Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 6-9-26 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 1, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed brake member and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not use the phrase “brake member” and therefore the claimed brake member is given the same 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis with respect to the brake assembly as detailed in paragraph 4 of the last office action dated 2-9-26.
Regarding claim 4, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed brake member and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not use the phrase “brake member” and therefore the claimed brake member is given the same 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis with respect to the second brake assembly as detailed in paragraph 4 of the last office action dated 2-9-26.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 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) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed brake member and the term “preferably” used in applicant’s originally filed disclosure to detail the first casing brake assembly as seen in paragraph 4 of the office action dated 2-9-26, renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other structures for the first casing brake assembly other than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 4 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 as to whether the brake member detailed in claim 4 is the same or different than the casing brake detailed in parent claim 1. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed brake member and the term “preferably” used in applicant’s originally filed disclosure to detail the second casing brake assembly as seen in paragraph 4 of the office action dated 2-9-26, renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other structures for the second casing brake assembly other than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 10 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 as to whether the discharge device detailed in lines 3-4 of claim 10 is the same or different than the discharge conveyor detailed in line 2 of claim 10. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed discharge device and the term “like” used in applicant’s originally filed disclosure to detail the discharge device as seen in paragraph 4 of the last office action dated 2-9-26, renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other structures for the discharge device other than those disclosed are being contemplated by 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) 1-9, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,306,334 to Niedecker in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,662,029 to Arias Lopez.
Referring to claims 1 and 13, Niedecker discloses a system and method for producing sausage-shaped products, by filling a filling material into a tubular packaging casing – at 11, the system, includes a clipping machine – see figures 1-6, for producing sausage-shaped products, wherein the clipping machine comprises, a filling tube assembly having at least one first filling tube – at 40,40’, adapted to feed the filling material into the tubular packaging casing – at 11, stored on the at least one filling tube – at 40,40’ and closed at its first end – see closed at 94 in figure 5, at least one first casing brake assembly – at 58,58’, associated with the at least one first filling tube – at 40,40’, including a brake member – at 58,58’, adapted to engage and apply a braking force to the tubular packaging casing – at 11, while being pulled-off from the at least one first filling tube – see figures 1-4 and column 5 lines 1-25, and a first controller adapted to control at least the clipping machine – see column 3 lines 12-31 detailing improved automation and therefore automatic controls, the system further includes a removal assembly – at 98, for removing at least a portion of the tubular packaging casing – at 11, from the at least one first filling tube – at 40,40’ – see figures 4-6 and column 7 lines 15-62. Niedecker further discloses a storage device – at 4-20, for storing a tubular packaging casing supply – see figure 1, including a at least a first storage assembly – at 8,10, including at least one receiving member – at 10, configured to receive at least one tubular packaging casing supply – at 11 – see figure 1, and including at least one gripper – at 18 and 78,80, adapted to grip a supply of tubular packaging casing provided by the storage device – see figure 1, and to transfer the supply of tubular packaging casing onto the at least one first filling tube – at 40,40’, of the clipping machine – see figures 1-4. Niedecker does not disclose a robotic device for transferring a supply of tubular packaging casing to the clipping machine, wherein the removal assembly is associated with the robotic device. Arias Lopez does disclose a robotic device – at 12, for transferring a supply of tubular packaging casing to the clipping machine – at 5 – see figure 1, and the gripper unit – at 18 and/or 78,80 of Niedecker, is associated with the robotic device – at 12 of Arias Lopez in that when the robotic device of Arias Lopez is incorporated into the device of Niedecker the gripper – at 18 and/or 78,80 would be associated with the robotic device of Arias Lopez in that the robotic device of Arias Lopez would process the sausages and associated casings during the same processing operation with respect to the removal assembly of Niedecker. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Niedecker and add the robotic device of Arias Lopez, so as to yield the predictable result of automatically controlling operation of the device as desired. Specific to claim 13, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez further discloses gathering the filled tubular packaging casing by a gathering component of the clipping machine – see at 12,18,78,89 in figure 1 of Niedecker, and forming a plait-like portion thereto – see at 11,18 in figure 1 of Niedecker, applying at least one closure – at 94, to the plait-like portion and closing said closure means – at 94, by the clipping device – at 88,90, of the clipping machine – see figures 4-6 of Niedecker, discharging the sausage-shaped product just produced out of the clipping machine by the discharge component of the clipping machine – see figure 6 and column 8 lines 1-15 of Niedecker.
Referring to claim 2, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez further discloses the control unit – see at 12 in figure 1 and column 3 lines 4-16 of Arias Lopez of the clipping machine – at 3, is adapted to at least activate the robotic device – at 12, for starting a process of refilling tubular packaging casing supply onto the first filling tube – see figures 1-2 and column 2 line 49 to column 3 line 16 of Arias-Lopez. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Niedecker and add the robotic device of Arias Lopez, so as to yield the predictable result of automatically controlling operation of the device as desired.
Referring to claim 3, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez further discloses the at least one first filling tube – at 40,40’, is movable at least between a filling position, in which filling material can be fed through the at least one first filling tube into the tubular packaging casing – at 11, stored on the at least one first filling tube – at 40,40’ – see figures 1-6 of Niedecker, and a refill position, in which a tubular packaging casing supply – at 11, can be transferred onto the at least one first filling tube – at 40,40’ – see figures 1-6 of Niedecker.
Referring to claim 4, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez further discloses tube assembly includes at least one second filling tube – at 40’, and at least one second casing brake assembly – at 58’ including a brake member – at 58’, associated with the at least one second filling tube – at 40’ – see figures 1-4 of Niedecker, wherein, the at least one first filling tube – at 40, is arranged in the filling position while the at least one second filling tube – at 40’, is arranged in a refill position – see figures 1 and 4, and wherein the removal assembly – at 98, is associated with the at least one second filling tube 40’, when being arranged in a refill position – see figures 4-6 and column 7 lines 6-62 of Niedecker.
Referring to claim 5, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez further discloses the filling tube assembly further comprises a revolver plate – at 42, with at least the first filling tube – at 40, attached to the revolver plate – at 42 – see proximate 56 in figure 1 of Niedecker, the revolver plate – at 42, being rotatable about a rotation axis – see at 46,50, for reversibly moving the at least first filling tube – at 40, from a filling position into a refill position – see figures 1-3 and column 4 line 55 to column 4 line 42 of Niedecker.
Referring to claim 6, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez further discloses the robotic device includes a second controller – see as part of 12 of Arias Lopez, and wherein the first controller of the clipping machine – see figures 1-6 and column 3 lines 12-31 of Niedecker detailing improved automation which would have a control unit and – see components – such as at 12,52,88,90 that would require electric control, and the second controller – at 12 of Arias Lopez, of the robotic device are interconnected such that the robotic device – at 12, at least partially may be controlled by the first controller of the clipping machine and/or the clipping machine at least partially may be controlled by the second controller of the robotic device – see figures 1-2 of Niedecker in that when the robot control unit of 12 of Arias Lopez, the control units will be interconnected so that the clipping machine control unit can at least partially communicate and control the robotic unit. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Niedecker and add the robotic device of Arias Lopez, so as to yield the predictable result of automatically controlling operation of the device as desired.
Referring to claim 7, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez does not disclose the robotic device includes at least a first sensor at least for detecting the position of the gripper relative to the storage device and/or the position of the gripper relative to the first and/or second filling tube arranged in a refill position. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez and use any suitable sensor including the claimed first sensor, so as to yield the predictable result of better controlling movement of the components of the device so as to facilitate quicker and more accurate processing of the sausage products as desired.
Referring to claim 8, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez does not disclose the robotic device includes a second sensor adapted to determine a gripping force applied to the tubular packaging casing supply by the gripper. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez and use any suitable sensor including the claimed second sensor, so as to yield the predictable result of better controlling movement of the components of the device so as to facilitate quicker and more accurate processing of the sausage products as desired.
Referring to claim 9, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez further discloses the storage device includes a sensor – at 73, adapted to detect the presence or absence of a tubular packaging casing supply – see column 6 lines 1-10 of Niedecker, but does not disclose the tubular packaging casing supply is detected on the storage device. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez and add the third sensor unit detecting casing supply on the storage device, so as to yield the predictable result of better controlling movement of the components of the device so as to facilitate quicker and more accurate processing of the sausage products as desired.
Referring to claim 15, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez further discloses at least partially controlling by the clipping machine the robotic device – see column 3 lines 12-31 of Niedecker, detailing improved automation and therefore automatic controls – see at 12 of Arias Lopez and/or a hanging line – not required by the claim given the “or” portion of the and/or clause. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Niedecker and add the robotic device of Arias Lopez, so as to yield the predictable result of automatically controlling operation of the device as desired.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez as applied to claims 1 or 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,556,687 to Meyrahn et al.
Referring to claim 10, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez does not disclose a hanging line arranged downstream a discharge conveyor, for suspending the sausage-shaped products discharged from the clipping machine by a discharge device onto a rod, like a smoking rod, the hanging line includes a third controller adapted to control at least the hanging line. Meyrahn et al. does disclose a hanging line – at 16, arranged downstream a discharge conveying device – at 20,30 – see figure 1, for suspending the sausage-shaped products discharged from the clipping machine by a discharge device onto a rod – at R, the hanging line – at 16, includes a third controller – at 12, adapted to control at least the hanging line – see figure 1. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez and add the hanging line of Meyrahn et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the sausage products to be arranged for further processing as desired. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed discharge device, items 20,30 of Meyrahn et al. are at least functional equivalents to applicant’s disclosed conveyor belt in that items 20,30 provide for moving of the sausage products for processing similar to applicant’s discharge device.
Referring to claim 11, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez and Meyrahn et al. further discloses a third controller of a hanging line – at 12 of Meyrahn et al., is interconnected with the second controller of the robotic device – not required by the claim given the “or” portion of the and/or clause, and/or the first controller of the clipping machine – see column 3 lines 12-31 of Niedecker, detailing improved automation and therefore automatic controls, such that the hanging line – at 16 of Meyrahn et al., is at least partially controlled by the clipping machine – see column 3 lines 12-31 of Niedecker in that when the controls of Meyrahn et al. are used and interconnected with the controls of Niedecker the clipping machine controls can at least partially control the hanging line and/or the robotic device – not required by the claim given the “or” portion of the and/or clause. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez and add the hanging line of Meyrahn et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the sausage products to be arranged for further processing as desired.
Referring to claim 12, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez and Meyrahn et al. further discloses a hanging line includes at least one fourth sensor – at 134, adapted to detect a presence or absence of a sausage-shaped product in the hanging line – at 16 – see figures 1-2 and column 5 line 15 to column 6 line 21 of Meyrahn et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez and add the hanging line of Meyrahn et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the sausage products to be arranged for further processing as desired.
Referring to claim 14, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez does not disclose suspending the discharged sausage-shaped product on a rod provided by a hanging line. Meyrahn et al. does disclose suspending the discharged sausage-shaped product on a rod – at R, provided by a hanging line – at 16 – see figure 1. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez and add the hanging line of Meyrahn et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the sausage products to be arranged for further processing as desired.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s remarks/arguments dated 6-9-26 obviates the non-statutory double patenting rejections detailed in the last office action dated 2-9-26.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 6-9-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-15 detailed in the last office action dated 2-9-26 except for the rejection of claim 10 as related to invoking of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) regarding the claimed discharge device as detailed in paragraph 2 of this office action.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 1, the Niedecker reference US 4306334 discloses at least one gripper – at 18 and 78,80, adapted to grip a supply of tubular packaging casing provided by the storage device – see figure 1, and to transfer the supply of tubular packaging casing onto the at least one first filling tube – at 40,40’, of the clipping machine – see figures 1-4 which shows item 18 contacting and griping the casing – at 11 and item 78 providing for the transfer of the casing – at 11 onto the filling tubes – at 40,40’. Further, the Arias Lopez reference US 7662029 discloses disclose a robotic device – at 12, for transferring a supply of tubular packaging casing to the clipping machine – at 5 – see figure 1, where the sausage-shaped product and associated casing is transferred from item 12 to the clipping machine – at 5 given the sausage-shaped product and associated casing moves from item 12 to item 5 as seen in figure 1. Further, the combination of these references renders the claim obvious in that when the robotic device of Arias Lopez is incorporated into the device of Niedecker the gripper – at 18 and/or 78,80 would be associated with the robotic device of Arias Lopez in that the robotic device of Arias Lopez would process the sausages and associated casings during the same processing operation with respect to the removal assembly of Niedecker, given the rationale to combine these references detailed earlier in paragraph 4 of this office action.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 2-15, applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to claim 1 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
Prosecution Insights