Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s response dated 2-25-26 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 10 and 12-23 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 10 and 14 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 has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed adjustment mechanism and applicant’s originally filed specification details an alternative embodiment detailed as for example, a powered actuator (e.g., a hydraulic or air cylinder, linear motor, or other drive) may be coupled between the rollers to control spacing therebetween and the phrases/terms “for example” and “e.g.” renders the claims indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other types of adjustment mechanisms than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claims.
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 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed frame assembly and as detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action, the phrases “although differently constructed ends of the mount are within certain aspects of the present invention”, “for example” and “in particular” in paragraphs [0050]-[0052] of applicant’s originally filed specification renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other types of frame elements than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 1-9 and 11 are allowed.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
4. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 10 and 14, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed adjustment mechanism as detailed in the last office action dated 12-1-25. Applicant’s originally filed specification in paragraph [0056] discloses the adjustment mechanism as, the adjustment mechanism is detailed as for example, a powered actuator (e.g., a hydraulic or air cylinder, linear motor, or other drive) may be coupled between the rollers to control spacing therebetween. The terms/phrase “as for example”, “e.g.” and “other drive” make it unclear to whether other types of adjustment mechanisms than those disclose in applicant’s originally filed disclosure are being contemplated by the claim. As seen in paragraphs [0054]-[0056] applicant does disclose specific structures/elements that relate to the claimed adjustment mechanism, but taken as a whole these paragraphs make it unclear to every structural component applicant has intended for the claimed adjustment mechanism given the indefinite phrases/terms detailed earlier. Applicant argues that the claims do not have any specific claim language that makes the claims indefinite, but when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, applicant’s specification is used to determine the scope of these claim elements and as detailed earlier applicant’s specification uses terms/phrases that render the claims indefinite. Further, applicant argues that the claimed adjustment mechanism is a known term in the art that has specific structure of being a structural adjuster to adjust the position of the blocks to adjust the spacing of the conveying elements. This argument is not persuasive in that it is unclear to what specific structure a structural adjuster contemplates and a review of the closest prior art does not provide sufficient detail relating to a structural adjuster to make the claimed adjustment mechanism a known structure in the prior art.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 12, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed frame assembly and as detailed in the last office action dated 12-1-25. Applicant’s originally filed specification in paragraphs [0050]-[0052] and [0057], the frame assembly is detailed as an adjustable mount and mounting bracket with the adjustable mount being generally symmetrical about a central plane of the squeeze conveyor 20 (although differently constructed ends of the mount are within certain aspects of the present invention). For example, the components of the adjustable mount 94 positioned on either axial end of the intestine-conveying elements 64, 66 are the same. Accordingly, only one side of the adjustable mount 94 (depicted in FIGs. 7 and 8) will be described in detail. As shown in FIGs. 7 and 8, the adjustable mount 94 includes a generally U-shaped support member 104; a first mounting block 96 coupled to the first intestine-conveying element 64; a second mounting block 98 coupled to the second intestine-conveying element 66; an adjustment mechanism 100 operatively connected to the mounting blocks 96, 98; and a pair of support flanges 106 and 108. In the example embodiment, the U-shaped support member 104 includes a pair of elongated notches 110 (shown in FIG. 8) defined along each of the arms of the U-shaped structure. The notches 110 are sized and shaped to receive the mounting blocks 96, 98. In particular, the mounting blocks 96, 98 are inserted axially, with respect to the intestine-conveying elements 64, 66, from a side of the U-shaped support member 104 opposite the intestine- conveying elements 64, 66. The support flanges 106, 108 are coupled to an outer surface of the U-shaped support member 104, in vertical alignment with a respective notch 110. The notches and support flanges 106, 108 cooperatively define a pair of channels 102 of the adjustable mount 94, as detailed in paragraphs [0050]-[0052] and [0057] of applicant’s originally filed specification. The phrases “although differently constructed ends of the mount are within certain aspects of the present invention”, “for example” and “in particular” in paragraphs [0050]-[0052], make it unclear to whether other types of frame assemblies than those disclosed are contemplated by the claim. As seen in paragraphs [0050]-[0052] and [0057] applicant does disclose specific structures/elements that relate to the claimed frame assembly, but taken as a whole these paragraphs make it unclear to every structural component applicant has intended for the claimed frame assembly given the indefinite phrases/terms detailed earlier. Applicant argues that the claims do not have any specific claim language that makes the claims indefinite, but when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, applicant’s specification is used to determine the scope of these claim elements and as detailed earlier applicant’s specification uses terms/phrases that render the claims indefinite. Further, applicant argues that the claimed frame assembly is a known term in the art that has specific structure of being any structural frame, framework or other element that supports the at least one conveying element. This argument is not persuasive in that it is unclear to what specific structure a frame assembly contemplates given applicant’s description of the frame assembly in applications originally filed specification as detailed earlier, and it is unclear to what other structures applicant is referring to in the remarks/arguments that are known in the prior art.
It is recommended that applicant remove the indefinite terms and phrases from the specification or amend the claims to replace the adjustment mechanism and frame assembly with any of the specific structural components detailed in applicant’s specification.
Conclusion
5. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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