Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 1-29-26 and this office action is a non-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 1, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed intestine-conveying elements of the intestine squeeze conveyor assembly in that specific structure is claimed as related to the intestine-conveying elements being the claimed rotatable roller(s). Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed drive mechanism and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the drive mechanism is detailed as, in the exemplary embodiment, the drive mechanism 16 includes an electric motor 54 coupled to a gearbox 56. The illustrated embodiment uses a single speed electric motor controlled by a controller 57 (see FIG. 16) housed in a controller box 58. As depicted in FIGS. 1-6, the gearbox 56 is coupled directly to the shaft 38 of the drum 14. The gearbox 56 is attached to the motor side panel 26 via two (2) motor brackets 60. In a preferred embodiment, the motor 54 is preferably a motor of known construction, such as the MTSP-002- 3BD18R IronHorse MTS premium efficiency AC induction motor (part number MTSP-002-3BD18R) sold under the trademark IronHorseo. The gearbox 56 is preferably a gearbox of known construction, such as the WGSS-237-060-HA IronHorse heavy duty worm gearbox (part number WGSS-237-060-HA) sold under the trademark IronHorseo. It is noted, however, that other embodiments could implement any suitable drive mechanism and power source for rotating the drum 14. For example, some embodiments may include a servo motor coupled directly to the shaft 38 of the drum (with no external gearbox or encoder). In addition, the various mechanisms implemented could be positioned in any suitable location. For example, the drive mechanism may alternatively comprise a manual hand crank. Further, the power source may alternatively comprise a variable speed motor, a gas-powered motor, a centralized power source of a processing plant, etc. In the example embodiment, the drive mechanism 16 includes an encoder assembly 55 coupled to the motor 54. In the exemplary embodiment, the encoder assembly 55 is mounted opposite the gearbox 56. It is noted, however, that in certain embodiments, the encoder assembly may be integrated into the electric motor and/or the gearbox assembly. In the example, the encoder assembly 55 is configured to sense an angular position of the motor 54 and transmit an electronic position signal containing the angular position data corresponding thereto to the controller 57, as detailed in paragraphs [0039]-[0040] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
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 1-4, 6 and 11-20 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.
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. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed drive mechanism as detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action and in applicant’s originally filed specification the phrases and/or terms “in the exemplary”, “in a preferred”, “preferably”, “such as”, “any suitable”, “for example, and “etc.” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to whether other drive mechanisms than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a controller and sensing component to provide for the synchronizing step and for providing the operational feedback as claimed and therefore it is unclear to how these operations are performed by the claimed invention.
Claim 6 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 6 depends from cancelled claim 5 and therefore it is unclear from which claim it is to depend from. It is recommended that applicant amend claim 6 to be dependent on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-4, 6 and 11-20 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
5. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 1-29-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-20 detailed in the last office action dated 11-4-25.
Conclusion
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