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 .
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, 10, 12-14 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.
In re Claims 3 and 13, “wherein the blades are configured to move within the slits,” is indefinite. It is unclear if the claim is requiring a blade moving within more than one slits. As best understood, each of the blades is configured to move within a single slit. The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 4, “wherein the device uses the conveyor to convey and align the dough pieces with the scoring blades,” is indefinite. It is unclear what structure is being claimed. As best understood, the conveyor drives the workpiece to the blades in Claim 1. Structure allowing the workpiece to rotate or move relative to the direction of movement is not claimed. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 10, “where in the device can selectively use the first or the second scoring apparatus to add score lines to the dough pieces,” is indefinite. Applicant’s use of the term “can” is indefinite. Must the device be capable of doing the function. Additionally, it is unclear what structure is being claimed. Each cutter add score lines to different dough pieces. Is there a controller that operates the scoring apparatus independently? This is unclear. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 14, “wherein the dough pieces are aligned with the scoring blades before being scored,” is indefinite. It is unclear what structure is being claimed by the functional language in the claims. The claims were examined as best understood. 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 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2008/0289466 to Takama.
In re Claim 1, Takama teaches a device for scoring a series of dough pieces, arranged on a support surface, with at least one score line (the claim is an apparatus claim directed to the structure of the tool. The structure of the tool of Takama reads on the claims), the device comprising:
a conveyor for conveying the dough pieces in a longitudinal direction (see Figs. 1-2, conveyor #39);
a first scoring apparatus configured for scoring the dough pieces, the first scoring apparatus having a series of scoring blades (see Fig. 4, #5/#5);
a first actuator configured for moving the scoring blades in a first direction from a first position to a second position (see Para. 0026 teaching an air pressure cylinder moving the blades toward the conveyor);
a second actuator (see Fig. 6) configured for moving the scoring blades in a second direction that is different from the first direction (see Para. 0072 teaching a pantograph mechanism 51 where the cutting members #5 are connected to support members #61), wherein movement of the scoring blades in the second direction causes the scoring blades to form at least one score line on each of the dough pieces (see arrows in Fig. 6 in view of Fig. 2 – as best understood, the movement of the blades directs a position of the blades to form a score line);
wherein the conveyor is configured to convey the dough pieces to the first scoring apparatus for scoring and away from the first scoring apparatus after the scoring is completed (see Fig. 1, showing the conveyor moving the workpiece/bread past the cutting members).
In re Claim 4, Takama teaches wherein the device uses the conveyor to convey and align the dough pieces with the scoring blades (as best understood, the blades and conveyor directs the dough pieces to the scoring blades, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation aligns the workpiece with the blades under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
In re Claim 6, Takama teaches wherein the second actuator is configured to move the scoring blades in a direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the conveyor (see arrows in Fig. 6 in view of direction of the workpiece in Fig. 1).
In re Claim 7, Takama teaches wherein the scoring blades are generally arranged in a row and spaced apart from each other and are configured to move in unison when moved by the second actuator to score the dough pieces (see Takama, Fig. 4, #5/#5 in view of Fig. 6; see also Para. 0072).
In re Claim 8, Takama teaches wherein the scoring blades are used to apply multiple score lines on the dough pieces (each blade #5/48 in Fig. 4 applies a score line on the workpiece).
In re Claim 11, Takama teaches a device for scoring a series of dough pieces (see Figs. 1-4), arranged on a support surface, with at least one score line, the device comprising:
a first scoring apparatus configured for scoring the dough pieces(see Fig. 4, #5/#5), the first scoring apparatus having a series of scoring blades (see Fig. 4, #5/#5);
a first actuator configured for moving the scoring blades in a first direction from a first position to a second position(see Para. 0026 teaching an air pressure cylinder moving the blades toward the conveyor);
a second actuator (see Fig. 6) configured for moving the scoring blades in a second direction that is different from the first direction (see Para. 0072, teaching a pantograph mechanism 51 where the cutting members #5 are connected to support members #61) wherein movement of the scoring blades in the second direction causes the scoring blades to form at least one score line on each of the dough pieces (see arrows in Fig. 6 in view of Fig. 2 – as best understood, the movement of the blades directs a position of the blades to form a score line).
In re Claim 14, Takama teaches wherein the dough pieces are aligned with the scoring blades before being scored (as best understood, the blades and conveyor directs the dough pieces to the scoring blades, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation aligns the workpiece with the blades under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
In re Claim 16, Takama teaches wherein the second actuator is configured to move the scoring blades in a perpendicular direction (see arrows in Fig. 6 in view of direction of the workpiece in Fig. 1).
In re Claim 17, Takama teaches wherein the scoring blades are generally arranged in a row and spaced apart from each other and are configured to move in unison when moved by the second actuator to score the dough pieces (see Takama, Fig. 4, #5/#5 in view of Fig. 6; see also Para. 0072).
In re Claim 18, Takama teaches wherein the scoring blades are used to apply multiple score lines on the dough pieces (the device of Takama applies multiple score lines on the workpiece).
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 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0289466 to Takama in view of US 2023/0128498 to Tyler.
In re Claim 2, Takama does not teach further including a blade wiper configured to assist in wiping the blades after the scoring blades score the dough pieces. However, Tyler teaches that it is known the blade art for cutting food products to provide a cleaner that wipes a blade (see Tyler, Fig. 7, blade cleaner #120 including squeegee #122; see also Para. 0037).
In the same field of invention, cutting food products, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add the blade cleaner to wipe each blade of Takama – i.e. a blade wiper/cleaner for each blade. Doing so preventing contamination as well as preventing the user from having to clean the blade, thereby saving time in the cutting process (see Tyler, Para. 0037).
In re Claim 3, modified Takama, in re Claim 2, teaches wherein the blade wiper is in the form of a plate formed to include a series of slits, wherein the blades are configured to move within the slits (see Tyler, Fig. 7, showing one blade #16 and one slit #126 – the claim was interpretated a slit for each blade).
In re Claim 12, Takama does not teach further including a blade wiper configured to assist in wiping the blades after the scoring blades score the dough pieces. However, Tyler teaches that it is known the blade art for cutting food products to provide a cleaner that wipes a blade (see Tyler, Fig. 7, blade cleaner #120 including squeegee #122; see also Para. 0037).
In the same field of invention, cutting food products, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add the blade cleaner to wipe each blade of Takama – i.e. a blade wiper/cleaner for each blade. Doing so preventing contamination as well as preventing the user from having to clean the blade, thereby saving time in the cutting process (see Tyler, Para. 0037).
In re Claim 13, modified Takama, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein the blade wiper is in the form of a plate formed to include a series of slits, wherein the blades are configured to move within the slits (see Tyler, Fig. 7, showing one blade #16 and one slit #126 – the claim was interpretated a slit for each blade).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0289466 to Takama in view of In view of CA 02813840.
In re Claim 5, Takama does not teach wherein the second actuator is configured to move the scoring blades in a direction that is diagonal to the longitudinal direction of the conveyor. However, CA 02813840 teaches that it is known in the bread art to have diagonal recessed marks (see CA 02813840, Fig. 1, #2 and Figs. 5-10). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to move the blades of Takama to a direction that is diagonal to the longitudinal direction of the conveyor. Doing so provides for the production of the break illustrated in CA 02813840, Figs. 5-10.
In re Claim 15, Takama does not teach wherein the second actuator is configured to move the scoring blades in a diagonal direction. However, CA 02813840 teaches that it is known in the bread art to have diagonal recessed marks (see CA 02813840, Fig. 1, #2 and Figs. 5-10). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to move the blades of Takama to a direction that is diagonal to the longitudinal direction of the conveyor. Doing so provides for the production of the break illustrated in CA 02813840, Figs. 5-10.
Claims 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0289466 to Takama in view of US 2021/0235708 to Arnall.
In re Claim 9, Takama does not teach further including a second scoring apparatus positioned downstream from the first scoring apparatus, the second scoring apparatus configured for scoring the dough pieces, the second scoring apparatus having a second series of scoring blades; the second scoring apparatus includes a first actuator configured for moving the second series of scoring blades in a first direction from a first position to a second position; the second scoring apparatus includes a second actuator configured for moving the second series of scoring blades in a second direction that is different from the first direction, wherein movement of the second series of scoring blades in the second direction causes the second series of scoring blades to form at least one score line on each of the dough pieces; wherein the conveyor is configured to convey the dough pieces to the second scoring apparatus for scoring and away from the second scoring apparatus after the scoring is completed.
However, Arnall teaches that it is known in the art of bread cutting to provide a second scoring apparatus positioned downstream from the first scoring apparatus (see Arnall, Fig. 6, showing to cutting devices, #600/605, one downstream from the other), the second scoring apparatus configured for scoring the dough pieces (The Examiner notes that the claims are directed to the structure of the tool and not the use of the tool. The height of both cutting devices in Arnall are configured to be adjusted and therefor under the broadest reasonable interpretation are configured for scoring dough pieces), the second scoring apparatus having a second series of scoring blades (see Arnall, Fig. 6, #615-619).
In the same field of invention, cutting dough products it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a second series of blades to the device of Takama, as taught by Arnall. Doing so is the substitution of one known blade system for another known blade system to achieve the result of cutting more products on a given production line (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Additionally, it has been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts for a multiplied effect is obvious unless there is a synergistic effect. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis CO., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir. 1977). Here adding multiple series of blade does not provide a synergistic effect but simply allows the device to cut more products.
Such a combination would provide for: the second scoring apparatus includes a first actuator configured for moving the second series of scoring blades in a first direction from a first position to a second position (see Takama, Para. 0026 teaching an air pressure cylinder moving the blades toward the conveyor); the second scoring apparatus includes a second actuator (see Takama, Fig. 6) configured for moving the second series of scoring blades in a second direction that is different from the first direction (see Takama, Para. 0072 teaching a pantograph mechanism 51 where the cutting members #5 are connected to support members #61), wherein movement of the second series of scoring blades in the second direction causes the second series of scoring blades to form at least one score line on each of the dough pieces (see Takama, arrows in Fig. 6 in view of Fig. 2 – as best understood, the movement of the blades directs a position of the blades to form a score line); wherein the conveyor is configured to convey the dough pieces to the second scoring apparatus for scoring and away from the second scoring apparatus after the scoring is completed (see Takama, Fig. 1, showing the conveyor moving the workpiece/bread past the cutting members).
In re Claim 10, as best understood, the structure of modified Takama, ca be selectively used. The Examiner notes that the motor M1/M2 can be turned on or off. The Examiner notes that the claims are not claiming a controller or other such structure that controls the claimed structure. The claims were examined as best understood. sued.
In re Claim 19, Takama teaches a device for scoring a series of dough pieces, arranged on a support surface, with at least one score line (the claim is an apparatus claim directed to the structure of the tool. The structure of the tool of Takama reads on the claims), the device comprising:
a conveyor for conveying the dough pieces in a longitudinal direction (see Takama, Figs. 1-2, #39);
a first scoring apparatus configured for scoring the dough pieces, the first scoring apparatus having a first series of scoring blades (see Fig. 4, #5/#5);
a first actuator configured for moving the first series of scoring blades in a first direction from a first position to a second position(see Para. 0026 teaching an air pressure cylinder moving the blades toward the conveyor);
a second actuator (see Fig. 6) configured for moving the first series of scoring blades in a second direction that is different from the first direction (see Para. 0072 teaching a pantograph mechanism 51 where the cutting members #5 are connected to support members #61), wherein movement of the first series of scoring blades in the second direction causes the first series of scoring blades to form at least one score line on each of the dough pieces (see arrows in Fig. 6 in view of Fig. 2 – as best understood, the movement of the blades directs a position of the blades to form a score line);
wherein the conveyor is configured to convey the dough pieces to the first scoring apparatus for scoring and away from the first scoring apparatus after the scoring is completed(see Fig. 1, showing the conveyor moving the workpiece/bread past the cutting members);
Takama does not teach: a second scoring apparatus positioned downstream from the first scoring apparatus, the second scoring apparatus configured for scoring the dough pieces, the second scoring apparatus having a second series of scoring blades; the second scoring apparatus includes a first actuator configured for moving the second series of scoring blades in a first direction from a first position to a second position; the second scoring apparatus includes a second actuator configured for moving the second series of scoring blades in a second direction that is different from the first direction, wherein movement of the second series of scoring blades in the second direction causes the second series of scoring blades to form at least one score line on each of the dough pieces; wherein the conveyor is configured to convey the dough pieces to the second scoring apparatus for scoring and away from the second scoring apparatus after the scoring is completed.
However, Arnall teaches that it is known in the art of bread cutting to provide a second scoring apparatus positioned downstream from the first scoring apparatus (see Arnall, Fig. 6, showing to cutting devices, #600/605, one downstream from the other), the second scoring apparatus configured for scoring the dough pieces (The Examiner notes that the claims are directed to the structure of the tool and not the use of the tool. The height of both cutting devices in Arnall are configured to be adjusted and therefor under the broadest reasonable interpretation are configured for scoring dough pieces), the second scoring apparatus having a second series of scoring blades(see Arnall, Fig. 6, #615-619).
In the same field of invention, cutting dough products it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a second series of blades to the device of Takama, as taught by Arnall. Doing so is the substitution of one known blade system for another known blade system to achieve the result of cutting more products on a given production line (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Additionally, it has been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts for a multiplied effect is obvious unless there is a synergistic effect. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis CO., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir. 1977). Here adding multiple series of blade does not provide a synergistic effect but simply allows the device to cut more products.
Such a combination would provide for: the second scoring apparatus includes a first actuator configured for moving the second series of scoring blades in a first direction from a first position to a second position(see Takama, Para. 0026 teaching an air pressure cylinder moving the blades toward the conveyor); the second scoring apparatus includes a second actuator (see Takama, Fig. 6) configured for moving the second series of scoring blades in a second direction that is different from the first direction (see Takama, Para. 0072 teaching a pantograph mechanism 51 where the cutting members #5 are connected to support members #61),
wherein movement of the second series of scoring blades in the second direction causes the second series of scoring blades to form at least one score line on each of the dough pieces (see Takama, arrows in Fig. 6 in view of Fig. 2 – as best understood, the movement of the blades directs a position of the blades to form a score line) wherein the conveyor is configured to convey the dough pieces to the second scoring apparatus for scoring and away from the second scoring apparatus after the scoring is completed (see Takama, Fig. 1, showing the conveyor moving the workpiece/bread past the cutting members).
Claim 20 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0289466 to Takama in view of US 2021/0235708 to Arnall, and further in view of US 2023/0128498 to Tyler.
In re Claim 20, modified Takama, in re Claim 19, does not teach further including a blade wipers configured to assist in wiping the first and second series of scoring blades after the first and second series scoring blades score the dough pieces. However, Tyler teaches that it is known the blade art for cutting food products to provide a cleaner that wipes a blade (see Tyler, Fig. 7, blade cleaner #120 including squeegee #122; see also Para. 0037).
In the same field of invention, cutting food products, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add the blade cleaner to wipe each blade of Takama – i.e. a blade wiper/cleaner for each blade. Doing so preventing contamination as well as preventing the user from having to clean the blade, thereby saving time in the cutting process (see Tyler, Para. 0037).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights