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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, drawings and specification have overcome the objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) stated in the last Office action mailed on 5/4/26.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 4-17 are pending, claims 1, 4-11 are being examined, and claims 12-17 were previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 1, 4-5, 9, and 11 have been amended and claims 2-3 are newly canceled.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9, “succesive” should read “successive”.
Claim 5, line 2, “the plurality of products parts” should read “the plurality of product parts.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 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.
Claim 11 recites “an adhesive remains at the joint region.” The claim is indefinite because it is unclear how an adhesive remains at the joint region if there is no prior recitation of any use or application or addition of said adhesive. The Examiner notes that previous claim 2 (newly canceled claim 2) recited “wherein said joining comprises freezing or adhesive bonding.”, and previous claim 3 (newly canceled claim 3) recited “wherein adhesive bonding comprises using a food-safe adhesive present in the product to be sliced and/or - freezing comprises using cold present in or supplied to a joint region.”. It is unclear if Applicant intends to still claim the use of “adhesive bonding” and/or “freezing” for the joining of the plurality of product parts, or only the freezing joining as recited in present claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks [GB2418135A] in view of McKee [US2140162A].
Regarding claim 1, Hicks teaches a method for producing shingled or stacked portions from one or more slices severed from a product using a cutting machine [Hicks, Abstract], including:
- a cutting unit (rotating blade 12) [Hicks, Abstract; Fig.1],
- a feed unit (conveyors 16, 18, 32) for feeding at least one product to the cutting unit [Hicks, p.2, l.20-21; p.3, l.6; Fig.1], and
- a discharge conveyor unit (conveyors 26, 28) [Hicks, p.2, l.30-32; Fig.1], with at least one portioning belt (stationary stack conveyor 26) [Hicks, p.2, l.30-32; Fig.1],
the method comprising:
- joining together mutually facing end faces of a plurality of product parts adjoining one another (bacon rolls 16, 30) in a feed direction to form the product [Hicks, Abstract; Fig.1];
- wherein the joining comprises freezing [Hicks, Abstract; p.3, l.21-23];
- wherein the freezing comprises using a joint region between two successive product parts [Hicks, Abstract; p.3, l.13-23; Fig.1] (see Fig.1 showing two successive meat slabs 16 and 30 being joined by freezing at the joint region by elements 38 and 40); and
- slicing one or more slices from the product [Hicks, Abstract; p.2, l.14-30; Fig.1].
Hicks does not explicitly teaches using a joint region between two successive product parts as a heat sink, and wherein at least partly frozen product acts as the heat sink for the freezing.
McKee teaches a meat treating method [McKee, Title], comprising partly freezing the product to obtain a partly frozen product (present cold since the product parts are partly pre-frozen) prior to slicing [McKee, p.2, left column, l.29-44], which would be the required cold being present acting as a heat sink, as disclosed in [0023], page 4 of the instant specification, and on page 8, last paragraph, and where the product parts are pre-frozen or partly frozen to an uniform firmness and rigidity (hardness) from surface to center (freezing to a predetermined depth, as disclosed in [0118, 0100] of the instant specification).
While McKee does not mention the heat sink effect or that the partly frozen product acts as the heat sink for the freezing, given that the process of producing shingled or stacked portions from one or more slices severed from a product using a cutting machine based on the disclosure in Hicks combined with the teachings in McKee is substantially similar to that in instant claims, it is the examiner's position that the claimed heat sink freezing of the product at the joint region between two successive product parts made by the process of Hicks in view of McKee would inherently have the instantly claimed using a joint region between two successive product parts as a heat sink, and wherein at least partly frozen product acts as the heat sink for the freezing. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a joint region between two successive product parts as a heat sink, and wherein at least partly frozen product acts as the heat sink for the freezing as taught by McKee, in the method of Hicks, first because Hicks already teaches joining together mutually facing end faces of a plurality of product parts, wherein the joining comprises freezing, and wherein the freezing comprises using a joint region between two successive product parts, but simply did not mention the products were initially partly frozen as taught by McKee (which would act as heat sink for the freezing), and lastly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide partly frozen products as taught by McKee, in the method of Hicks, because McKee teaches that partly freezing the products provide the advantage of producing the conditions of uniformly appropriate firmness, that is, a condition of cleavable rigidity, from surface to center of a piece of meat for slicing in a minimum of time [Hicks, p.2, left column, l.37-44], which would have provided the method of Hicks the advantage of uniform and appropriate firmness of the meat slabs prior to slicing to produce cuts or slices having greater thickness uniformity compared to product parts that were sliced without being first partly frozen.
Regarding claim 4, Hicks teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein for the freezing an auxiliary freezing agent comprising a liquid (liquid nitrogen spray) at a temperature of below 0°Celsius (sprays of liquid nitrogen to the surface of products will expose them to temperatures below 0°C, i.e. temperatures of -120°C to -135°C, therefore liquid nitrogen is an auxiliary freezing agent in liquid form at a temperature of below 0°Celsius; see evidence of Weerawardena, p.7, l.1-4), is supplied [Hicks, Abstract; p.3, l.20].
Regarding claim 6, Hicks teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
- joining is carried out in the cutting machine [Hicks, Abstract; p.3, l.4-23; Fig.1],
- by positioning, during slicing of a product, a further product part against a rear end of the product between a product part of the product to be sliced and a further product part to be positioned [Hicks, Abstract; p.3, l.4-23; Fig.1].
Regarding claim 11, Hicks teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein slices which are cut from the joint region and contain constituents of two successive product parts are removed if, during the joining process, an adhesive (equivalent to frozen water, which acts as the adhesive) remains at the joint region [Hicks, Abstract (last sentence); p.4, l.14-21; Fig.1].
Claim(s) 5, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks [GB2418135A] in view of McKee [US2140162A] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clarke et al. [US5631035A], hereinafter Clarke.
Regarding claim 5, Hicks teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the products parts are frozen prior to slicing at least in their outer peripheral region and are sliced in this frozen state and the product parts are arranged one behind the other in mutual contact prior to freezing (surface of meat 30 is sprayed with water, then meat 16 and meat 30 are brought together in contact and frozen with nitrogen, effectively freezing them together), and frozen together [Hicks, Abstract; p.3, l.4-23; Fig.1].
Hicks does not teach the freezing in a prefreezing mold.
Clarke teaches a method for producing portions from one or more slices severed from a product using a cutting machine [Clarke, Title], the method comprising: wherein the products parts are arranged one behind the other in mutual contact prior to freezing (already also taught by Hicks above) [Clarke, Fig.3; col.4, l.6-7], freezing in a prefreezing mold (tray/mold), and frozen together [Clarke, Abstract; Fig.3; col.1, l.55-60; col.2, l.40-46; col.3, l.54-63].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a step of freezing the product parts in a prefreezing mold as taught by Clarke, into the method of Hicks, because Clarke teaches that using this method provides for a block of food product (meat) of substantially uniform cross-section that may be sliced to provide steaks of uniform thickness, uniform cross-section and uniform density, and may conveniently be vacuum sealed prior to cooking [Clarke, Abstract].
Regarding claim 7, Hicks teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
- the product parts are joined to form the product [Hicks, Abstract; p.3, l.4-33; p.4, l.1-12; Fig.1],
- and wherein more than two product parts are arranged one behind the other and joined together [Hicks, Abstract; p.3, l.4-33; p.4, l.1-12; Fig.1].
Hicks does not teach joining the product parts before the product is introduced into the cutting machine.
Clarke teaches the method discussed above, wherein the product parts are joined [Clarke, Fig.3, Fig.5], before the product is (sliced) introduced into the cutting machine [Clarke, col.3, l.54-61].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to join the product parts before the product is introduced into the cutting machine as taught by Clarke, in the method of Hicks, because Clarke teaches that using this method provides for a product that is characterized by the absence of any significant disruption to the muscle tissue [Clarke, col.3, l.61-62].
Regarding claim 8, Hicks teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the two product parts arranged one behind the other and joined together are joined simultaneously [Hicks, Abstract; p.3, l.4-23; Fig.1].
Hicks does not teach more than two product parts arranged one behind the other and joined together are joined simultaneously.
Clarke teaches the method discussed above, wherein more than two product parts arranged one behind the other (P1, P2, P3) and joined together are joined simultaneously [Clarke, Fig.3; col.4, l.6-7; col.3, l.54-57].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to join more than two product parts arranged one behind the other simultaneously as taught by Clarke, in the method of Hicks, because Clarke teaches that this would allow for forming a portion of product (muscle meat) into a desired final shape [Clarke, col.3, l.56-57] utilizing several smaller portions of product (meat) [Clarke, Fig.3; col.4, l.6-7].
Regarding claim 9, Hicks teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
- the plurality of product parts are arranged one behind the other in mutual contact and their end faces are aligned to one another and are brought into contact with one another and
- during subsequent freezing, frozen together [Hicks, Abstract; p.3, l.4-23; Fig.1].
Hicks does not teach wherein
- the plurality of product parts are pressed in a lengthwise and/or transverse direction to a cross-section which is constant over its length and predetermined,
- during or prior to prefreezing,
- the plurality of product parts, prior to pressing in a prepressing device, are arranged one behind the other in mutual contact and their end faces are aligned to one another by pressing in the lengthwise direction and are brought into contact with one another and
- during subsequent freezing, frozen together in the prepressing device.
Clarke teaches a method for producing portions from one or more slices severed from a product using a cutting machine [Clarke, Title] explained above in claim 5, wherein
- the plurality of product parts are pressed in a lengthwise and/or transverse direction to a cross-section which is constant over its length and predetermined [Clarke, Abstract; Fig.3-5],
- during or prior to prefreezing [Clarke, Abstract; col.2, l.40-43; Fig.3-5],
- the plurality of product parts, prior to pressing in a prepressing device, are arranged one behind the other in mutual contact and their end faces are aligned to one another by pressing in the lengthwise direction and are brought into contact with one another [Clarke, Abstract; col.2, l.40-43; Fig.3], and
- during subsequent freezing, frozen together in the prepressing device [Clarke, Abstract; col.2, l.40-43; Fig.3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a step of pressing and freezing the product parts as taught by Clarke, into the method of Hicks, because Hicks already teaches the product parts are arranged one behind the other in mutual contact and their end faces and adapted to one another in terms of shape in the lengthwise direction and are brought into extensive contact with one another since they are at an angle (45° angle) thus the product part 30 exerting a pressure of its weight on the product part 16 [Hicks, Fig.1], and because Clarke teaches that using this method provides for a block of food product (meat) of substantially uniform cross-section that may be sliced to provide steaks of uniform thickness, uniform cross-section and uniform density, and may conveniently be vacuum sealed prior to cooking [Clarke, Abstract].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks [GB 2418135 A] in view of McKee [US2140162A] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mueller [WO 2014040950 A1].
Regarding claim 10, Hicks teaches the method according to claim 1, but is silent regarding at least one of the end faces to be joined together of successive product parts is flattened by severing an end slice prior to joining.
Mueller teaches a method for slicing food products [Mueller, Abstract], wherein at least one of the end faces to be joined together of successive product parts is flattened by severing an end slice prior to joining [Mueller, 0020; 0049; Fig.1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a step of at least one of the end faces to be joined together of successive product parts is flattened by severing an end slice prior to joining as taught by Mueller, into the method of Hicks, because Mueller teaches that this cutting of the rear end of one product and front end of the next product behind would provide for a clearly defined joining surfaces and/or a uniform diameter of the product [Mueller, 0020], which would provide for a better joining effect.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6, 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The arguments are directed to the new limitations of wherein the freezing comprises using a joint region between two successive product parts as a heat sink; and wherein at least partly frozen product acts as the heat sink for the freezing, which is addressed by the new reference of McKee as explained above in claim 1 rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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.
/LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights