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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 10-11-2025 Amendment was received. Claims 1, 10, and 17 were amended. Claims 3-4, and 9 were cancelled. Claim 2, 5-8, 11, 13-22 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 10, 12 and 16 are examined in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0132855 to Weber in view of US 5,079,982 to Antonissen.
In re Claim 1, Weber teaches a food product slicing apparatus for slicing food products into slices (see Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a frame (see Figs. 1-5, #34/#30);
a drive assembly coupled to the frame and configured move the food products relative to the frame (see Figs. 1-5, #3);
a shear bar coupled to the frame downstream of the drive assembly (see Fig. 3, structure surrounding workpieces #4 – see also Fig. 1), the shear bar formed of a plate (the opening has flat surfaces which is considered being formed as a plate) having an opening therethrough through which the food product is configured to pass, the opening having upper, lower, and side surfaces (see annotated Fig. 3, below);
a slicing blade coupled to the frame downstream of the shear bar (see Figs. 1-2 #9 or #10 in view of Fig. 1), the slicing blade being configured to slice the food products into slices after passing through the opening in the plate (see Fig. 5, #14).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Weber does not teach a lower feed roller coupled to the frame downstream of the drive assembly and overlapping the opening, the lower feed roller being positioned proximate to plate and being rotatable relative to the plate, the lower roller being separate from plate, at least one upper feed roller mounted to the plate downstream of the drive assembly and overlapping the opening, the at least one upper feed roller being rotatable relative to the plate, the at least one upper feed roller and the lower feed roller are aligned with each other and the at least one upper feed roller is adjustable in position in an up and down direction relative to the lower feed roller and relative to the plate.
However, Antonissen teaches that it is known in the art of slicing machines to provide a conveyance structure that includes a lower feed roller coupled to the frame (see Fig. 1, #5) downstream of the drive assembly at least one upper feed roller (See Fig. 1, #4) the at least one upper feed roller and the lower feed roller are aligned with each other and the at least one upper feed roller is adjustable in position in an up and down direction relative to the lower feed roller and relative to the plate (see Fig. 1, #22, pivots #5 about axis #10).
In the same field of invention, structures for moving workpieces to slicers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date replace the structure for moving the workpiece of Weber with the track assemblies of Antonissen. Doing so is the substitution of one known conveying mechanism for another known conveying mechanism to move the workpieces towards the slicing blade (see MPEP 2143, I, B),
Such a combination would provide for the lower feed roller overlapping the opening (see Antonissen, Fig. 1, #5 in view of Fig. 1 of Weber), the lower feed roller being positioned proximate to plate and being rotatable relative to the plate (see Antonissen, Fig. 1 #36/#1, in view of Figs. 1-5 of Weber), the lower roller being separate from plate, the upper feed roller mounted to the plate downstream of the drive assembly and overlapping the opening (see Antonissen, Fig. 1, #4), the at least one upper feed roller being rotatable relative to the plate (see Antonissen, Figs. 1-2, #4 in view of Figs. 1-5 of Weber).
In re Claim 16, modified Weber, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein an upstream surface of the slicing blade is planar and a downstream surface of the shear bar is planar (see Weber, Figs. 1-5, the blades #9-10 has a planar surface as well as the openings around the workpiece #4 – see e.g., Fig. 5).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0132855 to Weber in view of US 5,079,982 to Antonissen and further in view of US 12,227,367 to Seager.
In re Claim 10, modified Weber, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein two upper feed rollers are provided. However, Seager teaches that it is known to provide multiple upper and multiple lower feed rollers (see Seager Fig. 1, #36/34/24/26/28). IN the same field of invention, conveyance mechanisms for moving workpieces to slicers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add a second upper feed roller. Doing so would have been obvious as it has been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts for a multiplied effect is obvious unless there is a synergistic effect. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis CO., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir. 1977). Adding additional conveyors would allow the user to cut a longer workpiece, thus requiring less time for a change over to a new workpiece.
In re Claim 12, modified Weber, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein two upper feed rollers are provided. However, Seager teaches that it is known to provide multiple upper and multiple lower feed rollers (see Seager Fig. 1, #36/34/24/26/28). IN the same field of invention, conveyance mechanisms for moving workpieces to slicers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add a second upper feed roller. Doing so would have been obvious as it has been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts for a multiplied effect is obvious unless there is a synergistic effect. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis CO., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir. 1977). Adding additional conveyors would allow the user to cut a longer workpiece, thus requiring less time for a change over to a new workpiece.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights