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 § 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.
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) 1-3, 6-11, 13, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis (US 1961532 A).
Regarding claim 1, Louis discloses a dough portioning system (figure 1) comprising: a vat (22) to receive and hold dough to be portioned, the vat comprising an open top (given the limited number options: open or close, it would be obvious to keep the vat open. Further, in order to feed the material, the vat would need to be open. MPEP 2144.05 states obvious to try is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007))
to receive the dough, the vat having a sidewall to contain the dough; an extrusion port through which the dough in the vat is extruded (pg. 3 column 3 108-115); a plunger (20) configured to receive an input force to be driven to supply a compressive force on the dough in the vat to force the dough through the extrusion port; and a receiver assembly (41) to receive a bar of dough formed as it is extruded from the extrusion port, the receiver assembly comprising: a receiver tray (69); and a receiver carriage (36) to support the receiver tray and to extend away from the extrusion port as the bar of dough is extruded to permit the receiver tray to receive a length of the bar of dough.
Regarding claim 2, Louis wherein the plunger (20) comprises: a head that is coextensive with the open top of the vat to engage the sidewall and that provides a dough engagement surface to supply the compressive force on the dough (column 1 lines 100); and a shaft (44) coupled to the head, the shaft to drive the head to supply the compressive force on the dough.
Regarding claim 3, Louis teach the system of claim 1, wherein a bottom of the vat tapers from the sidewall to the extrusion port (figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Louis teaches a portioner to divide the bar of dough into a plurality of like size portions (cutter, column 2 lines 15-22).
Regarding claim 7, Louis teaches the portioner comprising: a rod (30) and a cutter (column 1 lines 35-37), but doesn’t disclose a plurality of cutter assemblies configurably positioned along the rod to cut the bar of dough into a plurality of like size portions as the portioner is pressed to the bar of dough. However, MPEP 2144.04 VI. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Louis teaches wherein the sidewall of the vat forms a cylindrical shape (figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 9, Louis teaches wherein the extrusion port is at a bottom of the vat (see figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 10, for the claim limitation, wherein a diameter of the extrusion port is adjustable for changing a diameter of a bar of dough during extrusion, The Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 11, Louis teaches comprising a cutting mechanism (26) at the extrusion port to cut the bar of dough to separate it from the dough remaining in the extrusion port and in the vat (figure 7).
Regarding claim 13, Louis teaches wherein the receiver carriage comprises one or more of: a roller bearing slide; a ball-bearing slide; and a key and keyway slide (see figure 1; column 2 lines 19-66).
Regarding claim 15, Louis teaches a dough portioning system comprising: a cylindrical hopper (22) to receive and hold dough to be portioned, the hopper comprising: an open top to receive the dough (given the limited number options: open or close, it would be obvious to keep the vat open. Further, in order to feed the material, the vat would need to be open); a cylindrical sidewall to contain the dough (see figures 1-3), and an extrusion port at a bottom of the hopper through which the dough is forced during extrusion ((pg. 3 column 3 108-115).
Regarding claim 16, Louis discloses a cutter (column 1 lines 35-37), but doesn’t disclose a plurality of cutter assemblies configurably positioned along the rod to cut the bar of dough into a plurality of like size portions as the portioner is pressed to the bar of dough. However, MPEP 2144.04 VI. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Louis teaches a rod (30) is indexed to facilitate uniformly orienting each cutter assembly of the plurality of cutter assemblies. Further, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform (index to uniformly orienting), as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Further for the similarly spaced apart, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have similarly spaced the cutters given the limited number of options and in order to ensure the dough is uniformly/equally portioned. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis (US 1961532 A) in view of Mamiya (US2021/0259258 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Louis does not explicitly teach wherein the plunger is tapered to correspond to the bottom of the vat. However, analogous art, Mamiya, discloses having a plunger that is tapered (see figure 9E) in order to pass freely through the ports and based on the desire of the quantitative division of the final product [0106-0107]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the plunger is tapered to correspond to the bottom of the vat, as taught by Mamiya, into the system taught by Louis for the benefit of saving space and surface area of both the plunger and the vat.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis (US 1961532 A) in view of Dreisin (US4685874).
Regarding claim 5, Louis does not explicitly disclose further comprising a limit switch configured to be tripped when the receiver carriage extends a predetermined distance to halt the input force to the plunger and halt extrusion of the dough. Analogous dough art, Dreisin, discloses switch that turns on and off the plunger (column 2 lines 11-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a switch since it conventionally well known. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, Louis does not explicitly teach an actuation switch to initiate operation and movement of the plunger. However, Analogous dough art, Dreisin, discloses a switch that turns on and off the plunger (column 2 lines 11-65). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a switch since it conventionally well known. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis (US 1961532 A) in view of Brennan (IES960201A2).
Regarding claim 12, Louis doesn’t explicitly disclose the receiver carriage comprises a first tray guide to engage a corresponding second tray guide on the receiver tray to guide positioning of the tray relative to the receiver carriage. However Louis does disclose the basked 36 that can move around and have any specified number (column 3 lines 20-27). Additionally, analogous art, Brennan, discloses using trays to carry the formed product (claim 1). Further, MPEP 2144.04 VI. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated multiple trays for the benefit of carrying the formed product in an efficient method.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis (US 1961532 A), as applied to claim 17, and further in view of Van Lengerich (US 5,077, 074)
Regarding claim 19, Louis does not explicitly disclose wherein each cutter assembly of the plurality of cutter assemblies comprises a wire disposed to pass through the bar of dough. However, analogous art, Van Lengerich, discloses using a wire cutter 58 since it is conventionally well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a wire cutter since "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, Louis does not explicitly disclose wherein each cutter assembly of the plurality of cutter assemblies further comprises a means of adjustably tensioning the wire. MPEP 2144.04 states In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) The court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art recognized need for the adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the tensioning adjustable, since it have been held that adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. Further, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights