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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7-11-25 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 § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-17 and 19-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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. It is unclear to how the mandrel rotates around a second axis at a non-zero angle with respect to the first axis when the first and second axes are coincident or parallel.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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. It is unclear to how the second axis can be substantially perpendicular to the first axis when in parent claim 1, the second axis is detailed as being substantially parallel or coincident with the first axis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-14, 17, 20-24, 26-27, 29 and 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,837,782 to Hetterscheid et al.
Referring to claims 1 and 27, Hetterscheid et al. discloses a poultry conveying system and method including an endless conveyor – at 200,202 or 380,382, including a connection block – at 11, a mandrel – at 402, configured for supporting a poultry carcass or a part thereof – see figures 31a-31c, an intermediate section – at 390 and/or gusset of 390, having a first end and a second end – see at each end of 390 in figures 31a-31c, the first end connecting to the mandrel – at 402, and the second end connecting to the connection block – at 11 – see figures 31a-31c, wherein the mandrel – at 402, is configured to rotate around a first axis – see at 394 and arrow above 394 in figure 31a, and rotate around a second axis – at 396 or 406, at a substantially non-zero angle relative to the first axis – see figure 31a, and a first actuator – at portion of the conveyor that engages 392 not shown and – at 392 – see figures 31a-31c, arranged for actuating the rotation of the mandrel around the first axis – see figures 31a-31c, and rotating the first actuator about the first axis rotates the mandrel about the first axis – see 402 rotatable about the axis through 394 as seen in figures 31a-31c, and a second actuator – at 400 or the toothed structure engaging 404 as detailed in column 20 lines 44-67 or 404 or 406, arranged for actuating the rotation of the mandrel around the second axis – see figures 31a-31c, and rotating the second actuator about the second axis rotates the mandrel about the second axis – see 402 rotatable about the axes through items 396 and 406 in figures 31a-31c, wherein the first actuator and the second actuator are located adjacent to the second end of the intermediate section – see figures 31a-31c where item 392 is at the second end of 390 and is proximate the gusset of 390, item 400 is proximate 392 in the orientation of 31c and is proximate the gusset in each orientation shown in figures 31a-31c, and item 404 is proximate top end of 390 in that item 390 is of substantial length and item 404 is proximate the gusset of 390. Hetterscheid e al. further discloses the first actuation axis – through 394, is substantially parallel to or coincides with the second actuation axis – through 406 – see parallel axes in figures 31a-31b. Specific to claim 27, the first axis can be either at 394 or 406 and the second axis can be the other of either 394 or 406 and the first actuator can be either of the conveyor portion engaging 392 or 404 and the second actuator can be the other of either the conveyor portion engaging 392 or 404.
Referring to claims 4 and 29, Hetterscheid et al. further discloses the intermediate section includes a first relay element – at 394, and a second relay element – at 404 or 406, wherein movement of the first relay element results in rotation of the mandrel – at 402, around the first axis – see figure 31a, and wherein movement of the second relay element results in rotation of the mandrel – at 402, around the second axis – see figures 31a-31b.
Referring to claim 5, Hetterscheid et al. further discloses the first relay element includes a first shaft – at 394, and the second relay element includes a second shaft – at 406, wherein movement of the first shaft results in the rotation of the mandrel – at 402, around the first axis – see figure 31a,and wherein movement of the second shaft results in the rotation of the mandrel – at 402, around the second axis – see figures 31a-31b.
Referring to claim 8, Hetterscheid et al. further discloses the second axis – at 396, is substantially perpendicular to the first axis – at 394 – see figure 31a.
Referring to claim 9, Hetterscheid et al. further discloses the second axis – at 396 or 406, forms a virtual axis of rotation – see figures 31a-31c.
Referring to claim 10, Hetterscheid et al. further discloses the first shaft – at 394, is connected to the mandrel – at 402, via a rigid connection – see at connection of 11,394,390 to 402 in figures 31a-31c, the rigid connection is configured to transfer rotation of the first shaft – at 394, to the mandrel – at 402, to cause the rotation of the mandrel – at 402, around the first axis – see figures 31a-31c.
Referring to claim 11, Hetterscheid et al. further discloses the first shaft – at 394, is connected to the mandrel – at 402, through a transmission – see component between items 11 and 390 as seen in figures 31a-31c, the transmission is configured to transfer rotation of the first shaft – at 394, to the mandrel – at 402, to cause the rotation of the mandrel – at 402, around the first axis – see figures 31a-31c.
Referring to claim 12, Hetterscheid et al. further discloses the second shaft – at 396 or 406, is connected to the mandrel – at 402, through a transmission – at 398, wherein the transmission – at 398, is configured to transfer rotation of the second shaft – at 396 or 406, to the mandrel – at 402, to cause the rotation of the mandrel – at 402, around the second axis – see figures 31a-31c.
Referring to claim 13, Hetterscheid et al. further discloses of the first axis – at 396, and the second axis – at 406, is substantially perpendicular to the endless conveyor – see figures 31a-31c.
Referring to claim 14, Hetterscheid et al. further discloses at least one of the first actuator – at 392, and the second actuator includes a Geneva drive wheel – see at 392 in figure 31a.
Referring to claims 17 and 33, Hetterscheid et al. further discloses a first holding system – see conveyor such as at 200,202 or 382, and controls for the conveyor, connected to the first actuator – see figures 29-31c, and a second holding system – see other components of the conveyor – at 200,202 or 382 as seen in figures 29-31c, connected to the second actuator – see figures 29-31c, wherein each of the first and second holding systems are configured to be selectively moveable between a first mode and a second mode, wherein in the first mode, the first holding system is configured to substantially prevent first actuator from actuating and the second holding system is configured to substantially prevent the second actuator from actuating – see figures 29-31c, and wherein in the second mode, the first and second holding systems are configured to allow the first actuator and the second actuator to actuate respectively – see on/off operation of the conveyor would allow for movement of the conveyors and operation of the actuators to be allowed and prevented.
Referring to claims 20 and 34, Hetterscheid et al. further discloses each holding system is configured to be locked in the first mode by application of a locking force, and unlocked from the first mode by application of an unlocking force – see operation of the conveyor and the forces applied to the conveyor via the conveyors drive mechanism would provide locking and unlocking forces during on/off operation of the conveyor.
Referring to claim 21, Hetterscheid et al. further discloses a first guiding rail arranged configured to apply the unlocking force and a second guiding rail arranged configured to apply the locking force – see rails on each side of the conveyor in figures 29-31c.
Referring to claim 22, Hetterscheid et al. further discloses one or more rotation pins arranged configured to actuate the first and second actuators from a first predetermined position to a second predetermined position – pins engaging items 392 and 404 – see for example figures 31a-31c.
Referring to claim 23, Hetterscheid et al. further discloses each holding system is biased toward the first mode – conveyor configured to be in off mode until device is used.
Referring to claim 24, Hetterscheid et al. further discloses the mandrel – at 402, includes a carcass retainer – see free end of 402, arranged configured to keep substantially maintain the poultry carcass or a part on the mandrel – at 402 – see figures 31a-31c.
Referring to claims 26 and 35, Hetterscheid et al. further discloses one or more processing stations arranged adjacent to the poultry conveying system and configured for cutting, skinning, deboning, harvesting, or a combination thereof, the poultry carcass or part thereof – see skinning in figure 28 and cutting in figure 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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) 15-16 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hetterscheid et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Referring to claim 15, Hetterscheid et al. further discloses a gear – at 404, is placed positioned between the first actuator – at 392, and the mandrel – at 402, and/or between the second actuator and the mandrel – see figures 31a-31c, but does not disclose a reducing transmission. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Hetterscheid et al. and add the reducing transmission claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring accurate movement of the mandrel during operation.
Referring to claim 16, Hetterscheid et al. does not disclose at least one of the first actuator and the second actuator includes an electric motor. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Hetterscheid et al. and add the first or second actuator being an electric motor as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing of automatic control of the mandrel during operation.
Referring to claim 25, Hetterscheid et al. does not disclose the endless conveyor comprises an articulated endless conveyor. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Hetterscheid et al. and add the endless conveyor being any suitable conveyor including the claimed articulated conveyor, so as to yield the predictable result of automatically moving and controlling the device during use.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 6 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
6. Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 1, the Hetterscheid et al. reference US 6837782 discloses the mandrel – at 402, is configured to rotate around a first axis – see at 394 and arrow above 394 in figure 31a, and rotate around a second axis – at 396 or 406, at a substantially non-zero angle relative to the first axis – see figure 31a where rotation about 406 would be at an angle defined in the horizontal plane that is larger than zero degrees, and a first actuator – at portion of the conveyor that engages 392 not shown and – at 392 – see figures 31a-31c, arranged for actuating the rotation of the mandrel around the first axis – see figures 31a-31c, and rotating the first actuator about the first axis rotates the mandrel about the first axis – see 402 rotatable about the axis through 394 as seen in figures 31a-31c, and a second actuator – at 400 or the toothed structure engaging 404 as detailed in column 20 lines 44-67 or 404 or 406, arranged for actuating the rotation of the mandrel around the second axis – see figures 31a-31c, and rotating the second actuator about the second axis rotates the mandrel about the second axis – see 402 rotatable about the axes through items 396 and 406 in figures 31a-31c, wherein the first actuator and the second actuator are located adjacent to the second end of the intermediate section – see figures 31a-31c where item 392 is at the second end of 390 and is proximate the gusset of 390, item 400 is proximate 392 in the orientation of 31c and is proximate the gusset in each orientation shown in figures 31a-31c, and item 404 is proximate top end of 390 in that item 390 is of substantial length and item 404 is proximate the gusset of 390. Hetterscheid e al. further discloses the first actuation axis – through 394, is substantially parallel to or coincides with the second actuation axis – through 406 – see parallel axes in figures 31a-31b where in the orientations of figures 31a-31b the axes at 394 and 406 are at least substantially parallel in the vertical direction.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 27, see the discussion of the first and second axes being parallel or coincident as detailed earlier with respect to claim 1. Further, Hetterscheid et al. discloses the second actuator – proximate 392 or 404, is actuated proximate the connection block – at 11 – see figures 31a-31c in that the first axis can be either at 394 or 406 and the second axis can be the other of either 394 or 406 and the first actuator can be either of the conveyor portion engaging 392 or 404 and the second actuator can be the other of either the conveyor portion engaging 392 or 404 and item 404 is not spaced a large distance from item 11 and therefore is proximate as seen in figures 31a-31b and item 392 is directly proximate to item 11 as seen in figure 31a.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 4-6, 8-17, 19-26, 29 and 33-35, applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to parent claims 1 and 27 discussed earlier.
Conclusion
7. 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