Detailed Action
Preliminary Amendment
1. Entry of applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 4-29-25 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 1-7, 9-11, 13-19, 92, 95, 97-98, 107-109 and 182-184 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. It is unclear to whether “an animal” detailed in line 7 of claim 1 is the same or different than “the animal” detailed in line 3 of claim 1. Further, claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “the animal” in line 3, “the head” in line 7, “the interior” in line 8, “the enclosure side walls” in line 8, “the enclosure walls” in line 10.
Claim 2 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 floor liner detailed in line 2 of claim 2 is the same or different than the liner detailed in line 1 of claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the rear portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 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 “second stunner mount” detailed in line 2 of claim 5 is the same or different than “the second moveable stunner mount” detailed in line 1 of claim 5.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the back portion" in line 2 and “the length” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 “said parameters” in line 2 of claim 9 is the same or different than “stunning parameters” detailed in line 2 of claim 9.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the cradle surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 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 neck” in each of lines 3 and 6 is the same or different than “the neck portion” detailed in line 2. Further, claim 17 lacks antecedent basis for “the neck portion” in line 2 and “the amount of force” in line 5.
Claim 92 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 “an animal” detailed in line 7 of claim 92 is the same or different than “the animal” detailed in line 3 of claim 92. Further, claim 92 lacks antecedent basis for “the animal” in line 3, “the head” in line 7, “the back portion” in line 8 and “the length” in line 11.
Claim 95 recites the limitation "the rear portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 97 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 “second stunner mount” detailed in line 2 of claim 97 is the same or different than “the second moveable stunner mount” detailed in lines 1-2 of claim 97.
Claim 107 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 neck” in each of lines 3 and 6 is the same or different than “the neck portion” detailed in line 2. Further, claim 107 lacks antecedent basis for “the neck portion” in line 2 and “the amount of force” in line 5.
Claim 182 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 “an animal” detailed in line 7 of claim 182 is the same or different than “the animal” detailed in line 3 of claim 182. Further, claim 182 lacks antecedent basis for “the animal” in line 3, “the head” in line 7 and “the cradle surface” in line 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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, 4-6, 9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR Patent No. 2750295 to Bernadet.
Referring to claim 1, Bernadet discloses an enclosure for stunning animals for use in livestock/slaughterhouse operations comprising, a floor – at 5, for supporting the animal before and during stunning – see figures 1-2, a plurality of upward-extending side walls – at 3,4, around the floor for enclosing the animal before and during stunning – see figures 1-2, a moveable stunner mount – at 6, for securing a stunner – at 7 – see figures 1-3 with item 6 being moveable via items 10 and 11, the stunner mount – at 6, being positionable toward and away from the head of an animal in the enclosure – see figures 2-3 and page 9 lines 16-24 and page 11 lines 8-22 of the English translation provided by applicant, and a non-electrically conductive liner – see polypropylene sheet on items 3,4 as detailed in page 11 lines 3-5 of the English translation, on the interior of the enclosure side walls – at 3,4 – see page 11 lines 3-5 of the English translation, to reduce current flow and grounding effects when the animal is electrically stunned while contacting the enclosure walls – at 3,4 – see figures 1-2 and page 11 lines 3-5 of the English translation.
Referring to claim 4, Bernadet further discloses the stunner comprises an electrical stunner or a pneumatic stunner – see electrical stunner detailed in pages 9-11 of the English translation.
Referring to claim 5, Bernadet further discloses a second moveable stunner mount – at 6, for securing a second stunner – at 7 – see two stunner mounts – at 6 and stunners – at 7 on each side of the animal in figures 2-3, the second stunner mount- at 6, being positionable toward and away from the head of an animal in the enclosure – see figures 2-3 and page 9 lines 16-24 and page 11 lines 8-22 of the English translation, the second stunner – at 7, comprising a pneumatic stunner or an electrical stunner – see electrical stunner detailed in pages 9-11 of the English translation.
Referring to claim 6, Bernadet further discloses the non-electrically conductive liner comprises a polymeric liner – see polypropylene detailed in page 11 lines 3-5 of the English translation, to reduce sound effects produced by the animal within the enclosure – see figures 2-3 and page 11 lines 3-6 of the English translation where the polypropylene sheet insulates the device and also provides a barrier between the animal and the outside of the enclosure so as to provide for a reduction in sound within the device.
Referring to claim 9, Bernadet further discloses a controller – not shown but detailed in page 9 lines 1-27 of the English abstract where a controller would be used in relation to the disclosed detectors and to provide for the adjustable pressure and adjustable voltage and current detailed, for monitoring stunning parameters in the enclosure during stunning operations – see detectors detailed in page 9 lines 1-27 of the English abstract, the parameters comprising at least one of stunner setpoint pressure – see page 9 lines 1-3, stunner supply pressure input, stun circuit electrical resistance, stun circuit electrical current – see page 9 lines 5-9 of the English translation, stun circuit electrical current duration – see page 9 lines 5-9 of the English translation, or any combination thereof.
Referring to claim 17, Bernadet further discloses a plurality of neck-holding panels – at 8, between the side walls – at 3,4, to converge around the neck portion of the animal – see figures 2-3, the neck-holding panels – at 8, being moveable toward and away from the animal and contact the neck of the animal to secure the animal's head in the enclosure before stunning – see figures 2-3 and page 9 lines 1-21 and page 11 lines 1-28 of the English translation, and a pressure regulator – at 12 and see detectors detailed in page 9 lines 1-21 and page 11 lines 1-28 of the English translation, controlling the amount of force exerted by the neck-holding panels to cushion and reduce excessive force on the neck of the animal – see page 9 lines 1-3 of the English translation detailing controlling pressure/force adjustments.
Referring to claim 18, Bernadet further discloses the neck-holding panels – at 8, are electrically insulated from the enclosure to prevent current flow and grounding effects when the animal is electrically stunned while contacting the neck-holding panels – at 8 – see page 11 lines 3-5 of the English translation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernadet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,937,793 to Church.
Referring to claim 2, Bernadet further discloses a non-electrically conductive liner on the floor of the enclosure – at 5 – see polypropylene sheet detailed in page 11 lines 3-6 of the English abstract, but does not disclose the floor liner having raised portions to reduce slipping by the animal before the animal is stunned. Church does disclose the floor liner – at 30, having raised portions – at 38-41, to reduce slipping by the animal before the animal is stunned – see figure 3 and column 8 lines 38-54. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet and add the floor with raised portions as disclosed by Church, so as to yield the predictable result of restricting/limiting movement of the animals during operation.
Claim(s) 3, 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernadet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,779,309 to Myer et al.
Referring to claim 3, Bernadet does not disclose a moveable rump panel between the side walls to contact the rear portion of the animal, the rump panel being pivotable on a lower end thereof and moveable forward and downward toward the animal to move the animal forward in the enclosure before stunning, and at least one actuator to move the rump panel toward and away from the animal. Myer et al. does disclose a moveable rump panel – at 64,66, between the side walls to contact the rear portion of the animal – see figures 1-2 and column 2 lines 47-59, the rump panel being pivotable on a lower end thereof – at 62, and moveable forward and downward toward the animal – see figure 4, to move the animal forward in the enclosure before processing – see figures 1-2 and column 2 lines 47-59 where items 64,66 are capable of moving the animal forward given direct contact to the rear of the animal, and at least one actuator – at 68-73, to move the rump panel – at 64,66, toward and away from the animal – see figures 1-2 and column 2 lines 47-67. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet and add the rump panel of Myer et al., so as to yield the predictable result of positioning the animal as desired in the device while improving sanitary conditions in the device.
Referring to claim 7, Bernadet does not disclose a moveable back-push panel between the side walls to contact the back portion of the animal, the back-push panel being moveable downwardly toward and upwardly away from the animal and having a downward- facing concave surface when viewed along the length of the animal to secure the animal in the enclosure before stunning. Myer et al. does disclose a moveable back-push panel – at 82,83, between the side walls to contact the back portion of the animal – see figure 1 and column 3 lines 1-25, the back-push panel being moveable downwardly toward and upwardly away from the animal – see via items 88-102 in figure 1 and column 3 lines 1-25, and having a downward- facing concave surface – at 83, when viewed along the length of the animal to secure the animal in the enclosure before processing – see figure 1 and column 3 lines 1-25. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet and add the back-push panel of Myer et al., so as to yield the predictable result of positioning the animal as desired in the device while improving sanitary conditions in the device.
Referring to claim 19, Bernadet does not disclose a moveable panel between the side walls to hold a portion of the animal before stunning, at least one pneumatic cylinder actuator to move the panel toward and away from the animal, and an opening external to the enclosure, wherein the pneumatic cylinder actuator includes an intake for pressurized air and an exhaust for the pressurized air, and wherein the opening external to the enclosure exhausts pressurized air from the pneumatic cylinder actuator exhaust. Myer et al. does disclose a moveable panel – at 64,66, between the side walls to hold a portion of the animal before stunning – see figures 1-2 and column 2 lines 47-67, at least one pneumatic cylinder actuator – at 68-73, to move the panel toward and away from the animal – see figures 1-2, and an opening external to the enclosure – see open area behind 64,66 in figures 1-2, wherein the pneumatic cylinder actuator – at 68-73, includes an intake for pressurized air and an exhaust for the pressurized air – see air lines not labeled connected to item 68 in figures 1-2, and wherein the opening external to the enclosure exhausts pressurized air from the pneumatic cylinder actuator exhaust – see figures 1-2 where pressurized air is capable of being exhausted through the area behind items 64,66. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet and add the movable panel of Myer et al., so as to yield the predictable result of positioning the animal as desired in the device while improving sanitary conditions in the device.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernadet as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,894,474 to Ralph et al.
Bernadet does not disclose a weight load cell under the enclosure floor for weighing the animal before the animal is electrically stunned, and wherein the controller may receive data on the animal weight from the load cell, the controller adapted to set stunning parameters based on the animal weight. Ralph et al. does disclose a weight load cell – see weight sensor detailed in column 11 line 51 to column 12 line 5, connected to the enclosure and enclosure floor for weighing the animal before the animal is electrically stunned – see figures 2-3 and column 11 line 51 to column 12 line 5, and wherein the controller – at 40, may receive data on the animal weight from the load cell – see column 11 line 51 to column 12 line 5, the controller – at 40, adapted to set stunning parameters based on the animal weight – see figures 2-3 and column 11 line 51 to column 12 line 5. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet and add the load cell of Ralph et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring more accurate stunning of differently sized animals as desired. Bernadet as modified by Ralph et al. does not disclose the load cell is under the enclosure floor. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet as modified by Ralph et al. and have the load cell in any suitable location including the claimed location of being under the enclosure floor, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring a more accurate weighing of the animal in that the sensor under the floor would allow for a direct weighing of the animal since it is disposed on the floor during operation of the device.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernadet as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,724,309 to Grose et al.
Referring to claim 11, Bernadet does not disclose an RFID scanner between the side walls for receiving the identification information of the animal before the animal is stunned, and wherein the controller may receive data on the animal from the RFID scanner, the controller adapted to set stunning parameters based on the animal data. Grose et al. does disclose an RFID scanner between the side walls for receiving the identification information of the animal before the animal is stunned – see column 10 lines 8-26 with information gathered from an RFID ear tag on the animal, and wherein the controller may receive data on the animal from the RFID scanner, the controller adapted to set stunning parameters based on the animal data – see column 10 lines 8-42 where a controller has access to a database that is capable of setting stunning parameters from the information in the database. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet and add the RFID scanning as disclosed by Grose et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring better processing of the animals during operation in that the animal’s information/characteristics are more easily used by the device as desired.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernadet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,083,094 to Cohen and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,331,923 to Mollhagen.
Referring to claim 13, Bernadet does not disclose a cradle adjacent the floor for receiving the animal after stunning, the cradle surface contacting the animal having a polymeric covering for reducing noise as the animal is tipped out onto the cradle after stunning. Cohen does disclose a cradle – at 90-93, adjacent the floor – at 42 – see figures 1-4, for receiving the animal after stunning – see figures 1-4 and column 6 line 15 to column 8 line 9, the cradle surface contacting the animal having a covering – see skin detailed in column 5 lines 1-5 and column 6 lines 15-40, for reducing noise as the animal is tipped out onto the cradle after stunning – see figures 1-4 where the addition of the skin would provide an additional barrier between the inside of the device and the outside of the device so as to provide some noise reduction. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet and add the cradle of Cohen, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring proper removal of the animal from the device during operation. Bernadet as modified by Cohen does not disclose the covering is a polymeric covering. Mollhagen does disclose the covering is a polymeric covering for reducing noise – see at column 7 lines 37-50 and column 11 lines 23-28 detailing polyethylene and nylon. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet as modified by Cohen and make the covering out of any suitable material including the polymeric covering disclosed by Mollhagen, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device both durable and lightweight as desired.
Referring to claim 14, Bernadet as modified by Cohen and Mollhagen further discloses the cradle further comprises at least one immobilization bar – at 92 or 93 or 94, on the cradle – at 90, for securing the animal therein – see figures 1-4 and column 6 line 15 to column 8 line 9 of Cohen. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet and add the cradle of Cohen, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring proper removal of the animal from the device during operation.
Referring to claim 15, Bernadet as modified by Cohen and Mollhagen further discloses the cradle – at 90, is pivotable to three different positions – see positions associated with the movement arc disclosed in figure 4 of Cohen, for ease of operator slaughter – see figures 1-4 and column 6 line 15 to column 8 line 9 of Cohen. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet and add the cradle of Cohen, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring proper removal of the animal from the device during operation.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernadet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0359233 to Callicrate.
Referring to claim 16, Bernadet does not disclose a winch and a safety-interlocking keyed system fitted to the winch for operator safety. Callicrate does disclose a winch – at 54-58 – see figure 4 and paragraph [0039]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet and add the winch of Callicrate, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the animal to be more easily removed from the device as desired. Bernadet as modified by Callicrate does not disclose a safety-interlocking keyed system fitted to the winch for operator safety. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet as modified by Callicrate and add the safety system claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of better protecting the animal and the user of the device as desired.
Claim(s) 92, 97-98 and 107-109 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernadet in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,087,195 to Marshall et al.
Referring to claim 92, Bernadet discloses an enclosure for stunning animals for use in livestock/slaughterhouse operations comprising, a floor – at 5, for supporting the animal before and during stunning – see figures 1-2, a plurality of upward-extending side walls – at 3,4, around the floor for enclosing the animal before and during stunning – see figures 1-2, a moveable stunner mount – at 6, for securing a stunner – at 7 – see figures 1-3 with item 6 being moveable via items 10 and 11, the stunner mount – at 6, being positionable toward and away from the head of an animal in the enclosure – see figures 2-3 and page 9 lines 16-24 and page 11 lines 8-22 of the English translation provided by applicant, and a non-electrically conductive liner – see polypropylene sheet on items 3,4 as detailed in page 11 lines 3-5 of the English translation, on the interior of the enclosure side walls – at 3,4 – see page 11 lines 3-5 of the English translation, to reduce current flow and grounding effects when the animal is electrically stunned while contacting the enclosure walls – at 3,4 – see figures 1-2 and page 11 lines 3-5 of the English translation. Bernadet does not disclose a moveable back-push panel between the side walls to contact the back portion of the animal, the back-push panel being moveable downwardly toward and upwardly away from the animal and having a downward-facing concave surface when viewed along the length of the animal to secure the animal in the enclosure before stunning. Marshall et al. does disclose a moveable back-push panel – at 118-122, between the side walls – see figures 1-7, to contact the back portion of the animal – see figures 1-7 and column 4 lines 1-34, the back-push panel being moveable downwardly toward and upwardly away from the animal – see figures 1-7 and column 4 lines 1-34, and having a downward-facing concave surface – at 120,122, when viewed along the length of the animal to secure the animal in the enclosure before stunning – see figures 1-7 and column 4 lines 1-34. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet and add the back-push panel of Marshall et al., so as to yield the predictable result of positioning the animal as desired in the device while improving sanitary conditions in the device.
Referring to claim 97, Bernadet as modified by Marshall et al. further discloses a second moveable stunner mount – at 6, for securing a second stunner – at 7 – see two stunner mounts – at 6 and stunners – at 7 on each side of the animal in figures 2-3 of Bernadet, the second stunner mount- at 6, being positionable toward and away from the head of an animal in the enclosure – see figures 2-3 and page 9 lines 16-24 and page 11 lines 8-22 of the English translation of Bernadet, the second stunner – at 7, comprising a pneumatic stunner or an electrical stunner – see electrical stunner detailed in pages 9-11 of the English translation of Bernadet.
Referring to claim 98, Bernadet as modified by Marshall et al. does not disclose the back-push panel concave surface is constructed of polymeric material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet as modified by Marshall et al. and make the back-push panel out of any suitable material including the claimed polymeric material, so as to yield the predictable result of making the back-push panel both lightweight and durable for repeated use.
Referring to claim 107, Bernadet as modified by Marshall et al. further discloses Bernadet further discloses a plurality of neck-holding panels – at 8, between the side walls – at 3,4, to converge around the neck portion of the animal – see figures 2-3 of Bernadet, the neck-holding panels – at 8, being moveable toward and away from the animal and contact the neck of the animal to secure the animal's head in the enclosure before stunning – see figures 2-3 and page 9 lines 1-21 and page 11 lines 1-28 of the English translation of Bernadet, and a pressure regulator – at 12 and see detectors detailed in page 9 lines 1-21 and page 11 lines 1-28 of the English translation of Bernadet, controlling the amount of force exerted by the neck-holding panels to cushion and reduce excessive force on the neck of the animal – see page 9 lines 1-3 of the English translation of Bernadet detailing controlling pressure/force adjustments.
Referring to claim 108, Bernadet as modified by Marshall et al. further discloses the neck-holding panels – at 8, are electrically insulated from the enclosure to prevent current flow and grounding effects when the animal is electrically stunned while contacting the neck-holding panels – at 8 – see page 11 lines 3-5 of the English translation of Bernadet.
Referring to claim 109, Bernadet as modified by Marshall et al. further discloses at least one pneumatic cylinder actuator – at 128-130, to move the back-push panel – at 118-122, toward and away from the animal – see figures 1-7 of Marshall et al., the pneumatic cylinder actuator – at 118-122, having an intake for pressurized air and an exhaust for the pressurized air – see at 132 and 134, and an opening – see openings in the enclosure as seen in figures 1-7 of Marshall et al., external to the enclosure – see on the outside of the enclosure in figures 1-7 of Marshall et al. for exhausting pressurized air from the pneumatic cylinder actuator exhaust – see figures 1-7 where the openings in the enclosure are capable of exhausting pressurized air. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet and add the back-push panel of Marshall et al., so as to yield the predictable result of positioning the animal as desired in the device while improving sanitary conditions in the device.
Claim(s) 95 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernadet as modified by Marshall et al. as applied to claim 92 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,779,309 to Myer et al.
Referring to claim 95, Bernadet as modified by Marshall et al. further discloses a moveable rump panel – at 87-94 of Marshall et al., between the side walls to contact the rear portion of the animal – see figures 1-7 of Marshall et al., the rump panel moveable forward and downward toward the animal to move the animal forward in the enclosure before stunning – see figures 1-7 of Marshall et al., and at least one actuator – at 102-109, to move the rump panel toward and away from the animal – see figures 1-7 of Marshall et al., but does not disclose the rump panel is pivotable on a lower end. Myer et al. does disclose a moveable rump panel – at 64,66, between the side walls to contact the rear portion of the animal – see figures 1-2 and column 2 lines 47-59, the rump panel being pivotable on a lower end thereof – at 62, and moveable forward and downward toward the animal – see figure 4, to move the animal forward in the enclosure before processing – see figures 1-2 and column 2 lines 47-59 where items 64,66 are capable of moving the animal forward given direct contact to the rear of the animal, and at least one actuator – at 68-73, to move the rump panel – at 64,66, toward and away from the animal – see figures 1-2 and column 2 lines 47-67. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet as modified by Marshall et al. and add the rump panel of Myer et al., so as to yield the predictable result of positioning the animal as desired in the device while improving sanitary conditions in the device.
Claim(s) 182-184 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernadet in view of Cohen and further in view of Mollhagen.
Referring to claim 182, Bernadet discloses an enclosure for stunning animals for use in livestock/slaughterhouse operations comprising, a floor – at 5, for supporting the animal before and during stunning – see figures 1-2, a plurality of upward-extending side walls – at 3,4, around the floor for enclosing the animal before and during stunning – see figures 1-2, a moveable stunner mount – at 6, for securing a stunner – at 7 – see figures 1-3 with item 6 being moveable via items 10 and 11, the stunner mount – at 6, being positionable toward and away from the head of an animal in the enclosure – see figures 2-3 and page 9 lines 16-24 and page 11 lines 8-22 of the English translation provided by applicant, and a non-electrically conductive liner – see polypropylene sheet on items 3,4 as detailed in page 11 lines 3-5 of the English translation, on the interior of the enclosure side walls – at 3,4 – see page 11 lines 3-5 of the English translation, to reduce current flow and grounding effects when the animal is electrically stunned while contacting the enclosure walls – at 3,4 – see figures 1-2 and page 11 lines 3-5 of the English translation. Bernadet does not disclose a cradle adjacent the floor for receiving the animal after stunning, the cradle surface contacting the animal having a polymeric covering for reducing noise as the animal is tipped out onto the cradle after stunning. Cohen does disclose a cradle – at 90-93, adjacent the floor – at 42 – see figures 1-4, for receiving the animal after stunning – see figures 1-4 and column 6 line 15 to column 8 line 9, the cradle surface contacting the animal having a covering – see skin detailed in column 5 lines 1-5 and column 6 lines 15-40, for reducing noise as the animal is tipped out onto the cradle after stunning – see figures 1-4 where the addition of the skin would provide an additional barrier between the inside of the device and the outside of the device so as to provide some noise reduction. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet and add the cradle of Cohen, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring proper removal of the animal from the device during operation. Bernadet as modified by Cohen does not disclose the covering is a polymeric covering. Mollhagen does disclose the covering is a polymeric covering for reducing noise – see at column 7 lines 37-50 and column 11 lines 23-28 detailing polyethylene and nylon. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet as modified by Cohen and make the covering out of any suitable material including the polymeric covering disclosed by Mollhagen, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device both durable and lightweight as desired.
Referring to claim 183, Bernadet as modified by Cohen and Mollhagen further discloses the cradle further comprises at least one immobilization bar – at 92 or 93 or 94, on the cradle – at 90, for securing the animal therein – see figures 1-4 and column 6 line 15 to column 8 line 9 of Cohen. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet and add the cradle of Cohen, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring proper removal of the animal from the device during operation.
Referring to claim 184, Bernadet as modified by Cohen and Mollhagen further discloses the cradle – at 90, is pivotable to three different positions – see positions associated with the movement arc disclosed in figure 4 of Cohen, for ease of operator slaughter – see figures 1-4 and column 6 line 15 to column 8 line 9 of Cohen. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bernadet and add the cradle of Cohen, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring proper removal of the animal from the device during operation.
Conclusion
5. 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 animal stunning/slaughtering devices in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 3,092,871 to Marshall et al. – shows stunning device
U.S. Pat. No. 3,324,503 to St. Clair – shows slaughtering device
U.S. Pat. No. 3,996,644 to Andersson – shows stunning device
U.S. Pat. No. 4,748,719 to Bowman et al. – shows stunning device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,326,307 to Bernardus et al. – shows stunning device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,906,540 to Grandin – shows stunning device
U.S. Pat. No. 11,071,303 to Castelein et al. – shows stunning device
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