Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 11-25-25 and this office action is a final rejection.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 3, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed pusher member and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the pusher element is not detailed structurally.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 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 3 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 pusher member and as seen in applicant’s disclosure the pusher member is not detailed structurally and therefore it is unclear to what structural features relate to the claimed pusher member. Further, claim 3 lacks antecedent basis for the at least one engagement assembly in line 2 and it is unclear to whether the engagement assembly of claim 3 is the same or different than the casing engagement assembly detailed in parent claim 2.
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. Claim 4 lacks antecedent basis for the engagement device in line 2 and therefore it is unclear as to whether the engagement device of claim 4 is the same or different than the casing engagement assembly of parent claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7 and 11-15 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.
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.
Referring to claim 2, Niedecker as modified by Topfer 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 6, Niedecker as modified by Topfer 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 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 12, Niedecker as modified by Topfer 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 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 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 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 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 does not disclose the at least one engagement assembly includes a pusher member 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 engagement assembly includes a pusher member – 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 add the pusher element of Nakamura et al., so as to yield the predictable result of providing more effective filling of the casing material during operation. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis items 112,113 of Nakamura et al. are at least functional equivalents to applicant’s disclosed pusher member since applicant has not detailed the pusher element structurally as detailed earlier in paragraphs 3-4 of this office action.
Referring to claim 4, Niedecker as modified by Topfer does not disclose the 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 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.
Claim(s) 5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedecker as modified by Topfer as applied to claims 1 or 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,662,029 to Arias Lopez.
Referring to claim 5, Niedecker as modified by Topfer does not disclose the removal assembly is formed by a robotic assembly. Arias Lopez does disclose the removal assembly is formed by a robotic assembly – at 12 – see figure 1 and column 3 lines 4-16. 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 8, Niedecker as modified by Topfer does disclose 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. 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, 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 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.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 11-25-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 5, 7-11 and 15 detailed in the last office action dated 8-25-25.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 3, the term “member” is an equivalent non-structural term to that of means and element and therefore this rejection is maintained as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 1, applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 11-25-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) rejections detailed in the last office action dated 8-25-25. However, applicant’s claim amendments dated 11-25-25 necessitates the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraph 4 of this office action.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 2-15, applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to claim 1 discussed earlier.
Conclusion
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights