Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 11-6-25 and this office action is a final rejection.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. 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.
Regarding claim 31, applicant no longer invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed sound system and the claimed illumination system in that applicant claims specific structure related to the sound system being the claimed speakers and related to the illumination system being the claimed lights. Applicant does not disclose the speakers and lights in the originally filed specification, but this is not determined to be a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) new matter issue in that it is common knowledge in the art that sound systems include speakers and illumination systems include lights.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 19-35 and 37 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.
Claims 19, 37 and 30 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. Applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the claimed first and second elevating mechanisms and it is unclear to what constitutes these elevating mechanisms in that applicant’s originally filed disclosure details these mechanisms as the first and second elevating mechanism may be separate from each other or combined into a single mechanism, such as a single conveyor system – the phrase “such as” makes it unclear as to whether other types of mechanisms are being contemplated, a suitable elevating mechanism include a scissor lift, a ramp or other form of lift or crane – the phrase “other form of lift or crane” makes it unclear to whether other types of mechanisms are being contemplated, the transport and/or elevating mechanism may partly or completely be integrated into a single transport mechanism, e.g. a continuous conveyor system – the “e.g” makes it unclear to whether other types of mechanisms are being contemplated, one or more elevating mechanisms, such as a lift or and inclined conveyor – the phrase “such as” makes it unclear to whether other types of mechanisms are being contemplated, a conveyor mechanism or elevating mechanism, for suspending the box from an overhead rail, and/or the like – the phrase “and/or the like” makes it unclear to whether other types of mechanisms are being contemplated, at least one elevation mechanism, e.g. a lift, such as a scissor lift – the “e.g.” and “such as” makes it unclear to whether other types of mechanisms are being contemplated.
Claim 31 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. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) with respect to the means for providing a stress-reducing gas and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure, the means for providing a stress-reducing gas atmosphere is detailed as a dispensing mechanism for dispensing a stress-reducing smell additive – dispensing mechanism also invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but there is no corresponding structure for this mechanism in applicant’s disclosure and it is unclear to what constitutes the dispensing mechanism as claimed.
Claim 35 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. It is unclear to whether the transport mechanism detailed in claim 35 is the same or different than the transport mechanism detailed in parent claim 19.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "vertical arrangement of the anesthetization compartment and the stress-reducing compartment" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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) 19-21, 23-32 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP Patent No. 3417712 to Conan in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,487,699 to Tyrell et al. and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,643,072 to Lankhaar et al.
Referring to claims 19 and 20, Conan discloses an anesthetization apparatus for anesthetization of slaughter animals prior to slaughter, wherein the anesthetization apparatus comprises, a receiving section – at 103, configured to receive one or more pre-filled boxes, each pre-filled box containing one or more slaughter animals – see transport crates not shown in the drawings but detailed in paragraph [0036] of the English translation, an anesthetization compartment – at 102, a transport mechanism – at 100a,101a, for transporting the received one or more boxes between the receiving section – at 103, and the anesthetization compartment – at 102 – see figures 2-3, and a removal mechanism – at 102a, for removing the one or more boxes from the anesthetization compartment – at 102 – see figures 2-3, wherein the anesthetization apparatus further comprises a stress-reducing compartment – at 100, configured for receiving the one or more boxes from the receiving section – at 103 – see figures 2-3, and for accommodating the one or more boxes for a period of time for calming the slaughter animals in the received box before anesthetizing – see paragraphs [0071]-[0075] of the English translation where oxygen is present in compartment 100 so as to keep the animals from panicking, and wherein the transport mechanism – at 100a,101a, is configured to transport the one or more boxes between the receiving section – at 103, and the stress-reducing compartment – at 100 – see at 100a in figures 2-3, and from the stress-reducing compartment – at 100, to the anesthetization compartment – at 102 – see at 101a in figures 2-3. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis, Conan discloses the transport mechanism is a conveyor/conveyor system – at 100a,101a consistent with applicant’s disclosure as seen in paragraph 4 of this office action, and the removal mechanism – at 102a is a conveyor consistent with applicant’s disclosure as seen in paragraph 4 of this office action. Conan further discloses the receiving section is arranged at a first level – see at 103 in figures 2-3, but does not disclose the transport mechanism comprises, a first elevating mechanism for elevating the one or more boxes from the first level to a second level higher than the first level, and a second elevating mechanism for lowering a box from second level into the anesthetization compartment, wherein the anesthetization compartment is optionally arranged at the first level. Tyrrell et al. does disclose the transport mechanism comprises, a first elevating mechanism – at 23 or 32, for elevating the one or more boxes from the first level to a second level higher than the first level – see figures 1 and 3-4, and a second elevating mechanism – at other of 23 or 32, for lowering a box from second level into the anesthetization compartment – at 10 – see figures 1 and 3-4, wherein the anesthetization compartment is optionally arranged at the first level – see 10 at the same level as 20 in figure 1. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Conan and add the elevating mechanisms of Tyrrell et al., so as to yield the predictable result of stunning the animals at a safe location from the operators of the device as desired. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis of the first and second elevating mechanisms, Tyrrell et al. discloses these mechanism – at 23 and 32 are lifts which is consistent with applicant’s disclosure as detailed in paragraph 4 of this office action. Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. further disclose a divider between the compartments – see at 111 or 121a and J of Conan, but does not disclose the compartment divider configured to prevent gas flow between the stress-reducing compartment and the anesthetization compartment. Lankhaar et al. does disclose the compartment divider – at 22, configured to prevent gas flow between the stress-reducing compartment and the anesthetization compartment – at 23,33 – see figures 1 and 2a and column 4 lines 29-35. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and add the divider preventing gas flow between the compartments as disclosed by Lankhaar et al., so as to yield the predictable result of preventing the gases from escaping the device as desired.
Referring to claim 21, Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. further discloses a transitional compartment – at 101, shaped and sized to accommodate the one or more boxes – see figures 2-3 of Conan, and wherein the transport mechanism – at 100a,101a, is configured to transport the one or more boxes from the stress-reducing compartment – at 100, to the transitional compartment – at 101 – see at 100a in figures 2-3 of Conan, and from the transitional compartment – at 101, to the anesthetization compartment – at 102 – see at 101a in figures 2-3 of Conan.
Referring to claim 23, Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar e al. further discloses the transitional compartment – at 101, is arranged on the same level as the stress-reducing compartment – at 100 – see figures 2-3 of Conan.
Referring to claim 24, Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. further discloses the transport mechanism comprises a horizontal transport mechanism – at 100a, having a horizontal conveyor – at 100a, configured to move the one or more boxes horizontally between the stress-reducing compartment – at 100, and the transitional compartment – at 101 – see figures 2-3 of Conan.
Referring to claim 25, Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. further discloses the removal mechanism – at 102a, is configured to transport the one or more boxes from the anesthetization compartment – at 102, via the transitional compartment – at 101, to an exit port of the apparatus – at 104 – see figures 2-3 of Conan.
Referring to claim 26, Conan as modified by Tyrell et la. and Lankhaar et al. further discloses a passageway between the stress-reducing compartment – at 100, and the transitional compartment – at 101 – see area between 100,101 in figure 3 of Conan, the passageway being sized and shaped to allow passage of the one or more boxes from the stress-reducing compartment – at 100, to the transitional compartment – at 101 – see figures 2-3 of Conan, and wherein the anesthetization apparatus further comprises a compartment divider – at walls of 111 or 121a and J, configured to selectively block the passageway between the stress-reducing compartment – at 100, and the transitional compartment – at 101 – see figures 2-3 of Conan.
Referring to claim 27, Conan discloses an anesthetization apparatus for anesthetizing slaughter animals prior to slaughter, wherein the anesthetization apparatus comprises, a receiving section – at 103, configured to receive one or more slaughter animals in one or more boxes – see transport crates not shown in the drawing figures but detailed in paragraph [0036] of the English translation, an anesthetization compartment – at 102, a transport mechanism – at 100a,101a, for transporting the one or more boxes between the receiving section – at 103, and the anesthetization compartment – at 102 – see at 100a,101a in figures 2-3, and a removal mechanism – at 102a, for removing the one or more boxes from the anesthetization compartment – at 102 – see figures 2-3, a stress-reducing compartment – at 100, configured for receiving the one or more boxes from the receiving section – at 103 – see at 100a in figures 2-3, accommodating the one or more boxes for a period of time for calming the slaughter animals in the one or more boxes before anesthetizing – see paragraphs [0071]-[0075] of the English translation where oxygen is present in compartment 100 so as to keep the animals from panicking, and a transitional compartment – at 101, shaped and sized to accommodate the one or more boxes – see figures 2-3, wherein the transport mechanism – at 100a,101a, is configured to transport the one or more boxes between the receiving section – at 103, and the stress-reducing compartment – at 100 – see at 100a in figures 2-3, from the stress- reducing compartment – at 100, to the transitional compartment – at 101 – see at 100a,101a in figures 2-3, and from the transitional compartment – at 101, to the anesthetization compartment – at 102 – see at 101a in figures 2-3, wherein the transitional compartment – at 101, is separated from the stress-reducing compartment – at 100, by a compartment divider – see walls – at 111 or 121a and J, configured to selectively block a passageway between the stress-reducing compartment – at 100, and the transitional compartment – at 101 – see figures 2-3. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis, Conan discloses the transport mechanism is a conveyor/conveyor system – at 100a,101a consistent with applicant’s disclosure as seen in paragraph 4 of this office action, and the removal mechanism – at 102a is a conveyor consistent with applicant’s disclosure as seen in paragraph 4 of this office action. Conan further discloses the receiving section is arranged at a first level – see at 103 in figures 2-3, but does not disclose the transport mechanism comprises, a first elevating mechanism for elevating the one or more boxes from the first level to a second level higher than the first level, and a second elevating mechanism for lowering a box from second level into the anesthetization compartment, wherein the anesthetization compartment is optionally arranged at the first level. Tyrrell et al. does disclose the transport mechanism comprises, a first elevating mechanism – at 23 or 32, for elevating the one or more boxes from the first level to a second level higher than the first level – see figures 1 and 3-4, and a second elevating mechanism – at other of 23 or 32, for lowering a box from second level into the anesthetization compartment – at 10 – see figures 1 and 3-4, wherein the anesthetization compartment is optionally arranged at the first level – see 10 at the same level as 20 in figure 1. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Conan and add the elevating mechanisms of Tyrrell et al., so as to yield the predictable result of stunning the animals at a safe location from the operators of the device as desired. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis of the first and second elevating mechanisms, Tyrrell et al. discloses these mechanism – at 23 and 32 are lifts which is consistent with applicant’s disclosure as detailed in paragraph 4 of this office action. Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. further disclose a divider between the compartments – see at 111 or 121a and J of Conan, but does not disclose the compartment divider configured to prevent gas flow between the stress-reducing compartment and the anesthetization compartment. Lankhaar et al. does disclose the compartment divider – at 22, configured to prevent gas flow between the stress-reducing compartment and the anesthetization compartment – at 23,33 – see figures 1 and 2a and column 4 lines 29-35. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and add the divider preventing gas flow between the compartments as disclosed by Lankhaar et al., so as to yield the predictable result of preventing the gases from escaping the device as desired.
Referring to claim 28, Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. further discloses means for dispensing an anesthetizing gas being nozzles or gas outlet openings, into the anesthetization compartment – at 102 – see introduction of gas detailed in paragraphs [0054]-[0060] of the English translation of Conan, where there would have to have a nozzle or outlet opening for releasing the gas from the gas source into the anesthetization chamber during operation.
Referring to claim 29, Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. further discloses the anesthetization compartment – at 102, has a bottom and one or more side walls – see at 102 in figures 2-3 of Conan, and defines one or more upwardly open entrance and/or exit openings – see entrance opening proximate 101 and exit opening proximate 104 in figures 2-3 of Conan, configured to allow the boxes to enter and/or exit the anesthetization compartment – at 102 – see figures 2-3 of Conan, and wherein the anesthetization compartment – at 102, comprises an access door – at 112, in the one or more side walls – see figure 2 and paragraphs [0054]-[0060] of the English translation of Conan, and/or a transparent window portion in said one or more side walls – these claim limitations are not required by the claim given the “or” portion of the and/or clause.
Referring to claim 30, Conan discloses an anesthetization apparatus for anesthetizing slaughter animals prior to slaughter, wherein the anesthetization apparatus comprises, a receiving section – at 103, configured to receive one or more slaughter animals in one or more boxes – see transport crates not shown in the drawings but detailed in paragraph [0036] of the English translation, a anesthetization compartment – at 102, a transport mechanism – at 100a,101a, for transporting the one or more boxes between the receiving section – at 103, and the anesthetization compartment – at 102 – see figures 2-3, and a removal mechanism – at 102a, for removing the one or more boxes from the anesthetization compartment – at 102 – see figures 2-3, wherein the anesthetization compartment – at 102, has a bottom and one or more side walls – see at 102 in figures 2-3, and defines one or more upwardly open entrance and/or exit openings – see entrance and exit openings at each side of 102 in figures 2-3, configured to allow the boxes to enter and/or exit the anesthetization compartment – at 102 – see figures 2-3, and wherein the anesthetization compartment – at 102, further comprises an access door – at 112 – see figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0054]-[0060], and/or a transparent window portion in said one or more side walls – these claim limitations are not required by the claim given the “or” portion of the and/or clause. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis, Conan discloses the transport mechanism is a conveyor/conveyor system – at 100a,101a consistent with applicant’s disclosure as seen in paragraph 4 of this office action, and the removal mechanism – at 102a is a conveyor consistent with applicant’s disclosure as seen in paragraph 4 of this office action. Conan further discloses the receiving section is arranged at a first level – see at 103 in figures 2-3, but does not disclose the transport mechanism comprises, a first elevating mechanism for elevating the one or more boxes from the first level to a second level higher than the first level, and a second elevating mechanism for lowering a box from second level into the anesthetization compartment, wherein the anesthetization compartment is optionally arranged at the first level. Tyrrell et al. does disclose the transport mechanism comprises, a first elevating mechanism – at 23 or 32, for elevating the one or more boxes from the first level to a second level higher than the first level – see figures 1 and 3-4, and a second elevating mechanism – at other of 23 or 32, for lowering a box from second level into the anesthetization compartment – at 10 – see figures 1 and 3-4, wherein the anesthetization compartment is optionally arranged at the first level – see 10 at the same level as 20 in figure 1. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Conan and add the elevating mechanisms of Tyrrell et al., so as to yield the predictable result of stunning the animals at a safe location from the operators of the device as desired. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis of the first and second elevating mechanisms, Tyrrell et al. discloses these mechanism – at 23 and 32 are lifts which is consistent with applicant’s disclosure as detailed in paragraph 4 of this office action. Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. further disclose a divider between the compartments – see at 111 or 121a and J of Conan, but does not disclose the compartment divider configured to prevent gas flow between the stress-reducing compartment and the anesthetization compartment. Lankhaar et al. does disclose the compartment divider – at 22, configured to prevent gas flow between the stress-reducing compartment and the anesthetization compartment – at 23,33 – see figures 1 and 2a and column 4 lines 29-35. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and add the divider preventing gas flow between the compartments as disclosed by Lankhaar et al., so as to yield the predictable result of preventing the gases from escaping the device as desired.
Referring to claim 31, Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. further discloses the stress-reducing compartment comprises one or more of, means for providing a stress-reducing gas atmosphere, including a dispensing mechanism configured for dispensing an additive, in the stress-reducing compartment – at 100 – see dispensing of gas detailed in paragraphs [0054]-[0060] in the English translation of Conan, a sound insulated enclosure for accommodating the one or more boxes, a sound system for playing stress-reducing audio content – these limitations are not required by the claim given the “one or mor of” phrase in the claim, an illumination system for providing stress-reducing illumination, a dispensing mechanism for dispensing a stress-reducing smell additive – these claim limitations are not required by the claim given the “one or more of” phrase in the claim. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis, Conan discloses a dispensing mechanism for dispensing the gas as seen in paragraphs [0054]-[0060] and therefore is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s disclosed dispensing mechanism since it provides similar function of releasing gas into the stress-reducing compartment.
Referring to claim 32, Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. further discloses the stress-reducing compartment – at 100, and/or the anesthetization compartment – at 102, is shaped and sized to accommodate a plurality of boxes concurrently – see figures 2-3 of Conan, where the compartments – at 100,102 are capable of performing these functional limitations in that these compartments are capable receiving multiple boxes depending on the size of the boxes.
Referring to claim 35, Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. further discloses optionally further comprising, a lairage section for accommodating one or more boxes – section not shown but connected at inlet of 103 as seen in figures 2-3 of Conan, each box containing one or more slaughter animals – see paragraph [0036] of Conan, and a transport mechanism for transporting a box from the lairage section to the receiving section of the anesthetization apparatus – see at D in figures 2-3 of Conan where the boxes are transported to and along 103. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis Conan discloses transporting of the boxes as seen – at D, and this would at least be a functional equivalent to applicant’s claimed transport mechanism in given the 112f and associated 112b analysis detailed earlier in paragraphs 2-3 of this office action.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,826,745 to Thulin et al.
Referring to claim 22, Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. does not disclose the transitional compartment is arranged at an elevated level partly or completely above the anesthetization compartment. Thulin et al. does disclose the transitional compartment – at the middle level of item 1, is at an elevated level partly or completely above the anesthetization compartment – at the bottom level of item 1 – see figure 1. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. and add the transitional compartment elevated with respect to the anesthetization compartment as disclosed by Thulin et al., so as to yield the predictable result of stunning the animals at a safe location from the operators of the device as desired.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of DE Patent No. 102012100480 to Schmidt et al.
Referring to claim 33, Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. does not disclose the stress-reducing compartment is arranged above the receiving section. Schmidt et al. does disclose the stress-reducing compartment – at A, is arranged above the receiving section – at 35,Entrieb as seen in the lone drawing figure. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. and add the stress-reducing compartment above the receiving section as disclosed by Schmidt et al., so as to yield the predictable result of stunning the animals at a safe location from the operators of the device as desired.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of WO No. 2021/165279 to Lykke et al.
Referring to claim 34, Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. does not disclose means for supplying the anesthetization compartment and/or the stress-reducing compartment with at least one smell additive. Lykke et al. does disclose means – at 220-223 with nozzles, for supplying the anesthetization compartment – at 200, and/or the stress-reducing compartment with at least one smell additive – see figure 3 and see pages 8-10. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. and add the smell additive of Lykke et al., so as to yield the predictable result of reducing movement of the animals during the stunning process as desired.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conan in view of Lankhaar et al. and further in view of Schmidt et al.
Referring to claim 36, Conan discloses a method for anesthetization of slaughter animals prior to slaughter, wherein the method comprises, receiving a pre-filled box containing one or more slaughter animals – see at 103 and paragraph [0036], transporting the received box to a stress-reducing compartment – at 100 – see 100a in figures 2-3, accommodating the box inside the stress-reducing compartment for a period of time – see at 100 in figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0070]-[0075] of the English translation, transporting the box between the stress-reducing compartment – at 100, to an anesthetization compartment – at 102 – see at 100a,101a in figures 2-3, anesthetizing the animals, by exposing the animals to an anesthetic gas – see at 102 in figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0077]-[0078] of the English translation, removing the box with the anesthetized animals from the anesthetization compartment – at 104 – see figures 2-3. Conan further discloses a divider between the compartments – see at 111 or 121a and J of Conan, but does not disclose the compartment divider configured to prevent gas flow between the stress-reducing compartment and the anesthetization compartment. Lankhaar et al. does disclose the compartment divider – at 22, configured to prevent gas flow between the stress-reducing compartment and the anesthetization compartment – at 23,33 – see figures 1 and 2a and column 4 lines 29-35. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Conan and add the divider preventing gas flow between the compartments as disclosed by Lankhaar et al., so as to yield the predictable result of preventing the gases from escaping the device as desired. Conan as modified by Lankhaar et al. does not disclose the anesthetization compartment is arranged at a level below the stress-reducing compartment to prevent anesthetizing gas from entering the stress-reducing compartment. Schmidt et al. does disclose the anesthetization compartment – at B, is arranged at a level below the stress-reducing compartment – at A – see the drawing figure, to prevent anesthetizing gas from entering the stress-reducing compartment – see figure 1 and the English abstract. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Conan as modified by Lankhaar et al. and add the anesthetization compartment is arranged below the stress-reducing compartment as disclosed by Schmidt et al., so as to yield the predictable result of stunning the animals at a safe location from the operators of the device as desired.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Thulin et al.
Referring to claim 37, Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. does not disclose the anesthetizing gas has a higher specific weight than a relaxation gas present in the stress-reducing compartment, and wherein relative vertical arrangement of the anesthetization compartment and the stress-reducing compartment is configured to reduce spread of the anesthetizing gas into the stress-reducing compartment. Thulin et al. does disclose the anesthetizing gas has a higher specific weight – at the bottom of 1,21, than a relaxation gas present in the stress-reducing compartment – at the top of 1,21 see figure 1 and column 6 lines 6-33, and wherein relative vertical arrangement of the anesthetization compartment and the stress-reducing compartment is configured to reduce spread of the anesthetizing gas into the stress-reducing compartment – see figure 1 and column 6 lines 6-36. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Conan as modified by Tyrell et al. and Lankhaar et al. and add the anesthetization gas and relaxation gases having different specific weights and the anesthetization compartment and stress-reducing compartment in vertical arrangement as disclosed by Thulin et al., so as to yield the predictable result of administering the gases to the animals at different stages of processing as desired.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s amended abstract dated 11-6-25 obviates the objections detailed in the last office action dated 8-11-25.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 11-6-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 19, 27-28, 34 and claim 31 as related to the sound system and illumination system detailed in the last office action dated 8-11-25.
Applicant has not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 20 (now incorporated into claims 19, 27 and 30), claim 31 as related to the dispensing mechanism and claim 35 as related to the transport mechanism as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 11-6-25 obviates the prior art rejections of claims 19, 27, 30 and 36 detailed in the last office action dated 8-11-25. However, applicant’s claim amendments dated 11-6-25 necessitates the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraph 4 of this office action.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 19, 21, 23-32 and 35-36, applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to parent claims 19, 27 and 30 discussed earlier.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 20, 22 and 33-34, applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to parent claim 19, discussed earlier.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. 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