DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 4/16/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, 16-19 and 22 remain pending in the application.
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 1-2, 4-8, 10-14 and 22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first displacer and the further displacer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a thread feeder winds the thread (4) multiple times around the tie-off region (3) at the first tie-off point (1) of the tie-off region (3) to make the first tie-off point (1), then the product (5.1-5.3) is moved along its conveying direction to produce a predetermined number of windings (4A) and the second tie-off point (2) is made” is vague and unclear because it is unclear how moving the product along a conveying direction produces a predetermined number of windings and the second tie of point. Based on figs. 2-4, Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “a thread feeder winds the thread (4) multiple times around the tie-off region (3) at the first tie-off point (1) of the tie-off region (3) to make the first tie-off point (1), then the product (5.1-5.3) is moved along its conveying direction, then the thread feeder winds the thread (4) a predetermined number of windings (4a) and then the thread feeder winds the thread (4) multiple times to make the second tie-off point (2)”.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “artificial intelligence is used to determine the skin type” is vague and confusing because it is unclear how artificial intelligence is able to acquire information about the skin type. Specifically, it is unclear what system or step is used to provide information to artificial intelligence to allow it to determine the skin type. Based on para 0024 of PGPub of the instant application, Examiner assumes a camera provides pictures to the artificial intelligence which in turn is used to determine the skin type.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a thread feeder” because claim 1, on which claim 14 depends, already has a thread feeder. As such, it is unclear if the two thread feeders are the same or different elements. In order to prosecute the application, Examiner assumes the two mentions of the thread feeder are the same.
Claims 2, 4-8, 10-14 and 22 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 recites the following limitations:
“wherein the movement of the further displacer (12) and the movement of a thread feeder …are synchronized.”
“a thread feeder that winds the thread (4) multiple times around the tie-off region (3) at the first tie-off point (1) of the tie-off region (3) to make the first tie-off point (1)”
Claim 1 (on which claim 14 depends) recites
“movement of a rotor of the thread feeder and movement of the first displacer and the further displacer are synchronized”
“a thread feeder winds the thread (4) multiple times around the tie-off region (3) at the first tie-off point (1) of the tie-off region (3) to make the first tie-off point (1),”
As such claim 14 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1 as both limitations of claim 14 are already present in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by USPGP# 20210022354 of Pedroia et al. (henceforth Pedroia).
Regarding claim 16, Pedroia teaches
Device (device in fig. 1) for producing products (19) containing foodstuff in a skin (8) on one strand (see fig. 1), wherein successive products are separated from one another by a tie-off region (16, 17) and a rotor (1) for a thread (10) for winding around the tie-off region (see fig. 1) and a movable displacer (14) is assigned to the latter, wherein the movement of the displacer synchronized with the movement of the rotor is effected by means of a servo drive (para 0073, 0079, 0088).
Regarding claim 17, as shown in claim 16, Pedroia teaches
wherein the servo drive is an electric motor (para 0088) .
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 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedoria in view of USPGP# 20210282417 of Veldkamp et al. (henceforth Veldkamp) and in further view of CN# 113421373 of Yu et al. (henceforth Yu).
Regarding claim 18, as shown in claim 16, Pedroia does not teach
determining the skin type.
Veldkamp teaches
Device for the production of a product containing a foodstuff in a skin (para 0005); wherein the skin type is determined (step 504, see fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Pedroia such that skin type is determined, as taught by Veldkamp, in order to produce the predictable result of allowing the user to make precise adjustments to different processing elements in order to produce the different end products (Veldkamp: para 0013). This makes the device more versatile.
The combination of Pedroia and Veldkamp does not teach
wherein a camera is provided for determining the skin type, which camera is in communication with an artificial intelligence.
Yu teaches
a camera is provided for determining processing links (para 0004), which camera is in communication with an artificial intelligence (para 0013-0014).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of the combination of Pedroia and Veldkamp such that a camera that is connected to artificial intelligence is used to determine skin type, as taught by Yu, in order to produce the predictable result of automating the step of determining skin type during production. This makes the device easier to use (more user friendly) since it reduces the chance of operator error.
Regarding claim 19, as shown in claim 18, the combination of Pedroia, Veldkamp and Yu does not teach
wherein the camera is arranged on the rotor housing in the region of a skin intake.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of the combination of Pedroia, Veldkamp and Yu and place the camera in any desired location including at a skin intake region as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of accurately and quickly determining the skin during operation. Please note, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality to this limitation (see 0024 of PGPub of the instant application).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, in combination with other limitations of the claim, is silent on “wherein skin type is determined and then movement of the thread feeder and/or the first displacer and the further displacer is determined, wherein movement of a rotor of the thread feeder and movement of the first displacer and the further displacer are synchronized such that a thread pitch between the two tie-off points can be produced before an axial movement of the first displacer and the further displacer takes place, wherein artificial intelligence is used to determine the skin type, and the movement step is conducted based upon the skin type”. USPGP# 20200120942 of Domlatil teaches all of the limitations of the claim except for using artificial intelligence for determining skin type and based on the determination of the skin type, movement of the rotor, the first displacer and the further displacer are synchronized such that a thread pitch between the two tie-off points can be produced before an axial movement of the first displacer and the further displacer takes place. Although CN# 113421373 of Yu teaches using artificial intelligence to determine various parameter of machine, it does not specifically teach or suggest the synchronized movement of the rotor, first and further displacer to produce the effect of creating a thread pitch between the two tie-off points before movement of the first and further displacer. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add/modify such a configuration without hindsight. Therefore, the prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to read on the present claims.
Claims 2, 4-8, 10-14 and 22 are allowed for depending on one of the above allowed claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/16/2026 have been fully considered:
All specification objection have been overcome.
All drawing objections have been overcome.
Amended claims have overcome all previous 112 (b) or second paragraph rejection/s. However, new rejections are made in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Please note Applicant did not amend independent claim 16 nor make any arguments regarding the art rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP# 0865732 of Pedroia et al. can also be used to reject claims 16-17 under 102 and claims 18-19 under 103 in view of Veldkamp and Yu.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOBEEN AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 272-0356. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am to 5 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights