Detailed Action
Preliminary Amendment
1. Entry of applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 5-22-25 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.
Specification
3. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology in particular the term “means”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
4. Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 3 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
5. 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 has not invoked 35 U.S.C 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed means of threads in that applicant claims specific structure related to the means of threads being the claimed threads.
Regarding claim 4, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed securing means and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the securing means are detailed as a recess, washer and clamping screw as seen in page 3 lines 14-20 of applicant’s originally filed specification. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed drive system and as seen in applicant’s originally file disclosure the drive system is not detailed structurally.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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 1-5 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. The phrase “intended to be” in line 3 of claim 1 makes it unclear as to whether the plate is secured to the shaft. Further, the phrase “is intended” in line 9 of claim 1 makes it unclear as to whether the holes receive a finger of the plucker.
Claims 2 and 3 each recite the limitation "the interior surface of the cover" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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 as to whether the shaft detailed in line 1 of claim 4 is the same or different than the shaft detailed cited claim 1. Further, it is unclear as to whether the finger detailed in line 4 of claim 4 is the same or different than the finger detailed in cited claim 1. Further, the phrase “a finger inserted in said hole” in line 4 of claim 4 makes it unclear as to whether a finger is inserted in each of the plurality of holes or whether only a single finger is claimed inserted in one of the plurality of holes. Further, as detailed earlier in paragraph 5 of this office action, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed drive system and since applicant has not structurally defined the drive system in applicant’s originally filed disclosure it is unclear to what structures encompass the claimed drive system.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the junction" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NL Patent No. 9201947 to Oostzan in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,773,128 to Stanley et al.
Referring to claim 1, Oostzan discloses a finger holder for a plucker, the finger holder being designed to be rotated about a rotation axis – see central axis proximate item 4 in figure 2, and comprising, a plate – at 10, intended to be secured to a shaft – at 5, of the plucker – see figure 2, wherein the plate – at 10, has an edge – see outer edge/surface of 2, forming a cylindrical surface around the rotation axis – see portion of plate 10 that connects to the shaft 5 forming a cylindrical surface formed by the thickness of the plate 10, between a rear face – rear surface of 10, and a front face – front surface of 10 – see figure 2, and a cover – at 1, that has a disc – front portion of 1, and a skirt – angled portions of 1 connected to the disk portion of 1 as seen in figure 2, wherein the disc – at front of 1, covers the front face – front of 10, of the plate – at 10 – see figure 2, and wherein the skirt – at rear of 1, is curved and extends from the disc – front of 1, towards the plate – at 10 – see figure 2, while covering the edge – outer edge/surface of 10, of the plate – at 10 – see figure 2, wherein the disc – front of 1, is pierced with a plurality of holes – at 2 – see figure 1, and wherein each is intended to each receive a finger – at 11,12, of the plucker – see figure 2, wherein an interior surface of the skirt – rear of 1, and the edge – outer edge/surface of 10, cooperate coaxial with the rotation axis – central axis – see at 1,10 in figure 2. Oostzan does not disclose the skirt is cylindrical. Stanley et al. does disclose the skirt – at 116, is cylindrical – see figures 1-6. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Oostzan and have the skirt take any suitable shape including the claimed cylindrical shape as disclosed by Stanley et al., so as to yield the predictable result of facilitating removal and attachment of the fingers to the device as desired. Oostzan further does not disclose the skirt and edge cooperate by means of threads. Stanley et al. does disclose the skirt – at 116, and edge – at outer surface of 112, cooperate by means of threads – at 114. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Oostzan and add the threaded connection between the skirt and edge, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the components to be movable into different positions as desired.
Referring to claims 2 and 3, Oostzan as modified by Stanley et al. further discloses the edge – at outer surface of 112, has a male thread – at 114, and the interior surface of the cover/skirt – at 116, has a female thread – see figure 6 of Stanley et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Oostzan and add the threaded connection between the skirt and edge, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the components to be movable into different positions as desired.
Referring to claim 4, Oostzan as modified by Stanley et al. discloses a plucker comprising a shaft – at 5, a drive system – not shown but connected at 5, driving the shaft – at 5 in rotation about the rotation axis – central axis proximate item 4 as seen in figure 2 of Oostzan, a finger holder according to claim 1 – see rejection of claim 1 detailed earlier, wherein the plate – at 10, is secured to the shaft – at 5, by securing means – at 9,13, and for each hole – at 2, in the disc – front of 1, a finger – at 3,12, is inserted in the hole – at 2 – see figures 1-2 of Oostzan. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed drive system, the drive system not shown but connected to the shaft – at 5 of Oostzan is at least functionally equivalent to applicant’s drive system since the drive system of Oostzan provides similar function of rotating the shaft to that of applicant’s drive system. Further, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed securing means, items 8 and 13 of Oostzan are washer shaped components with item 13 being disposed in a recess in the shaft – at 5 and therefore is consistent with applicant’s disclosed securing means.
Referring to claim 5, Oostzan as modified by Stanley et al. further discloses each finger – at 3,12, comprises a shoe – at 12 below the conical section of 12, and a rod – at 3 and conical portion of 12, with a frustoconical base – see conical section of 12 in figure 2 of Oostzan, that broadens at the junction with the shoe – at 12 below the conical portion – see figure 2 of Oostzan, wherein the shoe is gripped between the plate – at 10, and the disc – at the front of 1 – see figure 2 of Oostzan.
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 poultry plucking/defeathering devices in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 3,218,668 to Engkjer et al. – shows poultry plucking device
U.S. Pat. No. 4,175,302 to Scheier et al. – shows poultry plucking device
U.S. Pat. No. 4,292,709 to van Mil – shows poultry plucking device
U.S. Pat. No. 7,066,805 to Turner – shows poultry plucking device
U.S. Pat. No. 7,070,494 to Rapp et al. – shows poultry plucking device
U.S. Pat. No. 9,414,608 to Goodyear – shows poultry plucking device
U.S. Pat. No. 10,785,988 to Batty et al. – shows poultry plucking device
U.S. Pat. No. 12,089,604 to McCoy – shows poultry plucking device
U.S. Pat. No. 12,550,907 to Poston et al. – shows poultry plucking 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
