Detailed Action
Preliminary Amendment
1. Entry of applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 3-19-25 into the application file is acknowledged.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed grip parts and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the grip parts are detailed as the grip part may be constituted by a concave portion provided in the side edge portion of the clamping part in paragraph [0019] of applicant’s originally filed specification, and further, in the embodiment, the concave portions 20 constitute grip parts in the
gripping blocks 14 in paragraph [0041] of applicant’s originally filed specification, and in addition, in the above-mentioned embodiment, while the concave portions 20 formed in the side edge portions of the plate parts 18 constitute the grip parts of the gripping blocks 14, the shape of the grip parts of the gripping blocks 14 is not limited to the concave portions 20. The grip parts may be flat or may have some unevenness in part as long as the grip parts can grip the outer circumferential surface of the bone-in meat 2 in paragraph [0058]. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed displacement restricting part and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the displacement restricting part is detailed as the displacement restricting part may include a displacement restricting block having a displacement restricting groove that is able to abut the two guide protrusions, and the displacement restricting block may be disposed so as to be displaceable in a direction along the displacement restricting groove, and a groove width of the displacement restricting groove narrows toward one side in paragraph [0015] of applicant’s originally filed disclosure, and the displacement restricting part may further include a biasing member configured to bias the displacement restricting block in a direction in which a side of the displacement restricting groove, a groove width of which narrows, approaches the two guide protrusions in paragraph [0017] of applicant’s originally filed specification., and the displacement restricting block 15 is constituted by a substantially rectangular plate-shaped block with a sufficient thickness and high rigidity, and its upper end portion is supported on the lower end of the lifting device 12 so that it can be raised and lowered. The displacement restricting block 15 is arranged substantially parallel to the base plate 13 on the outside of the base plate 13 (the side of the base plate 13 that is separated from the gripping blocks 14 while being sandwiched). As shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 4, the displacement restricting block 15 is formed with a substantially U-shaped displacement restricting groove 22 that opens downward. The displacement restricting groove 22 penetrates the displacement restricting block 15 in the plate thickness direction, and is formed so that the groove width gradually narrows from the lower end toward the upper side. The inner surface of the displacement restricting groove 22 is capable of abutting against the outer circumferential surfaces of the two guide protrusions 21 protruding from the pair of gripping blocks 14. Here, the displacement restricting block 15 is biased downward by a biasing member 31 such as a coil spring or the like. In other words, the displacement restricting block 15 is biased by the biasing member 31 in a direction in which a side (upper end side) of the displacement restricting groove 22, a groove width of which narrows, approaches the two guide protrusions 21. The substantially U-shaped displacement restricting groove 22 of the displacement restricting block 15 is pressed against the outer circumferential surface of the two guide protrusions 21 by the biasing force of the biasing member 31. The two guide protrusions 21 are thus subjected to a pressing force in the direction in which they approach each other. As a result, the pair of gripping blocks 14 pivot about the pivoting axes L1 and L2 so that the inner side edge portions (the concave portions 20) of the plate parts 18 are adjacent to one another. Here, when the vicinity of the ankle b4 of the bone-in meat 2 is disposed between the concave portions 20 of the two plate parts 18, the outer circumferential surface of the bone-in meat 2 near the ankle b4 is gripped by the two concave portions 20 in paragraphs [0044]-[0045] of applicant’s originally filed specification, and in addition, in the above-mentioned embodiment, while the displacement restricting part configured to restrict displacement of the plurality of gripping blocks 14 in the separating direction is configured by the displacement restricting block 15 of the displacement restricting groove 22, the configuration of the displacement restricting part is not limited thereto. The displacement restricting part may be, for example, a multi- stage lock mechanism or an actuator that can restrict the displacement in the separating direction of the plurality of gripping blocks 14 at an arbitrary position in paragraph [0059] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 2, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed clamping parts in that applicant claims specific structure related to the clamp parts being the claimed side edge portions. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the arm parts and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the arm parts are detailed as plate-like arm parts 19 in paragraph [0040] of applicant’s originally filed specification and an upper end portion of the arm part 43a is connected to a right half area of the lower end of the prismatic inclined wall41c. The arm part 43a includes an arm base portion 43ab extending downward vertically from a lower end of the inclined wall41c, and an inclined extension portion 43ac extending obliquely forward and downward from a lower end of the arm base portion 43ab. The arm base portion 43ab has a side bulging area 45 bulging rightward from the inclined wall41c of the base part 41. A pivot shaft
46 extending substantially horizontally in the forward/rearward direction is attached to the side bulging area 45. The pivot shaft 46 is formed by a shaft portion of the bolt that penetrates the side bulging area 45 in the forward/rearward direction. The pivot shaft 46 is pivotably supported on the side bulging area 45. The clamping part 42a is continuous with the lower end of the inclined extension portion 43ac in paragraph [0066] of applicant’s originally filed specification and the arm part 43b includes the prismatic arm base portion 43bb in paragraph [0071] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 5, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed biasing member and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the biasing member is detailed as the block biasing member may be a compression coil spring disposed substantially in a tangential direction of a circle about a center axis of the pivot shaft in paragraph [0031] of applicant’s originally filed specification and a biasing member 31 such as a coil spring or the like in paragraph [0045] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 7, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed receiving part and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the receiving part is detailed as plate parts 18 have substantially arc-shaped receiving parts 24 in paragraph [0048] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 8, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed block biasing member and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the block biasing member is detailed as a compression coil spring as seen in paragraph [0031] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
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 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed grip parts as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and as seen in paragraph [0058] of applicant’s originally filed disclosure the grip part is detailed as while the concave portions 20 formed in the side edge portions of the plate parts 18 constitute the grip parts of the gripping blocks 14, the shape of the grip parts of the gripping blocks 14 is not limited to the concave portions 20. The grip parts may be flat or may have some unevenness in part as long as the grip parts can grip the outer circumferential surface of the bone-in meat 2, and the phrase “is not limited” renders the claims indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other shapes of the grip parts than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim. As seen in paragraph [0058] of applicant’s specification other shapes are contemplated being the flat and some unevenness but these are disclosed as “may be flat” and “may have some unevenness” and the term “may” implies that the other shapes could be those disclosed but leaves it open to other shapes being contemplated. Further, it is unclear to what constitutes “some unevenness” in that there is no disclosure in applicant’s originally filed specification and drawings to disclose what constitutes “some unevenness”. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed displacement restricting part as seen in paragraph 3 earlier in this office action and the phrases “such as” and “or the like” in paragraph [0045] of applicant’s originally filed specification renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other types of biasing members than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim. Further, the phrases “is not limited thereto” and “may be, for example” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other structures for the displacement restricting part than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 4 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. It is unclear to how the claimed groove abuts the two guide protrusions in that the open space of the groove cannot abut the protrusions and the claim is unclear as to whether the protrusions abut the walls of the block in which the groove is located or if the protrusions are disposed in the open space of the groove without contacting the walls of the block forming the groove. Further, the claim limitations of the displacement restricting groove narrows toward one side renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to what claimed component the term “side” refers to.
Claims 5 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. It is unclear to whether the groove width detailed in claim 5 is the same or different than the groove width detailed in parent claim 4. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the biasing member as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and the phrase such as a coil spring or the like in paragraph [0045] of applicant’s originally filed specification renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other biasing members than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 7 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. It is unclear to which claimed component the term “side” refers to in line 3 of the claim.
Claims 8 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. It is unclear to whether the direction detailed in claim 8 is the same or different than the direction detailed in parent claim 1.
Claim 9 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. It is unclear to whether the direction detailed in claim 9 is the same or different than the direction detailed in parent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,130,107 to Winkelmolen.
Referring to claim 1, Winkelmolen discloses a device for clamping bone-in meat comprising, a plurality of gripping blocks – at 472-474, 490,492, 506-507, 524-525, having grip parts – at 474, 492, and curved sections in 506-507, 524-525 as seen in figures 6-13, that are able to abut an outer circumferential surface around a bone section of bone-in meat – see figures 5-13 and column 14 lines 23-62, and that are provided to be displaceable in a direction in which the grip parts – at 474,492 and curved sections in 506-507, 524-525 as seen in figures 6-13, approach and separate from each other – see figures 6-13 with movement about items 440 and 441, and a displacement restricting part – at 444-452 and – at 454-462, configured to restrict displacement of the plurality of gripping blocks – at 472-474, 490,492, 506-507, 524-525, which are gripping the bone-in meat, in a separating direction – see figures 6-13 and column 15 line 31 to column 16 line 61. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed grip parts items 474 and 492 and corresponding curved section in items 506-507, 524-525 of Winkelmolen are concave parts commensurate with applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Further, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed displacement restricting part items 444-452 and – at 454-462 of Winkelmolen have blocks – at 446,456, grooves – in item 404 receiving items 446,456 and items 452,462, and biasing members – at 452,462, commensurate with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Referring to claim 2, Winkelmolen further discloses the pair of gripping blocks include, clamping parts – at 472,490,506,524, that have the grip parts on side edge portions of the clamping parts facing each other – see at 474,492,526,506,507 in figures 6-13, and that are configured to clamp the outer circumferential surface of the bone-in meat in a substantially horizontal posture – see figure 5 where the clamping parts are in a horizontal orientation when clamping the bone-in-meat, and arm parts – at 470,480,504,514, extending upward from the clamping parts – at 472,490,506,524 – see figures 6-13, wherein at least one of the arm parts – at 480,514, is able to pivot about a pivoting axis – at 418,440 and 420,441, so as to be displaced in a direction in which the grip parts – at 474,492,526,506,507 of the pair of gripping blocks approach and separate from each other – see figures 6-13 and column 14 lines 23-62. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed arm parts, items 470,480,504,514 are plate-like as seen in figures 6-13 of Winkelmolen, and therefore commensurate with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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) 3 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkelmolen as applied to claims 1 or 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,763,459 to Hazenbroek.
Referring to claim 3, Winkelmolen does not disclose each of the arm parts of the pair of gripping blocks are pivotable about the pivoting axis. Hazenbroek does disclose each of the arm parts – at 34,35, of the pair of gripping blocks – at 31,32, are pivotable about the pivoting axis – at – 47 see figures 1-5. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Winkelmolen and add each of the arm parts of the gripping blocks are pivotable as disclosed by Hazenbroek, so as to yield the predictable results of allowing for the device to more easily grip bone-in-meat portions having varying sizes and orientations as desired.
Referring to claim 8, Winkelmolen further discloses the plurality of gripping blocks have a first gripping block – at 472-474 and 506-507, and a second gripping block – at 490,492 and 524-525, in which the grip parts – at 474, 492 and curved sections in 506-507, 524-525 as seen in figures 6-13, of the first gripping block and the second gripping block are able to approach and separate from each other – see figures 6-13 and column 14 lines 23-62, and the displacement restricting part includes a block biasing member – at 452,462, configured to bias at least one of the first gripping block – at 472,474 and 506,607, and the second gripping block – at 490,492 and 524-525, in a direction in which the grip parts approach each other – see figures 6-13 and column 14 lines 23-62. Winkelmolen does not disclose that each respective grip part of the two gripping blocks are able to separate from and approach each other. Hazenbroek does disclose each respective grip part – at 38,39, of the two gripping blocks are able to separate from and approach each other – see about item 47 in figures 1-5. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Winkelmolen and add each of the grip parts of the gripping blocks are able to separate from and approach each other as disclosed by Hazenbroek, so as to yield the predictable results of allowing for the device to more easily grip bone-in-meat portions having varying sizes and orientations as desired. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed biasing member items 452,462 of Winkelmolen are coil springs and therefore commensurate with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Referring to claim 9, Winkelmolen as modified by Hazenbroek further discloses the first gripping block – at 32, is able to be fixed to external fixed equipment – at 14 – see via items 22,23,28 in figures 1-5 of Hazenbroek, and is provided with a substantially horizontal pivot shaft – at 47, configured to pivotably support the second gripping block – at 31 – see figures 1-5 of Hazenbroek, and the second gripping block – at 31, is supported on the pivot shaft – at 47 – see figures 1-5, such that gravity acts in a direction in which the grip part – at 38, of the second gripping block – at 31, approaches the grip part – at 39 of the first gripping block – at 32 – see figures 1-5 of Hazenbroek. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Winkelmolen and add each of the grip parts of the gripping blocks are able to separate from and approach each other as disclosed by Hazenbroek, so as to yield the predictable results of allowing for the device to more easily grip bone-in-meat portions having varying sizes and orientations as desired.
Referring to claim 10, Winkelmolen as modified by Hazenbroek further discloses the second gripping block – at 31, includes a connecting arm – at portion of 31 angled towards 28 as seen in figures 1-5 of Hazenbroek, that is substantially extending toward the first gripping block – at 32 – see figures 1-5 of Hazenbroek where the connecting arm extends downwardly from item 28 towards item 32, and that is pivotably supported on the pivot shaft – at 47 – see figures 1-5 of Hazenbroek. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Winkelmolen and add each of the grip parts of the gripping blocks are able to separate from and approach each other as disclosed by Hazenbroek, so as to yield the predictable results of allowing for the device to more easily grip bone-in-meat portions having varying sizes and orientations as desired.
Referring to claim 11, Winkelmolen as modified by Hazenbroek further discloses the block biasing member – at 51, is disposed on a side portion of the second gripping block – at 31, which is an opposite side of the second gripping block – at 31, where the connecting arm is extending – see 31 in relation to 32 and 52 in figures 1-5 of Hazenbroek. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Winkelmolen and add each of the grip parts of the gripping blocks are able to separate from and approach each other as disclosed by Hazenbroek, so as to yield the predictable results of allowing for the device to more easily grip bone-in-meat portions having varying sizes and orientations as desired.
Referring to claim 12, Winkelmolen as modified by Hazenbroek further discloses the block biasing member – at 51, is a compression coil spring – see figures 1-5 of Hazenbroek, disposed substantially in a tangential direction of a circle about a center axis of the pivot shaft – at 47 – see figures 1-5 of Hazenbroek. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Winkelmolen and add each of the grip parts of the gripping blocks are able to separate from and approach each other as disclosed by Hazenbroek, so as to yield the predictable results of allowing for the device to more easily grip bone-in-meat portions having varying sizes and orientations as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 4-7 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.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to carcass clamping/holding devices in general: U.S. Pat. No. 3,194,599 to Ambill – shows carcass clamping device
U.S. Pat. No. 3,326,138 to Thomas et al. – shows carcass clamping device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,666,758 to Vaillier et al. – shows carcass clamping device
U.S. Pat. No. 7,059,954 to Annema et al. – shows carcass clamping device
U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0173376 to Janssen et al. – shows carcass clamping device
U.S. Pat. No. 10,993,447 to Kido et al. – shows carcass clamping device
9. 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