DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 6th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2, 17, and 18 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-4, 10-12, and 20 remain pending in the application. Newly added claims 21-24 are also pending in the application. Examiner withdraws the claim objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 7th, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryan Torrenga et al. (WO 2023076189 A2 – hereinafter Torrenga).
Regarding claim 1, Torrenga teaches a slicing machine for slicing a product caliber into
slices and for producing portions from the slices, the slicing machine comprising: a cutting unit
(Fig. 2, Slicing Assembly 28) with a blade (Fig. 2, Slicing Blade 344) for cutting slices from the
product caliber ([00118]); a feed unit (Fig. 4, Feed Assembly 26) with a feed conveyor (Fig 4,
Drive Assembly 106) for feeding the product caliber to the cutting unit along a feed direction
([0082]); and a control unit (Fig. 1, Control System 32) for controlling moving parts of the
slicing machine ([0063]), and a measuring device (Fig. 19, Sensor System 110) which is in signal connection with the control unit and is adapted to measure at least one dimension of the product caliber in a height direction of the product caliber ([00120]), wherein the control unit is configured to determine a first cut length of the product caliber in the feed direction from the at least one dimension ([00120] – Control Unit 32 uses input including the three dimensional shape of the caliber (which inherently includes height measurements of the caliber) and uses this input to determine slice width), wherein the at least one dimension includes a desired height of the product caliber ([00120] – Sensor System 110 creates a detailed profile based on multiple height inputs), wherein the first cut length corresponds to a length in the feed direction from a front end of the product caliber facing toward the cutting unit to a point on the product caliber at which the product caliber first has the desired height ([002] and [00120] – every caliber cut will inherently have a first cut made, starting at the front end of the caliber facing the cutting unit. The examiner then defines the desired height to be the height of the caliber at the spot at which the first cut is made, the distance between the front end of the caliber and the spot at which the desired height is located defining a first cut length), and wherein the control unit is further configured to control the cutting unit so that a first cut is made at the point on the product caliber in order to cut off an end piece of the product caliber having the first cut length ([00120] – the control unit decides the slice thickness of all cuts, which would include the first cut having the first cut length. The first cut would inherently cut of an end piece of the caliber).
Regarding claim 3, Torrenga further teaches the slicing machine according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one dimension further includes a measured first dimension in the height direction of the product caliber ([00120] – Sensor System 110 creates a detailed profile based on multiple height inputs, which would include at least one measured first height and a desired height), and wherein the measured first dimension is smaller than the desired height (This limitation defines features of the workpiece, and not the features of the slicing machine. The aforementioned prior art therefore does not need to recite that the measured first dimension is smaller than the desired height as the inclusion of the material or article being worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see MPEP 2115. However, Torrenga does teach in [001] and [002] that an example of an intended workpiece is pork belly slab, which is an inherently unsymmetrical slice of meat which would have varying height values when laid down, and therefore there are measured heights which will be less than other measured heights).
Regarding claim 4, Torrenga further teaches the slicing machine according to claim 1,
wherein the measuring device is arranged adjacent to an upper product guide and/or a lower
product guide of the slicing machine (Fig. 19, Sensor System 110 is adjacent to Front Conveyor
Assemblies 144 and 160, which are drawn to respectively as the upper product guide and lower
product guide).
Regarding claim 10, Torrenga further teaches the slicing machine according to claim 1,
wherein the measuring device is configured as a contactless measuring device ([00120] –
Sensory System 110 employs the use of Sensors 332 and 334, which are one or more of optical
sensors, lasers, cameras, or x-ray, all of which are contactless).
Regarding claim 11, Torrenga further teaches the slicing machine according to claim 10,
wherein the contactless measuring device comprises a contactless measured value recording unit
([00120], Sensors 332 and 334) which faces towards the feed conveyor (Fig. 13 and Fig. 19), and
wherein the contactless measured value recording unit is adapted to determine a distance
between the contactless measured value recording unit and the product caliber ([00120]- the
Sensors 332 and 334 determine the three dimensional shape of the product. In the case of at least
the use of the laser option, this would be done by determining the distance from the measuring
unit to the product surface).
Regarding claim 21, Torrenga teaches a slicing machine for slicing a product caliber into slices and for producing portions from the slices, the slicing machine comprising: a cutting unit (Fig. 2, Slicing Assembly 28) with a blade (Fig. 2, Slicing Blade 344) for cutting slices from the product caliber ([00118]); a feed unit (Fig. 4, Feed Assembly 26) with a feed conveyor (Fig 4, Drive Assembly 106) for feeding the product caliber to the cutting unit along a feed direction
([0082]); and a control unit (Fig. 1, Control System 32); and a measuring device (Fig. 19, Sensor System 110) which is in signal connection with the control unit and is adapted to measure at least one dimension of the product caliber in a height direction of the product caliber ([00120]), wherein the control unit is configured to determine a first cut length of the product caliber in the feed direction from the at least one dimension ([00120] – Control Unit 32 uses input including the three dimensional shape of the caliber (which inherently includes height measurements of the caliber) and uses this input to determine slice width), wherein the at least one dimension includes a desired height of the product caliber ([00120] – Sensor System 110 creates a detailed profile based on multiple height inputs), wherein the first cut length corresponds to a length in the feed direction from a front end of the product caliber facing toward the cutting unit to a point on the product caliber at which the product caliber first has the desired height ([002] and [00120] – every caliber cut will inherently have a first cut made, starting at the front end of the caliber facing the cutting unit. The examiner then defines the desired height to be the height of the caliber at the spot at which the first cut is made, the distance between the front end of the caliber and the spot at which the desired height is located defining a first cut length), and wherein the control unit is further configured to control the cutting unit so that a first cut is made approximately at the point on the product caliber in order to cut off an end piece of the product caliber having the first cut length ([00120] – the control unit decides the slice thickness of all cuts, which would include the first cut having the first cut length. The first cut would inherently cut of an end piece of the caliber).
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 12, 22, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan Torrenga et al. (WO 2023076189 A2 – hereinafter Torrenga).
Regarding claim 12, Torrenga does not teach the slicing machine according to claim 1,
wherein the slicing machine is configured as a multi-track slicing machine with multiple tracks,
and the slicing machine comprises at least one measuring device for each of the tracks. Torrenga
teaches a single track with one corresponding measuring device (Fig. 19, track shown and Sensor
System 110). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Torrenga to have multiple tracks with
additional corresponding measuring devices as it has been held that mere duplication of parts has
no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d
669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 22, Torrenga does not teach that the control unit is configured to control the cutting unit so that the first cut is made at most 50 mm after the point on the product caliber, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Torrenga such that the control unit is configured to control the cutting unit so that the first cut is made at most 50 mm after the point on the product caliber since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Torrenga would not operate differently with the claimed distance. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the thickness “may” be within the claimed range (specification pp. [0073]).
Regarding claim 23, Torrenga does not teach that the control unit is configured to control the cutting unit so that the first cut is made at most 25 mm after the point on the product caliber, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Torrenga such that the control unit is configured to control the cutting unit so that the first cut is made at most 25 mm after the point on the product caliber since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Torrenga would not operate differently with the claimed distance. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the thickness “may” be within the claimed range (specification pp. [0073]).
Regarding claim 24, Torrenga does not teach that the control unit is configured to control the cutting unit so that the first cut is made at most 10 mm after the point on the product caliber, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Torrenga such that the control unit is configured to control the cutting unit so that the first cut is made at most 10 mm after the point on the product caliber since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Torrenga would not operate differently with the claimed distance. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the thickness “may” be within the claimed range (specification pp. [0073]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan Torrenga
et al. (WO 2023076189 A2 – hereinafter Torrenga) as applied to claim 1 above, and further
in view of Albert Hartmann (DE 102020106054 A1 – hereinafter Hartmann).
Regarding claim 20, Torrenga teaches the slicing machine according to claim 1, wherein
the measuring device is configured as a combination of a contactless measuring devices ([00120]
– Sensory System 110 employs the use of Sensors 332 and 334, which are one or more of optical
sensors, lasers, cameras, or x-ray, all of which are contactless). Torrenga does not teach that the
measuring device is a combination of a contactless and a contacting measuring device.
However, Hartmann teaches the use of a contacting measuring device (Page 5, Para 9-
11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Torrenga such that the measuring device
comprises a contacting measuring device as taught by Hartmann in addition to the contactless
measuring device(s). Doing so is beneficial as signs of wear or play between the components of
the slicer used for an indirect measurement do not play a role and a corresponding, directly
measuring sensor is also more accessible for repair or replacement if necessary (Hartmann; Page
5, Para 11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Applicant argues that because Torrenga uses the sensor data to create a cut of a desired weight, Torrenga does not teach selecting a first cut length based on a desired height. However, weight is not a measurement which is obtained by the sensor 110. Rather, a 3-dimensional render of the caliber is created from an all-around measure of the caliber profile. This 3-dimensional render would inherently include a multitude of height data points measured by the sensor. Therefore, to obtain a desired weight, the cut for a first length is made based on the 3-dimensional render, which would include at least one desired height. The language of claim 1 states “wherein the control unit is configured to determine a first cut length of the product caliber in the feed direction from the at least one dimension”, this desired height being the at least one dimension among a variety of other measurements which create the 3-dimensional rendering.
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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
