Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: no reference numerals are used in any of the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because in figure 2 “claming subsystem” should be - -clamping subsystem- -. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
3. Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 9 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
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 clamping subsystem, cutting subsystem, and extraction subsystem in that applicant has not claimed any functional language associated with these claim elements in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed head/tail separating portion in that applicant has not claimed any functional language related to the head/tail separating portion in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed clamping subsystem in that applicant claims specific structure related to the clamping subsystem being the claimed holding plate and the at least two clamps. Further, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed extraction system/subsystem in that applicant claims specific structure for the extraction system/subsystem being the claimed plurality of forks. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed cutting subsystem and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the cutting subsystem is detailed as the Cutting Subsystem 2, which is shown in isolation in Figure 6. This is comprised of a surgical-grade, circular blade 9 mounted on a ball-screw driven axis 10. This allows the system to move to a programmable depth of cut as the crawfish tail passes. As mentioned previously, one of the internal cameras 11 can be used to determine the proper depth. Figure 7 shows a tail being cut, as detailed in paragraph [0038] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
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 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the surface" in line 3 and “the directions of motion” detailed in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 4 and 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. It is unclear to whether the cutting system detailed in each of claims 4 and 5 is the same or different than the cutting subsystem detailed in parent claim 1.
Claims 6, 7 and 9 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. Each of claims 6, 7 and 9 claims a specific number of clamps being two clamps but then claims the number of clamps are variable and therefore it is unclear to how many clamps are being contemplated by the claims.
Claims 10 and 11 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. It is unclear to whether the extraction system detailed in each of claims 10 and 11 is the same or different than the extraction subsystem detailed in parent claim 1.
Claim 12 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 claim as presently written makes it unclear as to whether the holding plate and at least two clamps claimed are part of the claimed clamping subsystem. For purposes of the prior art rejections that follow the holding plate and at least two clamps are considered as part of the clamping subsystem since this would be consistent with claims 1-11. Further, it is unclear to whether the extraction subsystem detailed in step (e) is the same or different than the extraction system detailed in step (b). Further, it is unclear to whether the extraction system detailed in line 9 of claim 12 is the same or different than the extraction device detailed in line 4 of claim 12.
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) 1-2 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,616,382 to Van Woensel et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,039,293 to Fogarty.
Referring to claim 1, Van Woensel et al. discloses a device for extracting meat from crustaceans comprising, a main drive wheel – at 13 or 85, a clamping subsystem – at 14 or 88, a cutting subsystem – at 17 or 114, an extraction subsystem – at 22 or 137,138,144, but does not disclose a user interface. Fogarty does disclose a crustacean meat extracting device comprising a user interface – at 568,574 in figure 1 and column 21 line 7 to column 22 line 18. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Van Woensel and add the user interface of Fogarty, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to control and modify operation of the device as desired.
Referring to claim 2, Van Woensel as modified by Fogarty further discloses a head/tail separating portion – at 19 or 121-123 of Van Woensel.
Referring to claims 6-9, Van Woensel as modified by Fogarty further discloses the clamping subsystem comprises a holding plate – at 95 and/or 101a, and material forming, 101,102 of Van Woensel, and at least two clamps – at 88, wherein the number of clamps comprising the clamping system are variable depending on a user’s preferred calibration – see figures 14a-14g of Van Woensel where the number of clamps – at 88 being used can be varied by the user given the number of clamps – at 88 of the device. Specific to claims 8 and 9, Van Woensel as modified by Fogarty further discloses at least two flex hooks – at 96 – see figures 14a-14g of Van Woensel.
Referring to claims 10 and 11, Van Woensel as modified by Fogarty further discloses the extraction system comprises at least one fork – at 137,138 – see figures 20-20b of Van Woensel.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Woensel as modified by Fogarty as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,533,922 to Vittrup.
Referring to claim 3, Van Woensel as modified by Fogarty does not disclose the head/tail separating portion further comprises, adjacent parallel tracks, each driven by a motor, dividing plates protruding perpendicularly from the surface and to the directions of motion of each track. Vittrup does disclose the head/tail separating portion further comprises adjacent parallel tracks – at 17, each being driven by a motor – see column 23 lines 42-56 detailing conventional conveying equipment which would include a motor, dividing plates – at 12, protruding perpendicularly from the surface – top surface of 17, and to the directions of motion of each track – see figures 1a-1b with items 12 being made of plate-like portions. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Van Woensel et al. and Fogarty and add the head/tail separating portion having tracks, a motor and dividing plates, so as to yield the predictable result of automatically moving and controlling the shellfish during processing.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Woensel et al. as modified by Fogarty as applied to claims 1 or 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,337,432 to Tao et al.
Referring to claims 4 and 5, Van Woensel as modified by Fogarty further discloses the cutting system comprises, a blade – at 17 or 114 of Van Woensel, a driven axis – see rotational central axis of 17 or 114, but does not disclose at least one internal camera. Tao et al. does disclose a shellfish/crustacean cutting device using an internal camera – at 46b – see at 46 in figures 1b and 4. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Van Woensel as modified by Fogarty and add the internal camera of Tao et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making more accurate cuts on the shellfish/crustacean during operation as desired.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Woensel et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,102,790 to Cowsar et al.
Referring to claim 12, Van Woensel et al. discloses a method for extracting meat from a crustacean comprising: (a) cooking the crustacean – see for example the abstract and column 9 lines 50-65 detailing boiling the shrimp/crustacean, wherein the crustacean comprises a shell, comprising a head section and a tail section, and meat contained inside of the tail section – see figures 14-24 detailing each of the crustacean portions claimed, (b) placing the crustacean in an extraction device – see devices in figure 1 and figures 14-24, comprising, a main drive wheel – at 13 or 85, a holding plate – at 88 comprising, at least two clamps – at 96 and 97 – see figures 14a-14g, a clamping subsystem – see system of components associated with and including item 88 in figures 14a-14f, a cutting subsystem – at 17 or 114, and an extraction system – at 22 or 137,138,144, (c) clamping the crustacean to the holding plate – see at 88,96 in figures 14a-14f, (d) cutting the tail section using the cutting subsystem – see at 17 in figure 1 and – at 114 in figures 16-17, (e) moving the crustacean on the main drive wheel to the extraction subsystem – at 22 or 137-144 – see figures 1 and figures 20-21, wherein the extraction subsystem comprises a plurality of forks; (f) grabbing the meat of the crustacean using at least one fork – see at 137-139 in figures 20-20b, (g) pulling the meat from the shell by rotating the main drive wheel – see figures 20-20b, and (h) releasing the meat from the plurality of forks into a holding bin. Van Woensel does not disclose a plurality of forks and releasing the meat into a holding bin. Cowsar et al. does disclose an extraction system having at least one fork – at 402,404, and releasing the meat into a holding bin – at 110 – see figures 12a-12b. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Van Woensel and add the holding bin of Cowsar et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to better organize the parts of the crustacean for further processing. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Van Woensel as modified by Cowsar et al. and use any suitable number of forks including the claimed plurality/at least two forks in that doing this would require duplicating already existing parts of Van Woensel as modified by Cowsar et al., so as to yield the predictable result of better securing the crustacean during processing and/or allowing multiple crustaceans to be held during processing.
Conclusion
7. 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 shellfish/crustacean processing devices/methods in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 3,758,921 to Ingalls – shows crustacean processor
U.S. Pat. No. 4,222,153 to Schmidt – shows crustacean processor
U.S. Pat. No. 4,385,422 to Ingalls et al. – shows crustacean processor
U.S. Pat. No. 4,912,810 to Laughlin et al. – shows crustacean processor
U.S. Pat. No. 4,928,352 to Thibodeaux – shows crustacean processor
U.S. Pat. No. 5,401,207 to Hicks et al. – shows crustacean processor
U.S. Pat. No. 7,179,160 to Hulin – shows crustacean processor
U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0233948 to Dancy et al. – shows crustacean processor
U.S. Pat. No. 8,574,041 to Allain – shows crustacean processor
U.S. Pat. No. 11,533,922 to Vittrup – shows crustacean processor
U.S. Pat. No. 12,089,605 to Eid et al. – shows crustacean processor
U.S. Pat. No. 12,290,077 to Carlson – shows crustacean processor
8. 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