Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 2-21-26 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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 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(s) 1, 9, 17, 19 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,644,608 to Martin et al.
Referring to claim 1, Martin et al. discloses a cutting system comprising, a cutting tool – at 72, comprising a first end – at 88,90 – see figures 2 and 11, a platform – at 24, configured to support an item to be cut – see figure 2 and column 3 lines 47-63, and a motor – at 78, mechanically coupled to the cutting tool – at 88,90, and configured to cause the first end of the cutting tool to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the first end – see figures 2 and 11-12 and column 3 lines 47-63. Martin et al. further discloses the first end of the cutting tool – at 88,90, has a substantially hollow, cylindrically shaped, sharpened outer edge – see at 90 in figures 11-12 and see column 3 lines 47-63. Martin et al. further discloses the substantially hollow first end – at 80,90, is configured to allow trimmed/cut portions of the item to pass therethrough – see figures 2-3, 11-12 and column 3 lines 47-63 detailing the item being the large end of thigh bone passes through the hollow first end – of 80,90, and the thigh bone is trimmed/cut with the meat attached tendons to be trimmed/cut via item 90.
Referring to claims 9 and 27, Martin et al. further discloses the motor is selected from a group consisting of a variable speed motor, a pneumatic driven motor and an electric motor – see electric motor – at 78 in figure 2 and column 3 lines 47-63.
Referring to claim 17, Martin et al. further discloses the cutting tool – at 72, is fixed on a frame – see frame not labeled but shown in figures 2-3.
Referring to claim 19, Martin et al. further discloses activating the motor of the cutting system of claim 1 to rotate the first end of the cutting tool – at 72 – see rejection of claim 4 detailed earlier and see column 3 lines 47-63, and cutting the item – see figure 2 and column 3 lines 47-63.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,458,107 to Marchese et al.
Referring to claim 2, Martin et al. does not disclose the cutting tool further comprises at least one of, a pressure differential valve configured to eject one or more trimmed portions of the item, or a passive auger configured to eject one or more trimmed portions of the item. Marchese et al. does disclose a cutting tool for meat products that comprises at least one of pressure differential valve – at 276, configured to eject one or more trimmed portions of the meat product – see column 13 lines 34-45, or a passive auger configured to eject one or more trimmed portions of the item – not required by the claim given the “at least one of” and “or” clauses in the claim. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin et al. and add any suitable ejecting device including the claimed pressure differential valve as disclosed by Marchese et al., so as to yield the predictable result of quickly and efficiently moving the trimmed product for further processing as desired.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. as modified by Marchese et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,569,070 to Smith.
Referring to claim 3, Martin et al. as modified by Marchese et al. further discloses the item to be cut is poultry – see abstract of Martin et al., but does not disclose the item to be cut is butterflied poultry. Smith does disclose a carcass trimming device to cut butterflied poultry – see figure 1 and column 10 lines 15-25. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin et al. as modified by Marchese et al. and cut any desired piece of poultry meat including the butterflied poultry disclosed by Smith, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to process any desired cut of meat from the poultry carcass.
Claim(s) 5 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. as applied to claims 1 or 19 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,494,480 to Passchier.
Referring to claim 5, Martin et al. further discloses the platform comprises, a first side configured to support a first side of the item to be cut – see at 24 in figure 2. Martin et al. does not disclose a second side configured to support a second side of the item to be cut, and an apex disposed between the first side and the second side, wherein the apex forms a hinge between the first side of the platform and the second side of the platform. Passchier does disclose a platform – at 18, having a first side – at either side of 26, a second side – at the other side of 26, configured to support a second side of the item to be cut – see figures 1a-1e, and an apex disposed between the first side and the second side – see at 26 in figures 1a-1e, wherein the apex forms a hinge between the first side of the platform and the second side of the platform – see at 26 in figures 1a-1e. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin et al. and add the platform with multiple sides and apex as disclosed by Passchier, so as to yield the predictable result of adjusting the orientation of the item to be cut based on the desired cut to be made.
Referring to claim 21, Martin et al. further discloses placing a first side of the item on a first side of the platform – at 24 – see figure 2, but does not disclose placing a second side of the item on a second side of the platform, and placing a mid-section of the item on an apex of the platform, wherein the apex forms a hinge between the first side of the platform and the second side of the platform. Passchier does disclose a platform – at 18, placing the item on a first side of the platform – at either side of 26, placing a second side of the item on a second side of the platform – at the other side of 26, configured to support a second side of the item to be cut – see figures 1a-1e, and placing a mid-section of the item on an apex disposed between the first side and the second side – see at 26 in figures 1a-1e, wherein the apex forms a hinge between the first side of the platform and the second side of the platform – see at 26 in figures 1a-1e. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin et al. and add the platform with multiple sides and apex as disclosed by Passchier, so as to yield the predictable result of adjusting the orientation of the item to be cut based on the desired cut to be made.
Claim(s) 6 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. as applied to claims 1 or 19 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,097,553 to Smith.
Referring to claims 6 and 24, Martin et al. does not disclose the cutting tool further comprises at least one of, one or more gears configured to cause rotation of the first end upon engagement of the one or more gears by the motor, one or more belts configured to cause rotation of the first end upon engagement of the one or more belts by the motor, or one or more coils configured to cause rotation of the first end upon engagement of the one or more coils by the motor. Smith ‘553 does disclose the cutting tool further comprises at least one of, one or more gears configured to cause rotation of the first end upon engagement of the one or more gears by the motor, one or more belts configured to cause rotation of the first end upon engagement of the one or more belts by the motor, or one or more coils configured to cause rotation of the first end upon engagement of the one or more coils by the motor – see gears in association with the motor – at 58 in column 9 lines 49-62. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Martin et al. and add the gears connected to the motor as disclosed by Smith ‘553, so as to yield the predictable result of controlling the speed of the blade based on the object to be cut.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0084576 to Whited et al.
Referring to claim 12, Martin et al. does not disclose the cutting tool further comprises at least one of, an adjustable depth gauge configured to adjust a depth of a cut made by the cutting tool, or a pneumatic nozzle configured to eject one or more trimmed portions of the item. Whited et al. does disclose the cutting tool further comprises at least one of, an adjustable depth gauge – at 60, configured to adjust a depth of a cut made by the cutting tool – see paragraphs [0035]-[0039], or a pneumatic nozzle configured to eject one or more trimmed portions of the item – not required by the claim given the “or” clause. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin et al. and add the adjustable depth gauge as disclosed by Whited et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring proper operation of the cutting tool by ensuring the cutting tool does not damage the item being cut.
Referring to claims 13 and 23, Martin et al. as modified by Whited et al. further discloses the adjustable depth gauge comprises a roller – at 64, configured to determine the depth of a cut made by the cutting tool – see paragraphs [0035]-[0039] of Whited et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Martin et al. and add the adjustable depth gauge as disclosed by Whited et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring proper operation of the cutting tool by ensuring the cutting tool does not damage the item being cut.
Referring to claim 22, Martin et al. does not disclose measuring a desired depth of a cut into the item utilizing an adjustable depth gauge of the cutting tool. Whited et al. does disclose measuring a desired depth of a cut into the item utilizing an adjustable depth gauge – at 60, of the cutting tool – see paragraphs [0035]-[0039]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Martin et al. and add the adjustable depth gauge as disclosed by Whited et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring proper operation of the cutting tool by ensuring the cutting tool does not damage the item being cut.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0311552 to Black et al.
Referring to claim 18, Martin et al. does not disclose the cutting tool is a handheld cutting tool. Black et al. does disclose the cutting tool – at 102, is a handheld cutting tool – see figure 1 and paragraph [0027]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin et al. and have the cutting tool be a handheld cutting tool as disclosed by Black et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the user more accurately control the cutting of objects of different sizes and orientations.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Smith ‘070.
Referring to claim 20, Martin et al. further discloses positioning the item on the platform – at 24 – see figure 2 and column 3 lines 47-63, and the item is poultry – see the abstract. Martin et al. does not disclose the item is butterflied poultry. Smith ‘070 does disclose a carcass trimming device to cut butterflied poultry – see figure 1 and column 10 lines 15-25. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Martin et al. and cut any desired piece of poultry meat including the butterflied poultry disclosed by Smith ‘070, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to process any desired cut of meat from the poultry carcass.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0111581 to Levsen.
Referring to claim 30, Martin et al. does not disclose the cutting tool comprises a pneumatic nozzle. Levsen does disclose the cutting tool comprises a pneumatic nozzle – at 58,60 – see figures 1-6 and paragraphs [0033]-[0036]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Martin et al. and add the pneumatic nozzle of Levsen, so as to yield the predictable result of removing any waste material during the cutting operation.
Claim(s) 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. in view of Smith and further in view of Passchier.
Referring to claims 33 and 34, Martin et al. discloses a cutting system/method for processing/trimming poultry comprising, a cutting tool – at 72, comprising a first end – at 88,90 – see figures 2 and 11, the first end of the cutting tool – at 88,90, has a substantially hollow, cylindrically shaped, sharpened outer edge – see at 90 in figures 11-12 and see column 3 lines 47-63, a platform – at 24, configured to support an item to be cut – see figure 2 and column 3 lines 47-63, the platform comprises, a first side configured to support a first side of the item to be cut – see at 24 in figure 2 and positioning the poultry on the platform – see figure 2 and column 3 lines 47-63, and a motor – at 78, mechanically coupled to the cutting tool – at 88,90, and activating the motor to cause the first end of the cutting tool to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the first end – see figures 2 and 11-12 and column 3 lines 47-63, trimming an unwanted portion – the thigh bone, from the poultry with the rotating first end – at 88,90, of the cutting tool – at 72 – see figures 2-3, 11-12 and column 3 lines 47-63, and expelling the unwanted portion – thigh bone, through the hollow first end – at 88,90 of the cutting tool – see figures 2-3 and 11-12 and column 3 lines 47-63 where the thigh bone after being inserted into the cutting tool would have to be expelled through the first end – at 88,90 so that another thigh bone can be inserted into the first end of the cutting tool for processing. Martin et al. does not disclose the item to be cut is butterflied poultry. Smith does disclose a carcass trimming device to cut butterflied poultry – see figure 1 and column 10 lines 15-25. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin et al. and cut any desired piece of poultry meat including the butterflied poultry disclosed by Smith, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to process any desired cut of meat from the poultry carcass. Martin et al. further does not disclose the platform comprises a second side configured to support a second side of the item to be cut, and an apex disposed between the first side and the second side, wherein the apex forms a hinge between the first side of the platform and the second side of the platform. Passchier does disclose a platform – at 18, having a first side – at either side of 26, a second side – at the other side of 26, configured to support a second side of the item to be cut – see figures 1a-1e, and an apex disposed between the first side and the second side – see at 26 in figures 1a-1e, wherein the apex forms a hinge between the first side of the platform and the second side of the platform – see at 26 in figures 1a-1e. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Martin et al. and add the platform with multiple sides and apex as disclosed by Passchier, so as to yield the predictable result of adjusting the orientation of the item to be cut based on the desired cut to be made.
Response to Arguments
4. Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 1, applicant does not claim that the item being trimmed/cut passes entirely through the cutting tool or that the item passes through the cutting tool from the first end to an opposing second end. Claim 1 only requires that the item being cut/trimmed passes through the first end of the cutting tool and the Martin et al. reference US 4644608 discloses the item being trimmed/cut being the large end of the thigh bone passes through the first end – at 88,90 as seen in figures 2-3, 11-12 and column 3 lines 47-63. Further, applicant does not positively recite in the claim what the claimed item is specifically and therefore the thigh bone of Martin et al. can be considered the claimed item and any meat trimmed by the device of Martin et al. is not required to pass through the cutting tool to disclose the claimed invention.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 2-6, 9, 12-13, 17-24, 27 and 30 applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to claim 1 discussed earlier.
Regarding new claims 33 and 34, the Martin et al. reference in view of the Smith reference US 5569070 and the Passchier reference US 5494480 renders the claims obvious as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action in that the Martin et al. reference discloses the item being the thigh bone is expelled through the first end – at 88,90 of the cutting tool – at 72 as seen in figures 2-3 and 11-12 and column 3 lines 47-63, where the thigh bone after being inserted into the cutting tool would have to be expelled through the first end – at 88,90 so that another thigh bone can be inserted into the first end of the cutting tool for processing. Further, a motivation to combine the Passchier reference with Martin et al. reference is provided being adjusting the orientation of the item to be cut based on the desired cut to be made. Therefore the combination of these references renders the claims obvious as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action.
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. 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