figure 1-9), Fowler teaches pressurized dough rollers for material ejection (Figure 1), Guddanti teaches a pressurized roller system (Figure 4), Kraft teaches a pressurized roller (Figure 2), Kuesters teaches a hollow pressurized roller (Figure 1), Healey teaches a pressurized roller system (Figure 1), Lawrence teaches a pressurized roller (Figure 1), Heighway teaches an inflatable toy rolling pin (Figure 1), Sauerssig teaches a pressurized roller (Figure 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights