Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 3-9-26 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 § 112
2. 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 1-14 and 16-20 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.
Claims 1 and 18 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. Applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed intermittent-motion drive system which is detailed in paragraphs [0010], [0013]-[0017], [0027]-[0034], [0043] and [0045], and the terms/phrases such as and in particular in paragraph [0015], i.e. in paragraph [0028] and in particular in paragraph [0043]of applicant’s amended specification of applicant’s amendments dated 3-9-26 renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to whether other types of drive systems than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
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. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed at least one belt return device and as seen in paragraph [0020] of applicant’s specification the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other belt return devices than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
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) 1-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,342,919 to Mauer et al. in view of CN Patent No. 111066868 to Hu and further in view of EP Patent No. 2223605 to Hagendoorn et al.
Referring to claim 1, Mauer et al. discloses a device for cutting pieces of meat into separate portions comprising, at least one endless conveyor – at 20,30, 32, for transporting pieces of meat along a transport path – see figure 1, at least one cutting section – at 5, arranged along the along the transport path of the endless conveyor – see figure 1, the cutting section – at 5, comprising at least one movable cutting element – at 50, for cutting pieces of meat transported along the transport path into separate portions – see figures 1-2 and column 7 line 39 to column 8 line 47, wherein at least one cutting element – at 50, is at least movable in a direction having at least a directional component perpendicular to the transport path – see vertical transport path of 50 in figures 1-2 perpendicular to the horizontal transport path of 20,30,32, and at least one dive system – at M1 and associated sprockets – see figure 1 and column 4 lines 41-52, for driving the endless conveyor – at 20,30,32 – see figure 1. Mauer et al. does not disclose the drive system is at least one first intermittent-motion drive system that intermittently drives the endless conveyor. Hu does disclose the drive system is at least one first intermittent-motion drive system – at 1,3,4,8, that intermittently drives the endless conveyor – at 2 – see page 3 of the English translation provided by applicant detailing intermittent motion of the conveyor – at 2 based on the intermittent operation of items 3,4 of the drive system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Mauer et al. and add the drive system intermittently drives the endless conveyor as disclosed by Hu, so as to yield the predictable result of producing evenly sized pieces of meat while improving cutting efficiency and reducing labor costs as detailed in the last two lines of page 2 and the first two lines of page 3 of the English translation of Hu provided by applicant. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed drive system, Mauer et al. discloses a drive motor – at M1, commensurate with the drive motor(s) disclosed by applicant. Mauer et al. as modified by Hu further discloses the conveyor comprises an endless belt – at 30,32, comprising the meat carriers – at 45,46 – see figures 1-5 of Mauer et al., wherein each of the meat carriers – at 45,46, is configured to accommodate at least one piece of meat – see figures 4-5 of Mauer et al., wherein the meat carriers – at 45,46, are affixed to at least one endless belt – at 30,32, of the conveyor – at 20,30-32 – see figures 1-4 of Mauer et al. Mauer et al. as modified by Hu does not disclose the at least one meat carrier comprises at least one meat ejector. Hagendoorn et al. does disclose the at least one meat carrier – at 6, affixed to an endless conveyor – at 7 – see figures 1-2, and comprises at least one meat ejector – at 12 – see figures 1-2 and 4-6 and paragraphs [0027]-[0028]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and add the meat ejector of Hagendoorn et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the meat is removed from the device to facilitate further processing as desired.
Referring to claim 2, Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. further discloses the at least one movable cutting element – at 50, is displaceable between an operational state, wherein the cutting element – at 50, is configured to intersect the transport path and/or a part of the conveyor – at 20,30,32, to cut meat into separate portions – see figures 1-2 and column 7 line 39 to column 8 line 47 of Mauer et al., and a non-operational state, wherein the cutting element – at 50, is positioned at a distance from the transport path and/or a part of the conveyor – at 20,30,32 – see figures 1-2 and column 7 line 39 to column 8 line 47 of Mauer et al.
Referring to claim 3, Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. further discloses the device comprises at least one second drive system – at 80-82 of Mauer et al. and – at 6 of Hu, for moving the at least one cutting element – at 50 of Mauer et al. and – at 7 of Hu, between the operational state and the non-operational state – see figures 1-2 and column 7 line 39 to column 8 line 47 of Mauer et al. and – see page 4 of the English translation of Hu provided by applicant.
Referring to claim 4, Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. further discloses the first intermittent-motion drive system – at 1,3,4,8, and the second drive system – at 6,8 are configured to mutually synchronize the movement of the at least one cutting element – at 7, and the intermittent movement of the endless conveyor – at 2 – see pages 3-4 of Hu. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. and add the drive system intermittently drives the endless conveyor as disclosed by Hu, so as to yield the predictable result of producing evenly sized pieces of meat while improving cutting efficiency and reducing labor costs as detailed in the last two lines of page 2 and the first two lines of page 3 of the English translation of Hu provided by applicant.
Referring to claim 5, Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. further discloses the first intermittent-motion drive system – at 1,3,4,8, is configured to periodically, temporarily interrupt movement of the endless conveyor – at 2 – see pages 3-4 of the English translation of Hu provided by applicant, and wherein the second drive system – at 6, is configured to position the at least one cutting element – at 7, into the operational state when the endless conveyor – at 2, is in an interrupted state – see pages 3-4 of the English translation of Hu provided by applicant, and to position the at least one cutting element – at 7, into the non-operational state if the endless conveyor – at 2, is not in an interrupted state – see pages 3-4 of the English translation of Hu provided by applicant. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. and add the drive system intermittently drives the endless conveyor as disclosed by Hu, so as to yield the predictable result of producing evenly sized pieces of meat while improving cutting efficiency and reducing labor costs as detailed in the last two lines of page 2 and the first two lines of page 3 of the English translation of Hu provided by applicant.
Referring to claim 6, Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. further discloses the first intermittent-motion drive system – at M1, and the second drive system – at 80-82, are configured to mutually cooperate with each other – see figures 1-2 and column 7 line 39 to column 8 line 47 of Mauer et al., and/or wherein the first intermittent-motion drive system and the second drive system are at least partially integrated – these claim limitations are not required by the claim given the “or” portion of the “and/or” clause.
Referring to claim 7, Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. further discloses the first intermittent-motion drive system and the second drive system are the same drive system – see item 8 of Hu common to the first and second drive systems – at 1,3-4 and 6 as seen in pages 3-4 of the English translation of Hu provided by applicant. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. and add the drive system intermittently drives the endless conveyor as disclosed by Hu, so as to yield the predictable result of producing evenly sized pieces of meat while improving cutting efficiency and reducing labor costs as detailed in the last two lines of page 2 and the first two lines of page 3 of the English translation of Hu provided by applicant.
Referring to claim 8, Mauer et al. as modified by Hu of Hagendoorn et al. further discloses the endless conveyor comprises at least one endless belt – at 20,30,32 of Mauer et al. and – at 2 in figure 3 of Hu.
Referring to claim 9, Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. further discloses the endless conveyor – at 20,30,32 of Mauer et al. and – at 2 of Hu, comprises an upper run and a lower run – see figures 1-2 of Mauer et al. and figures 1-2 of Hu, wherein intermediate space is defined between the upper run and the lower run – see at 20,30,32 in figures 1-2 of Mauer et al. and – at 2 in figures 1-2 of Hu, and wherein at least a part of the upper run defines the transport path of the pieces of meat – see figures 1-2 of Mauer et al. and figures 1-3 of Hu.
Referring to claim 10, Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. further discloses the belt conveyor comprises at least one belt return device – see sprockets detailed column 4 lines 41-52 of Mauer et al., facilitating transitioning of the endless belt – at 30,32, between the lower run and the upper run – see figures 1-2 of Mauer et al. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed at least one belt return device the sprockets disclosed in column 4 lines 41-52 of Mauer et al. are equivalents to the guide sprocket and driven sprocket disclosed by applicant.
Referring to claim 11, Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. further discloses said belt return device comprises at least one guide sprocket – see sprockets detailed in column 4 lines 41-52 of Mauer et al.
Referring to claim 12, Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. further discloses at least a part of the at least one first intermittent-motion drive system – sprockets of Mauer et al., is positioned within said intermediate space – see proximate item 18 in figures 1-2 of Mauer et al.
Referring to claim 13, Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. further discloses at least a part of the at least one first intermittent-motion drive system – see the sprockets detailed in column 4 lines 41-52 of Mauer et al., is configured to co-act with a lower side of the upper run of the endless belt conveyor – at 20,30,32 – see figures 1-2 of Mauer et al.
Referring to claim 14, Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. further discloses the conveyor comprises a plurality of a meat carriers – at 45,46, wherein each meat carrier is configured to accommodate at least one piece of meat – see figure 4 of Mauer et al.
Referring to claim 16, Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. further discloses a front section of at least one meat carrier is pivotably connected to the at least one endless belt – at 20, – see at 31,32 allowing pivoting when rotating at the ends of the conveyor as seen in figures 1-4 of Mauer et al., and wherein a back section of the meat carrier – at 40,44, is unconnected to the at least one endless belt – at 20 – see figures 1-4 of Mauer et al.
Referring to claim 17, Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. further discloses the first intermittent-motion drive system and/or the second drive system comprise a single drive motor – see at M1 of Mauer et al. and – at 82 of Hu.
Referring to claim 18, Mauer et al. discloses a method for cutting pieces of meat into separate portions, comprising the steps of, a) positioning or loading one or more pieces of meat to be cut, directly or indirectly, onto an endless conveyor – at 20,30,32, of the meat cutting device of claim 1 – see directly positioned in figures 1-4 and see rejection of claim 1 detailed earlier in this paragraph of this office action, b) driving the endless conveyor by using a motion drive system – at M1 and associated sprockets as seen in figures 1-2 and column 4 lines 41-52, such that the one or more pieces of meat are displaced in a transport direction – see figures 1-2, wherein the movement of the endless conveyor – a 20,30,32, is moved and stopped by the drive system – at M1 and associated sprockets – see figures 1-2 and column 4 lines 41-42, c) cutting, in a cutting state of the conveyor, at least one piece of the one or more pieces of meat into separate pieces of cut meat – see figures 1-4, by mechanically moving at least one cutting element – at 50, of a cutting section – at 5, of the meat cutting device towards and into the at least one piece of the one or more pieces of meat aligned with the at least one cutting element – at 50 – see figures 1-4 and column 7 line 39 to column 8 line 47, followed by a movement of the at least one cutting element – at 50, away from the cut meat and the conveyor at 20,30,32 – see figures 1-4 and column 7 line 39 to column 8 line 47, d) removing the cut meat from the endless conveyor downstream of the cutting section – see at the end of the conveyor in figures 1-2, and e) periodically repeating at least steps a)-d) – see figures 1-4 and column 7 line 39 to column 8 line 47 where steps a-d can be repeated so as to process other/more pieces of meat as desired. Mauer et al. does not disclose intermittently driving the endless conveyor using an intermittent motion drive system, wherein the movement of the endless conveyor is alternately moved and interrupted by the drive system and cutting in an interrupted state of the conveyor. Hu does disclose intermittently driving the endless conveyor – at 2, using an intermittent motion drive system – at 1,3,4,8 – see pages 3-4 of the English translation provided by applicant, wherein the movement of the endless conveyor – at 2, is alternately moved and interrupted by the drive system – at 1,3,4,8, and cutting – 7, in an interrupted state of the conveyor – see via 6,8 detailed in pages 3-4 of the English translation provided by applicant. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Mauer et al. and add the drive system intermittently drives the endless conveyor as disclosed by Hu, so as to yield the predictable result of producing evenly sized pieces of meat while improving cutting efficiency and reducing labor costs as detailed in the last two lines of page 2 and the first two lines of page 3 of the English translation of Hu provided by applicant. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed drive system, Mauer et al. discloses a drive motor – at M1, commensurate with the drive motor(s) disclosed by applicant. Mauer et al. as modified by Hu further discloses the conveyor comprises an endless belt – at 30,32, comprising the meat carriers – at 45,46 – see figures 1-5 of Mauer et al., wherein each of the meat carriers – at 45,46, is configured to accommodate at least one piece of meat – see figures 4-5 of Mauer et al., wherein the meat carriers – at 45,46, are affixed to at least one endless belt – at 30,32, of the conveyor – at 20,30-32 – see figures 1-4 of Mauer et al. Mauer et al. as modified by Hu does not disclose the at least one meat carrier comprises at least one meat ejector. Hagendoorn et al. does disclose the at least one meat carrier – at 6, affixed to an endless conveyor – at 7 – see figures 1-2, and comprises at least one meat ejector – at 12 – see figures 1-2 and 4-6 and paragraphs [0027]-[0028]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and add the meat ejector of Hagendoorn et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the meat is removed from the device to facilitate further processing as desired.
Referring to claim 19, Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. further discloses the conveyor – at 2, is brought into motion again after step c) – see pages 3-4 of the English translation of Hu provided by applicant.
Referring to claim 20, Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. further discloses the step of b1) reducing a driving speed of the drive system – at 1,3,4,8, prior to step c) – see pages 3-4 of the English translation of Hu where the intermittent operation described would provide for the speed to be made slower during stopping as the conveyor slows to the stopped configuration. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Mauer et al. as modified by Hu and Hagendoorn et al. and add the drive system intermittently drives the endless conveyor as disclosed by Hu, so as to yield the predictable result of producing evenly sized pieces of meat while improving cutting efficiency and reducing labor costs as detailed in the last two lines of page 2 and the first two lines of page 3 of the English translation of Hu provided by applicant.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s amendments and remarks/arguments dated 3-9-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the 112(f) analysis of the cutting element and the movable cutting element of claim 1, each of the rejections of claim 6, the antecedent basis issues of claim 9 and the 112(f) analysis of the cutting element and the last piece of meat of claim 18.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 1 and 18 with respect to the 112(f) analysis of the intermittent-motion drive system, there are still terms in applicant’s amended specification dated 3-9-26 that renders the claims indefinite as detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action. Further with respect to claim 10, the terms/phrases related to the belt return device in applicant’s amended specification dated 3-9-26 still remain.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 3-9-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-20 detailed in the last office action dated 12-10-25. However, applicant’s claim amendments dated 3-9-26 necessitates the new grounds of rejection 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