Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 7-8-26 and this office action is a final rejection.
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) 1, 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO No. 2018/019344 to Bjerregaard in view of JP Patent No. 2003-138 to Takahashi.
Referring to claim 1, Bjerregaard discloses an apparatus/method for weakening an attachment of a pin bone to muscle or adipose tissue in a fillet of fish comprising, an energy source – see temperature manipulation units – at 11 detailed in pages 13-14 where energy has to be supplied for these devices and from these devices to operate as disclosed, to supply sufficient heat to the/substantially only the pin bone and connective tissue, that attaches the pin bone to the muscle or adipose tissue, in the fillet of fish – see pages 13-14 and figures 8a-14, where the temperature units – at 11 apply heat to where the pin bones and connective tissue is located, to degrade or denature the connective tissue without degrading or denaturing the muscle or adipose tissue and thereby weaken the attachment of the pin bone to the muscle or adipose tissue in the fillet of fish – see pages 13-14. Bjerragaard does not disclose the energy source supplies the heat along and within the pin bone from a first end of the pin bone to a second end of the pin bone, such that heat generated along and within the pin bone itself produces the heat in the connective tissue that attaches the pin bone to the muscle or adipose tissue, as distinguished from heat applied externally to a surface or volume of the fillet of fish. Takahashi does disclose the energy source – at 4, supplies the heat along and within the bone from a first end of the bone to a second end of the bone – see via 5 in figures 1-4 and see paragraphs [0008]-[0011] and [0022]-[0028] of the English translation provided by applicant, such that heat generated along and within the bone itself produces the heat in the connective tissue that attaches the bone to the muscle or adipose tissue – see removing of only the connective tissue between the bone and muscle as seen in figures 1-4 and paragraphs [0008]-[0011] and [0022]-[0028] of the English translation supplied by applicant, as distinguished from heat applied externally to a surface or volume of the fillet of fish – see figures 1-4 and paragraphs [0008]-[0011] and [0022]-[0028] of the English translation supplied by applicant. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bjerregaard disclosing the removal of pin bones from fish and add the applying of the electrical current directly to the bone of the fish to remove only the portion of the fish connecting the bone to the muscle as disclose by Takahashi, so as to yield the predictable result of more easily removing the bone(s) without needing any other processing steps while maintaining the fish muscle for future consumption as desired.
Referring to claim 3, Bjerregaard as modified by Takahashi further discloses the energy source is selected from a group consisting of, microwaves, audio waves, X-rays, laser, tailored photon bombardment, and neutron bombardment – see at least microwaves and laser – at 11 as detailed in pages 13-14 of Bjerregaard.
Referring to claim 6, Bjerregaard as modified by Takahashi discloses a method for weakening an attachment of a pin bone to muscle or adipose tissue in a fillet of fish comprising, applying heat to the pin bone – see via item 11 in figures 8a-14 and see pages 13-14 of Bjerregaard, and conducting the applied heat along the pin bone sufficient to heat the pin bone and substantially only connective tissue that attaches the pin bone to the muscle or adipose tissue in the fillet of fish – see applied at pin bones and directly attached tissue in figures 8a-14 and pages 13-14 of Bjerregaard, to degrade or denature the connective tissue without degrading or denaturing the muscle or adipose tissue and thereby weaken the attachment of the pin bone to the muscle or adipose tissue in the fillet of fish – see pages 13-14 of Bjerregaard.
Claim(s) 2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bjerregaard as modified by Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0017771 to Birgisson et al.
Referring to claim 2, Bjerregaard as modified by Takahashi further discloses the fillet of fish is selected whether pre-rigor mortis or post-rigor mortis – see pages 13-14 of Bjerregaard. Bjerregaard as modified by Takahashi does not disclose the fish is selected from salmon, cod or halibut. Birgisson et al. does disclose the fish is selected from salmon, cod or halibut – see salmon and in paragraphs [0095]-[0096], whether pre-rigor mortis or post-rigor mortis – see paragraph [0093]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bjerregaard as modified by Takahashi and use the device on any type of fish including the salmon and cod disclosed by Birgisson et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the user to use the device on any desired type of fish to be processed.
Referring to claim 4, Bjerregaard as modified by Takahashi does disclose an electrode coupled to the electrical power supply – see at 14,20 in figure 12 and page 13 of Bjerregaard and – see at 5 of Takahashi, and in electrical contact with the fish at the pin bone to conduct electrical current from the electrical power supply to the bone – see figure 12 and page 13 of Bjerregaard and see figures 1-4 of Takahashi, and the energy source to supply sufficient heat to the/substantially only the pin bone and connective tissue that attaches the pin bone to the muscle or adipose tissue, in the fillet of fish to degrade or denature the connective tissue, without degrading or denaturing the muscle or adipose tissue, and thereby weaken the attachment of the pin bone to the muscle or adipose tissue in the fillet of fish – see pages 13-14 and figures 8a-14 of Bjerregaard and – see figures 1-4 and paragraphs [0008]-[0011] and [0022]-[0028] of Takahashi, such that the Ohmic heating produces sufficient heat within the bone itself to produce heat in the connective tissue that attaches the bone to the muscle or adipose tissue, in the fillet of fish to degrade or denature the connective tissue that attaches the bone to the muscle or adipose tissue, without degrading or denaturing the muscle or adipose tissue, and thereby weaken the attachment of the bone to the muscle or adipose tissue in the fillet of fish – see figures 1-4 and paragraphs [0008]-[0011] and [0022]-[0028] of Takahashi. Bjerregaard as modified by Takahashi further discloses the electrode – at 5, in physical contact with a first end of the bone to conduct electric current from the first end of the bone to the second end of the bone – see figures 1-4 of Takahashi. Bjerregaard as modified by Takahashi does not disclose a controller coupled to the power supply to select an amount of the electrical current conducted from the power supply to the pin bone and thereby weaken the attachment of the pin bone to the muscle or adipose tissue in the fillet of fish. Birgisson et al. does disclose an electrode – at 12, in physical contact with the fish – see figure 4, a controller – at 16, coupled to the power supply to select an amount of the electrical current conducted from the power supply to the fish and near the pin bone – see figure 4 and paragraphs [0056]-[0059] and [0101], wherein the conducting of the electrical current in the fish and adjacent the pin bone conducts the selected amount of electrical current in the fish and adjacent the pin bone such that the Ohmic heating produces sufficient heat to weaken the attachment of the pin bone to the muscle or adipose tissue, in the fillet of fish – see figure 4 and paragraphs [0101]-[0103]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bjerregaard as modified by Takahashi and add the electrical current application in the fish as disclosed by Birgisson et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring automatic and better application of the current at the pin bones as desired. Bjerregaard as modified by Birgisson et al. Takahashi further discloses the electrode – at 5, and electric current applied directly to the bone so that the current is conducted from a first end to a second end of the bone – see figures 1-4 and paragraphs [0008]-[0011] and ]0022]-[0028] of Takahashi. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bjerregaard disclosing the removal of pin bones from fish and add the applying of the electrical current directly to the bone of the fish to remove only the portion of the fish connecting the bone to the muscle as disclose by Takahashi, so as to yield the predictable result of more easily removing the bone(s) without needing any other processing steps while maintaining the fish muscle for future consumption as desired.
Referring to claim 5, Bjerregaard as modified by Birgisson et al. and Takahashi further discloses the controller selects the amount of electrical current conducted from the power supply to the pin bone based on factors selected from a group consisting of, a pre-rigor condition of the fillet of fish, a post-rigor condition of the fillet of fish, a skinned versus unskinned fillet of fish, a size of the fillet of fish, a thickness of the fillet of fish, an estimated age of the fish, a size of the pin bone, a location of pin bone in the fillet of fish, a type of fish, an estimated time elapsed since harvest of the fillet of fish, an estimated time elapsed since filleting the fish, an electrical resistivity of the pin bone, an amount of joule heating in the pin bone, and combinations thereof – see at least the type of fish detailed in paragraph [0084] of Birgisson et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bjerregaard as modified by Takahashi and Birgisson et al. and add the electrical current application in the fish as disclosed by Birgisson et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring automatic and better application of the current at the pin bones as desired.
Response to Arguments
3. Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 1, applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 7-27-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) rejections detailed in the last office action dated 4-3-26. However, applicant’s claim amendments dated 7-27-26 necessitates the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 3 and 6, applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to claim 1 discussed earlier.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 2 and 4-5, applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to parent claim 1 discussed earlier.
Conclusion
4. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
5. 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