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 with traverse of Group A in the reply filed on 7-27-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction requirement improperly fragments a single generic invention.
Unity of invention (not restriction) practice is applicable in national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371. MPEP § 1893.03(d). During the national stage as a Designated or Elected Office under 35 U.S.C. 371, PCT Rules 13.1 and 13.2 will be followed when considering unity of invention claims. MPEP § 1850, item I.
PCT Rule 13.1 states: The international application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept ("requirement of unity of invention").
PCT Rule 13.2 states: Where a group of inventions is claimed in one and the same international application, the requirement of unity of invention referred to in Rule 13.1 shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression "special technical features" shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
Relevant portions of section II of MPEP §1850 Unity of Invention, states: An international application should relate to only one invention or, if there is more than one invention, the inclusion of those inventions in one international application is only permitted if all inventions are so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (PCT Rule 13.1). With respect to a group of inventions claimed in an international application, unity of invention exists only when there is a technical relationship among the claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression "special technical features" is defined in PCT Rule 13.2 as meaning those technical features that define a contribution which each of the inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination is made on the contents of the claims as interpreted in light of the description and drawings (if any).
Whether or not any particular technical feature makes a "contribution" over the prior art, and therefore constitutes a "special technical feature," should be considered with respect to novelty and inventive step. For example, a document discovered in the international search shows that there is a presumption of lack of novelty or inventive step in a main claim, so that there may be no technical relationship left over the prior art among the claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features, leaving two or more dependent claims without a single general inventive concept.
Lack of unity of invention may be directly evident "a priori," that is, before considering the claims in relation to any prior art, or may only become apparent "a posteriori," that is, after taking the prior art into consideration. For example, independent claims to A + X, A + Y, X + Y can be said to lack unity a priori as there is no subject matter common to all claims. In the case of independent claims to A + X and A + Y, unity of invention is present a priori as A is common to both claims. However, if it can be established that A is known, there is lack of unity a posteriori, since A (be it a single feature or a group of features) is not a technical feature that defines a contribution over the prior art.
In judging the propriety of the restriction requirement, a lack of unity of invention must be either directly evident “a priori”, that is, before considering the claims in relation to any prior art, or may only become apparent “a posteriori”, that is, after taking the prior art into consideration.
Here, the Examiner notes, for example, that claims 1-6 (Group A) do not claim the same special technical feature(s) as Groups B-I II (see Pgs. 4-5, of the 6-42026 Requirement of Unity of Invention, listing the special technical features of each group). The Examiner further notes that the lack of unity of invention is further illustrated after taking the prior art into account, below. Because the elected claims are rejected below, there is also lack of unity a posteriori, since the features claimed in Group I is/are not a technical feature that defines a contribution over the prior art.
Because Claim 1 is known, there is lack of unity. Claim 1 does not claim a technical feature that defines a contribution over the prior art. There is no technical relationship left over the prior art among the dependent claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features, leaving two or more dependent claims without a single general inventive concept. Each of the dependent claims necessarily teach a distinct special technical features.
Nevertheless, the Examiner agrees to accept the burden of Claims 11-14. As such, Claims 1-6 and 11-14 are examined in this action. Claims 7-10 and 15-34 are withdrawn. The Examiner notes that should an independent claim become allowable, all dependent claims that depend from the allowable independent claim will issue in the case.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “angular grippers,” of Claim 3, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “- a mandrel or clamping nail that extends from the receptacle (4) in the direction of the slicing knife (9), - a pair of claws or grippers, which are arranged to a side of the support surface (5) and clamp the food block in order to hold it in place, - a clamping ring, and - a vacuum device which suctions in a food block (3) placed on the receptacle (4),” of Claim 14, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the gripper jaws” should be “the at least two gripper jaws.” Appropriate correction is required.
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: holding element in Claims 13 and 22.
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 1-6 and 11-14 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 re Claim 1, “a shaping gripper (13), which can be aligned with a distal end thereof,” is indefinite. The claim appears to require the shaping gripper be aligned with a distal end of itself. It is unclear how that can occur. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2011054114 A1 in view of US 2022/0161427 to Yerazunis and US 2013/0074667 to Weber.
In re Claim 1, WO 2011054114 A1 teaches a cutting and shaping device (see Figs. 1-2b) for producing formed cut items from a food block (see Fig. 1, cheese #1), the cutting and shaping device comprising:
a receptacle (see Fig. 2a, #2) having a support surface (see Fig. 2a, #3) on which a food block (see Fig. 2a, #1 is on #2) can be positioned,
- a knife (see Fig. 2a, #13) having a cutting edge (see Fig. 2a, #6) for cutting off cut items when the food block is positioned on the support surface of the receptacle (see Fig. 2a),wherein the knife (9) or the receptacle (4) rotates about a first axis of rotation (see WO 2011054114 A1, translation, Pg. 5, ll 3-4, teaching the housing rotates about a vertical axis D – see also Figs. 2a-b), or wherein the knife and the receptacle rotate about the first axis of rotation, and wherein the knife and the receptacle are movable relative to one another along the first axis of rotation (see WO 2011054114 A1, translation, Pg. 5, ll. 29-31, teaching the pressure plate moving along the axis of rotation).
WO 2011054114 A1 does not teach a shaping gripper (13), which can be aligned with a distal end thereof towards the cutting edge (10) of the knife and which automatically grips and shapes cut items (2), and
- a control unit (30) which controls the shaping gripper, the knife and the receptacle and controls the positions of the shaping gripper, the receptacle and the knife relative to one another.
However, Yerazunis teaches a gripper system including a shape gripper a shaping gripper (see Yerazunis, Fig. 7, #711; see also Para. 0021, teaching the devices is used for gripping cheese). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to replace the manual control of WO 2011054114 A1 with the robotic arm taught by Yerazunis. Doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143, D). Here replacing human processes with robotic arms yields the predictable results of saving time, increasing productivity, reducing errors and standardized work products.
Such a robot arm can be aligned with a distal end thereof towards the cutting edge of the knife and which automatically grips and shapes cut items (see Yerazunis, Fig. 7, 700; see also Para. 0138-140). Applicant’s specification states that using different grippers “automatically shapes cut items”- see Applicant’s Specification, Pg. 7, ll. 22-27. In other words, different grippers shape the workpiece in a different manner. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims were interpreted as the structure of the grippers “automatically” shape the workpiece. The Examiner notes that WO2011054114 A1, states that “. Cheese slices here are thin, flaky structures or chips made of cheese, which are formed when scraping cheese from the surface of the piece of cheese and usually roll up into rosette-like structures, which is why these cheese slices are often referred to as "rosettes" – see WO2011054114 A1, translation, Pg. 2, ll. 19-21. In other words, the cheese shapes are formed when the scraping occurs. The grippers of Yerazunis automatically grip the preformed cheese.
Additionally, Yerazunis teaches a control system for operating the robot; however, modified WO 2011054114 A1 does not teach a gripper and a cutting device operated by a controller. However, Weber teaches a control system a cheese cutting device and a robot with a gripper (see Weber, Figs. 1-2, Para. 0003-0004;0008; 0014; 0030; 0050-0051 and abstract).
In the same field of invention, cheese manufacturing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to automate the process of modified WO 2011054114 A1 in view of Weber. Doing so reduces the human component of the system making the system more robust and repeatable.
In re Claim 2, modified WO 2011054114 A1, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the shaping gripper comprises at least two gripper jaws (see Yerazunis, Fig. 7, showing at least two gripper jaws #711), each with an inner side (the inner surfaces of #711 in Fig. 7), which are movable relative to one another (see Yerazunis, Para. 0138), wherein the gripper jaws jointly form with their inner sides a shaping receptacle (see Yerazunis, Fig. 7, the inner surfaces form a receptacle, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation is a shaping receptacle) for cut items that are cut off from a food block (see Yerazunis, Fig. 7 in view of WO 2011054114 A1, Fig. 1-2b).
In re Claim 3, modified WO 2011054114 A1, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the shaping gripper (13) is an angular gripper or a parallel gripper (see Yerazunis, Fig. 7, #711 can be angled or parallel; see also Yerazunis, Para. 0138-140).
In re Claim 4, modified WO 2011054114 A1, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the gripper jaws are arranged relative to one another in such a way that they form a conical receptacle at the distal end of the shaping gripper (see Yerazunis, Para. 0021, teaching the grippers grip cones; see also Para. 0070-71; see also Fig. 6D).
In re Claim 6, modified WO 2011054114 A1, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein at least one of the gripper jaws (see Yerazunis, Fig. 7, #711) at the distal end of the shaping gripper is finger-shaped with a recess between each finger (see Yerazunis, Fig. 7, tentacles are finger-shaped and have a recess between each other).
In re Claim 11, modified WO 2011054114 A1, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the cutting edge of the knife extends perpendicular to the first axis of rotation and is arranged adjacent to this first axis of rotation (see WO 2011054114A1, Figs. 2a-b).
In re Claim 12, modified WO 2011054114 A1, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the support surface of the receptacle is plate-shaped and extends perpendicular to the first axis of rotation (see WO 2011054114A1, Figs. 2a-b, showing the receptacle support surface perpendicular to the axis of rotation).
In re Claim 13, modified WO 2011054114 A1, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the receptacle (4) comprises one or more holding elements which are arranged at least on the support surface (5) for holding a food block to be placed on the receptacle (the bowl type surface of the perimeter of receiving plate #2 in Figs. 1-2b of WO 2011054114 A14) is a web that extends from the receptacle in a direction of the slicing knife)
In re Claim 14, modified WO 2011054114 A1, in re Claim 1, comprising a holding element (6) selected from a group comprising: - a web that extends from the receptacle (4) in a direction of the slicing knife ((the bowl type surface of the perimeter of receiving plate #2 in Figs. 1-2b of WO 2011054114 A14) is a web that extends from the receptacle in a direction of the slicing knife), - a mandrel or clamping nail that extends from the receptacle (4) in the direction of the slicing knife (9), - a pair of claws or grippers, which are arranged to a side of the support surface (5) and clamp the food block in order to hold it in place, - a clamping ring, and - a vacuum device which suctions in a food block (3) placed on the receptacle (4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2011054114 A1 in view of US 2022/0161427 to Yerazunis and US 2013/0074667 to Weber, and further in view of US 2019/0270205 to Stenbom.
In re Claim 5, modified WO 2011054114 A1, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the shaping gripper comprises an ejector (17) with a support surface (18) for cut items (2), wherein the ejector (17) is movable back and forth in the receptacle (16) and in a direction of the distal end of the shaping gripper (13).
However, Stenbom teaches that it is known in the art of food grippers to provide an ejector device (see Stenbom, Para. 0016). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add an ejector to modified WO 2011054114 A1, in view of Stenbom. Doing so ensures that the workpiece is removed from the gripper (see Stenbom, Para 0016).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights