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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/04/2024 and 07/09/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/07/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: lay flat electromagnetic field generator in claims 9 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 2 and 8-10,12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueller (US 2005/0045007).
Regarding claim 1, Mueller teaches a food product slicer (10), comprising: a base (Figure 1); a knife (30) mounted for rotation relative to the base (Figure 1; Paragraphs 0057, 0062);
a carriage assembly (16) mounted to the base for reciprocal movement back and forth past a cutting edge of the knife (Figure 1; Paragraphs 0058-0063);
a gauge plate mounted for movement between a closed position that prevents slicing and multiple open positions that permit slicing at respective thicknesses (Figure 1);
a gauge plate adjustment system including a knob (31) with an associated cam, a follower (28) that is engaged with the cam and moved by rotation of the knob and cam, wherein the follower is linked for moving the gauge plate, wherein the follower rides on a slide rail (34), wherein the slide rail comprises a plate member (36 (Figures 1 and 2; Paragraphs 0057-0059, 0073-0076).
Regarding claim 2, Mueller teaches the food product slicer of claim 1, wherein an engagement of the follower with the slide rail is configured to allow sliding movement of the follower along the slide rail while preventing rotation of the follower about an axis of the slide rail (Figures 1 and 2; Paragraphs 0061-0063 and 0067-0072).
Regarding claim 8, Mueller teaches the product slicer of claim 1, wherein the plate member includes a sensing assembly (32) position thereon for sensing movement and/or position of the follower (Figure 2; Paragraphs 0063-0066, 0073-0080, 0086-0093).
Regarding claim 9, Mueller teaches the food product slicer of claim 8, wherein the sensing assembly comprises an inductive sensing assembly with a lay flat electromagnetic field generator (Paragraphs 0087-0089).
Regarding claim 10, Mueller teaches the food product slicer of claim 9, wherein the plate member includes a recess into which the lay flat electromagnetic field generator is seated (Figure 2 noting the recess between the elements allowing for the placement of the sensor mechanisms).
Regarding claim 12, Mueller teaches food product slicer of claim 9, wherein the follower includes a projection that projects toward the lay flat electromagnetic field generator, wherein the projection is of an electromagnetic material that disrupts different portions of the electromagnetic field produced by the lay flat electromagnetic field generator based upon different relative positioning of the projection along the lay flat magnetic field generator (Paragraphs 0067-0073).
Regarding claim 13, Mueller teaches a food product slicer (10)(Figure 1; Abstract) comprising:
a base; a knife (30) mounted for rotation relative to the base; a carriage assembly mounted to the base for reciprocal movement back and forth past a cutting edge of the knife (Figure 1; Paragraphs 0057, 0062);
a gauge plate mounted for movement between a closed position that prevents slicing and multiple open positions that permit slicing at respective thicknesses (Figure 1) and a gauge plate adjustment system (31) including a follower that is linked for moving the gauge plate, wherein the follower rides on a slide rail (34), wherein the slide rail comprises a plastic member, wherein an engagement of the follower with the slide rail is configured to allow sliding movement of the follower along the slide rail while preventing rotation of the follower about an axis of the slide rail ((Figures 1 and 2; Paragraphs 0057-0059, 0073-0076).
Regarding claim 14, Mueller teaches the product slicer of claim 13, wherein the slide rail includes a sensing assembly (32) position thereon for sensing movement and/or position of the follower Figure 2; Paragraphs 0063-0066, 0073-0080, 0086-0093).
Regarding claim 15, Mueller teaches food product slicer of claim 14, wherein the sensing assembly comprises an inductive sensing assembly with a lay flat electromagnetic field generator (Paragraphs 0087-0089).
Regarding claim 16, Mueller teaches food product slicer of claim 15, wherein the slide rail includes a recess into which the lay flat electromagnetic field generator is seated (Figure 2 noting the recess between the elements allowing for the placement of the sensor mechanisms).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller.
Regarding claim 11, Mueller teaches the food product slicer of claim 10, wherein the food product slicer provides a control device (52) with the capability of automatic and manual manipulation of the device, and the control devices controls multiple operations, including detection position data transmitted via sensors.
Mueller does not specifically provide inductive sensing assembly further comprises a printed circuit board, wherein the lay flat electromagnetic field generator comprises multiple conductors located on a sensing section of the printed circuit board, wherein the printed circuit board also includes one or more integrated detection components and an electrical connector.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to printed circuit board components which are known to be useful for a particular automation function. There are a finite number of possible control elements which pertain to a sensor and allow for the desired sensing function. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try any reasonable electronic circuit board components in an attempt to provide an improved sensing function for the slicing machine, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references C-L on page 1 and A-D and F on Page 2 establish the state of the art with a variety of shaver food slicing devices and movement sensing mechanisms.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 07/24/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights