Detailed Action
Preliminary Amendment
1. Entry of applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 10-16-25 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.
Drawings
3. This application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371 and therefore PCT article 7 and Rule 11 govern drawing requirements and as seen in PCT Rule 11.13(l) reference numerals in the specification/description must be shown in the drawings and reference numeral 52 in applicant’s originally filed specification is not shown in applicant’s drawing figures.
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 claims 1 and 15, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed conveyance unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the conveyance unit is detailed as a conveyor as seen in paragraph [0043] of applicant’s originally filed specification. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed rotation unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the rotation unit is detailed as first and second rotation mechanisms that each include an actuator with the actuator being a hydraulic, pneumatic or electric cylinder as seen in paragraphs [0055]-[0056] 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 driving device in that applicant claims specific structures related to the driving device being the claimed traversing unit and the claimed lifting unit. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed traversing unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the traversing unit is not detailed structurally. Furter, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed lifting unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the lifting unit is not detailed structurally.
Regarding claim 5, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed retaining pressure adjustment part and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the retaining pressure adjustment part is not detailed structurally.
Regarding claim 14, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first and second rotation mechanisms and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the first and second rotation mechanisms are detailed as an actuator with the actuator being a hydraulic, pneumatic or electric cylinder as seen in paragraphs [0055]-[0056] 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 1-15 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 1 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. In each of claims 1 and 15, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed traversing unit and the claimed lifting unit as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and applicant has not defined the traversing unit and lifting unit structurally in applicant’s originally filed disclosure and therefore it is unclear to what structural components encompass each of the claimed traversing and lifting units.
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. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed retaining pressure adjustment part as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the retaining pressure adjustment part is not detailed structurally in that as seen in paragraph [0080] of applicant’s originally filed specification way to adjust the retaining pressure adjustment part is disclosed but no specific structure is detailed. Further, as seen in applicant’s originally filed specification reference numeral 52 is used for the retaining pressure adjustment part but there is no reference numeral 52 in the drawing figures so the drawings cannot be used to determine the structure that comprises the claimed retaining pressure adjustment part. Therefore it is unclear to what structure(s) encompass the claimed retaining pressure adjustment part.
Claims 10-11 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. Claims 10 and 11 detail a third sensor which implies a first and second sensor are part of the claimed device but there are no first and second sensors claimed in claims 1, 10 and 11, so it is unclear as to how many sensors are being claimed.
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 as to how the claimed image data is obtained.
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. It is unclear to how the processing position is defined by the incision portion and it is unclear to what claimed component the incision portion relates to.
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, 3-4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 8,882,571 to Hazenbroek et al.
Referring to claims 1 and 15, Hazenbroek et al. discloses a work grasping apparatus comprising, a gripper – at 45 and sprocket at end of 45, for grasping a work – at 47 and poultry leg not shown in the drawings – see figures 1-4, conveyed by a conveyance unit – at 3-9 – see figures 1-2 and 5-6 (items 3-9 comprise a conveyor and therefore is consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure as related to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis of the conveyance unit discussed earlier), a rotation unit – at 37-39, for rotating the gripper – at 45, so as to adjust an angle of the gripper with respect to a horizontal plane – see figures 3-4 and column 3 lines 37-51 (Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis of the rotation unit, items 37-39 are at least functional equivalents to applicant’s disclosed rotation unit in that items 37-39 provide similar function of adjusting the position and angle of the gripper), a driving device – at 49-53, including a traversing unit – at 51, and a lifting unit – at 53, for moving the gripper – at 45, and the rotation unit – at 37,39, in an up-down direction and a front-back direction – see figures 1-6 and column 3 line 52 to column 4 line 4 (Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis with respect to the traversing unit and lifting unit, items 51 and 53 are at least functional equivalents to applicant’s disclosed traversing unit and lifting unit since they provide similar function of back and forth and up and down movement), and a controller – not shown but inherent in that the device of Hazenbroek et al., would have an electric controller for automatically operating the disclosed device as described, for controlling the driving device and the rotation unit so that the work is grasped by the gripper at a grasping position on the conveyance unit – see figures 1-6 and column 3 line 24 to column 5 line 17.
Referring to claim 3, Hazenbroek et al. further discloses a guide – at 83,85, for adjusting a posture of the work conveyed by the conveyance unit – see figures 8-10 and column 5 line 63 to column 6 line 36.
Referring to claim 4, Hazenbroek et al. further discloses the guide includes a pair of guide members – at 83 and 85, disposed at opposite sides in a width direction of the conveyance unit – see figures 9-10, such that a distance between the guide members decreases toward a downstream side of the conveyance unit – see adjustment of items 83,85 as seen in figures 9-10 and column 5 line 63 to column 6 line 36.
Referring to claim 14, Hazenbroek et al. further discloses the rotation unit includes,
a first rotation mechanism for rotating the gripper about a first axis along the vertical plane; and
a second rotation mechanism for rotating the gripper about a second axis which intersects with the first axis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazenbroek et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP Patent No. 3964074 to Kido et al. (published more than one year before applicant’s earliest effective filing date of 9-1-23).
Referring to claim 2, Hazenbroek et al. does not disclose a first sensor for detecting that a tip end portion of the work on the conveyance unit has reached a first position, wherein the controller is configured to move a grasp portion of the work to the grasping position by returning the work in an opposite direction by a predetermined amount with the conveyance unit if the first sensor detects that the tip end portion of the work has reached the first position. Kido et al. does disclose a first sensor – at 52,53, for detecting that a tip end portion of the work – at W, on the conveyance unit has reached a first position – see paragraphs [0037]-[0041], wherein the controller – at 30, is configured to move a grasp portion of the work – at W, to the grasping position – see paragraphs [0037]-[0041], by returning the work in an opposite direction by a predetermined amount with the conveyance unit if the first sensor detects that the tip end portion of the work has reached the first position – these claim limitations are not required by the claim given the “if” clause in that the claim does not positively recite the first sensor causes the work to be returned in an opposite direction. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Hazenbroek et al. and add the first sensor of Kido et al., so as to yield the predictable result of providing better gripping/grasping of the object being worked on during operation.
Referring to claim 10, Hazenbroek et al. further discloses the work grasped by the gripper is rotated to a hung posture by the rotation unit – at 37-39 – see figures 1-6 and column 3 line 24 to column 5 line 17, but does not disclose a third sensor for detecting a grasp portion of the work by the gripper. Kido et al. does not disclose a third sensor – at 52,53 (it is noted that a first and second sensor are not claimed), for detecting a grasp portion of the work by the gripper – at 14,34 – see paragraphs [0037]-[0041]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Hazenbroek et al. and add the first sensor of Kido et al., so as to yield the predictable result of providing better gripping/grasping of the object being worked on during operation.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazenbroek et al. as modified by Kido et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,661,450 to Miyazaki et al.
Referring to claim 11, Hazenbroek et al. as modified by Kido et al. wherein a processing position of the work is determined by matching the grasp portion detected by the third sensor – see paragraphs [0037]-[0041] of Kido et al., but does not disclose a processing position is determined by matching image data of the work. Miyazaki et al. does disclose a processing position related to a grasp portion is determined by matching image data of the work – see figures 3-7 and column 8 lines 12-52. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Hazenbroek et al. as modified by Kido et al. and add the determining of a processing position by using image data of the work as disclosed by Miyazaki et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring proper grasping and moving of the object being worked on during operation.
Referring to claim 12, Hazenbroek et al. as modified by Kido et al. and Miyazaki further discloses the processing position is an incision portion for inserting a meat separator – at 83,85, extending along a horizontal direction – see figures 8-10 and column 5 line 63 to column 6 line 36 of Hazenbroek et al.
Referring to claim 13, Hazenbroek et al. as modified by Kido et al. and Miyazaki further discloses the controller is configured to control the driving device so as to lift up or down the gripper grasping the work while the meat separator is inserted in the incision portion – see at 53 and column 3 line 24 to column 6 line 26 of Hazenbroek et al. and at 22,24 and paragraphs [0037]-[0041] of Kido et al.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazenbroek et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Referring to claim 14, Hazenbroek et al. further discloses the rotation unit includes, a first rotation mechanism – at 37, for rotating the gripper – at 45, about a first axis along the vertical plane – see figures 3-4, and a second rotation mechanism – at 39, for rotating the gripper about an axis – see figures 3-4, but does not disclose the second rotation mechanism rotates the gripper about a second axis which intersects with the first axis. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Hazenbroek et al. and have the second rotation mechanism rotate the gripper in a second axis that intersects the first axis as claimed, so as to yield the predicable result of allowing the device to be worked on to be placed into multiple different positions to more easily perform the desired operations on the object as desired. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first and second rotation mechanisms, items 37 and 39 of Hazenbroek et al. are at least functional equivalents to applicant’s disclosed first and second rotation mechanisms in that items 37 and 39 provide a similar function to that of applicant’s disclosure of adjusting and moving the gripper into different positions as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 5-9 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.
Conclusion
9. 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 gripping/grasping devices/methods in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 4,327,463 to Martin – shows gripping device
10. 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