Detailed Action
Preliminary Amendment
1. Entry of applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 10-31-24 into the application file is acknowledged.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/862,455 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-14 of the ‘455 application are substantially similar to claims 1-6 of the present application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/862,455 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 of the ‘455 application is substantially similar to claim 13 of the present application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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 not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed clipping machine in that applicant claims specific components related to the clipping machine being the claimed filling tube assembly and the first casing brake assembly. Further, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed filling tube assembly in that applicant claims specific structure related to the filling tube assembly being the claimed at least first filling tube. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first casing brake assembly and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the first casing brake assembly is detailed as preferably, the first casing brake assembly is associated with the first filling tube and includes a first casing brake unit positioned in the region of a first end of the first filling tube, and is pivotally coupled to the revolver plate by a first telescopic casing brake holder unit, and the second casing brake assembly is associated with the second filling tube and includes a second casing brake unit positioned in the region of a first end of the second filling tube, and is pivotally coupled to the revolver plate by a second telescopic casing brake holder unit. Preferably, the first casing brake unit is linearly reversibly shiftable along the first filling tube onto its first end and pivoted away from the first end of the first filling tube, and the second casing brake unit is linearly reversibly shiftable along the second filling tube onto its first end and pivoted away from the first end of the second filling tube. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed control unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the control unit is not detailed structurally. Further, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed robotic device in that applicant claims specific components related to the robotic device being the claimed gripper unit. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed gripper unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the gripper unit is detailed as, according to the present invention, there is further disclosed a gripping device for picking up, conveying and delivering a casing tube such as a casing tube of a sausage, the gripping device comprising: a longitudinal base structure which is attached to a handling device by means of a coupling element, preferably in a non- destructively detachable manner, at least two gripper members having each at least one bottom surface and at least one top surface, wherein the gripper members of the gripping device are provided with gripping surfaces, at least two drive means, which are attached to the axial ends of the base structure, for reversibly moving the gripper members between a first position in which the gripper members are positioned on opposite sides of the casing tube to be picked up, and
a second position in which the gripper members seize the casing tube to be picked up, and a control unit for simultaneously driving the drive means of the gripper members. Preferably, each of the gripper members is guided by at least two guide rods. Preferably, at least one of the gripper members comprises a detection means which is capable of detecting the contact of the casing tube, wherein preferably two opposing gripper members comprise each a detection means.
Preferably, the drive means are connected to the gripper members via at least one connecting bracket having preferably a curved shape. Preferably, the base structure and/or the at least two gripper members comprise a plurality of through holes and oblong holes for reducing the weight of the gripping device. Preferably, the first gripper unit at least a first and a second gripper element being arranged laterally along a longitudinally extending gripping axis, and at least a second sensor unit, for sensing the gripping force exerted by the at least first and second gripper elements onto the tubular packaging casing supply wherein, preferably, the method further comprising the step of: limiting the gripping force exerted by the at least first and second gripper elements onto the tubular packaging casing supply to a predefined value. Preferably, the first gripper unit includes at least one further sensor unit for detecting the position of the gripper elements. Further, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed storage device in that applicant claims specific components related to the storage device being the claimed storage assembly. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed storage assembly and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the storage assembly is detailed as preferably, the storage device includes at least a third sensor unit for detecting the presence or absence of a tubular packaging casing supply in the storage device. First storage assembly 210 includes a plurality of vertically arranged receiving pins 212 of equal length, that are fixed on the upper side of a circular rotation plate 214 by their lower ends, and on a circle concentrically to the center of rotation plate 214 (cf. Fig. 3). A central post 216 is mounted to rotation plate 214 with its lower end, and is coaxially aligned to a rotation axis 220 of rotation plate 214. Rotation axis 220 extends vertically to rotation plate 214 and through its center. At the upper end of central post 216, retaining elements 218 are arranged. Retaining elements 218 are made of an elastic material, like rubber, have an approximately rectangular shape and extend radially outwardly from central post 216 towards the upper ends of receiving pins 212, such that their outer ends are laid up with pretension on the upper ends of receiving pins 212.Storage device 210 further includes a rotary drive 222 (cf. Fig. 3) coupled to the lower side of rotation plate 214, for rotating first storage assembly 210 about rotation axis 220. Second storage assembly 230 is of identical design as first storage assembly 210, and includes a rotation plate 234 with a vertical rotation axis 240 and a plurality of receiving pins 232 arranged vertically with their lower ends attached to rotation plate 234, and on a circle concentrically to the center of rotation plate 234. A central post 236 is arranged at the center of rotation plate 234 and coaxially aligned to rotation axis 240 of rotation plate 234 and through its center. At the upper end of central post 236, retaining elements 238 are arranged. Retaining elements 238 that are also made of an elastic material, like rubber, have a rectangular shape and extend radially outwardly towards the upper ends of receiving pins 312, and are laid up with pretension on the upper ends of receiving pins 312. Second storage assembly 230 is rotatable about rotation axis 240 by a rotary drive 242 mounted to the lower side of rotation plate 234. The second embodiment of storage device 700 is arranged at a table 710 formed by a plane of the frame of system 100 and replaces storage device 200. Storage device 700 comprises a conveyor 710 for holding at least one mandrel or receiving pin 720, wherein the conveyor 710 conveys the at least one mandrel or receiving pin 720 from a provision position, which is the same position as the provision position explained in conjunction with storage device 200, to a loading position arranged at least approximately opposite to the provision position. Conveyor 710 includes an at least approximately horizontally circulating conveyor belt 712 driven by a motor (not shown), wherein conveyor belt 712 is arranged in an approximately oval configuration. Also storage device 700 includes a separating wall partition wall W, which is arranged between the provision position and the loading position of storage device 700. Partition wall thereby separates the operation range of robotic device 300from the operation range of an operator or a further robotic device.
Regarding claim 4, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed second casing brake assembly and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the second casing brake assembly is detailed as preferably, the first casing brake assembly is associated with the first filling tube and includes a first casing brake unit positioned in the region of a first end of the first filling tube, and is pivotally coupled to the revolver plate by a first telescopic casing brake holder unit, and the second casing brake assembly is associated with the second filling tube and includes a second casing brake unit positioned in the region of a first end of the second filling tube, and is pivotally coupled to the revolver plate by a second telescopic casing brake holder unit. Preferably, the first casing brake unit is linearly reversibly shiftable along the first filling tube onto its first end and pivoted away from the first end of the first filling tube, and the second casing brake unit is linearly reversibly shiftable along the
second filling tube onto its first end and pivoted away from the first end of the second filling tube. A second casing brake assembly 140 includes a second casing brake unit 142 pivotally coupled to revolver plate 150 by a second telescopic casing brake holder unit 144, for linearly reversibly shifting second casing brake assembly 140 along second filling tube 130 onto its first end 132, and for pivoting second casing brake unit 142 away from first end 132 of second filling tube 130. Second casing brake holder unit 144 is of similar design as first casing brake holder unit 124, and includes a telescopic guidance 145 and a telescopic drive 146 for extending and retracting telescopic guidance 145.Telescopic drive 146 is a piston/cylinder drive.
Regarding claim 6, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed control unit for the robotic device and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the control unit for the robotic device is not detailed structurally.
Regarding claim 7, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first sensor unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the first sensor unit is detailed as in a preferred embodiment, the robotic device includes at least a first sensor unit at least for detecting the position of the gripper unit relative to the storage device and/or the position of the gripper unit relative to the filling tube arranged in the refill position.
Such a sensor unit enables an exact positioning of the gripper unit for gripping the tubular packaging casing supply and an exact positioning of the tubular packaging casing supply onto the filling tube in the refill position. Thereby, damages to the tubular packaging casing supply or to components of the clipping machine, e.g. by accidental collisions, may be prevented, and production losses may be omitted. Various sensor units for detecting the position of the gripper unit may be used, like contact sensors or contactless sensors. In order to prevent damages, preferably, contactless sensors may be used, like optical sensors, inductive sensors or
ultrasonic sensors. First sensor unit SU1 may include a suitable sensor element, like an optical sensor or a proximity sensor. Furthermore, for detecting or verifying the orientation of gripper unit 340, first sensor unit SU1 may also include a position sensor. In the same way, first sensor unit SU1 may also be used for detecting the position of gripper unit 340 relative to first or second filling tube 110, 130 in the refill position, for securing a correct transfer of tubular packaging casing supply M onto first or second filling tube 110; 130.
Regarding claim 8, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed second sensor unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the second sensor unit is detailed as in a further preferred embodiment, the robotic device includes a second sensor unit for sensing a gripping force applied to the tubular packaging casing supply by the gripper unit. The sensor unit may include a suitable sensor element, like a pressure sensor, a force sensor or a piezo sensor. A second sensor unit SU2 may be provided, which includes a sensor element for detecting the gripping force exerted to tubular packaging casing supply M by first and second gripper elements 346, 348. Said sensor element may be a force sensor coupled to first and/or second drive assemblies 343, 344 of gripper unit 340.
Second sensor unit SU2, particularly, its force sensor, may be integrated in first and/or second drive assemblies 343, 3644, or may be attached to gripper elements 346, 348.
Regarding claim 9, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed third sensor unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the third sensor unit is detailed as furthermore, at least first and second storage assemblies 210, 230 may be provided with a third sensor unit SU3 in the region of their rotation plates 214, 234.
Said sensor units SU3 may detect the presence or absence of tubular packaging casing supply M on receiving pins 212, 232, and particularly on receiving pin 212, 232 that is positioned in the provision position, as well as the rotation position of first and second storage assemblies 210, 230. Thereby, it may be ensured that tubular packaging casing supply M is hold ready in the provision position, for being grasped by gripper unit 340 of robotic device 300, when in the take-up position. Third sensor unit SU3 may integrally be formed with central posts 216, 236, or
receiving pins 212, 232, and may include a respective sensor element, like a weight sensor or an optical sensor. Alternatively, third sensor unit SU3 may also be provided on clipping machine CM in close vicinity to the provision position of first or second storage assembly 210, 230 when in the unloading position, whereby only one third sensor unit SU3 is necessary, and whereby the control amount is reduced and the design of the system is less complex.
Regarding claim 10, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed discharge device and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the discharge device is detailed as a discharge device, like a belt conveyor, a discharge device 50 is arranged downstream clipping device 20, which may be a belt conveyor comprising a conveyor belt and guide rollers. Further, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed rod-like element in that applicant claims specific structure related to the rod-like element being the claimed smoking rod. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed control unit for the hanging line and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the control unit for the hanging line is not detailed structurally.
Regarding claim 12, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed fourth sensor unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the fourth sensor unit is detailed as Hanging line HL according to Fig. 11 is further provided with a fourth sensor unit SU4 arranged in the region of support element 434. In Fig. 11, only possible positions of fourth sensor unit SU4 are indicated. Fourth sensor unit SU4 may detect the presence or absence of a rod-like element R in the loading position. Alternatively or additionally, the same fourth sensor unit SU4, or an additional sensor unit, may also detect the presence of a sausage- shaped product S while being passed by a transportation element 540. It has to be noted that, for detecting the presence of a sausage-shaped product S at an earlier time point, fourth sensor unit SU4 may also be arranged upstream transport device 500, e.g. in the region of the downstream end of spindle 410. Fourth sensor unit SU4 is coupled to control unit HCU, which controls the operation of hanging line HL, like the operation of infeed device 400 or transport device 500. Accordingly, based on a signal received from fourth sensor unit SU4, control unit HCU may control e.g. transport device 500, which may be stopped in the case that fourth sensor unit SU4 has detected the absence of a sausage-shaped product, or control unit HCU may control the drive device of spindle 410, e.g. such that the speed of spindle 410 is increased or decreased, in order to control the distance or time between two sausage-shaped products being transferred from spindle 410 to guide bar 430.
Regarding claim 13, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed gathering means and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the gathering means is detailed as the gathering means including a first displacer
unit and a second displacer unit. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed at least one closure means and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the at least one closure means is detailed as a closure means, like a closure clip, i.e. the end of the packaging casing pointing in the feeding direction of the filling material. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed discharge device and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the discharge device is detailed as a discharge device, like a belt conveyor, a discharge device 50 is arranged downstream clipping device 20, which may be a belt conveyor comprising a conveyor belt and guide rollers.
Regarding claim 14, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed rod-like element and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the rod-like element is detailed as a rod-like element, like a smoking rod, e.g. for further treatment like cooking or smoking.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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. The phrase “like sausages” in lines 1-2 of claim 1 renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other products than the claimed sausages are being contemplated by the claim. Further as seen in paragraph 4 earlier, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first casing brake assembly and the term “preferably” used in applicant’s originally filed disclosure to detail the first casing brake assembly as seen in paragraph 4 earlier, 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. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed control unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the control unit is not detailed structurally and therefore it is unclear to what structure the claimed control unit encompasses. Further as seen in paragraph 4 earlier, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed gripper unit and the term “preferably” used in applicant’s originally filed disclosure to detail the gripper unit as seen in paragraph 4 earlier, renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other structures for the gripper unit other than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim and it is unclear to whether the gripping device detailed in applicant’s originally filed disclosure relates to the gripper unit. Further as seen in paragraph 4 earlier, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed storage assembly and the term “preferably” used in applicant’s originally filed disclosure to detail the storage assembly as seen in paragraph 4 earlier, renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other structures for the storage assembly other than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the process of refilling" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in 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. The term “preferably” in line 3 of claim 2 makes it unclear to whether the first filling tube is to be in positions different than those claimed. Further as seen in paragraph 4 earlier, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed second casing brake assembly and the term “preferably” used in applicant’s originally filed disclosure to detail the second casing brake assembly as seen in paragraph 4 earlier, 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. Further, claim 4 lacks antecedent basis for “the refill position” in line 5.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the filling position" in lines 4-5 and “the refill position” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 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 first control unit detailed in line 2 of claim 6 is the same or different than the control unit detailed in parent claim 1. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed control unit of the robotic device and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the control unit of the robotic device is not detailed structurally and therefore it is unclear to what structure the claimed control unit of the robotic device encompasses.
Claim 7 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. As seen in paragraph 4 earlier, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first sensor unit and the terms “various”, “preferably” and “suitable” used in applicant’s originally filed disclosure to detail the first sensor unit as seen in paragraph 4 earlier, renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other structures for the first sensor unit other than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim. Further, claim 7 lacks antecedent basis for “the refill position” in lines 4-5.
Claim 8 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. As seen in paragraph 4 earlier, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed second sensor unit and the terms “suitable” and “particularly” used in applicant’s originally filed disclosure to detail the second sensor unit as seen in paragraph 4 earlier, renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other structures for the second sensor unit other than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 9 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. As seen in paragraph 4 earlier, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed third sensor unit and the term “like” used in applicant’s originally filed disclosure to detail the third sensor unit as seen in paragraph 4 earlier, renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other structures for the third sensor unit other than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim. Further, claim 9 lacks antecedent basis for “the presence or absence” in lines 2-3.
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. As seen in paragraph 4 earlier, 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 earlier, 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. Further as seen in paragraph 4 earlier, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed control unit for the hanging line and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the control unit for the hanging line is not detailed structurally, and therefore it is unclear to what structure the control unit for the hanging line encompasses. Further, claim 10 lacks antecedent basis for “the discharge device” in line 2. Further, the phrase “like a smoking rod” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other rod-like elements are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 11 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 first control unit detailed in line 2 of claim 11 is the same or different than the control unit detailed in parent claim 1. Further, claim 11 lacks antecedent basis for “the control unit of the hanging line” in line 2 and “the control unit of the robotic device” detailed in lines 2-3.
Claim 12 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. As seen in paragraph 4 earlier, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed fourth sensor unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the fourth sensor unit is not detailed structurally, and therefore it is unclear to what structure the fourth sensor unit encompasses. Further, claim 10 lacks antecedent basis for “the presence and absence” in lines 2-3.
Claim 13 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. As seen in paragraph 4 earlier, 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 earlier, 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. Further ss seen in paragraph 4 earlier, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed at least one closure means and the term “like” used in applicant’s originally filed disclosure to detail the at least one closure means as seen in paragraph 4 earlier, renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other structures for the at least one closure means other than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim. Further as seen in paragraph 4 earlier, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed gathering means and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the gathering means is not detailed structurally in that displacer units do not provide structural features, and therefore it is unclear to what structure the gathering means encompasses. Further, it is unclear to whether the filling material in line 3 of claim 13 is the same or different than the filling material detailed in parent claim 1. Further, is it unclear to whether the tubular packaging casing in line 4 of claim 13 is the same of different than the tubular packaging casing in parent claim 1. Further, claim 13 lacks antecedent basis for “the gathering means” in line 6, “the clipping device” in line 9, “the discharge device” in line 11, “the filling position” in line 13, and “the refill position” in line 14. Further, it is unclear to whether the tubular packaging casing supply detailed in line 15 and line 17 are the same or different than the tubular packaging casing supply detailed in parent claim 1. Further, it is unclear to whether the storage device detailed in line 18 is the same or different than the storage device detailed in parent claim 1.
Claim 14 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. As seen in paragraph 4 earlier, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed rod-like element and the term “like” used in applicant’s originally filed disclosure to detail the rod-like element as seen in paragraph 4 earlier, renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other structures for the rod-like element other than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim. Further, claim 14 lacks antecedent basis for “the hanging line” in line 3.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the hanging line" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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, like sausages, 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’, for feeding 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’, for applying 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 control unit for controlling 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. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis, the control unit detailed in column 3 lines 12-31 of Niedecker is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s disclosed control unit in that applicant has not detailed the control unit structurally as detailed earlier in paragraphs 3-4 of this office action. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first casing brake assembly, items 58,58’ of Niedecker are at least functional equivalents to applicant’s disclosed first casing brake assembly in that items 58,58’ of Niedecker contact the casing material and are movable onto and away from the filling tube and therefore functions as applicant’s first casing brake assembly. Niedecker further discloses a storage device – at 4-8, for storing a tubular packaging casing supply – see figure 1, and including at least one gripper unit – at 18 and/or 78,80, for gripping a supply of tubular packaging casing provided by the storage device – see figure 1, and for transferring 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 unit – 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. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed gripper unit, items 18 and/or 78,80 of Niedecker provide similar function of engaging the casing material and therefore are at least functional equivalents to applicant’s gripper unit. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis item 12 of Arias Lopez is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s disclosed robotic device/gripper unit in that item 12 of Arias Lopez is a control unit and gripper unit consistent with applicant’s disclosure. Further, items 4-6, of Niedecker disclose a storage assembly as seen in figure 1 which is consistent with applicant’s disclosure. Specific to claim 13, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez further discloses gathering the filled tubular packaging casing by the gathering means 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 means – 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 device of the clipping machine – see figure 6 and column 8 lines 1-15 of Niedecker. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the gathering means items 12,18,78,79 of Niedecker are displacer units consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed closure means, item 94 is a clip consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed discharge device, the device detailed in figure 6 and column 8 lines 1-15 of Niedecker detailing a chute is at least a functional equivalent to the conveyor belt detailed in applicant’s originally filed disclosure since the chute of Niedecker provides similar function of moving the sausage products from the device.
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 the 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’ associated with the at least one second filling tube – at 40’ – see figures 1-4 of Niedecker, wherein, preferably, the at least one first filling tube is arranged in the filling position while the at least one second filling tube is arranged in the refill position – these claim limitations are not required by the claim given the term “preferably”, and wherein the removal assembly – at 98, is associated with the at least one second filling tube 40’, when being arranged in the refill position – see figures 4-6 and column 7 lines 6-62 of Niedecker. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed second casing brake assembly item 58’ of Niedecker is at least functionally equivalent to applicant’s second brake assembly in that item 58’ of Niedecker contacts the casing material and is movable onto and away from the filling tube and therefore functions as applicant’s first casing brake assembly.
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 the filling position into the 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 control unit – see as part of 12 of Arias Lopez, and wherein the control unit 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 control unit – at 12, of the robotic device are interconnected such that the robotic device – at 12, at least partially may be controlled by the control unit of the clipping machine and/or the clipping machine at least partially may be controlled by 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. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis item 12 of Arias Lopez is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s disclosed robotic device/gripper unit in that item 12 of Arias Lopez is a control unit and gripper unit consistent with applicant’s disclosure.
Referring to claim 7, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez does not disclose the robotic device includes at least a first sensor unit at least for detecting the position of the gripper unit relative to the storage device and/or the position of the gripper unit relative to the first and/or second filling tube arranged in the 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 sensing unit including the claimed first sensor unit consistent with applicant’s disclosure with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis, 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 unit for determining a gripping force applied to the tubular packaging casing supply by the gripper unit. 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 sensing unit including the claimed second sensor unit consistent with applicant’s disclosure with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis, 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 at least a third sensor unit – at 73, for detecting 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. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed third sensor unit item 73 of Niedecker is an optical sensor consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
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 the 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 the discharge device, for suspending the sausage-shaped products discharged from the clipping machine by the discharge device onto a rod-like element, like a smoking rod, the hanging line includes a control unit for controlling at least the hanging line. Meyrahn et al. does disclose a hanging line – at 16, arranged downstream the discharge device – at 20,30 – see figure 1, for suspending the sausage-shaped products discharged from the clipping machine by the discharge device onto a rod-like element – at R, like a smoking rod – at R, the hanging line – at 16, includes a control unit – at 12, for controlling 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. Further, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed control unit for the hanging line, item 12 of Meyrahn et al. is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s detailed control unit for the hanging line since applicant has not structurally detailed the control unit for the hanging line in applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Referring to claim11, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez and Meyrahn et al. further discloses the control unit of the hanging line – at 12 of Meyrahn et al., is interconnected with the control unit of the robotic device – not required by the claim given the “or” portion of the and/or clause, and/or the control unit 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 the hanging line includes at least one fourth sensor unit – at 134, for detecting the 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. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed fourth sensor unit, item 134 of Meyrahn et al. is as least a functional equivalent to applicant’s fourth sensor unit in that applicant has not detailed the fourth sensor structurally in applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Referring to claim 14, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez does not disclose suspending the sausage-shaped product discharged by the discharge device on a rod-like element provided by the hanging line. Meyrahn et al. does disclose suspending the sausage-shaped product discharged by the discharge device – at 20,30, on a rod-like element – at R, provided by the 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. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed rod-like element, item R of Meyrahn et al. is a smoke rod consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Conclusion
7. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to sausage forming devices/methods in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 4,625,362 to Kollross et al. – shows sausage forming device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,916,019 to Whittlesey – shows sausage forming device
U.S. Pat. No. 7,666,071 to Nakamura et al. – shows sausage forming device
8. 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