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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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) 1-3, 9, 13-15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jurs et al (US Patent Publication 2015/0087214).
The Applicants attention is directed to Figures 1A and 1B.
Regarding claim 1, Jurs et al teaches an apparatus as viewed in figure 1A configured to detach meat from a carcass 9 or parts thereof as a product to be processed, comprising:
at least one cutting unit 1, which has at least one knife carrier with a knife shaft rotatably
mounted in the knife carrier, a circular knife 21 being arranged and fixed on the knife shaft 41 in a form-fitting and/or force-fitting manner and in a rotationally fixed manner with respect to the knife shaft, and a drive for rotationally driving 49 the knife shaft 41, wherein the circular knife 21 has at least one region of reduced material thickness in a region of a circular knife plane spanned by the circular knife (is considered to be the single chamfered edge) , and a recess (shown in figure 2, and unnumbered thru which the drive axis 41 extends) for application to the knife shaft 41
Regarding claim 3, Jurs et al teaches the at least one aperture (unnumbered with drive shaft axis of 41 is configured as an opening in the circular knife plane spanned by the circular knife, in such a manner that an inner surface of the circular knife is connected to an outer surface of the circular knife. See figure 2, opening is unnumbered about axis 41.
Regarding claim 6, Jurs et al teaches a cutting edge 3 as viewed in Figure 1 A of the circular knife 21 has a first chamfer (unnumbered) and shown in Figure 1A directed towards the meat 9 to be detached and a second chamber(unnumbered) and shown in Figure 1A directed away from the meat 9, the first chamfer is longer than the second chamfer. See also para 0024.
Regarding claim 9, teaches two cutting units 21, see figure 1A and 1B which are configured identical in construction and are arranged spaced apart from each other substantially mirror-symmetrically on either side of a transport path for the products to be processed, in such a manner that a transport path for the products to be processed is formed between the two circular knives. This feature is clearly shown in figures 1A and 1B.
Regarding claim 13, teaches a control device. See discussion of control device in para 0030, however, not shown.
Regarding claim 14, teaches an apparatus for automatically processing products of the
food processing industry, comprising: a transport unit 200 in Figure 4 configured to transport the products to be processed in a transport direction T along a transport path 200 through at least one processing station, the at least one processing station includes the apparatus 1 and a control device for controlling the transport unit and the at least one processing station. See para 0030, control and guide means are not shown.
Regarding claim 15, teaches a method for automatically processing products of the food
processing industry, the method comprising the steps of:
transporting 6 the products 9 to be processed along a transport path 200 into a region of at least
one processing station 1 by a transport unit 6, processing the products 9 in the at least one processing station 1, detaching meat from a carcass 9 by an apparatus for detaching meat from the carcass or parts thereof as the products to be processed, wherein automatic execution is controlled by a control device, see para 0030, and a circular knife 21 of the apparatus for detaching the meat is passively controlled by the product to be processed, independently of the control device, during execution of the detaching step with respect to its position relative to the carcass by a flexibility of the circular knife. See para 0029.
Regarding claim 21, teaches the method is executed by the apparatus according to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2, 4, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurs et al (US Patent Publication 2015/0087214) in view of Nippon Suisan Kaisha WO 2014/0695139(cited by the Applicant).
Regarding claim 4, Jurs does not teach a plurality of apertures in the circular blade. Nippon teaches the at least one aperture is a plurality of apertures 52 which are configured as involutes or similar to an involute. See para 0052 and 0065 of Nippon and Figure 4. Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Jurs et al with a plurality of apertures, in view of the teachings of Nippon, in order to reduce frictional contact of the side of the knife with whatever is being cut.
Regarding claim 2, Jurs et al do not teach at least one region having a material thickness of zero. Nippon teaches the material thickness in the at least one region is zero 52 as shown in figure 4 of Nippon as being zero. Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the blade of Jurs et al with a region of zero thickness, in view of the teachings of Nippon, in order to reduce friction on the blade and thus reduce operating temperatures, thus allowing the blade to last longer.
Regarding claim 4, Jurs et al do not teach a plurality of apertures, Nippon teaches a plurality of apertures 52. Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the circular blades of Jurs et al with a plurality of apertures, in view of the teaches of Nippon, in order to reduce friction as the blade slices thru the product being cut and thus extends the blades or knife life span.
Regarding claim 5, teaches the at least one aperture is configured at a distance from a cutting edge of the circular knife outside an engagement region of the circular knife in the product to be processed.
Regarding claim 7, Jurs et al do not mention or teach the percentage of the total area of the apertures in relation to the total area of the blade. Nippon teaches an area of the plurality of apertures 52 in relation to a total area of the circular knife plane of the circular knife of 80 percent which is in the range of approximately 90% to 20%. See para 0065 and 0053 and figure 4 of the reference to Nippon. Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the aperture area of Jurs et al to a range of 20-90 percent, in view of the teachings of Nippon in order to regulate friction and heat better while the device is operating.
Claim(s) 8, 10-12 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable ove Jurs et al (US Patent Publication 2015/0087214) in view of Kirbach et al (US Patent 4,854,207).
Regarding claim 8, Jurs et al do not teach at least one compensating element having at least one compensating element being arranged between the circular knife and the abutment and/or between the circular knife and the securing means. Kirbach teaches compensating guide blocks 31 between the circular knife and the abutment (unnumbered). Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Jurs et al with an abutment and compensating element, in view of the teachings of Kirback et al, in order to dampen any vibrations that can occurred during the cutting process.
Regarding claim 10, Jurs et al do not teach at least one sliding body arranged spaced apart from the knife shaft. Kirbach et al teaches at least one sliding body 31, the at least one sliding body 31 is arranged spaced apart radially from the knife shaft, see element 30 in figure 1 and configured to be pressed against the circular knife via springs 33. See also figure 2 for two distinct embodiments of the guide. Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Jurs et al, with at least one sliding body, in view of the teachings of Kirbach et al, in order to dampen the vibrations of the circular knife while being used.
Regarding claim 11, Jurs et al do not teach at least one slikding body arranged outside and an engagement region of the circular knife, Kirbach teaches the at least one sliding body is arranged outside an engagement region of the circular knife in the product to be processed to bear against an inner side of the circular knife directed towards the product to be processed. Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Jurs et al, with at least one sliding body outside the engagement region of the circular blade of Jurs et al, in view of the teachings of Kirbach, in order to dampen the vibrations of the circular knife while in use.
Regarding claim 12, Jurs et al do not teach at least one sliding body configured to be actively controlled, however, Kirbach teaches the at least one sliding body 31 is configured to be actively controlled via springs 33. In that regard, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Jurs et al with an actively controlled sliding body, in view of the teachings of Kirbach so that while the circular knife is rotating, the dampening elements are always engaging the blade in that the vibrational forces are always occurring once the circular knife is rotating.
Regarding claim 16, teaches the circular knife 21 is passively controlled by the product to be processed, independently of the control device, during execution of the detaching step with respect to its position relative to the carcass by mounting the circular knife 21 on a knife shaft 41, which permits a compensating movement of the circular knife on
the knife shaft.
Regarding claim 17, teaches the circular knife is passively controlled by at least one sliding body and is actively controlled, by the control device, when the meat is detached from the carcass, in that the at least one sliding body is actively pressed against the circular knife with adjustable pressure from an inner side of the circular knife directed
towards the product to be processed.
Regarding claim 18, Jurs et al do not teach at least two sliding bodies are actuated separately. Kirbach teaches at least two sliding bodies 31 are provided, the at least two sliding bodies are actuated separately(because the springs 33 function separately from one another and engage the circular knife) from one another in order to be brought into contact with the circular knife in different positions thereof. Regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Jurs et al, with two sliding bodies actuated separately, in view of the teachings of Kirback, so that both sides of the circular knife can be engaged by the sliding bodies while the knife is rotating.
Regarding clam 19, Jurs et al do not teach a cooled circular knife, however, the rotating blade of Jurs et al as modified by Kirbach will inherently cool down especially during the non-cutting rotation versus the cutting rotation and the knife and sliding bodies will cool down due to wind flow of the rotating circular knife.
Regarding claim 20, Jurs et al do not teach at least one sliding body 31is changed curing processing. However, Kirbach teaches a position of the at least one sliding body 31 is changed before and/or during processing due to the sliding body 31 being connected to springs 33 to alter a position of a contact surface between the sliding body and the circular knife radially to an axis of rotation of the knife shaft and/or about the axis of rotation of the knife shaft. Regarding claim 20, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Jurs et al with a sliding body that changes during use, in view of the teaching of Kirbach, so that the sliding body is not continuously engaging the circular knife.
Regarding claim 16, teaches the circular knife 21 is passively controlled by the product to be processed, independently of the control device, during execution of the detaching step with respect to its position relative to the carcass by mounting the circular knife 21 on a knife shaft 41, which permits a compensating movement of the circular knife on
the knife shaft.
Regarding claim 16, teaches the circular knife 21 is passively controlled by the product to be processed, independently of the control device, during execution of the detaching step with respect to its position relative to the carcass by mounting the circular knife 21 on a knife shaft 41, which permits a compensating movement of the circular knife on
the knife shaft.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T. PRICE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3:30PM.
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 M. 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.
/RICHARD T PRICE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights