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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 5, 16-17, and 22 are amended. Claims 2-4, 6-11, and 18-21 are as previously presented. Claims 12-15 are cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-11 and 16-22 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 10, 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the previously set-forth objection to the Specification regarding the length of the Abstract and the objection to claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-12, filed 12/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-23 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of applicant’s amendment and argument regarding the elongated separation element extending within a product passage and the respective peripheral support surface and newly found prior art regarding the feature of the peripheral support surface being extended within.
Applicant argues that the separation element from Xu (CN 112790228 A) does not extend within a product passage. It is the Examiner’s position that this argument is persuasive.
However, the primary reference Pryor (US 20060196328 A1) already discloses the feature of an elongated separation element that extends within a product passage as shown in Fig. 2 with the rotating head 148, Para. 0049, “Slicing station 66 is shown to include a rotating spindle or head 148.”, where the product passage is construed as the passage that carries the food product, which would extend past the area of the slicing station. As a result, the combination of Xu with Pryor would put the elongated separation element of Xu in the position of the slicing station from Pryor, which would make the elongated separation element of Xu extend into the product passage. The introduction of the slicer from Xu would provide a benefit of allowing cubing to occur from the slicing station.
In the interest of compact prosecution, additional prior art has been found to more clearly show that an elongated separation element extends within a product passage.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102021128284.5, filed on 10/29/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control device” in Claims 1, 3-4, and 6
The generic placeholder is “control device” and the functional language attributed the “control device” includes: “drive that can be controlled by means” in claim 1, “configured to control the controllable drive” in claim 3, “configured to control the controllable drive” in claim 4, “configured to excite the holder” in claim 6, and “controlled in dependence on a respective current cutting operation by means” in claim 23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Reference is made to the Specification filed on 10/18/2022.
Regarding the control device, on Page 3, “The invention further relates to the use of a drive that can be controlled by means of a control device, in particular a servomotor”, where the control device is assumed to be an ordinary controller associated with a servomotor
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 17-19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor et al. (US 20060196328 A1, hereinafter Pryor) in view of Zheng (CN 105856294 A, hereinafter Zheng) and Xu et al. (CN 112790228 A, hereinafter Xu) and Miller (US 9596867 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Pryor discloses an apparatus for a multi-track slicing of food products (Para. 0008, “A loaf feed drive is arranged for advancing the first food loaf and the second food loaf along the loaf path.”, where a multi-track loaf feeding track is used, where multiple loaves can be placed within the feeding mechanism),
- having a product feed that feeds products to be sliced and disposed on a product support on multiple tracks in a feed direction (Para. 0051, “Slicing machine 50 further comprises a system of short conveyors for advancing food loaves from loaf feed mechanism 75 into slicing head 66.”) to a cutting region in which a cutting blade moves in order to slice the fed products in a cutting plane (Para. 0053, “The drive motor for the head or spindle 148 in slicing station 66 is a D.C. variable speed servo motor 171 mounted in the machine base 51.”), which extends perpendicular to the feed direction (Para. 0060, “Each loaf path is closed off, near the slicing station 66, by the gate 377. Thus, a loaf entering mechanism 75 cannot slide down unexpectedly and prematurely into slicing station 66. The gate 377 comprises a plurality of rollers 379 ( one shown), oriented in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the support tray 116”, where the slicing station 66 is at the same angle as the gate, meaning that the slicing station or cutter is also perpendicular to the product feed), the cutting blade having a driving frequency (Para. 0049, “The range of knife blade speeds again is quite large and may typically be from ten to four thousand six hundred rpm. Blade 149 thus performs an orbital motion while it rotates.”); and
-having a dividing device that has at least one holder, which is arranged in the region of the cutting plane, for at least one elongated separation element, which is attached to the holder and extends in dividing plane extending in parallel with the cutting plane (Para. 0063, “The orifice plate 169 is arranged closely adjacent to the downstream side of the conveyors and includes three orifices 169a, 169b, 169c for guiding three loaves into the cutting plane.”; and Fig. 2, where the orifice plate 169 is parallel with the cutting plane 148); and
so that, in a respective cutting process, a plurality of product parts are cut off from a respective front product end by means of the cutting blade (Para. 0043, “Usually, both of the slice stacks 92 and 94 would be either round or rectangular. Stacks 92 and 94 may have different heights, or slice counts, and hence different weights; as shown they contain the same number of food loaf slices in each stack, but that condition can be changed.”, where the slicing is done with a cutting blade, Para. Para. 0049, “so long as the cutting edge of knife blade 149 moves along a predetermined cutting path in each cycle of operation.”);
wherein each passage of the product passage is formed by an opening that is bounded by an interrupted or uninterrupted peripheral support surface for a respective front product end in order to support a respective product end all around, with or without interruptions in the peripheral direction (Para. 0062, “a setup to slice three side-by-side loaves. Two loaves are driven by the conveyors 164, 166 and one loaf by the conveyors 163, 165.”, where the conveyor 166 is shown in Fig. 3 to have a rectangular opening that leads into the dividing device, where the opening is bounded by an interrupted peripheral support surface being the conveyor, where the conveyor supports the front product end with interruptions in the peripheral direction);
wherein the product passage is arranged in front of the cutting plane, view in the feed direction (Para. 0062, “Two loaves are driven by the conveyors 164, 166 and one loaf by the conveyors 163, 165.”, and Para. 0053, “The drive motor for the head or spindle 148 in slicing station 66”, and Fig. 2, where the conveyor 166 is the product passage that leads into a dividing device, where it is in front of the cutting plane created by the spindle 148 holding the blade 149).
Pryor does not disclose:
food being cut at a predefined or predefinable cutting frequency by means of the cutting blade;
a drive for the holder by which the holder and the attached separation element can be excited to perform to-and-fro movements perpendicular to the feed direction at a dividing frequency in order to divide the front ends of the products by means of the separation element in parallel with the feed direction;
further having a control device, with the drive for the holder comprising a drive that can be controlled by means of the control device;
wherein the holder is arranged at a single-part or multi-part product passage, which forms the front end of the product feed and is configured to support the front product ends, such that the holder performs the to-and-fro movement relative to the product passage, wherein the product passage has a passage for a respective front product end for each track and the elongated separation element traverses each passage,
wherein the elongated separation element extends within the product passage so that the elongated separation element traverses each passage and the respective peripheral support surface, viewed in the feed direction, between an entry plane into the passage and an exit plane from the passage.
However, Zheng discloses, in the similar field of slicing machines (Abstract, “slicing machine”), where the food being cut is at a predefinable cutting frequency done by the cutting blade (Page 3, Para. 1, “calculates the variable frequency motor drives the drive wheel rotation angular velocity, further obtaining the rotating speed of the variable frequency motor, the algorithm is very simple, it can directly adjust the rotating speed of the variable motor is controlled by computer through in the computer input thickness to be cut”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the cutting blade in Pryor to have a controllable cutting frequency as taught by Zheng.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to control the thickness of the slices being cut, as stated by Zheng, Page 3, Para. 1, “it can directly adjust the rotating speed of the variable motor is controlled by computer through in the computer input thickness to be cut”.
Further, Xu discloses, in the similar field of slicing machines (Page 1, Para. 2, “a quick-frozen meat dicing machine.”), where a dividing device includes a holder (Page 6, Para. 3, “longitudinal self-adjusting cutting fence 3 comprises: a fixing frame 3a”, where the cutting fence is the dividing device and the frame is the holder) in the region of the cutting plane for an elongated separation element that extends in the dividing plane parallel with the cutting plane (Page 6, Para. 4, “a cutting strip 3b”, where this cutting strip is located at the end of the spiral pusher 5 feeder and extends along the dividing plane of the frame 3a, where this feeder would be the loaf feeder from Pryor; where the cutting plane for both Pryor and Xu are perpendicular to the feed direction and are located at the end of the feeders, where in the combined; where the dividing device is parallel to a cutting blade plane, Page 7, Para. 6 from end, “when the meat block is cut into meat strips, starting the single-shaft cylinder 6c, the output shaft drives the double-blade blade 6a to move up and down on the guide rail 6b, so that the double-blade blade 6a cutting the meat strip.”), where the drive for the holder can be excited to perform to-and-fro movements perpendicular to the feed direction at a dividing frequency (Page 8, last Para., “step three: the meat block in the longitudinal self-adjusting cutting fence 3, the second servo motor 2a6 output shaft through the third connecting rod 2a4 and the fourth connecting rod 2a5 drives the sliding frame 2a2 to move up and down on the sliding rail 2a1, so that the duplex longitudinal sliding frame 2 to move up and down; making the cutting strip 3b slide up and down to cut the meat block into meat pieces;”, and Pryor, Para. 0053, “Some of the drive motors for the operating mechanisms in slicing machine 50 are shown in FIG. 2. The drive motor for the head or spindle 148 in slicing station 66 is a D.C. variable speed servo motor 171 mounted in the machine base 51.”; teaching from Zheng and Pryor, where a variable frequency motor that controls the slicing frequency is known), where a control device is connected and controls the drive for the holder (Page 3, Para. 5, “case outside is further provided with a duplex longitudinal sliding frame, longitudinal self-adjusting cutting fence, transverse self-adjusting cutting fence, spiral pusher and pneumatic cutter electrically connected with the control panel.”, and where a drive for the holder is the servomotor, Page 4, Para. 1, “the second servo motor output shaft through the third connecting rod and the fourth connecting rod drives the sliding frame to reciprocate up and down on the sliding rail”),
where the holder is the front end of the product feed and supports the front product (Modified Fig. 2, where the holder is shown to be at the front end of the product feed to support the front product by slicing the product), where the holder performs to-and-fro movements relative to the product passage (Page 8, last Para., “step three: the meat block in the longitudinal self-adjusting cutting fence 3, the second servo motor 2a6 output shaft through the third connecting rod 2a4 and the fourth connecting rod 2a5 drives the sliding frame 2a2 to move up and down on the sliding rail 2a1, so that the duplex longitudinal sliding frame 2 to move up and down; making the cutting strip 3b slide up and down to cut the meat block into meat pieces;”), where the product passage has a passage for the front product end of the track and the elongated separation element traverses that passage (Modified Fig. 2, where the elongated separation element when moved up and down would cross and traverse into the food product passage), and
where the elongated separation element extends within the product passage in order to traverse the passage between an entry and exit plane of the passage (Modified Fig. 2, where the product feed entry plane is shown as being the tube, where the elongated separation element is shown to be able to traverse the passage, where the exit plane of the product passage would be the material passing seat 7, Page 5, Para. 1-2 from end, “material passing seat 7… the meat sheet through the material base 7 to the transverse self-adjusting cutting fence 4 direction”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the slicing device and orifice/dividing device in modified Pryor to use the sliding frame before an end cutter configuration as taught by Xu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to not only slice food products, but also dice them; where dicing food products is desirable for certain food dishes and Xu allows for the dicing size to be controlled, as stated by Xu, Page 2, Para. 1, “At present, with the continuous improvement of the living standard of people, the demand for meat product is increasing; the requirement for meat product is higher and higher. Many dishes need to be used diced meat, such as palace chicken dices, fried pork dices and so on”, and Abstract, “the device can automatically adjust the cutting gap so as to cut the diced meat with different sizes.”.
Additionally, Miller discloses, in the similar field of slicing machines (Abstract, “a blade between the input and output conveyors all reciprocate back and forth as a blade moves perpendicular to the conveyors to cut portioned sized of product”), where an elongated separation element extends within the product passage so that the elongated separation element traverses the passages within and the respective peripheral support surface (Section 2, lines 50-57, “The product passes a knife assembly 110 with a blade 111 that is actuated by a reciprocating gearbox 100 and a cam system to cut the ground meat and paper to produce portioned product 310 on cut sheets of paper…A die 114 between belt 201 and belt 200 allows the knife to pass through the ground meat and the paper under the meat to make a clean cut.”) that is between an entry plane into the passage and an exit plane from the passage (Section 2, lines 48-49, “an in-feed belt 201 moves product 300, such as ground meat, with or without a paper backing 900.”, where the feed belt is construed to be the peripheral support surface for the passage, where the passage is the three dimensional space that holds the ground meat, where this would include a thickness above the feed belt; where the blade 111 passes through the space above the belt and the belt itself through a die 114). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the elongated separation element in modified Pryor to extend within the product passage and the peripheral support surface as taught by Miller.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of a slicing system that is capable of producing a clean cut, through the use of a die that allows the knife to full enter into a passage, as stated by Miller, Section 2, lines 50-57, “The product passes a knife assembly 110 with a blade 111 that is actuated by a reciprocating gearbox 100 and a cam system to cut the ground meat and paper to produce portioned product 310 on cut sheets of paper…A die 114 between belt 201 and belt 200 allows the knife to pass through the ground meat and the paper under the meat to make a clean cut.”.
Regarding claim 2, modified Pryor teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the drive is a servomotor (Teaching from Xu, Page 4, Para. 1, “the second servo motor output shaft through the third connecting rod and the fourth connecting rod drives the sliding frame to reciprocate up and down on the sliding rail”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Pryor teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Pryor does not disclose:
wherein the control device is configured to control the controllable drive in dependence on a respective current cutting operation .
However, Xu discloses where the control device is able to control the servomotor dependent on the current cutting operation (Page 3, last Para., “the control panel adjusts the longitudinal self-adjusting cutting fence and transverse self-adjusting cutting fence cutting gap, namely starting the micro lifting motor, the output shaft relative to the concave frame pushes one side of the movable frame; and the movable frame and the fixed frame are in transmission connection through the first connecting rod and the second connecting rod, namely fence type movement, so that the gap between the cutting strip on the fixed frame is reduced or increased”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the control device in modified Pryor to control the current cutting operation as taught by Xu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to alter the current cooking operation and create food products that are diced to different sizes, as stated by Xu, Page 3, last Para., “the transverse self-adjusting cutting fence is the same as the longitudinal self-adjusting cutting fence structure, so as to control the cutting gap to reduce or increase, so as to conveniently slide and cut the diced meat with different sizes;”.
Regarding claim 6, modified Pryor teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the control device is configured to excite the holder in a controlled manner such that the to-and-fro movements of the holder are synchronized with the cutting movements of the cutting blade, and/or wherein the control device is configured to excite the holder at a dividing frequency that is equal to the cutting frequency of the cutting blade (Pryor, Para. 0053, “Some of the drive motors for the operating mechanisms in slicing machine 50 are shown in FIG. 2. The drive motor for the head or spindle 148 in slicing station 66 is a D.C. variable speed servo motor 171 mounted in the machine base 51.”; Teaching from Zheng, Page 3, Para. 1, “calculates the variable frequency motor drives the drive wheel rotation angular velocity, further obtaining the rotating speed of the variable frequency motor, the algorithm is very simple, it can directly adjust the rotating speed of the variable motor is controlled by computer through in the computer input thickness to be cut”; and teaching from Xu, Page 8, last Para., “step three: the meat block in the longitudinal self-adjusting cutting fence 3, the second servo motor 2a6 output shaft through the third connecting rod 2a4 and the fourth connecting rod 2a5 drives the sliding frame 2a2 to move up and down on the sliding rail 2a1, so that the duplex longitudinal sliding frame 2 to move up and down; making the cutting strip 3b slide up and down to cut the meat block into meat pieces;”, and teaching from Zheng and Pryor, where a variable frequency motor that controls the slicing frequency is known; where the both motors for the holder and cutting blade can be variable frequency motors, where a user could set the frequency equal to each other if desired), or such that the dividing frequency is a whole-number multiple of the cutting frequency of the cutting blade.
Regarding claim 7, modified Pryor teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Pryor does not disclose:
wherein an axis of rotation of a drive member of the drive intersects the cutting plane.
However, Xu discloses where the axis of rotation of the drive member intersects the cutting plane (Modified Fig. 5, where the axis of rotation of the servomotor is shown to be perpendicular to the cutting plane, meaning that the planes would intersect). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the axis of rotation of the drive member in modified Pryor to intersect with the cutting plane as taught by Xu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to create diced meat of different sizes through the servomotor movement, as stated by Xu, Page 3, last Para., “the transverse self-adjusting cutting fence is the same as the longitudinal self-adjusting cutting fence structure, so as to control the cutting gap to reduce or increase, so as to conveniently slide and cut the diced meat with different sizes;”.
PNG
media_image1.png
590
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 5, Xu
Regarding claim 8, modified Pryor teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Pryor does not disclose:
wherein the controllable drive is drive-effectively connected to the holder via a mechanical transmission.
However, Xu discloses where a mechanical transmission is used (Page 8, Para. 3, “the third connecting rod 2a4”, and Page 8, Para. 4, “a second servo motor 2a6, the other end of the output shaft of the second servo motor 2a6 is rotatably connected with the other end of the fourth connecting rod 2a5”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the controllable drive in modified Pryor to include a transmission as taught by Xu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to create diced meat of different sizes through the servomotor movement, as stated by Xu, Page 3, last Para., “the transverse self-adjusting cutting fence is the same as the longitudinal self-adjusting cutting fence structure, so as to control the cutting gap to reduce or increase, so as to conveniently slide and cut the diced meat with different sizes;”.
Regarding claim 17, modified Pryor teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Pryor does not disclose:
all the passages of the product passage are traversed, on the one hand, by a common elongated separation element extending in a first direction and each passage is additionally traversed by a further elongated separation element extending in a second direction that is different from the first direction.
However, Xu discloses where the passage is traversed by an elongated separation element extending in a first direction and another elongated separation element in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Page 8, last Para., “step three: the meat block in the longitudinal self-adjusting cutting fence 3, the second servo motor 2a6 output shaft through the third connecting rod 2a4 and the fourth connecting rod 2a5 drives the sliding frame 2a2 to move up and down on the sliding rail 2a1, so that the duplex longitudinal sliding frame 2 to move up and down; making the cutting strip 3b slide up and down to cut the meat block into meat pieces;”, and Page 6, Para. 4 from end, “As shown in FIG. 5, transverse self-adjusting cutting fence 4 and longitudinal self-adjusting cutting fence 3 structure are completely the same.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the separation element in modified Pryor to include the longitudinal and transverse separation elements as taught by Xu, where the separation elements would cut through all the product channels from Pryor as the orifice member 169 from Pryor is able to accomplish that feature.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to not only slice food products, but also dice them; where dicing food products is desirable for certain food dishes and Xu allows for the dicing size to be controlled, as stated by Xu, Page 2, Para. 1, “At present, with the continuous improvement of the living standard of people, the demand for meat product is increasing; the requirement for meat product is higher and higher. Many dishes need to be used diced meat, such as palace chicken dices, fried pork dices and so on”, and Abstract, “the device can automatically adjust the cutting gap so as to cut the diced meat with different sizes.”.
Regarding claim 18, modified Pryor teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Pryor does not disclose:
wherein the holder comprises a first holder part having at least a first elongated separation element and a second holder part movable relative to the first holder part and having at least a second elongated separation element that does not extend in parallel with the first elongated separation element.
However, Xu discloses where there is a first holder part that has an elongated separation element (Page 8, last Para., “step three: the meat block in the longitudinal self-adjusting cutting fence 3, the second servo motor 2a6 output shaft through the third connecting rod 2a4 and the fourth connecting rod 2a5 drives the sliding frame 2a2 to move up and down on the sliding rail 2a1, so that the duplex longitudinal sliding frame 2 to move up and down; making the cutting strip 3b slide up and down to cut the meat block into meat pieces;”) and a second holder part movable relative to the first holder part that has a second elongated separation element that is not parallel to the first elongated separation element (Page 6, Para. 4 from end, “As shown in FIG. 5, transverse self-adjusting cutting fence 4 and longitudinal self-adjusting cutting fence 3 structure are completely the same.”, where Fig. 3 shows that the cutting fences 3 and 4 have elongated separation elements that are not parallel and where they are both movable by the servomotors 2a6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the holder in modified Pryor to include the first and second elongated separation elements as taught by Xu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to not only slice food products, but also dice them; where dicing food products is desirable for certain food dishes and Xu allows for the dicing size to be controlled, as stated by Xu, Page 2, Para. 1, “At present, with the continuous improvement of the living standard of people, the demand for meat product is increasing; the requirement for meat product is higher and higher. Many dishes need to be used diced meat, such as palace chicken dices, fried pork dices and so on”, and Abstract, “the device can automatically adjust the cutting gap so as to cut the diced meat with different sizes.”.
Regarding claim 19, modified Pryor teaches the apparatus according to claim 18, as set forth above.
Modified Pryor does not disclose:
wherein both holder parts are arranged at a product passage, wherein the product passage forms the front end of the product feed and is configured to support the front product ends, such that the holder performs the to-and-fro movements relative to the product passage, wherein the product passage has a passage for a respective front product end for the or each track and the elongated separation element traverses the or each passage.
However, Xu discloses where both holder parts are arranged at the product passage (Modified Fig. 2, where the tube food product passage is shown, where the food passage continues with structure 7, Page 5, Para. 2 from end, “a material passing seat 7”, where the cutting fence 3 and 4 are connected to the product passage), where the product passage forms the front end of the product feed and supports the front product ends (Modified Fig. 2, where the holder is shown to be at the front end of the product feed to support the front product by slicing the product, where before the holder is where the product passage is and that area is the front end of the product feed, which supports the front product as well), where the holder performs to-and-fro movements relative to the product passage (Page 8, last Para., “step three: the meat block in the longitudinal self-adjusting cutting fence 3, the second servo motor 2a6 output shaft through the third connecting rod 2a4 and the fourth connecting rod 2a5 drives the sliding frame 2a2 to move up and down on the sliding rail 2a1, so that the duplex longitudinal sliding frame 2 to move up and down; making the cutting strip 3b slide up and down to cut the meat block into meat pieces;”), and where the product passage has a passage for a respective front product end for the track and the elongated separation element traverse the passage (Modified Fig. 2, where the elongated separation element when moved up and down would cross and traverse into the food product passage). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the slicing system in modified Pryor to include the features as taught by Xu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to not only slice food products, but also dice them; where dicing food products is desirable for certain food dishes and Xu allows for the dicing size to be controlled, as stated by Xu, Page 2, Para. 1, “At present, with the continuous improvement of the living standard of people, the demand for meat product is increasing; the requirement for meat product is higher and higher. Many dishes need to be used diced meat, such as palace chicken dices, fried pork dices and so on”, and Abstract, “the device can automatically adjust the cutting gap so as to cut the diced meat with different sizes.”.
Regarding claim 22, Pryor discloses a method (Claim 19, “A method of operating a high speed food loaf slicing machine”) for the single-track or multi-track slicing of food products by means of a slicing apparatus (Para. 0008, “A loaf feed drive is arranged for advancing the first food loaf and the second food loaf along the loaf path.”, where a multi-track loaf feeding track is used, where multiple loaves can be placed within the feeding mechanism),
in which the products to be sliced and disposed on a product support are fed by means of a product feed on one track or on multiple tracks in a feed direction (Para. 0051, “Slicing machine 50 further comprises a system of short conveyors for advancing food loaves from loaf feed mechanism 75 into slicing head 66.”) to a cutting region in which a cutting blade moves in order to slice the fed products in a cutting plane (Para. 0053, “The drive motor for the head or spindle 148 in slicing station 66 is a D.C. variable speed servo motor 171 mounted in the machine base 51.”), which extends perpendicular to the feed direction, by means of the cutting blade (Para. 0060, “Each loaf path is closed off, near the slicing station 66, by the gate 377. Thus, a loaf entering mechanism 75 cannot slide down unexpectedly and prematurely into slicing station 66. The gate 377 comprises a plurality of rollers 379 ( one shown), oriented in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the support tray 116”, where the slicing station 66 is at the same angle as the gate, meaning that the slicing station or cutter is also perpendicular to the product feed), the cutting blade having a driving frequency (Para. 0049, “The range of knife blade speeds again is quite large and may typically be from ten to four thousand six hundred rpm. Blade 149 thus performs an orbital motion while it rotates.”),
wherein a dividing device is provided that has at least one holder, which is arranged in the region of the cutting plane, for at least one elongated separation element that extends in a dividing plane extending in parallel with the cutting plane (Para. 0063, “The orifice plate 169 is arranged closely adjacent to the downstream side of the conveyors and includes three orifices 169a, 169b, 169c for guiding three loaves into the cutting plane.”; and Fig. 2, where the orifice plate 169 is parallel with the cutting plane 148);
so that, in a respective cutting process, a plurality of product parts are cut off from a respective front product end by means of the cutting blade (Para. 0043, “Usually, both of the slice stacks 92 and 94 would be either round or rectangular. Stacks 92 and 94 may have different heights, or slice counts, and hence different weights; as shown they contain the same number of food loaf slices in each stack, but that condition can be changed.”, where the slicing is done with a cutting blade, Para. Para. 0049, “so long as the cutting edge of knife blade 149 moves along a predetermined cutting path in each cycle of operation.”).
Pryor does not disclose:
wherein the holder is excited by means of a controllable drive to perform to-and- fro movements perpendicular to the feed direction at a dividing frequency in order to divide the front ends of the products by means of the separation element in parallel with the feed direction;
wherein the controllable drive is controlled in dependance on a respective current cutting operation by means of a control device such that the to-and-fro movements of the holder are synchronized with the cutting movements of the cutting blade.
However, Zheng discloses, in the similar field of slicing machines (Abstract, “slicing machine”), where the food being divided is at a predefinable cutting frequency done by a blade (Page 3, Para. 1, “calculates the variable frequency motor drives the drive wheel rotation angular velocity, further obtaining the rotating speed of the variable frequency motor, the algorithm is very simple, it can directly adjust the rotating speed of the variable motor is controlled by computer through in the computer input thickness to be cut”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the cutting blade in Pryor to have a controllable cutting frequency as taught by Zheng.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to control the thickness of the slices being cut, as stated by Zheng, Page 3, Para. 1, “it can directly adjust the rotating speed of the variable motor is controlled by computer through in the computer input thickness to be cut”.
Further, Xu discloses, in the similar field of slicing machines (Page 1, Para. 2, “a quick-frozen meat dicing machine.”), where a dividing device includes a holder (Page 6, Para. 3, “longitudinal self-adjusting cutting fence 3 comprises: a fixing frame 3a”, where the cutting fence is the dividing device and the frame is the holder) in the region of the cutting plane for an elongated separation element that extends in the dividing plane parallel with the cutting plane (Page 6, Para. 4, “a cutting strip 3b”, where this cutting strip is located at the end of the spiral pusher 5 feeder and extends along the dividing plane of the frame 3a, where this feeder would be the loaf feeder from Pryor; where the cutting plane for both Pryor and Xu are perpendicular to the feed direction and are located at the end of the feeders, where in the combined; where the dividing device is parallel to a cutting blade plane, Page 7, Para. 6 from end, “when the meat block is cut into meat strips, starting the single-shaft cylinder 6c, the output shaft drives the double-blade blade 6a to move up and down on the guide rail 6b, so that the double-blade blade 6a cutting the meat strip.”), where the drive for the holder can be excited to perform to-and-fro movements perpendicular to the feed direction at a dividing frequency (Page 8, last Para., “step three: the meat block in the longitudinal self-adjusting cutting fence 3, the second servo motor 2a6 output shaft through the third connecting rod 2a4 and the fourth connecting rod 2a5 drives the sliding frame 2a2 to move up and down on the sliding rail 2a1, so that the duplex longitudinal sliding frame 2 to move up and down; making the cutting strip 3b slide up and down to cut the meat block into meat pieces;”, and Pryor, Para. 0053, “Some of the drive motors for the operating mechanisms in slicing machine 50 are shown in FIG. 2. The drive motor for the head or spindle 148 in slicing station 66 is a D.C. variable speed servo motor 171 mounted in the machine base 51.”; teaching from Zheng and Pryor, where a variable frequency motor that controls the slicing frequency is known), where a control device is connected and controls the drive for the holder (Page 3, Para. 5, “case outside is further provided with a duplex longitudinal sliding frame, longitudinal self-adjusting cutting fence, transverse self-adjusting cutting fence, spiral pusher and pneumatic cutter electrically connected with the control panel.”, and where a drive for the holder is the servomotor, Page 4, Para. 1, “the second servo motor output shaft through the third connecting rod and the fourth connecting rod drives the sliding frame to reciprocate up and down on the sliding rail”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the slicing device and orifice/dividing device in modified Pryor to use the sliding frame before an end cutter configuration as taught by Xu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to not only slice food products, but also dice them; where dicing food products is desirable for certain food dishes and Xu allows for the dicing size to be controlled, as stated by Xu, Page 2, Para. 1, “At present, with the continuous improvement of the living standard of people, the demand for meat product is increasing; the requirement for meat product is higher and higher. Many dishes need to be used diced meat, such as palace chicken dices, fried pork dices and so on”, and Abstract, “the device can automatically adjust the cutting gap so as to cut the diced meat with different sizes.”.
Further, Miller discloses where the controllable drive of the holder is dependent on the current cutting operation as the to-and-fro movements of the holder are synchronized with the cutting movements of the cutting blade (Section 7, lines 41-44, “Referring to FIG. 11, as non-circular cam 908 rotates and meshes with follower 910, it causes arm 904, rod 906, and blade 930 and support 940 to all move downwardly so that the blade extends through the die to make a clean cut.”, and Referring to FIG. 12, after the cut has been made, the cam causes arm 904, rocker 906, and knife assembly with blade 930 and support 940 to move upwardly, and may allow an accelerated movement leftward to help prevent the blade from sticking to the product.”, where the rotating cam is the controllable drive of the holder, where the control over this cam is dependent on the cutting operation as the cam controls the movement of the blade holder, where the holder’s downward or upward movement is synchronized with the knife to allow cutting movements to occur, where the knife is located within the holder at a static location and where movement of the holder would then also move the knife). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified control over the controllable drive in modified Pryor to include the synchronization feature as taught by Miller.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to determine what the knife position is depending on the controllable drive, where this allows for the system to be certain in the control over the cutting blade, as stated by Miller, Section 7, lines 41-44, “Referring to FIG. 11, as non-circular cam 908 rotates and meshes with follower 910, it causes arm 904, rod 906, and blade 930 and support 940 to all move downwardly so that the blade extends through the die to make a clean cut.”, and Referring to FIG. 12, after the cut has been made, the cam causes arm 904, rocker 906, and knife assembly with blade 930 and support 940 to move upwardly, and may allow an accelerated movement leftward to help prevent the blade from sticking to the product.”.
Claims 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor et al. (US 20060196328 A1, hereinafter Pryor) in view of Zheng (CN 105856294 A, hereinafter Zheng) and Xu et al. (CN 112790228 A, hereinafter Xu) and Miller (US 9596867 B2) in further view of Baarman et al. (WO 2019232142 A1, hereinafter Baarman).
Regarding claim 4, modified Pryor teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, as set forth above.
Modified Pryor does not disclose:
wherein the control device is configured to control the controllable drive in dependence on a respective current cutting operation in dependence on the cutting frequency of the cutting blade, and/or on the position of the cutting blade in the cutting plane relative to the product feed, and/or on the operating state of the product feed, and/or on whether product parts are currently being cut off or are not being cut off, and/or on data determined by means of the controllable drive and in particular relating to forces acting on the separation element.
However, Baarman discloses, in the similar field of slicing machines (Abstract, “slicer system”), where the cutting operation drive is controlled based on the whether the correct products are being cut off, which would fall into the product parts are not being cut off as the product being cut is the incorrect one (Para. 0074, “the processor 412 determines whether the metal detection system 900 is working with no errors (step 609).”, and Para. 0075, “If the metal detection system 900 ( or the camera system, in certain cases) is determined to not be working due to errors, the slicer monitor system 410 causes a fast stop of the slicer 100 and all outputs are reset (step 612).”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the slicer with controllable drive in modified Pryor to include the product being cut detection system as taught by Baarman.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to increase the safety of the system, where a user wearing conductive gloves can have the slicer drive be controlled to stop when the slicer is about to cut their hands, as stated by Baarman, Para. 0057, “The detector 910 may be positioned and the shielding material 960 may be provided such that detector 910 detects the gloves 310 when the gloves 310 move to an entryway of the blade 110.”.
Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor et al. (US 20060196328 A1, hereinafter Pryor) in view of Zheng (CN 105856294 A, hereinafter Zheng) and Xu et al. (CN 112790228 A, hereinafter Xu) and Miller (US 9596867 B2) in further view of Steck (DE 102009048056 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Pryor teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Pryor does not disclose:
wherein the holder can be excited to a dividing frequency of more than 300 to-and-fro movements per minutes H/min.
However, Steck discloses, in the similar field of slicing machines (Abstract, “slicing machine”), where in the prior art, it is known to have the dividing frequency or cutting rate reach 1000 cuts per minute (Page 1, last Para., “Such slitting machines are known from the prior art, for example EP 1 046 476 A2 , known. In the above slicing machines slices are separated from a food bar with relatively high cycle numbers (600 ->1,000 cuts / minute).”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the divider in modified Pryor be capable of reaching the rates as taught by Steck.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use the system in an industrial setting, which would allow the apparatus have more use cases, as stated by Steck, Abstract, “In the slicing machines described above, slices are separated from a food bar at relatively high cycle rates (600 -> 1,000 cuts / minute). The food bars produced industrially, for example, rest on a product support and are transported by this step by step, but also continuously against the cutting knife.”.
Claims 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor et al. (US 20060196328 A1, hereinafter Pryor) in view of Zheng (CN 105856294 A, hereinafter Zheng) and Xu et al. (CN 112790228 A, hereinafter Xu) and Miller (US 9596867 B2) in further view of Hou et al. (CN 111070249 A, hereinafter Hou).
Regarding claim 9, modified Pryor teaches the apparatus according to claim 8, as set forth above.
Modified Pryor does not disclose:
wherein the transmission comprises an eccentric element.
However, Hou discloses, in the similar field of slicing machines (Page 2, Para. 1, “Chinese medicine slicing device technology field”), where the transmission includes an eccentric element (Page 3, Para. 8, “By using the technical solution, the power motor drives the turnplate to rotate synchronously, so that the connection table to do eccentric rotation relative to the power motor through transmission of the connecting rod to drive the seat to do corresponding forward or back movement.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the motor and transmission in modified Pryor to include an eccentric element as taught by Hou.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to create a to-and-fro motion without needing to change the motor direction, as stated by Hou, Page 4, Para. 2 from end, “the power motor 41 drives the turntable 42 to rotate synchronously, so that the connection table 43 as eccentric rotation relative to power motor 41, through transmission of the connecting rod 44 to drive the seat 31 as the corresponding forward or back movement.”.
Regarding claim 10, modified Pryor teaches the apparatus according to claim 8, as set forth above.
Modified Pryor does not disclose:
wherein a coupling element of the transmission is, with its one end, eccentrically connected in an articulated manner to a drive member of the drive rotating about an axis of rotation, with respect to the axis of rotation and, with its other end, engages directly or indirectly at the holder.
However, Hou discloses where the coupling element of the transmission is at one end eccentrically connected in an articulated manner to a driver member of the drive rotating about an axis of rotation (Modified Fig. 1, where the coupling element eccentrically connected to the drive member is shown), and where the other end engages directly with a holder (Modified Fig. 1, where the coupling element directly connected to a holder is shown). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the motor, transmission, and holder in modified Pryor to include the eccentric coupling configuration as taught by Hou.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to create a to-and-fro motion without needing to change the motor direction, as stated by Hou, Page 4, Para. 2 from end, “the power motor 41 drives the turntable 42 to rotate synchronously, so that the connection table 43 as eccentric rotation relative to power motor 41, through transmission of the connecting rod 44 to drive the seat 31 as the corresponding forward or back movement.”.
PNG
media_image2.png
619
887
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Hou
Claims 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor et al. (US 20060196328 A1, hereinafter Pryor) in view of Zheng (CN 105856294 A, hereinafter Zheng) and Xu et al. (CN 112790228 A, hereinafter Xu) and Miller (US 9596867 B2) in further view of Hou et al. (CN 111070249 A, hereinafter Hou) and Schindler (DE 102016003938 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Pryor teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, as set forth above.
Modified Pryor does not disclose:
wherein the eccentricity is between 2mm and 20mm.
However, Schindler discloses, in the similar field of eccentric devices (Abstract, “cutting blade (14) and is mounted pivotably about a first axis and about a second axis by means of an eccentric device”), where the eccentricity is between 2 to 20 mm (Page 5, Para. 3 from end, “The eccentric radii of the first eccentric axis 48-A and the second eccentric axis 50-A are the same size, what the eccentric 66 . 68 , and 72 . 74 are formed with correspondingly equal radii. In the present embodiment has the eccentricity with respect to the eccentric axes 48-A respectively. 50-A a size of 4.0 mm, other eccentricities are possible.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the eccentricity of the transmission in modified Pryor to be between 2 to 20 mm as taught by Schindler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to select the eccentricity depending on the overall configuration of the slicer, which can allow a user to make their design adjustable, as stated by Schindler, Page 5, Para. 3 from end, “50-A a size of 4.0 mm, other eccentricities are possible. The eccentricity depends on the overall configuration of the slicer 10 from.”.
Claims 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor et al. (US 20060196328 A1, hereinafter Pryor) in view of Zheng (CN 105856294 A, hereinafter Zheng) and Xu et al. (CN 112790228 A, hereinafter Xu) and Miller (US 9596867 B2) in further view of Wu (CN 112192651 A).
Regarding claim 16, modified Pryor teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses where each passage is traversed by elongated separation elements that are in dividing planes spaced apart in parallel from one another (Teaching from Xu, Modified Fig. 2, where the elongated separation element when moved up and down would cross and traverse into the food product passage, and where the separation elements are shown to be parallel to each other).
Modified Pryor does not disclose:
wherein the or each passage is traversed by a plurality of elongated separation elements that extend at an angle different from zero to one other.
However, Wu discloses, in the similar field of slicing machines (Abstract, “dicing and slicing machine”), where the separation element can have different angles from one another (Page 3, Para. 3 from end, “orderly passing the food through two spiral blades with opposite spiral directions; under the action of food friction force, driving the spiral blade to rotate; at the same time, the food moves forward; the two spiral blades are respectively cut into a group of crossed cutting marks; finally forming a group of parallelogram net-shaped cutting marks on the surface of the food material; continuously advancing the food through the transverse cutting knife”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the separation elements in modified Pryor to include different angles as taught by Wu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to cut different shapes out of the food product, as stated by Wu, Page 3, Para. 3 from end, “by designing different screw pitch and spiral blade of the spiral angle to realize cutting different shapes and sizes of the food; the common spiral angle is not changed under the condition that the pitch is larger and closer to the sheet; when it is necessary to cut, it can be realized by selecting a small thread pitch.”.
Claims 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor et al. (US 20060196328 A1, hereinafter Pryor) in view of Zheng (CN 105856294 A, hereinafter Zheng) and Xu et al. (CN 112790228 A, hereinafter Xu) and Miller (US 9596867 B2) in further view of Li et al. (CN 109664359 A, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 20, modified Pryor teaches the apparatus according to claim 18, as set forth above.
Modified Pryor does not disclose:
wherein the two holder parts are mechanically coupled to one another such that a to-and-fro movement of the one holder part taking place in a first direction is converted into a to-and-fro movement of the second holder part taking place in a second direction that is different from the first direction.
However, Li discloses, in the similar field of motors (Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “drive motor drives the cone gear”), where the motor with rotation about a horizontal axis drives a cone gear, where that cone gear drives a bevel gear that converts the horizontal rotation to vertical rotation (Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “drive motor is open, such that the drive motor drives the cone gear, the cone gear to rotate and drives the spiral bevel gear to rotate, then the spiral bevel type gear drives the second rotating rod to rotate”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the two holders with cutting fences 3 and 4 from modified Pryor to have a mechanical coupling of bevel gears so that one motor is able to drive the holders vertically and horizontally as taught by Li, where a to-and-fro movement is taught by Xu, Page 8, last Para., “fourth connecting rod 2a5 drives the sliding frame 2a2 to move up and down on the sliding rail 2a1, so that the duplex longitudinal sliding frame 2 to move up and down”, and Page 9, Para. 1, “so that the transverse self-adjusting cutting fence 4 moves back and forth along the horizontal direction; so as to make the cutting strip cut the meat slice into meat strips”.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to use a singular motor to create two planes of motion, as stated by Li, Page 5, Para. 1, “drive motor 13 according to cutting length of the negative electrode sheet. so that drive motor 13 drives the cone gear 14, a bevel gear 14 to rotate at the same time drives the spiral bevel gear 12 to rotate, and then the spiral bevel gear 12 drives the second rotating rod 9 to rotate”.
Regarding bevel gears, it is the Examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try as there are a limited amount of known mechanical coupling devices within the prior art. Li shows that one such mechanical coupling is able to provide vertical and horizontal motion. Thus, it would be a mere matter of user design choice to use bevel gears within the motor transmission system of modified Pryor.
Regarding claim 21, modified Pryor teaches the apparatus according to claim 18, as set forth above.
Modified Pryor does not disclose:
wherein the first holder part is excited by means of the drive to perform the to-and- fro movement, in particular horizontal to-and-fro movement, taking place in the first direction that is converted into the to-and-fro movement of the second holder part taking place in the second direction.
However, Li discloses, in the similar field of motors (Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “drive motor drives the cone gear”), where the motor with rotation about a horizontal axis drives a cone gear, where that cone gear drives a bevel gear that converts the horizontal rotation to vertical rotation (Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “drive motor is open, such that the drive motor drives the cone gear, the cone gear to rotate and drives the spiral bevel gear to rotate, then the spiral bevel type gear drives the second rotating rod to rotate”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the two holders with cutting fences 3 and 4 from modified Pryor to have a mechanical coupling of bevel gears so that one motor is able to drive the holders vertically and horizontally as taught by Li, where the bevel gear coupling could be provided on the cutting fence 4 from the teaching of Xu so that horizontal movement occurs first and then vertical movement occurs afterwards, where a to-and-fro movement is taught by Xu, Page 8, last Para., “fourth connecting rod 2a5 drives the sliding frame 2a2 to move up and down on the sliding rail 2a1, so that the duplex longitudinal sliding frame 2 to move up and down”, and Page 9, Para. 1, “so that the transverse self-adjusting cutting fence 4 moves back and forth along the horizontal direction; so as to make the cutting strip cut the meat slice into meat strips”.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to use a singular motor to create two planes of motion, as stated by Li, Page 5, Para. 1, “drive motor 13 according to cutting length of the negative electrode sheet. so that drive motor 13 drives the cone gear 14, a bevel gear 14 to rotate at the same time drives the spiral bevel gear 12 to rotate, and then the spiral bevel gear 12 drives the second rotating rod 9 to rotate”.
Regarding bevel gears, it is the Examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try as there are a limited amount of known mechanical coupling devices within the prior art. Li shows that one such mechanical coupling is able to provide vertical and horizontal motion. Thus, it would be a mere matter of user design choice to use bevel gears within the motor transmission system of modified Pryor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li (CN 205219233 U) discloses a similar revolving axle transmission, however it doesn’t include the word eccentric.
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 KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
02/09/2026
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761