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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maas NL 9401841A1 (Google Patents Translation).
Regarding claim 12, Maas discloses a method of branding indicia onto an outer surface of at least one food item comprising the steps of attaching at least one food item to a horizontal movement mechanism (2/3), moving the at least one food item in a generally horizontal direction (5) toward a branding station (1) comprising a laser (11) and branding indicia onto the outer surface of the at least one food item with the laser (See Figure, Google Patents Translation Pg. 2, lines 41-54).
Regarding claim 13, Maas discloses that the horizontal movement mechanism comprises a rail (transport rail 2) (See Figure, Google Patents Translation Pg. 2, lines 41-54).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hnatek DE 19851379A1 (Espacenet Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hnatek discloses a method of branding indicia onto an outer surface of at least one food item comprising the steps of positioning at least one food item on a top surface of a conveyor (26), conveying the at least one food item toward a branding station comprising a laser (23), and conveying the at least one food item into a space between the conveyor and the top surface of the conveyor (Fig 3) and branding indicia onto the outer surface of at least one food item with the laser (Espacenet Translation [0016], [0026], [0033], [0044][0047]).
Claim 1 differs from the embodiment of Fig. 3 or Hnatek in the recitation that the branding station comprises an upper member spaced from the top surface of the conveyor and wherein the upper member comprises an aperture, and the method comprises conveying the at least one food item into the space between the upper member and the top surface of the conveyor and the branding of indicia onto the outer surface of the at least one food item occurs with the laser through the aperture.
However, in another embodiment (Fig. 1, 2) Hnatek discloses the branding station comprises an upper member spaced from the top surface of a moving support (5) and wherein the upper member comprises an aperture (9), and the method comprises moving the at least one food item into the space (4) between the upper member and the top surface of the support (5) (Fig. 1, 2) and the branding of indicia onto the outer surface of the at least one food item occurs with the laser through the aperture (9) (Espacenet Translation [0044]). Hnatek discloses that the purpose of having the upper member and aperture includes to protect the laser from damage and vapors from food products ([0007]-[0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the embodiment of Fig. 3 of Hnatek such that the branding station comprises an upper member spaced from the top surface of the conveyor and wherein the upper member comprises an aperture, and the method comprises conveying the at least one food item into the space between the upper member and the top surface of the conveyor and the branding of indicia onto the outer surface of the at least one food item occurs with the laser through the aperture as taught by Hnatek in another embodiment, in order to protect the laser from the food products.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 differs from Hnatek in the recitation that the at least one food item specifically comprises poultry, however Hnatek discloses that the food product can be meat (Espacenet Translation [0033]), which broadly is defined as animal tissue considered especially as food, which encompasses poultry, and therefore Hnatek obviously teaches that the at least one food item can comprise poultry.
Regarding claim 5, Hnatek discloses that the positioning comprises positioning each of the at least one food items in a predetermined location on the top surface of the conveyor (Fig. 3, Espacenet Translation, [0047]), since the food product obviously needs to be placed in a position such that it can be treated with the laser.
Claims 3, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hnatek DE 19851379A1 (Espacenet Translation) in view of Cui CN 106614988A (Espacenet Translation).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 differs from Hnatek in the recitation that the step of conveying the at least one food item further comprises conveying at a speed that allows indicia to be branded on the outer surface of the at least one food item without stopping.
Cui discloses applying laser to food products and conveying the at least one food at a speed that allows indicia to be branded on the outer surface of the at least one food item without stopping (Espacenet Translation, abstract, Pg. 3, claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hnatek such that the step of conveying the at least one food item further comprises conveying at a speed that allows indicia to be branded on the outer surface of the at least one food item without stopping as suggested by Cui in order to enhance processing efficiency. It has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness and “Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A,D).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 differs from Hnatek in the recitation that the step of conveying comprises periodically pausing the conveyor to allow indicia to be branded on the outer surface of the at least one food item. Cui discloses it was a well-known technique in the art to use laser marking equipment to mark stationary food items (Pg. 3, 5th paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hnatek such that the step of conveying comprises periodically pausing the conveyor to allow indicia to be branded on the outer surface of the at least one food item as suggested by Cui, since it has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness and “Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A,D).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons given above as for claim 3.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hnatek DE 19851379A1 (Espacenet Translation) in view of Chait et al. US 2011/0177217.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 differs from Hnatek in the recitation that the method specifically comprises drying the outer surface of at least one food item prior to the step of branding indicia on the outer surface of the at least one food item.
Chait teaches it was well known technique to dry the surface of food products prior to laser marking them ([0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hnatek such that the method specifically comprises drying the outer surface of at least one food item prior to the step of branding indicia on the outer surface of the at least one food item as suggested by Chait, since it has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness and “Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A,D).
Claims 6, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hnatek DE 19851379A1 (Espacenet Translation) in view of Zhong CN 213289067U (Espacenet Translation).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 differs from Hnatek in the recitation that the method comprises a step of determining a height of each food item and then adjusting the position of the upper member of the branding station relative to the outer surface of the food item prior to branding indicia onto the outer surface.
Zhong discloses a laser marking device, and a method of marking a product comprising a step of determining a height of each food item and then adjusting the position of the laser to the outer surface of the food item prior to branding indicia onto the outer surface (Espacenet Translation [0002]-[0004], [0007], [0013], [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hnatek such that the method comprises a step of determining a height of each food item and then adjusting the position of the upper member of the branding station relative to the outer surface of the food item prior to branding indicia onto the outer surface as suggested by Zhong in order to suitably and accurately apply the laser to different products or different heights. It has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness and “Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A,D).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9, claim 9 claim 9 differs from Hnatek in the recitation that the method comprises a step of adjusting the space between the upper member and the top surface of the conveyor, however claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons given above as for claim 6.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 differs from Modified Hnatek in the recitation that the space is adjusted manually, however Zhong recognizes it was conventional in the art to manually adjust the height of a laser ([0002]), therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Hnatek to comprise manually adjusting the space between the upper member and the top surface of the conveyor, as taught by Zhong, since Zhong recognizes such a step was conventional in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Modified Hnatek discloses that the space is adjusted automatically (‘067, Espacenet Translation, Abstract, [0003], [0013]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Maas NL 9401841A (Google Patents Translation) in view of Purton WO 2017/181214A1.
Regarding 14, claim 14 differs from Maas in the recitation that the method comprises a step of guiding the at least one food item to a desired position with at least one guide.
Purton discloses guiding at least one food item into a desired position with at least one guide (clamping member 12) (see Figs. 1-2, Pg. 5, lines 13-33, Pg. 6, lines 1-9) in order to hold the product stationary for laser marking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Maas such that the method comprises a step of guiding the at least one food item to a desired position with at least one guide as taught by Purton in order in order to hold the product stationary for laser marking.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Maas NL 9401841A (Google Patents Translation) in view of Chait et al. US 2011/0177217.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons given above as for claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 5:30.
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, ERIK KASHNIKOW can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/A.A/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792