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 . This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 4/17/2026 in which claims 1, 3-11, 13-22 are currently pending, claims 21 and 22 are new, claims 1, 3, and 11 are currently amended and claims 6-10, 16-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 6, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3, 5 and 6 all recite, “The food product slicing apparatus of claim 2,” and should be -- The food product slicing apparatus of claim 1--, since claim 2 is cancelled
Claim 15 recites, “The food product slicing apparatus of claim 12,” and should be -- The food product slicing apparatus of claim 1--, since claim 12 is cancelled
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 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 1 recites, “and the food product cannot be moved from the load assembly onto the feed assembly”. The phrase “cannot be moved” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it fails to specify whether the recited movement refers to movement by the load assembly itself, automatic movement by the apparatus, or any movement whatsoever, including manual movement by a user. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the plate" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 is identical to claim 5. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 11-15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seager et al. (WO2020/225529), herein referred to as Seager.
In regards to claim 1, Seager discloses a food product slicing apparatus for slicing food product into slices comprising:
a main frame (22);
a load assembly (loading bed 12) mounted on the main frame, the load assembly including a plate (annotated below) coupled at a side thereof (a side of the load assembly) by a hinge (18) to the main frame (22) , the load assembly being configured to receive the food product and to move the food product through the opening (A) in the main frame (22);
a feed assembly (26) mounted in the main frame (22), the feed assembly (26) being configured to receive the food product from the load assembly (12) and to move the food product through the main frame (22); and
a slicing assembly (30) in the main frame (22) and configured to receive the food product from the feed assembly (26) and to slice the food product into slices, and wherein the load assembly (12) is pivoted about the hinge (1890 to align with the opening in a first position (fig. 2) such that the food product can be moved from the load assembly (12) onto the feed assembly (26) and wherein the load assembly (12) is pivoted around the hinge (18) away from the opening (A) in a second position (fig. 1) such that the load assembly (12) is not aligned with the opening (A; its underneath) and the food product cannot be moved from the load assembly onto the feed assembly (as best understood).
PNG
media_image1.png
509
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 3, Seager discloses wherein the load assembly (12) comprises a support (14) coupled to the plate (annotated above), and a conveyor (driven conveyor 20) mounted on the support (14), wherein the conveyor (20) aligns with the opening (A) in the first position (fig. 2).
In regards to claims 4 and 14, Seager discloses wherein an angular position of the support (14) can be varied relative to the main frame (22) to vary the angular position of the conveyor (20; see figs. 1 and 2).
In regards to claims 5 and 15, Seager discloses wherein further comprising a lock (drive cylinder /piston 15/16) configured to secure the load assembly in the first position (fig. 2).
In regards to claim 11, Seager discloses wherein the opening (A) is in a rear of the main frame (22).
In regards to claims 13, Seager discloses wherein the load assembly (12) comprises a support (14) coupled to the main frame (22) by the hinge (18), and a conveyor (driven conveyor 20) mounted on the support (14), wherein the conveyor (20) aligns with the opening (A) in the first position (Fig. 2) and the conveyor is not aligned with the opening (A) in the second position (Fig. 1)
In regards to claim 22, as best understood, Seager discloses wherein the cover (drive cylinder 16 covers piston 15) is below the opening (A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant contends that Seager does not disclose a pivotable load assembly as set forth in the amended claims. Specially the Applicant contends that Searger sets forth a pivotable load assembly which pivots in an upwards and downwards movement around a front pivot hinge as opposed to a movement around a hinge on the side of the load assembly. The office does not agree that the claims have been so narrowly construed so as to read only on the Applicant’s interpretation of the claim limitations. Searger rather has a plate as annotated above that is part of the load assembly and which has a hinge at the end of the arm 14, which at the far left side of the load assembly coupled to the main frame.
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 LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights