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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1-22-26 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 Objections
2. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 does not end in a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed rotating device in that applicant has not claimed any associated functional language with respect to the claimed rotating device. Further, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed cutting assembly in that applicant claims specific structural components related to the claimed cutting assembly being the claimed the first cutting bar(s) and the second cutting bar(s). Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed blowing device and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the blowing device is detailed as, included within the rotating drum 10 is a first conduit 12, which is in the form of a blow tube manifold 12, that connects each row of blow tubes 30 to a blowing device such as an air compressor, and a second conduit 14 that is connected to a both a vacuum pump and a blowing device such as an air compressor. In the embodiment shown, additional components are provided to complete the connection between the air compressor and vacuum pump and the respective blow tubes, including six air heads 17 that are fed into the rotating device 10 through a six-port rotary union 18, as seen in paragraph [0042] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 and 3-9 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.
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. Applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed blowing device as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and the phrase “such as” in paragraph [0042] of applicant’s originally filed specification renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other blowing devices than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 6 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. Applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed blowing device as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and the phrase “such as” in paragraph [0042] of applicant’s originally filed specification renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other blowing devices than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim. Further, claim 6 lacks antecedent basis for “the first cutting bars and second cutting bars” in line 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,102,970 to Cowsar et al.
Referring to claim 1, Cowsar et al. discloses a shellfish meat extraction device that is configured to extract meat from a shellfish part, the shellfish meat extraction device comprising, one or more blow tubes – at 250, and one or more first conduits – at 256,258, 356,358, each of the one or more blow tubes – at 250, connected to one of the one or more first conduits – at 256,258, 356,358 – see figures 8-9 and 11, the one or more first conduits – at 256,258, 356,358, connected to a blowing device – at 104 – see figures 8-9 and 11 and column 10 lines 1-15, the one or more blow tubes – at 250, adapted to secure the shellfish part in the blow tube – see figures 8-9, and the blowing device – at 104, adapted to deliver a burst of pressure to the blow tube – at 250 – see figures 8-9 and 11 and column 10 lines 1-15, a cutting assembly – at 32 and 402,404, that is positioned at or near an end of at least one of the one or more blow tubes – at 250 – see figures 8-9 and 12a-12b, and configured to weaken or break any portion of the shellfish part that extends out of the blow tube – at 250 – see figures 8-9 and 12a-12b and column 9 line 63 to column 10 line 23 and column 11 lines 4-50, and wherein the burst of pressure forces meat out of the shellfish part – see figures 8-9 and 12a-12b and column 9 line 63 to column 10 line 23 and column 11 lines 4-50. Cowsar et al. further discloses the cutting assembly including a first cutting bar and a second cutting bar – see at 322,350,353,356, and – two bars at the end of 404, the first cutting bar and the second cutting bar positioned on opposite sides of the open end of a blow tube – at 250 – see figures 8-9 and 12a-12b, and configured to open and close over the blow tube – via movement of items 350 and 353 and movement of items 402,404 as seen in figures 8-9 and 12a-12b, the first cutting bar and second cutting bar – at 322,353 and – two bars at the end of 404, further configured to break or weaken a portion of the shellfish part when in a closed position – see figures 8-9 and 12a-12b and column 9 line 63 to column 10 line 23 and column 11 lines 4-50. Cowsar et al. further discloses a rotating device – at 200,300, the one or more blow tubes – at 250, have a first end and a second end – see figures 8-9, the first end coupled to the rotating device – see figure 8-9, such that the blow tubes are arranged in rows around the rotating device – see figures 8-9, the second end being an open – see at 250 in figures 8-9, end adapted to receive the shellfish part – see figures 8-9, the blow tubes – at 250, further adapted to secure the shellfish part within the blow tube – see via 254,256 in figures 8-9, the cutting assembly – at 402,404, coupled to the rotating device – at 200 – see figures 12a-12b, the first and second cutting bars – at end of 404, positioned on opposite sides of the second end of the blow tubes – at 250 – see figures 12a,12b, and configured to open and close over the second end of the blow tubes – at 250 – see at 404 in figures 12a,12b, and the closing of the first and second cutting bars – at the end of 404, is configured to weaken or break any portion of the shellfish – see shellfish split into head and tail portions in figures 12a,12b, and the blow device – at 104, is adapted to deliver a burst of pressure through the first conduits – at 256,258, and through the blow tubes – at 250, as the blow tubes secure the shellfish part – see figures 8-9 and column 10 line 1 to column 11 line 50, and the burst of pressure forces meat out of the shellfish part from the second end of the blow tube – at 250 – see figures 8-9 and column 11 lines 4-50.
Referring to claim 3, Cowsar et al. further discloses a pair of first cutting bars and second cutting bars – see at 322,350 and – at 353,356, for each of the one or more blow tubes – at 250, one of each of the pairs configured to weaken or break the shellfish part that extends out of the blow tubes when in a closed position – see figures 8-9 and column 9 line 63 to column 10 line 23 and column 11 lines 4-50.
Referring to claim 4, Cowsar et al. further discloses ach of the pairs of first cutting bars and second cutting bars are configured to be moved between an open position and closed position by parallel grippers – at 352 and structure for rotating item 300, which would have components that are parallel to each other as seen in figure 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 5 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.
Claims 6-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Response to Arguments
6. Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 1 and 3-4, the Cowsar et al. reference US 6102970 discloses the newly added claim limitations of applicant’s claim amendments dated 1-22-26 in that Cowsar et al. discloses a rotating device – at 200,300, the one or more blow tubes – at 250, have a first end and a second end – see figures 8-9, the first end coupled to the rotating device – see figure 8-9, such that the blow tubes are arranged in rows around the rotating device – see figures 8-9, the second end being an open – see at 250 in figures 8-9, end adapted to receive the shellfish part – see figures 8-9, the blow tubes – at 250, further adapted to secure the shellfish part within the blow tube – see via 254,256 in figures 8-9, the cutting assembly – at 402,404, coupled to the rotating device – at 200 – see figures 12a-12b, the first and second cutting bars – at end of 404, positioned on opposite sides of the second end of the blow tubes – at 250 – see figures 12a,12b, and configured to open and close over the second end of the blow tubes – at 250 – see at 404 in figures 12a,12b, and the closing of the first and second cutting bars – at the end of 404, is configured to weaken or break any portion of the shellfish – see shellfish split into head and tail portions in figures 12a,12b, and the blow device – at 104, is adapted to deliver a burst of pressure through the first conduits – at 256,258, and through the blow tubes – at 250, as the blow tubes secure the shellfish part – see figures 8-9 and column 10 line 1 to column 11 line 50, and the burst of pressure forces meat out of the shellfish part from the second end of the blow tube – at 250 – see figures 8-9 and column 11 lines 4-50.
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