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 .
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 “shielding element” 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 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: “actuator adapted to” in claims 5-8.
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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 limitation “actuator” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The term “actuator” is known in the art to take a myriad of configurations. The specification recites the claim language, not providing sufficient structure for the type, size, or configuration of the actuator. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Until this is rectified, the claims have not been examined in light of the prior art.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NL 2001506 C2 (hereinafter Antonius) in view of US 20060141108 A1 (hereinafter Tene).
Regarding claim 1, Antonius discloses a device for singulating food products (pg. 4, first full paragraph) which are supplied in bulk, such as pre-cooked sausages, comprising: a drum arranged for rotation about a horizontally oriented axis of rotation (Fig. 1, No 11); a housing for partially enclosing the drum (Fig. 1, No. 2), which housing is closed at least at the bottom and is at least partly open (Fig. 4, No. 20) for feeding the food products in bulk into the drum (Fig. 1, No. 2), the drum further including, a plurality of gutters extending on the inside of a circumferential wall of the drum (Fig. 4, No. 22), wherein each of the gutters has a width which at least substantially corresponds to the width of the food products to be separated, for ejecting the singulated food products out of the gutters through rotation of the drum (Fig. 4).
Antonius does not disclose that the gutters are substantially the length of the barrel. Tene discloses gutters are substantially the length of the drum (Fig. 1, No. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the singulation device of Antonius with the gutters of Tene. The motivation would be to have a greater effective surface area contact with the food being singulated.
Neither Antonius nor Tene discloses a circular housing, but a difference in shape does not warrant non-obviousness. A change in the physical configuration of an invention of an invention is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 2, Antonius and Tene disclose the device of claim 1. Antonius further discloses that the gutters are arranged to rotate about a longitudinal axis relative to the drum (pg. 3, last line to page 4, first line).
Regarding claim 3, Antonius and Tene disclose the device of claim 1. Antonius further discloses a housing that is open at one side, but not the top (Fig. 1, Nos. 2 & 20). Tene discloses a drum that is open at the top for receiving the food products supplied in bulk and wherein the food products are ejected from the housing in a direction transverse to the longitudinal direction of the gutters (Fig. 1, No. 14).
Regarding claim 4, Antonius and Tene disclose the device of claim 1. Antonius further discloses wherein the housing is completely open on one base of the cylindrical housing for receiving the food products supplied in bulk (Fig. 4, No. 20), on the other base of the cylindrical housing is open for singular ejection of the food products in line with the longitudinal direction of the gutters (Fig. 4, No. 25).
Regarding claim 9, Antonius and Tene disclose the device of claim 1. Tene further discloses the drum is provided with three gutters extending over the length of the drum on the inside of a wall of the drum (claim 32).
Regarding claim 11, Antonius and Tene disclose the device of claim 2. Antonius further discloses a housing that is open at one side, but not the top (Fig. 1, Nos. 2 & 20). Tene discloses a drum that is open at the top for receiving the food products supplied in bulk and wherein the food products are ejected from the housing in a direction transverse to the longitudinal direction of the gutters (Fig. 1, No. 14).
Regarding claim 12, Antonius and Tene disclose the device of claim 2. Antonius further discloses wherein the housing is completely open on one base of the cylindrical housing for receiving the food products supplied in bulk (Fig. 4, No. 20), on the other base of the cylindrical housing is open for singular ejection of the food products in line with the longitudinal direction of the gutters (Fig. 4, No. 25).
Regarding claim 13, Antonius and Tene disclose the device of claim 2. Tene further discloses that the drum is provided with three gutters extending over the length of the drum on the inside of a wall of the drum (claim 32).
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonius in view of Tene in further view of US 20030129289 A1 (hereinafter Henricksen).
Antonius and Tene disclose the device of claims 1 and 2, as well as gutters and separated food products. They do not disclose a shielding element. Henricksen discloses a shielding element movable relative to the housing, which shielding element can be slid in front of an ejection opening of the housing for blocking the ejection of the food products (Fig. 8, No. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Antonius and Tene with the shielding element of Henricksen. The motivation would be to selectively dispense food product whenever it is needed, as opposed to continuously (Henricksen ¶0031).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMARI JADAN MEDDLING whose telephone number is (571)272-8178. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 5712726911. 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.
/AMARI J MEDDLING/ Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights