Detailed Action
Preliminary Amendment
1. Entry of applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 9-10-25 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 drawing figure reference numerals. 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 Interpretation
4. 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 cutting unit in that applicant claims specific structure related to the cutting unit being the claimed knife. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed drive mechanism and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the drive mechanism is detailed as a primary drive mechanism and a secondary drive mechanism with the primary mechanism disclosed as a stationary primary guide track as seen in page 9 lines 4-7 of applicant’s originally filed specification and the secondary drive mechanism is detailed as an adjustable secondary guide track and an actuation unit comprising a follower wheel as detailed in page 6 lines 20-27 of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 4, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed primary drive mechanism and also with the claimed secondary drive mechanism and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the primary drive mechanism is detailed as a stationary primary guide track as seen in page 9 lines 4-7 of applicant’s originally filed specification and the secondary drive mechanism is detailed as an adjustable secondary guide track and actuation unit comprising a follower wheel.
Regarding claim 7, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed actuation unit in that applicant claims specific structure related to the actuation unit being the claimed secondary follower wheel.
Regarding claim 16, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed control unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the control unit is not detailed structurally.
Regarding claim 18, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed harvesting system and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the harvesting system is detailed as an upstream meat extractor device and a downstream meat extractor device as seen in page 11 lines 11-18 of applicant’s originally filed disclosure and is further detailed as a pair of claws and a harvesting knife as detailed in page 26 lines 20-30 of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 19, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed upstream meat extractor and the claimed downstream meat extractor and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in originally filed claims 20 and 21 the upstream meat extractor is detailed as a pair of claws and a knife, while the downstream meat extractor is not specifically detailed structurally in applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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, 15-21 and 27 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 drive mechanism as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 of this office action and as seen in page 9 lines 4-7 and page 6 lines 20-27, these paragraphs beginning on line 4 of page 9, line 20 of page 6 and line 25 of page 6, each begin with the term “optionally” which renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other types of drive mechanisms than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "non-cutting position" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in 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. Applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed primary drive mechanism and the claimed secondary drive mechanism as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 of this office action and as seen in page 9 lines 4-7 and page 6 lines 20-27, these paragraphs beginning on line 4 of page 9, line 20 of page 6 and line 25 of page 6, each begin with the term “optionally” which renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other types of drive mechanisms than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the latch controller" in lines 1-2, “the first control state” in line 2 and “the second control state” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is recommended that applicant make claim 10 dependent upon claim 9 and for purposes of the prior art rejections that follow, claim 10 is considered as being dependent upon claim 9.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the receiving position" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 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 control unit as detailed in paragraph 4 of this office action and the control unit is not detailed structurally in applicant’s originally file disclosure, therefore it is unclear to what structure defines the claimed control unit.
Claim 18 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 harvesting system as detailed in paragraph 4 of this office action and as seen in page 11 lines 11-18 details the harvesting system as optionally having an upstream and downstream meat extractor device and the term “optionally” makes it unclear as to whether other types of harvesting systems than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 19 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 upstream and downstream meat extractors and with respect to the upstream meat extractor applicant’s originally filed specification does not positively recite the upstream meat extractor comprises claws and a knife while claims 20-21 which depend from claim 19 do disclose the upstream meat extractor comprises claws and a knife and therefore it is unclear to whether the upstream meat extractor in claim 19 is to be considered as encompassing other structures than the claws and knife disclosed. With respect to the downstream meat extractor applicant’s originally filed specification does not positively recite any specific structures related to the downstream meat extractor and therefore it is unclear to what structures encompass the downstream meat extractor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-8, 11-12 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP Patent No. 3250039 to Stooker.
Referring to claims 1 and 27, Stooker discloses a system and method for/of making a preparatory incision longitudinally of a poultry leg having a first bone and a second bone articulated by a joint and surrounded by meat – see paragraph [0001], the system comprising a cutting unit having a knife – at 21,51, and a conveyor – at 5,7, for conveying the poultry leg along a conveyance path coincident with the cutting unit – at 21,51 – see figure 1, a drive mechanism – at 9, arranged for selectively being in a first mode – selective via on/off-start/stop operation, or a second mode – not required by the claim given the “or” clause, the drive mechanism – at 9, in the first mode being configured for driving the cutting unit – at 21,51, to move the knife – at 51, along a predefined first cutting trajectory for making a first preparatory incision longitudinally of the poultry leg – see figures 1-6 and paragraphs [0012]-[0016], and the drive mechanism in the second mode being configured for driving the cutting unit so as to move the knife along a predefined second cutting trajectory, different from the first cutting trajectory, for making a second preparatory incision longitudinally of the poultry leg – not required by the claim given the “or” clause in line 7 of claim 1. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed drive mechanism, item 9 of Stooker discloses a guide track – at 23 for use with a follower wheel – at 27 as seen in figure 1, which is consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Referring to claim 2, Stooker further discloses the drive mechanism – at 9, in the first mode is arranged for moving the knife between a cutting position for performing the first preparatory incision to non-cutting position – see positions detailed in figure 6 and see paragraphs [0012]-[0016], and wherein the drive mechanism in the second mode is arranged for, with respect to the first mode, retarding and/or advancing the movement of the knife between the cutting position to the non-cutting position – not required by the claim given the “or” clause in line 7 of claim 1.
Referring to claim 3, Stooker further discloses the first preparatory incision is a preparatory incision of a first length – see figures 1-6 and paragraphs [0012]-[0016], and wherein the second preparatory incision is of the second length different from the first length – not required by the claim given the “or” clause in line 7 of claim 1.
Referring to claim 4, Stooker further discloses the drive mechanism – at 9, comprises a primary drive mechanism – at 19,39, for moving the cutting unit – at 21, lengthwise of a linear guide member – at 15, from a first cutting unit position to a second cutting unit position – see figures 1-6 and paragraphs [0012]-[0016], and a secondary drive mechanism – at 23,27, arranged for moving the knife – at 51, from the receiving position for receiving the poultry leg to the cutting position for performing the preparatory incision – see figure 6 and paragraphs [0012]-[0016]. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed primary drive mechanism and secondary drive mechanism, Stooker discloses guide tracks – at 19 and 23 for use with follower wheels 27 and 39 consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Referring to claim 5, Stooker further discloses the secondary drive mechanism – at 23,27, is adjustable – see for example the structure connecting item 23 to item 25 in figures 1, 8-9 and 12, for in the first mode guiding a secondary follower wheel – at 27, of the cutting unit – at 21, along a first path – see figures 1-12, or, in the second mode, guiding the secondary follower wheel along a second, different path – not required by the claim given the “or” clause in line 7 of claim 1.
Referring to claim 6, Stooker further discloses the secondary drive mechanism comprises a secondary guide track – at 23, having an upstream section and a downstream section – see along the length of 23 in figure 1, and wherein the downstream section is adjustable relative to the upstream section – see capable of adjustment via structure connecting item 23 to item 25 in figures 1, 8-9 and 12.
Referring to claim 7, Stooker further discloses the secondary drive mechanism comprises an actuation unit – at 27, associated with the linear guide member – at 15, the actuation unit comprising a secondary follower wheel – at 27, for being guided by the secondary guide track – at 23, for being moved lengthwise of the linear guide member – at 15, relative to the cutting unit – at 21, between a proximal position, proximate the cutting unit – at 21, and a distal position, distal from the cutting unit – at 21 – see figures 1-12, and wherein the actuation unit – at 27, in the proximal position is arranged for causing the cutting unit – at 21, to be in the non-cutting position and wherein the actuation unit – at 27, in the distal position is arranged for causing the cutting unit – at 21, to be in the cutting position, or vice versa – see figures 1-12 and paragraphs [0012]-[0016].
Referring to claim 8, Stooker further discloses the actuation unit – at 27, is releasably latchable to the cutting unit – at 21, in the proximal position of the actuation unit – at 27 – see figures 1-12, where item 27 is not permanently attached to the cutting unit – at 21 and therefore can be released from the cutting unit in any position.
Referring to claim 11, Stooker further discloses the secondary drive mechanism – at 23,27, is arranged for, in the first mode, moving the knife – at 51, from the receiving position to the cutting position – see figure 6, when the cutting unit – at 21, is at the first cutting unit position – see figures 1-6 and paragraphs [0012]-[0016], and wherein the secondary drive mechanism is arranged for, in the second mode, moving the knife from the receiving position to the cutting position when the cutting unit is at an intermediate cutting unit position between the first cutting unit position and the second cutting unit position – not required by the claim given the “or” clause in line 7 of claim 1.
Referring to claim 12, Stooker further discloses the secondary drive mechanism – at 23,27, is arranged for, in the first mode, moving the knife – at 51, from the cutting position to the non-cutting position – see figure 6, when the cutting unit – at 21, is at the second cutting unit position – see figures 1-6 and paragraphs [0012]-[0016], and wherein the secondary drive mechanism is arranged for, in the second mode, moving the knife from the cutting position to the non-cutting position when the cutting unit is at an intermediate cutting unit position between the first cutting unit position and the second cutting unit position – not required by the claim given the “or” clause in line 7 of claim 1.
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stooker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stooker in the embodiment of figures 21-24.
Referring to claim 15, Stooker in the embodiment of figures 1-6, further discloses the conveyor – at 5, is an overhead conveyor – see figure 1, and wherein the conveyor – at 5, is provided with a height-adjustable bone holder for holding the poultry leg by the first bone at an adjustable distance from the conveyor. Stooker in the embodiment of figures 1-6, does not disclose the bone holder is a height adjustable bone holder for holding the first bone at an adjustable distance from the conveyor. Stooker in the embodiment of figures 21-24 does disclose the bone holder – at 207, is a height adjustable bone holder for holding the first bone at an adjustable distance from the conveyor – at 201 – see the connection of 207 to 201 detailing structure that can allow for adjustment of item 207 so that it is disposed at a different height. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Stooker in the embodiment of figures 1-6 and add the height adjustable bone holder in the embodiment of figures 21-24, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be usable with poultry legs of different sizes and orientations as desired.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stooker as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of WIPO No. 2020/162757 to Stooker et al.
Referring to claim 16, Stooker does not disclose a sensor for sensing a poultry leg parameter that is relatable to a poultry leg dimension, and a control unit configured for adjusting a holding height of the bone holder relative to the conveyor based on the sensed poultry leg parameter. Stooker et al. does disclose a sensor, for sensing a poultry leg parameter that is relatable to a poultry leg dimension – see page 13 lines 7-19, and a control unit – see page 13 liens 7-19, for adjusting a holding height of the bone holder, relative to the conveyor, based on the sensed poultry leg parameter – see page 13 lines 7-19. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Stooker and add the sensor and control unit of Stooker et al., so as to yield the predictable result of automatically controlling operation of the device so as to process the desired amount of poultry legs as desired. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed control unit, the control unit of Stooker et al. is at least functionally equivalent to applicant’s claimed control unit in that the control unit disclosed performs the functional claim limitations of the claim and applicant has not detailed the control unit structurally as detailed earlier in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this office action.
Referring to claim 17, Stooker as modified by Stooker et al. further discloses the poultry leg dimension includes a position of the joint between the first bone and the second bone
relative to the conveyor and wherein the control unit is configured for adjusting the holding height of the bone holder such that the poultry leg is held by the bone holder with the joint at a predetermined distance from the conveyor – see page 13 lines 7-19 of Stooker et al. where a poultry leg having a joint is usable with the device and therefore can be the related to the poultry leg dimension claimed. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Stooker and add the sensor and control unit of Stooker et al., so as to yield the predictable result of automatically controlling operation of the device so as to process the desired amount of poultry legs as desired.
Claim(s) 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stooker as in view of WIPO No. 2020/162757 to Stooker et al.
Referring to claim 18, Stooker discloses a poultry leg processing line comprising a system according to claim 1 – see rejection of claim 1 detailed earlier, but does not disclose a poultry leg meat harvesting system arranged in the conveyance path downstream of the system, for harvesting meat from the poultry leg. Stooker et al. does disclose a poultry leg meat harvesting system – at 10, arranged in the conveyance path downstream of the system – see figure 3 and page 17 where the incisions are made prior to processing by item 10, for harvesting meat from the poultry leg – see figure 3 and page 17. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Stooker and add the meat harvester of Stooker et al., so as yield the predictable result of removing the meat from the poultry leg as desired for further processing. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed harvesting system, items 210,216 of Stooker et al. are claws and item 206 is a knife consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Referring to claim 19, Stooker as modified by Stooker et al. further discloses the leg meat harvesting system comprises an upstream meat extractor device – at 210,216, arranged for extracting meat from the second bone and not from the first bone – see figure 5 of Stooker et al., and a downstream meat extractor device – see page 22 lines 3-7 of Stooker et al., in the conveyance path downstream of the upstream meat extractor device, arranged for extracting meat from the first bone – see page 22 lines 3-7 of Stooker et al., where downstream extractor can be used to extract meat from the drumstick portion of the poultry leg. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Stooker and add the meat harvester of Stooker et al., so as yield the predictable result of removing the meat from the poultry leg as desired for further processing. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed upstream and downstream meat extractors, items 210,216 of Stooker et al. are claws and item 206 is a knife consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Referring to claim 20, Stooker as modified by Stooker et al. the upstream meat extractor – at 10, device has a first claw and a second claw – at 210a,b,216a,b, that are movable relative to each other between an open position for receiving the poultry leg and a closed position for engaging – see figure 5 of Stooker et al., at the joint between the first bone and the second bone – see figure 5 of Stooker et al., the poultry leg between the first claw and the second claw – see figure 5 of Stooker et al., wherein the upstream meat extractor device is arranged for, while in the closed position, jointly moving the first claw and the second claw longitudinally of the second bone from the joint to an opposite end of the poultry leg for extracting meat from the second bone – see figure 5 of Stooker et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Stooker and add the meat harvester of Stooker et al., so as yield the predictable result of removing the meat from the poultry leg as desired for further processing.
Referring to claim 21, Stooker as modified by Stooker et al. further discloses the upstream meat extractor device – at 10, comprises knife – at 206, arranged for making a cut at an adjustable distance from the conveyor at the opposite end of the poultry leg for separating the meat from the second bone – see figure 5 of Stooker et al. Stooker as modified by Stooker et al. further discloses the poultry leg is height adjustable with respect to the knife – at 206 as detailed in page 21 lines 9-19 of Stooker et al. where the height/position of the leg is adjusted via the holder/shackle, but does not disclose the knife is height adjustable. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Stooker as modified by Stooker et al. and make the knife height adjustable, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to process poultry legs of different sizes and orientations as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 9-10 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. Further, in line 3 of claim 9 it is recommended to change “the path of conveyance” to - -the conveyance path- - for consistency with parent claim 1.
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 leg processing devices in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 4,660,256 to Innes et al. – shows poultry leg processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 4,893.378 to Hazenbroek et al. – shows poultry leg processor
U.S. Pat. No. 4,993,113 to Hazenbroek – shows poultry leg processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,173,077 van den Nieuwelaar et al. – shows poultry leg processor
U.S. Pat. No. 5,816,904 to Tieleman et al. – shows poultry leg processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 6,033,296 to Herman Winkelmolen – shows poultry leg processor
U.S. Pat. No. 7,059,954 to Annema et al. – shows poultry leg processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 8,535,123 to Van der Stouw et al. – shows poultry leg processor
U.S. Pat. No. 9,883,680 to Annema et al. – shows poultry leg processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 10,952,445 to Hazenbroek et al. – shows poultry leg processor
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
Prosecution Insights