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 without traverse of Group A (claims 1-4 and 14-16) in the reply filed on 8/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the use of implied phrases, such as “the invention relates to”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
the term “the line of fall” lacks antecedent basis. Though the intended meaning is presumed understood, claim 1 should be amended to recite “a line of fall” to clarify the intended scope.
the term “cut slices” should be amended to recite “slices” at each occurrence, since the term “slices” has already been introduced.
to increase clarity, the last two lines of claim 1 should be split up and amended as follows:
wherein the conveyor is a discontinuous conveyor,
wherein the discontinuous conveyor [[which]]conveys the deposited slices discontinuously in contrast to a conveyor belt.
Claim 2: it is somewhat unclear whether the discontinuous conveyor or the conveyed-products carrier receives slices. It is presumed to be intended that the conveyed-products carrier receives slices and has been treated as such for purposes of examination. Claim 2 at lines 4 and 5 should be amended as follows:
conveying surface without being tied to a fixed conveying path[[and receives the cut slices]]
wherein the at least one conveyed-products carrier receives the slices
Claim 4: the term “continuous conveying surface” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 4 should be amended to recite “a continuous conveying surface”. Further, at line 4, “the conveying surface” is unclear. It is not made explicitly clear whether this refers to the “continuous conveying surface” as recited in claim 4, or whether it refers to the “conveying surface” as recited in claim 2. It is presumed to be intended to refer to the “conveying surface” and has been treated as such for purposes of examination.
Claim 16: the term “conveyed products” is recited, but it is presumed to be intended “conveyed-products carriers”. Accordingly, it has been treated as such for purposes of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
• “cutting device” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “cutting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “cutting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device)
• “contactless drive system” as recited in at least claim 2 (first, “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “contactless drive”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “contactless drive” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the system)
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 § 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 1-4 and 14-16 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Use of the term “preferably” raises a question as to whether the following limitations are optional or required. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets that these requirements are optional. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2, 3, and 14-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claims 3, 14, and 16, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Use of the term “in particular” raises a question as to whether the following limitations are optional or required. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets that these requirements are optional. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further regarding claims 3 and 14, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 3 and 14 recite the broad recitation “essentially vertically”, and the claims also recite “in particular with an angular deviation from the vertical of less than ±10°, ±5°, or ±2” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 3 further recites the broad recitation “essentially horizontally”, and the claim also recites “in particular with an angular deviation from the horizontal of less than ±10°, ±5°, or ±2”. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 16 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weber (US 6640681).
Regarding claim 1, Weber discloses a food-processing device (slicer 12; see fig. 1a-1d) for cutting food products into slices (food product 10 is cut into slices 14; see col. 3, lines 28-38 and figs. 1a-1d), said slices preferably together forming a portion (slices 14 form stacks; see col. 3, lines 28-38), for cutting pieces of meat or cheese, comprising: a cutting device for cutting the slices from the food products (slicer 12 comprises cutting head 52, which includes cutting element 50; see figs. 1a-1d), and a conveyor for receiving the cut slices after a cutting operation (first feeding device 20 receives slices 14 in collection area 18; see col. 2, lines 65-67), the conveyor being arranged in the line of fall of the slices, so that the cut slices fall from the cutting device onto the conveyor (after cutting, slices 14 fall directly onto feeding device 20; see col. 3, lines 28-32 and fig. 1a), wherein the conveyor is a discontinuous conveyor (feeding device 20 can be at rest while collecting slices 14, and once stack 24 is completed, feeding device 20 transports stack 24 onto second feed unit 34; see col. 3, lines 32-48), which conveys the deposited slices discontinuously in contrast to a conveyor belt (feeding device 20 can be moved discontinuously in an upward or downward direction and can be at rest while collecting slices 14, moving only to deposit stack 24 onto second feed unit 34; see col. 3, lines 28-38).
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 2, 4, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (US 6640681) in view of Rother (DE 102014116232).
Regarding claim 2, Weber discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Weber does not explicitly disclose wherein the discontinuous conveyor comprises at least one conveyed-products carrier which can be moved freely in two dimensions within a conveying surface without being tied to a fixed conveying path and receives the cut, and wherein the discontinuous conveyor comprises a contactless drive system which moves the conveyed-products carrier within the conveying surface along a freely programmable conveying path without contact between the conveyed-products carrier on the one hand and the conveying surface on the other hand.
Rother discloses wherein the discontinuous conveyor comprises at least one conveyed-products carrier (the top surface of transport mover 22 carries food portions 24; see paragraph [0116] and fig. 3) which can be moved freely in two dimensions within a conveying surface (electromagnets 16, with sensors 18, generate linear drive in the x and y directions and any angles in between; see paragraphs [0113-0116] and fig. 10) without being tied to a fixed conveying path and receives the cut slices (transport movers 22 are able to rotate or change paths along track 30 depending on the behavior and arrangement of magnets 28. Further, different routes may be provided for portioning or sorting operations; see paragraphs [0120-0124]), and wherein the discontinuous conveyor comprises a contactless drive system (transport device 10 comprises electromagnets 16 that can be activated or deactivated by control device 20 in order to move magnetic fields, which causes the movement of transport mover 22; see paragraphs [0117-0119]) which moves the conveyed-products carrier within the conveying surface along a freely programmable conveying path (transport movers 22 are conveyed via magnetic fields that are controlled by control device 20; see paragraphs [0117-0119]) without contact between the conveyed-products carrier on the one hand and the conveying surface on the other hand (transport movers 22 can be held in a suspended state above support 12 by magnetic fields; electromagnets 16 and magnets 28 do not come into contact with the top surface of transport movers 22; see paragraphs [0113, 0145]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weber in view of Rother to include at least one conveyed-products carrier that is freely movable in two dimensions by a contactless drive system. Rother discloses that using magnetic fields to suspend product carriers is advantageous because frictional forces are reduced (see paragraph [0145]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that reducing friction between transport elements requires less force to move the product carrier, thus motivating the use of the contactless drive system as taught by Rother.
Examiner notes that “fixed conveying path”, as best understood in view of the specification, is intended to mean that the conveying path is variable such that it can include multiple conveying paths, or that the arrangement of the conveying path can change.
Regarding claim 4, Weber as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Rother further discloses wherein the contactless drive system comprises a plurality of modules (guide unit 14 of transport device 10 can include a conveyor belt 34 with a plurality of ribs 36; see paragraph [0125] and fig. 11) which preferably adjoin one another without gaps and form the continuous conveying surface (ribs 36 align with one another to form support 12; see paragraph [0125]), the conveying path within the conveying surface being freely programmable (transport movers 22 are able to rotate or change paths along track 30 depending on the behavior and arrangement of magnets 28 as controlled by control device 20; see paragraphs [0113, 0120-0124]), wherein the individual modules are optionally rectangular (ribs 36 are rectangular in shape; see fig. 11) in order to be able to assemble the conveying surface from the modules without gaps (conveyor belt 34 is formed as an endless conveyor belt without gaps; see paragraph [0125] and figs. 11 and 13).
Regarding claim 14, Weber discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Weber does not explicitly disclose wherein the conveying surface runs essentially vertically, in particular with an angular deviation from the vertical of less than ±10°, ±5°, or ±2°, and wherein a loading surface is attached to the conveyed-products carrier for receiving the food products, the loading surface being oriented substantially at right angles to the conveying surface.
Rother discloses wherein the conveying surface runs essentially vertically (a vertical support may be provided, with carriers 54 cantilevered horizontally to the side of the support; see paragraph [0049] and figs. 25-27), and wherein a loading surface (carriers 54 can be in the form of a tray; see paragraph [0153]) is attached to the conveyed-products carrier for receiving the food products (carriers 54 receive food portions 24 and are coupled to transport movers 22; see paragraph [0153]), the loading surface being oriented substantially at right angles to the conveying surface (carriers 54 are cantilevered horizontally to the side of the support; see paragraph [0049] and figs. 25-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weber in view of Rother to include wherein the conveying surface runs essentially vertically. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that including a vertical transport system means that floor space can be saved when designing the path of the system as a whole. By reducing the amount of space used, more space can be dedicated to storage of completed products or alternatively adding additional lines. This would also be beneficial in cases where there is very little production space. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a vertical transport path design in order to reduce the amount of space that is required.
Regarding claim 16, Weber as modified discloses the limitations of claim 14 as described in the rejection above.
Weber as modified further discloses wherein the food-processing device comprises a conveyor belt conveying the food products (slicer 12 comprises feed unit 36 which transfers completed stacks 24 downstream; see col. 3, lines 13-15 and figs. 1a-1d).
Rother further discloses in particular parallel to the conveying surface of the contactless drive system (transport movers 22 are conveyed parallel over support 12; see paragraph [0117] and figs. 3, 12-13), and wherein the contactless drive system moves the conveyed products to the conveyor belt (transport device 10 conveys transport movers 22 downstream to different drop-off points; see paragraph [0118]) in order to transfer the food products from the conveyed products to the conveyor belt (as modified, transport movers 22 will deposit food portions 24 onto a drop-off point, specifically feed unit 36 of Weber; see paragraph [0018]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (US 6640681) in view of Rother (DE 102014116232), and further in view of Fuchs (DE 102017113667).
Regarding claim 3, Weber as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Rother further discloses wherein the conveying surface runs essentially horizontally (support 12 appears to be almost completely horizontal; see fig. 3), or wherein the conveying surface runs essentially vertically (a vertical support may be provided, with carriers 54 cantilevered horizontally to the side; see paragraph [0049] and figs. 25-27).
Weber as modified does not explicitly disclose in particular with an angular deviation from the vertical of less than ±10°, ±5°, or ±2°, or wherein the conveying surface is inclined to the vertical.
Fuchs discloses wherein the conveying surface is inclined to the vertical (after being cut by sickle knife 2, discs 13 fall along fall line 10 onto circulating belt 8, which is almost parallel to the angle of disc 13; see paragraph [0019] and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Weber in view of Fuchs to include wherein the conveying surface is inclined. Fuchs discloses that the inclined angle of the conveying surface allows for slices to land in a partially folded configuration (see paragraphs [0007, 0022]). This would allow for portions to be stacked in varying arrangements without requiring further processing. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably seek to include a conveyor oriented at an incline for more arrangement options when portioning slices.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (US 6640681) in view of Rother (DE 102014116232), and further in view of Burk (US 20180265230).
Regarding claim 15, Weber discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Weber does not explicitly disclose wherein the contactless drive system moves the conveyed-products carrier parallel to the conveying surface along a conveying direction.
Rother discloses wherein the contactless drive system moves the conveyed-products carrier parallel to the conveying surface along a conveying direction (transport device 10 moves transport movers 22 in conveying direction R, parallel to support 12; see paragraph [0117] and fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weber in view of Rother to include wherein the contactless drive system moves the conveyed-products carrier parallel to the conveying surface. Rother discloses that using magnetic fields to suspend product carriers is advantageous because frictional forces are reduced (see paragraph [0145]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that reducing friction between transport elements requires less force to move the product carrier, thus motivating the use of the contactless drive system as taught by Rother.
Weber as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the contactless drive system with regard to the conveyed-products carrier tilts it forward during an acceleration in the conveying direction, and/or tilts it backward when braking against the conveying direction.
Burk discloses wherein the contactless drive system with regard to the conveyed-products carrier tilts it forward during an acceleration in the conveying direction, and/or tilts it backward when braking against the conveying direction (support 36 of transport mover 32 is inclinable via tilt bearing 54 in order to compensate for a centrifugal force acting on an object located on support 36; see paragraph [0106] and fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Weber in view of Burk to include wherein the conveyed-products carrier can tilt forward and/or backward during acceleration/deceleration respectively. Weber as modified by Rother is silent regarding inclining or tilting the conveyed-products carrier in response to movement. Burk discloses that an object (including food slices or stacks; see paragraphs [0023-0024]) has a reduced risk of falling when the conveyed-products carrier is capable of tilting in order to compensate for centrifugal forces, which are particularly common during turns (see paragraphs [0029, 0106]). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably seek to include the tilting mechanism of Burk in order to reduce the chance of products being lost or damaged during transport.
Conclusion
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at (571) 270-3818. 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
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724