DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed 12/14/2023. This IDS has been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 8-14, 17, 18-25, and 31-33 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the line 2 limitation “said first guidance arm” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1, on which this claim depends, does not recite a first guidance arm. Rather, antecedent basis is provided for “a first guidance arm” in claim 7. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting this claim as dependent on claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the line 6 limitation “said first conveyor” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 on which this claim depends recites “at least one belt conveyor”, not “a first conveyor”. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting the first conveyor as the belt conveyor.
Regarding claim 10, the line 2 limitation “a second guidance arm” is confusing. Claim 9 and base claim 1, on which this claim depends, does not recite a “first guidance arm”. Claim 7 recites a first guidance arm. Examiner suggests clarifying by amending the limitation to read --a [[second]] guidance arm--.
Also regarding claim 10, the line 4 limitation “said guidance arm” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 9 and base claim 1 do not recite a guidance arm. Claim 7 recites “a first guidance arm”. Line 2 recites “a second guidance arm”. Therefore, which guidance arm is being referenced by this limitation? For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting this element as any guidance arm.
Claim 11 is rejected for its dependence on claim 10 and for also reciting “said guidance arm” which for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 10 above is confusing and unclear.
Regarding claim 12, the line 3 limitations “said first guidance arm” and “said guidance arm” lack antecedent basis. Claim 9 and base claim 1, on which this claim depends, does not recite a first guidance arm or any other guidance arm. Rather, antecedent basis is provided for “a first guidance arm” in claim 7. It is unclear which guidance arm the recitation of “the guidance arm” is referring to. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting these guidance arms as any guidance arms found in the prior art.
Dependent claims 13, 14, and 17 inherit the deficiencies of claim 12 and are likewise rejected.
Claim 18 is rejected for its dependence on claim 9. Claim 18 further recites “any of said conveyors” which is confusing in light of claim 1 recitation of “at least one belt conveyor”.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “said conveyors” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 on which this claim depends recites “at least one belt conveyor” allowing the system to only require one conveyor. “Said conveyors” clearly implies there are more than one.
Claims 20-24 inherit the deficiencies of claim 19 and are likewise rejected.
Claim 20 also recites “said conveyors” which is confusing for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 19 above.
Regarding claim 25, the line 1 limitation “The apparatus” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner suggest amended to “An apparatus”.
Also regarding claim 25, the line 5 limitation “a controllable transfer unit” is confusing because claim 1, on which this claim depends, already recites “a controllable transfer unit” in line 7. Is this the same element from claim 1? Or a second controllable transfer unit? Also, line 7 recites “said transfer unit”. Is this the same as the first recitation of the a controllable transfer unit from claim 1, the second recitation of a controllable transfer unit from line 7 of claim 25, or a new “transfer unit” altogether? For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting each recitation of a transfer unit as the same element.
Regarding claim 31, the claim is drawn to “the method according to claim 16” however, claim 16 is an apparatus claim, not a method claim. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting this claim as depending on method claim 26.
Regarding claim 32, the line 5 limitation “said first conveyor” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 26 on which this claim depends recites “at least one belt conveyor”, not “a first conveyor”. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting the first conveyor as the belt conveyor.
Claim 33 is rejected for its dependence on claim 32. Claim 33 further recites “any of said conveyors” which is confusing in light of claim 26 recitation of “at least one belt conveyor”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 10, 18-21, 26-29, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grove (US 2008/0283306).
Regarding claim 1, Grove discloses an apparatus for transporting and weighing of food parts (¶ [0002]), the apparatus comprising a conveying system (12) adapted to advance said food parts in a first direction comprising at least one belt conveyor (¶ [0018]), a weighing station (Station B; ¶ [0018]) comprising at least one scale unit (36) adapted to determine the weights of said food parts (¶ [0022]), at least one controllable transfer unit (76, 78, see figures 10-14) adapted to selectively transfer particular ones of said food parts from said belt conveyor to said scale unit (36) or vice versa (¶ [0029]), wherein said transfer unit (76, 78) comprises at least one pivotable first guide (76) adapted to controllably transfer said particular ones of said food parts (¶ [0029]), wherein said first guide comprises a guidance face (figure 10: 80) permeable to air (see belt housing 80 in figure 10 which has multiple large holes, thus meeting the Merriam-Webster definition of “permeable” as “capable of being permeated, penetrable specially, having pores or openings that permit liquids or gases to pass through”).
Regarding claim 2, Grove discloses in figure 10 said guidance face (80) is perforated (see holes in belt housing 80).
Regarding claim 3, Grove discloses in figure 10 said guidance face (80) has a lattice-like structure (see holes in belt housing 80, note: Merriam Webster defines “lattice” as “a regular geometrical arrangement of points or objects over an area or in space”).
Regarding claim 4, Grove discloses in figure 10 at least 50 percent of said guidance face (80) is permeable to air (this is apparent from relative size of holes in housing belt 80 compared to the continuous portions).
Regarding claim 7, Grove discloses in figure 10 said first guide (76) comprises a first guidance arm (belt 86) having a closed surface adapted to move said particular ones of said food parts, wherein said guidance face (80) is arranged on top of said guidance arm (86) forming a first upper guide (¶ [0027]).
Regarding claim 9, Grove discloses said scale unit (36) comprises a static scale (36) (¶ [0022]) and a pivotable second guide (76) (¶ [0027]), wherein said first guide (78) is operably controlled by a first actuator and said second guide (78) is operably controlled by a second actuator (note the conveyor belts associated with 76 and 78 have actuators to move them) and wherein said first guide (76) is adapted to controllably move food parts supplied by said first conveyor (12) onto said scale (36) and the second guide (78) is adapted to controllably move said food parts from said scale (36) onto a discharge conveyor (16) after weighing (¶¶ [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Grove discloses in figure 10 said second guide (78) comprises a second guidance arm (belt 86) having a closed surface adapted to move said particular ones of said food parts, wherein said guidance face (80)is arranged on top of said guidance arm (86) forming a second upper guide (¶ [0027]).
Regarding claim 18, Grove discloses in figure 2 static scale is mechanically decoupled from any of said conveyors (12, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 19, Grove discloses in figure 3 said conveyors (14 comprised of conveyors 44 and 46) comprise openings allowing air to pass through (see holes on the vertical conveyor housing).
Regarding claim 20, Grove discloses in figure 3 said conveyors (44, 46) comprise elongated side support elements extending in said first direction (see conveyor housing referenced above) and transverse support elements (47, 62) arranged in between said side support elements (¶¶ [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 21, Grove discloses in figure 10 said transverse support elements (47, 62) are aligned inclined relating to said side support elements.
Regarding claim 26, Grove discloses a method for transporting and weighing of food parts (¶ [0002]), the method comprising the steps conveying the food parts in a first direction by a conveying system (12) comprising at least one belt conveyor (¶ [0018]), determining the weights of said food parts with a weighing station (Station B; ¶ [0018]) comprising at least one scale unit (36) (¶ [0022]), selectively transferring particular ones of said food parts from said belt conveyor to said scale unit (36) or vice versa by at least one controllable transfer unit (76, 78, see figures 10-14) by pivoting a first guide (76) to controllably transfer said particular ones of said food parts (¶ [0029]), wherein said first guide (76) comprises a guidance face (figure 10: 80) permeable to air allowing air to pass through said first guide (76) while pivoting (see belt housing 80 in figure 10 which has multiple large holes, thus meeting the Merriam-Webster definition of “permeable” as “capable of being permeated, penetrable specially, having pores or openings that permit liquids or gases to pass through”).
Regarding claim 27, Grove discloses in figure 10 said particular ones of said food parts are transferred by said first guide (76) having a perforated guidance face (80) (see holes in belt housing 80).
Regarding claim 28, Grove discloses said guidance face (80) has a lattice-like structure (see holes in belt housing 80, note: Merriam Webster defines “lattice” as “a regular geometrical arrangement of points or objects over an area or in space”).
Regarding claim 29, Grove discloses at least 50 percent of said guidance face (80) is permeable to air (this is apparent from relative size of holes in housing belt 80 compared to the continuous portions).
Regarding claim 32, Grove discloses weighing said food parts with said scale unit (36), wherein said scale unit (36) comprises a static scale (36) (¶ [0022]) and operably controlling said first guide (76) by a first actuator and a second guide (78) by a second actuator (note the conveyor belts associated with 76 and 78 have actuators to move them), moving said food parts supplied by said first conveyor (12) onto said static scale (36) by said first guide (76) and moving said food parts from said static scale (36) onto a discharge conveyor (16) after weighing by said static scale (36) (¶¶ [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 33, Grove discloses in figure 2 said static scale is mechanically decoupled from any of said conveyors (12, 14, 16).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 16, 30, and 34 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.
Claims 8, 11-15, 17, 22-25, and 31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious an apparatus as claimed wherein said guidance face comprises a grid constructed from round wires in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 6, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious an apparatus as claimed wherein said first guide comprises a pocket having a receptable for capturing said food part in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 8, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious an apparatus as claimed wherein the height of said first guidance arm is slightly greater than the maximum height of any one of said particular ones of said food parts in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 11, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious an apparatus as claimed wherein the height of said guidance arm is slightly greater than the maximum height of any one of said particular ones of said food parts in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 12, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious an apparatus as claimed wherein said first actuator and said second actuator each comprise end stopping elements adapted to limit the pivoting range of said first guidance arm and said guidance arm in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Claims 13, 14, 17 would be allowable based on their dependence on claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious an apparatus as claimed wherein said first actuator and said second actuator each comprises a supporting element attached with one end to a free end region of said first guide and said second guide, respectively, and the other end attached to said first actuator and said second actuator having an inclined position in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Claim 16 would be allowable based on its dependence on claim 15.
Regarding claim 22, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious an apparatus as claimed wherein said transverse support elements forms a staggered support structure in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Claim 23 would be allowable based on its dependence on claim 22.
Regarding claim 24, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious an apparatus as claimed wherein the transverse support elements are cylindrically shaped in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 25, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious an apparatus as claimed wherein each said batch bin is associated with a controllable transfer unit adapted to selectively transfer particular ones of said food parts into a selected one of said batch bins, a control unit operatively connected with said scale unit and said transfer unit, wherein said control unit is adapted to control said transfer unit in order to assemble a plurality of said food parts in each of said bins according to a predetermined provision of distribution in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 30, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a method as claimed wherein said guidance face comprises a grid constructed from round wires in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 31, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a method as claimed wherein said food parts are captured within a receptable formed by a pocket of said first guide in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 34, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a method as claimed comprising the step of associating each batch bin with a controllable bin transfer unit adapted to selectively transfer particular ones of said food parts into a selected one of said batch bins, controlling said bin transfer unit in order to assemble a plurality of said food parts in each of said batch bins according to a predetermined provision of distribution with a control unit operatively connected with said scale unit and said bin transfer units in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2018/0003544 discloses a conveyance system with a pivoting transfer arm.
US 2006/0162970 discloses a conveyance system with a pivoting transfer arm.
USPN 5,655,643 discloses a conveyance system with a pivoting transfer arm.
USPN 5,451,786 discloses a conveyance system with a pivoting transfer arm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855