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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 30th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-14 remain pending in the application.
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:
“feeding unit” in claim 10.
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.
The corresponding structure described in the specification for the 112(f) invoked
limitations are as follows:
• “feeding unit” as described structurally on page 13 of the specification.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 9 recites the limitation "the at least one start event". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret this limitation as a newly introduced “a at least one start event”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Scott Lindee et al. (US 5724874 A - hereinafter Lindee) in view of Stefan Lehmann et al.
(DE 102019110738 A1 – hereinafter Lehmann).
Regarding claim 1, Lindee teaches an operating method for operating a slicing machine (Fig. 1) for slicing calibers (Fig. 1, 91) into slices (Fig. 1, 92) and capable of creating shingled or stacked portions (Fig. 1, 92 and 93) from the slices, wherein - the slicing machine comprises a changeover switch (Fig. 1, switch comprised of 71-73) and user operation of the changeover switch switches the slicing machine between a slicing mode and a service mode (where a slicing mode is a mode where the machine is actively cutting, and a service mode is where the machine is not actively cutting – 71/73 are start switches for use in setting the machine to an actively cutting mode (Col. 13 lines 19-25 and 45-48) and 72 is a cycle stop switch from removing the machine from an actively cutting mode), and - the service mode comprises several service programs aimed at different purposes (Col. 4 lines 58-63 – service programs comprising calibration and initial start), the method comprising: -operating, by a user, the changeover switch to switch the slicing machine from the slicing mode to the service mode; -initiating, by the user, at least one service program (Fig. 6A; step 217) after switching the slicing machine from the slicing mode to the service mode, wherein initiating comprises opening, by the user, of a movable protective door (Fig. 1, Door 79 – used for manual load loading and therefore opened by the user) of a protective enclosure (Fig. 1, protective enclosure around 75); and -automatically executing, by the slicing machine, the at least one service program wherein executing comprises detecting, by the slicing machine, the opening of the moveable protective door after the switching of the slicing machine from the slicing mode to the service mode (Fig. 6A; – step 217 checks if all doors are closed, and initiates step 219 if open).
Lindee does not teach that the protective enclosure is a protective enclosure surrounding the entire slicing machine.
However, Lehmann teaches a machine with a movable protective door (Fig. 2, Door 21)
of a protective enclosure (Fig. 2, Protective Cover 15) surrounding an entire machine (Fig. 2,
Processing Unit 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify Lindee such that the moveable protective door is part of a protective enclosure surrounding the entire slicing machine as taught by Lehmann. Doing so is beneficial as it contains heat, particles, and fluid during operation of the slicing machine (Lehmann; Page 2, Para 4).
Regarding claim 2, Lindee further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
after switching to the service mode and a start event detected a control unit (Fig. 1, Computer 54;
all programs are ran by the computer, and it is inherently understood that an operator is aware of
these programs and how to trigger them. Therefore, once the system is turned on a functional, all programs are viewed as offered by the computer to the operator) offers an operator a number of the several service programs for selection (Col 12 lines 48-58 and Col 13 lines 23-31; a number of programs can be selected after the screen has been energized, such as holding the load feed switch to activate a computer program for product removal and hitting a cycle start switch to home the machine).
Regarding claim 4, Lindee further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a service program in spatial terms comprises as a preset at least one movement (Col 13 lines 23 -34; the homing function comprises the movement of at least the Knife 149), including a stepwise movement sequence of a movable working part of the slicing machine (Col 13 lines 23 -34; examiner interprets stepwise to mean progressing in a series of distant non-continuous stages. The homing operation involves the distinct stages of displaying a homing message, moving the Knife 149 to a home position, moving the Gripper 151 to a home position, and then performing subsequent homing operations), namely- where the moveable working part is movable over an endless path of movement (Col 6 lines 25-39; the Knife 149 is designed to move in rotation) – its movement by a defined distance (Fig. 7, Col 14 lines 64-67 and Col 15 lines 1-18; the movement of Knife 149 is defined through 49 rotations),- its approach to a defined position (Fig. 7, Col 14 lines 64-67 and Col 15 lines 1-18; a complete orbital movement of Knife 149 as measured must inherently start from a defined position), - where the moveable working part is movable only along a limited path of movement (Col 6 lines 25-39; the Knife 149 is limited to move only in its path of rotation),- its approach to a defined position of the limited movement path (Fig. 7, Col 14 lines 64-67 and Col 15 lines 1-18; a complete orbital movement of Knife 149 as measured must inherently start from a defined position).
Regarding claim 5, Lindee further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a
service program comprises in temporal terms as a preset - a time duration (Col 12 lines 2-4 ; the
time period permissible before service of the machine is required).
Regarding claim 6, Lindee further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a
service program contains a detectable target event (Col 3 lines 66-67; the event is the Emergency
Stop Switch 87 being activated) or a target event to be reported by an operator to a controller,
which defines an end of the service program (Col 3 lines 66-67; hitting the Emergency Stop
Switch ends all operations, which would include service programs).
Regarding claim 7, Lindee further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
conversion of the slicing machine (Col 12 lines 48-58; conversion to a product removal state) is
enabled as a purpose of the service program by one or more movable working parts of the slicing
machine approaching a conversion position (Col 12 lines 48-58; moving the Load Feed Switch
73 into a held position or conversion position).
Regarding claim 8, Lindee further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein -
the at least one start event comprises several partial events occurring in a specific sequence (Col
10 lines 53-67 and Col 11 lines 1-7 ; partial events include the machine being powered on, which
inherently must include the partial of connecting the machine to a power source beforehand, and
the last partial event of the screen being energized), separate start events for individual processes
of a service program take place one after another within a cycle (Col 10 lines 53-67, Col 11, Col
12, and Col 13 lines 1-25; where a cycle is full operation of the machine from turning the power
on to turning it off, separate start events include (in order) energizing the screen (after which
some input from the machine operator is necessary), a fault being found (after which the operator
can hold down a switch to being product removal), and the cycle start switch being activated), in
between the separate start events, an operator carries out activities, and the separate start events
again occur in the context of a start or a completion of the operator activities (each time the
machine is turned off and then back on, in otherwards a start of operator activities, the same
sequence of start events repeats).
Regarding claim 9, Lindee further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the
at least one start event comprises a first event (Col 11 lines 4-11; initial functions are performed
automatically once Screen 69 has been energized – Screen 69 being energized is the first event)
occurring at the protective part of the slicing machine (Col 3 lines 30-35 ; Screen 69 is located at
member 74 – the protective part - which creates a physical protective barrier between an
operator and a blade) after switching to the service mode (Col 10 lines 53-60; service mode –
where the machine is on but not actively cutting - can be initiated by turning power on for the
machine). The combination of Lindee and Lehmann already teaches that the Screen 69 is located
at the moveable protective door (See the rejection of claim 1 above), and therefore the first event
occurs there.
Regarding claim 10, Lindee further teaches a slicing machine for slicing calibers into
slices and capable of creating shingled or stacked portions from slices, the slicing machine
comprising:- a cutting unit (Fig. 1, Slicing Station 66), - a feeding unit (Fig. 1, Load Feed
Mechanism 75) for feeding at least one caliber to the cutting unit, - a discharge unit (Fig. 1,
Conveyor System 64) with at least one portioning belt (Fig. 3, Receiving Conveyor 130), - a
control unit (Fig. 1, control unit comprising Computer 54 and Power Supply 55) including an
operating unit (Fig. 1, Computer 54) for controlling movable parts of the slicing machine,
wherein - the control unit is designed to perform the method according to claim 1 (the computer
controls all programs and modes)- the control unit comprises a change-over switch for switching
between the slicing mode and the service mode (Col 10 lines 53-60; power switch can be used to
turn the machine off in slicing mode, and when power is turned back on the machine would be in
service mode), - a sensor is present on the slicing machine, the sensor designed to detect and
report a potential start event to the control unit (Col 14 lines 9-13; sensor switches detect if all
guards are in place. Guards being either in or out of place is a potential start event).
Regarding claim 11, Lindee further teaches the slicing machine according to claim 10,
wherein the sensor is a position sensor for monitoring protective part of the slicing machine at
which a start event can occur (Col 14 lines 9-13; sensor switches detect if all guards (protective
parts) are in place, and therefore are position sensors). The combination of Lindee and Lehmann
already teaches that the Screen 69 is located at the moveable protective door (See the rejection of
claim 1 above), and therefore the start event occurs there.
Regarding claim 12, Lindee further teaches the slicing machine according to claim 10,
wherein the slicing machine further comprises at least one display element (Fig. 1, Display 69)
for displaying which service program is active (Col 13 lines 26-35 ; Display 69 shows a homing
message to show the homing program is being run).
Regarding claim 13, Lindee further teaches the slicing machine according to claim 10,
wherein - the operating unit comprises a selector switch for selecting a specific service program
in the service mode (Col 11 lines 24-35 ; Display 69 is a touch screen which collects inputs,
those inputs being used automatically thereafter to run a subsequent service program (starting up
of various power systems), making the input action equivalent to selecting a service program).
Regarding claim 14, Lindee already teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising
starting the at least one service program selected (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Applicant argues that Lindee does not teach a start event triggered by opening of a movable protective door. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the aforementioned limitations) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 recites automatically initiating a service program by opening a movable protective door, and claim 2 recites a control unit offering an operator options after a start event occurs. The rejection of claim 1 has been updated to show that a service program is initiated via opening door 118, and the rejection of claim 2 shows that the computer offers a variety of options to the operator after a variety of start events.
Applicant argues that Lehmann does not teach opening a door triggering any kind of action, however the examiner does not look to Lehmann to teach this limitation. Lehmann is only used to teach the benefits of an enclosure which surround the entire slicing machine.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the use of Gao in claims 1 and 2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Gao as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the prior rejection did not teach a changeover switch – however the rejection of claim 1 above has been updated to show that Lindee does teach a changeover switch for switching the machine between a cutting and service mode.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights