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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/08/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The lengthy specification (27 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichard (US 12076880) in view of Pulver et al (US 4246838) hereinafter Pulver.
Regarding claim 1, Reichard shows a multi-track slicing machine (Figures 1-2) for slicing calibers (13) into slices (17) and producing shingled or stacked portions from slices (Figure 2), with the slicing machine comprising:
a cutting unit (15),
a feed unit (39) for feeding at least one caliber to the cutting unit,
a discharge conveyor unit (71) with at least one portioning belt (Figure 1) for discharging the portions (P) in the a passage direction (see the arrow in Figure 1) of the slicing machine, and
a spray unit (21) including a plurality of nozzle units (29, Figure 2), wherein each nozzle unit comprises at least one spray nozzle (each nozzle 29) for applying a liquid (a liquid treatment agent, Abstract) to slice (Col. 14, lines 63-67 to Col. 15, lines 1-15),
wherein the spray unit comprises a holding device (an inherent limitation since the treatment agent device 21 must be mounted or fastened to the slicing machine), and a spray bar (35) fastened to the holding device and extending in a horizontal transverse direction to the passage direction across all tracks of the slicing machine (Figure 2), and wherein the nozzle units are arranged independently of one another adjustably on a the spray bar (Col. 14, lines 29-33 “ it can be possible to align the nozzles in a manual or controlled manner in order in this way to be …”), each of the nozzle units has a hollow unit housing (see Figure 2, each of 3 nozzles 29 having 3 hollows or channels for delivering fluid), and for each unit, the at least one spray nozzle is arranged in a passage of a peripheral wall of the unit housing (see each nozzle 29 connects to the housing for delivering fluid).
However, Reichard fails to discuss that the spray bar is pivotable with respect to an axis that extends in the transverse direction to adjust a spray direction of the nozzle units.
Pulver shows a spray unit (Figure 1), wherein the spray unit has a holding device (105, 147, 148, 144-145, Figure 1) for holding a spray bar (a rod 140) and a plurality of nozzles (130), wherein each nozzle is independently adjustment (see Figures 5-6 and Col. 4, lines 33-35), and wherein the bar (140) is pivotable with respect to an axis that extends in the transverse direction to adjust a spray direction of the nozzle units (Col 4, lines 37-40 “all of the nozzles 130 can be pivoted about the axis of the rod 140 by loosening the bolts 142 so that the rod 140 can be pivoted with respect to the mounting clamps 145”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the spray unit of Reichard to have each nozzle independently adjustable and a spray bar pivotable with respect to an axis that extends in the transverse direction to adjust a spray direction of the nozzles, as taught by Pulver, in order to allow the nozzles directly spray on objects (workpieces) more properly.
Regarding claim 2, the modified slicing machine of Reichard shows that the nozzle units (Figure 2 of Reichard) are designed to be adjustable and fixable independently of one another relative to the spray bar by means of a mounting device (see the combination arts in claim 1 above) in the transverse direction (see the discussion above for individual nozzle adjustment above).
Regarding claim 4, the modified slicing machine of Reichard shows that a distribution box (33 of Reichard) for distributing media to be supplied to the individual spray nozzles, is fastened to the spray bar, wherein the media comprise the liquid or the powdery anticaking agent (liquid treatment agent as discussed in Abstract of Reichard), wherein the distribution box is adjustable and fixable with respect to the spray bar in a longitudinal direction of the spray bar (see the modification above, the spray bar is pivotable that means the distribution box is adjustable and fixable with respect to the spray bar).
Regarding claim 5, the modified slicing machine of Reichard shows that the spray unit comprises a supply line for each medium to be supplied to the spray nozzles, and the distribution box (see the discussion in claim 4 above and Figure 2 of Reichard) has only one contact (a line 37) for each supply line (of each nozzle, Figure 2 of Reichard).
Regarding claim 7, the modified slicing machine of Reichard shows that the spray bar is fastened to the holding device only at one point along a longitudinal direction of the spray bar (see Figure 1 of Pulver; there is only one point contact of each end of the rod).
Regarding claim 8, the modified slicing machine of Reichard shows that the each nozzle unit has at least one non-contact pointing device (a tip of each nozzle) for pointing out the a spray direction of the at least one spray nozzle (Figure 2 of Reichard or a tapered tip portion of nozzles of Pulver’s Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, the modified slicing machine of Reichard shows that the holding device is beam-shaped with a longitudinal direction and the spray bar is arranged so as to be pivotable and adjustable relative to the holding device about the longitudinal direction (see Pulver’s Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, the modified slicing machine of Reichard shows that the holding device comprises: a main arm (147, Figure 1 of Pulver) having a longitudinal direction (Figure 1 of Pulver), a pivoting arm (131 of Pulver) which can be pivoted relative to the main arm about a transverse axis (axis rotation) that extends transverse to the longitudinal direction and to which the spray bar is attached (Figure 1 of Pulver).
Regarding claim 16, the modified slicing machine of Reichard shows that each nozzle unit is designed to be adjustable and fixable transversely to a longitudinal direction of the spray bar (see the modification in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 17, the modified slicing machine of Reichard shows that the mediums include anticaking agent, in which is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. therefore, the dispensing system has the storage, the pump, the nozzles are able to spray anticaking agent (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, the modified slicing machine of Reichard shows that each nozzle unit comprises a unit housing, the mediums include anticaking agent with compressed air (see the discussion in claim 17 above and the pump 34 of Reichard).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichard in view of Pulver and Sanders (EP 3450103 A1)
Regarding claim 19, the modified slicing machine of Reichard shows all of the limitations as stated above except at least one laser pointer for pointing out a spray direction of the at least one spray nozzle.
Sanders shows one laser pointer (232, Figures 3-4) for pointing out a spray direction of the at least one spray nozzle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the spray unit of Reichard to have a laser pointer, as taught by Sanders, in order to allow to set a properly distant between the nozzle and workpieces to spray thereon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, 12, 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is reasons for allowance: Claims 6, 9, 20 are free of the prior art because the prior art does not teach or suggest the feature of a reservoir adjustable and fixable in the a longitudinal direction of the spray bar of claim 6 and
each nozzle unit comprising a mountable and demountable cover for closing a longitudinal side of the unit housing, and an intermediate plate positioned in the unit housing and fastened to the unit housing, and for each nozzle unit, each of the at least one spray nozzle is attached the intermediate plate of claims 9 and 20; and
a base frame, wherein the main arm of the holding device comprises a base part which can be fastened to the base frame and a support part which can be adjusted is telescopically adjustable in relation to the base part the longitudinal direction as set in claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the rejections above with new art.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 2/3/2026