Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/627,288

SLICING MACHINE WITH PARKING POSITION FOR GRIPPER

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 04, 2024
Examiner
CROSBY JR, RICHARD D
Art Unit
3724
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Multivac Sepp Haggenmüller SE & Co. Kg
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
322 granted / 471 resolved
-1.6% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
520
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
43.9%
+3.9% vs TC avg
§102
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
§112
31.4%
-8.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 471 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . 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 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. Election/Restrictions Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/26/2025. Applicant's election with traverse in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims are sufficiently related to each other such there is no undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the two claim sets requires searches within different patent areas, resulting in at least two different searches, one for the claims directed to a method of operating a slicing machine, classified in at least B26D5/00 and one for the claims directed to a multilane slicing machine classified in B26D7/0633. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Drawings -The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one parking pressing drive receptacle” of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. -The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “33” has been used to designate both the contact pressing drive and pneumatic cylinder unit. Examiner notes Figure 8 specifically appears to use multiple instances of reference character “33” and it is unclear as to what the reference characters are referring. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. -Regarding claim 1, the phrases “the gripper carriage has t least one parking gripper receptacle to which a gripper can be fastened” and “a gripper from each of the operating gripper receptacles to the parking gripper receptacle without disconnecting its gripper supply line” is unclear. Examiner notes the phrases include a plurality of different grippers that are in addition to the plurality of gripper of the gripper unit already claimed. It is unclear if these are additional grippers, or the same set of plurality of grippers. For the purposes of examination, they will be treated as the same set of “plurality of grippers” as noted in the gripper unit. -Claim 1 recites the limitation "the supply lines" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes line 20 also uses the phrase “without disconnecting its gripper supply line while line 12 refers to “at least one gripper supply line”. It is unclear if there are to be multiple supply lines, or at least one. -Claim 3 recites the limitation "the gripper claws" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. -Claim 3 recites the limitation " the gripper base has at least one fastening device for fastening to the gripper receptacle" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner also notes the limitation to be unclear, as there is both an operating gripper receptacle and a parking gripper receptacle. It is unclear as to which gripper receptacle is referred to. For the purposes of examination, the limitations will be treated as the operating gripper receptacle. -Claim 10 recites the limitation " the supply lines for the contact pressing drives are configured and the parking pressing drive receptacle is arranged relative to the operating pressing drive receptacles, in such a way that it is possible to move, including mounting and dismounting, a contact pressing drive from each of the operating pressing drive receptacles to the parking pressing drive receptacle without disconnecting its pressing drive supply line." in lines 6-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the bolded limitations in the claim. Note the contact pressing drive is only referred to as a singular unit initially, and the second instance notes multiple. The parking pressing drive receptacle is noted as “at least one” and further recited “the parking pressing drive receptacle. Examiner also notes the limitations to be unclear noting the singular and multiple usages provided within the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitations, unless otherwise stated, will be treated as a singular unit. Examiner also notes there are two separate references to “a contact pressing drive”. For the purposes of examination, the second reference will refer back to the first, and not a separate unit. -Claim 12 recites the limitation "the pressing drive receptacle" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. -Claim 12 recites the limitation "the fastening" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 12, the language is unclear. Examiner notes the phrase” the drive receptacle of the contact pressing drive has at least one fastening device for fastening to the pressing drive receptacle, wherein the at least one fastening device is a rear fastening device for a rear pressing drive receptacle in the form of a hook, so that when the fastening is released relative to the front pressing drive receptacle, the drive receptacle hangs down from the rear pressing drive receptacle due to gravity” provides for numerous parts, but the specification and drawings are unclear as to the corresponding structural elements, as they appear to overlap with the gripping unit, which does not appear to be supported. For instance, lines 3-4 note a fastening device for the pressing drive receptacle. However, the specification (Example paragraph 0097) notes the fastening device to be incorporated with the gripper base. Examiner also notes the phrase “wherein the at least one fastening device is a rear fastening device for a rear pressing drive receptacle in the form of a hook, so that when the fastening is released relative to the front pressing drive receptacle, the drive receptacle hangs down from the rear pressing drive receptacle due to gravity” to be unclear. As currently claimed, when the fastening element is released, the drive receptacle (34) “hangs down” from the rear pressing drive receptacle (27)(See Figure 9a). How does the drive receptacle “hang down” from the hook element 27 once released from the fastening element as they do not appear to be connected in such a fashion as to allow for a release and hanging from the hook 27? Claims 2-13 dependent from claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are rejected as being dependent from a rejected parent claim. 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasek (U.S. Patent No. 2009/0120256) in view of Strong (U.S. Patent No. 2009/0038455). Regarding claim 1, Pasek teaches a multilane slicing machine for slicing logs (110) into slices and producing shingled or stacked portions from slices (Abstract, Figures 1-2), the slicing machine comprising: a slicing unit (124) having a rotating blade (2082)(Figures 2 and 33; Paragraph 0186 and 0195), a feeding unit (120) for feeding a plurality of logs (110) arranged next to one another in the transverse direction relative to the feed direction in the feed direction to the slicing unit (Figures 1-2), wherein the feeding unit comprises: at least one feeding belt (530) lower with respect to the log (Figure 14 and Paragraph 0155), a gripper unit having a gripper carriage (896,899,900) having one or more operating gripper receptacles (X1), to which a plurality of grippers (894), each of which is connected to at least one gripper supply line (912,913), can be fastened (Via fastener 897) next to one another in the transverse direction in an operating position (Figure 16; Paragraphs 0161-0163; See annotated Figure 20 below), a controller (Paragraph 0220) for controlling moving parts of the slicing machine, wherein the gripper carriage has at least one parking gripper receptacle (X2) to which a gripper can be fastened (Examiner notes the receptacles X1 and X2 refer to the spacing allowing for the fastening of element F1, F2 of the gripper that connects to base 899) in a parking position that does not interfere with the slicing operation, and the supply lines are configured and the parking gripper receptacle is arranged relative to the operating gripper receptacles in such a way to allow movement of, including mounting and dismounting (Examiner notes the “parking position” to be the same as the operating position as shown in Figures 19 and 20. A gripper is fastened via element 897 into the parking position and the operating position, and if no material is supplied to the specific gripper element, the gripper “does not interfere” with the overall slicing operation, and the supply lines remain in a connected state, thus reading upon the current claim language), a gripper from each of the operating gripper receptacles to the parking gripper receptacle without disconnecting its gripper supply line (Figures 16-20 and Paragraphs 0161-0164). PNG media_image1.png 723 870 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, Pasek does not provide at least one upper product guide hold-down device having at least one upper, drivable hold-down device belt for the log having at least one contact pressing unit, which comprises a contact pressing drive. Strong teaches it is known in the art of food slicing machines to incorporate a slicing machine (10) with provide at least one upper product guide hold-down device (24) having at least one upper, drivable hold-down device belt (26, 26a, 26b)(Paragraph 0048) for the log having at least one contact pressing unit (14), which comprises a contact pressing drive (Figure 1 and paragraphs 0030-0031,0035,0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Pasek to incorporate the teachings of Strong to provide a hold down device and contact pressing unit. In doing so, it allows for the workpiece to be held stable throughout the slicing process. Regarding claim 2, Pasek teaches the slicing machine according to claim 1, wherein the parking gripper receptacle is arranged laterally outside the lane region of the slicing machine in the transverse direction and/or - counter to the feed direction, the parking gripper receptacle is arranged back from the operating gripper receptacles (See annotated Figure 20 above noting the parking receptacle X2 to the right/back) of the operating gripper receptacle X1). Regarding claim 3, Pasek teaches the slicing machine according to claim 1, wherein each gripper (894) has a gripper base (G2,899,900) having a gripper activator (938)(Paragraph 0164 noting the piston rod and connections) and a gripper head (G1) fastened to the front end of the gripper base with a gripper claws (946), and the gripper base has at least one fastening device (F1,F2, 897) for fastening to the gripper receptacle (See annotated Figure 19 below and annotated Figure 20 above and Figures 18-20). PNG media_image2.png 697 738 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4, Pasek teaches the slicing machine according to claim 3, wherein - the operating gripper receptacle and/or the parking gripper receptacle each has a front receptacle part (R1) and a rear receptacle part (R2), the front and rear receptacle parts spaced apart in the feed direction (Figures 19 and 20; Specifically noting the hook shape of base 899 on both the left and right sides allowing for a reciprocal hook shaped connection, thus a front receptacle part and a rear receptacle part). Regarding claim 5, Pasek teaches the slicing machine according to claim 4, wherein the fastening device has a rear fastening device (F2) for the rear gripper receptacle in the shape of a hook, so that, when the fastening is released from the front receptacle part, the gripper base hangs down from the rear receptacle part (R2) due to gravity (See annotated Figure 20 above; Examiner notes the rear gripper receptacle to have a shape of a hook, the gripper base is capable of performing the function of hanging down due to gravity once unfastened). Regarding claim 6, Pasek teaches the slicing machine according to claim 5, wherein - the fastening device has a front fastening device (F1) for the front receptacle part that has a latching device for latching to the front receptacle part, which, when the front fastening device comes into contact with the front receptacle part (R1), the front fastening device automatically latches onto the front receptacle part. Regarding claim 7, Pasek teaches the slicing machine according to claim 5, wherein - the rear receptacle part (R2) is a support rod onto which the gripper base can be hooked with the hook-shaped rear fastening device (F2), and/or - the front receptacle part (R1) is a support plate to which the gripper base can be fastened with the hook-shaped front fastening device (See annotated Figure 20 above). Regarding claim 8, Pasek teaches the slicing machine according to claim 3, wherein - the gripper head and the gripper base are designed in such a way that the gripper head can be mounted and/or dismounted on the gripper base both when the gripper base is mounted on the parking gripper receptacle and when it is mounted on the operating gripper receptacle (See annotated Figures 19 and 20 above noting the gripper head being mounted on both the parking and operating gripper receptacles X1,X2). Regarding claim 9, Pasek teaches the slicing machine according to claim 3, wherein a line channel extends at a distance in the feed direction behind the front receptacle part in the transverse direction for accommodating the gripper supply lines (912), which channel is open upwards, downwards or forwards when viewed from the side (See Figure 16 noting the line channel (open space) allowing for the lines to be spaced from the front receptacle part; Paragraph 0163). Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Pasek teaches the slicing machine according to claim 1, wherein a hold-down device base body (12, 14) has at least one parking pressing drive receptacle to which a contact pressing drive (64A,64B)(Strong Figure 3; Not the drive element to be contained within the parking pressing drive receptacle location thus not shown in the Figures) can be fastened in a parking position that does not interfere with the slicing operation, the supply lines for the contact pressing drives are configured and the parking pressing drive receptacle is arranged relative to the operating pressing drive receptacles, in such a way that it is possible to move, including mounting and dismounting, a contact pressing drive from each of the operating pressing drive receptacles to the parking pressing drive receptacle without disconnecting its pressing drive supply line (Pasek Figure 1 and Strong Figures 1-3; Paragraph 0035, 0045, 0067). Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Pasek teaches the slicing machine according to claim 10, wherein the parking pressing drive receptacle is arranged laterally in the transverse direction outside the lane region of the slicing machine (Strong Figures 1 and 3), and/or - the parking pressing drive receptacle is arranged back from the operating pressing drive receptacles counter to the feed direction. Related Prior Art Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used - "892 cited references A-M on pages 1-2 establish the state of the art with a variety of food slicing machines with various gripping mechanisms and drives. It is to be noted that claims 12 and 13 have not been rejected over prior art. However, indication of allowable subject matter is withheld, as it is not clear how the claims will be amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00. 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. /RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 03/06/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 04, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600050
SHAVING APPARATUS HAVING A RAZOR HANDLE FOR DISPOSABLE RAZOR CARTRIDGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600046
AUTO OPENING FOLDING KNIFE BLADE ENGAGEMENT LOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594613
CUTTING PLIER AND CUTTING PLIER HEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594614
RIBBON SAW WITH DOUBLE SECURITY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12570015
PERSONAL CARE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+16.4%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 471 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month