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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the election of Group 1, drawn to claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 10/21/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no undue search burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert Hartmann (US 20210323186 A1 – hereinafter Hartmann) in view of Jörg Schmeiser (DE 102015118712 A1 – hereinafter Schmeiser).
Regarding claim 1, Hartmann teaches a slicing machine (Fig. 1a, Slicer 1) for slicing at least one caliber (Fig. 3b, Caliber K) into slices (Fig. 1d, Slice S), comprising: a cutting unit (Fig. 1a, Cutting Unit 7) having a blade (Fig. 1a, Blade 3), a supply unit (Fig. 1a, Feed Unit 20) for supplying a caliber to the cutting unit in a supply direction, comprising as a first supply module, a gripper unit (Fig. 1a, Gripper Unit 13) which is drivable in the supply direction and has at least one gripper (Fig. 1a, Grippers 14a-14d) for holding a rear end of the caliber facing away from the blade (Fig. 3b; [0057]), as a second supply module, a supply conveyor (Fig. 1a, Conveyor 4), which is drivable in the supply direction, for bearing against an underside of the caliber ([0054]), and as a third supply module, an upper product guide (Fig. 1d, Upper Product Guide 8), which is drivable in the supply direction, for bearing against an upper side or a lower side of the caliber ([0058]).
Hartmann does not teach wherein a mechanical operative connection of at least two of the first, second and third supply modules is provided.
However, Schmeiser teaches a mechanical operative connection (Fig. 1, connection including Timing Belt 25, which is driven by Motor 33) between all the supply modules of Schmeiser, which includes a gripper unit (Fig. 1, unit including Grabber 39) and a product guide (Fig. 1, either of Conveyor Rollers 17a and 17b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Hartmann to include the limitations of claim 1 above as taught by Schmeiser. Doing so is beneficial as the use of a common drive reduces the cost of the machine and the amount of controls needed (Schmeiser; Page 2, Para 5).
Regarding claim 2, Schmeiser already teaches all supply modules (Fig. 4, module including Grabber 39, module including Lower Conveyor Roller 17a, and module including Upper Conveyor Roller 17b) of a slicing machine operatively connected by a mechanical operative connection (Fig. 1, connection including Timing Belt 25). Employing this in Hartmann would result in at least three of the modules being operatively connected by a mechanical operative connection.
Regarding claim 3, Hartmann further teaches the slicing machine according to claim 1, wherein the third supply module comprises the upper product guide (Fig. 1d, Upper Product Guide 8), and the slicing machine further comprises the lower product guide (Fig. 1d, Lower Product Guide 9) as a fourth supply module. Schmeiser already teaches all supply modules (Fig. 4, module including Grabber 39, module including Lower Conveyor Roller 17a, and module including Upper Conveyor Roller 17b) of a slicing machine operatively connected by a mechanical operative connection (Fig. 1, connection including Timing Belt 25), which is powered with the use of just one supply drive (Fig. 4, Motor 33). Employing this in Hartmann would result in all four of the modules being operatively connected by a mechanical operative connection, with the supply unit comprising just one drive for the four modules.
Regarding claim 5, Schmeiser already teaches all supply modules (Fig. 4, module including Grabber 39, module including Lower Conveyor Roller 17a, and module including Upper Conveyor Roller 17b) of a slicing machine operatively and non-detachably connected by a mechanical operative connection (Fig. 1, connection including Timing Belt 25. All supply modules are only ever disclosed as being in an attached state to the Motor 33, and are therefore interpreted to be non-detachably connected), which is powered with the use of just one supply drive (Fig. 4, Motor 33), and wherein one of the first, second, or third supply modules is a primary supply module (Fig. 1, since all supply modules are considered to be connected by a mechanical operative connection in a non-detachable manner, they are all considered to be primary supply modules as defined in the specification of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 6, Schmeiser already teaches all supply modules (Fig. 4, module including Grabber 39, module including Lower Conveyor Roller 17a, and module including Upper Conveyor Roller 17b) of a slicing machine operatively and non-detachably connected by a mechanical operative connection (Fig. 1, connection including Timing Belt 25. All supply modules are only ever disclosed as being in an attached state to the Motor 33, and therefore assumed to be non-detachably connected), which if employed in Hartmann would include the second supply module.
Regarding claim 8, the existing combination of Hartmann and Schmeiser already teaches the slicing machine according to claim 1, wherein the supply unit comprises a motor (Schmeiser - Fig. 4, Motor 33) disposed upstream of the upper product guide or the lower product guide (Schmeiser - Fig. 4, Conveyor Rollers 17a and 17b).
Regarding claim 9, the existing combination of Hartmann and Schmeiser already teaches the slicing machine according to claim 1, wherein the mechanical operative connection is provided by one or more belt drives (Schmeiser - Fig. 1, connection including Timing Belt 25, driven by Motor 33).
Regarding claim 10, the existing combination of Hartmann and Schmeiser teaches the slicing machine according to claim 9, wherein the one or more belt drives (Fig. 1, Timing Belt) are disposed on an anti-operator side of the supply modules (Page 4, Para 1; Schmeiser discloses that the machine is side loaded, and examiner interprets this side to be the operator side. Therefore, one side is the operator side and one is anti-operator side. Since there is a timing belt on each side, one of them is therefore located at the anti-operator side).
Claims 4 and 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert Hartmann (US 20210323186 A1 – hereinafter Hartmann) in view of Jörg Schmeiser (DE 102015118712 A1 – hereinafter Schmeiser) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Oscar Dillon (US 4321847 A – hereinafter Dillon).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hartmann and Schmeiser already teaches the slicing machine according to claim 1, further comprising: a supply drive operable to drive a main drive train (Schmeiser, Timing Belt 25 and Motor 33), to which the respective supply modules are operatively connected at a connection point (Fig. 33, the point at which Timing Belt 25 and Motor 33 are connected).
The existing combination of Hartmann and Schmeiser does not teach an individually controllable clutch provided between the connection point and a moving part of the respective supply module.
However, Dillon teaches the use of an individually controllable clutch in a slicing machine provided between a connection point (Fig. 2B, Gear 176) and a moving part of a supply module (Fig. 2B, Shaft 184).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Hartmann and Schmeiser to include the limitations of claim 4 above as taught by Dillon. Doing so is beneficial as it allows for control over the direction of movement of a supply module (Dillon; Col. 10, Lines 16-27).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hartmann and Schmeiser already teaches the slicing machine according to claim 5, further comprising: a supply drive operable to drive a main drive train (Schmeiser, Timing Belt 25 and Motor 33), to which the respective supply modules are operatively connected at a connection point (Fig. 33, the point at which Timing Belt 25 and Motor 33 are connected).
The existing combination of Hartmann and Schmeiser does not teach a controllable clutch provided between the connection point of each respective supply module and a moving part of the respective supply module for all of the supply modules except the primary supply modules.
However, Dillon teaches the use of an individually controllable clutch in a slicing machine provided between a connection point (Fig. 2B, Gear 176) and a moving part of a supply module (Fig. 2B, Shaft 184). Dillon does not teach the use of this clutch between a connection point of each supply module and a moving part of each respective supply module outside of the primary supply module, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Hartmann and Schmeiser such that there are additional controllable clutches between the connection point and moving part of each supply module outside of the primary as the modification would consist of a mere duplication of parts, which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Hartmann and Schmeiser to include the limitations of claim 7 above as taught by Dillon. Doing so is beneficial as it allows for control over the direction of movement of a supply module (Dillon; Col. 10, Lines 16-27).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert Hartmann (US 20210323186 A1 – hereinafter Hartmann) in view of Jörg Schmeiser (DE 102015118712 A1 – hereinafter Schmeiser) as applied to claims 1 above and further in view of Achim Holz (DE 102006052689 A1 – hereinafter Holz).
Regarding claim 11, the existing combination of Hartmann and Schmeiser does not teach the slicing machine according to claim 1, wherein the second supply module or the third supply module comprises a slip sensor for detecting slip between a part of the supply module configured to engage the caliber and the caliber.
However, Holz teaches that a supply module (Fig. 1, Feed Unit 1) comprises a slip sensor (Fig. 1, Second Measuring Element 12) for detecting slip between a part of a supply module configured to engage the caliber (Fig. 1, Product to be Cut 2) and the caliber (Page 5, Para 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Hartmann and Schmeiser to include the limitations of claim 11 above as taught by Holz. Doing so is beneficial as it allows for the slip to be considered and corrected (Holz; Page 3, Para 6).
Conclusion
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