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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 2 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 6 November 2025, except for any objection(s) and/or rejection(s) under 35 USC 112 repeated below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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. As illustrated in Fig. 3B of the present drawings, for example, the adjustment units illustrated in the present drawings appear to have multiple undercuts, some of which are indicated in the annotated Fig. 3B below. However, claim 10 recites, “each of the adjustment units is designed without undercuts”. Therefore, the adjustment units being designed “without undercuts” as recited in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 at line 6 recites, “portions comprising one or more slices”. This recitation should read – portions comprising one or more of the slices – because the slices are previously introduced in the claim.
Claim 12 at lines 7-8 recites, “its rear end”. This recitation should use “a” to introduce the rear end. The examiner suggests reciting – [[its]] a rear end of the respective product caliber –.
Claim 16 recites, “each of the linear units comprises a linear guide”. This recitation should refer to more than one linear guide, such as by reciting – each of the linear units comprises a respective linear guide –. In accordance with the present disclosure, there is not one linear guide for all of the linear units, but instead a plurality of linear guides for the plurality of linear units.
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.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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. Regarding claim 9, “a first locking means” and “a second locking means” are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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:
each “adjustment unit” as recited in claim 1 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means” per MPEP 2181; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “by which each of the grippers can be moved in an actively controlled manner”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “adjustment” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit, and having a profile cross section that is open at least on one side is insufficient structure for performing a gripper movement function);
“a linear unit” as recited in claim 5 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means” per MPEP 2181; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “by which the respective gripper can be moved in a linear direction”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “linear” preceding the generic placeholder is insufficient structure for moving the gripper, since a structure such as a pencil is linear but lacks the ability to move a gripper);
“a cutting unit” as recited in claim 12 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means” per MPEP 2181; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “cutting” – i.e., in order for a unit to be considered as a ‘cutting unit’, the unit must perform a cutting function such that “a cutting unit” is synonymous with “a unit for cutting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function); and
each “adjustment unit” as recited in claim 12 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means” per MPEP 2181; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language including moving each of the grippers in the actively controlled manner; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “adjustment” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit, and having a profile cross section that is open at least on one side is insufficient structure for performing a gripper movement function).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/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.
Claim 10 recites that “each of the adjustment units is designed without undercuts”. This recitation is indefinite in view of the present specification because the structure precluded by “without undercuts” is unclear. Consider Fig. 3B of the present drawings – the illustrated adjustment units appear to have several areas where material is ‘cut away’ from an underside of the adjustment units, at least relative to planar surfaces. However, in order for the structure described in claim 10 to be considered as being ‘designed without undercuts’, each of the deviations from a planar surface must be considered as ‘without undercuts’. Claim 10 is indefinite because it is unclear what is required of an adjustment unit to be ‘without undercuts’, at least if Fig. 3B illustrates a structure that satisfies claim 10. In the annotated Fig. 3B provided above, the adjustment units appear to include several undercuts. What definition of an ‘undercut’ is intended by the Applicant in order for the structure of the illustrated adjustment units to be ‘without undercuts’? The Applicant appears to be acting as his own lexicographer in regards to the phrase ‘without undercuts’ in order for Fig. 3B to illustrate the invention as claimed, yet the Applicant has not provided any explicit definition of the phrase. Thus, claim 10 is indefinite when interpreted in view of the present specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 00/59689 to Toda et al.
Regarding claim 12, Toda discloses a method for operating a multi-track slicing machine (see Figs. 1-3, where Figs. 1 and 3 show the slicing machine including multiple tracks 21), the method comprising:
feeding at least two product calibers 1 on different tracks 21 in parallel along a feed direction (see Figs. 1-3; the feed direction is along the left and downward sloping arrow in Fig. 2; see also page 6 at the paragraph beginning ‘The support station 20 ...’ disclosing the ‘in parallel’ feature; the feeding is described at page 7 at the paragraph beginning ‘The ham log pushing portion 36...’),
cutting off slices 2 from front ends of the product calibers 1 by a cutting unit 10 (see Figs. 1 and 3 illustrating various slices 2 having been cut off the front ends of the calibers 1 by the cutting unit 10),
storing the slices 2 for producing portions comprising one or more slices 2 (see Fig. 1 showing the slices 2 being stored on receiving station 40 to produce respective portions, where each portion includes multiple slices 2),
wherein each of the product calibers 1 is held during feeding at its rear end by a respective gripper of a gripper unit 30 (see Fig. 1 and page 7 at the paragraph beginning, ‘The ham log pushing portion 36 ...’), and
wherein before feeding of the product calibers 1 to the cutting unit (see Toda at step 2 in the paragraph beginning, ‘For example, a program...’ at page 8), each of the grippers is moved in an actively controlled manner along a predetermined travel path relative to a gripper carriage 33 of the gripper unit 30 in and/or against the feed direction by a respective adjustment unit (the adjustment units including elements 37 and 38) assigned to the gripper (see Fig. 1 and Toda at step 2 in the paragraph beginning, ‘For example, a program...’ at page 8, noting also that step 3 of the paragraph states, “After the search for all rows is completed...”, indicating that each of the grippers is moved; see also page 7 at the second and third paragraphs), so that each of the grippers can grip the rear end of the product caliber assigned thereto (see Fig. 1 and page 7 at the paragraph beginning, ‘The ham log pushing portion 36 ...’),
wherein each of the adjustment units at least partially has a profile cross section that is open on at least one side (see the explanation of this feature described in relation to Toda’s teachings relative to claim 1 below, which explanation is equally applicable to claim 12).
Regarding claim 14, Toda discloses that each of the grippers (on portions 36, respectively) is movable in a force-controlled and/or position-controlled manner along the predetermined travel path relative to the gripper carriage 33 (see Fig. 3 and page 7 at the paragraph beginning ‘The sub-transport drive unit 37 …’; control of the servo motor controls the force and position of each of the grippers).
Regarding claim 15, Toda discloses that each of the grippers (on portions 36, respectively) is movable in the actively controlled manner independently of other grippers of the grippers (on others of the portions 36) along the predetermined travel path relative to the gripper carriage 33 in and/or against the feed direction (see Fig. 3 and page 7 at the paragraph beginning ‘The ham log pushing portion 36 …’).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-11, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 00/59689 to Toda et al. in view of DE 10 2010 019 248 A1 to Schmeiser.
Initially, note that all citations to the written description of Toda are relative to the English language translation thereof.
Regarding claim 1, Toda discloses a multi-track slicing machine (see Figs. 1-3, where Figs. 1 and 3 show the slicing machine including multiple tracks 21) for slicing product calibers 1 lying parallel in different tracks 21 into slices 2 (see Figs. 1 and 3), and for creating portions from the slices 2 (see Fig. 1, showing three portions of slices 2 on a receiving section 40), the slicing machine comprising:
a cutting unit 10 with a blade 11 (see Fig. 2), the blade 11 being movable in a cutting plane for separating the slices 2 from the product calibers 1 (see Figs. 2 and 3 and page 5 at the paragraph beginning ‘40 is a receiving station…’; in Fig. 3, the cutting plane extends in an up-down direction along the plane of the page and also in a direction into and out of the page),
a feeding unit 20 (see Figs. 2 and 3; the feeding unit 20 includes the tracks 21) for feeding the product calibers 1 to the cutting unit 10 along a feed direction (see Fig. 2, where the feed direction is indicated with an arrow, the arrow beginning slightly below the reference character 36), and a gripper unit 30 (see Fig. 1) comprising
a respective gripper for each of the tracks 21 (see Fig. 1 and page 7 at the paragraph beginning ‘The ham log pushing station 36 …’, which describes each portion 36 as including a gripper),
a gripper carriage 33 which carries the grippers (see Figs. 1 and 2 and page 7 at the paragraph beginning ‘As the ham log transfer drive mechanism 30 …’, again noting that portions 36 include the grippers),
a carriage guide 32 along which the gripper carriage 33 is movable in a controlled manner in the feed direction (see Fig. 1, where the ‘controlled manner’ is satisfied per page 7 at the paragraph beginning ‘As the ham log transfer drive mechanism 30 …’), and
a respective adjustment unit (each adjustment unit including a drive unit 37 and rods 38 connected to the drive unit 37; see Fig. 1) assigned to each of the grippers (see Fig. 1, where an adjustment unit is assigned to each portion 36, where each portion 36 includes a gripper as noted above; see also page 7 at the paragraph beginning ‘The sub-transport drive unit 37 …’ describing the drive unit 37 as including a servomotor), by which [i.e., by the respective adjustment unit] each of the grippers can be moved in an actively controlled manner (the manner being ‘actively controlled’ per page 7 at the paragraph beginning ‘The sub-transport drive unit 37 …’) along a predetermined travel path (the path being in a direction defined by rod 38, such that the path is ‘predetermined’ by the extension direction of the rod 38; see Fig. 3) relative to the gripper carriage 33 in and/or against the feed direction (see Fig. 3 and page 7 at the paragraph beginning ‘The sub-transport drive unit 37 …’), wherein each of the adjustment units at least partially has a profile cross section that is open on at least one side (as a first option, see the annotated portion of Fig. 3 below, where the profile cross section is open on a top side of the rods 38; alternatively, as a second option, see Fig. 1, where when the profile cross section is a cross section viewed from above, and the cross section is open between two adjacent rods 38 of the rods 38, and this opening is ‘on one side’ relative to a centerline of the adjustment unit, and also as yet another option where the cross section is open laterally outward of the group of rods 38 of each of the adjustment units – the broadest reasonable interpretation of a ‘profile’ permits a view from above because the definition of ‘profile’ includes a representation of something in outline, which definition does not specify any particular vantage point).
PNG
media_image2.png
324
341
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Toda discloses that each of the grippers (on portions 36, respectively) is movable along the predetermined travel path relative to the gripper carriage 33 by the respective adjustment unit in a force-controlled and/or position-controlled manner (see Fig. 3 and page 7 at the paragraph beginning ‘The sub-transport drive unit 37 …’; control of the servo motor controls the force and position of each of the grippers).
Regarding claim 4, Toda discloses that each of the grippers (on portions 36, respectively) can be moved in the actively controlled manner independently of other grippers of the grippers (on others of the portions 36) along the predetermined travel path relative to the gripper carriage 33 in the feed direction (see Fig. 3 and page 7 at the paragraph beginning ‘The ham log pushing portion 36 …’).
Regarding claim 5, Toda discloses that each of the adjustment units comprises a linear unit by which the respective gripper can be moved in a linear direction along the predetermined travel path (see Fig. 3; each rod 38 can be considered as a ‘linear unit’ because each rod 38 extends linearly and also because each rod 38 produces linear movement of a respective portion 36; alternative, each of the respective portions of the carriage 33 that receives one of the rods 38 can be considered a ‘linear unit’ because each such portion guides linear movement of the respective one of the rods 38).
Regarding claim 6, Toda discloses that each of the adjustment units comprises a respective drive unit (including at least element 37, and optionally also include elements 38) which is designed as a motorized drive unit (the drive unit being ‘designed as a motorized drive unit’ because the drive unit includes a servo motor per page 7 at the paragraph beginning ‘The sub-transport drive unit 37 …’).
Regarding claim 7, Toda discloses that, for each of the adjustment units, the respective drive unit is arranged on a side of the adjustment unit facing away from the cutting unit 10 (see Fig. 3, relative to which each drive unit is arranged on a right side of the adjustment unit, whereas the cutting unit 10 is on a left side of the adjustment unit).
Regarding claim 10, Toda discloses that each of the adjustment units is designed without undercuts (see Figs. 1 and 2, where no cutaways of material are provided in the bottom surfaces of the adjustment units; indeed, the adjustment units of Toda appear to be ‘without undercuts’ to an even greater degree than the adjustment units illustrated in Fig. 3B of the present drawings, so Toda satisfies the requirements of claim 10 at least to the degree that the adjustment units of Fig. 3B of the present drawings does).
Regarding claim 11, Toda discloses a discharge unit 50 with a discharge conveyor 52 for the slices 2 (see Figs. 1-2 and page 9 at the paragraph beginning ‘The weighing station 50 …’).
Regarding claim 16, Toda discloses that each of the linear units comprises a linear guide (see Fig. 1, each of the linear units includes a linear guide that guides linear motion of one of the rods 38 with respect to the carriage 33; either one of the rods 38 is the linear guide, or the portion of the carriage 33 that holds the rod 38 is considered as a linear guide, since the rods 38 move linear in and against the feed direction with respect to the carriage 33).
Regarding claim 17, Toda discloses that each of the adjustment units comprises a respective linear unit (each portion 36 is a ‘linear unit’ because (i) each portion 36 has a linear shape as can be seen in Fig. 1 and (ii) each portion 36 is moved linearly) by which the respective gripper (of portion 36) can be moved in a linear direction along the predetermined travel path (see Fig. 3 and page 7 at the paragraph beginning ‘The ham log pushing portion 36 …’), and the drive unit 37 of each adjustment unit comprises a drive element 38 coupled to the respective linear unit in a manner to transmit only pressure forces (see Fig. 1; first, the drive element 38 transmitting only pressure forces is satisfied per page 7 at the paragraph beginning ‘The ham log pushing portion 36’ because the drive element 38 only provides forces to the portion 36 in the directions toward or away from the cutting unit 10; second, this feature is satisfied to the same extent as disclosed in the present application, where a rod connecting a servo motor to a moving unit is considered as transmitting ‘only’ pressure forces).
Toda fails to disclose that the feeding unit is with a feed conveyor as required by claim 1.
Schmeiser teaches a feeding unit that has a feed conveyor 5 (see Fig. 6) in addition to a gripper unit (the gripper unit having gripper 9). Schmeiser teaches that providing the feeding unit with a feed conveyor is advantageous to convey food calibers toward the cutting blade in order to be cut (see page 6 at the English translation of Schmeiser at the paragraph beginning ‘6 shows a track’), where the feed conveyor is part of a feeding system including upper and lower conveyors that constrain the food item to moving linearly (see page 6 at the English translation of Schmeiser at the paragraph beginning ‘6 shows a track’, in particular the disclosure that the second conveyor belt attached to the upper end of the food rack 5 suppresses the food item against the lower conveyor belt).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art to provide the slicing machine of Toda with a feed conveyor that underlies and transports the calibers as taught by Schmeiser. This modification is advantageous because the feed conveyor conveys the calibers in the feed direction toward the cutting unit in order to be cut by the blade. This modification thus reduces the friction acting on the calibers relative to a static product support, thus ensuring more consistent feeding of the product calibers. (For example, a risk of the calibers becoming inadvertently hung-up on a static product support is eliminated.) Furthermore, this modification is advantageous because the modification can further include providing an upper conveyor as taught by Schmeiser, where the upper and lower conveyors co-act to suppress the calibers being sliced. Since the calibers are restrained between upper and lower calibers, more consistent cutting action can occur since movement of the calibers is suppressed. Further still, this modification is obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Toda and Schmeiser together disclose each claimed element as noted above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known method (e.g., looking to the teachings of Schmeiser related to providing a feed conveyor in conjunction with a gripper unit) and in combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately (here, the feed conveyor continues to work in conjunction with a product gripper to transport calibers to be sliced). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination were predictable in view of Schmeiser teaching the user of a feed conveyor in a similar slicing machine as that of Toda, where Schmeiser teaches that the feed conveyor works in conjunction with a gripper unit.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 00/59689 to Toda et al. in view of DE 10 2010 019 248 A1 to Schmeiser.
Regarding claim 2, Toda, as modified, discloses that the predetermined travel path has some magnitude that is not explicitly disclosed (see Figs. 1 and 3, showing a difference in travel distances between various members of the pusher sections 36; see also page 3 at the first paragraph explaining that the invention of Toda avoids a problem where calibers of different length are to be sliced – i.e., the pusher sections 36 are adjustable to accommodate calibers of different lengths).
Still, since Toda, as modified, fails to disclose the particular magnitude of the predetermined travel path, Toda, as modified, fails to disclose that the predetermined travel path is at least 50 mm as required by claim 2.
However, because Toda teaches that the travel path is of a sufficient magnitude to allow each gripper to grasp the rear end of a respective caliber, despite the differences in length of the calibers, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the travel path to be at least 50 mm because discovering an optimum length of the travel path would have been a mere design consideration based on ensuring that the grippers are movable in a manner that allows for accommodating calibers of different lengths. For example, if the difference in length between two calibers is 100 mm, it is advantageous for the travel path to be at least 100 mm in order to accommodate the two calibers of different lengths. The length of the travel path should be selected to accommodate calibers of as great a difference in length as possible. Thus, providing the travel path to be at least 50 mm would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (here, the length of the travel path is a result effective variable because the length of the travel path allows for movement of the grippers to engage the calibers, despite differences in length of the calibers) involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 00/59689 to Toda et al. as modified by DE 10 2010 019 248 A1 to Schmeiser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0104211 A1 to Saijo, as evidenced by DE 10 2014 106 353 A1 to Muller and DE 10 2011 083 498 A1 to Reinfenhaeuser.
Toda, as modified, does not explicitly disclose how the grippers are mounted to the carriage. As a result, Toda, as modified, fails to disclose: that each of the adjustment units can be mounted on the gripper carriage and/or removed from the gripper carriage without tools as required by claim 8; that each of the adjustment units comprises a locking system having a first locking means designed to engage in a locked position with a second locking means arranged on the gripper carriage as required by claim 9; that for each of the adjustment units, the first locking means is pre-tensioned into the locked position as required by claim 18; that for each of the adjustment units, the locking system further comprises a hook projection by which the adjustment unit can be attached to the gripper carriage so as to be pivotable about a pivot axis as required by claim 19; and that for each of the adjustment units, the first locking means is designed to prevent a pivoting movement of the adjustment unit about the pivot axis when the first locking means is in the locked position as required by claim 20.
First, it is known in the art to mount a gripper to a carriage in a slicing machine with a quick release so that the gripper is removable for cleaning purposes (see Muller at the final paragraph of page 3; note, however, that Muller fails to disclose the structure of the quick release in detail, since the structure of the quick release ‘35’ is only generically described in the written description and is not illustrated in detail in Fig. 5 or any other figure). Second, it is known in the art to provide a gripper of a slicing machine with a mount that appears to be a tool-less mount having a pair of locking means, one of the locking means being movable by a user-rotatable handle relative to the other locking means in order to provide a gripper that is mountable without the user of a tool (see Reinfenhaeuser in the annotated image below). However, Reinfenhaeuser does not explicitly describe the structure of function of its mount.
PNG
media_image3.png
716
659
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In general, Saijo is pertinent to the problem of quickly mounting and dismounting a structure (see paragraph 1). Turning to claims features, Saijo teaches a unit (including elements 1 and 8) that can be mounted on a carriage 7 and/or removed from the carriage 7 without tools (see Fig. 1A – the unit can be mounted and dismounted merely by pulling element 1 away from element 8 as can be seen in Fig. 5A). [Claim 8] Saijo further teaches that the unit comprises a locking system which has a first locking means 6 (note that a pawl is a corresponding structure of the first locking means disclosed in the present specification), which is designed to engage in a locked position with a second locking means arranged on the carriage 7 (see Fig. 6A; the second locking means including the projection at the lower right end of the carriage 7 relative to Fig. 6A; a projection corresponds to the ‘second locking means’ disclosed in the present specification). [Claim 9] Saijo teaches that the first locking means 6 is pre-tensioned into the locked position (by spring 5; see Fig. 4A and paragraph 33). [Claim 18] Saijo teaches that the locking system further comprises a hook projection 10 (see Fig. 1A) by which the unit can be attached to the carriage 7 so as to be pivotable about a pivot axis (see the pivoting action that takes place between Figs. 5A and 5B; the pivoting axis is defined by an interface between the hook projection 10 and the carriage 7). [Claim 19] Saijo teaches that the first locking means 6 is designed to prevent a pivoting movement of the unit about the pivot axis when the first locking means 6 is in the locked position (see Fig. 6A; the first locking means 6 engages the carriage 7 to prevent pivoting a direction from the position of the unit in Fig. 6A to the position of the unit in Fig. 5A). [Claim 20] Saijo teaches that its mount is advantageous because it has an improved operability (relative to a screw-threaded mount such as that shown in Fig. 16A of Saijo, which screw threaded mount requires turning a knob many times to engage and disengage) and allows quick attachment and removal (see paragraph 10; see also paragraphs 6 and 9 discussing the drawbacks with the configuration of Fig. 16A that includes a knob that must be repeatedly turned to engage and disengage the mount).
Therefore, since it is known in the art to be desirable to mount a gripper to a carriage with a quick-release mechanism (see Muller), and since it is known in the art to mount a gripper to a carriage with a user rotatable handle that actuates mounting and releasing in a similar manner to that of Fig. 16A of Saijo (see the mounted of Reinfenhaeuser discussed above), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide each gripper of Toda, as modified, with a quick release mount as taught by Saijo, where this modification further includes providing the carriage of Toda, as modified, with projections to engage each of the quick release mounts in the manner disclosed by Saijo. This modification is advantageous because it enables quickly removing the grippers for cleaning. Moreover, this modification is advantageous compared to providing the grippers with the mount as taught by Reinfenhaeuser because the mount of Saijo is easier to engage and disengage compared to that of Reinfenhaeuser. Indeed, Saijo explicitly teaches that its mount offers improved operability compared to the style of mount of Reinfenhaeuser that requires repeatedly turning a handle or knob because the mount of Saijo can be release and engage merely via a pulling action that takes less time than a repeated turning action. This modification is predictable because Reinfenhaeuser discloses use of a mount similar to that of Saijo to mount a gripper, such that the selection of the mount of Saijo to mount a gripper achieves predictable results.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 00/59689 to Toda et al.
Regarding claim 13, Toda discloses that the predetermined travel path has some magnitude that is not explicitly disclosed (see Figs. 1 and 3, showing a difference in travel distances between various members of the pusher sections 36; see also page 3 at the first paragraph explaining that the invention of Toda avoids a problem where calibers of different length are to be sliced – i.e., the pusher sections 36 are adjustable to accommodate calibers of different lengths).
Still, since Toda fails to disclose the particular magnitude of the predetermined travel path, Toda, as modified, fails to disclose that the predetermined travel path is at least 50 mm as required by claim 13.
However, because Toda teaches that the travel path is of a sufficient magnitude to allow each gripper to grasp the rear end of a respective caliber, despite the differences in length of the calibers, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the travel path to be at least 50 mm because discovering an optimum length of the travel path would have been a mere design consideration based on ensuring that the grippers are movable in a manner that allows for accommodating calibers of different lengths. For example, if the difference in length between two calibers is 100 mm, it is advantageous for the travel path to be at least 100 mm in order to accommodate the two calibers of different lengths. The length of the travel path should be selected to accommodate calibers of as great a difference in length as possible. Thus, providing the travel path to be at least 50 mm would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (here, the length of the travel path is a result effective variable because the length of the travel path allows for movement of the grippers to engage the calibers, despite differences in length of the calibers) involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the Toda reference, the Applicant asserts under the ‘Claim 1’ heading on page 7 of the Remarks that, “The transport drive units 37 and rods 38, however, each have a closed configuration as shown best in Figures 1 and 3 of Toda. Thus, none of the transport drive unit 37 or rods 38 “at least partially has a profile cross section that is open at least on one side” as recited in amended claim 1.” This argument is not persuasive because the argument is only against the drive units 37 and rods 38 of Toda individually, rather than considered as a whole. The entirety of the structure of each adjustment unit of Toda includes both a drive unit 37 and multiple rods 38, and the drive unit 37 and rods 38 considered as a group do have a profile cross section that is open at least on one side as required by claim 1. As such, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the argument is only against the components of the adjustment unit individually, rather than against the entire profile of the adjustment unit that includes both the drive unit and the rods. As such, Applicant’s arguments against Toda are not persuasive. Since the Applicant relies on the same reasoning with respect to claim 12, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 12 are likewise not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724