DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 22, 24, 25, 28, 30, 31, 34, and 37 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 22 and 28 recites the limitation "based on the thickness." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the thickness” is “a thickness of the leading end portion of the block of food” previously recited in claims 21 and 27, or if “the thickness” refers to a different thickness. For purposes of examination, “the thickness” is taken to be the thickness of the block of food.
Claims 24 and 30 recites the limitation "according to the length." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the length” is “a length of the food piece in an arrangement direction from a thickness of the leading end portion of the block of food to be cut and a folding position of the food piece” previously recited in claims 24 and 30, or if “the length” refers to a different length. For purposes of examination, “the length” is taken to be the length of “the length of the food piece in an arrangement direction from a thickness of the leading end portion of the block of food to be cut and a folding position of the food piece.”
Claims 24 and 30 recites the limitation " changing the number of food pieces forming each aggregate according to the length." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the food pieces” is “the folded food piece” previously recited in claims 24 and 30, or if “the food pieces” refers to different food pieces. For purposes of examination, “the food pieces” is taken to be the length of “the folded food pieces.”
The term “substantially” in claims 25, 31, 34, and 37 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation of “substantially uniform thickness” is rendered indefinite by use of the term “substantially.” For purpose of examination “substantially uniform thickness,” is taken to be “uniform thickness.”
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claim limitation, in claims 33 and 36, “thickness measurement means” that use the word “means” is 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: In [0266], the specification stated:” a left meat block height measurement potentiometer 407, a right meat block height measurement potentiometer 408”
Therefore, the “thickness measurement means” is construed as a plurality of potentiometers.
The claim limitation, in claims 33 and 36, “quantity changing means” that use the word “means” is 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: In [0266], the specification stated: “an arrangement quantity manual setting switch 405, an arrangement quantity automatic control on/off switch 406,”
Therefore, the “quantity changing means” is construed as a plurality of switches.
The claim limitation, in claim 39, “image capturing means” that use the word “means” is 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: In [0066], the specification stated: “camera (“image capturing means” in the claims)”
Therefore, the “image capturing means” is construed as a camera.
The claim limitation, in claim 39, “control means” that use the word “means” is 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: In [0267-], the specification stated: “controller 400… to automatically correct the stop position of the trays”
Therefore, the “control means” is construed as a “controller.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 21, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mally (US5117717).
PNG
media_image1.png
290
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Mally
PNG
media_image2.png
354
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Mally
Regarding claim 21, Mally teaches a food aggregate forming method for forming aggregates (Col. 5 line 20 drafts 32) of food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 draft of slices) by cutting a block of food (Col. 5 lines 5-10 belly 29) from a leading end portion (Fig. 2 a leading portion of belly 29 sliced in slicer assembly 44) thereof to successively form a plurality of food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 draft of slices) and by arranging the food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 draft of slices)such that the food pieces at least partially overlap one another (Fig. 7 drafts 35 and 32, formed of a plurality of draft slices that overlap), the method comprising:
automatically changing a number of food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 number of slices) forming each aggregate (Col. 5 line 20 draft 32) according to a thickness of the leading end portion of the block of food (29) to be cut (Col. 5 lines 5-45 specific parameter data for each specific belly 29 before it is fed into the slicer assembly 44, such data typically including length, width, thickness and weight; calculate number of slices by the length, width, and thickness relationship) so as to reduce variations in weight of the aggregates (Col. 3 lines 1-10 each belly will be sliced at a feed rate to provide slices of substantially equal thickness which have a combined weight totaling a target value such as one pound).
Regarding claim 25, Mally teaches the food aggregate forming method according to claim 21, further comprising:
cutting the block of food (29) from the leading end portion at substantially regular intervals (Col. 3 lines 10-15 each belly will be sliced at a feed rate, taken to be the equivalent of regular intervals) to successively form the food pieces of a substantially uniform thickness (Col. 3 lines 10-15 to provide slices of substantially equal thickness).
Regarding claim 26, Mally teaches the food aggregate forming method according to claim 21, further comprising:
prohibiting the automatic changing of the number of food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 number of slices for each draft 32) forming each aggregate (32) until formation of the aggregate is completed (Col. 5 lines 1-30 slicing plan, determining number of slices of draft 32, change of number of slices in each draft determined before cutting, does not during formation of draft 32).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mally (US5117717]) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Grasselli (US20140352505), referred to as Grasselli ‘505.
Regarding claim 22, Mally teaches the food aggregate forming method according to claim 21, but is silent on further comprising automatically changing the number of food pieces forming each aggregate according to a length of the food piece in an arrangement direction, the length being calculated based on the thickness.
Grasselli ‘505 teaches further comprising automatically changing the number of food pieces forming each aggregate according to a length of the food piece in an arrangement direction, the length being calculated based on the thickness ([0037-0038] a number of cutting pieces is calculated, as a function of the dimension of the product and of a configured cutting pitch; dimension being height of the food product which is equivalent to the length of the cut food product).
Mally and Grasselli ‘505 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of food slicers. It would have been obvious to have modified Mally to incorporate the teachings of Grasselli ‘505 to automatically change a number of food pieces according to a length of the food piece so that to obtain from a food product a number of uniform pieces having a thickness which is substantially equal each other and of good quality, reducing at the same time the amount of food product that is discarded (Grasselli ‘505 [0008]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mally (US5117717]) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Hoyland (US5125303).
Regarding claim 23, Mally teaches the food aggregate forming method according to claim 21, but is silent on further comprising: automatically changing a pitch at which the food pieces are arranged according to the thickness of the leading end portion of the block of food to be cut.
Hoyland teaches automatically changing a pitch (P) at which the food pieces are arranged according to the thickness of the leading end portion of the block of food to be cut (Col. 3 lines 55-68 pitch between adjacent slices determined, based on a height of the log, taken to be the equivalent of a thickness of the edge portion of the block).
Mally and Hoyland are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of food slicers. It would have been obvious to have modified Mally to incorporate the teachings of Hoyland to change a pitch at which the food pieces are arranged such that each pack of food is produced consistently irrespect6ive of variation sin the height of the food being sliced (Hoyland Col. 4 lines 20-28).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mally (US5117717])as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Grasselli (US20140352505), referred to as Grasselli ‘505, and further in view of Hitoshi (JP4264518B2) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 24, Mally teaches the food aggregate forming method according to claim 21, further comprising: cutting a block of food (29) from a leading end portion thereof (Fig. 2 a leading portion of belly 29 sliced in slicer assembly 44).
Mally is silent on successively forming the food pieces folded at a preset position;
calculating a length of the folded food piece in an arrangement direction from a thickness of the leading end portion of the block of food to be cut and a folding position of the food pieces; and
automatically changing the number of food pieces forming each aggregate according to the length.
Grasselli ‘505 calculating a length of the food piece in an arrangement direction from a thickness of the leading end portion of the block of food to be cut and a position of the food piece ([0037-0038] a number of cutting pieces is calculated, as a function of the dimension of the product and of a configured cutting pitch; dimension being height of the food product which is equivalent to the length of the cut food product ); and
automatically changing the number of food pieces forming each aggregate according to the length ([0037-0038] a number of cutting pieces is calculated, as a function of the dimension of the product).
It would have been obvious to have modified Mally to incorporate the teachings of Grasselli ‘505 to automatically change a number of food pieces according to a length of the food piece so that to obtain from a food product a number of uniform pieces having a thickness which is substantially equal each other and of good quality, reducing at the same time the amount of food product that is discarded (Grasselli ‘505 [0008]).
Mally and Grasselli ‘505 are silent on successively forming the food pieces folded at a preset position.
PNG
media_image3.png
202
246
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Hitoshi
Hitsohi teaches successively forming the food pieces folded at a preset position (Pg. 4 a transfer piece 2 that transports the sliced meat pieces m while folding them, Fig. 1).
Mally, Grasselli ‘505, and Hitoshi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of food slicers. It would have been obvious to have modified the food pieces of Mally and Grasselli ‘505, to be folded as taught in Hitoshi in order to be able to process thin cut food products in such a way that the products do not stick to further processing tools (Hitoshi Pg. 1-2).
Claim 27, 29, 31-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mally (US5117717]) in view of Hoyland (US5125303).
Regarding claim 27, Mally teaches a food aggregate forming method for forming aggregates (Col. 5 line 20 drafts 32) of food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 draft of slices) by cutting a block of food (Col. 5 lines 5-10 belly 29) from a leading end portion (Fig. 2 a leading portion of belly 29 sliced in slicer assembly 44) thereof to successively form a plurality of food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 draft of slices) and by arranging the food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 draft of slices)such that the food pieces at least partially overlap one another (Fig. 7 drafts 35 and 32, formed of a plurality of draft slices that overlap), the method comprising:
automatically changing a number of food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 number of slices) forming each aggregate (Col. 5 line 20 draft 32) according to a thickness of the leading end portion of the block of food (29) to be cut (Col. 5 lines 5-45 specific parameter data for each specific belly 29 before it is fed into the slicer assembly 44, such data typically including length, width, thickness and weight; calculate number of slices by the length, width, and thickness relationship) so as to reduce variations in weight of the aggregates (Col. 3 lines 1-10 each belly will be sliced at a feed rate to provide slices of substantially equal thickness which have a combined weight totaling a target value such as one pound).
Mally is silent on form each aggregate such that a total length of the aggregate is a preset length.
Hoyland teaches and form each aggregate such that a total length of the aggregate is a preset length (Col. 3 lines 45-55 to provide groups of shingled slices of constant length in the shingling direction).
It would have been obvious to have modified Mally to incorporate the teachings of Hoyland to have the length of the aggregate of slices be a preset length so that each pack of food is produced consistently irrespective of variations in the height of the food being sliced (Hoyland Col. 4 lines 20-28).
Regarding claim 29, Mally and Hoyland teach the food aggregate forming method according to claim 27, but Mally is silent on further comprising: automatically changing a pitch at which the food pieces are arranged according to the thickness of the leading end portion of the block of food to be cut.
Hoyland teaches automatically changing a pitch (P) at which the food pieces are arranged according to the thickness of the leading end portion of the block of food to be cut (Col. 3 lines 55-68 pitch between adjacent slices determined, based on a height of the log, taken to be the equivalent of a thickness of the edge portion of the block).
It would have been obvious to have modified Mally to incorporate the teachings of Hoyland to change a pitch at which the food pieces are arranged such that each pack of food is produced consistently irrespect6ive of variation sin the height of the food being sliced (Hoyland Col. 4 lines 20-28).
Regarding claim 31, Mally teaches the food aggregate forming method according to claim 27, further comprising:
cutting the block of food (29) from the leading end portion at substantially regular intervals (Col. 3 lines 10-15 each belly will be sliced at a feed rate, taken to be the equivalent of regular intervals) to successively form the food pieces of a substantially uniform thickness (Col. 3 lines 10-15 to provide slices of substantially equal thickness).
Regarding claim 32, Mally teaches the food aggregate forming method according to claim 27, further comprising:
prohibiting the automatic changing of the number of food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 number of slices for each draft 32) forming each aggregate (32) until formation of the aggregate is completed (Col. 5 lines 1-30 slicing plan, determining number of slices of draft 32, change of number of slices in each draft determined before cutting, does not during formation of draft 32).
Regarding claim 33, Mally teaches a food aggregate forming apparatus for forming aggregates (Col. 5 line 20 drafts 32) of food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 draft of slices) by cutting a block of food (Col. 5 lines 5-10 belly 29) from a leading end portion (Fig. 2 a leading portion of belly 29 sliced in slicer assembly 44) thereof to successively form a plurality of food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 draft of slices) and by arranging the food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 draft of slices)such that the food pieces at least partially overlap one another (Fig. 7 drafts 35 and 32, formed of a plurality of draft slices that overlap), the apparatus comprising:
a thickness measurement (42) means configured to measure a thickness of the leading end portion of the block of food to be cut (Col. 5 lines 5-15 provide specific parameter data
for each specific belly 29 before it is fed into the slicer
assembly 44, such data typically including length, width, thickness and weight); and"
a quantity changing (45) means configured to automatically change a number of food pieces forming each aggregate (Col. 4 lines 45-55 number of slices calculated by control assembly 45), wherein
the quantity changing means (45) is configured to operate to automatically change the number of food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 number of slices) forming each aggregate (Col. 5 line 20 draft 32) according to a thickness of the leading end portion of the block (29) of food to be cut (Col. 5 lines 5-45 specific parameter data for each specific belly 29 before it is fed into the slicer assembly 44, such data typically including length, width, thickness and weight; calculate number of slices by the length, width, and thickness relationship).
Mally is silent on form each aggregate such that a total length of the aggregate is a preset length.
Hoyland teaches and form each aggregate such that a total length of the aggregate is a preset length (Col. 3 lines 45-55 to provide groups of shingled slices of constant length in the shingling direction).
It would have been obvious to have modified Mally to incorporate the teachings of Hoyland to have the length of the aggregate of slices be a preset length so that each pack of food is produced consistently irrespective of variations in the height of the food being sliced (Hoyland Col. 4 lines 20-28).
Regarding claim 34, Mally teaches the food aggregate forming method according to claim 33, further comprising:
cutting the block of food (29) from the leading end portion at substantially regular intervals (Col. 3 lines 10-15 each belly will be sliced at a feed rate, taken to be the equivalent of regular intervals) to successively form the food pieces of a substantially uniform thickness (Col. 3 lines 10-15 to provide slices of substantially equal thickness).
Regarding claim 35, Mally teaches the food aggregate forming method according to claim 33, further comprising:
prohibiting the automatic changing of the number of food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 number of slices for each draft 32) forming each aggregate (32) until formation of the aggregate is completed (Col. 5 lines 1-30 slicing plan, determining number of slices of draft 32, change of number of slices in each draft determined before cutting, does not during formation of draft 32).
Regarding claim 36, Mally teaches a food aggregate forming apparatus for forming aggregates (Col. 5 line 20 drafts 32) of food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 draft of slices) by cutting a block of food (Col. 5 lines 5-10 belly 29) from a leading end portion (Fig. 2 a leading portion of belly 29 sliced in slicer assembly 44) thereof to successively form a plurality of food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 draft of slices) and by arranging the food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 draft of slices)such that the food pieces at least partially overlap one another (Fig. 7 drafts 35 and 32, formed of a plurality of draft slices that overlap), the apparatus comprising:
a thickness measurement (42) means configured to measure a thickness of the leading end portion of the block of food to be cut (Col. 5 lines 5-15 provide specific parameter data
for each specific belly 29 before it is fed into the slicer
assembly 44, such data typically including length, width, thickness and weight); and"
a quantity changing (45) means configured to automatically change a number of food pieces forming each aggregate (Col. 4 lines 45-55 number of slices calculated by control assembly 45), wherein
the quantity changing means (45) is configured to operate to automatically change the number of food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 number of slices) forming each aggregate (Col. 5 line 20 draft 32) according to a thickness of the leading end portion of the block (29) of food to be cut (Col. 5 lines 5-45 specific parameter data for each specific belly 29 before it is fed into the slicer assembly 44, such data typically including length, width, thickness and weight; calculate number of slices by the length, width, and thickness relationship)
so as to reduce variations in weight of the aggregates (Col. 3 lines 1-10 each belly will be sliced at a feed rate to provide slices of substantially equal thickness which have a combined weight totaling a target value such as one pound).
Mally is silent on form each aggregate such that a total length of the aggregate is a preset length.
Hoyland teaches and form each aggregate such that a total length of the aggregate is a preset length (Col. 3 lines 45-55 to provide groups of shingled slices of constant length in the shingling direction).
It would have been obvious to have modified Mally to incorporate the teachings of Hoyland to have the length of the aggregate of slices be a preset length so that each pack of food is produced consistently irrespective of variations in the height of the food being sliced (Hoyland Col. 4 lines 20-28).
Regarding claim 37, Mally teaches the food aggregate forming method according to claim 36, further comprising:
cutting the block of food (29) from the leading end portion at substantially regular intervals (Col. 3 lines 10-15 each belly will be sliced at a feed rate, taken to be the equivalent of regular intervals) to successively form the food pieces of a substantially uniform thickness (Col. 3 lines 10-15 to provide slices of substantially equal thickness).
Regarding claim 38, Mally teaches the food aggregate forming method according to claim 36, further comprising:
prohibiting the automatic changing of the number of food pieces (Col. 5 line 20 number of slices for each draft 32) forming each aggregate (32) until formation of the aggregate is completed (Col. 5 lines 1-30 slicing plan, determining number of slices of draft 32, change of number of slices in each draft determined before cutting, does not during formation of draft 32).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mally (US5117717]) and Hoyland (US5125303) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Grasselli (US20140352505), referred to as Grasselli ‘505.
Regarding claim 28, Mally and Hoyland teach the food aggregate forming method according to claim 27, but are silent on further comprising automatically changing the number of food pieces forming each aggregate according to a length of the food piece in an arrangement direction, the length being calculated based on the thickness.
Grasselli ‘505 teaches further comprising automatically changing the number of food pieces forming each aggregate according to a length of the food piece in an arrangement direction, the length being calculated based on the thickness ([0037-0038] a number of cutting pieces is calculated, as a function of the dimension of the product and of a configured cutting pitch; dimension being height of the food product which is equivalent to the length of the cut food product).
It would have been obvious to have modified Mally and Hoyland to incorporate the teachings of Grasselli ‘505 to automatically change a number of food pieces according to a length of the food piece so that to obtain from a food product a number of uniform pieces having a thickness which is substantially equal each other and of good quality, reducing at the same time the amount of food product that is discarded (Grasselli ‘505 [0008]).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mally (US5117717) and Hoyland (US5125303) and as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Grasselli (US20140352505), referred to as Grasselli ‘505, and further in view of Hitoshi (JP4264518B2) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 30, Mally and Hoyland the food aggregate forming method according to claim 27, and Mally teaches further comprising: cutting a block of food (29) from a leading end portion thereof (Fig. 2 a leading portion of belly 29 sliced in slicer assembly 44).
Mally and Hoyland are silent on successively forming the food pieces folded at a preset position;
calculating a length of the folded food piece in an arrangement direction from a thickness of the leading end portion of the block of food to be cut and a folding position of the food pieces; and
automatically changing the number of food pieces forming each aggregate according to the length.
Grasselli ‘505 calculating a length of the food piece in an arrangement direction from a thickness of the leading end portion of the block of food to be cut and a position of the food piece ([0037-0038] a number of cutting pieces is calculated, as a function of the dimension of the product and of a configured cutting pitch; dimension being height of the food product which is equivalent to the length of the cut food product ); and
automatically changing the number of food pieces forming each aggregate according to the length ([0037-0038] a number of cutting pieces is calculated, as a function of the dimension of the product).
It would have been obvious to have modified Mally and Hoyland to incorporate the teachings of Grasselli ‘505 to automatically change a number of food pieces according to a length of the food piece so that to obtain from a food product a number of uniform pieces having a thickness which is substantially equal each other and of good quality, reducing at the same time the amount of food product that is discarded (Grasselli ‘505 [0008]).
Mally, Hoyland, and Grasselli ‘505 are silent on successively forming the food pieces folded at a preset position.
Hitsohi teaches successively forming the food pieces folded at a preset position (Pg. 4 a transfer piece 2 that transports the sliced meat pieces m while folding them, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to have modified the food pieces of Mally, Hoyland, and Grasselli ‘505, to be folded as taught in Hitoshi in order to be able to process thin cut food products in such a way that the products do not stick to further processing tools (Hitoshi Pg. 1-2).
Claim 39-40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mally (US5117717) and Hoyland (US5125303) and as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Grasselli (US20180118388A1), referred to as Grasselli ‘388.
Regarding claim 39, Mally and Hoyland teach the food aggregate forming apparatus according to claim 33, but are silent on further comprising: a first conveyor configured to convey an item; a second conveyor configured to convey a container for storing an item, wherein the second conveyor is arranged at a conveyance termination end portion of the first conveyor in a direction intersecting a conveyance direction of the first conveyor in a plan view; an image capturing means configured to capture an image of the item conveyed by the first conveyor; a control means configured to correct a target position for stopping the conveyance of the container by the second conveyor based on a result of image capturing by the image capturing means.
PNG
media_image4.png
576
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Grasselli ‘388
Grasselli ‘388 teaches a first conveyor (4) configured to convey an item (2);
a second conveyor (5) configured to convey a container (3) for storing an item (2), wherein the second conveyor (5) is arranged at a conveyance termination end portion of the first conveyor (4) in a direction intersecting a conveyance direction of the first conveyor (4) in a plan view (Fig. 1);
an image capturing means (6) configured to capture an image of the item conveyed by the first conveyor ([0066] detection apparatus 6 preferentially comprises an image acquisition device, such as a video camera or similar devices, arranged above the first conveyor 4 and pointed towards the traction surface; Fig. 1);
a control means (7) configured to correct a target position for stopping the conveyance of the container by the second conveyor ([0079] regulates the arrangement of the two conveyors with respect to each other; where one conveyer has the container) based on a result of image capturing by the image capturing means ([0079] as a function of the position of the slice 2 or the pack of slices 2 determined by the detection device, 6).
Mally, Hoyland, and Grasselli ‘388 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of food slicers. It would have been obvious to have modified Mally and Hoyland to incorporate the teachings of Grasselli ‘388 to a first conveyer, second conveyer with a container, an image capturing and control means to control conveyance based on an image to enable tray packaged prearranged packs to formed correctly out of singles slices in a desired container that are additionally uniformly centered (Grasselli ‘388 [0008,0027]).
Regarding claim 40, Mally, Hoyland, and Grasselli ‘388 teach the food aggregate forming apparatus according to claim 39, but Mally and Hoyland are silent on wherein the image capturing means is configured to capture an image of the item on the first conveyor and a side edge portion of the first conveyor, a deviation amount of the item with respect to the side edge portion of the first conveyor is obtained based on a result of the image capturing, and the target position for stopping the conveyance of the container by the second conveyor is corrected based on the deviation amount.
Grasselli ‘388 teaches wherein the image capturing means (6) is configured to capture an image of the item on the first conveyor (4) and a side edge portion of the first conveyor (Fig.1 [0066] lens cone of vision of the video camera is schematically indicated, showing sides conveyer 4)
a deviation amount of the item with respect to the side edge portion of the first conveyor (4) is obtained based on a result of the image capturing ([0142] he centering module 76 is configured to analyses the images acquired by the detection apparatus 6, thereby determining the distances between the outline of a slice 2 or pack and the two opposite lateral edges (or sides)),
and the target position for stopping the conveyance of the container by the second conveyor is corrected based on the deviation amount ([0145] centering module 76 is to establish how centered the slices 2 or packs are so as to find out by how much the end portion 40 of the first conveyor should be shifted for the purpose of laying the product in the desired lateral position in the container 3).
It would have been obvious to have modified Mally and Hoyland to incorporate the teachings of Grasselli ‘388 to have an image capturing means capture an image of the conveyer and a portion of the side to determine a deviation amount and to correct the conveyer positions in order to enable tray packaged prearranged packs to formed correctly out of singles slices in a desired container that are additionally uniformly centered (Grasselli ‘388 [0008,0027]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 9/11/2025
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761