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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 3-30-2026 Amendment was received. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 12 were amended. New Claim 15 was presented. Claims 1-15 are pending and examined in this action.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Slicing Machine”
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: a feed unit in Claim 1; a cutting unit in claim 1; claw drive unit in Claim 1; a control unit in Claim 4; a discharge unit in Claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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.
In re Claim 1, “for slicing a product caliber into slices and for producing portions from the slices, wherein each of the portions includes multiple slices, “ is indefinite. It is unclear what structure is being claimed. As best understood, the claim is directed to a slicing machine for cutting a product caliber into slices. It is unclear what structure produces portions from the slices. Is applicant simply requiring that the slicing machine be capable of cutting more than one slice? Or Is Applicant’ claiming structure that assemblies individual slices into “portions.” This is unclear. The Examiner notes that the claim appears to require more than one portion. Does the claim require at least four slices (two portions each having at least two slices)? This is unclear. The claims were examined as a slicing machine for sling a product caliber into slices, the slicing machine comprising” The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 3, “the linear stroke of the electromagnet in the feed direction is from 5 mm to 50 mm,” is indefinite. As best understood, Claim 2 requires that the drive element along a linear stroke. Claim claims that the electromagnet is moving along the stroke. As best understood, the coil that generates the magnetic field does not move (see applicant’s Para. 0049).
In re Claim 4, “at least one signal output of the claw drive unit” is indefinite. It is unclear how the claw drive unit produces a signal. Does the claw drive unit include a sensor? Additionally, “the control unit is operable to receive signals,” is indefinite. Are “at least one signal output” the same as “signals.” This is unclear. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 5, the control unit is operable to detect, from the signals received from the claw drive unit, a gripper force acting on the at least one gripper,” is indefinite. It is unclear if claim 5 requires multiple signals or a single signal to detect a gripper force. Additionally, Claim 4 allows for multiple signals: a single for claw position or a signal for claw current or a signal for claw voltage. It is unclear how, for example a signal for claw position allows for the determining of a gripper force.
In re Claim 6, a gripper force of 80 N to 3000 N,” is indefinite. As best understood, the force on the grippers depends on the material properties of the workpiece. However, the workpiece is not claimed. It is unclear what structural limitations this range is further limiting in the apparatus. The claims were examine as best understood.
In re Claim 12, “a gripper force in a range of 800 N to 1500 N,” is indefinite. As best understood, the force on the grippers depends on the material properties of the workpiece. However, the workpiece is not claimed. It is unclear what structural limitations this range is further limiting in the apparatus. The claims were examine as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0214969 to Mueller in view of 2015/0321371 to Mueller (hereinafter Mueller, ‘371) and EP 2543485.
In re Claim 1, Mueller teaches a slicing machine (see Figs. 1-6, #5) for slicing a product caliber into slices and for producing portions from the slices (see Fig. 1, #12), wherein each of the portions includes multiple slices (see Para. 0002), the slicing machine comprising:
- a cutting unit with a blade for cutting slices from the product caliber (see Fig. 1, blade 11 and the motor that rotates the blade), and
- a feed unit (see Fig. 1, #4/#4) with a feed conveyor for feeding the product caliber to the cutting unit along a feed direction (see Fig. 6, #4/4; see also Para. 0062) and a gripper unit (see Fig. 2a-b, #18 and the assembly for moving #18) with at least one gripper (see Figs. 2a – 4c, #18) which is movable along the feed direction (see Fig. 4a-c, showing #20 moving along the griper assembly; see also Para. 00633) and comprises gripper claws (see Figs. 2a-4c, #18 are gripper claws) and
Mueller is silent regarding a claw drive unit 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, and- a release position in which the gripper claws do not hold the product caliber, and wherein the claw drive unit is configured as comprises an electromagnetically actuated claw drive unit.
However, Mueller, ‘371 teaches that it is known in the art of slicing machines to provide a claw drive unit (see Mueller, ‘371, Fig. 4) by which the gripper claws of the at least one gripper - are displaceable between an engagement position (see Mueller, ‘371, Fig. 4, bottom figure), in which the gripper claws hold the product caliber (see Para. 0052-56), and- a release position in which the gripper claws do not hold the product caliber (see Mueller, ‘371, Fig. 4, top figure – see also Para. 0052-0056).
In the same field of invention, slicers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to utilize the claw drive unit with grippers that are displaceable between an engagement position and a release position, as taught by Mueller, ‘371). Doing so allows the user to actuator the claws to grip the workpiece, thereby ensuring the workpiece is secure to the assembly.
Modified Mueller is silent as to wherein the claw drive unit comprises an electromagnetically actuated claw drive unit.
However, EP 2543485 teaches that it is known in the slicing art to use linear drives that are electromagnetic linear motors (see EP 2543485, translation, Pg. 2, first and second full paragraphs). In the same field of invention, slicers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to use an electromagnetic linear motor in the device of modified Mueller. Doing so allows the transmission of sufficiently large forces and the execution of high-precision and reproducible feed movements. High precision movements results in precise work products.
In re Claim 2, modified Mueller, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein - the claw drive unit comprises a drive element and an electromagnet which is adapted to drive the drive element in and/or against the feed direction along a substantially linear stroke (see Mueller, Fig. 2, #32/25/28 in view of EP 2543485, translation, Pg. 2, first and second full paragraphs).
In re Claim 3, modified Mueller, in re Claim 1, is silent as to wherein - the linear stroke of the electromagnet in the feed direction is from 5 mm to 50 mm. However it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Here changing the stroke of the changes the amount of movement of the claws. Because machines are used to cut different sized workpieces, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to change the stroke length to accommodate a different sized workpiece.
In re Claim 4, Mueller, in re Claim 1, teaches further comprising a control unit (see Mueller, ‘371, Fig. 1, #8 and Para. 0033), wherein - 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 is operable to receive signals from the claw drive unit which indicate a claw position and/or a claw current and/or a claw voltage (see Mueller, Para. 0064, which states: “the grippers 18 are mounted displaceably and may be provided with a sensor, which transmits their respective positions to a control unit”).
In re Claim 5, modified Mueller, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein - the control unit is adapted operable to detect, from the signals received from the claw drive unit, a gripper force acting on the at least one gripper (as best understood, Mueller teaches a controller that receives a signal – see Para. 0064).
In re Claim 6, modified Mueller, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein - the electromagnetically actuated claw drive unit is adapted operable to actuate the gripper claws with a gripper force (see Mueller, Para. 0007, teaching the grippers laws are pressed into food blocks with a force-locking connection). Mueller is silent as to the range of 80 N to 3000 N. However, the force created by the grippers is dependent on the workpiece the grippers enter. The less dense the workpiece the lower the force. The denser the workpiece the greater the force. As such, the determining the force created by different food workpieces would have been obvious as in the food slicing art products of different material characteristics are sliced.
In re Claim 7, modified Mueller, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein - the claw drive unit comprises a displacement sensor and/or a position sensor for the gripper claws (see Mueller, Para. 0064, which states: “the grippers 18 are mounted displaceably and may be provided with a sensor, which transmits their respective positions to a control unit”).
In re Claim 8, modified Mueller, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein - the slicing machine is configured as a multi-track slicing machine with multiple tracks (see Mueller, Figs. 3a-4c and Mueller ‘371, Fig. 3) - the at least one gripper comprises multiple grippers (see Mueller, Figs. 3a-4c, #18, and Mueller ‘371, Fig. 3, #21), and - the feed unit comprises a gripper carriage which carries one of the grippers per track (see Mueller, Figs. 3a-4c, #20), and a carriage guide along which the gripper carriage can be moved is movable in a controlled manner in the feed direction (see Mueller, Figs. 3-4c, #22).
In re Claim 11, modified Mueller, in re Claim 1, is silent re wherein the linear stroke of the electromagnet in the feed direction is in a range of 10 mm to 25 mm. However it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Here changing the stroke of the changes the amount of movement of the claws. Because machines are used to cut different sized workpieces, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to change the stroke length to accommodate a different sized workpiece.
In re Claim 12, modified Mueller, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the electromagnetically actuated claw drive unit is adapted operable to actuate the gripper claws with a gripper force. Mueller is silent as to the rage of 800 N to 1500 N. However, the force created by the grippers is dependent on the workpiece the grippers enter. The less dense the workpiece the lower the force. The denser the workpiece the greater the force. As such, the determining the force created by different food workpieces would have been obvious as in the food slicing art products of different material characteristics are sliced.
In re Claim 15, modified Mueller, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the gripper claws hold a rear end of the product caliber when the gripper claws are in the engagement position, and the gripper claws do not hold the rear end of the product caliber when the gripper claws are in the release position (see Mueller, Fig. 4 showing the claws in the engagement and release positions).
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0214969 to Mueller in view of 2015/0321371 to Mueller (hereinafter Mueller, ‘371) and EP 2543485, and further in view of US 5,566,600 to Johnson.
In re Claim 9, modified Mueller, in re Claim 1, is silent as to further comprising - a discharge unit with a conveyor to receive the slices.
However, Johnson teaches a discharge unit with a conveyor to receive the slices (see Fig. 3, #130/131/132). In the same field of invention, slicers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the conveyer system of Johnson. Doing so provides a series of conveyors including a weighing conveyor (see Johnson, Fig. 3, #132; see also Johnson, Col. 5, ll. 42-55) to weight the product thereby ensuring that the slices are the correct weight.
In re Claim 14, modified Mueller, in re Claim 9, teaches wherein the conveyor of the discharge unit comprises a portioning belt (see Johnson, Fig. 3, # 131/132 all include a portioning belt).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0214969 to Mueller in view of 2015/0321371 to Mueller (hereinafter Mueller, ‘371) and EP 2543485, and further in view of US 4,237,757 to Bonac.
In re Claim 13, modified Mueller, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the displacement sensor or the position sensor comprises a displacement transducer or a differential transformer. However, Bonac a displacement transducer used to in the cutting art to measure displacement (see Bonac, Fig. 1 and 6, #7; see also Col. 4 ll. 29-40). In the same field of invention, sensors for displacement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to use a displacement transducer, as taught by Bonac. Doing so is the substitution of one known measurement device for another known measurement device to measure the movement of a structure is a cutting device (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 7-8, filed 3-30-2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the pending claims under US 2009/0145272 to Sandberg have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2007/0214969 to Mueller in view of 2015/0321371 to Mueller (hereinafter Mueller, ‘371) and EP 2543485.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights