DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE under 37 CFR 1.114) filed 09/11/2025 and the Response and Amendment filed 08/12/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following rejections by virtue of the amendment or cancellation of the claims and/or persuasive remarks: (1) the objections to claim 5 have been withdrawn; (2) the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of claim 10 has been withdrawn; and (3) the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claim 10 over Hoegger has been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-9, 11
Withdrawn claims: 1-4
Previously cancelled claims: None
Newly cancelled claims: 10
Amended claims: 5-8
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 5-9, 11
Currently rejected claims: 5-9, 11
Allowed claims: None
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 5 recites that “a first ram of a first pressing device coupled to ta second ram of a second pressing device of the pressing chamber by a linear guide”. Claim 7 recites “running, at least partially, a transport belt around a wall, opposite the first ram, of the pressing chamber”. However, “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.")”. MPEP §2173.05(p).II.
Since the limitation that “a first ram of a first pressing device coupled to ta second ram of a second pressing device of the pressing chamber by a linear guide” and the limitation “running, at least partially, a transport belt around a wall, opposite the first ram, of the pressing chamber” are directed to the structure of an apparatus while the claims themselves are directed toward “[a] method for shaping a strand-shaped foodstuff”, claims 5 and 7 are single claims which claim both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, claim 5 will be interpreted as requiring the method to comprise shaping a piece of meat by exerting pressure to the top or bottom of the meat from the first ram; and exerting pressure from the side and/or back and/or front of the meat from the second ram without requiring the first ram and second ram to be coupled to one another through a linear guide or otherwise.
Fort the purpose of this examination, claim 7 will be interpreted as a transport belt transporting the meat through the pressing chamber.
Claim 8 recites “moving the second ram relative to the first ram in the direction in which the first ram is moved”. However, claim 5 recites that the first and second ram move in directions perpendicular to each other (e.g., the first ram moves in a vertical direction while the second ram moves in a lateral direction). It is unclear how the second ram is moved in the same direction as the first ram as recited in present claim 8. It is also noted that the phrase “end position” means that the respective ram has already been moved in its respective direction; therefore, does the phrase “when reaching an end position”, “moving the second ram” or “moving the third ram” mean that the second or third ram is being moved back into their respective starting positions? Or is the second or third ram being moved in another direction? For these reasons, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, “moving the second ram relative to the first ram in the direction in which the first ram is moved” in claim 8 will be interpreted as the movement of the second ram is perpendicular to the movement of the first ram as recited in the independent claim. For the purpose of this examination, “moving the second ram” and “moving the third ram” will be interpreted as meaning that the first ram and/or second ram is/are moved from a start position to an end position accordingly (i.e., perpendicular to the movement of the first ram for the second ram; and parallel to the movement of the first ram for the third ram)
Claims 6-7, 9 and 11 are rejected by reason of dependency from claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Ulbricht (DE 202005018374 U1; IDS citation; English translation attached to original document filed 08/03/2022 relied on for citations in paragraphs; Figures in original document relied on for citations referring to figures).
Regarding claim 5, Ulbricht teaches a method for shaping a strand-shaped foodstuff comprising a piece of meat (corresponding to rectangular pressed or molded meat) [0001], [0027], the method comprising: (a) opening a pressing chamber delimited by walls (corresponding to the press attached to vertical cylinder 6 and the presses attached to side cylinders 7) in that at least one of the walls move relative to at least one other of the walls, thereby releasing an opening cross-section (corresponding to the presses being in an open position); and (b) introducing the foodstuff through the opening cross-section into the pressing chamber (corresponding to conveyor belt 3 transporting the unshaped meat into the chamber) (page 4, paragraph beginning “In 6 is a two-head press) [0023]. Ulbricht teaches that the method then comprises: (c) closing the opening cross-section of the pressing chamber and transitioning the foodstuff from an unshaped state into a shaped state by at least two moving walls configured as a first ram of a first pressing device (corresponding to the press connected to vertical cylinder 6) and a second ram of a second pressing device (corresponding to the press connected to the side cylinder 7), wherein transitioning the foodstuff comprises moving the first ram perpendicularly to the movement direction of the foodstuff and moving the second ram parallel to the movement direction of the foodstuff (Fig.1; [0023]). Ulbricht teaches the method then comprises: (d) releasing an opening cross-section of the pressing chamber; and (e) discharging the shaped foodstuff from the pressing chamber through this opening cross-section (Fig. 1; [0023]).
Although claim 5 is being interpreted as requiring the method to comprise shaping a piece of meat by exerting pressure to the top or bottom of the meat from the first ram; and exerting pressure from the side and/or back and/or front of the meat from the second ram without requiring the first ram and second ram to be coupled to one another through a linear guide or otherwise for the reasons provided in the 35 U.S.C. rejection above, it is noted that Ulbricht teaches that the first and second rams are coupled together as can be seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Ulbricht teaches the invention as described above in claim 5, including introducing the foodstuff into the pressing chamber and discharging the foodstuff from the pressing chamber by a transport belt (corresponding to conveyor belt 3) (Fig. 1; [0023]) as recited in present claim 6. Since the conveyor belt feeds the unshaped foodstuff through one side of the pressing chamber and discharges the shaped foodstuff from an opposite side of the pressing chamber, Ulbricht teaches that feed of the unshaped foodstuff and discharging of the shaped foodstuff take place on opposites sides of the pressing chamber by moving the foodstuff in the same direction as recited by present claim 9.
Regarding claim 8, Ulbricht teaches the invention as described above in claim 5, including transitioning the foodstuff comprises moving the first ram perpendicularly to the movement direction of the foodstuff and moving the second ram parallel to the movement direction of the foodstuff (corresponding to the vertical pressing by vertical cylinder 6 and the side pressing by side cylinders 7 in Fig.1; [0023]). Therefore, the second ram is moved in a perpendicular direction relative to the movement of the first ram as recited by the interpretation of claim 8 described in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 8 above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulbricht (DE 202005018374 U1; IDS citation; English translation attached to original document filed 08/03/2022 relied on for citations in paragraphs; Figures in original document relied on for citations referring to figures) as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Langlands (US 3,728,136 A).
Regarding claim 7, Ulbricht teaches the invention as described above in claim 5, including introducing the foodstuff into the pressing chamber and discharging the foodstuff from the pressing chamber by a transport belt (corresponding to conveyor belt 3) (Fig. 1; [0023]). Ulbricht does not disclose that the transport belt at least partially runs around a wall of the pressing chamber that is opposite the first ram of the pressing chamber.
However, Langlands teaches an apparatus for shaping a foodstuff comprising a transport belt 28 for feeding and discharging a piece of meat to and from a pressing chamber (Figs. 2 and 4).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus of Ulbricht by replacing the transport belt of Ulbricht with the transport belt taught by Langlands as such a modification represents the selection of a transport system known in the art that allows for sufficient transport functionality. “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).” MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulbricht (DE 202005018374 U1; IDS citation; English translation attached to original document filed 08/03/2022 relied on for citations in paragraphs; Figures in original document relied on for citations referring to figures) as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Völkl (DE102018106299; IDS citation; English translation relied on for citations).
Regarding claim 11, Ulbricht teaches that the pressed meat is sliced into cold cuts after pressing [0001]. Ulbricht does not teach that a temperature of the edge region of the foodstuff is lower than the temperature of the core region of the foodstuff.
However, Völkl teaches a method of pressing and subsequently slicing meat (lines 14-16), wherein the edge region of the meat is frozen prior to pressing in order to make it easier to create clean-cut edges in the meat when slicing the meat (lines 61-63). Therefore, Völkl teaches that a temperature of the edge region of the foodstuff is lower than the temperature of the core region of the foodstuff.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Ulbricht in order to provide a foodstuff having a lower temperature in its edge region than in its core region as taught by Völkl. Since Ulbricht teaches that the pressed meat is sliced into cold cuts after pressing [0001], a skilled practitioner consulting Völkl would readily recognize that freezing the edge region of the foodstuff would provide the benefit of creating clean slices in the subsequently sliced meat. Therefore, the claimed temperature of the edge region of the foodstuff being lower than the temperature of the core region of the foodstuff is rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: Applicant amended the claims to address the objections; therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 5-11: Applicant canceled claim 10, thereby mooting its rejection. Claims 5-9 and 11 remain rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §102/103 of claims 5 and 7 over Lennox; U.S.C. §103 of claims 5-6, 8, and 10 over Hoegger; claim 9 over Lennox: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5-9 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant canceled claim 10, thereby mooting its rejection.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §102 of claim 11 over Hoegger and Völkl: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are considered moot.
Applicant argued that neither Hoegger nor Völkl teaches “a first ram of a first pressing device coupled to second ram of a second pressing device of the pressing chamber by a linear guide” as now recited by amended claim 5 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 9, 1st paragraph under “Claim 11” – page 10, 3rd paragraph).
However, in the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment of claim 5, amended claim 5 is rejected over Ulbricht. As described above in the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of claim 5, the limitation that “a first ram of a first pressing device coupled to ta second ram of a second pressing device of the pressing chamber by a linear guide” recited in amended claim 5 renders the claim indefinite. As such, claim 5 is being interpreted as requiring the method to comprise shaping a piece of meat by exerting pressure to the top or bottom of the meat from the first ram; and exerting pressure from the side and/or back and/or front of the meat from the second ram without requiring the first ram and second ram to be coupled to one another through a linear guide or otherwise. Although claim 5 is being interpreted in this manner, it is noted that Ulbricht teaches that the first and second rams are coupled together as can be seen in Fig. 3 of Ulbricht.
Völkl is continued to be relied on in the rejection of claim 11 for its teachings regarding the additional features recited in claim 8. Since the prior art is shown to render claim 8 obvious in the new grounds of rejection, the rejection of claim 8 stands as written herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 4:00 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, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791