Detailed Action
Preliminary Amendment
1. Entry of applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 6-4-25 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 .
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 10-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,317,902. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 10, 12-13 and 15 of the present application are substantially similar to claim 1 of the ‘902 patent. Further, claim 11 of the present application is substantially similar to claim 2 of the ‘907 patent. Further, claim 14 of the present application is substantially similar to claim 3 of the present application. Further, claim 16 of the present application is substantially similar to claim 1 of the ‘907 patent and regarding the claim limitations of the pounder tenderizer being pistoned, the claim limitations of the pounder tenderizer having a rod and studded surface with the rod slidable through the hole in the lid equates to a piston arrangement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 11-15 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.
Claims 11, 12 and 15 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 11, 12 and 15 depends from cancelled claim 1 and therefore it is unclear from which claim these claims are to depend from. For purposes of the prior art rejections that follow claims 11, 12 and 15 are each considered as being dependent upon claim 10.
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) 10, 11-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,101,755 to Rosenstone et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,744,941 to Flood, further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,862,408 to Weinstein and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,751,660 to Jasin.
Referring to claim 10, Rosenstone et al. discloses a meat processing apparatus comprising, a tub – at 7, having a top rim – at the top edge of 7, a lid – at 30, configured to sealingly engage the top rim of the tub – see at 7,30 in figure 1, the lid – at 30, comprising a hole – see hole in 30 receiving item 29 as seen in figure 1, a rod – at 29, and processer – at 26,27,31, coupled combination – see at 26-31 in figure 1, the rod – at 29, passing through the hole – see at 29 at 30 in figure 1, and the tenderizer comprising a surface – at 27, wherein slidable engagement of the rod – at 29, through the hole allows up-and-down movement of the surface – at 27, on the processer within the tub – at 7 – see figure 1 and page 1 column 2 lines 22-32, whereby any meat within the tub – at 7, may be processed through contact with the surface – at 27, without meat juice splattering outside the tub – see totally enclosed device via items 7 and 30 in figure 1. Rosenstone et al. does not disclose the processor is a tenderizer comprising a plurality of studs on a surface and the meat in the tub may be tenderized through contact with the studs without meat juice splattering outside the tub. Flood does disclose the processor is a tenderizer – at 25,30,45,50,55, comprising a plurality of studs – at 25, on a surface – see figure 1, and the meat in the tub – at 70, may be tenderized through contact with the studs – at 25, without meat juice splattering outside the tub – see enclosed system in figure 1. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Rosenstone et al. and add the tenderizer with studs as disclosed by Flood, so as to allow for the meat in the tub to also be tenderized and marinated as desired during operation. Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood does not disclose a pounder tenderizer. Weinstein does disclose a pounder tenderizer – see at 22-25 in figures 1 and 5. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood and make the tenderizer a pounder tenderizer by adding the protrusions – at 25 of Weinstein to the surface – at 27 of Rosenstone et al., so as to yield the predictable result of better preparing the meat product for sale and consumption as desired. Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood and Weinstein further discloses the tub having one or more sidewalls – at sides of 7 as seen in figure 1 of Rosenstone et al., but does not disclose the one or more sidewalls comprise overlappable segments, and wherein the tub comprises an expanded state where the segments of the one or more sidewalls do not overlap, and a collapsed state where the segments of the one or more sidewalls do overlap such that at least one segment extends past and covers a part of at least one other segment. Jasin does disclose the one or more sidewalls – sides of item 26a-26d, comprise overlappable segments – at 26a-26d – see figures 1a-3, and wherein the tub – at 12-26, comprises an expanded state where the segments of the one or more sidewalls do not overlap – see figures 2-3, and a collapsed state where the segments of the one or more sidewalls do overlap – see figure 1a, such that at least one segment – at 26a-26d, extends past and covers a part of at least one other segment – see figure 1a. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood and Weinstein and add the overlappable sidewalls allowing for an expanded and collapsed state as disclosed by Jasin, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be moved into different positions and orientations as desired during use.
Referring to claim 11, Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood, Weinstein and Jasin further discloses the lapped segments are biased outward to promote overlap during the collapsed state – see at 26 in figures 1a-3 of Jasin. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood and Weinstein and add the lappable sidewalls allowing for an expanded and collapsed state as disclosed by Jasin, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be moved into different positions and orientations as desired during use.
Referring to claim 12, Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood, Weinstein and Jasin further discloses one or more holding rods – at 11, wherein the one or more holding rods each engage the tub – at 25, in the expanded state to stabilize the tub against changing to the collapsed state – see figure 1 of Rosenstone et al.
Referring to claim 16, Rosenstone et al. discloses a meat processing apparatus comprising a tub – at 7, having a top rim – top edge of 7, a lid – at 30, configured to sealingly engage the top rim of the tub – at 7 – see figure 1, the lid – at 30, comprising a hole – see hole receiving item 29 in figure 1, a pistoned processer – at 26,27,29,31, engaging through the hole – see at 29 in figure 1, the pistoned processer comprising a surface – at 27, wherein slidable engagement of the pistoned processer through the hole allows up-and-down movement of the surface within the tub – at 7 – see figure 1 and page 1 column 2 lines 22-32, whereby, any meat within the tub may be processed through contact with the surface without meat juice splattering outside the tub – at 7 – see totally enclosed system in figure 1. Rosenstone et al. does not disclose a collapsible tub, the processor is a pistoned tenderizer comprising a plurality of studs on a surface and the meat in the tub may be tenderized through contact with the studs without meat juice splattering outside the tub. Flood does disclose the tub – at 70,110, is collapsible – see figure 1 where the device including the tub components – at 70,110, can be disassembled into a collapsed state, the pistoned processor is a tenderizer – at 10,15,25,30,45,50,55, comprising a plurality of studs – at 25, on a surface – see figure 1, and the meat in the tub – at 70, may be tenderized through contact with the studs – at 25, without meat juice splattering outside the tub – see enclosed system in figure 1. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Rosenstone et al. and add the tenderizer with studs as disclosed by Flood, so as to allow for the meat in the tub to also be tenderized and marinated as desired during operation. Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood does not disclose a pounder tenderizer. Weinstein does disclose a pounder tenderizer – see at 22-25 in figures 1 and 5. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood and make the tenderizer a pounder tenderizer by adding the protrusions – at 25 of Weinstein to the surface – at 27 of Rosenstone et al., so as to yield the predictable result of better preparing the meat product for sale and consumption as desired. Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood and Weinstein further discloses the tub having one or more sidewalls – at sides of 7 as seen in figure 1 of Rosenstone et al., but does not disclose the one or more sidewalls comprise overlappable segments, and wherein the tub comprises an expanded state where the segments of the one or more sidewalls do not overlap, and a collapsed state where the segments of the one or more sidewalls do overlap such that at least one segment extends past and covers a part of at least one other segment. Jasin does disclose the one or more sidewalls – sides of item 26a-26d, comprise overlappable segments – at 26a-26d – see figures 1a-3, and wherein the tub – at 12-26, comprises an expanded state where the segments of the one or more sidewalls do not overlap – see figures 2-3, and a collapsed state where the segments of the one or more sidewalls do overlap – see figure 1a, such that at least one segment – at 26a-26d, extends past and covers a part of at least one other segment – see figure 1a. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood and Weinstein and add the overlappable sidewalls allowing for an expanded and collapsed state as disclosed by Jasin, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be moved into different positions and orientations as desired during use.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood, Weinstein and Jasin as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,857,346 to Khanjian et al.
Referring to claim 13, Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood, Weinstein and Jasin does not disclose the one or more holding rods in the collapsed state hingeably move to be out of the way. Khanjian et al. does disclose the holding rods – at 104, in the collapsed state hingedly move to be out of the way – see figures 2a-2b. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood, Weinstein and Jasin and add the holding rods being hinged as disclosed by Khanjian et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be put into a lower profiled in the collapsed state to facilitate movement and storage of the device when not in use.
Referring to claim 14, Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood, Weinstein, Jasin and Khanjian et al. further discloses the one or more holding rods clip into place when they move to be out of the way in the collapsed state – see at 104 in figure 2a of Khanjian et al. where the rods are held in place when collapsed. Further, it is noted that applicant has not positively recited clip structures in the claim. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood, Weinstein, Jasin and Khanjian et al. and add the holding rods being hinged and clipped in place as disclosed by Khanjian et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be put into a lower profiled in the collapsed state to facilitate movement and storage of the device when not in use.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood, Weinstein and Jasin as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,322,583 to Kim et al.
Referring to claim 15, Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood, Weinstein and Jasin does not disclose the rod further comprising a hinge axis and a button release, wherein the button release permits the rod to hinge on its hinge axis to an angle parallel the lid during storage. Kim et al. does disclose the rod – at 10,14, further comprising a hinge axis – see axes extending through items 10,14, and a button release – at 34, wherein the button release permits the rod to hinge on its hinge axis to an angle parallel the lid – at the top of 16, during storage – see figures 1-8 where the rod can be placed into any position during storage depending on the user’s preference including in a parallel to the lid configuration. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Rosenstone et al. as modified by Flood, Weinstein and Jasin and add the hinged rod with button release of Kim et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the rod to be placed into different positions/orientations as desired.
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 meat tenderizing/processing devices in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 3,609,799 to Lee – shows meat processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 3,837,775 to Boucher – shows meat processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 4,744,204 to Schlegel – shows meat processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,445,562 to Brunnell et al. – shows meat processing device
U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0078642 to Palese – shows meat processing 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