Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2-21-25 has been entered.
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
2. 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.
Claim(s) 19-23 and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,605,503 to Martin in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,288,274 to Hilgren et al., further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,748,691 to Snowden and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,003,837 to Cassidy.
Referring to claims 19-20, 22, 27 and 30, Martin discloses a poultry processing system comprising, a cleaning station – at 27, a scalding station – at 28, and a picker station – at 29, a transfer line – at 12, having a plurality of shackles – at 13, each for supporting a poultry carcass head down with its tail facing upwardly – see figures 1-4, for transfer through the cleaning station – at 27, along a line of travel – at 11, where the carcasses are cleaned with a cleaning liquid – at 54 – see figures 2-4, the scalding station – at 28, where the carcasses are successively positioned into a tank – at 80, of scalding water – at 81 – see figure 1, and the picker station – at 29, in which feathers are removed in preparation for further processing of the carcasses – see at 82-86 in figure 1, the cleaning station – at 27, including a spray manifolds – at 51,53, on opposite sides of the line of travel – at 11 – see figures 2-3, coupled to a cleaning liquid supply – at 52 – see figures 2-3, and having each manifold having a plurality of spray nozzles – at 53, spaced along the manifold – see figures 2-3, for directing cleaning liquid – at 54, onto the carcasses transferred/directed through the cleaning station – see figures 1-4, for driving downwardly dirt, fecal material, and other foreign matter from the carcasses – see figures 2-3 and column 7 line 60 to column 8 line 14, with contaminants directed downwardly to item 87, sufficient for direct transfer of the carcasses from the cleaning station – at 27 – see figures 2-4 and column 4 line 62 to column 5 line 10, to the scalding station – at 28, and immersion in the scalding tank – at 29 – see figure 1. Martin does not disclose the cleaning station including a plurality of vertically aligned spaced apart spray manifolds on opposite sides of the line of travel of carcasses through the cleaning station, the spray manifolds supporting the spray nozzles in progressively lower vertical rows along the line of travel of carcasses through the cleaning station for directing cleaning liquid at progressively lower levels onto the carcasses. Hilgren et al. does disclose cleaning station including a plurality of vertically aligned spaced apart spray manifolds – at 19-20 and 21-22 and also – at 31-32 and 33-34, on opposite sides of the line of travel of carcasses through the cleaning station – at 11,16 and 11,17 – see figures 1-3, the spray manifolds supporting the spray nozzles – at 19a, 20a, 21a, 22a, 31a, 32a, 33a, 34a, in lower vertical rows along the line of travel of carcasses through the cleaning station for directing liquid at lower levels onto the carcasses – see lower manifolds and nozzles – at 20,20a, 22,22a, 32,32a and 33,33a in figures 2-3. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin and add the lower level of spray nozzles disclosed by Hilgren et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the cleaning fluid to contact more of the carcasses surface area to facilitate better cleaning of the carcass as desired. Snowden does disclose a spray manifold – at 22b, that becomes progressively lower along the line of travel of the carcasses for directing cleaning liquid through the nozzles – at 24b, at progressively lower levels onto the carcasses – see figures 1-2. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin as modified by Hilgren et al. disclosing vertically aligned manifolds and make these manifolds to support nozzles in a progressively lower relation to the carcass and carcass transfer path and line of travel as disclosed by Snowden, so as to yield the predictable result of providing an even distribution of cleaning fluid onto the carcass as desired. Martin as modified by Hilgren et al. and Snowden further discloses the spray manifolds – at 31-32 and 33-34 of Hilgren et al., on each side of the line of travel being mounted in parallel vertically aligned relation to each other – see figure 3 of Hilgren et al., at a downward angle to the line of travel of carcasses through the station for directing cleaning liquid onto the carcasses – see at 31 and 34 in figure 3 of Hilgren et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin as modified by Hilgren et al. and Snowden and add the downwardly oriented spray nozzles and lower level of spray nozzles disclosed by Hilgren et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the cleaning fluid to contact more of the carcasses surface area to facilitate better cleaning of the carcass as desired. Martin as modified by Hilgren et al. and Snowden does not disclose at least two vertically aligned rows on each side of the line of travel each having downwardly angled with respect to the line of travel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin as modified by Hilgren et al. and Snowden and make any suitable number of manifolds downwardly angled including the claimed plurality of downwardly angled manifolds, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the cleaning liquid contacts a greater surface area of the carcass while allowing for easier removal of the cleaning liquid from the device as desired. Specific to claims 22 and 27, Martin as modified by Hilgren et al. and Snowden further discloses the spray manifolds are fixedly secured against rotation – see at 51 in figures 1-3 of Martin, - see at 19-22 and 31-34 of Hilgren et al. where the manifolds are fixedly secured in position as to not rotate, and further discloses the spray nozzles – at 19-22 and 31-34 of Hilgren et al., of the spray manifold, are operable for spraying vertically oriented oscillating spray discharges on to the carcasses transferred through the cleaning station as an incident to the direction of pressurized liquid through the spray nozzles– at 19-22 and 31-34 of Hilgren et al., – see examples in column 7 of Hilgren et al. where different pressures of the cleaning liquid are contemplated and a change in the pressures would provide a different spray pattern and cleaning of the carcasses. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin as modified by Hilgren et al. and Snowden and add the oscillating spray of Hilgren et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the cleaning fluid to contact more surface area of the carcass as desired. Specific to claims 20 and 30, Martin as modified by Hilgren et al. and Snowden does not disclose the plurality of spray manifolds on opposite sides of the line of travel includes at least three vertically aligned spray manifolds. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin as modified by Hilgren et al. and Snowden and add any suitable number of manifolds including the claimed three manifolds, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for cleaning fluid to contact more the carcass surface area to effect better cleaning of the carcass as desired. Specific to claims 19, 27 and 30, Martin as modified by Hilgren et al. and Snowden does not disclose the cleaning station for directing cleaning liquid onto opposite sides of the carcasses transferred through the cleaning station at progressively lower levels for driving downwardly dirt and other foreign matter. Cassidy does disclose the cleaning station for directing cleaning liquid onto opposite sides of the objects being cleaned transferred through the cleaning station at progressively lower levels for driving downwardly dirt and other foreign matter – see declined pipes – at 16 with spray nozzles – at 15 as seen in figure 5 which in a decline orientation to drive dirt and contaminants – see figure 5. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin as modified by Hilgren et al. and Snowden and add the directing of cleaning liquid on opposite sides in a downward orientation as disclosed by Cassidy, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the cleaning liquid contacts the entire surface of the object being cleaned while ensuring the cleaning liquid is properly drained from the device during use.
Referring to claim 21, Martin as modified by Hilgren et al., Snowden and Cassidy does not disclose the plurality of spray manifolds on opposite sides of the line of travel includes at least four vertically aligned spray manifolds. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin as modified by Hilgren et al., Snowden and Cassidy and add any suitable number of manifolds including the claimed four manifolds, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for cleaning fluid to contact more the carcass surface area to effect better cleaning of the carcass as desired.
Referring to claim 23, Martin as modified by Hilgren et al., Snowden and Cassidy further discloses the cleaning station includes a cabinet – at 27, having side units – at 31,32, disposed on opposite lateral sides of the path of transfer of carcasses – see figures 1-4 of Martin.
Referring to claim 28, Martin as modified by Hilgren et al., Snowden and Cassidy further discloses the spray manifolds on each side of the line of travel are in parallel vertically aligned rows – see at 19,20, 21,22, 31,32 and 33,34 in figures 2-3 of Hilgren et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin as modified by Hilgren et al., Snowden and Cassidy and add the manifolds on each side of the line of travel in vertically aligned rows as disclosed by Hilgren et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring better contact of the cleaning liquid on more of the surface area of the carcass as desired.
Referring to claim 29, Martin as modified by Hilgren et al., Snowden and Cassidy further discloses each of the spray nozzles – at 19a, 20a, 21a, 22a, 31a, 32a, 33a, 34a, of the plurality of spray manifolds on each side of the line of travel – see figures 1-3 of Hilgren et al. are disposed of in plurality of vertically aligned rows with each vertically aligned row being disposed at a lower level than the preceding vertically aligned row along the line of travel of carcasses through the cleaning station – at 11,16,17 – see at 32,33 lower than 20,22 as seen in figures 2-3 of Hilgren et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin as modified by Hilgren et al., Snowden and Cassidy and add the spray manifolds aligned in rows at lower levels as disclosed by Hilgren et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring better contact of the cleaning liquid on more of the surface area of the carcass as desired.
Response to Arguments
3. Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 19-23 and 27-29, applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 2-21-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections detailed in the last office action dated 1-28-25. However, applicant’s claim amendments dated 2-21-25 necessitates the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights