Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2-17-26 has been entered.
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 § 103
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 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) 1-2, 5-7 and 9-15 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. 6,139,416 to Topfer and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,662,029 to Arias Lopez.
Referring to claims 1 and 11, Niedecker discloses a system and method for producing sausage-shaped products, by filling a filling material into a tubular packaging casing – at 11, the system, includes a clipping machine – see figures 1-6, for producing the 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 controller 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. Niedecker does not disclose the removal assembly removes a remainder of the tubular packaging casing stored on the at least first one filling tube from the at least one filling tube. Topfer does disclose the removal assembly – at 70, removes a remainder of the tubular packaging casing – at 34, stored on the at least first one filling tube – at 26 or 28, from the at least one filling tube – at 26 or 28 – see figures 1-4 and 14-19 and column 9 lines 1-62 and claim 1. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Niedecker and add the removal assembly removing the remainder of the casing from the filling tube as disclosed by Topfer, so as to yield the predictable result of automatically controlling the device to ensure all of the casing is removed prior to installing additional casing onto the filling tube as desired. Niedecker as modified by Topfer further discloses at least one storage assembly – at 4-8, for storing the tubular packaging casing supply – see figure 1, and including at least one gripper assembly – at 18 and/or 78,80, for gripping the supply of tubular packaging casing provided by the storage assembly – 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 as modified by Topfer does not disclose a robotic assembly for transferring a supply of tubular packaging casing to the clipping machine, wherein the removal assembly is associated with the robotic assembly having a robotic arm and the at least one gripper assembly mounted to the robotic arm. Arias Lopez does disclose a robotic assembly – at 12, for transferring a supply of tubular packaging casing to the clipping machine – at 5 – see figure 1, the robotic assembly having a robotic arm – at 11, and the at least one gripper assembly – at 8, is mounted to the robotic arm – see figures 1-2, and the removal assembly – at 98 of Niedecker, is associated with the robotic assembly – at 12 of Arias Lopez in that when the robotic assembly of Arias Lopez is incorporated into the device of Niedecker the removal assembly – at 98 would be associated with the robotic assembly of Arias Lopez in that the robotic assembly 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 as modified by Topfer and add the robotic assembly of Arias Lopez, so as to yield the predictable result of automatically controlling operation of the device as desired.
Referring to claim 2, Niedecker as modified by Topfer and Arias Lopez further discloses wherein the removal assembly – at 98, includes at least one casing engagement assembly – at 102,102’, for engaging the portion of the tubular packaging casing – at 11, to be removed from the at least one first filling tube – at 40,40’ – see figures 4-6 and column 7 lines 15-62 of Niedecker.
Referring to claim 5, Niedecker as modified by Topfer and Arias Lopez further discloses the removal assembly is formed by a robotic assembly – at 12 – see 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 as modified by Topfer and add the robotic assembly of Arias Lopez, so as to yield the predictable result of automatically controlling operation of the device as desired.
Referring to claim 6, Niedecker as modified by Topfer and 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, and wherein the removal assembly – at 98, is associated with the at least one first filling tube – at 40,40’ when being arranged in the refill position – see figures 1-6 and column 5 line 26 to column 7 line 62 of Niedecker.
Referring to claim 7, Niedecker as modified by Topfer and Arias Lopez further discloses the filling 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, the at least one first filling tube – at 40 of Niedecker and – at 28 of Topfer is arranged in the filling position while the at least one second filling tube – at 40’ of Niedecker and – at 26 of Topfer, is arranged in the refill position – see figures 1-4 of Niedecker and figures 14-19 of Topfer, and wherein the removal assembly – at 98 of Niedecker and – at 70 of Topfer, is associated with the at least one second filling tube 40’ of Niedecker and – at 26 of Topfer, when being arranged in the refill position – see figures 4-6 and column 7 lines 6-62 of Niedecker and – see figures 14-19 of Topfer.
Referring to claim 9, Niedecker as modified by Topfer and Arias Lopez further discloses the at least one casing engagement assembly – at 102,102’ of Niedecker, is associated with the at least one gripper assembly – at 18,78,80 – see figures 1-6 of Niedecker.
Referring to claim 10, Niedecker as modified by Topfer and Arias Lopez further discloses the robotic assembly – at 12, includes a further gripper assembly – at 8 of Arias Lopez, with the at least one casing engagement assembly – at 98 of Niedecker, associated with the further gripper assembly – 8 of Arias Lopez when the further gripping assembly of Arias Lopez is incorporated into Niedecker.
Referring to claim 12, Niedecker as modified by Topfer and Arias Lopez further discloses the step of, prior to removing a portion of the tubular packaging casing – at 11, from the at least one first filling tube – at 40,40’, moving the at least one first filling tube – at 40,40’, from the filling position, in which filling material is fed into the tubular packaging casing – at 11, into the refill position, in which a supply of tubular packaging casing – at 11, is transferred onto the at least one first filling tube – at 11 – see figures 1-4 and column 5 line 26 to column 6 line 55 of Niedecker. Further, it is recommended that applicant change “prior removing” in line 3 of claim 12 to - -prior to removing- -.
Referring to claim 13, Niedecker as modified by Topfer and Arias Lopez further discloses the step of, reversibly moving the removal assembly – at 98, towards the at least one first filling tube – at 40,40’, being arranged in the refill position – see figures 4-6 and column 6 line 56 to column 7 line 62 of Niedecker.
Referring to claim 14, Niedecker as modified by Topfer and Arias Lopez further discloses the step of, reversibly moving the removal assembly – at 98, towards the at least one first filling tube – at 40,40’, while being moved towards the refill position – see figures 4-6 and column 6 line 56 to column 7 line 62 of Niedecker.
Referring to claim 15, Niedecker as modified by Topfer and Arias Lopez further discloses the removal assembly – at 98, is controlled by the controller of the clipping machine – see column 3 lines 12-31 of Niedecker detailing improved automation and therefore automatic controls and see figures 4-6 and column 6 line 56 to column 7 line 72 of Niedecker.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedecker as modified by Topfer and Arias Lopez as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,830,050 to Nakamura et al.
Referring to claim 3, Niedecker as modified by Topfer and Arias Lopez does not disclose the at least one casing engagement assembly includes a pusher assembly for pushing the portion of the tubular packaging casing from the at least one first filling tube. Nakamura et al. does disclose the at least one casing engagement assembly includes a pusher assembly – at 112,113, for pushing the portion of the tubular packaging casing from the at least one first filling tube – see figures 14-15 and column 16 line 52 to column 17 line 17. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Niedecker as modified by Topfer and Arias Lopez and add the pusher assembly of Nakamura et al., so as to yield the predictable result of providing more effective filling of the casing material during operation.
Referring to claim 4, Niedecker as modified by Topfer and Arias Lopez does not disclose the casing engagement device includes at least one flap wheel including a plurality of flaps, and being reversibly movable towards the at least one first filling tube, for removing the portion of the tubular packaging casing from the at least one first filling tube. Nakamura et al. does disclose at least one flap wheel – at 27-27b, including a plurality of flaps – see 27b, and being reversibly movable towards the at least one first filling tube – see figure 13a, for removing the portion of the tubular packaging casing from the at least one first filling tube – see figure 13a and column 6 lines 6-44. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Niedecker as modified by Topfer and Arias Lopez and add the flap wheel of Nakamura et al., so as to yield the predictable result of more effectively moving the casing material during operation as desired.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 2-17-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 3-4 detailed in the last office action dated 12-16-25.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 1, the Arias Lopez reference US 7662029 discloses a robotic assembly – at 12, for transferring a supply of tubular packaging casing to the clipping machine – at 5 – see figure 1, the robotic assembly having a robotic arm – at 11, and the at least one gripper assembly – at 8, is mounted to the robotic arm – see figures 1-2, and when combined with the Niedecker reference US 4306334 and the Topfer reference US 6139416 renders the claim obvious as detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 2-7 and 9-15 applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to claim 1 discussed earlier.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights