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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 are presented for examination on the merits for patentability.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/09/2024 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the Examiner.
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 1-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Weinstein et al. (US 11,284,626 B2), hereinafter Weinstein, in view of Chatillon et al. (WO 2021/198599 A1, machine translated in IP.com), hereinafter Chatillon.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Weinstein discloses a crimping and cutting assembly, which includes a first and second rollers, with the second roller including a honeycomb pattern of polygonal crimping and cutting members, and wherein the filled dough ropes are fed between the first and second rollers, causing each rope to be continuously crimped and cut at longitudinally spaced locations to create multi-sided food products, specifically polygonal food products having two to six crimped and cut sides (Abstract; Claim 1). Weinstein teaches the method further comprises extruding at least three ropes onto the conveyor in various transversely spaced rows of filled dough, wherein the ropes are directed between the rollers (Claim 5). Weinstein also teaches a method wherein the first and second rollers are rotated, and produces polygon filled dough products with varying sides between two to six crimped and cut sides (Claim 6).
Weinstein does not teach designs on the outer surface of the rope and does not teach inkjet printing or laser printing.
Chatillon is also in the pastry production line field, and teaches new technology for industrial production of folded or rolled cakes (1) in which the decoration is applied by inkjet printing prior to baking (Abstract; p. 3, [0002]-[003]). Chatillon teaches an industrial process for manufacturing a cake decorated by printing at least on the outer face of the dough before baking, wherein the printing is performed in a continuous manner, and optionally includes a longitudinal cutting step to make several sub-strips of the cake (p. 7). Chatillon recognizes the issues in the decoration of industrial pastries and aims to produce cakes that have aesthetic qualities that are attractive to consumers [0004]. Chatillon’s technology decorates the dough before baking, and aims for inter alia ornamentation which can be made easily, economically, offering high definition and therefore a neat aesthetic; which do not present defects of undesirable appearance for consumers; does not result in a sticky feel that is inconvenient and unpleasant for consumers; wherein the decoration have the desired qualities without harmful effects on the organoleptic and conservation properties of the cake (pp. 3-4). Chatillon also teaches fillings, which makes it further compatible with Weinstein (p.26, Claim 10).
A person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have used the technology of Chatillon to incorporate design into the dough production line taught by Weinstein by printing the design on the outer surface of the dough before baking to obtain aesthetic qualities that are attractive to consumers, in an economical way, while preserving the organoleptic properties of the product.
Regarding Claim 2, Chatillon teaches a decoration produced by computer-controlled inkjet printing (p. 14, last paragraph). The printing is performed with a specific viscosity; rheology of this edible ink must be such as to allow a good impression by a technique such as inkjet or spray droplets (p. 20, Step 3). The speed of projection of the droplets is adjusted to allow penetration into the layer of raw dough, and the baked ink is embedded (p. 20, Step 4).
One would use a printer such as the one disclosed by Chatillon with reasonable expectation that it would enable precise and convenient control of viscosity/rheology that would allow penetration into the layer of raw dough, and the ink embedded in the baked product. Obviousness is established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. See MPEP § 2143.01 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Because Weinstein has taught cutting and crimping, Claim 3 is obvious.
Because Weinstein has taught rotation to cut the dough in polygonal shapes with up to 6 sides and creates pieces that have length smaller than the width of the rope Claims 4-6 and 8-9 are obvious. See also Fig. 3.
Regarding Claim 10, Weinstein has taught internally filled dough ropes (Abstract; Claim 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Weinstein in view of Chatillon, as applied to Claims 1-6, and 8-11 above, and in view of Sansar et al. (IN 202111014872 A, machine translated in IP.com), hereinafter Sansar.
Weinstein does not teach the type of cutter claimed in Claim 7.
Sansar discloses a dessert preparation device comprising a first housing with a chamber containing the ingredients, a container, a telescopic spatula and a motorized expandable pusher which pushes the dessert dough through an iris cutter, wherein the cutter expands/contracts to cut the dough in a predefined manner as fed in a microcontroller, and ushers the cut dough to a second housing for further processing (Abstract; p. 2, [0015]-[0016], [0030]; Claim 1).
A person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have used an iris cutter such as one disclosed by Sansar with reasonable expectation that it would enable precise dough cutting as indicated in the microcontroller. Obviousness is established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. See MPEP § 2143.01 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
From the teachings of the prior art, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the reference, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hello Panda Biscuit Production Line Golden Bake Bear Biscuit Making Machine (YouTube Video posted on 11/15/2021. Obtained on 08/28/2026 from URL: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMTVee8RXtk>). Hello Panda discloses a production line to make filled bear biscuits using laminator that overlaps layers of dough sheets (p. 1). The dough comprises a design of the panda printed on one surface (p. 4, 1m 33s).
Zelli, P. (WO 97/30592). Zelli discloses a printing device for printing shapes, relief images and/or wordings onto the surfaces of double pastry "ravioli" (R), wherein the device consists of two rolls, i.e. a printing roll (]) and a smooth roll (2), mechanically connected to a stamp, and through which passes an alimentary pastry layer (S) that is squeezed according to the shapes and structures with figures and/or wordings appearing on the surface of said pastry that remains visible after cooking (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10-6 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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JANICE Y SILVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights