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 .
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 the abstract is written as a claim, it contains drawing figure reference numeral(s) and the last line should be deleted. 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 means for fastening in that applicant claims specific structural components related to the means for fastening being the claimed groove and attachment rib. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed stop means and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the stop means is detailed as, according to one embodiment, the stop means comprise: - for the or each first support, protruding stops on one face of the first support comprising the attachment groove, the protruding stops configured to engage with the longitudinal edges of at least one belt belonging to the belts of the second pair of conveyor belts, or even belonging to the belts of the third pair of conveyor belts, - for the or each second support, protruding stops on one face of the second support comprising the attachment groove, the protruding stops configured to engage with the longitudinal edges of at least one belt belonging to the belts of the first pair of conveyor belts, or even to the belts of the third pair of conveyor belts, - where applicable, for the or each third support, protruding stops on one face of the third support comprising the attachment groove, the protruding stops configured to engage with the longitudinal edges of at least one belt belonging to the belts of the first pair of conveyor belts, or even to the belts of the second pair of conveyor belts, in paragraph [0018] of applicant’s originally filed specification and is further detailed as, according to one embodiment, the stop means BT may comprise: - for the or each first support 41, protruding stops on one face of the first support 41 comprising the attachment groove Ra, the protruding stops configured to engage with the longitudinal edges of at least one belt belonging to the belts 22, 25 of the second pair of conveyor belts, or even belonging to the belts 21, 24 of the third pair of conveyor belts, - for the or each second support 42, protruding stops on one face of the second support comprising the attachment groove, the protruding stops configured to engage with the longitudinal edges of at least one belt belonging to the belts of the first pair of conveyor belts, or even to the belts of the third pair of conveyor belts, - for the or each third support 43, protruding stops on one face of the third support comprising the attachment groove, the protruding stops configured to engage with the longitudinal edges of at least one belt belonging to the belts of the first pair of conveyor belts, or even to the belts of the second pair of conveyor belts, as detailed in paragraph [0072] of applicant’s originally filed specification. Further, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed drive mechanism in that applicant claims specific structural components related to the drive mechanism being the claimed guide wheels.
Regarding claim 8, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed unloading device in that applicant claims specific structural components related to the claimed unloading device being the claimed second conveyor.
Regarding claim 10, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed fastening member in that applicant claims specific structural components related to the claimed fastening member being the claimed screw.
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 1-16 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 noted that there are numerous 112(b) issues in the claims and the 112(b) rejections that follow are a sample of these issues, and it is recommended that applicant further review the claims to ensure the claims are compliant with 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 “such as” in line 1 renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to whether other types of elongated products are being contemplated by the claim. Further, it is unclear to whether “an elongate product” in lines 6-is the same or different than the elongated products detailed in line 1. Further, it is unclear to what “locally” refers to in the phrase “locally oriented” in line 9. Further, it is unclear to whether “said conveyor belt” in lines 9-10 is the same or different than the at least one conveyor belt detailed in line 3 of the claim. Further, in line 12 the phrase “a groove for attaching at least one support” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether the groove is being attached to the support or if the groove is used to attach the at least one support to another claimed component. Further, it is unclear to whether “said at least one belt” in line 15 is the same or different than the at least one conveyor belt in line 3. Further, it is unclear to whether “said conveyor belt” in line 16 is the same or different than the at least one conveyor belt in line 3. Further, it is unclear to whether “said open longitudinal end” in line 17 is the same or different than the at least one open longitudinal end detailed in lines 12-13. Further, it is unclear to whether “the rib” detailed in line 17 is the same or different than the attachment rib detailed in line 14. Further, it is unclear to whether “said attachment groove” in lines 16-17, “the attachment groove” in line 18, “the attachment groove” in line 20, “the attachment groove” in lines 28-29 and “the attachment groove” in lines 31-32 is the same or different than the groove in line 12. Further, it is unclear to whether “said at least one belt” in line 19 is the same or different than at least one conveyor belt in line 3. Further, in line 21 it is unclear to how the attachment rib is prevented from sliding along itself in that there isn’t sufficient structure detailed in the claim to detail how this component can be made to slide along itself. Further, in lines 23-25 given the “or” clauses it is unclear to how many supports are being claimed. Further, in lines 26-35 the “or” clause makes it unclear to how may conveyor belts are claimed and given the “or” clauses in lines 23-25 is it unclear to how the supports and belts are related to each other. Further, it is unclear to whether “the conveyor belts” in line 28 is the same or different than the first pair of conveyor belts in line 27. Further, it is unclear to whether “the first support” in line 29 than the at least one first support in line 23. Further, it is unclear to whether “the conveyor belts” in line 31 is the same or different than the first pair of conveyor belts in line 27 and/or the second pair of conveyor belts in line 30. Further, it is unclear to whether “the second support” in line 32 is the same or different than the at least one second support in line 24. Further, it is unclear to whether the third fastening ribs in lines 33-34 is the same or different than the attachment rib(s) detailed earlier in the claim. Further, it is unclear to whether “the conveyor belts” in line 34 is the same or different than first pair of conveyor belts in line 27, and/or the second pair of conveyor belts in line 30 and/or the third pair of conveyor belts in line 33. Further, it is unclear to whether “the fastening groove” in lines 34-35 is the same or different than the attachment groove(s) detailed earlier in the claim. Further, it is unclear to whether “the third support” in line 35 is the same or different than the at least one third support in line 24. Further, the phrase “when the third pair of conveyor belts is present” in line 41 renders the claim indefinite in that this phrase implies the third pair of conveyor belts can be added and removed from the claimed device but there isn’t sufficient detail in the claim to provide for this feature. Further, the phrase “where applicable, when the third pair of conveyor belts it is present” in line 45-46 renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to what situations/circumstances would be considered “where applicable”, it is unclear to what the term “it” refers to and this phrase implies the third pair of conveyor belts can be added and removed from the claimed device but there isn’t sufficient detail in the claim to provide for this feature. Further, claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “guide wheels” in line 3, “length” in line 6, “means for fastening” in line 8, “the local direction” in line 15, “said attachment groove” in lines 16-17, “the attachment” in line 18, “stop means” in line 20, “the sliding” in line 21, “first supports” in line 23, “second supports” in line 24, “third supports” in line 25. “first attachment ribs” in lines 27-28, “the first pair of belts” in line 28, “the attachment groove of the first support” in lines 28-29. “second attachment ribs” in line 31, “the second pair of belts” in line 31, “the attachment groove of the second support” in lines 31-32, “third fastening ribs” in line 34, “the third pair of belts” in line 34, “the fastening groove of the third support” in lines 34-35, “first guide wheels” in line 37, “second guide wheels” in line 39. “third guide wheels” in line 41. Further, it is recommended to add a comma after “conveyor belt” in line 10, after “supports” in line 25 and after “support” in line 29.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear to whether “the locking” detailed in lines 2-3 is the same or different than the locking detailed in line 20 of claim 1. Further, it is unclear to whether “said conveyor belt” in line 5 is the same or different than the at least one conveyor belt in line 3. Further, it is unclear to whether the mounting groove in line 6 is the same or different than any of the grooves detailed in claim 1. Further, claim 2 lacks antecedent basis for “releasing the sliding” in line 4, “the detachment” in line 4, “sliding extraction” in line 5 and “the mounting groove” in line 6.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear to whether “the firs support” in line 3 is the same or different than each first support detailed earlier in line 3. Further, it is unclear to whether “the attachment groove” in line 4 is the same or different than any of the groove(s) detailed in claims 1 and 2. Further, it is unclear to whether “the protruding stops” in line 4 is the same or different than “stops” in line 3. Further, it is unclear to whether the longitudinal edges refer to each or only one of the pair of third belts. Further, claim 3 lacks antecedent basis for “stops” in line 3, “the longitudinal edges” in lines 4-5. All of the rejections for claim 3 detailed earlier are also applicable to the second support in lines 7-10 of claim 3 and also to the third support in lines 11-14. Further, in line 11 “where applicable” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to what situations/circumstances would be considered “where applicable”
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 to whether the attachment groove detailed in lines 1-2 and also in lines 2-3 is the same or different than the grooves detailed in claim 1. Further, the phrase “the attachment groove (Ra) has said open longitudinal end (EO)” is redundant in that these claim limitations are already detailed in parent claim 1. Further, claim 3 lacks antecedent basis for “the opposite longitudinal end” in line 2.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear to whether each of the first and second wings extend from the base and the phrase “extending protruding” should be either - -extending- - or - -protruding- -. Further, it is unclear to whether “said attachment groove” in line 4 is the same or different than any of the grooves detailed in claim 1. Further, it is unclear to whether the product detailed in line 7 is the same or different than the elongated product(s) detailed in claim 1. Further, claim 5 lacks antecedent basis for “width” in line 3, “length” in line 4, “said base opening” in line 5 and “the upper surface of the base” in line 6.
Claim 6 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 “in particular” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to which support is being considered by the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear to what makes the length useful as seen in line 2 of the claim. Further, it is unclear to whether the products detailed in line 2 is the same or different than the elongated product(s) detailed in claim 1.
Claim 8 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. In line 2 “configured” should be - -is configured- -. Further, it is unclear to whether “said at least support” in lines 2-3 is the same or different than any of the supports detailed in claim 1. Further, claim 8 lacks antecedent basis for “the movement of said at least support” in lines 2-3, “said unloading zone” in line 3, “the movement of the products” in lines 4-5 and “one or more channels” in line 6.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear to whether “said at least one attachment rib” in lines 1-2 is the same or different than the attachment rib detailed in line 14 of claim 1. Further, the phrase “in particular” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to which ribs the claim is referring to. Further, it is unclear to whether “said at least one belt” in line 3 is the same or different than any of the belts detailed in claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear to whether “said at least one attachment rib” in lines 1-2 is the same or different than the attachment rib detailed in line 14 of claim 1. Further, the phrase “in particular” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to which ribs the claim is referring to. Further, the phrase “in particular” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other attaching means are being contemplated by the claim. Further, the phrase “such as” in line 6 renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other fastening members than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim. Further, it is unclear to whether “said at least one rib” in lines 6-7 is the same or different than the at least one attachment rib in lines 1-2.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear to whether only one or both of the conveyor belt and attachment rib lack the claimed concavity.
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 phrase “such as” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to whether other types of food products are being contemplated by the claim. It is unclear to whether the food products detailed in claim 12 are the same or different than the elongated products of incorporated claim 1.
Claim 13 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. Further, it is unclear to whether the elongate products in line 2 are the same as the food products detailed in claim 12. Further, the phrase “one the one hand” in line 3 and “the other hand” in line 5 renders the claim indefinite in that is unclear to what is being claimed with respect to these claim limitations and to what claim limitations are required by the claim. Further, it is unclear to whether the elongate products in lines 4 and 8 are the same or different than the elongate products detailed in line 2. Further, the phrase “such as” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other machines than those disclose are being contemplated by the claim. Further, claim 13 lacks antecedent basis for “the loading area” in line 2, “the one hand” in line 3, “batch operation” in line 5, “the other hand” in line 5, “control” in line 6, “the unloading zone” in lines 8-9, “said conveying line supplying the loading zone” in lines 9-10 and “the loading zone” in lines 9-10.
Claim 14 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. Claim 14 is written as a method claim but depends from apparatus claim 2 and therefore it is unclear to whether the claim is to be a method or an apparatus. Further, it is unclear to whether “the attachment groove” in line 5 is the same or different than any of the grooves detailed in claims 1 and 2. Further, claim 14 lacks antecedent basis for “tool-less disassembly” in line 2, “sliding extraction” in line 5, “cleaning” in line 7 and “the disassembled state” in lines 7-8.
Claim 15 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. Claim 15 is written as a method claim but depends from apparatus claim 3 and therefore it is unclear to whether the claim is to be a method or an apparatus. Further, it is unclear to whether the fastening ribs in line 3 are the same or different than the attachment rib(s) detailed in claims 1 and 2. Further, it is unclear to whether “the pair of conveyor belts” in line 3 is the same or different than the first, second and/or third conveyor belts detailed in claim 1. Further, it is unclear to whether the fastening groove detailed in line 3 is the same or different than the grooves detailed in claims 1 and 3. Further, it is unclear to whether “the support” in each of lines 4 and 9 is the same or different than any of the supports detailed in claims 1 and 3. Further, the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to what is being fastened. Further, it is unclear to whether “the ribs” detailed in each of lines 5 and 6 is the same or different than the two fastening ribs detailed in line 3. Further, it is unclear to whether conveyor belt or belts in lines 6-7 is the same or different than the pair of conveyor belts in line 3. Further, it is unclear to how the conveyor belts are designed to contact the protruding stops. Further, it is unclear to how the belt edges lock onto the protruding stops. Further, claim 15 lacks antecedent basis for “the fastening ribs” in line 3, “the fastening groove of the support” in line 3, “fitting” in line 3, “sliding” in line 6, “locking” in line 8, “the support position” in line 8, “the pressure” in line 8 and “the belt edges” in line 8.
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. Claim 16 is written as a method claim but depends from apparatus claim 3 and therefore it is unclear to whether the claim is to be a method or an apparatus. Further, it is unclear to whether the conveyor belt detailed in line 3 is the same or different than any of the conveyor belts detailed in claims 1-3. Further, it is unclear to how the protruding stops escape from the edges of the conveyor belts. Further, it is unclear to whether the pair of conveyor belts in line 4 is the first, second or third pair of conveyor belts detailed in claim 1. Further, it is unclear to whether “the support” in line 5 is the same or different than any of the supports detailed in claims 1 and 3. Further, it is unclear to whether “the fastening ribs” in line 5 is the same or different than the ribs detailed in claims 1 and 2. Further, it is unclear to whether “the fastening groove” in lines 5-6 is the same or different than the grooves detailed in claims 1-3. Further, claim 16 lacks antecedent basis for “exerting” in line 3, “the conveyor belt in contact with the protruding stops” in line 3, “the edges of the pair of conveyor belts” in line 4 and “sliding” in line 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
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 conveyors for sausages in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 6,141,943 to Hart et al. – shows sausage conveyor
U.S. Pat. No. 8,215,087 to Malenke et al. – shows sausage conveyor
U.S. Pat. No. 8,453,822 to Hart et al. – shows sausage conveyor
U.S. Pat. No. 9,382,025 to De Vries et al. – shows sausage conveyor
U.S. Pat. No. 9,944,471 to Singer et al. – shows sausage conveyor
U.S. Pat. No. 10,278,402 to Singer et al. – shows sausage conveyor
U.S. Pat. No. 11,299,303 to Scalerandi – shows sausage conveyor
U.S. Pat. No. 12,139,348 to Hill et al. – shows sausage conveyor
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