Detailed Action
Preliminary Amendment
1. Entry of applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 11-10-25 into the application file is acknowledged.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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 16, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed guiding elements and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the guiding elements are detailed as “in particular, guiding elements may be provided defining together with the couplings a rack and pinion structure, to allow for a rotation of the hooks about a horizontal axis as the couplings pass along a processing station” as detailed in page 4 lines 9-13 of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 1-21 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 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. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed guiding elements as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and the guiding elements are detailed as part of a rack and pinion structure defined by the guiding elements and also the couplings and it is unclear based on this disclosure of applicant’s originally filed specification which parts of the rack and pinion structure are considered the guiding elements and further the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear as to whether any of the rack and pinion structure is encompassed by the claimed guiding elements since this phrase implies that the guiding elements can or cannot encompass the rack and pinion structure.
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. Claim 8 lacks antecedent basis for “said projecting” in line 2 and it is unclear as to whether “the projecting” in line 2 of claim 8 is referring to the projecting portion in parent claim 1.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said corresponding coupling" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended that applicant amend the claim to read - -a corresponding coupling of said respective couplings- -.
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. It is unclear as to whether claim 16 is an apparatus or method claim in that the preamble of the claim details a method, but applicant claims the apparatus in the first portion of the claim. It is recommended that after the preamble to include the method step of - -providing the slaughtered pig processing plant, the slaughtered pig processing plant comprising,- - or other similar language.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear as to whether the tendon detailed in line 3 of claim 19 is the same or different than the Achilles tendon detailed in parent claim 16.
Claim 20 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 whether the Achilles tendon detailed in line 3 of claim 20 is the same or different than the Achilles tendon detailed in parent claim 16.
Claim 21 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 whether the Achilles tendon detailed in line 3 of claim 21 is the same or different than the Achilles tendon detailed in parent claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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) 1-2, 4-7 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0142185 to Meerdink et al.
Referring to claim 1, Meerdink et al. discloses a slaughtered pig part processing plant comprising, at least one a pig part processing station – see stations detailed in paragraph [0017], and a conveyor – at 10-56, supporting via respective couplings – at 30 or 50, a plurality of spaced apart hooks – at 20,22 or 40, each of the plurality of spaced apart hooks – at 20,22 or 40, connected to a corresponding one of the respective couplings – at 30 or 50, so as to allow for a turning movement of each of the plurality of spaced apart hooks – at 20,22 or 40, relative to the corresponding one of the respective couplings – at 30 or 50, about an axis – see paragraph [0041] with respect to coupling 30 and – see via items 50-52 in figures 2a-2j and paragraph [0089], the conveyor – at 10-56, advancing the plurality of couplings – at 30 or 50, with a corresponding one of the plurality of space apart hooks – at 20,22 or 40, in a machine direction from a first station for placing a pig part on one of the plurality of spaced apart hooks – see paragraph [0017] where the pig part would have to be placed onto the hooks – at 20,22 or 40, to provide the processing as disclosed, towards a last station for removing a bone of the pig part from the one of the plurality of spaced apart hooks – at 20,22 or 40 – see paragraph [0017], and guiding elements – at 50 with respect to hooks 20,22 or – at 49 with respect to hooks 40, for engagement with the plurality of spaced apart hooks – at 20,22 or 40, at the first station – see figures 1-5d and paragraphs [0083]-[0091], for bringing about the turning movement about the first axis from a first position to a second, pig part applying position – see figures 1-5d and paragraphs [0041] and [0083]-[0091], the axis being parallel or substantially parallel with the machine direction – see paragraph [0041] with respect to items 20,22 and 30 and – see figure 7 with respect to items 40 and 50 where the rotation about item 50 prior to the turn in the conveyor would be parallel to the machine direction after the turn in the conveyor in figure 7, each of the plurality of spaced apart hooks – at 20,22 or 40, comprising a base portion – between items 22,25 or – at 29,42, contiguous with a projecting portion – at 22 or 41, comprising a proximal end and a distal end – see figures 2a-3e, wherein the distal end is for pig part penetration – see figures 2a-3e. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed guiding elements, items 49 and 50 of Meerdink et al. are at least functional equivalents to applicant’s disclosed guiding elements since items 49 and 50 provide similar function to applicant’s guiding elements of providing a turning/rotating movement to the hooks as seen in figures 2a-3e of Meerdink et al.
Referring to claim 2, Meerdink et al. further discloses one of the plurality of spaced apart hooks – at 20,22 or 40, assuming at the first station a position wherein the projecting portion – at 22 or 41, is oriented at an angle to a vertical direction – see figures 2a-3e.
Referring to claim 4, Meerdink et al. further discloses the axis is horizontal or substantially horizontal – see paragraph [0041] and – see at 51,52 in figures 2a-2j.
Referring to claim 5, Meerdink et al. further discloses the turning movement of the plurality of spaced apart hooks – at 20,22 or 40, from the first position to the second, pig part applying position, is 70° - 110° - not required by the claim given the “or” portion of the and/or cluse, and/or the turning movement the bringing the base portion to a horizontal or substantially horizontal position – see between 20 and 25 in figures 3a-3e being substantially horizontal and – see lower portions of 29 in figures 2i and 2j being substantially horizontal.
Referring to claim 6, Meerdink et al. further discloses the distal end is pointed and/or sharpened – see at least pointed at 22 and 41 in figures 2a-3e.
Referring to claim 7, Meerdink et al. further discloses the projecting portion is straight – see at 41 in figures 2a-2j.
Referring to claim 9, Meerdink et al. further discloses the pig part is a half of a pig or a quarter of a pig – see half of a pig detailed in paragraphs [0006], [0033] and [0057].
Referring to claim 10, Meerdink et al. further discloses the projecting portion – at 22 or 41, extends from the base portion – between 22 and 25 or – at 29,42, at an angle – see figures 2a-3e.
Referring to claim 11, Meerdink et al. further discloses one of the plurality of spaced apart hooks – at 20,22 or 40, assuming at the first station a position wherein the projecting portion – at 22 or 41, is oriented at an angle to a horizontal direction – see figures 2a-3e.
Referring to claim 12, Meerdink et al. further discloses the angle is about 50-140o – see 90 degrees for item 41 in figures 2a-2j.
Referring to claim 13, Meerdink et al. further discloses wherein for one of the plurality of spaced apart hooks, the projecting portion – at 22 or 41, extends from the base portion – between 22 and 25 or – at 29,42, at an angle relative to the base portion when the one of the plurality of spaced apart hooks is in the first position – see figures 2a-3e, wherein the angle is angle relative to the vertical plane perpendicular to the machine direction – see at 22 and 41 in figures 2a-3e.
Referring to claim 14, Meerdink et al. further discloses the angle is about 1-90o – see between 0-90 degrees for item 22 in figures 3a-3e and – see about 90 degrees for item 41 in figure 2a-2j.
Referring to claim 15, Meerdink et al. further discloses for one of the plurality of spaced apart hooks, the base portion comprises two opposite flanges – see flanges receiving item 51 in figures 2g-2h, having apertures – see for receiving item 51, for connecting the one of the plurality of spaced apart hooks – at 40, to the corresponding coupling – at 50 – see figures 2g-2h.
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) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meerdink et al. as applied to claims 1 or 2 above.
Referring to claim 3, Meerdink et al. does not disclose the angle to the vertical direction is 0 - 45°. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Meerdink et al. and add the angle to the vertical direction being any suitable value in including the claimed values, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the pig part is securely held by the hooks during processing.
Referring to claim 8, Meerdink et al. further discloses the projecting portion – at 41 comprises a straight portion – see figures 2a-2j, but does not disclose the straight portion has a length of 1-15cm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Meerdink et al. and add the straight portion having any suitable length including the length values claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the pig part is securely held by the hooks during processing.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 16-21 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
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to carcass/pig carcass processing devices/methods in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 3,077,987 to Toennies – shows carcass processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 3,736,622 to Wallace – shows carcass processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 4,423,808 to Venturelli – shows carcass processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 4,457,048 to Dreves – shows carcass processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 4,838,036 to Norrie – shows carcass processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,106,336 to Gwyther – shows carcass processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 6,244,951 to Leining – shows carcass processing device
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights