DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Volkl (US 20170312931 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Volkl teaches a food portioning machine comprising:
a machine base (machine base of 1);
a feeder (assembly of 17 and 13) for feeding a food product in a feed direction (10’, see Figure 4A);
a cutter (3) for cutting portions from a leading end of a food product fed towards the cutter by the feeder (see Figure 1A-C); and
a portion thickness control assembly (paragraph 0024-0025) comprising:
a carriage (26, see Figure 2D) carried by the machine base and able to move relative to the machine base in order to adjust the thickness of each portion to be cut from the food product (paragraph 0057); a carriage drive assembly (19, see Figure 5D-E) coupled to the carriage to move the carriage relative to the machine base (drive for movement of 10’, paragraph 0095);
a product stop (13) carried by the carriage and able to move relative to the carriage between advanced and retracted positions (via 26b, see Figures 2D, paragraph 0237); and
a product stop drive assembly (26a) coupled to the product stop to move the product stop relative to the carriage between the advanced and retracted positions (paragraph 0237),
such that, before the cutter starts to cut a next portion from the leading end of the food product, the carriage drive assembly is operable to move the carriage to a position relative to the machine base with reference to the thickness of the next portion to be cut, and the product stop drive assembly is operable to move the product stop from its retracted position to its advanced position for engagement by the leading end of the food product (paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 2, Volkl teaches the carriage is able to move relative to the machine base in a direction parallel to the feed direction in order to adjust the thickness of each portion to be cut from the food product (See Figure 4A-C).
Regarding claim 7, Volkl teaches the steps of: a) moving the carriage relative to the support with the carriage drive assembly to adjust the thickness of a next portion to be cut from a food product (paragraph 0192-0193); b) moving the product stop to the advanced position with the product stop drive assembly (paragraph 0192-0193); and c) feeding the food product in the feed direction with the feeder until its leading end engages the product stop (paragraph 0192-0193).
Regarding claim 8, Volkl teaches the steps of: d) after step c), starting to cut the next portion from the leading end of the food product (paragraph 0192-0193); and e) after step d), moving the product stop towards its retracted position with the product stop drive assembly before the next portion has been completely cut from the leading end of the food product (paragraph 0192-0193).
Regarding claim 9, Volkl teaches the carriage drive assembly is configured to is configured to move the carriage to a changed position relative to the machine base up to every cut cycle, wherein a cut cycle is a complete cut of the leading end of the food product and a subsequent movement between the product stop from the advanced position to the retracted position and returning the product stop to the advanced position (see Figures 5D-E).
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volkl (US 20170312931 A1) in view of Cresson (US 5129298).
Regarding claim 10, Volkl teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 stated above.
Volkl fails to teach a controller, wherein the controller is configured to cause operation of the carriage drive assembly to move the carriage relative to the machine base to adjust the thickness of the next portion to be cut, wherein the controller receives data related to an external shape of the food product and a weight of the food product, wherein the controller adjusts the thickness of the next portion to be cut based upon the received data in order to result in successive cut cycles to provide a consistent portion weight of cut portions as with a prior cut.
Cresson teaches a controller (20), wherein the controller receives data related to an external shape of the food product and a weight of the food product, wherein the controller adjusts the thickness of the next portion to be cut based upon the received data in order to result in successive cut cycles to provide a consistent portion weight of cut portions as with a prior cut (col. 4 lines 13-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Volkl to add the controller, as taught by Cresson, in order to better cut the food (abstract of Cresson). The resulting device of modified Volkl teaches a controller, wherein the controller is configured to cause operation of the carriage drive assembly to move the carriage relative to the machine base to adjust the thickness of the next portion to be cut (see Figures 5D-E of Volkl), wherein the controller receives data related to an external shape of the food product and a weight of the food product, wherein the controller adjusts the thickness of the next portion to be cut based upon the received data in order to result in successive cut cycles to provide a consistent portion weight of cut portions as with a prior cut (col. 4 lines 13-30 of Cresson).
Regarding claim 11, Volkl teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 stated above.
Volkl fails to teach the carriage drive assembly is configured to move the carriage relative to the machine base independently of motion of the cutter.
Cresson teaches the carriage drive assembly is configured to move the carriage relative to the machine base independently of motion of the cutter (see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Volkl to change the arrangement, as taught by Cresson, in order to better cut the food (abstract of Cresson).
Regarding claim 12, Volkl teaches including the steps of: (e) moving the carriage relative to the support with the carriage drive assembly to adjust the thickness of the next portion to be cut from the food product based upon the received data in order to result in successive cut cycles to provide a consistent portion weight of cut portions as with a prior cut.
Volkl fails to teach (d) receiving data related to an external shape of the food product and a weight of the food product.
Cresson teaches a controller (20), wherein the controller receives data related to an external shape of the food product and a weight of the food product, wherein the controller adjusts the thickness of the next portion to be cut based upon the received data in order to result in successive cut cycles to provide a consistent portion weight of cut portions as with a prior cut (col. 4 lines 13-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Volkl to add the controller, as taught by Cresson, in order to better cut the food (abstract of Cresson).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, Volkl teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 stated above.
Volkl fails to teach the product stop drive assembly includes a rotary actuator and a mechanical coupling arranged to couple the rotary actuator to the product stop so that the rotary actuator is operable to move the product stop between the advanced and retracted positions.
While Volkl provided the product stop drive assembly for controlling the cutting thickness, Volkl fails to teach details of a rotary actuator and a mechanical coupling arranged to couple the rotary actuator to the product stop so that the rotary actuator is operable to move the product stop between the advanced and retracted positions.
Furthermore, no additional prior art could be found to teach the claimed limitations either alone nor in combination to further modify the device of Volkl. Thus claim 3 is allowable, claim 4 is allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Volkl teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 stated above.
Volkl fails to teach the product stop is mechanically coupled to the carriage by a pair of rigid arms, with a carriage end of each rigid arm being rotatably coupled to the carriage and a stop end of each rigid arm being rotatably coupled to the product stop, the carriage ends of the rigid arms are rotatable relative to the carriage about respective first and second pivotal axes, the stop ends of the rigid arms are rotatable relative to the product stop about respective third and fourth pivotal axes, the first to fourth pivotal axes are parallel to each other and perpendicular to the feed direction.
While Volkl provided the product stop drive assembly for controlling the cutting thickness, Volkl fails to teach details of the product stop is mechanically coupled to the carriage by a pair of rigid arms, with a carriage end of each rigid arm being rotatably coupled to the carriage and a stop end of each rigid arm being rotatably coupled to the product stop, the carriage ends of the rigid arms are rotatable relative to the carriage about respective first and second pivotal axes, the stop ends of the rigid arms are rotatable relative to the product stop about respective third and fourth pivotal axes, the first to fourth pivotal axes are parallel to each other and perpendicular to the feed direction.
Furthermore, no additional prior art could be found to teach the claimed limitations either alone nor in combination to further modify the device of Volkl. Thus claim 5 is allowable, claim 6 is allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashley Boyer 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 8/07/2026
Prosecution Insights