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 accompanying the Request for Continued Examination filed 17 June 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 13-23 are pending, of which claims 15-18, 20, and 22 are withdrawn from consideration (note that Applicant amended claim 20 to depend from withdrawn claim 15, such that claim 20 is withdrawn). Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 17 March 2026, except for various objections to the drawings (see the Drawing Objections section below).
Applicant is reminded that 37 CFR 1.121(c) requires the use of the status identifier ‘Withdrawn’ for all withdrawn claims. Claims 15-18, 20, and 22 should be indicated with the ‘Withdrawn’ status identifier.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with PCT Article 7. The examiner strongly encourages the Applicant to limit the claimed subject matter to features that are illustrated in the drawings. Drawings are required for an understanding of the following aspects of the invention:
Claim 1 recites that the second light source is configured to project “a stop means specification and/or a product type specification” and also “wherein the stop means specification and/or the product type specification comprises alphanumeric characters”. However, as illustrated in the present drawings, each light source only projects a linear segment. The configuration of the second light source as recited in claim 1 is not illustrated, nor is the feature of the stop means specification and/or the product type specification comprising alphanumeric characters illustrated. An illustration of a projection of “a stop means specification and/or a product type specification” and of “wherein the stop means specification and/or the product type specification comprises alphanumeric characters” is necessary for an understanding of the invention. In fact, the Applicant at page 13 of the Remarks dated 17 June 2026 acknowledges as much. The Applicant states, “one skilled in the art would recognize that, absent additional structures, Lischinski’s light sources would not be capable of producing alphanumeric projections” (emphasis added). However, the Applicant has not illustrated any additional structures that the Applicant admits are necessary for the projection of alphanumeric characters. What additional structures are required? The invention cannot be understood when the Applicant asserts that unspecified additional structures are required. There are other reasons that the invention must be illustrated for an understanding thereof. For example, it is unclear how the alphanumeric characters are positioned to be made visible to an operator so that the operator is able to use the information from the characters to adjust the slicing device. As another example, it is unclear whether a single light source projects the entirety of the specification, or whether multiple light sources are required so that each light source projects a portion of the specification. It is unclear what particular type(s) of light sources are required in order to be able to project alphanumeric characters. As yet another example, it is unclear whether the alphanumeric characters are in code form (e.g., where text such as “G8” would indicate all of the stop means specification and the product type specification, so long as a user has knowledge of the code – e.g., two characters that can each be a letter A-Z or a number 0-9 provide 1,296 potential codes, each of which could correspond to some particular specifications). The scope of the claim may vary depending on the manner in which the specifications are illustrated in the present drawings, and by failing to illustrate the feature of claim 1 the examiner is potentially not apprised of the full scope of the claim. For example, if the drawings did illustrate an alphanumeric code as the stop means specification and product type specification, then the drawings would make clear that a code is sufficient to illustrate the specification. By failing to illustrate the projection of the stop means specification and/or the product type specification, the Applicant leaves the claims open to additional ambiguities than would be the case if the specifications were illustrated. As such, the features recited in claim 1 must be illustrated for an understanding of the invention.
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. An illustration of “a position of the position-variable stop means is configured to be altered by a user manually or using a motor” is necessary for an understanding of the invention. For example, it is unclear how the Applicant has carried out these functions. For example, it is unclear whether the motor directly moves the position-variable stop means, or whether some transmission is required to transmit motor of the motor into movement of the stop means. If some transmission is required, the structure of the transmission is unclear. As another example, it is unclear whether how a user fixes the position of the stop means after manually positioning the stop means.
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. An illustration of structure that allows for fastening the stop means position-variably in the feed plane is necessary for an understanding of the invention. For example, it is unclear how the fastening is achieved. As another example, it is unclear how movement of the stop means is permitted in order to achieve the ‘position-variably’ feature.
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. An illustration of the ‘configuration’ of the stop means that allows the stop means to be positioned with the aid of the light marking is necessary for an understanding of the invention. For example, does the stop means include a linear projection that is alignable with a projecting line of light in order to aid in alignment of the stops means? Or, can any edge of the stop means be considered as a sufficient ‘configuration’ of the stop means to aid in positioning, since an edge of the stop means is alignable with a light projection? The scope of the claim may vary depending on the configuration of the stop means illustrated in the drawings. By failing to illustrate the configuration of the stop means, the examiner is potentially not apprised of the full scope of the claim.
Claim 14 recites, “the stop means specification and/or the 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. An illustration of the stop means specification and the product type specification being projected onto the setpoint position is necessary for an understanding of the invention, especially in view of these specifications comprising alphanumeric characters. For example, does the Applicant consider the claim satisfied if some portion of an alphanumeric character is on the setpoint position, even if it unclear to a lay person which particular portion of the alphanumeric characters indicates the setpoint position?
Claim 23 recites, “wherein the stop means specification comprises a number or name of the position-variable stop means”. This feature is not illustrated in the present drawings, and an illustration of this feature is necessary for an understanding of the invention. For example, it is unclear how the number or name are positioned to be made visible to an operator so that the operator is able to use the information from the number of name to adjust the slicing device. As another example, it is unclear whether a single light source projects the entirety of the stop means specification, or whether multiple light sources are required so that each light source projects a portion of the stop means specification. It is unclear what particular type(s) of light sources are required in order to be able to project a number or a name. As yet another example, it is unclear whether the name is in code form. The scope of the claim may vary depending on the manner in which the name is illustrated in the present drawings, and by failing to illustrate the feature of claim 23 the examiner is potentially not apprised of the full scope of the claim. As such, the features recited in claim 23 must be illustrated for an understanding of the invention.
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 23 recites, “a number or name”. This recitation should read – a number or a name –.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-11, 13-14, 19, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the stop means specification and/or the product type specification comprises alphanumeric characters”. The product type specification comprises alphanumeric characters was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skill in the relevant art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. First, this feature is newly added to the claims; this feature was not present in the claims as originally filed. Second, this feature is not illustrated in the present drawings. In fact, no alphanumeric characters are illustrated in the present drawings. Finally, regarding the written description, paragraphs 11 and 12 of the US publication of the present application is the most relevant portion of the disclosure. Paragraph 11 states, “Furthermore preferentially, a stop means specification and/or a product type specification is also projected onto the position of the stop means in addition to the setpoint position.” However, this passage fails to disclose that the product type specification comprises alphanumeric characters. Further, paragraph 11 additionally states, “It is also conceivable that numbers for numerical specification of the stop means or even part numbers are displayed so that the operator immediately sees for which stop means the position displayed by the light marking is intended. The machine operation and changeover are therefore made much more intuitive and less susceptible to error for the operator.” (Emphasis added.) This passage merely contemplates numbers for the stop means specification, not the product type specification. Similarly, paragraph 12 states, “a stop means specification being displayed, for example a number or a name of the stop means in question”. This passage fails to disclose the product type specification comprising alphanumeric characters. Therefore, since claim 1 encompasses the product type specification comprising alphanumeric characters, and since this feature was not described in the present application as originally filed, claim 1 as amended introduces new matter and claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a).
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the stop means specification and/or the product type specification comprises alphanumeric characters”. The Applicant at page 13 of the Remarks dated 17 June 2026 asserts, “Lischinski discloses a laser or, alternatively, LEDs and lenses. As such, one skilled in the art would recognize that, absent additional structures, Lischinski’s light sources would not be capable of producing alphanumeric projections.” (Emphasis added.) To the extent the Applicant’s argument that additional structures are required to be able to project alphanumeric characters is persuasive, the Applicant has not described the claimed subject matter in the present specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) had possession of the ability to project alphanumeric characters. The Applicant at page 13 of the Remarks dated 17 June 2026 states that some undisclosed additional structure is necessary for a laser or LED to project an alphanumeric character. However, the present specification does not identify what additional structures are necessary project alphanumeric characters. Put another way, the Applicant in the Remarks of 17 June 2026 states that additional structures beyond merely light sources are necessary to achieve the alphanumeric projections required by claim 1, but the Applicant never discloses such additional structures in the present specification as originally filed. The Applicant expressly acknowledges that some structure beyond merely a laser or LED light source is required to project an alphanumeric character, but the Applicant has not demonstrated possession of any such structure. To the extent that some structure is required beyond merely a laser or LED light source to project an alphanumeric character, as is asserted by the Applicant, then the Applicant has failed to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention by demonstrating possession of the additional required structures. Claim 1 thus fails to comply with the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a) because the present specification does not demonstrate possession of the additional structures required for a light source to project an alphanumeric character.
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, 6-11, 13-14, 19, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2014 100 153 A1 to Lischinski in view of US Pat. No. 6,298,275 B1 to Herman, Jr.
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 the 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 projected 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 the light marking 36 at predetermined positions and/or in predetermined alignments in order to mark the 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); and wherein 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 the 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 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 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 the 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. Lischinski also fails to disclose that the stop means specification and/or the product type specification comprises alphanumeric characters as required by claim 1 and that the stop means specification comprises a number or name of the position-variable stop means as required by claim 23.
Regarding the particular type of the first and second light sources, Lischinski teaches that 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 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.
Further, Herman is in the field of endeavor of cutting devices and is pertinent to the problem of communicating information to an operator of cutting device operator via a projection from a light source. Herman teaches that the information projected to the operator can be in the form of a alphanumeric character (inclusive of a number as required by claim 23; see Fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 1-7) in conjunction with an additional line (see col. 2, lines 1-7 and col. 2, lines 49-54). [Claim 1] Herman further teaches projecting a number (see Fig. 2, where various projections include numbers). [Claim 23] Projecting an alphanumeric character is advantageous because words and numbers can be communicated to the operator (see Fig. 2, where ‘Bundle 1’ and ‘Bundle 2’ are projected by the light source 40, and these alphanumeric characters signify which parts the operator should later bundle together), and words and numbers are advantageous to provide additional context to other forms of light projections (in the case of Herman, the alphanumeric characters provide bundling guidance, which is in addition to the projected lines).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lischinski as to include, in addition to the lines already projected by Lischinski, alphanumeric characters in the projections for the stop means specification and/or the product type specifications in view of the teachings of Herman. This modification is advantageous because alphanumeric characters are usable to form words to communicate information to the operator, in addition to the information already communicated by the lines of Lischinski. A word is intuitively understood by any operator with the ability to read, whereas other projections (such as a color line, a code, or a character other than an alphanumeric character) requires some know of what the projection is intended to represent. The lines of Lischinski are esoteric in that an operator must be able to interpret the lines from training, experience, or other expertise. However, the addition of alphanumeric characters to the lines already projected by Lischinski makes understanding of the lines more intuitive by providing additional information to the operator in the form of words, such that less operator knowledge, training, and experience are required to interpret the line markings. After this modification, the lines of Lischinski can advantageously be supplemented with text such as “align here”. Thus, an operator receives more information and is more easily able to interpret the meaning of the lines and is able to perform the intended alignment tasks with less training or expertise.
Moreover, since this modification includes providing a number as the stop means specification, the features of claim 23 are obvious. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 23 includes the stop means specification comprising a number, since only ‘name’ appears to be modified by ‘of the position-variable stop means’. Moreover, even if claim 23 is more narrowly interpreted, the position-variable stop means can be arbitrarily assigned a number, such that any number projected can be interpreted as ‘a number of the position-variable stop means’. Consider the number ‘2’ as projected by Herman in Fig. 2. A position-variable stop means can be assigned the number 2, in which case Herman does disclose projecting a number of the position variable stop means. The claim makes no requirement regarding the association of the position-variable stop means and the number that is projected – e.g., the claim does not require a control unit to receive as an input or via a lookup table some number of a particular position-variable stop means and then to project that number. Instead, the claim is satisfied if some number is projected, and if an operator chooses to associate that number with a position variable stop means. Since the claim encompasses the operator’s association of a number with a position variable stop means, any number that is projected satisfies the claim. The examiner suggests amending the claim to more particularly describe that the control unit projects the number in response to a desire to use some particular position-variable stop means (although the examiner presently takes no position on 35 USC 112(a) support for such a limitation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 15-18 and 22 (and now claim 20 as well, in view of Applicant amending claim 20 to depend from claim 15) lacking unity of invention with the claims as originally presented, the Applicant asserts that claim 1 as amended 17 June 2026 does present a special technical feature. This argument is not persuasive in view of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 set forth herein, establishing that the 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. As such, claims 15-18, 20, and 22 are properly withdrawn.
Regarding the objections to the drawings, the Applicant argues that an illustration of the features of the invention is not necessary for an understanding of the invention. This argument is not persuasive. As one example, the scope of “wherein the stop means specification and/or the product type specification comprises alphanumeric characters”. In this case, the invention cannot be understood because the Applicant at page 13 of the Remarks dated 17 June 2026 explicitly states that some additional structures are required in order to project alphanumeric characters, but those structures are not illustrated – the structures remain a mystery. How can the invention be understood when, as the Applicant asserts, additional structures beyond those illustrated are necessary to carry out the invention? Furthermore, the scope of this recitation is informed by the drawings. For example, if, hypothetically, the Applicant had actually illustrated this feature, and if the Applicant’s illustration included the characters “G7” as the stop means specification and the product type specification, then it would be clear that the claim must be interpreted so that a single combination of one letter and one number is sufficient to provide both specifications. However, in view of Applicant having failed to provide any illustration of the stop means specification and the product type specification, the scope of the claim is less certain. The examiner cannot rely on an illustration of the inventive slicing device to determine inform the examiner’s understanding of the scope of the claim. As another example, regarding claim 2, in view of the Applicant having elected not to illustrate the features of the claim, the examiner is unable to generate a list of keyword queries usable to inform his search strategy. Knowledge of the particular structures that allow for the functionality of claim 2 would improve the examiner’s understanding of the invention, such as by aiding the examiner’s search strategy. The Applicant having omitted an illustration of the invention leaves the scope of the invention more uncertain than if the Applicant were to have illustrated the invention, and this reduces the examiner’s understanding of the invention in important ways for examination, including establishing the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim terminology as well as providing the examiner with information regarding the structure(s) responsible for claimed functions. Moreover, the Applicant is arguing that the features that Applicant relies on in an attempt to distinguish over the prior art are the same features whose illustration is not necessary for an understanding of the invention. The inventive contribution, though, is necessary for an understanding of the invention, and therefore the inventive features (i.e., any particular features that allegedly distinguish over the art) must be shown. As such, Applicant’s assertion that not all claimed features must be illustrated is not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103, the Applicant argues that Lischinski fails to disclose that the stop means specification and/or the product type specification comprises alphanumeric characters. The Applicant’s argument is moot in view of the rejection above, which Herman for its teachings related to projecting alphanumeric characters in addition to a line.
Next, the Applicant asserts that modifying Lischinski to include alphanumeric characters would frustrate the purpose of Lischinski. This argument is not persuasive because alphanumeric characters are able to supplement the information already provided by the light source of Lischinski. For example, rather than projecting merely a line, Lischinski as modified can project alphanumeric characters such as the text “align units here” along with the projected line, such that the alphanumeric characters provide more information to the operator because the purpose of the projected line is specified in text. The modification thus improves Lischinski, rather than frustrating the purpose of Lischinski.
The Applicant further asserts that Lischinski teaches away from providing alphanumeric characters, but this is not the case. Merely because Lischinski teaches that the reference mark can be “without value data” does not actively discourage providing alphanumeric characters, nor do alphanumeric characters prevent the lines from running the entire product support. For example, there is space adjacent the lines of Lischinski to add additional text. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2019/0337177 A1 to Álvarez Ponga is in the field of cutting devices and is pertinent to the problem of communicating cutting alignment information to a cutting device operator. Álvarez Ponga teaches that a specification that is projected to the operator in order to provide cutting alignment information to the operator is in the form of a colored line, or with a character or a code (see paragraph 30).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights