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 1-9) in the reply filed on February 3, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected an invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 3, 2026.
Priority
The claim to priority to EP 23189751.3, filed on August 4, 2023 is acknowledged in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on July 31, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
In claim 2, the limitation “wherein two or more guide rails” recites in line 1 and “at least one telescopic guide rail” recites in claim 1, line 9 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether they are the same guide rail or not. Note: for the purpose of examination, it is presumed it is the same “telescopic guide rail”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (US Pat. 7,069,840) (cited by Applicant) in view of Eberhardt (DE 19714079) or Adelmann (DE 202019106090) (new cited).
Regarding claim 1, Howard discloses an apparatus and process for pressing and cooking food product logs having a device for producing a food product from a portion of food, the device comprising: a housing (52) which is opened on at least one side for receiving a plurality of separate mold (80) which arranged directly on top of one another in at least one stack and can be each be filled with a portion of food (Col. 4, Lines 39-41; Fig. 5 and 7); at least one drive for driving a pressure die/piston which in mounted in the housing so as to be slidable in the direction of the stack to exerting a pressing force upon the stack (Col. 6, Lines 25-28); and at least one telescopic guide (110) arranged between a cover (90) of the housing (52) and the pressure die/piston for guiding the pressure die in the housing (Fig. 5, 7 and 8; Col. 6, Lines 14-24). Howard does not disclose the at least one drive arranged in a bottom region of the housing. Eberhardt discloses the at least one drive (pneumatic cylinder 110; Fig. 1) arranged in a bottom region of the housing (3). Adelmann discloses the at least one drive arranged in a bottom region of the housing (gear 9 with motor; Fig. 1; Par. 64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Howard, disclose the at least one drive arranged in a bottom region of the housing, as taught by Eberhardt or Adelmann, for the purpose of suitable to the user application for placing the bottom of the housing.
Regarding claim 2, Howard discloses two or more telescopic guide rails (110) are provided (Fig. 5-6; Col. 6, Lines 14-24).
Regarding claim 4, Howard discloses two or more telescopic guide rail (110) is configured as lateral stop for the stack (Fig. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 5, Howard/Eberhardt/Adelman disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Howard, the telescopic guide rail (110) is slideable (Fig. 5-6; Col. 6, Lines 14-24) except the telescopic guide rail is slideable by at least 35 cm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Howard/Eberhardt/Adelman, the telescopic guide rail is slideable by at least 35 cm, for the purpose of suitable to the user application that depends on the size of the housing that is needed to be raising or lowering.
Regarding claim 6, Howard discloses the drive comprises a pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric lifting cylinder (Col. 6, Lines 25-28). Eberhardt also discloses the drive (110) comprises a pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric lifting cylinder (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 7, Howard discloses the housing (52) is formed by a rack that is open on several sides (Fig. 5-7).
Regarding claim 8, Howard discloses the housing (52) is configured to receive several stacks arranged next to one another (Fig. 5-7).
Regarding claim 9, Eberhardt discloses the housing (3) is movable (via rolling 38; Fig. 1). Adelmann also discloses the housing (1) is movable (via roller 13; Fig. 1 and 4; Par. 65).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (US Pat. 7,069,840) in view of Eberhardt (DE 19714079) or Adelmann (DE 202019106090) and further view of Boehmert (DE 202017004967) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 3, Howard/Eberhardt/Adelman disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Howard, the telescopic guide rail (110) except the telescopic guide rail is configured to be seamless. Boehmert discloses the telescopic guide rail (40) is configured to be seamless (Fig. 1, 3 and 5a-5b; Par. 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Howard/Eberhardt/Adelman, the telescopic guide rail is configured to be seamless, as taught by Boehmert, for the purpose of ensuring a high-precision linear displacement movement and guidance between the individual elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571)272-5567. 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.
/HUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
HUNG D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights