DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on November 04, 2023. Claims 1-7 are cancelled and claims 8-16 are pending, with claim 8 in independent claim form.
Notice of Pre-AIA 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 .
An amendment was filed by Applicant on December 04, 2023 and is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102022132161.4 filed on 12/05/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement has been considered by Examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected because the specification referred to the dependent claims in page 2 line 20.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “141” has been used to designate both “a projection” and a “push rod” in pages 5 lines 19-21. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recited in line 2 “for a meat piece to be processed or a meat block to be processed” is suggested to be replace with “for a meat piece or a meat block to be processed;”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8-16 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 in line 6-7, recited the limitations “a blade” is indefinite, it is unclear if the blade is part of the set of blade recited in line 5 or a new limitation. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “at least one blade of the set of blades”.
Claim 8 in lines 6-8, recited the limitations “a blade arranged on a blade pin and rotatable with the blade pin in a plane lying essentially parallel to the at least one perforated disk” is indefinite, the axis of rotation is not understood in this language, clarity is needed. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a blade arranged on a blade pin and rotatable with the blade pin on the rotational axis of the driven shaft”.
Claim 11 in lines 1-2, recited the limitations “wherein the polygonal connection is square-shaped, hexagonal, octagonal,” is indefinite, it is unclear since the polygonal connection cannot be square-shaped, hexagonal, octagonal at the same time. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the polygonal connection is one of a square-shaped, hexagonal, octagonal”.
Claim 11 in lines 1-2, recited the limitations “or provided with some other polygonal connection” is indefinite, the metes and bounds of this limitation is not definite/clear.
Claim 12 recited the limitations “wherein the blade pin has, on an end side facing the driven shaft, a retainer for the pin with the side surfaces that are convex at least in sections, wherein walls of the retainer have concave sections for holding the convex at least in sections of the side surfaces of the pin.” is indefinite, it is unclear if Applicant meant “wherein the blade pin has a retainer on an end side facing the driven shaft; wherein the retainer have walls with concave sections used to connect with the side surfaces of the pin that are convex at least in sections.” Clarity is needed.
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Appropriate clarification is required.
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 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.
Claims 8-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu CN Publication (111,495,543) hereinafter Yu in view of Haack DE Publication (10 2012005240) hereinafter Haack.
Regarding claim 8,
Yu discloses a machine (see fig.1-2) for processing meat comprising:
a motor (see pag.8 lines 26-27, the motor is included in the prior art since it is involved in the problem, the inventor is trying to solve) with a driven shaft (2.1, 2.5) that is driven by the motor and with a receptacle (see fig.1) for a meat piece to be processed or a meat block to be processed,
the receptacle (see fig.1) is open toward the driven shaft so that a part of the meat piece or meat block held in the receptacle is fed by an auger (see fig.1) arranged at least in sections (see fig.1) on the driven shaft toward a set of blades (3,4),
PNG
media_image1.png
747
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the set of blades (3,4) has at least one perforated disk (4) arranged generally perpendicular to a rotational axis (see fig.1) of the driven shaft (2.1, 2.5) and
a blade (3) arranged on a blade pin (2.3) and rotatable with the blade pin (2.3) in a plane lying essentially parallel to the at least one perforated disk (4),
the blade pin (2.3) is arranged on the driven shaft (2.1, 2.5) such that a rotation of the driven shaft (2.1, 2.5) is transmitted to the blade pin so that the blade rotates (see pag.8 lines 6-20 recited the convention mode of operation) however Yu is silent about the blade pin is oscillatingly supported on the driven shaft.
Yu and Haack disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. meat processing machine).
Haack, in a similar art, teaches a blade pin (2,8) to be oscillatingly supported on the driven shaft (1,4, the oscillation is made with element 7 with the curb shape that can oscillate in element 8 in also a curb shape).
Haack teaches the blade pin to be oscillatingly supported on the driven shaft to reduce on the bending stresses and deformation of the shaft and blade pin (see pag.7 lines 19-33), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the blade pin and driven shaft of Yu with the components to allow the blade pin to be oscillatingly supported on the driven shaft as taught by Haack, as it would be beneficiary to Yu to be able reduce on the bending stresses and deformation of the shaft and increase the reliability of the machine (see pag.7 lines 19-33).
Regarding claim 9,
The prior art Yu as modified by Haack, discloses all limitations in claim 8,
Yu in view of Haack, discloses wherein the driven shaft (Haack, 1,4) has a pin (Haack, 4) with side surfaces that are convex at least in sections (Haack, see fig.1).
Regarding claims 10 and 11,
The prior art Yu as modified by Haack, discloses all limitations in claims 9 and 10,
Yu in view of Haack, discloses the pin (Haack, 4) to be centered on the rotational axis of the driven shaft (Haack, 1 see fig 1) neither Yu nor Haack disclose the pin to be constructed with a polygonal connection to be square-shaped, hexagonal, octagonal, or provided with some other polygonal connection and since no criticality is recited for the pin to be constructed with a polygonal connection as square-shaped, hexagonal, octagonal, or provided with some other polygonal connection and well known in the mechanical art for pins to be constructed with different shape deemed suitable for specific operation and ensure effectiveness of the operation, and that such is not non- obvious, occurs during routine engineering practices and experimentation and does not in itself warrant patentability, therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have the pin to be square-shaped or hexagonal or octagonal or provided with some other polygonal connection/shape to ensure proper connection and operation of the machine. Accordingly, it has been held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12,
The prior art Yu as modified by Haack, discloses all limitations in claim 9,
Yu in view of Haack, discloses wherein the blade pin (Haack, 2,8) has, on an end side facing the driven shaft (Haack, 1,4), a retainer (Haack, 8) for the pin (Haack, 4) with the side surfaces that are convex at least in sections (Haack, see fig.1),
wherein walls of the retainer (Haack, 8) have concave sections for holding the convex at least in sections of the side surfaces of the pin (Haack, 4 see fig.1).
Regarding claim 16,
The prior art Yu as modified by Haack, discloses all limitations in claim 8,
Yu in view of Haack, discloses wherein the blade pin (Yu, 2.3) is supported one of in front of and behind the at least one perforated disk (Yu 4, see fig.1).
(Alternative) Claims 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu CN Publication (111,495,543) hereinafter Yu in view of Li US Publication (2002/0078800) hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 8,
Yu discloses a machine (see fig.1) for processing meat comprising:
a motor (see pag.8 lines 26-27) with a driven shaft (2.1, 2.5) that is driven by the motor and with a receptacle (see fig.1) for a meat piece to be processed or a meat block to be processed,
the receptacle (see fig.1) is open toward the driven shaft so that a part of the meat piece or meat block held in the receptacle is fed by an auger (see fig.1) arranged at least in sections (see fig.1) on the driven shaft toward a set of blades (3,4),
PNG
media_image1.png
747
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the set of blades (3,4) has at least one perforated disk (4) arranged generally perpendicular to a rotational axis (see fig.1) of the driven shaft (2.1, 2.5) and
a blade (3) arranged on a blade pin (2.3) and rotatable with the blade pin (2.3) in a plane lying essentially parallel to the at least one perforated disk (4),
the blade pin (2.3) is arranged on the driven shaft (2.1, 2.5) such that a rotation of the driven shaft (2.1, 2.5) is transmitted to the blade pin so that the blade rotates (see pag.8 lines 6-20 recited the mode of operation) however Yu is silent about the blade pin is oscillatingly supported on the driven shaft.
Li discloses art in the analogous art of a shaft and pin coupled for torque transmission.
Li, in a rotational transmission art, teaches a blade pin (i.e. socket element 30) to be oscillatingly supported on the driven shaft (i.e. main body element 10 see fig.1-2).
Li teaches the blade pin to be oscillatingly supported on the driven shaft to allow movements to desired orientation of the parts and angular joint therebetween for operation in difficult-to-operate condition (see para.[0014] lines 7-11), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the blade pin and driven shaft of Yu with the components to allow the blade pin to be oscillatingly supported on the driven shaft as taught by Li, as it would be beneficiary to Yu to be able to allow movements to desired orientation and improve reliability of the machine.
Regarding claim 9,
The prior art Yu as modified by Li, discloses all limitations in claim 8,
Yu in view of Li, discloses wherein the driven shaft (Li, 10) has a pin (Li, 14) with side surfaces (Li, all 4 surfaces marked as 14 see fig.1) that are convex at least in sections (Li, see fig.1).
Regarding claim 10,
The prior art Yu as modified by Li, discloses all limitations in claim 9,
Yu in view of Li, discloses the pin (Li, 14) is constructed with a polygonal connection (Li, see fig 1).
Regarding claim 11,
The prior art Yu as modified by Li, discloses all limitations in claim 10,
Yu in view of Li, discloses wherein the polygonal connection is square-shaped, hexagonal, octagonal, or provided with some other polygonal connection (Li, see fig 1), the polygonal connection being centered on the rotational axis of the driven shaft (Li, see fig 1).
Regarding claim 12,
The prior art Yu as modified by Li, discloses all limitations in claim 9,
Yu in view of Li, discloses wherein the blade pin (Li, 30) has, on an end side facing the driven shaft (Li, 10 see fig.1), a retainer (Li, 31) for the pin (Li, 14) with the side surfaces (Li, all 4 surfaces marked as 14 see fig.1) that are convex at least in sections (Li, see fig. 1),
wherein walls of the retainer (Li, 31) have concave sections (Li, 33) for holding the convex at least in sections of the side surfaces of the pin (Li, 14).
Regarding claim 13,
The prior art Yu as modified by Li, discloses all limitations in claim 12,
Yu in view of Li, discloses wherein the pin (Li, 14) has an end surface with a convex section (Li, see fig 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
496
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14,
The prior art Yu as modified by Li, discloses all limitations in claim 13,
Yu in view of Li, discloses wherein a base of the retainer (Li, see fig 2) has a concave section for holding the convex section of the end surface that is convex at least in sections (Li, see fig 2).
Regarding claim 15,
The prior art Yu as modified by Li, discloses all limitations in claim 12,
Yu in view of Li, discloses wherein the pin (Li, 14) with side surfaces that are convex at least in some sections is arranged at a base of a slot (Yu, space between elements 2.2 and 2.5, occupied by element 2.3 see fig.2), which extends starting from an end side of the driven shaft (Li 10 equivalent Yu, 2.1, 2.5) facing the blade pin (Li, 30 equivalent Yu, 2.3) into the driven shaft (Li, 10 equivalent Yu, 2.1, 2.5) so that the retainer is arranged in a head of the blade pin (Li, see fig.2) and the head of the blade pin is supported with play in the slot (Yu, see fig.2).
Regarding claim 16,
The prior art Yu as modified by Li, discloses all limitations in claim 8,
Yu in view of Li, discloses wherein the blade pin (Li, 30 equivalency Yu 2.3) is supported one of in front of and behind the at least one perforated disk (Yu 4, see fig.1).
Conclusion
Prior Art US Patent 0,930,920 is also relevant as it shows a meat processor with multiple blades and perforated disc.
Prior Art FR Publication 2,963,876 is also relevant as it shows a meat processor and all the components for operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Smith Oberto BAPTHELUS whose telephone number is 571-272-5976. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Christopher TEMPLETON can be reached on 571-270-1477. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
November 05, 2025
/BSO/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725