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 27 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 6-22 are pending, of which claims 15-18 and 22 are withdrawn from consideration as explained in the Election/Restrictions section below. 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 29 October 2025, except for various objections to the drawings repeated below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 15-18 and 22 are directed to inventions that lack unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 15-18 and 22 lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical features of claim 1, the technical features of claim 1 do not constitute a special technical feature as the features of claim 1 do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of DE 10 2014 100 153 A1 to Lischinski as explained below. Claim 15, and its dependent claims, and claim 22, which are both newly presented, therefore both present new special technical features with respect to the claims previously examined. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 15-18 and 22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Note, however, that claim 1 links the invention as previously considered and the inventions of claims 15-18 and 22. The above restriction requirement between linked inventions is subject to the nonallowance of the linking claim, claim 1. Upon the indication of allowability of the linking claim(s), the restriction requirement as to the linked inventions shall be withdrawn and any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable linking claim(s) will be rejoined and fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Claims that require all the limitations of an allowable linking claim will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116; amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312.
Applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, the allowable linking claim, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Where a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown of the features canceled from the claims:
Claim 1 recites that the second light source is configured to project “a stop means specification and/or a product type specification”. However, as illustrated in the present drawings, each light source only projects a linear segment. Therefore, unless a linear segment is in and of itself sufficient to be “a stop means specification and/or a product type specification”, then the configuration of the second light source as recited in claim 1 is not illustrated.
Claim 2 recites that “a position of the position-variable stop means is configured to be altered by a user manually or using a motor”. No structure that allows a user to re-position the stop means is illustrated, nor is any motor that moves the stop means illustrated. The features of claim 2 must be illustrated of the features canceled from the claims.
Claim 3 recites that the stop means “is configured to be fastened position-variably in a feed plane”. No structure that allows for fastening the stop means position-variably in the feed plane is illustrated in the present drawings, such that this feature must be illustrated or the feature canceled from the claims.
Claim 10 recites, “the stop means configured to be positioned with aid of the light marking”. No such ‘configuration’ of the stop means is not illustrated in the drawings. For example, no structure that allows for movement of the stop means is illustrated in the present drawings.
Claim 14 recites, “the stop means specification and/or a product type specification is configured to be projected onto the setpoint position” of the stop means. To the extent that a line cannot provide these specifications, the configuration required by claim 14 is not illustrated in the present drawings.
No new matter should be entered.
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 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. 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. In the present case, “a position-variable stop means for guiding, holding, and/or positioning the food product [sic]” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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” as recited in claim 1 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for feeding the products to the cutting unit”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “feed” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit, and also a ‘stop means’ is insufficient structure for performing the recited feeding function); and
“an input unit” as recited in claim 9 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “by means of which a product type can be specified”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “input” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit).
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.
Note that a control unit and a memory unit as recited in claim 8 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, due to including structural recitations. For example, “control unit” is a known structural term and “a memory unit” must include the structure of a memory.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 at line 2 recites, “a product type specification”. This recitation should read – the product type specification – in view of the product type specification being previously introduced in claim 1.
Claim 19 at line 3 recites, “and/or product type specification”. This recitation should read – and/or the product type specification –.
Claim 19 ends without any punctuation. A period should be provided at the end of the claim.
Claim 21 at line 2 recites, “and/or product type specification”. This recitation should read – and/or the product type specification –.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 7-9, and 19-20 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 2 at line 3 recites, “a setpoint position”. This recitation is indefinite because the relationship between “a setpoint position” recited in claim 2 and “a setpoint position” already introduced in claim 1 is unclear. Are two setpoint positions required? If so, the two setpoint positions should be provided with unique names in order to make this interpretation clear (e.g., by reciting “a first setpoint position” in claim 1 and “a second setpoint position” in claim 2). Alternatively, is claim 2 referring to the same setpoint position already introduced in claim 1? If so, then it is unclear why claim 2 refers to “a setpoint position” rather than “the setpoint position”. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 2 as being satisfied by either of a new setpoint position and the same setpoint position previously introduced in claim 1.
Claim 7 at lines 2-3 recites, “light markings”. This recitation is indefinite because the relationship between “light markings” recited in claim 7 and “a light marking” already introduced in claim 1 is unclear. Is claim 7 introduces additional new light markings, in which case claim 7 requires that at least three light markings are provided (i.e., one light marking from claim 1, and a plurality of additional light markings as required by claim 7)? Can the light marking of claim 1 be a member of the light markings recited in claim 7 (in which case only two light markings are required)? Or, does claim 7 include a typographical error, such that claim 7 intends to refer to “the light marking” such that claim 7 requires no additional light marking(s)?
Claim 7 at lines 3-4 recites, “a setpoint position”. This recitation is indefinite because the relationship between “a setpoint position” recited in claim 7 and “a setpoint position” already introduced in claim 1 is unclear. Are two setpoint positions required? If so, the two setpoint positions should be provided with unique names in order to make this interpretation clear (e.g., by reciting “a first setpoint position” in claim 1 and “a second setpoint position” in claim 7). Alternatively, is claim 7 referring to the same setpoint position already introduced in claim 1? If so, then it is unclear why claim 7 refers to “a setpoint position” rather than “the setpoint position”. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 7 as being satisfied by either of a new setpoint position and the same setpoint position previously introduced in claim 1.
Claim 19 at line 2 recites the limitation "the feed plane". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim intends to introduce a new “feed plane” despite the use of “the” as an article for the “feed plane”, whether claim 19 includes a typographical error in which “the feed plane” is intended to refer to a structure that is previously introduced such as “the feed unit” (noting that claim 1 does introduce “a feed unit”), or whether claim 19 includes a dependency error in which the claim is intended to depend from claim 3 or another claim that introduces “a feed plane”.
Claim 20 at line 3 recites the limitation "the selected type of food product". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim intends to introduce a new “selected type” of food product despite the use of “the” as an article for the “selected type”, whether claim 20 includes a dependency error in which the claim is intended to depend from claim 16 or 18, noting that claim 16 does introduce “a selected type of food product”. [Claim 20 may be subject to restriction if the dependency is amended to depend from claim 16 or 18.]
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, 6-14, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2014 100 153 A1 to Lischinski.
Initially, all citations to the written description of Lischinski are relative to the English translation of the reference.
Regarding claim 1, Lischinski discloses a slicing device for slicing food products (the device is shown in Fig. 1; see the Abstract and see also the first paragraph under the ‘Description’ heading disclosing use of the device for slicing food products), comprising:
a cutting unit (see Fig. 1, where the cutting unit includes blades 22 and 24) with a rotating cutting blade 24 (see page 1 at the second paragraph under the ‘Description’ heading disclosing the feature of the ‘rotating’ feature); and
a feed unit 12 for feeding the food products to the cutting unit (see Fig. 1 and the final paragraph of page 6);
wherein the feed unit 12 comprises a position-variable stop means for guiding, holding, and/or positioning one of the food products (the position-variable stop means including side stops 18 and web 20 described at the third paragraph of page 7, and the position-variable stop means further including grippers described at the first paragraph of page 7; the position-variable stop means of Lischinski includes the same structure disclosed in the present application as corresponding to the position-variable stop means – i.e., the present specification discloses side walls and a gripper as structures corresponding to the position-variable stop means), and
wherein the slicing device has a positioning aid (including light sources 34) comprising
a first light source 34 (the first light source can be an uppermost one of the light sources 34 shown in Fig. 1, when the figure is oriented with the reference characters upright), the first light source 34 being configured to project a light marking 36 indicating a setpoint position for the position-variable stop means (see Fig. 1 and page 7 at the fifth paragraph, which begins ‘In order to adjust the processing device …’ – i.e., the light marking 36 of the first light source 34 indicates a setpoint position for side stop 18 of the position-variable stop means); and
a second light source 34 (the second light source can be the second one from the uppermost of the light sources 34 shown in Fig. 1, when the figure is oriented with the reference characters upright), the second light source 34 being configured to project a stop means specification and/or a product type specification (see page 5 at the second paragraph, which begins ‘It is also possible...’ – the color of light projected by the light source 34 is a product type specification since the color of light corresponds to the type of product being process, with Lischinski providing an example where a red line indicates ham and a green line indicates salami).
Regarding claim 2, Lischinski discloses that a position of the position-variable stop means is configured to be altered by a user manually or using a motor (see page 7 at the fifth paragraph, which begins ‘In order to adjust the processing device …’), and the positioning aid (including the light source 34) is configured to project the light marking 36 on a setpoint position of the position-variable stop means (see page 7 at the fifth paragraph, which begins ‘In order to adjust the processing device …’; the setpoint position corresponds to the position determined by the control device 38).
Regarding claim 3, Lischinski discloses that the position-variable stop means is configured to be fastened position-variably in a feed plane (see Fig. 1, where the ‘feed plane’ is parallel to a plane defined by the conveyors 16 and parallel to a plane extending along the plane of the page; the position-variable stop means is movable within this ‘feed plane’, in particular in the transverse direction Q per page 7 at the fifth paragraph, which begins ‘In order to adjust the processing device …’), the positioning aid (including the light source 34) being configured to project the light marking 36 into the feed plane and/or onto the position variable stop means (see Fig. 1 and page 4 at the second full paragraph, disclosing the light marking 36 projected into the feed plane and see also page 7 at the paragraph beginning ‘In order to adjust the processing device…’ disclosing the light marking 36 being projected onto the position variable stop means), the light marking being projecting from above into the feed plane (see page 4 at the first full paragraph and the third full paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Lischinski discloses that the position-variable stop means comprises a gripper for gripping a rearward end of the food products (see page 2 at the paragraph beginning ‘A typical example of a structural unit…’; note that ‘a rearward end of the food products’ merely requires gripping one rear end of any one of the food products, not rear ends of all the food products).
Regarding claim 7, Lischinski discloses that the positioning aid is configured, with the aid of product-specific positioning data, to project light markings 36 at predetermined positions and/or in predetermined alignments in order to mark a setpoint position of the product-variable stop means (see the first three paragraphs of page 6; see also page 7 at the fifth paragraph, which begins ‘In order to adjust the processing device …’; further, see Fig. 1, where the illustrated positions are in a predetermined, parallel alignment).
Regarding claim 8, Lischinski discloses that the slicing device has a control unit 38 connected to a memory unit (see the first paragraph of page 6), the control unit 38 being configured to read product-specific positioning data from the memory unit and transmit the product-specific positioning data to the positioning aid (see the first two paragraphs of page 6; the positioning data is transmitted to the positioning aid in order to re-position the positioning aid).
Regarding claim 9, Lischinski discloses that the control unit 38 has an input unit by means of which a product type can be specified (see the first paragraph of page 6), the product-specific positioning data being selected by the control unit 38 from the memory unit with the aid of the product type (see the first and second paragraphs of page 6).
Regarding claim 10, Lischinski discloses a method for positioning the position-variable stop means of the slicing device as substantially claimed in claim 1 (see Lischinski’s teachings related to claim 1 above, along with the modification of Lischinski below), wherein a setpoint position for the stop means is marked with aid of the light marking 36 in a first method step (see Fig. 1 and page 7 at the fifth paragraph, which begins ‘In order to adjust the processing device …’), and the stop means is configured to be positioned with aid of the light marking 36 in a second method step (see Fig. 1 and page 7 at the fifth paragraph, which begins ‘In order to adjust the processing device …’).
Regarding claim 11, Lischinski discloses that a product type is specified in a first substep of a zeroth method step preceding the first method step (see page 6 at the first paragraph), product-specific positioning data being loaded from a memory unit with aid of the product type and transmitted to the position aid in a second substep of the zeroth method step (see page 6 at the first and second paragraphs).
Regarding claim 12, Lischinski discloses that the light marking 36 is projected by the positioning aid (including light source 34) onto the setpoint position in the first method step as a function of the product-specific positioning data (see the first two paragraphs of page 6).
Regarding claim 13, Lischinski discloses that the light marking 36 in the form of a line or a spot is projected by the positioning aid (see Fig. 1, showing the marking 36 as a line) onto the setpoint position in order to mark the setpoint position (see Fig. 1 and page 6 at the first two paragraphs).
Regarding claim 14, Lischinski discloses that the stop means specification and/or a product type specification is projected onto the setpoint position of the position-variable stop means in addition to the setpoint position (see the second paragraph of page 5; the position of marking 36 indicates the setpoint position, and the product type specification is the color or pattern of the marking 36).
Regarding claim 19, Lischinski discloses that the first light source 34 projects the light marking 36 onto the feed plane or the position-variable stop means (see Fig. 1; note that reference marks 40 are part of the position-variable stop means per page 6 at the third paragraph, which begins ‘All units, ie in the embodiment shown...’), and the second light source 34 projects the stop means specification and/or [the, sic] product type specification onto a spatially separate projection region visible to an operator (see Fig. 1; note that the second light source 34 is spaced from the first light source 34 as explained in the discussion of Lischinski’s teachings related to claim 1 above, such that the marking of the second light source 34 is in a spatially separate projection region compared to the marking of the first light source 34)[.]
Regarding claim 20, Lischinski teaches that the stop means specification and/or the product type specification projected by the second light source 34 is configured to identify the selected type of food (via a color selection of the second light source 34) independently of the light marking 36 indicating the setpoint position (the light marking 36 indicating the setpoint position is the marking 36 produced by the first light source 34; since the two light sources 34 provide respective light markings, the light markings are independent – e.g., the two lights sources 34 are separately positionable such that the light markings can be indicate different positions, such that identification of the selected type of food indicated by the color of the second light source 34 is independent of the light marking 36 produced by the first light source 34).
Regarding claim 21, Lischinski teaches that the first light source 34 and the second light source 34 are configured to simultaneously project the light marking 36 (i.e., the marking produced by the first light source 34) and the stop means specification and/or product type specification (this specification is provided by the marking of the second light source 34; see Fig. 1 showing both markings being product simultaneously).
At least for purposes of this rejection, Lischinski is considered as failing to disclose that the first light source is an LED and that the second light source is an LED as required by claim 1.
Regardless, Lischinski also teaches the light sources can be lasers, or alternatively LEDs (see page 3 at the paragraph beginning, ‘The optical device may be, for example...’).
Since Lischinski teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art can select between lasers and LEDs for the light sources, it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select LEDs are for at least the first and second light sources. This modification is obvious under KSR Rationale B – simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Lischinski, at least in the illustrated embodiment of Fig. 1, differs from the claimed invention by the substitution of LEDs as the first and second light sources. LEDs are known to be suitable for projecting markings in a food slicer, since Lischinski teaches that LEDs are usable as the light sources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an LED for each of the first and second light sources, and the results of this substitution would have been predictable because Lischinski expressly contemplates LEDs are the light sources. Moreover, this modification is advantageous because LEDs have various advantages, including low energy consumption (reducing operating costs) and long life (reducing maintenance). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to select LEDs as the first and second light sources to save money on operating costs and provide long-lasting light sources.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding objections to the drawings for failing to illustrate claimed subject matter, the Applicant merely asserts, “the claims have been amended to overcome the noted drawing objections and render them moot”. This assertion is unpersuasive because it is merely a conclusory statement and is unsupported by any detailed explanation or reasoning. Since the Applicant fails to provide a reasoned explanation regarding each claimed feature at issue being illustrated, Applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive to overcome the drawing objections repeated above.
Next, regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 as set forth in the prior Office action, the Applicant argues that Lischinski fails to disclose projection of ‘non-positional information, namely information identifying which stop means is involved and/or which product type is selected’. This argument is not persuasive. Lischinski does disclose that the light markings indicate a product type via the color of the light markings. Lischinski teaches an example where ham is indicated with red line and salami is indicated with green light. As such, Lischinski does teach projecting information related to a product type that is selected. Furthermore, while the Applicant asserts that Lischinski’s product type “remain[s] tied to positional alignment of structural units and do[es] not disclose projecting information identifying a stop means or a product type”, this argument is likewise not persuasive. First, there is no requirement in the claim that prohibits the product type specification from being tied to positional alignment, so the first portion of Applicant’s argument is related to non-claimed features. The second portion of the Applicant’s argument is incorrect – Lischinski’s colored projections do identify a food type as explicitly disclosed by Lischinski (e.g., a red color indicating ham and a green color indicating salami). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments against Lischinski are not persuasive.
The Applicant further asserts that even if LEDs were provided as the light sources of Lischinski, Lischinski would still only project a positional reference, not non-positional information. This argument ignores the teachings of Lischinski. The use of color indicates as disclosed by Lischinski indicates a food type. Moreover, even if each of the light sources also indicates a position, nothing in claim 1 precludes the first light source from indicating a food type in addition to the setpoint position and nothing in claim 1 precludes the second light source from indicating a position in addition to the product type specification. As such, Applicant’s arguments against Lischinski are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 5 are moot in view of the Applicant having canceled the claim.
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