Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 3-2-26 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 § 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, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP Patent No. 0512636 to van den Nieuwelaar in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,179,701 to Tieleman.
Referring to claims 1 and 10, van den Nieuwelaar discloses a shackle for hanging live poultry on a picking line of a processing facility, a method for hanging live poultry on a poultry shackle and a system for moving poultry through a processing facility, the shackle comprising, a central member – at 12,14, coupled to the picking line – at 4-8 – see figures 1-2, the central member being an elongate central member – see at 12,14 and top portion of 16 connecting at 18, extending along a first longitudinal axis – vertical axis of 12,14 as seen in figures 1-2, a fixed hanging portion – at 16, coupled to the central member – see at 18 in figures 1-2, and an articulating hanging portion – at 22, rotatably coupled to the fixed hanging portion – at 16 – see via 20 in figures 1-2, wherein the articulating hanging portion – at 22, is rotatable relative to the fixed hanging portion – at 16, about a second pivot axis – of item 20, that is substantially perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis – see position of 22 in figure 2. Specific to claim 10, van den Nieuwelaar et al. further discloses inserting legs of the poultry into slots defined in the articulating hanging portion of the shackle – see at the bottom of 22 in figures 1-2, and the claim limitations of live poultry are preamble limitations and the device/method of van den Nieuwelaar et al. can be used with live poultry in that live poultry can be hung on the shackles and processed up until the process of van den Nieuwelaar et al. is performed. Specific to claim 19, van den Nieuwelaar et al. further discloses the picking line – at 4-8, that conveys the at least one shackle through the processing facility – see figures 1-2. van den Nieuwelaar et al. further discloses the central member is rotatably coupled to the picking line by a mounting assembly comprising, an attachment element comprising a first attachment element – one of 12, fixedly coupled to the central member – at 14 – see figures 1-2, and a second attachment element – other of 12, coupled to the central member – at 14 – see figures 1-2, and rotatably coupled to the first attachment element – see rotatable about central axis of 12, the central member – top of 16 connecting at 18, and the fixed hanging portion – at 16, of the shackle can rotate about a third pivot axis – of item 18, that is parallel to the second pivot axis – of 20 – see figures 1-2, when the articulating hanging portion – at 22, of the shackle is in the first shackle position – figure 1. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis with respect to the claimed first and second attachment elements – items 12 of van den Nieuwelaar et al. are at least functional equivalents to applicant’s first and second attachment elements in that items 12 of van den Nieuwelaar et al. have similar function to that of applicant’s first and second attachment elements being providing attachment to the picking line while providing support to the central member and shackle. van den Nieuwelaar et al. does not disclose the attachment element further comprises a tubular sleeve fixedly coupled to the second attachment element, wherein a second end of the central member extends through the tubular sleeve, and wherein the central member is rotatable relative to the tubular sleeve about the first longitudinal axis. Tieleman does disclose the attachment element further comprises a tubular sleeve – at 14, fixedly coupled to the second attachment element – at 16 – see figures 1-4, wherein a second end of the central member – at 8, extends through the tubular sleeve – at 14 – see figures 1-4, and wherein the central member – at 8, is rotatable relative to the tubular sleeve – at 14, about the first longitudinal axis – vertical axis extending through items 8 and 14 – see figures 1-4. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device and method of van den Nieuwelaar et al. and add the tubular sleeve and rotatable central member of Tieleman, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the shackle to be moved into different positions/orientations as desired.
Referring to claims 2 and 11, van den Nieuwelaar et al. as modified by Tieleman further discloses the articulating hanging portion – at 22, of the shackle is rotatable about the second pivot axis – of item 20, about and between a first shackle position, in which the articulating hanging portion extends along the first longitudinal axis – see at 22 in the position of figure 1 of van den Nieuwelaar et al., and a second shackle position, in which the articulating hanging portion – at 22, extends along a fourth longitudinal axis – see horizontal axis of 22 in figure 2 of van den Nieuwelaar et al.
Referring to claims 4 and 13, van den Nieuwelaar et al. as modified by Tieleman further discloses the central member is rotatably coupled to the picking line by a mounting assembly comprising, a mounting plate – at 10, fixedly attached to the picking line – at 4-8 – see figures 1-2 of van den Nieuwelaar et al., the mounting plate – at 10, has a mounting face – vertical faces of 10, positioned in a mounting plane – see vertical plane(s) aligned with vertical faces of 10 in figures 1-2 of van den Nieuwelaar et al., wherein in the first shackle position, the first longitudinal axis – vertical axis of 12,14, is parallel to the mounting plane – see figures 1-2 of van den Nieuwelaar et al.
Referring to claims 5 and 14, van den Nieuwelaar et al. as modified by Tieleman further discloses the articulating hanging portion – at 22, of the shackle is rotatable about the third pivot axis – of item 18 – see figures 1-2 of van den Nieuwelaar et al., and between the first shackle position – see figure 1 of van den Nieuwelaar et al., and a third shackle position in which the first longitudinal axis is at an acute angle relative to the mounting plane – see figures 1-2 and column 5 lines 10-24 of van den Nieuwelaar et al.
Referring to claims 7 and 16, van den Nieuwelaar et al. as modified by Tieleman further discloses the articulating hanging portion of the shackle has at least three degrees of rotational freedom – see rotation about items 18 and 20 of van den Nieuwelaar et al. and rotation about vertical axis of 8,14 of Tieleman. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device and method of van den Nieuwelaar et al. and add the tubular sleeve and rotatable central member of Tieleman, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the shackle to be moved into different positions/orientations as desired.
Referring to claims 8 and 17, van den Nieuwelaar et al. as modified by Tieleman further discloses a first degree of rotational freedom of the articulating hanging portion – at 22, is rotation of the articulating hanging portion relative to the fixed hanging portion – at 16, about the second pivot axis – of 20 – see figures 1-2 of van den Nieuwelaar et al., wherein a second degree of rotational freedom of the articulating hanging portion – at 22, is rotation of the articulating hanging portion – at 22, relative to the mounting plane – through the faces of 10, about the third pivot axis – of item 18 – see figures 1-2 of van den Nieuwelaar et al., and wherein a third degree of rotational freedom of the articulating hanging portion – at 6, is rotation of the articulating hanging portion – at 6, relative to the tubular sleeve – at 14, about the first longitudinal axis – vertical axis through items 8 and 14 as seen in figures 1-4 of Tieleman. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of van den Nieuwelaar et al. and add the tubular sleeve and rotatable central member of Tieleman, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the shackle to be moved into different positions/orientations as desired.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van den Nieuwelaar et al. as modified by Tieleman as applied to claims 8 or 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0263189 to Criscione et al.
Referring to claims 9 and 18, van den Nieuwelaar et al. as modified by Tieleman does not disclose a guide plate fixedly attached to a portion of the central member, wherein an arcuate guide slot is defined in the guide plate, and a guide pin fixedly attached to the mounting plate, wherein the guide pin interacts with the guide slot to urge the central member in a desired direction and urge the shackle between the first shackle position and the third shackle position. Criscione et al. does disclose a guide plate – at 130, fixedly attached to a portion of the central member – at top of 120 – see figures 1-3, wherein an arcuate guide slot – at 136, is defined in the guide plate – see figures 1-3, and a guide pin – at 142, fixedly attached to the mounting plate – at 136 – see figures 1-3, wherein the guide pin – at 142, interacts with the guide slot – at 136, to urge the central member – at 120, in a desired direction – see figures 1-3 and urge the shackle between the first shackle position – see at 118,120 in figures 1-2, and the third shackle position – see at 118,120 in figure 3. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device and method of van den Nieuwelaar et al. as modified by Tieleman and add the guide plate and guide pin of Criscione et al., so as to yield the predictable result of moving the shackle into different positions/orientations as desired.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van den Nieuwelaar et al. in view of Criscione et al.
Referring to claim 21, van den Nieuwelaar discloses a shackle for hanging live poultry on a picking line of a processing facility, a method for hanging live poultry on a poultry shackle and a system for moving poultry through a processing facility, the shackle comprising, a central member – at 12,14, coupled to the picking line – at 4-8 – see figures 1-2, the central member being an elongate central member – see at 12,14 and top portion of 16 connecting at 18, extending along a first longitudinal axis – vertical axis of 12,14 as seen in figures 1-2, a fixed hanging portion – at 16, coupled to the central member – see at 18 in figures 1-2, and an articulating hanging portion – at 22, rotatably coupled to the fixed hanging portion – at 16 – see via 20 in figures 1-2, wherein the articulating hanging portion – at 22, is rotatable relative to the fixed hanging portion – at 16, about a second pivot axis – of item 20, that is substantially perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis – see position of 22 in figure 2. van den Nieuwelaar et al. further discloses the picking line – at 4-8, that conveys the at least one shackle through the processing facility – see figures 1-2 and a mounting assembly comprising, a mounting plate – at 10, fixedly attached to the picking line – at 4-8 – see figures 1-2. van den Nieuwelaar et al. does not disclose a guide plate fixedly attached to a portion of the central member, wherein an arcuate guide slot is defined in the guide plate, and a guide pin fixedly attached to the mounting plate, wherein the guide pin interacts with the guide slot to urge the central member in a desired direction and urge the shackle between the first shackle position and the third shackle position. Criscione et al. does disclose a guide plate – at 130, fixedly attached to a portion of the central member – at top of 120 – see figures 1-3, wherein an arcuate guide slot – at 136, is defined in the guide plate – see figures 1-3, and a guide pin – at 142, fixedly attached to the mounting plate – at 136 – see figures 1-3, wherein the guide pin – at 142, interacts with the guide slot – at 136, to urge the central member – at 120, in a desired direction – see figures 1-3 and urge the shackle between the first shackle position – see at 118,120 in figures 1-2, and the third shackle position – see at 118,120 in figure 3. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device and method of van den Nieuwelaar et al. and add the guide plate and guide pin of Criscione et al., so as to yield the predictable result of moving the shackle into different positions/orientations as desired.
Referring to claim 22, van den Nieuwelaar et al. as modified by Criscione et al. further discloses the articulating hanging portion – at 22, of the shackle is rotatable about the third pivot axis – of item 18 – see figures 1-2 of van den Nieuwelaar et al., and between the first shackle position – see figure 1 of van den Nieuwelaar et al., and a third shackle position in which the first longitudinal axis is at an acute angle relative to the mounting plane – see figures 1-2 and column 5 lines 10-24 of van den Nieuwelaar et al.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van den Nieuwelaar et al. as modified by Criscione et al. as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Tieleman.
Referring to claim 23, van den Nieuwelaar et al. as modified by Criscione et al. further discloses van den Nieuwelaar et al. further discloses the central member is rotatably coupled to the picking line by a mounting assembly comprising, an attachment element comprising a first attachment element – one of 12, fixedly coupled to the central member – at 14 – see figures 1-2, and a second attachment element – other of 12, coupled to the central member – at 14 – see figures 1-2, and rotatably coupled to the first attachment element – see rotatable about central axis of 12, the central member – top of 16 connecting at 18, and the fixed hanging portion – at 16, of the shackle can rotate about a third pivot axis – of item 18, that is parallel to the second pivot axis – of 20 – see figures 1-2, when the articulating hanging portion – at 22, of the shackle is in the first shackle position – figure 1. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis with respect to the claimed first and second attachment elements – items 12 of van den Nieuwelaar et al. are at least functional equivalents to applicant’s first and second attachment elements in that items 12 of van den Nieuwelaar et al. have similar function to that of applicant’s first and second attachment elements being providing attachment to the picking line while providing support to the central member and shackle. van den Nieuwelaar et al. as modified by Criscione et al. does not disclose the attachment element further comprises a tubular sleeve fixedly coupled to the second attachment element, wherein a second end of the central member extends through the tubular sleeve, and wherein the central member is rotatable relative to the tubular sleeve about the first longitudinal axis. Tieleman does disclose the attachment element further comprises a tubular sleeve – at 14, fixedly coupled to the second attachment element – at 16 – see figures 1-4, wherein a second end of the central member – at 8, extends through the tubular sleeve – at 14 – see figures 1-4, and wherein the central member – at 8, is rotatable relative to the tubular sleeve – at 14, about the first longitudinal axis – vertical axis extending through items 8 and 14 – see figures 1-4. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device and method of van den Nieuwelaar et al. as modified by Criscione et al. and add the tubular sleeve and rotatable central member of Tieleman, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the shackle to be moved into different positions/orientations as desired.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 3-2-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-3, 10-12 and 19-20 detailed in the last office action dated 10-1-25.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 3-2-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections detailed in the last office action dated 10-1-25.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 6 and 15 (now incorporated into claims 1 and 10), the tubular sleeve – at 14 of the Tieleman reference US 6179701 when incorporated into the van den Nieuwelaar et al. reference EP 0512636 would allow for the shackle to be moved more easily into different positions/orientations as desired in that as seen in figures 1-5 of Tieleman the sleeve – at 14 facilitates a rotational and pivoting attachment of the shackle to the conveyor and picking line so that the shackle can be moved into different positions and this would provide a secure connection of the shackle to the conveyor/picking line of van den Nieuwelaar et al., so as to allow for the device to be rotated/pivoted for repeated use. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The combination of the van den Nieuwelaar et al. and Tieleman references only takes into account knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in that each of the van den Nieuwelaar et al. and Tieleman references disclose shackles that move via rotation/pivoting into different positions and have similar function and structure to each other and therefore disclose the claimed invention as detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 9, the Criscione et al. reference US 2011/0263189 discloses a guide plate – at 130, fixedly attached to a portion of the central member – at top of 120 – see figures 1-3, wherein an arcuate guide slot – at 136, is defined in the guide plate – see figures 1-3, and a guide pin – at 142, fixedly attached to the mounting plate – at 136 – see figures 1-3, wherein the guide pin – at 142, interacts with the guide slot – at 136, to urge the central member – at 120, in a desired direction – see figures 1-3 and urge the shackle between the first shackle position – see at 118,120 in figures 1-2, and the third shackle position – see at 118,120 in figure 3. Further, the devices of van den Nieuwelaar et al. and Tieleman can be integrated together as detailed earlier with respect to claims 6 and 15 and the Criscione et al. reference can be integrated with van den Nieuwelaar et al. as modified by Tieleman in that the guide plate, guide pin and guide slot of Criscione et al. would provide adjustment of the shackle in the direction along the conveyor/picking line while not interfering with the intended operation of van den Nieuwelaar et al. in that the guide plate of Criscione et al. can be attached at items 16,18 of van den Nieuwelaar et al. and not interfere with the operation of item 22 as seen in figures 1-2 of van den Nieuwelaar et al. with the tubular sleeve – at 14 of Tieleman providing adjustable attachment between items 12 and 18 of van den Nieuwelaar et al. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The combination of the van den Nieuwelaar et al., Tieleman and Criscione et al. references only takes into account knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in that each of the van den Nieuwelaar et al., Tieleman and Criscione et al. references disclose shackles that move via rotation/pivoting into different positions and have similar function and structure to each other and therefore disclose the claimed invention as detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action.
Conclusion
4. 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.
5. 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