Detailed Action
Preliminary Amendment
1. Entry of applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 12-9-25 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 claim 28, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed cutting structure and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the cutting structure is detailed as the cutting structure may include one or more knifes, e.g., circular blades, belt blades, or any other kind of knife structure as seen in paragraph [0017] of applicant’s originally filed specification, is further detailed as the cutting structure may comprise two adjacent knifes arranged on opposite sides of the center plane for cutting away the lateral sides from the backbone as detailed in paragraph [0040] of applicant’s originally filed specification, is further detailed as the two adjacent knifes may be arranged for cutting away the lateral sides from the backbone and potentially from the ribs. The knifes could be circular blades, band blades, or generally any kind of blades for cutting fillets. If the knifes are constituted by band blades, a squeezing structure may be arranged for urging the bands towards each other on opposite sides of the backbone of the fish. In this way, the bands may curve around the backbone and cut closely to the backbone, as detailed in paragraph [0041] of applicant’s originally filed specification, is further detailed as the apparatus comprises a cutting structure 9 configured for cutting away the lateral sides from the backbone. The cutting structure may have any structure known in the art for filleting and generally comprises two adjacent knifes arranged on opposite sides of the center plane. The cutting structure may e.g., comprise circular blades, band blades, or any other kind of blades suitable for filleting. Fig. 4 illustrates an example of band blades provided for filleting, as detailed in paragraph [0064] of applicant’s originally filed specification and is further detailed as a cutting structure with two adjacent band blades 40, 41, as detailed in paragraph [0071] of applicant’s originally filed specification. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed shaping structure and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the cutting structure is detailed as the shaping structure may comprise an external pressure structure configured to apply the pressure on an outer surface of the lateral sides. The pressure may press the lateral sides towards each other or away from each other to obtain the desired shape suitable for the filleting process, as detailed in paragraph [0034] of applicant’s originally filed specification, is further detailed as the external pressure structure may include a plurality of pressure elements arranged in a row extending transverse to the conveying direction, e.g., in the shape of a plurality of elongated rods or beams exerting a pressure on the abdomen part in the direction towards the center plane, as detailed in paragraph [0035] of applicant’s originally filed specification, is further detailed as additionally, the shaping structure may comprise an internal pressure structure configured to apply the pressure on an inner surface of the lateral sides pressing the lateral sides away from each other. The internal shaping structure may comprise internal structures following the inner surface of the lateral sides of the fish during the filleting process. The internal structures may e.g., be plate shaped members, e.g., parallel to the center plane or nearly parallel to the center plane and being movable in a direction away from the center plane to thereby push the lateral sides of the fish away from the center plane, as detailed in paragraph [0037] of applicant’s originally filed specification, is further detailed as the shaping structure 10 comprises an external pressure structure with a plurality of force supplying elongated beams 11. Each elongated beam interacts with the fish by applying pressure to the lateral side of the fish while the fish advances through the apparatus. By this engaging between the elongated beams and the fish, a desired shape of the fish can be obtained prior to, and/or during the filleting process when the fish is engaged by the knifes. The shaping structure 10 further comprises an internal pressure structure with two plate shaped members 12 entering between the lateral sides of the fish belly part and configured to press the sides with the ribs outwards. Again, this is to obtain a desired shape of the fish prior to, or during the filleting process when the fish is engaged by the knifes. The external pressure structure is illustrated in further detail in Fig. 2 and the internal pressure structure is illustrated in further detail in Fig. 3. Fig. 2 illustrates details of the internal pressure structure including an actuator structure constituted in this case by pneumatic cylinders 20 operated by air pressure. The actuator structure is controlled by the electronic control structure 21 the pressure is applied to the fish depending on a deformability parameter for the fish. Electronic control structure 21 may be constituted by a CPU with memory and computer executable code for enabling various functions including reading the deformability parameter and providing control instructions for the actuator structure. Software program instructions and data may be stored on a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, and when the instructions are executed by the CPU these functions are carried out. Fig. 3 illustrates the internal pressure structure configured to apply the pressure on an inner surface of the lateral sides pressing the lateral sides away from each other. The internal pressure structure comprises two plate shaped members 12 held by actuator arms 30, 31 being movable by the actuator structure 32 such that they can move towards each other or away from each other in the direction indicated by the arrow 33. The actuator structure is controlled by the electronic control structure 21 the pressure is applied to the fish depending on a deformability parameter for the fish. Fig. 4 illustrates a shaping structure comprising both the internal and the external pressure structures 11, 12. The shaping structure is illustrated in combination with a cutting structure with two adjacent band blades 40, 41. The distance, in the conveying direction between the shaping structure and the cutting structure is short such that the desired shape obtained by controlling the shaping structure is maintained while the fish is cut by the band blades. The distance may particularly be less than the length of the fish, e.g., less than half the length of the fish, as detailed in paragraphs [0065[-[0071] of applicant’s originally filed specification. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed electronic control structure and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the electronic control structure is detailed as the electronic control structure comprises a data interface configured for communication of the deformability parameter with an external data interface. This may enable receival of the deformability parameter from a previous apparatus in a chain of devices constituting a fish processing system, or it may enable an operator to key-in a value of the deformability parameter, e.g., based on exact knowledge about a batch of fish, or based on experience with a certain type of fish, or based on an experienced manual compression of the fish by hand, as detailed in paragraph [0047] of applicant’s originally filed specification and is further detailed as electronic control structure 21 may be constituted by a CPU with memory and computer executable code for enabling various functions including reading the deformability parameter and providing control instructions for the actuator structure. Software program instructions and data may be stored on a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, and when the instructions are executed by the CPU these functions are carried out, as detailed in paragraph [0069] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 29, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed deformability meter structure and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the deformability meter structure is detailed as the deformability meter structure may comprise several deformability sensors arranged along the conveyor, and each deformability sensor may be arranged to apply the pressure at different locations on the fish. This could e.g., be near the head end, near the tail end, at the thickest point on the fish, or elsewhere on the fish, as detailed in paragraph [0024] of applicant’s originally filed specification and is further detailed as the deformability meter structure may comprise several deformability sensors arranged one after the other in the conveying direction. The deformability sensors may be arranged to apply different pressure to the fish and to record a corresponding position of the surface of the fish where the pressure is applied. The first sensor may e.g., register a width of the fish with a first pressure, and the second sensor may register a width of the fish with a second pressure. The deformability parameter of the fish, dF, could be provided by inserting dimp and dP into the deformability parameter equation dF=dimp/dP, as detailed in paragraphs [0074]-[0075] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 37, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed external pressure structure and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the external pressure structure is detailed as the external pressure structure may include a plurality of pressure elements arranged in a row extending transverse to the conveying direction, e.g., in the shape of a plurality of elongated rods or beams exerting a pressure on the abdomen part in the direction towards the center plane, as detailed in paragraph [0035] of applicant’s originally filed specification, is further detailed as the shaping structure 10 comprises an external pressure structure with a plurality of force supplying elongated beams 11. Each elongated beam interacts with the fish by applying pressure to the lateral side of the fish while the fish advances through the apparatus. By this engaging between the elongated beams and the fish, a desired shape of the fish can be obtained prior to, and/or during the filleting process when the fish is engaged by the knifes, as detailed in paragraph [0065] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 38, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed pressure elements with the associated functional language being detailed in parent claim 37, and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the pressure elements are detailed as a plurality of pressure elements arranged in a row extending transverse to the conveying direction, e.g., in the shape of a plurality of elongated rods or beams exerting a pressure on the abdomen part in the direction towards the center plane, as detailed in paragraph [0035] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 39, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed internal pressure structure and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the internal pressure structure is detailed as additionally, the shaping structure may comprise an internal pressure structure configured to apply the pressure on an inner surface of the lateral sides pressing the lateral sides away from each other. The internal shaping structure may comprise internal structures following the inner surface of the lateral sides of the fish during the filleting process. The internal structures may e.g., be plate shaped members, e.g., parallel to the center plane or nearly parallel to the center plane and being movable in a direction away from the center plane to thereby push the lateral sides of the fish away from the center plane, as detailed in paragraph [0037] of applicant’s originally filed specification and is further detailed as The shaping structure 10 further comprises an internal pressure structure with two plate shaped members 12 entering between the lateral sides of the fish belly part and configured to press the sides with the ribs outwards as detailed in paragraph [0066] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 40, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed actuator structure and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the actuator structure is detailed as by controlling said actuator structure operatively associated with the internal or external pressure structures. This may include applying different pneumatic pressures to pneumatic actuators to control a pneumatically generated force onto the fish or
applying different electrical control signals to an electrical actuator for applying an electrically generated force to the fish, as detailed in paragraph [0025] of applicant’s originally filed specification, is further detailed as each pressure element may be movable towards the center plane by an actuator structure, e.g., by magnetism, an electrical motor, or under influence of pressure of a medium, e.g., air pressure, or a hydraulic pressure. The actuator structure may be controlled by the deformability parameter such that the actuator structure applies pressure on the fish via the external pressure structure depending on the deformability parameter, as detailed in paragraph [0036] of applicant’s originally filed specification, is further detailed as ach internal structure may be movable by an actuator structure, e.g., by magnetism, an electrical motor, or under influence of pressure of a medium, e.g., air pressure, or hydraulic pressure. The actuator structure may be controlled by the deformability parameter such that the actuator structure applies pressure on the fish via the internal pressure structure depending on the deformability parameter, in paragraph [0038] of applicant’s originally filed specification, is further detailed as an actuator structure constituted in this case by pneumatic cylinders 20 operated by air pressure, as detailed in paragraph [0068] of applicant’s originally filed specification and is further detailed as the internal pressure structure comprises two plate shaped members 12 held by actuator arms 30, 31 being movable by the actuator structure 32 such that they can move towards each other or away from each other in the direction indicated by the arrow 33, as detailed in paragraph [0070] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 43, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed width measuring structure and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the width measuring structure is detailed as the apparatus may comprise a width measuring structure configured to determine a width signal representing the width of the fish. Herein, the term "width" denotes a dimension perpendicular to the center plane. The width measuring structure may e.g., be optical or mechanical. An example of a mechanical width measuring structure is a hinged structure, e.g., a plate, an arm or similar hinged structure movable up and down when a fish enters with one lateral side on the conveyor and the opposite lateral side facing the hinged structure. In this embodiment, the width measuring structure may constitute one of said two deformability sensors, as detailed in paragraph [0042] of applicant’s originally filed specification and is further detailed as the measuring structure comprises a conveyor 51 on which the fish is conveyed in a sideways orientation in which one lateral side faces the conveyor and the other lateral side faces the hinged plate element 52 under which the fish is conveyed. The fish lifts the hinged plate element while the plate element pivots about a pivot point 53. The angular displacement of the hinged plate determines the width of the fish. At the same time, the hinged element exerts almost no pressure on the fish or only a pressure which is inessential to the width of the fish, as detailed in paragraph [0078] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 44, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed length measuring structure and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the length measuring structure is detailed as the length measuring structure may e.g., be optical or mechanical. An example of a mechanical length measuring structure is a hinged structure, e.g., a plate, an arm, or similar hinged structure movable up and down when a fish enters with one lateral side along the conveyor and the opposite lateral side following the hinged structure. In this embodiment, the length measuring structure may constitute one of said two deformability sensors. Furthermore, the length measuring and width measuring structure may be constituted by the same sensor, as detailed in paragraph [0045] of applicant’s originally filed specification and is further detailed as In this configuration, the length is determined by the speed of the conveyor and by the angular displacement of the plate element. When the fish enters under the plate element, the plate swings upwardly, until the fish has passed through the measuring structure. Accordingly, the length of the fish can be determined based on the speed of the conveyor and the duration from the displacement of the plate element starts until the plate element is back in its lowermost position. At the same time, the hinged element exerts a certain pressure on the fish, i.e., essentially no pressure, and by registering the ratio between this applied pressure and the corresponding deformation of the fish, the measuring structure may be used both for length measurement and as a deformability sensor forming part of the deformability meter structure and providing a first data set of pressure and a corresponding dimension of the fish, as detailed in paragraph [0079] 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 28-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 28 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 cutting structure as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and the terms/phrases “e.g.” and “any other kind” in paragraph [0017] of applicant’s specification, “generally any kind of blades” in paragraph [0041] of applicant’s specification, and “any structure known in the art” and “e.g.” in paragraph [0064], renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to whether other types of cutting structures other than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed shaping structure as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and the terms/phrases “e.g.” in paragraph [0035] of applicant’s specification, “e.g.” in paragraph [0037] of applicant’s specification.
Claim 30 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 pressure” in line 3 of claim 30 relates to the pressure detailed in line 2 of claim 30 or the pressure detailed in line 10 of parent claim 28.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "applying the pressure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The pressure being applied in claim 32 relates to the pressure applied by the deformability meter structure, but claim 32 depends from claims 28 and 29 which only disclose applying pressure via the claimed shaping structure. It is recommended that applicant make claim 32 dependent upon claim 30 to overcome this rejection.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "measuring pressures" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the measuring pressure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 37 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 external pressure structure as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and the terms/phrases “e.g.” in paragraph [0035], renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to whether other types of external pressure structures than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 38 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 pressure elements as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and the terms/phrases “e.g.” in paragraph [0035], renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to whether other types of pressure elements than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 39 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 internal pressure structure as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and the terms/phrases “e.g.” in paragraph [0037] of applicant’s specification renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to whether other types of internal pressure structures than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 40 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 actuator structure as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and the terms/phrases “e.g.” in paragraph [0036] of applicant’ specification and “e.g.” in paragraph [0038] of applicant’s specification, render the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to whether other types of actuator structures than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "internal pressure structure" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 41 recites the limitation "knives" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 43 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 width measuring structure as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and the terms/phrases “e.g.” and “an example” in paragraph [0042] of applicant’s originally filed specification renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to whether other types of width measuring structures than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 44 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 length measuring structure as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and the terms/phrases “e.g.” and “an example” in paragraph [0045] of applicant’s specification renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to whether other types of length measuring structures than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "the ribs" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 28-29, 32 and 37-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO No. 2016/128449 to Jakobsen in view of WIPO No. 2015/169320 to Jorgensen et al.
Referring to claims 28 and 45, Jakobsen discloses an apparatus/method for filleting a fish, the apparatus comprising, a conveyor – at 210-213, for conveying the fish in a conveying direction with a backbone of the fish following a center plane of the apparatus – see figure 2, and with lateral sides of the fish on opposite sides of the center plane – see figure 2, a cutting structure – at 105 and/or detailed in page 8 lines 12-24, configured for filleting the fish – see figures 1-2 and page 8 lines 12-24, a shaping structure – at 102 and 109-113, arranged to engage the lateral sides to obtain a desired shape of the lateral sides – see figures 1-7 and page 11 lines 1-15, an electronic control structure – at 104 and/or 106 and/or 304, configured to read a parameter representing a feature of the fish – see pages 1-7, page 10 lines 21-31 and page 12 line 6 to page 13 line 3, and to control the device to engage the lateral sides with a pressure to urge the lateral sides together depending on the parameter during processing/filleting of the fish – see figures 1-7 and page 8 lines 12-24, page 10 lines 21-31, page 11 lines 1-15 and page 12 line 6 to page 13 line 3. Jakobsen does not disclose the electronic control structure is configured to read a deformability parameter representing an ability of the fish to deform and the electronic control structure controls the shaping structure to engage the lateral sides with a pressure depending on the deformability parameter during filleting of the fish. Jorgensen et al. does disclose an apparatus for processing a fish, the apparatus comprising, a conveyor – at 24, for conveying the fish – at 3, in a conveying direction with a backbone of the fish following a center plane of the apparatus – see at 3 and 24 in figures 1-3, and with lateral sides of the fish on opposite sides of the center plane – see at 3 in figures 1-3, a cutting structure – at 15-19, configured for processing the fish – see figures 1-3, page 8 lines 10-14, page 9 line 30, page 12 lines 12-18 and page 13 lines 12-16, a shaping structure – at 4,5,11, arranged to engage the fish to obtain a desired shape of the fish – see figures 1-3 and page 10 lines 1-15, page 10 line 25 to page 12 line 3 and page 13 line 12 to page 15 line 5 and, an electronic control structure – at 6,7, configured to read a deformability parameter representing an ability of the fish to deform – see page 10 line 7 to page 12 line 3, and to control the shaping structure – at 4,5, to engage the fish with a pressure to urge the lateral sides away from each other, depending on the deformability parameter during processing of the fish – see figures 1-3, page 10 lines 1-15, page 10 line 25 to page 12 line 3 and page 13 line 12 to page 15 line 5. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Jakobsen and add the electronic control structure being configured to read a deformability parameter representing an ability of the fish to deform and the electronic control structure controlling the shaping structure to engage the lateral sides with a pressure depending on the deformability parameter during filleting of the fish as disclosed by Jorgensen et al., so as to yield the predictable result of more accurately produce the fish product having the desired parameters for sale and consumption based on the type of fish being processed. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed cutting structure, item 105 and page 8 lines 12-24 of Jakobsen and – at 15-19 of Jorgensen et al. disclose blades and/or knives consistent with applicant’s originally filed specification. Further, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed shaping structure, items 102,109-113 of Jakobsen and items 4,5,11, of Jorgensen et al. disclose rods, beams, an external pressure structure and internal pressure structure consistent with applicant’s originally filed specification. Further, regarding the 35 U.S.C 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed electronic control structure, items 104,106,304, of Jakobsen and items 6,7 of Jorgensen et al. disclose a computer consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure and a PLC controller that is a functional equivalent to applicant’s disclosed electronic control structure since the PLC controller provides similar function of controlling the shaping structure as detailed in Jorgensen et al.
Referring to claim 29, Jakobsen as modified by Jorgensen et al. further discloses a deformability meter structure at 7 of Jorgensen et al., arranged upstream of the shaping structure – at 4,5,11 – see figure 1 of Jorgensen et al., and configured to determine the deformability parameter – see figure 1 and page 10 line 7 to page 12 line 3 of Jorgensen et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Jakobsen and add the electronic control structure being configured to read a deformability parameter representing an ability of the fish to deform and the electronic control structure controlling the shaping structure to engage the lateral sides with a pressure depending on the deformability parameter during filleting of the fish as disclosed by Jorgensen et al., so as to yield the predictable result of more accurately produce the fish product having the desired parameters for sale and consumption based on the type of fish being processed. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed deformability meter structure, item 7 of Jorgensen et al. discloses a sensor which is consistent with applicant’s originally filed specification. It is recommended that applicant change “upstream the shaping structure” to - -upstream of the shaping structure- - or other similar language.
Referring to claim 32, Jakobsen et al. as modified by Jorgensen et al. further discloses the deformability meter structure comprises at least two deformability sensors – see page 2 lines 19-25 of Jorgensen et al., for applying the pressure to the fish – capable of controlling pressure to the fish as seen in page 10 lines 1-15, page 10 line 25 to page 12 line 3 and page 13 line 12 to page 15 line 5 of Jorgensen et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Jakobsen and add the electronic control structure being configured to read a deformability parameter representing an ability of the fish to deform and the electronic control structure controlling the shaping structure to engage the lateral sides with a pressure depending on the deformability parameter during filleting of the fish as disclosed by Jorgensen et al., so as to yield the predictable result of more accurately produce the fish product having the desired parameters for sale and consumption based on the type of fish being processed.
Referring to claim 37, Jakobsen as modified by Jorgensen et al. further discloses the shaping structure – at 102, comprises an external pressure structure – at 102, configured to apply the pressure on an outer surface of the lateral sides pressing the lateral sides towards each other – see at 102 in figures 4-5 of Jakobsen. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the external pressure structure, items 102 of Jakobsen disclose elongated rods/beams consistent with applicant’s originally filed specification.
Referring to claim 38, Jakobsen as modified by Jorgensen et al. further discloses the external pressure structure – at 102, comprises a plurality of pressure elements – at 102 – see figures 4-5 of Jakobsen, arranged in a row extending transverse to the conveying direction – see multiple items 102 in figures 4-5 of Jakobsen. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the pressure elements, items 102 of Jakobsen disclose elongated rods/beams consistent with applicant’s originally filed specification.
Referring to claim 39, Jakobsen as modified by Jorgensen et al. further discloses the shaping structure comprises an internal pressure structure – at 5,11 of Jorgensen et al., configured to apply the pressure on an inner surface of the lateral sides pressing the lateral sides away from each other – see figures 1-3 and page 9 line 29 to page 10 line 5 and page 12 line 23 to page 13 line 26 of Jorgensen et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Jakobsen and add the electronic control structure being configured to read a deformability parameter representing an ability of the fish to deform and the electronic control structure controlling the shaping structure to engage the lateral sides with a pressure depending on the deformability parameter during filleting of the fish as disclosed by Jorgensen et al., so as to yield the predictable result of more accurately produce the fish product having the desired parameters for sale and consumption based on the type of fish being processed. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed internal pressure structure, items 5,11 of Jorgensen et al. are at least functional equivalents to applicant’s disclosed internal pressure structure in that items 5,11 of Jorgensen et al. provide similar function to applicant’s disclosed internal pressure elements of contacting and providing forces to the inside of the fish as seen in figures 1-3 of Jorgensen et al.
Referring to claim 40, Jakobsen as modified by Jorgensen et al. further discloses an actuator structure – at 103,109 of Jakobsen and – at 4 of Jorgensen et al., arranged to move at least one of the external pressure structure – at 102 of Jakobsen, or internal pressure structure – at 5,11 of Jorgensen et al., and wherein the actuator structure – at 4, is controlled based on the deformability parameter – see figures 1-3 and page 10 lines 1-15, page 10 line 25 to page 12 line 3 and page 13 line 12 to page 15 line 5 of Jorgensen et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Jakobsen and add the electronic control structure being configured to read a deformability parameter representing an ability of the fish to deform and the electronic control structure controlling the shaping structure to engage the lateral sides with a pressure depending on the deformability parameter during filleting of the fish as disclosed by Jorgensen et al., so as to yield the predictable result of more accurately produce the fish product having the desired parameters for sale and consumption based on the type of fish being processed. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed actuator structure, items 103,109 of Jakobsen and item 4 of Jorgensen et al. disclose pneumatic and electric actuators consistent with applicant’s originally filed specification.
Referring to claim 41, Jakobsen as modified by Jorgensen et al. further discloses the shaping structure – at 102, is configured to provide the desired shape simultaneously with the fish being engaged by knives of the cutting structure – at 105 – see figures 4-5 of Jakobsen where given the size of the fish being processed the head end of the fish can be engaged by the knives – at 105 while the back end of the fish is simultaneously being contacted by the shaping structure – at 102.
Referring to claim 42, Jakobsen as modified by Jorgensen et al. further discloses the cutting structure – at 105 of Jakobsen, comprises two adjacent knives arranged on opposite sides of the center plane for cutting away the lateral sides from the backbone – see figures 4-5 of Jakobsen.
Referring to claim 43, Jakobsen as modified by Jorgensen et al. further discloses a width measuring structure – at 104,303, configured to determine a width signal representing a width of the fish – see determining a profile of the fish which would include a width dimension as seen in pages 10 and 13 of Jakobsen, wherein the width of the fish is a dimension perpendicular to the center plane – see figures 1-5 of Jakobsen, and wherein the electronic control structure – at 106,304, is configured to read the width signal – see figures 10 and 13 of Jakobsen, and control the shaping structure based thereon – see control structure – at 6,7 of Jorgensen et al. controlling shaping structure – at 4,5,11 as seen in figures 1-3, page 10 lines 1-15, page 10 line 25 to page 12 line 3 and page 13 line 12 to page 15 line 5 of Jorgensen et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Jakobsen and add the electronic control structure being configured to read a deformability parameter representing an ability of the fish to deform and the electronic control structure controlling the shaping structure to engage the lateral sides with a pressure depending on the deformability parameter during filleting of the fish as disclosed by Jorgensen et al., so as to yield the predictable result of more accurately produce the fish product having the desired parameters for sale and consumption based on the type of fish being processed. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed width measuring structure, items 104,303 of Jakobsen disclose sensors consistent with applicant’s specification.
Referring to claim 44, Jakobsen as modified by Jorgensen et al. further discloses a length measuring structure – at 104,303, configured to determine a length signal representing the length of the fish in the conveying direction – see determining a profile of the fish which would include a length dimension as seen in pages 10 and 13 of Jakobsen, and the electronic control structure – at 106,304, is configured to read the length signal see figures 10 and 13 of Jakobsen, and control the shaping structure based thereon – see control structure – at 6,7 of Jorgensen et al. controlling shaping structure – at 4,5,11 as seen in figures 1-3, page 10 lines 1-15, page 10 line 25 to page 12 line 3 and page 13 line 12 to page 15 line 5 of Jorgensen et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Jakobsen and add the electronic control structure being configured to read a deformability parameter representing an ability of the fish to deform and the electronic control structure controlling the shaping structure to engage the lateral sides with a pressure depending on the deformability parameter during filleting of the fish as disclosed by Jorgensen et al., so as to yield the predictable result of more accurately produce the fish product having the desired parameters for sale and consumption based on the type of fish being processed. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed length measuring structure, items 104,303 of Jakobsen disclose sensors consistent with applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 46, Jakobsen as modified by Jorgensen et al. further discloses deformability of the fish is determined for more than one fish in the row of fish – see figures 1-3, page 10 lines 1-15, page 10 line 25 to page 12 line 3 and page 13 line 12 to page 15 line 5 of Jorgensen et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Jakobsen and add the electronic control structure being configured to read a deformability parameter representing an ability of the fish to deform and the electronic control structure controlling the shaping structure to engage the lateral sides with a pressure depending on the deformability parameter during filleting of the fish as disclosed by Jorgensen et al., so as to yield the predictable result of more accurately produce the fish product having the desired parameters for sale and consumption based on the type of fish being processed.
Referring to claim 47, Jakobsen as modified by Jorgensen et al. further discloses deformability of the fish is determined for each fish in the row of fish – see figures 1-3, page 10 lines 1-15, page 10 line 25 to page 12 line 3 and page 13 line 12 to page 15 line 5 of Jorgensen et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Jakobsen and add the electronic control structure being configured to read a deformability parameter representing an ability of the fish to deform and the electronic control structure controlling the shaping structure to engage the lateral sides with a pressure depending on the deformability parameter during filleting of the fish as disclosed by Jorgensen et al., so as to yield the predictable result of more accurately produce the fish product having the desired parameters for sale and consumption based on the type of fish being processed.
Claim(s) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsen in view of Jorgensen et al. as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of WIPO No. 91/08479 to Botta.
Referring to claim 30, Jakobsen et al. as modified by Jorgensen et al. does not disclose the deformability meter structure is configured to apply a pressure to the fish and to determine a deformation of the fish obtained by the pressure. Botta does disclose the deformability meter structure – at 12-16, is configured to apply a pressure to the fish – see fish detailed in the abstract and in pages 2-5, and to determine a deformation of the fish obtained by the pressure – see figures 1-3 and pages 2-4. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Jakobsen et al. as modified by Jorgensen et al. and add the deformability meter structure applying a pressure to the fish to determine a deformation in the fish as disclosed by Botta, so as to yield the predictable result of better determining the quality of fish product as desired.
Referring to claim 31, Jakobsen as modified by Jorgensen et al. and Botta further discloses the deformability meter structure is configured to determine a ratio between the pressure and the deformation – see at 12-16 in figures 1-3 and pages 2-4 of Botta where forces related to the applied pressure are used to determine the disclosed ratios. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Jakobsen et al. as modified by Jorgensen et al. and add the deformability meter structure applying a pressure to the fish to determine a deformation in the fish as disclosed by Botta, so as to yield the predictable result of better determining the quality of fish product as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 33-36 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
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 fish processing devices/methods in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 4,084,294 to Dohrendorf – shows fish processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 4,485,375 to Brower – shows fish processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 8,715,045 to Jacobsen et al. – shows fish processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 11,006,645 to Jurs et al. – show fish processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 12,329,170 to Larsen – shows fish processing device
U.S. Pat. No. 12,336,545 to Kjaer et al. – shows fish processing device
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
