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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12-17-25 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2017/0127692 to Annema et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,191,281 to Foreman et al.
Referring to claim 1, Foreman et al. discloses a meat processing apparatus comprising, a first robot arm – at 522, having a tool – at 524-527, including a scraper – at 524,526, at a tip portion – see figures 5a-5h, and a meat separator – at 530-536, disposed separately from the first robot arm – at 522 – see figures 5a-5h, and configured to be inserted into a cut in a workpiece – see figures 5a-5h and column 25 lines 8-54, and move vertically relative to the workpiece – see via item 534 in figures 5a-5h, with the workpiece being at least partially received in the meat separator – at 530-536, to pull, without cutting, a meat part off the workpiece – see figures 5a-5h and column 25 lines 8-54. Foreman et al. does not disclose the meat separator is inserted into a cut in the workpiece that is widened by the scraper. Annema et al. does disclose a scraper – at 35,36, and a meat separator – at 40,41, and the meat separator – at 40,41, is inserted into a cut – at 18,20, in the workpiece that is widened by the scraper – at 35,36 – see figures 1-13 and paragraphs [0170]-[0187]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Foreman et al. and add the scraper widens the cut for insertion of the meat separator as disclosed by Annema et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the meat separator properly engages the workpiece to facilitate improved engagement with the workpiece to improve the scraping operation as desired.
Referring to claim 2, Foreman et al. as modified by Annema et al. further discloses the tool is a multitool including a cutter – see ultrasonic knife detailed in column 25 lines 8-54 of Foreman et al., for making an incision in the workpiece with the cut widened by the scraper – at 524,526 – see figures 5a-5h and column 25 lines 8-54 of Foreman et al.
Referring to claim 6, Foreman et al. as modified by Annema et al. further discloses the first robot arm – at 522, has 6 or more axes – see figures 5a-5h of Foreman et al.
Referring to claim 7, Foreman et al. as modified by Annema et al. further discloses a meat processing system comprising, a conveyance line for conveying the workpiece – see at 25* and 60 of Foreman et al. and – see at 504 of Annema et al., at least one processing station for processing the workpiece conveyed by the conveyance line – see at 30 of Foreman et al. and at 520 of Annema et al., and the meat processing apparatus according to claim 1 – see rejection of claim 1 detailed earlier in this paragraph of this office action.
Referring to claim 8, Foreman et al. as modified by Annema et al. further discloses the meat separator – at 530-536, extends along a direction crossing a longitudinal direction of the workpiece – see at 530-536 in figure 5f of Foreman et al.
Referring to claim 9, Foreman et al. as modified by Annema et al. further discloses a holding member – at 38, positioned opposite the meat separator – at 40,41 – see figures 1-13 of Annema et al., the holding member – at 137, being switchable between a retracted position retracted from the meat separator – see figures 2-3 of Annema et al., and a holding position, in proximity to the meat separator – see figure 4 of Annema et al., for holding the workpiece into which the meat separator is inserted – see figures 6-8 of Annema et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Foreman et al. and add the scraper widens the cut for insertion of the meat separator as disclosed by Annema et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the meat separator properly engages the workpiece to facilitate improved engagement with the workpiece to improve the scraping operation as desired.
Referring to claim 10, Foreman et al. a modified by Annema et al. further discloses the meat separator – at 40,41, includes a recess – for receiving the workpiece – see figures 6-8 of Annema et al., corresponding to an outer shape of the workpiece on a side of the meat separator – at 40,41, facing the holding member – at 38 – see figures 6-8 of Annema et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Foreman et al. and add the scraper widens the cut for insertion of the meat separator as disclosed by Annema et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the meat separator properly engages the workpiece to facilitate improved engagement with the workpiece to improve the scraping operation as desired.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreman et al. as modified by Annema et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,785,956 to Jacobs et al.
Referring to claim 3, Foreman et al. as modified by Annema et al. does not disclose a second robot arm disposed separately from the first robot arm and having a clamp part at a tip portion for holding the workpiece, wherein the first robot arm is configured to process the workpiece held by the clamp part using the tool. Jacobs et al. does disclose a second robot arm – at 20-22, disposed separately from the first robot arm – at 24 – see figure 4, and having a clamp part – at 23, at a tip portion for holding the workpiece – see figure 4, wherein the first robot arm – at 24, is configured to process the workpiece held by the clamp part – at 23, using the tool – see figure 4. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Foreman et al. as modified by Annema et al. and add the second robot arm with clamping part as disclosed by Jacobs et al., so as to yield the predictable result of better securing the animal carcass to facilitate more accurate cutting and processing of the carcass as desired.
Referring to claim 4, Foreman et al. as modified by Annema et al. and Jacobs et al. further discloses the second robot arm – at 20-22 of Jacobs et al., is configured to move the workpiece – see figure 4 of Jacobs et al., while the meat separator – at 530-536 of Foreman et al. and – at 40-41 of Annema et al., is inserted into the cut is fixed to pull off the meat part – see figures 5a-5f of Foreman et al. and figures 1-13 of Annema et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Foreman et al. as modified by Annema et al. and add the second robot arm with clamping part as disclosed by Jacobs et al. to move the carcass when using the meat separator of Foreman et al. as modified by Annema et al., so as to yield the predictable result of better securing the animal carcass to facilitate more accurate cutting and processing of the carcass as desired.
Referring to claim 5, Foreman et al. as modified by Annema et al. and Jacobs et al. further discloses he tool is configured to cut the meat part pulled off to separate the meat part from the workpiece – see ultrasonic knife detailed in column 25 lines 8-54 of Foreman et al. and – see at 50 in figure 11 of Annema et al.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 12-17-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-10 detailed in the last office action dated 10-20-25. However, applicant’s claim amendments dated 12-17-25 necessitates the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action.
Conclusion
4. 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