DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action replaces the Final Office Action mailed June 1, 2026.
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 .
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:
wherein the controller is configured to control the display device in claims 1, 4, 8, 10, and 15.
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.
Claim 1-4 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20170232629 to McGuffin-Noll et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20090133588 to Rummel et al. and in further view of EP2510794 to Eckhardt.
In re claim 1, McGuffin-Noll teaches a food product slicer, comprising:
a base (200);
a knife (300) mounted for rotation relative to the base;
a carriage assembly (400) mounted to the base for reciprocal movement back and forth past a cutting edge of the knife;
an adjustable gauge plate (500) mounted for movement between a closed position that prevents slicing and multiple open positions that permit slicing at respective thicknesses (Para 0030);
a slice thickness identification system including at least one sensor for determining a position of the gauge plate (Para 0033);
a controller that is configured to identify an actual slice thickness based upon output from the at least one sensor (Para 0033);
a display (Para 0033) for communicating information to a slicer operator.
Regarding claim 1, McGuffin-Noll teaches a food product slicer having a touchscreen input system, but does not teach wherein the controller is configured to control the display device to cause the display device to effect display of a slice thickness targeting graphical image to indicate whether the gauge plate is in a position to achieve a defined slice thickness for a slicing operation.
Rummel teaches a food product slicer having a controller (100), which is a processor based controller (100).
Eckhardt teaches a display (400) for receiving slicing machine parameters, in which the parameters include, for example, slice thickness, which can be represented graphically (by means of image or animation) and/or descriptively (Pg. 4, lines 38-47, Pg. 5, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide McGuffin-Noll with a controller as taught by Rummel which is advantageous for automating the slicer which maximizes operational efficiency.
It would have further been obvious to provide modified McGuffin-Noll with a display as for controlling the display of graphical parameters as taught by Eckhardt in order to provide a visual to the user to maintain enhanced efficiency and precision of the slicer. The modification would lead to the controller configured to control the display device to cause the display device to effect display of a slice thickness targeting graphical image to indicate whether the gauge plate is in a position to achieve a defined slice thickness for a slicing operation and the controller being configured such that the graphical image displayed on the display device shows a first non-alphanumeric graphic (Pg. 4, lines 38-47, Pg. 5, lines 1-4, Eckhardt) of a target location and a second non-alphanumeric graphic of actual location, and a relative position between the second non-alphanumeric graphic and the first non-alphanumeric graphic varies as the gauge plate moves.
Note, the combination of McGuffin-Noll in view of Rummel and Eckhardt provide a teaching of providing a food slicer with a (processor based) controller and a display. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantages of programming a controller to display a slice thickness targeting graphical image to indicate whether the gauge plate is in position (which is determined by the sensor (Para 0033, McGuffin-Noll). The phrase “the controller is configured to control the display device” invokes 112, sixth paragraph. The structure required is a controller and a display device. The limitations “to cause the display device to effect display of a slice thickness targeting graphical image to indicate whether the gauge plate is in a position to achieve a defined slice thickness for a slicing operation” are intended use; however, the controller can be programmed to display the graphical image. The controller is also capable of being programmed such that the graphical image displayed on the display device shows a first non-alphanumeric graphic of a target location and a second non-alphanumeric graphic of actual location, and a relative position between the second non-alphanumeric graphic and the first non-alphanumeric graphic varies as the gauge plate moves. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. "KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. "Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.1. See MPEP 2141, Section II, Part C. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term alphanumeric is defined as "consisting of both letters and numbers and or other symbols." The term "graphic" is defined as "of or relating to the pictorial arts." Based on the BRI of the term "alphanumeric," Eckhardt teaches and suggest displaying a non-alphanumeric graphic.
In re claim 2, modified McGuffin-Noll teaches wherein the controller is configured such that the graphical image (Pg. 4, lines 38-47, Pg. 5, lines 1-4, Eckhardt) is (capable of being) varied as the gauge plate is moved (Para 0033, McGuffin-Noll).
Note, the controller merely has to be capable of being configured to vary an image, in which it is, since the controller (can be programmed) to display various information (including graphical images).
In re claim 3, modified McGuffin-Noll teaches wherein controller is configured such that a color feature of the graphical image changes when the gauge plate reaches the position to achieve the defined slice thickness.
Note, the controller merely has to be capable of being configured such that a color feature of the graphical image changes when the gauge plate reaches a certain position, in which it is, since the controller (can be programmed) and in conjunction with the display can display various (programmed) information regarding the thickness of the slice (including graphical images).
In re claim 4, modified McGuffin-Noll teaches wherein the controller (100, Rummel) is configured to control the display device such that display of the graphical image ceases when the gauge plate reaches the position to achieve the defined slice thickness.
Note, the controller can be programmed to control the display device such that the graphical image ceases when the gauge plate reaches a position to achieve the defined thickness.
In re claim 6, modified McGuffin-Noll teaches wherein the first non-alphanumeric graphic is a first line on a dial graphic, and the second non-alphanumeric graphic is a second line on the dial graphic (Pg. 4, lines 38-47, Pg. 5, lines 1-4, Eckhardt).
In re claim 7, modified McGuffin-Noll teaches wherein the controller is configured such that the graphical image shows a representative slicer knob and a direction of knob rotation necessary to move the gauge plate to the position to achieve the defined slice thickness.
Note, the controller merely has to be capable of being configured such that the graphical image shows a slicer knob and a direction of rotation, in which it is, since (gauge plate) controller works in conjunction with the display (thickness input device) to communicate information regarding the slice thickness.
In re claim 8, modified McGuffin-Noll teaches wherein the controller (100, Rummel) is configured to control the display device such that display of the graphical image is implemented in response to operator selection of the defined slice thickness (Para 0033, McGuffin-Noll).
In re claim 9, modified McGuffin-Noll teaches wherein the display is a touch screen display (Pg. 3, lines 16-25, Eckhardt), and the defined slice thickness is a thickness selected via an interface presented on the touch screen display.
In re claim 10, McGuffin-Noll teaches a food product slicer, comprising:
a base (200);
a knife (300) mounted for rotation relative to the base;
a carriage assembly (400) mounted to the base for reciprocal movement back and forth past a cutting edge of the knife;
an adjustable gauge plate (500) mounted for movement between a closed position and multiple open positions that permit slicing at respective thicknesses, wherein a knob (600) is operatively connected to effect manual position adjustment of the gauge plate;
at least one sensor for determining a position of the gauge plate (Para 0033);
a display (touchscreen, Para 0033) for communicating information to a slicer operator;
a controller (Para 0033) configured to identify gauge plate position based upon output from the at least one sensor.
Regarding claim 10, McGuffin-Noll teaches a food product slicer having a touchscreen input system, but does not teach wherein the controller is configured to control the display device to cause the display device to effect display of a slice thickness targeting graphical image to indicate whether the gauge plate is in a position to achieve a defined slice thickness for a slicing operation.
Rummel teaches a food product slicer having a controller (100), which is a processor based controller (100).
Eckhardt teaches a display (400) for receiving slicing machine parameters, in which the parameters include, for example, slice thickness, which can be represented graphically (by means of image or animation) and/or descriptively (Pg. 4, lines 38-47, Pg. 5, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide McGuffin-Noll with a controller as taught by Rummel which is advantageous for automating the slicer which maximizes operational efficiency.
It would have further been obvious to provide modified McGuffin-Noll with a display as for controlling the display of graphical parameters as taught by Eckhardt in order to provide a visual to the user to maintain enhanced efficiency and precision of the slicer. The modification would lead to the controller configured to control the display device to cause the display device to effect display of a slice thickness targeting graphical image to indicate whether the gauge plate is in a position to achieve a defined slice thickness for a slicing operation and the graphical image simultaneously shows both a first graphic of a target location and a second graphic of actual location, and a relative position between the second graphic and the first graphic varies as the gauge plate moves.
Note, the combination of McGuffin-Noll in view of Rummel and Eckhardt provide a teaching of providing a food slicer with a (processor based) controller and a display. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantages of programming a controller to display a slice thickness targeting graphical image to indicate whether the gauge plate is in position (which is determined by the sensor (Para 0033, McGuffin-Noll). The phrase “the controller is configured to control the display device” invokes 112, sixth paragraph. The structure required is a controller and a display device. The limitations “to cause the display device to effect display of a slice thickness targeting graphical image to indicate whether the gauge plate is in a position to achieve a defined slice thickness for a slicing operation” are intended use; however, the controller can be programmed to display the graphical image. The controller is also capable of being programmed such the graphical image simultaneously shows both a first graphic of a target location and a second graphic of actual location, and a relative position between the second graphic and the first graphic varies as the gauge plate moves. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. "KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. "Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.1. See MPEP 2141, Section II, Part C. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
In re claim 11, modified McGuffin-Noll teaches wherein the graphical image further includes a directional indicator as to which direction the knob should be rotated in order to move the gauge plate to the position to achieve the defined slice thickness.
Note, the controller controls the display and can be programmed to be such that the graphical image shows a directional indicator and a direction of rotation.
In re claim 12, modified McGuffin-Noll teaches wherein the display device is a touch screen display (Pg. 3, lines 16-25, Eckhardt), and the defined slice thickness is a thickness selected via an interface presented on the touch screen display (Pg. 3, lines 16-25, Eckhardt).
In re claim 13, modified McGuffin-Noll teaches wherein the graphical image further includes a background graphic and the first graphic and the second graphic is overlayed on the background graphic, wherein the background graphic is a dial graphic or a bar graphic.
Note, the controller controls the display which can be programmed to provide a graphical image including a background graphic and the first graphic is overlayed the second graphic in which the background graphic is a dial graphic.
In re claim 14, modified McGuffin-Noll teaches wherein the graphical image further includes a background graphic and the first graphic and the second graphic is overlayed on the background graphic, wherein controller is configured such that a color feature of the background graphic changes when the gauge plate reaches the position to achieve the defined slice thickness.
Note, the graphical image merely has to be capable of including a background graphic in which the first graphic and the second graphic are overlayed on the background graphic. The controller controls the display which can be programmed such that a color feature of the graphical image changes when the gauge plate reaches a certain position.
In re claim 15, McGuffin-Noll teaches a food product slider comprising:
a base (200);
a knife (300) mounted for rotation relative to the base;
a carriage assembly (400) mounted to the base for reciprocal movement back and forth past a cutting edge of the knife;
an adjustable gauge plate (500) mounted for movement between a closed position and multiple open positions that permit slicing at respective thicknesses, wherein a knob (600) is operatively connected to effect manual position adjustment of the gauge plate;
at least one sensor for determining a position of the gauge plate (Para 0033);
a controller (Para 0033) configured to identify gauge plate position based upon output from the at least one sensor.
Regarding claim 15, McGuffin-Noll teaches a food product slicer having a touchscreen input system, but does not teach wherein the controller is configured to control a display device for communicating information to a slicing operator and to cause the display device to effect display of a slice thickness to effect simultaneous display of both a target gauge plate thickness indicator and an actual gauge plate thickness indicator.
Rummel teaches a food product slicer having a controller (100), which is a processor based controller (100).
Eckhardt teaches a display (400) for receiving slicing machine parameters, in which the parameters include, for example, slice thickness, which can be represented graphically (by means of image or animation) and/or descriptively (Pg. 4, lines 38-47, Pg. 5, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide McGuffin-Noll with a controller as taught by Rummel which is advantageous for automating the slicer which maximizes operational efficiency.
It would have further been obvious to provide modified McGuffin-Noll with a display as for controlling the display of graphical parameters as taught by Eckhardt in order to provide a visual to the user to maintain enhanced efficiency and precision of the slicer. The modification would cause the controller to control the display device to effect simultaneous display of both a target gauge plate thickness indicator and an actual gauge plate thickness indicator.
Note, the combination of McGuffin-Noll in view of Rummel and Eckhardt provide a teaching of providing a food slicer with a (processor based) controller and a display. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantages of programming a controller to display device to effect simultaneous display of both a target gauge plate thickness indicator and an actual gauge plate thickness indicator. The phrase “the controller is configured to control the display device” invokes 112, sixth paragraph. The structure required is a controller and a display device. The limitations “effect simultaneous display of both a target gauge plate thickness indicator and an actual gauge plate thickness indicator” are intended use; however, the controller can be programmed to display the target gauge plate thickness indicator and an actual gauge plate thickness indicator. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. "KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. "Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.1. See MPEP 2141, Section II, Part C. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 3, 2026 were persuasive and necessitated the replacement of the Final Rejection mailed June 1, 2026 with the Office Action above. This office action will restart the clock. This action is a final rejection since the scope of the claims changed per the amendments filed February 2, 2026.
The crux of the claimed subject matter is directed to the concept of the controller and the graphic image that is displayed. The claims as currently recited, merely requires the structure of the controller. In order to positively recite the functionality of the controller and the graphical image, a nexus should be established in the claim language. For example, the display comprises a graphical image…. This language is exemplary which creates a structural relationship between the display and graphic image. Paras [0038,0039] provide additional support to the structural relationship between rotation of the gauge plate knob, the actual vs desired position of the gauge plate and the image displayed as a result of the position of the gauge plate.
Conclusion
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 JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights