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 I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on June 26, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the validity of the Restriction Requirement. This is not found persuasive because the process of group II can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, such as a system without an engaging means, and/or placement of the dough by hand. Claims 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 26, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
The claim to priority to NL 2035961, filed on October 5, 2023 is acknowledged in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 9, 2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “”Device for spacing” in line 1 should be changed to “A device for spacing”
Claim 1 recites “At least one engagement” in line 3 should be changed to “at least one engagement”
Claims 2-14 recites “Device according to” in lime 1 should be changed to “The device according to”
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 13-14 recites “said/the engagement means” should be changed to “the at least one engagement means”
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “at least one engagement means” in claims 1, 5, 7 and 9-14.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11 and 13-14 recites “the/said engagement means” renders the claims indefinite and unclear which one of the “at least one engagement means” is being referred to.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the starting point" and “the end point” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukugami et al. (US Pub. 2018/0116229).
Regarding claim 1, Fukugami et al. discloses an apparatus for aligning and positioning pieces of food dough having a device (1, Fig. 1-2) for spacing dough pieces (D1, Fig. 1) positioned adjacently in a length direction on a carrier (6, 7, Fig. 1-2) that extends in a length and a width direction, comprising: at least one engagement means (a holding unit 2 with a plurality of holding mechanism 35, Fig. 1, 3, 5 and 6) for a dough piece (D2), the at least one engagement means (35) movable between: a position engaging at least one dough piece (D1, Fig. 1) and position releasing the at least one dough piece (D2, Fig. 1); configured for: (a) moving to the position engaging at least one dough piece (D1, Fig. 1); (b) moving the at least one dough piece (D1) in the length direction relative to the carrier (6, 7, Fig. 1-2); (c) moving the at least one dough piece in the width direction relative to the carrier; (d) moving to the position releasing the at least one dough piece (D2) (Fig. 1-3, 5-6 and 9-12).
Regarding claim 2, Fukugami et al. discloses (e) rotating the at least one dough piece (From D1 to D2, Fig. 1 and 11-12) to a predetermined final orientation during movement in a length and/or width direction.
Regarding claim 3, Fukugami et al. discloses repeating step (a) to (e) for each subsequent dough piece (D1, Fig. 1) positioned adjacently in a length direction on the carrier (6), wherein step (e) comprises alternately rotating subsequent dough pieces (D2) clockwise and counterclockwise and wherein step (c) comprises moving each subsequent dough piece in a first direction in a first direction in the width direction an a second direction in the width direction, opposite to the first direction (Fig. 11-12).
Regarding claim 4, Fukugami et al. discloses configured for simultaneously performing at least two of steps (b), (c) and (e) (Fig. 1 and 9-12).
Regarding claim 5, Fukugami et al. discloses the carrier comprises a first conveyor (6, Fig. 1-2), configured for transporting the dough pieces (D1, Fig. 1) in a length direction, wherein the at least one engaging means (35) are configured to perform at least steps (b), (c), and (e) with the first conveyor (6) moving in the length direction (Fig. 1 and 9-12).
Regarding claim 7, Fukugami et al. discloses the at least engaging means (holding unit 2 with a plurality of holding mechanism 35, Fig. 1-3, 5 and 6) are coupled to a drive system (pulleys 85, 86 and endless belt 87) for moving the at least one engaging means from a starting point to an end point in the length direction while in the position engaging a dough piece and subsequently moving the at least one engaging means from the end point back to the starting point while in the position that releases the at least one dough piece and wherein the device is configured for carrying out steps b), c) and e) between the starting point and the end point (Fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 9, Fukugami et al. discloses several engaging means (35, Fig. 2-3), arranged one behind the other in the length direction for gripping successive dough pieced (d1, d2) (Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, Fukugami et al. discloses several engaging means (35, Fig. 2-3), arranged next to each other in the width direction for gripping dough pieces located in parallel rows extending in the length direction (Par. 109; Fig.1 and 7).
Regarding claim 13, Fukugami et al. discloses the device configured for displacing the at least one engaging means (35) with at least one directional component directed towards the transport surface; for moving the at least one engaging means from the position releasing the at least one dough piece to the position engaging the at least one dough piece (D1, D2) (drive system with pulleys 85, 86 and endless belt 87; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Fukugami et al. discloses the at least one engagement means (35) are provided with a mechanical operating member (two rails member 49 with three sliders 40, 41 and 41; Fig. 5) for moving the at least one dough piece in the width direction relative to the carrier (6, 7) and wherein the device is provided with a guide (rail 49) that is configured for operating the operating member by mechanical contact during movement of the at least one engaging means (35).
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) 6, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukugami et al. (US Pub. 2018/0116229) in view of Kuwabara et al. (US Pat. 9,408,398).
Regarding claim 6, Fukugami et al. discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the carrier comprises a second conveyor (7, Fig. 1-2), arranged in a length direction downstream adjacent to the first conveyor (6, Fig. 1-2) and configured for transporting the dough pieces (D2, Fig. 1) in length direction during use except the second conveyor during use at a higher speed than the first conveyor. Kuwabara et al. discloses the second conveyor (20) during use at a higher speed than the first conveyor (10) (Fig. 4; Col. 7, Lines 13-16). 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 Fukugami, the second conveyor during use at a higher speed than the first conveyor, as taught by Kuwabara et al., for the purpose of separating the dough pieces faster at downstream conveyor, so the rows of the pieces that are translocated to the downstream conveyor are conveyed in the conveying direction with a predetermined interval between the rows.
Regarding claim 8, Fukugami et al. discloses a starting point is above the first conveyor (6, Fig. 2) and an end point is above the second conveyor (7) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Kuwabara et al. discloses respective subsequent engaging means (40, Fig. 1 and 3-4) in the longitudinal direction are alternately configured for rotating a piece of dough (D1) in a first direction of rotation and moving the piece of dough in a first direction in the width direction, respectively for rotating a next piece of dough in a second direction opposite to the first direction and moving the piece of dough in a second direction opposite to the first side (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukugami et al. (US Pub. 2018/0116229) in view of Scalzeri (EP 2277809).
Regarding claim 11, Fukugami et al. discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including a placed rotation for supporting the at least one engagement means (35, Fig. 6), for both displacing the at least one engagement means in the length and width directions during rotation of the at least one engagement means except an eccentrically placed rotation point for supporting the at least one engagement means, for both displacing the at least one engagement means in the length and width directions during rotation of the at least one engagement means. Scalzeri discloses an eccentrically placed rotation point (101, Fig. 3) for supporting the at least one engagement means (8), for both displacing the at least one engagement means (8) in the length and width directions during rotation of the at least one engagement means (8) (Abstract; Par. 25, 36, 59; Claim 1; Fig. 3-4). 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 Fukugami, an eccentrically placed rotation point for supporting the at least one engagement means, for both displacing the at least one engagement means in the length and width directions during rotation of the at least one engagement means, as taught by Scalzeri, for the purpose of moving the dough piece transversally with respect to the longitudinal direction of the width owing to the fact that the rotation axis is eccentric with respect to the handling element/engagement means.
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