Detailed Action
Preliminary Amendment
1. Entry of applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 11-1-24 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.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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 drive device and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the drive device is detailed as an electric motor and a suitable transmission or gear unit.
Regarding claim 2, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first casing brake unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the first casing brake unit is detailed as being linearly reversibly shiftable. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first telescopic casing brake holder unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the first telescopic casing brake holder unit is detailed as a telescopic guidance and a telescopic drive. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed second casing brake unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the second casing brake unit is detailed as being linearly reversibly shiftable. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed second telescopic casing brake holder unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the second telescopic casing brake holder unit is detailed as a telescopic guidance and a telescopic drive.
Regarding claim 6, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first pivot drive unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the first pivot drive unit is detailed as a piston/cylinder drive. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed second pivot drive unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the second pivot drive unit is detailed as a piston/cylinder drive.
Regarding claim 11, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed robotic device and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the robotic device is detailed as a gripper unit for gripping a tubular packaging casing supply provided by the storage device and preferably, the robotic device includes at least a first sensor unit associated with the first gripper unit, for detecting the position of the gripper unit relative to the tubular packaging casing supply in the storage device and/or for detecting the
position of the gripper unit relative to the filling tube, the gripper unit includes at least a first and a second gripper element being arranged laterally along a longitudinally extending gripping axis. Preferably, the robotic device includes a control unit RCU, and wherein the control unit of the clipping machine and the control unit of the robotic device are interconnected such that the robotic device 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. Preferably, the robotic device includes a second sensor unit for determining a gripping force applied to the tubular packaging casing supply by the first gripper unit. Robotic device 300 has a base 310, a first arm 320 having a first end 322 and a second end 324.First arm 320 is pivotally coupled to base 310 by its first end 322.Robotic device 300 further has a second arm 330 with a first end 332 and a second end 334. Second arm 330 is pivotally coupled to second end 324 of first arm 320 by its first end 332 (cf. Fig. 3). Base 310 further includes a rotary drive mechanism for being rotated about a vertical rotation axis together with first and second arms 320, 330 relative to clipping machine CM. Further, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed gathering means in that applicant has claimed specific structure related to the gathering means being the claimed first and second displacer units. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first displacer unit and also the claimed second displacer unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the first displacement unit and second displacer unit are detailed as first displacer unit 32 is positioned downstream second displacer unit 34. First and second clipping tools 22, 24 of clipping device 20 may be positioned between first and second displacer units 32, 34, at least for applying and closing one or two closure clips C to plait-like portion P, first displacer unit 32 can reversibly be moved parallel to feeding direction F of the filling material, for forming. Further, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed clipping device since specific structure related to the clipping device is claimed being the claimed first and second closing tool. 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 closure means is detailed as closing clips. 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, and a discharge device DC is shown, which in this case is a belt conveyor. 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.
Regarding claim 12, 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 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, Preferably, the first gripper unit includes at least one further sensor unit for
detecting the position of the gripper elements. 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, the drive means are driven pneumatically, and wherein the drive means are supplied by means of a compressed air supply via a common valve and respective conduits. Preferably, the conduits from the common valve to the respective drive means are substantially of the same length. Preferably, a respective flow restrictor is connected to the drive means for compensating unsynchronized movements during opening and closing of the gripper members by the drive means. Preferably, at least one of the gripper members is translatory and/or rotatory
movable with respect to the base structure. 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. Further, applicant invokes 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 line 2 of claim 1 renders the claim indefinite in that the term “like” makes it unclear to whether other sausage-shaped products than those claimed are being contemplated by the claim. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed drive device and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the drive device is detailed as an electric motor and a suitable transmission or gear unit and it is unclear to what type(s) of transmission(s) are considered “suitable” transmissions. Further, in the last two lines of claim 1 with respect to the claimed angles the terms “preferably” makes it unclear to whether other values for the angles than those claimed are being contemplated by the claims. Further, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation the angle preferably between 15o and 75o,, and the claim also recites the angle more preferably between 30o and 60o, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 2 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 means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first casing brake unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the first casing brake unit is detailed as being linearly reversibly shiftable, but applicant does not disclose specific structural elements related to the first casing brake unit and it is unclear to what constitutes the claimed first casing brake unit. Further, applicant has invoked means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed second casing brake unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the second casing brake unit is detailed as being linearly reversibly shiftable, but applicant does not disclose specific structural elements related to the second casing brake unit and it is unclear to what constitutes the claimed second casing brake unit.
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 to whether the telescopic guidance detailed in line 3 is the same or different than the telescopic guidance detailed in line 2. Further, it is unclear to whether the telescopic guidance detailed in line 4 is the same or different than the telescopic guidance detailed in line 2 and in line 3. Further, it is unclear to whether the telescopic drive detailed in line 5 is the same or different than the telescopic drive detailed in line 2. Further, it is unclear to whether the telescopic guidance detailed in line 5 is the same or different than the telescopic guidance detailed in lines 2, 3 and/or 4.
Claim 5 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 “particularly” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other types of linear drives than those claimed 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. It is unclear to whether the filling tube detailed in line 2 is the first filling tube, the second filling tube, both the first and second filling tubes of claim 1 or is a different filling tube.
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 to whether the feeding socket detailed in line 3 is the same or different than the feeding socket detailed in line 2. Further, it is unclear to whether the filling tube detailed in line 4 is the first filling tube, the second filling tube, both the first and second filling tubes of claim 1 or is a different filling tube.
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. The phrase “like sausages” in lines 1-2 of claim 11 renders the claim indefinite in that the term “like” makes it unclear to whether other sausage-shaped products than those claimed are being contemplated by the claim. Further, applicant invokes means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed robotic device and applicant discloses the robotic device as a gripper unit for gripping a tubular packaging casing supply provided by the storage device and preferably, the robotic device includes at least a first sensor unit associated with the first gripper unit, for detecting the position of the gripper unit relative to the tubular packaging casing supply in the storage device and/or for detecting the position of the gripper unit relative to the filling tube, the gripper unit includes at least a first and a second gripper element being arranged laterally along a longitudinally extending gripping axis. Regarding the gripper units as related to the robotic device see the 112b rejections of claim 12 which also apply here. Preferably, the robotic device includes a control unit RCU, and wherein the control unit of the clipping machine and the control unit of the robotic device are interconnected such that the robotic device 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 and the term “preferably” makes it unclear as to whether other types of robotic devices are being contemplated. Preferably, the robotic device includes a second sensor unit for determining a gripping force applied to the tubular packaging casing supply by the first gripper unit and the term “preferably” makes it unclear as to whether other types of robotic devices are being contemplated. Further, applicant invokes means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first displacer unit and also the claimed second displacer unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the first displacement unit and second displacer unit are detailed as first displacer unit 32 is positioned downstream second displacer unit 34. First and second clipping tools 22, 24 of clipping device 20 may be positioned between first and second displacer units 32, 34, at least for applying and closing one or two closure clips C to plait-like portion P, first displacer unit 32 can reversibly be moved parallel to feeding direction F of the filling material, for forming and the displacer units are only disclosed functionally and therefore it is unclear to what structural features the displacer units have as claimed. Further, applicant has invoked 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, and a discharge device DC is shown, which in this case is a belt conveyor and the term “like” and phrase “in this case” makes it unclear to whether other types of discharge devices other than the disclosed conveyor belts 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 structural features relate to the claimed control unit.
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. Applicant has invoked means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed gripper unit and as seen in applicant’s disclosure the gripper unit is detailed as 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, Preferably, the first gripper unit includes at least one further sensor unit for detecting the position of the gripper elements. 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, the drive means are driven pneumatically, and wherein the drive means are supplied by means of a compressed air supply via a common valve and respective conduits. Preferably, the conduits from the common valve to the respective drive means are substantially of the same length. Preferably, a respective flow restrictor is connected to the drive means for compensating unsynchronized movements during opening and closing of the gripper members by the drive means. Preferably, at least one of the gripper members is translatory and/or rotatory
movable with respect to the base structure. 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. All of the terms “preferably” makes it unclear to whether other types of gripping units are being contemplated by the claim. Further, applicant’s disclosure details gripping units having gripping elements and also details gripping members and it is unclear to whether the gripping units/elements are the same or different than the gripping members as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure. 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 structural features relate to the claimed control unit. Further, it is unclear to whether the control unit detailed in claim 12 is the same or different than the control unit detailed in parent claim 11.
Claim 15 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 preamble of claim 15 makes it unclear to whether applicant is claiming a method or an apparatus/system given applicant claims a method for use in a system and therefore it is unclear to whether a method or apparatus is being claimed. Further, the claim limitations of “the refill position” in line 14 of claim 15 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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) 1-2, 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,306,334 to Niedecker.
Referring to claim 1, Niedecker discloses a filling tube assembly of a clipping machine for producing sausage-shaped products, like sausages, by filling a filling material – detailed in column 6 lines 25-35, into a tubular packaging casing – at 11, the filling tube assembly comprising, a revolver plate – at 42, which is rotatable about a rotation axis – see axis of 46 in figures 1-3 and column 4 lines 55-68, at least a first filling tube – at any of items 40,40’, and a second filling tube – any of the other of items 40.40’, each having a central axis – see at 40 in figures 1-3, wherein the filling tubes – at 40,40’, are mounted on the revolver plate – at 42 – see figures 1-3, at least a first casing brake assembly – at 58, and a second casing brake assembly – at 58’, wherein the first casing brake assembly – at 58, is connected to the first filling tube – at any of items 40,40’ – see figures 1-3, and the second casing brake assembly – at 58’, is connected to the second filling tube – at the other of items 40,40’ – see figures 1-3, and a drive device – at 46,50,52, for rotating the revolver plate – at 42, including the filling tubes – at 40,40’, about the rotation axis – along 46 – see figures 1-3 and column 4 lines 55-68, wherein the central axis of the first filling tube – at any of items 40,40’, and the central axis of the second filling tube – at any of the other of items 40,40’, define an angle larger than 0° - see at 40,40’ in figures 1-3, preferably between 15° and 75° - these claim limitations are not required by the claim given the term “preferably”, and more preferably between 30° and 60° - these claim limitations are not required by the claim given the phrase “more preferably”. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis regarding the claimed drive device, the drive device – at 46,50,52 of Niedecker, is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s disclosed drive device of an electric motor and a suitable transmission or gear unit since Niedecker discloses an electric drive – at 52 with suitable transmission – at 50 and therefore has similar structure and function to applicant’s disclosed drive device.
Referring to claim 2, Niedecker further discloses the first casing brake assembly – at 58, is associated with the first filling tube – at any of 40,40’ – see figures 1-3, and includes a first casing brake unit – at 58,64,72, positioned in the region of a first end of the first filling tube – at 40,40’ – see figure 1, and is pivotally coupled to the revolver plate – at 42, by a first telescopic casing brake holder unit – at 66,68,70,74 – see figure 1, and wherein the second casing brake – at 58’, assembly is associated with the second filling tube – at any others of items 40,40’ – see figures 1-3, and includes a second casing brake unit – at 58’,64’,72’, positioned in the region of a first end of the second filling tube – at 40,40’ – see figure 1, and is pivotally coupled to the revolver plate – at 42, by a second telescopic casing brake holder unit – at 66’,68’,70’,74’. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis the first casing brake unit and the second casing brake unit – at items 58,64,72 and items 58’,64’,72’ of Niedecker are at least functional equivalents to applicants disclosed casing brake units detailed as being linearly reversibly shiftable in that the casing brake units of Niedecker are reversibly shiftable via items 66,68,70 as seen in figure 1. Further, regarding the first and second telescopic brake holder units – items 66,68,70,74 and items 66’,68’,70’,74’ of Niedecker are at least functional equivalents to applicant’s disclosed casing brake holder units detailed as a telescopic guidance and a telescopic drive, since items 70,74 and 70’,74’ of Niedecker are telescopic guidance elements and items 68 and 68’ are telescopic drives as seen in figure 1 of Niedecker.
Referring to claim 6, Niedecker further discloses the filling tube assembly further comprises a first pivot drive unit – at 68, which is provided for pivoting the first casing brake assembly – at 58, relative to the first filling tube – at any of items 40,40’, about a pivot point – at 66 – see figure 1, at which the first casing brake assembly – at 58, is coupled to the revolver plate – at 42 – see via items 46,62 in figure 1, and wherein the filling tube assembly further comprises a second pivot drive unit – at 68’, which is provided for pivoting the second casing brake assembly – at 58’, relative to the second filling tube – at any other of items 40,40’, about a pivot point – at 66’ – see figure 1, at which the second casing brake assembly – at 58’, is coupled to the revolver plate – at 42 – see via items 46’,62’ in figure 1. It is noted that claim 6 does not depend from either of claims 2-5 and therefore items 68,68’ of Niedecker are not being used to disclose multiple claimed elements. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis, items 68 and 68’ of Niedecker are at least functional equivalents to applicant’s disclosed first and second pivot drive units detailed as a piston/cylinder drives in that items 68 and 68’ of Niedecker are piston/cylinder drives as seen in figure 1 and column 5 lines 12-25 of Niedecker.
Referring to claim 7, Niedecker further discloses the filling tube assembly is mounted on a framework – at 44 and associate framework for 44 (not shown) via a joint portion – at 54 – see for example figure 1 and column 4 lines 55-68.
Referring to claim 8, Niedecker further discloses the joint portion – at 54, is mounted on a side wall of the framework – at 44 – see figure 1.
Referring to claim 9, Niedecker further discloses the filling tube assembly is linearly and/or rotatably shiftable – via items 46-52, such that the filling tube is positioned in front of the clipping machine – at 88,90 – see figures 4-6 and column 7 line 42 to column 8 line 14.
Referring to claim 10, Niedecker further discloses a feeding socket – at 48, is fixed to the revolver plate – at 42 – see figure 1, and facing away from the clipping machine – at 88,90 – see figures 4-6, wherein feeding socket – at 48, is coaxially aligned with the central axis of the filling tube – at 40,40’ – see 48 aligned between 40,40’ and 44 in figure 1.
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedecker as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0127985 to Ebert.
Referring to claim 3, Niedecker does not disclose 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. Ebert does disclose the first casing brake unit – at 24-26, is linearly reversibly shiftable along the first filling tube – at 12, onto its first end – see at 12 and 24-26 in figures 1-6, with the brake unit being linearly reversibly shiftable – via items 28,40, and pivoted away from the first end of the first filling tube – at 12 – see positions in figure 7-8 as compared to the positions in figures 1-6, and the second casing brake unit – at 24-26, is linearly reversibly shiftable along the second filling tube – at 12, onto its first end – see at 12 and 24-26 in figures 1-6, and pivoted away from the first end of the second filling tube – see different positions in figures 1-8. Niedecker discloses multiple casing brake units and it would have been obvious to take the device of Niedecker having multiple casing brake units and make each brake unit being linearly reversibly shiftable on the first end of the filling tube and pivoted away from the first end of the filling tub as disclosed by Ebert, so as to yield the predictable result of controlling the position of the casing brake unit as desired while allowing the components to be removably secured to each other.
Referring to claim 4, Niedecker as modified by Ebert further discloses the first casing brake holder unit includes a telescopic guidance – at 70,74 of Niedecker and – at 28 of Ebert, and a telescopic drive – at 68 of Niedecker and – at 40 of Ebert, for extending and retracting telescopic guidance – see figure 1 of Niedecker and figures 1-6 of Ebert, and wherein the second casing brake holder unit includes a telescopic guidance – at 70’,74’ of Niedecker and – at 28 of Ebert, and a telescopic drive – at 68’ of Niedecker and – at 40 of Ebert, for extending and retracting telescopic guidance – see figure 1 of Niedecker and figures 1-6 of Ebert.
Referring to claim 5, Niedecker as modified by Ebert further discloses the telescopic drives are linear drives, particularly, piston/ cylinder drives – see at 68,68’ of Niedecker and – at 40 of Ebert.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedecker in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,662,029 to Arias Lopez.
Referring to claims 11 and 15, Niedecker discloses a system and method for producing sausage-shaped products, like sausages, by filling a filling material – detailed in column 6 lines 25-35, into a tubular packaging casing – at 11, the system includes a clipping machine – at 88,90, for producing sausage-shaped products – see figures 4-6, and a storage device – at 4-8, for storing a tubular packaging casing supply and for providing the tubular packaging casing supply to the robotic device – see figure 1, the clipping machine comprises a filling tube assembly according to claim 1 – see rejection of claim 1 detailed earlier, gathering means – at 12,18,78,80, for gathering the filled tubular packaging casing and for forming a plait-like portion thereto – see at 11,18 in figure 1, the gathering means including a first displacer unit and a second displacer unit – see at 78 and 80 in figure 1, a clipping device having a first and a second closing tool – at 88,90, being reversibly movable between an opened position and a closed position – see figures 4-6, for applying at least one closure means – at 94, to the plait-like portion – see figures 4-6, and closing the closure means – at 94, when the closing tools are in their closed position – see figures 4-6, a discharge device – see figure 6 and column 8 lines 1-15, for discharging the sausage-shaped product just produced out of the clipping machine – see figure 6 and column 8 lines 1-15, and a control unit for controlling at least the clipping machine – see figures 1-6 and column 3 liens 12-31 detailing improved automation which would have a control unit and – see components – such as at 12,52,88,90 that would require electric controls. Niedecker does not disclose a robotic device for transferring a tubular packaging casing supply to the clipping machine and the control unit controlling the robotic device. Arias Lopez does disclose a robotic device – at 12, for transferring a tubular packaging casing supply – see figure 1, to the clipping machine – at 5 and the control unit controlling the robotic device – at 12 – see figure 1 and column 3 lines 4-16, the robotic device transferring the casing on the filling tube that is arranged in a filling/refilling position – see figure 1. 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 of applicant’s disclosed robotic device since gripping elements – at 8,11 are disclosed by Arias Lopez as seen in figure 1 and therefore Arias Lopez discloses a robotic device having similar structure and function to applicant’s robotic device. Further, the first and second displacer units – items 78 and 80 of Niedecker are at least functional equivalents to applicant’s disclosed first and second displacer units since applicant only discloses these units functionally as detailed earlier in paragraphs 3-4 of this office action. Further, the discharge device – see figure 6 and column 8 lines 1-15 of Niedecker is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s disclosed discharge device detailed as a belt conveyor in that the chute detailed by Niedecker provides similar function of moving the sausage from the device as that disclosed by applicant. Further, the control unit – see figures 1-6 and column 3 lines 12-31 detailing improved automation which would have a control unit and – see components – such as at 12,52,88,90 that would require electric controls of Niedecker is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s disclosed control unit since applicant has not disclosed the control unit structurally as detailed earlier in paragraphs 3-4 of this office action.
Referring to claim 12, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez further discloses the robotic device includes, a gripper unit – at 8, for gripping a tubular packaging casing supply provided by the storage device – see figure 1 of Arias Lopez and see storage device – at 4-8 of Niedecker, and for transferring the tubular packaging casing supply onto the at least first filling tube of the clipping machine – at 3 – see figure 1 of Arias Lopez, and a control unit for controlling at least the gripper unit – see at 12 in figure 1 and column 3 lines 4-16 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. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis, items 8 of Arias Lopez are at least functional equivalents to applicant’s gripper unit detailed as rotatably movable gripping elements, in that items 8 of Arias Lopez are rotatable relative to a base structure – at 2 and/or 11, as seen in figures 1-2 of Arias Lopez.
Referring to claim 13, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez further discloses the storage device includes, at least a first storage assembly – at 4, in which at least one tubular packaging casing supply is provided – see figure 1 of Niedecker, for being transferred by the robotic device – at 12 of Arias Lopez, onto the at least first filling tube – see figure 1 of Arias Lopez, of the clipping machine – at 5 – see figure 1 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 14, Niedecker as modified by Arias Lopez further discloses the first filling tube – at any of 40,40’, is movable between a filling position, in which filling material is fed through the first filling tube into the tubular packaging casing stored on the first filling tube – see figures 1-6 of Niedecker, and a refill position, in which a tubular packaging casing supply is transferred onto the first filling tube – see figures 1-6 and column 5 line 26 to column 6 line 55 of Niedecker.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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