DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 13, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on July 13, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that at least with respect to claims 2 and 15, both groups include a structure in which the introduction part is configured to selectively deliver the semi-finished product to any one of the two agitation modules, whereas the marinating apparatuses (100, 200) of wo 2015/028783 are separate apparatuses arranged in parallel. Thus, the cited reference fails to teach or suggest any configuration in which its outfeed conveyor (4) selectively delivers food products to the marinating apparatuses (100, 200) arranged in parallel.
This is not found persuasive because The argument arrangement of elements is not found claim 1 or 15.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
agitation module in claim 1;
introduction part in claim 1;
discharge part in claim 1;
semi-finished product counting part in claim 3;
division part in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2-8 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.
In claim 2, line 4, the recitation of “the two agitation modules” lacks clear antecedent basis as previously the recitation is an agitation module. For purposes compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as the agitation part with the agitation module further comprises a second agitation module.
In claim 3, line 8, the recitation of “an agitation module” is unclear if this module is different from the previously recited agitation modules. For purposes compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as: which of the two agitation modules.
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.
Claim 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andersen (WO 2015/028783).
In regards to claim 1, Anderson teaches system comprising:
the agitation part comprises a marinating apparatus-100 and a marinating apparatus-200 (agitation modules), each comprises plates- 112 which move/agitate chicken and to mix with marinade (fig. 1-4; pg. 5, lines 5-15, pg. 6, line 25- pg. 7, line 10; col. 9, lines 1-10);
an outfeed conveyor-4 (introduction part) moves the chicken to the marinating apparatus-100 or the marinating apparatus-200 (fig. 1a, 1b; pg. 4, line 25- pg. 5, line 10);
a first marinade timing hopper-11 and a second marinade timing hopper-13 (discharge part) move the chicken from the marinating apparatus-100 or the marinating apparatus-200 to batching table-17 (workbench) (fig. 1b; pg. 5, lines 10-30).
In regards to claim 2, Anderson teaches the outfeed conveyor-4 directs the chicken into one of the marinating apparatus-100 or the marinating apparatus-200 (pg. 5, lines 1-10).
In regards to claim 9, Anderson teaches the marinating apparatus-100 or the marinating apparatus-200 each comprise a cylindrical shape (fig. 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson as applied to claims 1-2 and 9 above, and further in view of King (US 2007/0196547).
In regards to claim 10, Anderson teaches the marinating apparatus-100 or the marinating apparatus-200 each comprise a tubular shape and provide an interior agitation space (fig. 1-2).
Anderson does not explicitly teach a door coupled to the agitation vessel to open and close the agitation opening formed in the agitation vessel.
However, King teaches a drum assembly (12) used in food coating (fig. 1; para. 31-32). King teaches the drum assembly comprises a drum body (48) which has an aperture (66) with a door (68). King teaches the door maybe removed to access the interior for cleaning (fig. 4; para. 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the drum body with the aperture and door of King onto the marinating apparatus of Anderson because King teaches the door provide interior access for cleaning and is closed for coating.
In regards to claim 11, Anderson and King as discussed, where Anderson teaches the plates- 112 (blades) which rotates within the marinating apparatus to provide agitation to the chicken within the interior of the marinating apparatus (fig. 2-5; para. pg. 10, lines 5-15).
In regards to claim 13, Anderson and King as discussed, where Anderson teaches a control system-150 (processor) controls rotation of the blades within the marinating apparatus (fig. 2; pg. 10, line 30- pg. 11, line 5).
In regards to claim 14, Anderson and King as discussed, where Anderson teaches an end of timing hoppers are provide at the lower side of the marinating apparatus and the timing hoppers have a portion which has an inclined surface (fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights