www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/083,595
`
`09/10/2018
`
`Hiroaki NITTA
`
`083710-2205
`
`2396
`
`McDermott Will and Emery LLP
`The McDermott Building
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`MILLSJR., JOE E
`
`3761
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`06/15/2021
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`mweipdocket@mwe.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/083,595
`NITTA et al.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`JOE E MILLS JR.
`3761
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 05/21/2021.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-8 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected.
`(1 Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)1) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) ([] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20210526
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/083,595
`Art Unit: 3761
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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.
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`This office action is responsive to the amendmentfiled on 05/21/2021. As
`
`directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1-2 has/have been amended; no claim(s) has/have
`
`been cancelled and no new claim(s) has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-8 are
`
`presently pending in this application.
`
`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 maynotbe obtained, notwithstanding thatthe claimed
`invention is not identicallydisclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the
`claimed invention and the prior artare 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
`ordinaryskill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentabilityshall notbe
`negated by the manner in whichthe invention was made.
`
`The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized asfollows:
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/083,595
`Art Unit: 3761
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Taguchi etal (US 20120125208).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Taguchi discloses an automatic bread maker comprising:
`
`a baking case (Fig.
`
`1 #50 bread container) configured to accommodate bread-
`
`making material;
`
`a heater (Fig.
`
`1 #41 heating device) configured to heat the baking case (Fig.
`
`7
`
`#50 bread container);
`
`a temperature detector (Fig. 4 #83 temperature sensor) configured to detect a
`
`temperature of the baking case (Fig.
`
`1 #50 bread container);
`
`a pulverizing and mixing section (Shown in the figure below) that is disposed at a
`
`bottom of the baking case (Fig.
`
`1 #50 bread container) and, while rotating,
`
`is configured
`
`to pulverize and mix, the bread-making material in the baking case (Fig.
`
`1 #50 bread
`
`container);
`
`and a controller (Fig. 4 #80 control device) configured to control the heater (Fig.
`
`7
`
`#41 heating device) and the pulverizing and mixing section (Shown in the figure below)
`
`in accordance with the temperature of the baking case (Fig.
`
`1 #50 bread container),
`
`wherein the controller (Fig. 4 #80 control device) governs a pulverizing step for making
`
`rice paste from the bread-making material and a mixing step for mixing the rice paste
`
`after the pulverizing step ({0062] lines 1-2 ---“Operation of the automatic bread-maker1
`
`is controlled by a control device 80 shown in FIG. 4.”; [0062] lines 5-9 ---"To the control
`
`device 80, the operation portion 20 and the heating device 41 are connected, and
`
`further, a motor driver 81 of the motor 60 and a temperature sensor 83 are also
`
`connected to the control device 80.” [0064] lines 2-6 ---“As shown in FIG.5,in the first
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/083,595
`Art Unit: 3761
`
`Page 4
`
`example of bread making process, a pre-grinding soaking process #10, a grinding
`
`process #20, a mixing/kneading process #30, a fermentation process #40, and a
`
`baking process #50 are performedin this order.’).
`
`FIG.
`
`
`
`
`
`3fypebsietidet(diary,
`
`i
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`guiverzing and
`MHRIn Section
`
`TO
`er
`SSeSa
`
`
`
`$‘
`
`
`onci|opssi
`
`asLet
`
`pemmerereeceten
`
`\
`=
`4 \.
`ey
`.
`a OOHMOHOH \
`
`i
`t
`».
`
`SES
`:
`oS RS
`‘
`WS
`ROR
`.
`
`™ 5
`
`_“
`;
`%
`i P2
`s
`E
`
`yke
`
`However, Taguchi does not disclose in the pulverizing step, the controller rotates
`
`the pulverizing and mixing section at a rotational speed range the same asa rotational
`
`speed range in the mixing step.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/083,595
`Art Unit: 3761
`
`Page 5
`
`Since, Taguchi recognizes the need for a bread maker where no pre-ground
`
`grains where accessible, it would be advantageous to include a part for grinding grains
`
`and including a grinding step in the bread making process. Taguchi teaches a controller
`
`that adjusts the speed of the motor which drives the pulverizing and mixing components
`
`during the mixing step and the pulverizing step. The examiner takes the position that
`
`there are finite solutions for the rotational speed of the mixing and pulverizing sections.
`
`For example, (1) one of ordinary skilled in the art may set the rotational speed of the
`
`mixing step to be faster than the pulverizing section, or (2) one of ordinary skilled in the
`
`art may set the rotational speed of the mixing step to be slower than the pulverizing
`
`section or (3) one of ordinary skilled in the art may set the rotational speed of the mixing
`
`step to be the same as the pulverizing section.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art
`
`before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,
`
`to have pulverizing and mixing
`
`steps operated at the same rotational speed range and incorporate it into the automatic
`
`bread maker of Taguchi since there are a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions ( as enumerated by the examiner above) to the recognized need (A bread
`
`maker wth grinding ability) and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the
`
`known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success .
`
`Regarding claim 3, Taguchi teaches the automatic bread maker as appears
`
`above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Taguchi teaches further including an
`
`automatic feeder configured to accommodate yeast, wherein the controller effects
`
`control of the automatic feeder so as to feed the yeast into the baking case after the
`
`mixing step (/0136] ---“In step #34, the user opensthe lid 130 to add yeast to the dough.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/083,595
`Art Unit: 3761
`
`Page 6
`
`The yeast added to the dough here is dry yeast. Instead of yeast, baking powder may
`
`be used. It is also possible to adopt an automatic feeder for yeast or baking powder
`
`as well,
`
`to thereby save the user time and trouble.”).
`
`Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Taguchi etal (US 2012/0125208) as applied to claim 1, in view of Peng etal (US
`
`2010/0258012).
`
`Regarding claim 2, Taguchi teaches the automatic bread maker as appears
`
`above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Taguchi further teaches wherein the
`
`
`
`pulverizing and mixing section hasafirst part (Fig. 1 #54 pulverizing blade) configured
`
`to pulverize the bread-making material and a second part (Fig.
`
`1 #70 kneading blade)
`
`configured to mix the bread-making material, but does not teach the bottom of the
`
`baking case has a protruding section formed of a plurality of protrusions each of which
`
`extendsradially from a center of the bottom of the baking case, a first gap thatis
`
`smaller in length than a minor axis of a rice grain is formed between the first part and a
`
`top of one of the protrusions, and a second gap thatis greater in length than the minor
`
`axis of the rice grain is formed between the bottom andthefirst part.
`
`Nonetheless, Peng teaches the bottom of the baking case has a protruding
`
`section formed of a plurality of protrusions (Fig. 2 #31 cutting blade) each of which
`
`extends radially from acenter of the bottom of the baking case, but does not teach a
`
`first gap that is smaller in length than a minor axis of a rice grain is formed between the
`
`first part and a top of one of the protrusions, and a second gapthat is greater in length
`
`than the minor axis of the rice grain is formed between the bottom and the first part.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/083,595
`Art Unit: 3761
`
`Page 7
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic bread maker of Taguchi by
`
`incorporating the protrusions as taught by Peng for the purpose of obtaining a fine
`
`powder. (/0037])
`
`Also,
`
`it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to formafirst gap that is smaller in length
`
`than a minor axis of a rice grain is formed between the pulverizing part and a top of one
`
`of the protrusions, and a second gap that is greater in length than the minor axis of the
`
`rice grain is formed between the bottom and the pulverizing part, since it has been held
`
`that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering
`
`the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105
`
`USPQ 233.
`
`Claims 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Taguchi et al (US 20120125208) as applied to claim 1, in view of Hayashi et al (US
`
`4,747,690).
`
`Regarding claim 4, Taguchi teaches the automatic bread maker as appears
`
`above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach further including a cooler
`
`configured to cool the bread-making material, wherein the controller effects control of
`
`the cooler so as to work in response to a temperature-rising speed of the rice paste
`
`determined on the temperature detected by the temperature detector in the pulverizing
`
`step.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/083,595
`Art Unit: 3761
`
`Page 8
`
`Nonetheless, Hayashi teaches further including a cooler (Fig.
`
`1 #34 coolant tank
`
`and #17 jacket together form a cooler) configured to cool the bread-making material,
`
`wherein the controller (Fig. 3 #28 computer control device) effects control of the cooler
`
`so as to work in response to a temperature-rising speed of the rice paste determined on
`
`the temperature detected by the temperature detector in the pulverizing step (Col. 4
`
`lines 62-68
`
`---” The computer control device 28 includes the actuating device 27, a
`
`storing device 29, and a comparator 25. In this embodiment, temperature regulators
`
`(not shown) are provided between the comparator 25 and the valve device 35, and
`
`between the comparator 25 and a heater (not shown) for heating the dough,
`
`to control
`
`the temperature of the dough.’).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic bread maker of Taguchi by
`
`incorporating the cooler as taught by Hayashi for the purpose of controlling the
`
`temperature of the dough.
`
`Regarding claim 5, Taguchi in view of Hayashi teaches the automatic bread
`
`maker as appears above (see the rejection of claim 4), and Hayashi further teaches
`
`wherein the controller (Fig. 3 #28 computer control device) effects control of the cooler
`
`so as to increase output of the cooler when the temperature-rising speed goes beyond a
`
`predetermined value (Col. 5 lines 24-30 ---“ When the temperature of the dough
`
`becomes higher than the range of control values, the comparator transmits a signal to
`
`the temperature regulator to actuate the valve devices 35 to open the valve and
`
`introduce a coolant from the coolant tank 34 into the jacket 17 of the vessel 16 until the
`
`temperature of the dough decreases to the range of control values.’).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/083,595
`Art Unit: 3761
`
`Page 9
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic bread maker of Taguchi in
`
`view of Hayashi by incorporating the cooler as taught by Hayashi for the purpose of
`
`controlling the temperature of the dough.
`
`Regarding claim 6, Taguchi in view of Hayashi teaches the automatic bread
`
`maker as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), and Hayashi further teaches
`
`wherein the controller (Fig. 3 #28 computer control device) effects control of the cooler
`
`so as to decrease output of the cooler and to maintain the output at a decreased level
`
`for at least a predetermined period of time (Col. 5 lines 31-36 ---“ When the temperature
`
`of the dough is lower than the lower limit of the range of the control values, the
`
`comparator transmits a signal to the temperature regulator to actuate the heater to heat
`
`the vessel until the temperature of the dough increases to exceed the lowerlimit of the
`
`range of the control values.”, Examiner interprets that the cooler wil be turned off until
`
`the temperature dictates that it should be turned on again.).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic bread maker of Taguchi in
`
`view of Hayashi by incorporating the cooler as taught by Hayashi for the purpose of
`
`controlling the temperature of the dough.
`
`Regarding claim 7, Taguchi in view of Hayashi teaches the automatic bread
`
`maker as appears above (see the rejection of claim 4), and Hayashi further teaches
`
`wherein the controller (Fig. 3 #28 computer control device) has a logging function that
`
`takes operation logs and controls the cooler accarding ta the logs (Col 5 dines 4-9 ---
`
`fhe storing device 29 is for storing control values of weight, strain, temperature, pH of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/083,595
`Art Unit: 3761
`
`Page 10
`
`ihe dough, a standard kneading ime, and a program lo caiculate extlension or reduction
`
`of the remaining lime required for kneading the dough when the strain measured
`
`becomes higher or lower than the range of control values.”).
`
`H would have beer cbvigus to one of ardinary skHl in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic bread maker of Taguchi in
`
`view of Hayashi by incorporating the controller of Hayashi for the purpose of automating
`
`control of temperature during the bread making process.
`
`Regarding claim 8, Taguchi in view of Hayashi teaches the automatic bread
`
`maker as appears above (see the rejection of claim 4), and Hayashi further teaches
`
`wherein the controller (Fig. 3 #28 computer control device)shoriens a time for the
`
`pulverizing step wher the output of the cocler at a maximurn level is unable fo suppress
`
`the temperature-rising speed of the rice paste (Col 5 lines 37-47 ---“ When ihe
`
`measured value remains outside ihe range of contral values for a predetermined time
`
`stored in the storing device, the comparator transmis a signal to sion the drive device fo
`
`eliminaie the material from the kneading vesset.’).
`
`ER would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`fling date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic breaci maker of Taguchi in
`
`view of Hayashi by incorporating the conirclier of Hayashi for the purpose of automating
`
`contral of temperature during the bread making process.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2021 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/083,595
`Art Unit: 3761
`
`Page 11
`
`Applicant argues that Taguchi does not disclose or suggest "...in the pulverizing
`
`step, the controller rotates the pulverizing and mixing section at a rotational speed
`
`range the sameasa rotational speed range in the mixing step,” and cites paragraph
`
`[0072] of Taguchi which showsthat the mixing/kneeding blade can be uncoupled
`
`resulting in the two section not rotating at the same rotational speed range.
`
`Examiner responds that paragraph [0011] of Taguchi teaches that a clutch is
`
`either engaged to uncouple the mixing/kneading blade or couple the mixing/kneading
`
`blade depending on the direction of rotation.
`
`If the mixing and kneading steps were
`
`performed in the same direction in which the mixing/kneading blade is not uncoupled,
`
`then the mixing/kneading blade would rotate at the same rotational speed range.
`
`It
`
`would be obvious to do so, since the only possible outcomes would be the
`
`mixing/kneading blade operating coupled or uncoupled regardless of the rotational
`
`speed range.
`
`It be obvious to operate the mixing/kneading blade coupled at a rotational
`
`speed range necessary for mixing or kneading with a reasonable expectation of
`
`SUCCESS.
`
`In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain
`
`features of applicant’s invention,
`
`it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies
`
`(i.e., the whole structure of the blade is immersedin the rice paste when a
`
`predetermined amountof rice paste is set in baking case, and the height of the blade of
`
`the claimed invention is lower than that of Taguchi) are not recited in the rejected
`
`claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/083,595
`Art Unit: 3761
`
`Page 12
`
`the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26
`
`USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`Conclusion
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time
`
`policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the eventa first reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHSof the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone numberis (571)272-
`
`8449. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5.
`
`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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/083,595
`Art Unit: 3761
`
`Page 13
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Dana Ross can be reached on (571) 272-4480. 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/PrivateP air. 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.
`
`/JOE E MILLS JR./
`Examiner, Art Unit 3761
`
`/DANA ROSS/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
`
`