DETAILED ACTION
Elections/Restrictions
1. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 12/02/2025 without traverse of Group I, species I-1, claims 1-9 & 16-19 for further examination. Claims 10-15 & 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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-AlA 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: “cutting unit” in claims 1 & 3; “feed unit” in claim 1; “discharge conveyor unit” in claim 1; “spray unit” in claims 1 & 4-6; “detection unit” in claims 4 & 16; “holding device” in claims 6-9 & 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 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.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner' s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-9 & 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 1, lines 9-10 recites the limitation “the spray opening”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the spray opening” as “a spray opening”. To correct this problem, amend lines 9-10 to recite “a spray opening”.
As regards to claim 1, lines 10 & 17 recite “anticaking agent”, however “anticaking agent” is previously recited in line 7, thus unclear whether they are the same or different. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “anticaking agent” in lines 10 & 17 as “the anticaking agent”. To correct this problem, amend lines 10 & 17 to recite “the anticaking agent”.
As regards to claim 5, lines 6, 7 & 10 recite “anticaking agent”, however “anticaking agent” is previously recited in claim 1, line 7, thus unclear whether they are the same or different. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “anticaking agent” in lines 6, 7 & 10 as “the anticaking agent”. To correct this problem, amend lines 6, 7 & 10 to recite “the anticaking agent”.
Claims 2-9 & 16-19 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections
8. 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 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.
9. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
11. Claims 1-5 & 16-17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reichard et al. (US 2022/0134590 A1) hereinafter Reichard (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Reichard are included between parentheses).
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “liquid or powdery anticaking agent to a main surface of a slice … anticaking agent”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Reichard since Reichard meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of applying a liquid or powdery anticaking agent to a main surface of a slice, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 1, Reichard discloses a slicing machine for slicing calibers into slices (abs; fig 1-2), comprising:
a cutting unit (15) ([0075]; [0077]-[0078]; [0080]; fig 1),
a feed unit (11) for feeding a caliber (13) to the cutting unit (15) ([0075]-[0078]; [0080]; fig 1-2),
a discharge conveyor unit (41+41) with at least one discharge conveyor belt (41) ([0075]; fig 1-2),
a spray unit (31) with a spray opening (27) capable of applying a liquid or powdery anticaking agent to a main surface of a slice (17) to be produced from the caliber (13) or already produced from the caliber (13) ([0084]-[0087]; [0089]; fig 1-2),
the spray unit (31) being arranged and embodied in such a way that the spray opening (27) is operable to apply the anticaking agent in a direction of one slice (17) at a time ([0084]-[0087]; [0089]; fig 1-2),
a control (19+23) for controlling moving parts of the slicing machine (10) ([0076]; [0079]; [0087]-[0089]; [0091]-[0094]; fig 1-2),
wherein the spray unit (31) as well as the control (19+23) are configured in such a way that coating of the main surface of the slice (17) with the anticaking agent is maximized and anticaking agent exposure to parts of the slicing machine (10) located away from the slice (17) is minimized ([0076]-[0080]; [0082]; [0084]-[0089]; [0091]-[0094]; fig 1-2).
As regards to claim 2, Reichard discloses a slicing machine (abs; fig 1-2), wherein a spray direction of the spray opening (27) is automatically adjustable in a controlled manner during slicing operation of the slicing machine (10) ([0023]; [0040]; [0049]-[0050]; [0059]; [0064]; [0068]; [0084]-[0087]; [0089]; fig 1-2).
As regards to claim 3, Reichard discloses a slicing machine (abs; fig 1-2), wherein a spray distance of the spray opening (27) from a cutting plane of the cutting unit (15) and/or a spray distance of the spray opening (27) from a support surface of the at least one conveyor belt (41) are/is automatically adjustable in a controlled manner during a slicing operation of the slicing machine (10) ([0023]; [0040]; [0049]-[0050]; [0059]; [0064]; [0068]; [0084]-[0087]; [0089]; fig 1-2).
As regards to claim 4, Reichard discloses a slicing machine (abs; fig 1-2), wherein the spray unit (31) comprises a detection unit (43, 45, 47, 49), which is capable of detecting an actual interface image generated by the spray opening (27) on the main surface of the slice (17) with respect to position of the actual interface image on the main surface, the detection unit (43, 45, 47, 49) is coupled to the control (19+23), and the control (19+23) is configured to determine necessary adjustment of a spray direction of the spray opening (27) and/or of a spray distance of the spray opening (27) by comparison of the actual interface image with a predetermined desired interface image, and to adjust the spray opening (27) accordingly ([0022]-[0023]; [0029]; [0040]; [0049]-[0050]; [0059]; [0063]-[0064]; [0068]-[0069]; [0084]-[0087]; [0089]-[0094]; fig 1-2).
As regards to claim 5, Reichard discloses a slicing machine (abs; fig 1-2), wherein the spray unit (31) comprises an inspection unit (43, 45, 47, 49), which is capable of checking presence of a main surface of a slice (17) not yet coated with anticaking agent, at an application position for application of anticaking agent, the inspection unit (43, 45, 47, 49) is coupled to the control (19+23), and the control (19+23) is capable of activating the spray opening (27) only in the presence of the main surface not yet coated with anticaking agent at the application position ([0022]-[0023]; [0029]; [0040]; [0049]-[0050]; [0059]; [0063]-[0064]; [0068]-[0069]; [0084]-[0087]; [0089]-[0094]; fig 1-2).
As regards to claim 16, Reichard discloses a slicing machine (abs; fig 1-2), wherein the detection unit (43, 45, 47, 49) comprises a camera ([0022]-[0023]; [0029]; [0040]; [0049]-[0050]; [0059]; [0063]-[0064]; [0068]-[0069]; [0084]-[0087]; [0089]-[0094]; fig 1-2).
As regards to claim 17, Reichard discloses a slicing machine (abs; fig 1-2), wherein the inspection unit (43, 45, 47, 49) comprises a camera ([0022]-[0023]; [0029]; [0040]; [0049]-[0050]; [0059]; [0063]-[0064]; [0068]-[0069]; [0084]-[0087]; [0089]-[0094]; fig 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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 of this title, 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.
13. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
14. Claims 6-9 & 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rottmar (DE 102021124538 A1 - cited in 08/21/2023 IDS with translation provided by Applicant) hereinafter Rottmar (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Rottmar are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 6, Reichard discloses a slicing machine (abs; fig 1-2), wherein the spray unit (31) comprises a spray bar (see fig 2, bar extends transversely) extending in a transverse direction over multiple tracks (25) of the slicing machine (10), and the spray unit (31) comprises a holding device (implicit of being fastened to machine 10) to which the spray bar (see fig 2, bar extends transversely) is fastened ([0016]-[0018]; [0020]; [0023]; [0027]; [0030]-[0031]; [0033]-[0036]; [0040]-[0041]; [0043]; [0045]; [0050]; [0057]-[0059]; [0063]-[0064]; [0066]-[0069]; [0082]-[0084]; [0087]-[0089]; [0091]-[0094]; fig 1-2), however Reichard does not disclose fastened in a controllably adjustable manner.
Rottmar discloses a slicing machine for slicing calibers into slices (abs; fig 1-5c), wherein the spray unit (22) comprises a spray bar (23) extending in a transverse direction (11) over multiple tracks of the slicing machine, and the spray unit (22) comprises a holding device (30) to which the spray bar (23) is fastened in a controllably adjustable manner ([0057]; [0062]-[0066]; [0068]-[0069]; [0074]-[0076]; [0079]; [0082]-[0083]; fig 3a-3b). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a holding device (30) to which the spray bar (23) is fastened in a controllably adjustable manner in the machine of Reichard, because Rottmar teaches the use of a holding device (30) to which the spray bar (23) is fastened in a controllably adjustable manner for the purpose of adjustability of the position and spraying direction of the spray nozzles attached to or in it ([0017]).
As regards to claim 7, Reichard discloses a slicing machine (abs; fig 1-2), wherein the spray bar (see fig 2, bar extends transversely) is automatically adjustable in a controlled manner (treatment agent liquid amounts and nozzle orientation adjusted according to orientation and size of slice) ([0016]-[0018]; [0020]; [0023]; [0027]; [0030]-[0031]; [0033]-[0036]; [0040]-[0041]; [0043]; [0045]; [0049]-[0050]; [0057]-[0059]; [0063]-[0064]; [0066]-[0069]; [0082]-[0089]; [0091]-[0094]; fig 1-2), however Reichard does not disclose wherein the holding device is rod-shaped with a longitudinal direction, the spray bar is automatically pivotable in a controlled manner relative to the holding device about an axis that extends in a longitudinal direction of the spray bar, and/or relative to the holding device along the longitudinal direction of the holding device.
Rottmar discloses a slicing machine for slicing calibers into slices (abs; fig 1-5c), wherein the holding device (30) is rod-shaped with a longitudinal direction (30’), the spray bar (23) is automatically pivotable in a controlled manner relative to the holding device (30) about an axis that extends in a longitudinal direction (23’) of the spray bar (23), and/or the spray bar (23) is automatically adjustable in a controlled manner relative to the holding device (30) along the longitudinal direction (30’) of the holding device (30) ([0062]-[0066]; [0068]-[0069]; [0074]-[0076]; [0079]; [0082]-[0083]; fig 3a-3b; clm 6). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the holding device (30) is rod-shaped with a longitudinal direction (30’), the spray bar (23) is automatically pivotable in a controlled manner relative to the holding device (30) about an axis that extends in a longitudinal direction (23’) of the spray bar (23), and/or the spray bar (23) is automatically adjustable in a controlled manner relative to the holding device (30) along the longitudinal direction (30’) of the holding device (30) in the machine of Reichard, because Rottmar teaches the use of wherein the holding device (30) is rod-shaped with a longitudinal direction (30’), the spray bar (23) is automatically pivotable in a controlled manner relative to the holding device (30) about an axis that extends in a longitudinal direction (23’) of the spray bar (23), and/or the spray bar (23) is automatically adjustable in a controlled manner relative to the holding device (30) along the longitudinal direction (30’) of the holding device (30) for the purpose of adjustability of the position and spraying direction of the spray nozzles attached to or in it and to allow an operator to set or adjust the holding device itself and/or the swivel position of the spray bar on the holding device and/or the holding device on the base frame of the machine ([0017]; [0047]).
As regards to claim 8, Reichard discloses a slicing machine (abs; fig 1-2), comprises a holding device (implicit of being fastened to machine 10) to which the spray bar (see fig 2, bar extends transversely) is fastened ([0016]-[0018]; [0020]; [0023]; [0027]; [0030]-[0031]; [0033]-[0036]; [0040]-[0041]; [0043]; [0045]; [0050]; [0057]-[0059]; [0063]-[0064]; [0066]-[0069]; [0082]-[0084]; [0087]-[0089]; [0091]-[0094]; fig 1-2), however Reichard does not disclose wherein the holding device comprises a main arm, and a tilting arm which is pivotable relative to the main arm about a transverse axis that is transverse to the longitudinal direction of the holding device and to which the spray bar is fastened.
Rottmar discloses a slicing machine for slicing calibers into slices (abs; fig 1-5c), wherein the holding device (30) comprises a main arm (30.1), and a tilting arm (30.2) which is pivotable relative to the main arm (30.1) about a transverse axis (fig 3a-3b) that is transverse to the longitudinal direction (30’) of the holding device (30) and to which the spray bar (23) is fastened ([0062]-[0066]; [0068]-[0069]; [0074]-[0076]; [0079]; [0082]-[0083]; fig 3a-3b; clm 7). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the holding device (30) comprises a main arm (30.1), and a tilting arm (30.2) which is pivotable relative to the main arm (30.1) about a transverse axis (fig 3a-3b) that is transverse to the longitudinal direction (30’) of the holding device (30) and to which the spray bar (23) is fastened in the machine of Reichard, because Rottmar teaches the use of wherein the holding device (30) comprises a main arm (30.1), and a tilting arm (30.2) which is pivotable relative to the main arm (30.1) about a transverse axis (fig 3a-3b) that is transverse to the longitudinal direction (30’) of the holding device (30) and to which the spray bar (23) is fastened for the purpose of adjustability of the position and spraying direction of the spray nozzles attached to or in it and to allow an operator to set or adjust the holding device itself and/or the swivel position of the spray bar on the holding device and/or the holding device on the base frame of the machine ([0017]; [0047]).
As regards to claim 9, Reichard discloses a slicing machine (abs; fig 1-2), comprises a holding device (implicit of being fastened to machine 10) to which the spray bar (see fig 2, bar extends transversely) is fastened ([0016]-[0018]; [0020]; [0023]; [0027]; [0030]-[0031]; [0033]-[0036]; [0040]-[0041]; [0043]; [0045]; [0050]; [0057]-[0059]; [0063]-[0064]; [0066]-[0069]; [0082]-[0084]; [0087]-[0089]; [0091]-[0094]; fig 1-2), however Reichard does not disclose wherein the main arm of the holding device is adjustable in length.
Rottmar discloses a slicing machine for slicing calibers into slices (abs; fig 1-5c), wherein the main arm (30.1) of the holding device (30) is adjustable in length ([0039]; [0079]; clm 8; fig 3a-3b). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the main arm (30.1) of the holding device (30) is adjustable in length in the machine of Reichard, because Rottmar teaches the use of wherein the main arm (30.1) of the holding device (30) is adjustable in length for the purpose of adjustability of the position and spraying direction of the spray nozzles attached to or in it and to allow an operator to set or adjust the holding device itself and/or the swivel position of the spray bar on the holding device and/or the holding device on the base frame of the machine ([0017]; [0047]).
As regards to claim 18, Reichard discloses a slicing machine (abs; fig 1-2), however Reichard does not disclose wherein the main arm is telescopically adjustable in length.
Rottmar discloses a slicing machine for slicing calibers into slices (abs; fig 1-5c), wherein the main arm (30.1) is telescopically adjustable in length ([0039]; [0079]; clm 8; fig 3a-3b). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the main arm (30.1) is telescopically adjustable in length in the machine of Reichard, because Rottmar teaches the use of wherein the main arm (30.1) is telescopically adjustable in length for the purpose of adjustability of the position and spraying direction of the spray nozzles attached to or in it and to allow an operator to set or adjust the holding device itself and/or the swivel position of the spray bar on the holding device and/or the holding device on the base frame of the machine ([0017]; [0047]).
As regards to claim 19, Reichard discloses a slicing machine (abs; fig 1-2), wherein the slicing machine (10) comprises a base frame (overall structure, see fig 1-2) ([0016]-[0018]; [0020]; [0023]; [0027]; [0030]-[0031]; [0033]-[0036]; [0040]-[0041]; [0043]; [0045]; [0050]; [0057]-[0059]; [0063]-[0064]; [0066]-[0069]; [0082]-[0084]; [0087]-[0089]; [0091]-[0094]; fig 1-2), however Reichard does not disclose the main arm of the holding device comprises a base part which is fastenable to the base frame, and a support part which is adjustable in an automatically controlled manner relative to the base part in the longitudinal direction of the holding device.
Rottmar discloses a slicing machine for slicing calibers into slices (abs; fig 1-5c), wherein the slicing machine comprises a base frame (2), and the main arm (30.1) of the holding device (30) comprises a base part (30.1a) which is fastenable to the base frame (2), and a support part (30.1b) which is adjustable in an automatically controlled manner relative to the base part (30.1a) in the longitudinal direction (30’) of the holding device (30) ([0062]-[0066]; [0068]-[0069]; [0074]-[0076]; [0079]; [0082]-[0083]; fig 3a-3b; clm 6-8). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the slicing machine comprises a base frame (2), and the main arm (30.1) of the holding device (30) comprises a base part (30.1a) which is fastenable to the base frame (2), and a support part (30.1b) which is adjustable in an automatically controlled manner relative to the base part (30.1a) in the longitudinal direction (30’) of the holding device (30) in the machine of Reichard, because Rottmar teaches the use of wherein the slicing machine comprises a base frame (2), and the main arm (30.1) of the holding device (30) comprises a base part (30.1a) which is fastenable to the base frame (2), and a support part (30.1b) which is adjustable in an automatically controlled manner relative to the base part (30.1a) in the longitudinal direction (30’) of the holding device (30) for the purpose of adjustability of the position and spraying direction of the spray nozzles attached to or in it and to allow an operator to set or adjust the holding device itself and/or the swivel position of the spray bar on the holding device and/or the holding device on the base frame of the machine ([0017]; [0047]).
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717