DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to Applicant’s patent application filed on 10/29/2024. An action on the merits follows.
Claims 1-19 and 22 are pending in the application.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
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 limitation “thread feeder" of claims 3-5 and 14-15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 limitation “rotor" of claims 16-19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 limitation “camera" of claims 18-19 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. No new matter should be added.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes phrases “The invention relates to” and “According to the invention”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-15, 19 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 13 recites the limitation “the second tie-off point”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner assumes the Applicant is referring to one of the “two tie off points” in claim 1.
Claims 3, 10 and 11 recites the limitation “the first tie-off point”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner assumes the Applicant is referring to one of the “two tie off points” in claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the first displacer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner assumes the Applicant is referring to the “displacer” in claim 10.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the thread feeder”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please note claims 3-5 recite a thread feeder.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the movement of thread feeder and/or displacers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 nor claim 1 on which claim 15 depends recite thread feeder and displacers. Claims 3-5 recite a thread feeder and claims 9-13 recite displacers.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the rotor housing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-13 and 22 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim 1-2 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1/2) as being anticipated by USPGP# 20200120942 of Domlatil (henceforth Domlatil).
Regarding claim 1, Domlatil teaches
Method for the production of a product (3.1-3.4) containing a foodstuff in a skin (9) on one strand (see fig. 1), wherein successive products are separated from one another by a tie-off region (4), created between two tie-off points (7.1, 7.2), comprising
winding a tensioned thread (6) having a predetermined number of windings repeatedly around the tie-off region (para 0005, see 4 in figs. 1-2) along its length in such a way, that it displaces as much foodstuff as possible (para 0023-0024), which is located between the tie-off points, before the second tie-off point is created, and this thread is run from product to product (para 0023-0024, see also para 0005 and 0018 for additional details).
Regarding claim 2, as shown in claim 1, Domlatil teaches
wherein the same thread (6) is used to make the tie-off points and to be wound around the tie-off region (para 0032, see 4 in figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, as shown in claim 1, Domlatil teaches
wherein the tie-off region is created by at least one displacer (10.1, 10.2, para 0038, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, as shown in claim 9, Domlatil teaches
wherein a displacer (10.1) constricts the tie-off region in the conveying direction upstream of the first tie-off point (see fig. 1, para 0038).
Regarding claim 11, as shown in claim 10, Domlatil teaches
wherein, downstream the first tie-off point, the product is drawn further in the conveying direction by a further displacer (10.2) to create the tie-off region (para 0038, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, as shown in claim 11, Domlatil teaches
wherein the tie-off region is wound around as the product continues to be drawn between the further displacer and the first displacer (para 0038, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, as shown in claim 12, Domlatil teaches
wherein the second tie-off point (7.1) is created upstream the first displacer (see relative positions of first displacer 10.1).
Regarding claim 14, as shown in claim 11, Domlatil teaches
wherein the movement of the further displacer and the movement of the thread feeder are synchronized (para 0032-0033, any device for feeding thread 6 has to be in synchronization with the further displacer 10.2 in order to prevent the thread from breaking during movement of the further displacer).
Claims 16-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1/2) 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) .
Claims 16-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1/2) as being anticipated by EP# 0865732 of Pedroia et al. (henceforth 732 Pedroia).
Regarding claim 16, 732 Pedroia teaches
Device (device in fig. 10) for producing products (35) containing foodstuff in a skin (32) on one strand (see fig. 10), wherein successive products are separated from one another by a tie-off region (see fig. 11, region comprising 33-34) and a rotor (1) for a thread (28) for winding around the tie-off region (see fig. 10) 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 0014, 0028).
Regarding claim 17, as shown in claim 16, 732 Pedroia teaches
wherein the servo drive is an electric motor (para 0014, 0028) or linear drive.
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domlatil in view of Pedroia.
Regarding claim 3, as shown in claim 1, Domlatil does not explicitly teach
wherein 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.
Pedroia teaches
Method for the production of a product (19) containing a 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) comprising a thread feeder (9, 12, 15) winds a thread (10) multiple times around the tie-off region (17) at the first tie-off point (top of 17 in fig. 1) of the tie-off region (17) to make a first tie-off point, then the product is moved along its conveying direction to produce a predetermined number of windings and a second tie-off point (bottom of 17 in fig. 1) is made (para 0067, 0073, 0078-0079).
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 Domlatil with the addition of a thread feeder, as taught by Pedroia, in order to produce the predictable result of precise and controlled feeding of the thread while minimizing torque, wear and energy consumption of the drive of the thread feeder (Pedroia: para 0010). Additionally, the thread consumption can be easily and safely monitored during use (Pedroia: para 0059)
Regarding claim 4, as shown in claim 3, the combination of Domlatil and Pedroia teaches
wherein the speed is constant both during making of the tie-off points and during the wrapping of the tie-off region (Pedroia: para 0074-0080).
Regarding claim 5, as shown in claim 3, the combination of Domlatil and Pedroia teaches
wherein the wrapping speed of the thread feeder during making of the tie-off points is different from that during making of the windings around the tie-off region (Pedroia: para 0074-0080).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domlatil in view of USP# 5,928,737 of Hammer et al. (henceforth Hammer).
Regarding claim 6, as shown in claim 1, Domlatil does not teach
wherein the skin consists of plastic.
Hammer teaches
Method for the production of a product (cased sausage) containing a foodstuff (sausage) in a skin consisting of plastic (c. 4, l. 5-40).
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 skin of Domlatil and make it out of plastic as taught by Hammer in order to produce the predictable result of increasing the mechanical strength of the skin (c. 1, l. 22-23). This reduces the chance of accidental breakage of the skin, thus making the product more reliable.
Regarding claim 7, as shown in claim 1, Domlatil does not teach
wherein a transparent skin is used.
Hammer teaches
Method for the production of a product (cased sausage) containing a foodstuff (sausage) in a transparent skin (c. 4, l. 6-10).
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 skin of Domlatil such that it is transparent as taught by Hammer in order to produce the predictable result of allowing the consumer to view and inspect the foodstuff prior to purchase/use.
Claims 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domlatil in view of USPGP# 20100215813 of Peterson et al. (henceforth Peterson).
Regarding claim 8, as shown in claim 1, Domlatil does not teach
wherein a liquid foodstuff is selected as the foodstuff to be filled into the skin.
Peterson teaches
Method for the production of a product (70) containing a foodstuff (65) in a skin (25); wherein a liquid foodstuff (para 0065) is selected as the foodstuff to be filled into the skin.
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 foodstuff of Domlatil such that it is liquid foodstuff, as taught by Peterson, in order to produce the predictable result of allowing the user to make additional food products that are liquid based as desired. This makes the method more versatile.
Regarding claim 22, as shown in claim 8, the combination of Domlatil and Peterson teaches
wherein the liquid foodstuff is a soup (Peterson: para 0065).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domlatil in view of USPGP# 20210282417 of Veldkamp et al. (henceforth Veldkamp).
Regarding claim 15, as shown in claim 1, Domlatil does not teach
wherein the skin type is determined and then the movement of thread feeder and/or displacers (11, 12) is determined.
Veldkamp teaches
Method 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) and then the movement of processing devices is determined (step 508, fig. 5, para 0080).
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 Domlatil such that skin type is determined prior to determining movement speed of a thread feeder or displacer, 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 method more versatile.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedroia in view of 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).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 732 Pedroia in view of Veldkamp and in further view of CN# 113421373 of Yu et al. (henceforth Yu).
Regarding claim 18, as shown in claim 16, 732 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 732 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 732 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 732 Pedroia and Veldkamp such that a camera that is connected to artificial intelligence 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 732 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 732 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Admitted prior art in para 0018 of PGPub of the instant application related to thread feeder and rotor as claimed.
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
/ANNA K KINSAUL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731