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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 2-3 & 11, the limitation "which is adapted to drive the drive element in and/or against the feed direction along a substantially linear stroke".
Regarding Claim 4, the limitation " the control unit being adapted to receive signals from the claw drive unit which indicate a claw position and/or a claw current and/or a claw voltage".
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation " the control unit is adapted to detect, from the signals received from the claw drive unit, a gripper force acting on the at least one gripper".
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation "the electromagnetically actuated claw drive unit is adapted to actuate the gripper claws with a gripper force of 80 N to 3000 N".
Regarding Claim 8, the limitations "the slicing machine is configured as a multi-track slicing machine with multiple tracks" and "carriage guide along which the gripper carriage can be moved in a controlled manner in the feed direction".
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation "for the slices".
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation "the electromagnetically actuated claw drive unit is adapted to actuate the gripper claws with a gripper force in a range of 800 N to 1500 N".
Examiner notes that any structural limitation which is a required element of the claim invention must be positively recited in order to be considered structural limitation which is a required element. Statements such as "is/are configured to", "is/are adapted to" and the like are interpreted as intended use of the claimed invention and not positively recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
the limitation "product caliber" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the limitation "product caliber" is a required structural element of the claimed slicing machine, or not. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to be intended use and not a required structural element of the claimed slicing machine;
the limitation "slices" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the limitation "slices" is a required structural element of the claimed slicing machine, or not. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to be intended use and not a required structural element of the claimed slicing machine;
the limitation "portions" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the limitation "portions" is a required structural element of the claimed slicing machine, or not. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to be intended use and not a required structural element of the claimed slicing machine;
the limitation "portions" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what constitutes a portion, leaving the metes and bounds of the claims unclear. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean any part of a whole.
Regarding Claim 8, Ln 8, the limitation "carriage guide along which the gripper carriage can be moved in a controlled manner in the feed direction" " is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the carriage must be capable of movement in order to satisfy the structural requirements of the claims or not. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean the carriage movement is an optional structural element of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation "portioning belt" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what constitutes a portioning belt, the SPECIFICATION of the INSTANT APPLICATION having failed to provide any definition. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean any belt.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-10 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sandberg, et alia (US 2009/0145272), hereafter Sandberg.
Regarding Claim 1, Sandberg discloses a slicing machine (100), for slicing at least one product caliber (110) Para [0120], Ln 6) into slices and for producing portions from the slices (Para [0005], Ln 1-3, Para [0120], Ln 1-2), the slicing machine comprising
a cutting unit (124) with a blade (2082) (Para [0195], Ln 1-3) for cutting slices from the product caliber (Para [0120], Ln 9-10), and
a feed unit with a feed conveyor (120) for feeding the product caliber to the cutting unit along a feed direction (Para [0120], Ln 7) and a gripper unit with at least one gripper (894) Para [0161], Ln 1) which is movable along the feed direction (Para 0162], Ln 1-3) and comprises gripper claws (946) Para [0164], Ln 1, 7) and a claw drive unit (802), (850) (Para [0161], Ln 1-4) by which the gripper claws of the at least one gripper
are displaceable between an engagement position, in which the gripper claws hold the product caliber (Para 0162], Ln 1-3), and
a release position in which the gripper claws do not hold the product caliber (Para 0162], Ln 1-3), and
wherein the claw drive unit (850) is configured as an electromagnetically actuated claw drive unit (Para [0158], Ln 1-3). Examiner notes Sandberg is not explicit to explicit to an electromagnetically actuated claw drive unit, however Sandberg is explicit to the claw drive unit as a servomotor, which would be recognized by a skilled Artisan as an electromagnetically actuated device.
Examiner notes the limitations
"for slicing at least one product caliber into slices and for producing portions from the slices"
"for cutting slices from the product caliber", and
"for feeding the product caliber to the cutting unit ", and
"in which the gripper claws hold the product caliber", and
"in which the gripper claws do not hold the product caliber", and
"wherein the claw drive unit is configured as an electromagnetically actuated claw drive unit"
have been interpreted as intended use of the slicing machine and not required structural elements, consistent with the Claim Rejection under 35 USC 112(b), as stated above.
Regarding Claim 2, Sandberg discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Sandberg further discloses the claw drive unit comprises a drive element (802) and an electromagnet (850), as stated above, which is adapted to drive the drive element in and/or against the feed direction along a substantially linear stroke (as illustrated in at least Fig 19).
Examiner notes the limitation "which is adapted to drive the drive element in and/or against the feed direction along a substantially linear stroke" has been interpreted as intended use of the slicing machine and not a required structural element, consistent with the Claim Objection, as stated above.
Regarding Claim 8, Sandberg discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Sandberg further discloses the slicing machine is configured as a multi-track slicing machine with multiple tracks (as illustrated in at least Fig 11, product calibers [110] as shown in multiple rows), the at least one gripper comprises multiple grippers (946) (as illustrated in at least Fig 18), and the feed unit comprises a gripper carriage which carries one of the grippers per track (Para [0161], Ln 1-4) and a carriage guide (860), (862) along which the gripper carriage can be moved in a controlled manner in the feed direction (Para [159], Ln 1-3).
Examiner notes the limitations "the slicing machine is configured as a multi-track slicing machine with multiple tracks" and "carriage guide along which the gripper carriage can be moved in a controlled manner in the feed direction" have been interpreted as intended use of the slicing machine and not a required structural element, consistent with the Claim Objection, as stated above.
Regarding Claim 9, Sandberg discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Sandberg further discloses a discharge unit (2000) (Para [0184], Ln 1-5) with a conveyor (530) for the slices (Para [0184], Ln 20).
Examiner notes the limitation "for the slices" has been interpreted as intended use of the slicing machine and not a required structural element, consistent with the Claim Objection, as stated above.
Regarding Claim 10, Sandberg discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Sandberg further discloses the drive element (802) comprises a coupling rod (828) (Para [0156], Ln 11).
Regarding Claim 14, Sandberg discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Sandberg further discloses the conveyor of the discharge unit comprises a portioning belt (3064) (Para [0213], Ln 1; as illustrated in at least Fig 55).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 6, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandberg.
Regarding Claim 3, Sandberg discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Sandberg is not explicit to the linear stroke of the electromagnet in the feed direction is from 5 mm to 50 mm. Examiner notes the limitation "linear stroke of the electromagnet in the feed direction is from 5 mm to 50 mm" has not been critically recited, and has been interpreted as a result affected variable, resulting from routine engineering and experimentation with the goal of optimizing the device.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slicing machine, as disclosed by Sandberg, to include the linear stroke of the electromagnet in the feed direction being from 5 mm to 50 mm, in order to optimize the slicing machine.
Examiner notes the limitation "which is adapted to drive the drive element in and/or against the feed direction along a substantially linear stroke" has been interpreted as intended use of the slicing machine and not a required structural element, consistent with the Claim Objection, as stated above.
Claims 4-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandberg, and further in view of Yoshino, et alia (US 2023/0208326), hereinafter Yoshino.
Regarding Claim 4, Sandberg discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Sandberg further discloses a control unit (Para [0124], Ln 5-6), at least one signal output of the claw drive unit is in signal connection with at least one signal input of the control unit, the control unit being adapted to receive signals from the claw drive unit which indicate a claw position. Paragraph [0184] (entire paragraph) describes the motion control of the grippers, which Examiner has interpreted to be consistent with the claimed elements above, as would be recognized as well known in the art by a skilled Artisan. Supporting evidence for this interpretation is evidenced by Yoshino.
Yoshino teaches motor drive control a related art, and further teaches motor position control using sensors and input/output signals to and from the sensors via the controller (Para.s [0021] through [0023]).
Examiner notes a skilled Artisan would recognize the utility in searching the art of motor and drive controls for controllers, signals, sensors and related elements, which are known to be common to all arts employing controls.
Examiner notes the limitation "the control unit being adapted to receive signals from the claw drive unit which indicate a claw position and/or a claw current and/or a claw voltage" has been interpreted as intended use of the slicing machine and not a required structural element, consistent with the Claim Objection, as stated above.
Regarding Claim 5, Sandberg discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Sandberg further discloses the control unit is adapted to detect, from the signals received from the claw drive unit, a gripper force acting on the at least one gripper, consistent with the interpretation above (Para [0184] (entire paragraph).
Examiner notes the limitation "the control unit is adapted to detect, from the signals received from the claw drive unit, a gripper force acting on the at least one gripper" has been interpreted as intended use of the slicing machine and not a required structural element, consistent with the Claim Objection, as stated above.
Regarding Claim 6, Sandberg discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Sandberg is not explicit to the force provided by the gripper claws, however Examiner notes the limitation "a gripper force of 80 N to 3000 N" has not been critically recited, and has been interpreted as a result affected variable, resulting from routine engineering and experimentation with the goal of optimizing the device.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slicing machine, as disclosed by Sandberg, to include the electromagnetically actuated claw drive unit is adapted to actuate the gripper claws with a gripper force of 80 N to 3000 N, in order to optimize the slicing machine.
Examiner notes the limitation "the electromagnetically actuated claw drive unit is adapted to actuate the gripper claws with a gripper force of 80 N to 3000 N" has been interpreted as intended use of the slicing machine and not a required structural element, consistent with the Claim Objection, as stated above.
Regarding Claim 7, Sandberg, discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Sandberg further discloses the claw drive unit comprises a displacement sensor and/or a position sensor for the gripper claws.
Paragraphs [0155], [0158], [0161] and [0162] completely describe the motion control of the claw drive unit. Paragraph [0184] (entire paragraph) describes the motion control of the grippers, which Examiner has interpreted to be consistent with the claimed elements above, as would be recognized as well known in the art by a skilled Artisan. Supporting evidence for this interpretation is evidenced by Yoshino.
Yoshino teaches motor drive control a related art, and further teaches motor position control using sensors and input/output signals to and from the sensors via the controller (Para.s [0021] through [0023]).
Examiner notes a skilled Artisan would recognize the utility in searching the art of motor and drive controls for controllers, signals, sensors and related elements, which are known to be common to all arts employing controls.
Regarding Claim 11, Sandberg discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Sandberg is not explicit to the linear stroke of the electromagnet in the feed direction is in a range of 10 mm to 25 mm, however Examiner notes the limitation "the linear stroke of the electromagnet in the feed direction is in a range of 10 mm to 25 mm" has not been critically recited, and has been interpreted as a result affected variable, resulting from routine engineering and experimentation with the goal of optimizing the device.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slicing machine, as disclosed by Sandberg, to include the linear stroke of the electromagnet in the feed direction in a range of 10 mm to 25 mm, in order to optimize the slicing machine.
Examiner notes the limitation "the linear stroke of the electromagnet in the feed direction is in a range of 10 mm to 25 mm" has been interpreted as intended use of the slicing machine and not a required structural element, consistent with the Claim Objection, as stated above.
Regarding Claim 12, Sandberg discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Sandberg is not explicit to the force provided by the gripper claws, however Examiner notes the limitation "a gripper force in a range of 800 N to 1500 N" has not been critically recited, and has been interpreted as a result affected variable, resulting from routine engineering and experimentation with the goal of optimizing the device.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slicing machine, as disclosed by Sandberg, to include the electromagnetically actuated claw drive unit is adapted to actuate the gripper claws with a gripper force in a range of 800 N to 1500 N, in order to optimize the slicing machine.
Examiner notes the limitation "the electromagnetically actuated claw drive unit is adapted to actuate the gripper claws with a gripper force in a range of 800 N to 1500 N" has been interpreted as intended use of the slicing machine and not a required structural element, consistent with the Claim Objection, as stated above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandberg, in view of Yoshino and further in view of Ballenger, et alia (US 2004/0221896), hereinafter Ballenger.
Regarding Claim 13, Sandberg, in view of Yoshino, discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Sandberg is not explicit to the displacement sensor or the position sensor comprises a displacement transducer or a differential transformer, however, as evidenced by Ballenger, such sensors are well known in the art, known commonly as linear voltage differential transducers (LVDT).
Examiner notes a skilled Artisan would recognize the utility in searching the art of motor and drive controls for controllers, signals, sensors and related elements, which are known to be common to all arts employing controls.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slicing machine, as disclosed by Sandberg, to include the displacement sensor or the position sensor comprised of a differential transformer, in order to optimize the design and operation of the slicing machine, using standard elements well known in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,021,288 Enderle, et alia teaches control of a continuously operating machine.
US 2006/0196328 Pryor, et alia teaches a slicing machine.
US 2013/0319196 Schmeiser teaches control of a slicing machine.
US 2018/0281217 Gilliver, et alia teaches a slicing machine.
US 2023/0126530 Torrenga teaches a gripper for a slicing machine.
US 2023/0129471 Torrenga, et alia teaches a slicing machine.
US 2023/0321861 Marx, et alia teaches a slicing machine.
US 2024/0149481 Marx teaches a slicing machine.
US 2024/0268437 Luttjehuizen, et alia teaches a gripper for a slicing machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred C Hammers whose telephone number is (571)272-9870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0080-1700.
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.
/FRED C HAMMERS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724