DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “in a initial section” should read “in an initial section”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 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.
The term “predominantly laminar” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “predominantly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the stacking system" and "the stack of products". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 and 12 are rejected as they are dependent upon a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McClure et al. (US 3773172).
Regarding claim 1, McClure et al. (US 3773172) teaches an indexing system for frozen food products (Col. 1 lines 5-14), comprising:
a predominantly laminar band (Fig. 2 #30) arranged and enabled for a linear and cyclical movement and displacement of a surface of the band (Fig. 1 see linear and cyclical movement of #30 around #32, 34, 36), the band incorporating pushers (Fig. 1 #42) adapted in a geometry thereof to a usual geometry of frozen products (Col. 5 lines 3-25);
said pushers being arranged on the surface of the band and being distributed one after another along at least one line (Col. 5 lines 6-25), said line being parallel to a direction of the linear and cyclical displacement of the surface of the band (Figs. 1-2 direction of line of #42 parallel to direction of #30 along arrow), and said pushers being integral in their movement with the linear and cyclical displacement of the surface of the band (Col. 5 lines 6-25), the pushers enabled for their individual adaptation to each frozen product and for a displacement of the products integral with the displacement of the band and also in a suitable position of said products on the band (Col. 5 lines 6-25);
a hopper system (Fig. 1 #50), a product positioning system (Fig. 2 #56), a quality control system (Fig. 1 #60), a rejection system (Fig. 1 #108a, 108b) and a control unit (Fig. 17 ‘Electronic System’);
the hopper system (Fig. 1 #50) being enabled for an inlet and deposit of the products on the pushers (Col. 5 lines 29-37) in a initial section of a linear and cyclical path of the pushers on the band (Fig. 1 initial section of #30);
the positioning system (Fig. 2 #56) being arranged next to the linear path of the pushers (Figs. 1-2 #56 arranged next to linear path of #42) and enabled to position the products arranged on the pushers with a removal of products superimposed on the pushers, resulting in a single product on each pusher (Col. 5 lines 45-65); and
the quality control system (Fig. 1 #60) being arranged next in the linear path of the pushers (Fig. 1 #60 arranged next after #56), and the rejection system (Fig. 1 #108a, 108b) being arranged in a final section of the path of the pushers (Fig. 1 #108a, 108b arranged in final section of path of #42), both also being linked in data communication by means of the control unit that has a governance capacity over both (Col. 8 lines 5-14),
wherein the quality control system (Fig. 1 #60) is enabled for a measurement or detection of certain parameters in the products arranged on certain pushers (Col. 6 lines 34-45) according to pre-established quality standards (Col. 7 lines 40-48, Col. 9 lines 3-23) and their communication to the control unit (Col. 11 lines 24-40), and simultaneously, the rejection system (Fig. 1 #108a, 108b) is enabled for an outlet of the products arranged on the pushers in the final section of the path of the pushers (Col. 8 lines 46-55) and is enabled for a removal of those products on the pushers according to the governance of the control unit following certain parameters measured and/or detected from the quality control system (Col. 8 lines 5-14), said removal being prior to the outlet of the products arranged on the pushers in the final section of the path of the pushers (Fig. 1 removal at #108a, 108b prior to outlet at final section #110).
While McClure et al. (US 3773172) does not teach frozen food products, these limitations of the claims relate to the intended use of the system, which, in this case, imparts no further limitations on the structure of the device. The device taught by McClure et al. (US 3773172) is capable of handling frozen food products (See § MPEP 2114 II).
Regarding claim 3, McClure et al. (US 3773172) teaches the indexing system for frozen food products according to claim 1, wherein the hopper system (Fig. 1 #50) incorporates rails (Fig. 2 see rails formed by #56) adapted to the initial section of each linear path of the pushers (Fig. 1 #56 in initial section of each linear path of #42), enabled so that the frozen products deposited in that position are distributed in each linear and parallel path of the pushers in the initial section thereof (Fig. 2 see #52 distributed in each linear and parallel path of #42 in the initial section).
Regarding claim 4, McClure et al. (US 3773172) teaches the indexing system for frozen food products according to claim 1, wherein the band is arranged and enabled for the linear and cyclical movement and displacement of the surface thereof (Fig. 1 linear and cyclical movement of #30) by means of a roller system (Fig. 1 #32, 34, 36) installed on a frame (Fig. 1 frame supporting #32, 34, 36, Col. 4 lines 53-68).
Regarding claim 5, McClure et al. (US 3773172) teaches the indexing system for frozen food products according to claim 1, wherein the pushers have a semi-circle or crescent geometry (Fig. 10 see semi-circle geometry of #42).
Regarding claim 6, McClure et al. (US 3773172) teaches the indexing system for frozen food products according to claim 1, wherein the initial section of the path of the pushers that corresponds to the hopper system is arranged at a lower height than a rest of the path of the pushers (Fig. 1 see initial section of path of #42 in #50 arranged at lower height), so the path of the pushers on the band rises before reaching the positioning system (Fig. 1 see path of #42 rising before reaching #56).
Regarding claim 12, McClure et al. (US 3773172) teaches the indexing system for frozen food products according to claim 1, wherein the control unit incorporates a quality control algorithm or program, enabled to determine and point out by means of the data communicated from the quality control system those products on the pushers that do not meet pre-established quality standards (Col. 7 lines 40-49, Col. 9 lines 15-55).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure et al. (US 3773172) in view of Schmidt et al. (WO 2019241114).
Regarding claim 2, McClure et al. (US 3773172) lacks teaching the indexing system for frozen food products according to claim 1, wherein the frozen products are frozen hamburgers.
Schmidt et al. (WO 2019241114) teaches an indexing system for frozen food products (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0018 lines 1-4), wherein the frozen products are frozen hamburgers (Paragraph 0091 lines 1-5).
Schmidt et al. (WO 2019241114) explains that the food product may be selected from meat, vegetable, fruit, cheese and nuts (Paragraph 0018 lines 1-4), and provides an example where beef trimmings are partially or wholly frozen (Paragraph 0091 lines 1-5). Schmidt et al. (WO 2019241114) explains that various foods are processed on large scale in packing plants, where foreign objects may find their way onto conveyor belts transporting food products and result in a food product stream of detrimental quality and costly recalls (Paragraph 0003 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McClure et al. (US 3773172) to include wherein the frozen products are frozen hamburgers as taught by Schmidt et al. (WO 2019241114) in order to inspect a different variety of food products.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure et al. (US 3773172) in view of Jeon (KR 102147618). English translations of Jeon (KR 102147618) have been provided herein.
Regarding claim 7, McClure et al. (US 3773172) teaches the indexing system for frozen food products according to claim 1, wherein the quality control system comprises at least one artificial vision camera (Fig. 1 #64).
McClure et al. (US 3773172) lacks teaching wherein the quality control system comprises a detection bridge enabled to detect metallic particles in the product arranged on each pusher.
Jeon (KR 102147618) teaches an indexing system for frozen food products (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-3), wherein the quality control system comprises a detection bridge (Fig. 1 #100) enabled to detect metallic particles in the product (Paragraph 0030 lines 1-5).
Jeon (KR 102147618) explains that there are cases where metal remains inside the meat during processes such as slaughtering, cutting, and injecting various types of meats, and these cases lead to consumer damage (Paragraph 0003 lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McClure et al. (US 3773172) to include wherein the quality control system comprises a detection bridge enabled to detect metallic particles in the product arranged on each pusher as taught by Jeon (KR 102147618) in order to reduce the occurrence of metal remaining inside products from production stages.
Regarding claim 9, McClure et al. (US 3773172) teaches the indexing system for frozen food products according to claim 7, wherein the rejection system (Fig. 1 #108a, 108b) comprises transfer means arranged at the outlet of said products from the pushers (Col. 8 lines 58-67).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure et al. (US 3773172) in view of Jeon (KR 102147618) and further in view of Schmidt et al. (WO 2019241114).
Regarding claim 8, McClure et al. (US 3773172) lacks teaching the indexing system for frozen food products according to claim 7, wherein the artificial vision camera is enabled to establish a presence or absence of product on each pusher, and/or to establish a specific geometry of the product arranged on each pusher, and/or the presence or absence of irregularities and/or foreign bodies on the surface of the product arranged on each pusher.
Schmidt et al. (WO 2019241114) teaches an indexing system for frozen food products (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0018 lines 1-4), wherein the artificial vision camera (Fig. 3 #22) is enabled to establish a presence or absence of product on each pusher, and/or to establish a specific geometry of the product arranged on each pusher, and/or the presence or absence of irregularities and/or foreign bodies on the surface of the product (Paragraph 0057 lines 1-10).
Schmidt et al. (WO 2019241114) explains that various foods are processed on large scale in packing plants, where foreign objects may find their way onto conveyor belts transporting food products and result in a food product stream of detrimental quality and costly recalls (Paragraph 0003 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McClure et al. (US 3773172) to include wherein the artificial vision camera is enabled to establish a presence or absence of product on each pusher, and/or to establish a specific geometry of the product arranged on each pusher, and/or the presence or absence of irregularities and/or foreign bodies on the surface of the product arranged on each pusher taught by Schmidt et al. (WO 2019241114) in order to inspect food products for foreign objects which may find their way onto conveyor belts in packing plants and cause detrimental quality and costly recalls.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure et al. (US 3773172) in view of Takai et al. (WO 2021221177). English translations of Takai et al. (WO 2021221177) have been provided herein.
Regarding claim 10, McClure et al. (US 3773172) lacks teaching the indexing system for frozen food products according to claim 1, which incorporates a product stacking system arranged after the rejection system, which is enabled for positioning and stacking the products in a predetermined number of units.
Takai et al. (WO 2021221177) teaches an indexing system for frozen food products (Paragraph 0001 line 1), which incorporates a product stacking system (Fig. 6 #7) arranged after the rejection system (Fig. 6 #7 arranged after #5), which is enabled for positioning and stacking the products in a predetermined number of units (Paragraph 0020 lines 13-15).
Takai et al. (WO 2021221177) explains that the second conveying device may convey the manufactured products (good products only) in stacks (Paragraph 0020 lines 13-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McClure et al. (US 3773172) to include a product stacking system arranged after the rejection system, which is enabled for positioning and stacking the products in a predetermined number of units as taught by Takai et al. (WO 2021221177) in order to collect and convey the good products together.
Regarding claim 11, McClure et al. (US 3773172) lacks teaching the indexing system for frozen food products according to claim 1, wherein the stacking system is in a form of a unitary transfer or roller, with an ability to move the stack of products vertically by means of a push means.
Takai et al. (WO 2021221177) teaches an indexing system for frozen food products (Paragraph 0001 line 1), wherein the stacking system (Fig. 6 #7) is in a form of a unitary transfer (Paragraph 0020 lines 13-15) or roller, with an ability to move the stack of products vertically by means of a push means (Fig. 1 see #7 able to move stack of products vertically, Paragraph 0020 lines 13-15).
Takai et al. (WO 2021221177) explains that the second conveying device may convey the manufactured products (good products only) in stacks (Paragraph 0020 lines 13-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McClure et al. (US 3773172) to include wherein the stacking system is in a form of a unitary transfer or roller, with an ability to move the stack of products vertically by means of a push means as taught by Takai et al. (WO 2021221177) in order to collect and convey the good products together.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Blaine et al. (US 2018/0029246) teaches a processing system with an x-ray inspection and optical inspection for inspecting meat on a conveyor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
