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 10/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 14-16 are withdrawn. Claim 4 and 6 are cancelled. Objection to claims 19 and 20 is withdrawn.
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:
“slicing unit” as recited in claims 1, 11, 17, and 18 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “slicing”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “slicing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
“feeding unit” as recited in claims 1, 11, 17, and 18 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “feeding”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “feeding” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
“discharge unit” as recited in claims 1, 11, 17, and 18 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “discharge”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “discharge” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
“portioning unit” as recited in claim 1 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “portioning”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “portioning” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
“product parameter detection apparatus” as recited in claims 1-4, 12, and 17 (first, “apparatus” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “detection”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “product parameter detection” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the apparatus)
“product parameter analysis apparatus” as recited in claims 1, 10, and 17 (first, “apparatus” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “analysis”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “product parameter analysis” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the apparatus)
“sensing element” as recited in claims 4-9 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “sensing”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “sensing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the element)
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.
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
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.
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 1-2, 5, 7-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burk (US 20160271822) in view of Hartmann (US 20210323186).
Regarding claim 1, Burk discloses a slicing machine (food slicing device 1; see fig. 1) for slicing a calibre of product into slices and producing shingled or stacked portions from the slices (food portions 3 are arranged in a stack after slicing, and portion placement area 20 can be driven to deposit slices in the desired arrangement; see figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0074]), the slicing machine comprising: a slicing unit (cutting blade 9; see figs. 1-3), a feeding unit (feeding conveyor 8; see figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0063]) for feeding at least one calibre to the slicing unit along a feeding direction (feeding conveyor 8 interacts with gripper 10 to drive food product 2 towards cutting blade 9; see paragraph [0063]), a discharge unit (portion placement area 20; see figs. 1-3) with at least one portioning unit (portion placement area 20 can be driven such that slices are deposited in a desired arrangement; see paragraph [0074]) for discharging the slices or portions in a direction of travel of the slicing machine (portion placement area 20 transports food portions 3 away; see paragraph [0074]), a gripper moveable along the feeding direction (gripper 10 can be driven linearly in the feeding direction; see figs. 1-8 and paragraph [0063]) and between an engagement position in which the gripper holds the product calibre (gripper spikes 21 pierce the end of food product 2; see figs. 4, 6, and paragraph [0084]), and a release position in which the gripper does not hold the product calibre (gripper spikes 21 are empty before loading of a new food product 2; see paragraphs [0031, 0063]), a controller for controlling moving parts of the slicing machine (control unit 15 can control parameters such as speed of cutting blade 9, feed rate of food product 2, blade clearance, and engagement of gripper 10; see paragraph [0073]), wherein the gripper comprises a product parameter detection apparatus (temperature registration device 26; see fig. 6) configured to determine at least one product parameter of the product calibre held by the gripper (temperature registration device 26 is configured to measure the temperature of food product 2; see paragraph [0067]), and the product parameter detection apparatus is configured to communicate with a product parameter analysis apparatus (control unit 15; see figs. 1-3) the product parameter analyses apparatus configured to store product parameters detected by the product parameter detection apparatus (control unit 15 can store data from processes; see paragraph [0066]) and/or to process them into a processing result (control unit 15 compares data from temperature registration devices 12, 13, and 14 against stored data in order to create an instruction to adjust operation of the pre-cooling device 4 accordingly; see paragraphs [0065-0067, 0073, 0075]), the product parameter detection apparatus comprises a sensing element (sensor element 29 which further comprises a temperature registration device; see fig. 6) which is arranged on the gripper in direct or indirect contact with the product calibre (sensor element 29 is arranged on gripper 10; see fig. 6).
Burk does not explicitly disclose that the product parameter analysis apparatus is arranged at or remote from the slicing machine.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the product parameter analysis apparatus either at or remote from the slicing machine. Though Burk is silent regarding the location of the apparatus, it must be located either at the machine or away from the machine, and so arranging it at or remote from the slicing machine would be obvious to try. Further, Burk discloses that the product parameter analysis apparatus (control unit 15) is connected to the system via a control line (control line 16) or via radio (see paragraph [0065]), thus the apparatus is connected to the system regardless of its location. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Burk as modified does not explicitly disclose the sensing element comprises a force sensor configured to output a force signal indicative of a force acting on the force sensor.
Hartmann discloses the sensing element comprises a force sensor (the sensing element comprises pinion 32 which detects the presence of caliber K when pinion 32 is fully inserted into gripper base body 14.1; see paragraphs [0073-0077] and figs. 3a-3c) configured to output a force signal indicative of a force acting on the force sensor (when pinion 32 is fully inserted, signal transmitter 33 is actuated which causes sensor 34 to send a signal to control 1* so that gripper claws 16 penetrate caliber K; see paragraphs [0075-0077] and figs. 3a-3c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Burk in view of Hartmann to include a force sensor on the sensing element. Hartmann further discloses that one common product detection device that exists within the art uses the drive torque acting on the drive device which drives the grippers as a type of force sensor. However, this is considered disadvantageous because when a plurality of grippers is driven together, the drive device will reach the specified drive torque even if only one gripper is acting on one product (see paragraphs [0010-0011]). Thus, this is not a reliable method for determining whether each gripper is in contact with a product. Further, since this is an identified and improved solution, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success and thus would find it obvious to try.
Regarding claim 2, Burk as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Burk as modified further discloses wherein the product parameter detection apparatus is configured to detect a temperature of the product calibre (temperature registration devices 12, 13, and 14 are configured to measure the temperature of food product 2; see paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 5, Burk as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Burk as modified further discloses wherein the sensing element is configured to penetrate the product calibre by at least and/or at most a predetermined depth when the product calibre is held (sensor element 29 pierces caliber K; see fig. 6 and paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 7, Burk as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Burk as modified further discloses wherein the sensing element is a needle or comprises a needle (sensor element 29 is formed as a needle; see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Burk as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Burk as modified further discloses wherein the sensing element is arranged on or in a gripper claw of the gripper (temperature registration device 25 of sensor element 29 is arranged in gripper spike 21; see fig. 6 and paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 9, Burk as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Burk as modified further discloses wherein the gripper claw is at least partially hollow (gripper spike 21 has a depression configured to support a sensor; see paragraph [0086]) and the sensing element is inserted into the at least partially hollow gripper claw (temperature registration device 25 of sensor element 29 is arranged in the depression in gripper spike 21; see paragraph [0086] and fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Burk as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Burk as modified further discloses wherein the product parameter analysis apparatus is configured to communicate with or is integrated into the controller (control unit 15 acts as a product parameter analysis apparatus and a controller, since it analyzes and creates instructions that adjust operational parameters; see paragraphs [0065-0067, 0073]), and wherein the controller is further configured to adjust at least one control parameter of the slicing machine (control unit 15 creates an instruction that controls operation of pre-cooling device 4; see paragraphs [0065-0066]) based on the processing result of the product parameter analysis apparatus (instructions created by control unit 15 are calculated based on the comparison of measured data to stored data; see paragraphs [0065-0066]).
Regarding claim 11, Burk as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Burk as modified further discloses wherein the at least one control parameter comprises a control parameter for the feeding unit and/or the slicing unit and/or the discharge unit and/or the gripper (control unit 15 can control machine parameters such as speed of cutting blade 9, feed rate of food product 2, blade clearance, and engagement of gripper 10; see paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 12, Burk as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Burk as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the gripper comprises a plurality of grippers, each moveable in the feed direction, wherein each of the plurality of grippers comprises a product parameter detection apparatus.
Hartmann further discloses wherein the gripper comprises a plurality of grippers (grippers 14a-d; see paragraphs [0034, 0057] and fig. 1a), each moveable in the feed direction (grippers 14a-d attached to common gripper unit 13 move along a feed direction 10; see paragraph [0057]), wherein each of the plurality of grippers comprises a product parameter detection apparatus (each gripper 10 comprises a sensing element, pinion 32, that detects the presence of a product caliber; see paragraphs [0018, 0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Burk in view of Hartmann to include a plurality of grippers. Hartmann further discloses that including several grippers allows for several product calibers to be sliced at once (see paragraph [0034]). As such, efficiency of the slicing machine is improved. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 13, Burk as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Burk as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein all of the plurality of grippers are arranged on a common gripper unit, the common gripper unit moveable by a drive unit.
Hartmann further discloses wherein all of the plurality of grippers are arranged on a common gripper unit (grippers 14a-d are attached to common gripper unit 13; see fig. 1a-1d and paragraph [0057]), the common gripper unit moveable by a drive unit (grippers 14a-d are preferably driven by a common drive unit to keep the drive effort within limits; see paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 17, Burk discloses a slicing machine (food slicing device 1; see fig. 1) for slicing a calibre of product into slices and producing shingled or stacked portions from the slices (food portions 3 are arranged in a stack after slicing, and portion placement area 20 can be driven to deposit slices in the desired arrangement; see figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0074]), the slicing machine comprising: a slicing unit (cutting blade 9; see figs. 1-3); a feeding unit (feeding conveyor 8; see figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0063]) for feeding at least one calibre to the slicing unit along a feeding direction (feeding conveyor 8 interacts with gripper 10 to drive food product 2 towards cutting blade 9; see paragraph [0063]); a discharge unit (portion placement area 20; see figs. 1-3) for discharging the slices or portions in a direction of travel of the slicing machine (portion placement area 20 transports food portions 3 away; see paragraph [0074]); and a gripper moveable along the feeding direction (gripper 10 can be driven linearly in the feeding direction; see figs. 1-8 and paragraph [0063]) and between an engagement position in which the gripper holds the product calibre (gripper spikes 21 pierce the end of food product 2; see figs. 4, 6, and paragraph [0084]) and a release position in which the gripper does not hold the product calibre (gripper spikes 21 are empty before loading of a new food product 2; see paragraphs [0031, 0063]); wherein the gripper comprises a product parameter detection apparatus (temperature registration device 26; see fig. 6) configured to determine at least one product parameter of the product calibre held by the gripper (temperature registration device 26 is configured to measure the temperature of food product 2; see paragraph [0067]), and wherein the product parameter detection apparatus is configured to communicate with a product parameter analysis apparatus (control unit 15; see figs. 1-3) configured to store product parameters detected by the product parameter detection apparatus (control unit 15 can store data from processes; see paragraph [0066]) and/or to process them into a processing result (control unit 15 compares data from temperature registration devices 12, 13, and 14 against stored data in order to create an instruction to adjust operation of the pre-cooling device 4 accordingly; see paragraphs [0065-0067, 0073, 0075]), the product parameter detection apparatus comprises a sensing element (sensor element 29 which further comprises a temperature registration device; see fig. 6) which is arranged on the gripper in direct or indirect contact with the product calibre (sensor element 29 is arranged on gripper 10; see fig. 6),
Burk does not explicitly disclose the sensing element comprises a force sensor configured to output a force signal indicative of a force acting on the force sensor.
Hartmann discloses the sensing element comprises a force sensor (the sensing element comprises pinion 32 which detects the presence of caliber K when pinion 32 is fully inserted into gripper base body 14.1; see paragraphs [0073-0077] and figs. 3a-3c) configured to output a force signal indicative of a force acting on the force sensor (when pinion 32 is fully inserted, signal transmitter 33 is actuated which causes sensor 34 to send a signal to control 1* so that gripper claws 16 penetrate caliber K; see paragraphs [0075-0077] and figs. 3a-3c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Burk in view of Hartmann to include a force sensor on the sensing element. Hartmann further discloses that one common product detection device that exists within the art uses the drive torque acting on the drive device which drives the grippers as a type of force sensor. However, this is considered disadvantageous because when a plurality of grippers is driven together, the drive device will reach the specified drive torque even if only one gripper is acting on one product (see paragraphs [0010-0011]). Thus, this is not a reliable method for determining whether each gripper is in contact with a product. Further, since this is an identified and improved solution, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success and thus would find it obvious to try.
Regarding claim 18, Burk as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as described in the rejection above.
Burk as modified further discloses a controller for controlling moving parts of the slicing machine (control unit 15 can control parameters such as speed of cutting blade 9, feed rate of food product 2, blade clearance, and engagement of gripper 10; see paragraph [0073]), wherein the moving parts of the slicing machine comprise at least one of the slicing unit, the feeding unit, the discharge unit, and the gripper (control unit 15 is configured to control cutter blade 9, feeding conveyor 8, portion placement area 20, and gripper 10; see paragraphs [0073-0074 and 0063]).
Regarding claim 19, Burk as modified discloses the limitations of claim 18 as described in the rejection above.
Burk as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the product parameter apparatus is arranged at the slicing machine.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Burk to arrange the product parameter analysis apparatus either at or remote from the slicing machine. Though Burk is silent regarding the location of the apparatus, it must be located either at the machine or away from the machine, and so arranging it at the slicing machine would be obvious to try. Further, Burk discloses that the product parameter analysis apparatus (control unit 15) is connected to the system via a control line (control line 16) or via radio (see paragraph [0065]), thus the apparatus is connected to the system regardless of its location. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Regarding claim 20, Burk as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as described in the rejection above.
Burk as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the product parameter apparatus is arranged remote from the slicing machine.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Burk to arrange the product parameter analysis apparatus either at or remote from the slicing machine. Though Burk is silent regarding the location of the apparatus, it must be located either at the machine or away from the machine, and so arranging it remote from the slicing machine would be obvious to try. Further, Burk discloses that the product parameter analysis apparatus (control unit 15) is connected to the system via a control line (control line 16) or via radio (see paragraph [0065]), thus the apparatus is connected to the system regardless of its location. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burk (US 20160271822) in view of Hartmann (US 20210323186), and further in view of Carrasco (EP 2754540).
Regarding claim 3, Burk as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Burk as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the product parameter detection apparatus is configured to detect a consistency of the product calibre and/or vibrations and/or impacts acting on the product calibre.
Carrasco discloses wherein the product parameter detection apparatus is configured to detect a consistency of the product calibre (second sensors 67 are capable of measuring the consistency of the food; see paragraph [0028]) and/or vibrations and/or impacts acting on the product calibre.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Burk in view of Carrasco to configure the product parameter detection apparatus to detect a consistency of the product. Burk teaches the measurement of the food product’s temperature, which is related to the overall consistency of the product (for example, a frozen product will have a more solid consistency than one that is unfrozen). Since the two variables are related, it would be obvious to include a sensor that measures the consistency of the food product. This would result in an improved evaluation of the product calibre and its characteristics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Hartmann merely discloses a sensor for detecting a product caliber and not a “force sensor” within the meaning of the present application, Examiner respectfully points to paragraphs [0073-0077] of Hartmann. As shown in fig. 3a, when gripper 14 approaches caliber K, pinion 32 is in an extended position. As shown in fig. 3b, pinion 32 is pushed back into base body 14.1 of the gripper when it comes into contact with caliber K. At this time, a force is applied to spring 7, which holds signal transmitter 33 in a rest position. When pinion 32 is fully inserted into base body 14.1, the force is transmitted through spring 7 such that signal transmitter 33 is actuated. Sensor 34 detects actuation of signal transmitter 33 and sends a signal to control 1*, which causes gripper claws 16 to penetrate caliber K. In order to push signal transmitter 33 into its actuated position, a force must be applied to spring 7. When sufficient force is applied to spring 7, a signal is sent indicative of that force to close gripper claws 16 around caliber K. If insufficient force is applied to spring 7, signal transmitter 33 is not actuated and thus the signal that keeps gripper claws 16 open remains. In other words, a signal that is indicative of the lack of force acting on pinion 32 results. Further, Examiner notes that as recited in the claims and the instant specification, the force sensor is not required to detect a magnitude of force. A sensor that simply detects the presence or absence of force, such as that of Hartmann, is sufficient to meet the limitation of a force sensor as currently recited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20180186011 to Pryor, drawn to a gripper actuating system in a food processing machine; US 20150202786 to Mayer, drawn to a device and method for cutting up food products; US 3846957 to Divan, drawn to an apparatus for weighing and segregating sliced bacon from a slicing machine; and US 5129298 to Cresson, drawn to an automatic machine for slicing non-rigid products, such as foodstuffs.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724