Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8 April 2026, except for a claim objection repeated below.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of claims 7 and 10 recites, “the bin” at least once. Each such recitation should read – the bin portion – because claim 1 previously introduces “a bin portion”, rather than “a bin”.
Claim 10 at line 2 recites, “product slicer configured to be”. This recitation should read – product slicer is configured to be –.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “upper surface regions” of the housing at line 2. This recitation is indefinite in view of claim 1 already introducing “upper surface regions” of the housing. It is unclear whether claim 5 intends to introduce new upper surface regions (as suggested by the lack of “the” or “said” preceding “upper surface regions” in claim 5), or whether claim 5 intends to refer to the same surface regions previously introduced in claim 1 (as suggested by the use of the same terminology “upper surface regions” rather than, e.g., a recitation such as ‘second upper surface regions’).
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, 5, 7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-446263-C to Van Berkel in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0133552 A1 to McGuffin-Noll, US Pat. No. 2,400,279 to Wood, and US Pat. No. 3,938,602 to Sly et al., as evidenced by US Pub. No. 2017/0144322 A1 to Heck et al.
Regarding claim 1, Van Berkel discloses a food product slicer system (see Figs. 1-2; note that all paragraph citations to the written description of Van Berkel are relative to the English translation thereof), comprising:
a food product slicer (the slicer shown in Figs. 1-2 as the structure excluding the weighing scale 8) including:
a base 2 and 6;
a knife 1 mounted for rotation relative to the base 2 and 6 (see Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph 6);
a carriage assembly 3 mounted to the base 2 and 6 for reciprocal movement back and forth past a cutting edge of the knife 1 (see Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph 6; the carriage assembly 3 moves reciprocally past the cutting edge of the knife 1 along the guide 4);
wherein the base 2 and 6 includes an external housing (see the annotated Figs. below) and also includes an inset region at a sliced food product drop side of the knife 1 (see Figs. 1 and 2; the inset region is the ‘free space’ occupied by the weighing scale 8 as shown in the Figs. and as described in paragraph 2);
a weighing scale 8 removably positioned within the inset region (see Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph 2 – the weighing scale 8 is removable from the insert corner region by undoing the step of inserting the weighing scale 8 into the free space as described at paragraph 2);
wherein the inset region is configured as an inset corner region that appears to be bounded, in top plan view, on only two sides by surface portions of the housing (see the annotated Figs. below; the inset corner region is bounded on a left side relative to Figs. 1 and 2 by a first surface portion of the housing located to the left of the weighing scale 8; as best as can be determined, the inset corner region is bound at a rear side – i.e., an upper side of the insert corner region relative to the top view of Fig. 2 – by a second surface portion of the housing in view of Fig. 1 illustrating a broken line indicating a surface behind the weighing scale; note that Fig. 2 does not include any broken line extending from the housing into the inset corner region, such that the housing does not appear to extend into the inset corner region), and wherein the base 2 and 6 does not appear to be present in the inset corner region (see Figs. 1 and 2; the weighing scale 8 occupies the insert corner region; furthermore, Fig. 2 does not include any broken line extending from the housing into the inset corner region, such that the housing does not appear to extend into the inset corner region).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
552
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Van Berkel discloses that the food product slicer configured to be installed on a surface such that a depth of the weighing scale 8 extends below a bottom plane of the food product slicer (see Fig. 1 – e.g., the weighing scale 8 extends below a bottom plane of the carriage assembly 3 of the food product slicer; note that no particular ‘bottom plane’ of the food product slicer is identified, so the bottom plane can be any bottom plane of any component of the food product slicer – indeed, this interpretation is consistent with the present disclosure where the food product slicer includes feet and were the bottom plane is a bottom plane located above the feet).
Regarding claim 11, Van Berkel discloses a weighing scale 8 removably positionable within the inset region for catching and weighing food product slices when a tray is removed from the inset region (see Figs. 1 and 2; the scale 8 is removable by reversing the insertion of the scale 8 into the inset corner region as described at paragraph 2 of Van Berkel).
Van Berkel fails to disclose a gauge plate mounted for movement between a closed position that prevents slicing and multiple open positions that permit slicing at respective thicknesses, that the structure that is removably positioned within the inset region is a tray having a bin portion for catching food product slices and an upper mating portion extending outward from the bin portion, and the upper mating portion overlaps with upper surface regions of the housing, as required by claim 1. Also, because Van Berkel fails to clearly and unambiguously disclose the shape of the second surface portion behind the weighing scale 8 relative to Fig. 1 (notwithstanding the discussion above that, as best can be determined, Van Berkel appears to disclose that the second surface portion bounds one side of the inset corner region and that the second surface portion does not appear to extend into the inset corner region), for purposes of this rejection Van Berkel is also considered as failing to disclose that the inset corner region is bounded, in top plan view, on only two sides by surface portions of the housing and that the base is not present in the inset corner region as required by claim 1. Van Berkel also fails to disclose: that the upper mating surface of the tray nests, at least in part, with an upper surface shape defined by upper surface regions of the housing as required by claim 5; that the upper mating portion of the tray includes a food debris catch segment that is spaced from the bin and that is positioned below a region of the knife from which food debris falls during slicing operations so as to catch the food debris and maintain the food debris separate from food product slices that fall into the bin as required by claim 7; and that a depth of the bin extends below the bottom plane as required by claim 10.
Regarding the gauge plate, McGuffin-Noll teaches a gauge plate mounted for movement between a closed position that prevents slicing and multiple open positions (see the Abstract). [Claim 1] The gauge plate of McGuffin-Noll is advantageous because the gauge plate is movable relative to the blade to determine a slice thickness, thus permitting cutting of slices of various desired thicknesses (see paragraph 3). Moreover, the gauge plate of McGuffin-Noll is further advantageous in order to produce high quality slices (see paragraph 4) – i.e., the closed position is an initially set position of the gauge plate that helps ensure proper alignment of the gauge plate with the knife in other positions of the gauge plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Van Berkel with a gauge plate as taught by McGuffin-Noll. This modification is advantageous to permit a user to set the gauge plate at a desired position relative to the blade to achieve slices of a desired thickness, where the gauge plate is movable in order to alter the thickness of the slices. Moreover, this modification is additionally advantageous because by first properly determining the position of the gauge plate in the closed position, cutting accuracy of the slicing is improved in other positions of the gauge plate. Further, this modification is advantageous for safety reasons because the gauge plate can be positioned in the closed positions during times of non-use of the slicer, such that the gauge plate blocks access to the knife and thus improves user safety.
Regarding the food catch tray, Wood teaches a food product slicer system where the structure that is removably positioned in an inset region is a tray 17 having a bin portion for catching food product slices (see Fig. 1 and page 2, left column, lines 14-15, where the bin portion of the tray 17 is a portion including walls 20 and 21 and optionally also including at least a portion of the upper surface of the tray 17 upon which sliced food falls; note that ‘a bin portion’ is satisfied because the tray 17 includes at least a portion of a bin, as a result of the tray including side walls 20 and 21; note also that claim 1 requires a ‘tray’ not a bin, and that the tray including a ‘bin portion’ does not require the full structure of a bin due to ‘a bin portion’ including the term ‘portion’ – side walls are within the broadest reasonable interpretation of a portion of a bin) and an upper mating portion 22 extending outward from the bin portion (see Fig. 3), and the upper mating portion overlaps 22 with upper surface regions of a housing 10 (see Fig. 3 and page 1, right col., lines 50-57). [Claim 1] Wood also teaches that the upper mating portion 22 of the tray 17 nests, at least in part, with an upper surface shape defined by upper surface regions of the housing (see Fig. 3, where the ‘upper surface shape’ is defined by an upper surface of the housing immediately underlying mating portion 22; note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘nest’ includes a group of objects made to fit close together or one within another, and Fig. 3 shows the upper surface shape of the housing fitting close together with the upper mating portion 22). [Claim 5] Wood teaches that the upper mating portion 22 of the tray 17 includes a food debris catch segment (see the annotated Fig. below, where the segment is a ‘food degree catch segment’ in accordance with page 1, right column, lines 53-57) that is spaced from the bin (see Fig. 3; the catch segment is spaced from the bin at least by a remainder of the upper mating portion 22) and that is positioned below a region of the knife 12 from which food debris falls during slicing operations (compare Figs. 1 and 3 – one region of the knife 12 from which food debris may fall is a right-most region of the knife 12 relative to Fig. 1, and the catch segment is lower than this region of the knife; note that ‘below’ is broader than directly below or immediately below) so as to catch the food debris and maintain the food debris separate from food product slices that fall into the bin (see Fig. 3 and page 1, right column, lines 53-57; any debris that hits the catch segment will be directed away from the catching portion due to the sloped right surface of the catch segment relative to the annotated Fig. below). [Claim 7] Wood teaches that providing the tray having the bin portion with the upper mating portion is advantageous because tray having the bin portion is able to receive cut slices (see page 1, right col., line 37), while the upper mating portion prevents the accumulation of grease and dirt adjacent the tray (see page 1, right col., lines 50-57). Moreover, it is known in the art to make a food product slicer system modular, with a weighing scale of the slicer system being a separate modular unit that is interchangeable with other units, and where the food product slicer system is usable without the weighing scale (see Heck at paragraphs 9 and 10).
PNG
media_image3.png
527
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the slicer system of Van Berkel with a tray that is removably positionable in the inset corner region in place of the weighing scale, where the tray includes a bin portion and an upper mating portion that overlaps with upper surface regions of the housing, in view of the teachings of Wood. This modification is obvious because it is known in the art to provide a weighing scale as a separate modular unit, where the slicer system is usable without the weighing scale. This modification thus allows the food product slicer to be operated without the weighing scale while still providing a structure to catch sliced food portions. This modification thus allows the scale to be used for a different purpose (e.g., weighing other ingredients in a meal to be prepared) while the food slicer is still operational. Thus, a user is able to select the most pressing need for the weighing scale, and use the scale for that purpose while the food product system remains operational via use of the catch tray. This modification is further obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The prior art includes each claimed element. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., inserting the tray of Wood into the inset region of Van Berkel, when the weighing scale is not in use; use of modular components in place of a weighing scale is known via Heck’s teachings) and each element would merely have performed the same function as it did separately (no functionality is changed – the tray continues to catch food, and the weighing scale continues to weigh objects). The results of this combination are predictable because modular food product slicer systems that include an optionally used weighing scale are known. Further, providing the tray with the upper mating portion is advantageous to prevent grease and dirt from reaching an area between the tray and the housing.
Providing Van Berkel with a tray in view of the teachings of Wood, where the tray is positionable in the inset corner region in place of the weighing scale as discussed above, results in the bin extending below the bottom plane as required by claim 10. This feature results from the combination of the Van Berkel and Wood references, where Van Berkel teaches that the bottom plane of the food product scale is a bottom plane of the carriage assembly, and where the inset corner region of Van Berkel in which the tray having the bin portion is positioned is below the bottom plane (see Fig. 1 of Van Berkel, where the bottom plane is the bottom plane of the carriage assembly as discussed above).
Regarding features related to the inset region, Sly teaches a food product slicer system where an inset corner region of a base of a slicer 11 is bounded, in top plan view, on only two sides by surface portions of an external housing of (see the annotated Fig. 1 below, where the inset corner region is the region occupied by the weighing scale 15; in addition to being bound by the second surface portion indicated in the annotated Fig. below, the inset corner region is also bounded at a position behind the weighing scale by another surface portion of the housing), and wherein the base is not present in the inset corner region (this feature is evident form comparing Figs. 1 and 2; since the weighing scale is in the inset corner region, the base cannot also be in the inset corner region). [Claim 1]
PNG
media_image4.png
671
721
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in the event it is determined that the inset corner region of Van Berkel fails to include all the features required of the inset corner region by claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the inset corner region of Van Berkel so that the inset corner region of Van Berkel is bounded in top plan view on only two sides by surface portions of the housing, such that the base is not present in the inset corner region, in view of the teachings of Sly. This modification is obvious because it is merely a change in shape of the portion of the base defining the inset corner region. Since the inset corner region of Van Berkel need only be an empty space that is able to receive the weighing scale at a location to catch slices, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make shape of the inset corner region defined by the base of Van Berkel of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to receive the weighing scale, including a shape of the inset corner region that is bounded only on two sides by surface portions of the housing with the base not being present in the inset corner region, since such a shape of an inset corner region is known in view of the teachings of Sly. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. This modification achieves predictable results because the modification does not change the functionality of the food product slicer and weighing scale of Van Berkel, and there is a reasonable expectation of success for this modification because the modification still allows the weighing scale of Van Berkel to be received in inset corner region. Indeed, there is no apparent change in functionality between the inset corner region of Van Berkel and the inventive inset corner region – both regions merely receive a scale at substantially the same location with respect to the food product slicer. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make both the first and second surface portions of Van Berkel as vertical, planar surfaces, to provide as few nooks and crannies as possible for food residue to become lodged, thus enhancing sanitation and simplifying cleaning. By making both the first and second surface portions of Van Berkel as vertical planar surface, the inset corner region becomes bound only on two sides by the vertical planar surfaces, such that the base does not extend into the inset corner region.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Berkel as modified by McGuffin-Noll, Wood, and Sly as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0085966 A1 to Schmidt et al.
Van Berkel, as modified, fails to disclose that the weighing scale includes a controller that is connected to a controller of the food product slicer via a communications link, when the weighing scale is positioned in the inset region as required by claim 12.
Schmidt teaches providing a weighing scale 600 with a controller that is connected to a controller of a food product slicer via a communications link (the controller of the food product slicer is control 402, which controls operation of the food product slicer per paragraph 29, and the controller of the weighing scale 600 is either of controllers 662 and 674 shown in Fig. 10 – the disclosures of paragraphs 43 and 44 require communication between the controller 402 and the controller of the weighing scale), when the weighing scale 600 is positioned in use with a food product slicer (see Fig. 5). Schmidt teaches that providing the controllers is advantageous to enable automatic operation of the slicer, including (as one example) a cutting-to-target-weight feature where an operator can select a target weight, trigger a start of the slicer, and then the controllers carry out automatic control of the carriage and knife motor while monitoring a weight of sliced product, such that the controllers can stop operation of the slicer when the target weight is achieved (see paragraph 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the weighing scale and the food product slicer Van Berkel with respective controllers as taught by Schmidt. This modification is advantageous to enable a more intelligent slicer, such as a slicer that is able to automatically carry out a cutting operation until a desired weight of product is obtained.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-446263-C to Van Berkel in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0133552 A1 to McGuffin-Noll, US Pub. No. 2018/0085966 A1 to Schmidt et al., and US Pat. No. 3,938,602 to Sly et al.
Regarding claim 13, Van Berkel discloses a food product slicer system (see Figs. 1-2; note that all paragraph citations to the written description of Van Berkel are relative to the English translation thereof), comprising:
a food product slicer (the slicer shown in Figs. 1-2 as the structure excluding the weighing scale 8) including:
a base 2 and 6;
a knife 1 mounted for rotation relative to the base 2 and 6 (see Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph 6);
a carriage assembly 3 mounted to the base 2 and 6 for reciprocal movement back and forth past a cutting edge of the knife 1 (see Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph 6; the carriage assembly 3 moves reciprocally past the cutting edge of the knife 1 along the guide 4);
wherein the base 2 and 6 includes an external housing (see the annotated Figs. below) and also includes an inset region at a sliced food product drop side of the knife 1 (see Figs. 1 and 2; the inset region is the ‘free space’ occupied by the weighing scale 8 as shown in the Figs. and as described in paragraph 2), wherein the inset region is configured as an inset corner region that appears to be bounded, in top plan view, on only two sides by surface portions of the housing (see the annotated Figs. below; the inset corner region is bounded on a left side relative to Figs. 1 and 2 by a first surface portion of the housing located to the left of the weighing scale 8; as best as can be determined, the inset corner region is bound at a rear side – i.e., an upper side of the insert corner region relative to the top view of Fig. 2 – by a second surface portion of the housing in view of Fig. 1 illustrating a broken line indicating a surface behind the weighing scale; note that Fig. 2 does not include any broken line extending from the housing into the inset corner region, such that the housing does not appear to extend into the inset corner region), and wherein the base 2 and 6 does not appear to be present in the inset corner region (see Figs. 1 and 2; the weighing scale 8 occupies the insert corner region; furthermore, Fig. 2 does not include any broken line extending from the housing into the inset corner region, such that the housing does not appear to extend into the inset corner region);
a weighing scale 8 removably positioned within the inset corner region for catching and weighing food product slices (see Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph 2 – the weighing scale 8 is removable from the insert corner region by undoing the step of inserting the weighing scale 8 into the free space as described at paragraph 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
552
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Van Berkel fails to disclose a gauge plate mounted for movement between a closed position that prevents slicing and multiple open positions that permit slicing at respective thicknesses, and that the weighing scale includes a controller that is connected to a controller of the food product slicer via a communications link, as required by claim 13. Also, because Van Berkel fails to clearly and unambiguously disclose the shape of the second surface portion behind the weighing scale 8 relative to Fig. 1 (notwithstanding the discussion above that, as best can be determined, Van Berkel appears to disclose that the second surface portion bounds one side of the inset corner region and that the second surface portion does not appear to extend into the inset corner region), for purposes of this rejection Van Berkel is also considered as failing to disclose that the inset corner region is bounded, in top plan view, on only two sides by surface portions of the housing and that the base is not present in the inset corner region as required by claim 13.
Regarding the gauge plate, McGuffin-Noll teaches a gauge plate mounted for movement between a closed position that prevents slicing and multiple open positions (see the Abstract). The gauge plate of McGuffin-Noll is advantageous because the gauge plate is movable relative to the blade to determine a slice thickness, thus permitting cutting of slices of various desired thicknesses (see paragraph 3). Moreover, the gauge plate of McGuffin-Noll is further advantageous in order to produce high quality slices (see paragraph 4) – i.e., the closed position is an initially set position of the gauge plate that helps ensure proper alignment of the gauge plate with the knife in other positions of the gauge plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Van Berkel with a gauge plate as taught by McGuffin-Noll. This modification is advantageous in order to permit a user to set the gauge plate at a desired position relative to the blade to achieve slices of a desired thickness, where the gauge plate is movable in order to alter the thickness of the slices. Moreover, this modification is additionally advantageous because by first properly determining the position of the gauge plate in the closed position, cutting accuracy of the slicing is improved in other positions of the gauge plate. Further, this modification is advantageous for safety reasons because the gauge plate can be positioned in the closed positions during times of non-use of the slicer, such that the gauge plate blocks access to the knife and thus improves user safety.
Regarding the controller, Schmidt teaches providing a weighing scale 600 with a controller that is connected to a controller of a food product slicer via a communications link (the controller of the food product slicer is control 402, which controls operation of the food product slicer per paragraph 29, and the controller of the weighing scale 600 is either of controllers 662 and 674 shown in Fig. 10 – the disclosures of paragraphs 43 and 44 require communication between the controller 402 and the controller of the weighing scale), when the weighing scale 600 is positioned in use with a food product slicer (see Fig. 5). Schmidt teaches that providing the controllers is advantageous to enable automatic operation of the slicer, including (as one example) a cutting-to-target-weight feature where an operator can select a target weight, trigger a start of the slicer, and then the controllers carry out automatic control of the carriage and knife motor while monitoring a weight of sliced product, such that the controllers can stop operation of the slicer when the target weight is achieved (see paragraph 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the weighing scale and the food product slicer Van Berkel with respective controllers as taught by Schmidt. This modification is advantageous to enable a more intelligent slicer, such as a slicer that is able to automatically carry out a cutting operation until a desired weight of product is obtained.
Finally, regarding features related to the inset region, Sly teaches an inset corner region of a base of a slicer 11 that is bounded, in top plan view, on only two sides by surface portions of an external housing of (see the annotated Fig. 1 below, where the inset corner region is the region occupied by the weighing scale 15; in addition to being bound by the second surface portion indicated in the annotated Fig. below, the inset corner region is also bounded at a position behind the weighing scale by another surface portion of the housing), and wherein the base is not present in the inset corner region (this feature is evident form comparing Figs. 1 and 2; since the weighing scale is in the inset corner region, the base cannot also be in the inset corner region).
PNG
media_image4.png
671
721
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in the event it is determined that the inset corner region of Van Berkel fails to include all the features of the inset corner region required by claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the inset corner region of Van Berkel so that the inset corner region of Van Berkel is bounded in top plan view on only two sides by surface portions of the housing, and such that the base is not present in the inset corner region, in view of the teachings of Sly. This modification is obvious because it is merely a change in shape of the portion of the base defining the inset corner region. Since the inset corner region of Van Berkel need only be an empty space that is able to receive the weighing scale at a location to catch slices, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make shape of the inset corner region defined by the base of Van Berkel of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to receive the weighing scale, including a shape of the inset corner region that is bounded only on two sides by surface portions of the housing with the base not being present in the inset corner region, since such a shape of an inset corner region is known in view of the teachings of Sly. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. This modification achieves predictable results because the modification does not change the functionality of the food product slicer and weighing scale of Van Berkel, and there is a reasonable expectation of success for this modification because the modification still allows the weighing scale of Van Berkel to be received in inset corner region. Indeed, there is no apparent change in functionality between the inset corner region of Van Berkel and the inventive inset corner region – both regions merely receive a scale at substantially the same location with respect to the food product slicer. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make both the first and second surface portions of Van Berkel as vertical, planar surfaces, to provide as few nooks and crannies as possible for food residue to become lodged, thus enhancing sanitation and simplifying cleaning. By making both the first and second surface portions of Van Berkel as vertical planar surface, the inset corner region becomes bound only on two sides by the vertical planar surfaces, such that the base does not extend into the inset corner region.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Berkel as modified by McGuffin-Noll, Schmidt, and Sly, and further in view of Schmidt.
Van Berkel, as modified, does not expressly contemplate the nature of the communications link between the controller of the weighing scale and the controller of the food product slicer. As a result, Van Berkel, as modified, fails to disclose that the communications link is one of a hardwire link from the weighing scale to the food product slicer or a wireless link from the weighing scale to the food product slicer as required by claim 14.
Still, Schmidt, in the embodiment of Fig. 16, teaches a communications link between a controller of a weighing scale 722 and a controller of a food product slicer 730 that is a wireless link from the weighing scale 722 to the food product slicer 730 (see paragraph 55). A wireless communications link is advantageous because wires need not be provided to connect the weighing scale and the food product slicer, which simplifies the process of installing the weighing scale with respect to the food product slicer (e.g., no wired connection is required between the two structures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the communications link between the controllers of Van Berkel in the form of a wireless link from the weighing scale to the food product slicer as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 16 of Schmidt. This modification is advantageous because the wireless link simplifies the processes of installing the weighing scale for use with the food product slicer, as well as removing the weighing scale from the food product slicer, by avoiding the need for a wired connection between the weighing scale and food product slicer (while still being able to achieve communication between the weighing scale and the food product slicer). For example, when installing the weighing scale for use with the product slicer, no step of connecting a wire from the weighing scale to the product slicer is required. Alternatively, Schmidt in the embodiment of Fig. 16 teaches that either of a wired or a wireless connection can be provided between a weighing scale and a food product slicer, so one of ordinary skill in the art could select from either of these options and the results of the selection would have been predictable – both options are known to work. Selecting one option from two known, suitable options is an obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-446263-C to Van Berkel in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0133552 A1 to McGuffin-Noll, US Pat. No. 2,400,279 to Wood, and US Pat. No. 3,938,602 to Sly et al., as evidenced by US Pub. No. 2017/0144322 A1 to Heck et al.
Regarding claim 15, Van Berkel discloses a food product slicer system (see Figs. 1-2; note that all paragraph citations to the written description of Van Berkel are relative to the English translation thereof), comprising:
a food product slicer (the slicer shown in Figs. 1-2 as the structure excluding the weighing scale 8) including:
a base 2 and 6;
a knife 1 mounted for rotation relative to the base 2 and 6 (see Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph 6);
a carriage assembly 3 mounted to the base 2 and 6 for reciprocal movement back and forth past a cutting edge of the knife 1 (see Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph 6; the carriage assembly 3 moves reciprocally past the cutting edge of the knife 1 along the guide 4);
wherein the base 2 and 6 includes an external housing (see the annotated Figs. below) and also includes an inset region at a sliced food product drop side of the knife 1 (see Figs. 1 and 2; the inset region is the ‘free space’ occupied by the weighing scale 8 as shown in the Figs. and as described in paragraph 2), wherein the inset region is configured as an inset corner region that appears to be bounded, in top plan view, on only two sides by surface portions of the housing (see the annotated Figs. below; the inset corner region is bounded on a left side relative to Figs. 1 and 2 by a first surface portion of the housing located to the left of the weighing scale 8; as best as can be determined, the inset corner region is bound at a rear side – i.e., an upper side of the insert corner region relative to the top view of Fig. 2 – by a second surface portion of the housing in view of Fig. 1 illustrating a broken line indicating a surface behind the weighing scale; note that Fig. 2 does not include any broken line extending from the housing into the inset corner region, such that the housing does not appear to extend into the inset corner region), and wherein the base 2 and 6 does not appear to be present in the inset corner region (see Figs. 1 and 2; the weighing scale 8 occupies the insert corner region; furthermore, Fig. 2 does not include any broken line extending from the housing into the inset corner region, such that the housing does not appear to extend into the inset corner region);
a weighing scale 8;
wherein the weighing scale 8 is removably positioned within the inset corner region to establish a second slicer system configuration (see Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph 2 – the weighing scale 8 is removable from the insert corner region by undoing the step of inserting the weighing scale 8 into the free space as described at paragraph 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
552
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Van Berkel fails to disclose a gauge plate mounted for movement between a closed position that prevents slicing and multiple open positions that permit slicing at respective thicknesses, a food catch tray, and that the food catch tray is removably positionable in the inset corner region to establish a first slicer system configuration, as required by claim 15. Also, because Van Berkel fails to clearly and unambiguously disclose the shape of the second surface portion behind the weighing scale 8 relative to Fig. 1 (notwithstanding the discussion above that, as best can be determined, Van Berkel appears to disclose that the second surface portion bounds one side of the inset corner region and that the second surface portion does not appear to extend into the inset corner region), for purposes of this rejection Van Berkel is also considered as failing to disclose that the inset corner region is bounded, in top plan view, on only two sides by surface portions of the housing and that the base is not present in the inset corner region as required by claim 15.
Regarding the gauge plate, McGuffin-Noll teaches a gauge plate mounted for movement between a closed position that prevents slicing and multiple open positions (see the Abstract). The gauge plate of McGuffin-Noll is advantageous because the gauge plate is movable relative to the blade to determine a slice thickness, thus permitting cutting of slices of various desired thicknesses (see paragraph 3). Moreover, the gauge plate of McGuffin-Noll is further advantageous in order to produce high quality slices (see paragraph 4) – i.e., the closed position is an initially set position of the gauge plate that helps ensure proper alignment of the gauge plate with the knife in other positions of the gauge plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Van Berkel with a gauge plate as taught by McGuffin-Noll. This modification is advantageous in order to permit a user to set the gauge plate at a desired position relative to the blade to achieve slices of a desired thickness, where the gauge plate is movable in order to alter the thickness of the slices. Moreover, this modification is additionally advantageous because by first properly determining the position of the gauge plate in the closed position, cutting accuracy of the slicing is improved in other positions of the gauge plate. Further, this modification is advantageous for safety reasons because the gauge plate can be positioned in the closed positions during times of non-use of the slicer, such that the gauge plate blocks access to the knife and thus improves user safety.
Regarding the food catch tray, Wood teaches a food product slicer system having a food catch tray 17 that is removably positioned in an inset corner region to establish a first slicer system configuration (see Fig. 1 and page 2, left column, lines 14-15). Moreover, it is known in the art to make a food product slicer system modular, with a weighing scale of the slicer system being a separate modular unit that is interchangeable with other units, and where the food product slicer system is usable without the weighing scale (see Heck at paragraphs 9 and 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the slicer system of Van Berkel with a food catch tray that is removably positionable in the inset corner region to establish a first slicer system configuration in view of the teachings of Wood. This modification is obvious because it is known in the art to provide a weighing scale as a separate modular unit, where the slicer system is usable without the weighing scale. This modification thus allows the food product slicer to be operated without the weighing scale while still providing a structure to catch sliced food portions. This modification thus allows the scale to be used for a different purpose (e.g., weighing other ingredients in a meal to be prepared) while the food slicer is still operational. Thus, a user is able to select the most pressing need for the weighing scale, and use the scale for that purpose while the food product system remains operational via use of the catch tray. This modification is further obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The prior art includes each claimed element. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., inserting the tray of Wood into the inset region of Van Berkel, when the weighing scale is not in use; use of modular components in place of a weighing scale is known via Heck’s teachings) and each element would merely have performed the same function as it did separately (no functionality is changed – the tray continues to catch food, and the weighing scale continues to weigh objects). The results of this combination are predictable because modular food product slicer systems that include an optionally used weighing scale are known.
Regarding features related to the inset region, Sly teaches a food product slicer system where an inset corner region of a base of a slicer 11 is bounded, in top plan view, on only two sides by surface portions of an external housing of (see the annotated Fig. 1 below, where the inset corner region is the region occupied by the weighing scale 15; in addition to being bound by the second surface portion indicated in the annotated Fig. below, the inset corner region is also bounded at a position behind the weighing scale by another surface portion of the housing), and wherein the base is not present in the inset corner region (this feature is evident form comparing Figs. 1 and 2; since the weighing scale is in the inset corner region, the base cannot also be in the inset corner region).
PNG
media_image4.png
671
721
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in the event it is determined that the inset corner region of Van Berkel fails to include all the features required of the inset corner region by claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the inset corner region of Van Berkel so that the inset corner region of Van Berkel is bounded in top plan view on only two sides by surface portions of the housing, such that the base is not present in the inset corner region, in view of the teachings of Sly. This modification is obvious because it is merely a change in shape of the portion of the base defining the inset corner region. Since the inset corner region of Van Berkel need only be an empty space that is able to receive the weighing scale at a location to catch slices, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make shape of the inset corner region defined by the base of Van Berkel of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to receive the weighing scale, including a shape of the inset corner region that is bounded only on two sides by surface portions of the housing with the base not being present in the inset corner region, since such a shape of an inset corner region is known in view of the teachings of Sly. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. This modification achieves predictable results because the modification does not change the functionality of the food product slicer and weighing scale of Van Berkel, and there is a reasonable expectation of success for this modification because the modification still allows the weighing scale of Van Berkel to be received in inset corner region. Indeed, there is no apparent change in functionality between the inset corner region of Van Berkel and the inventive inset corner region – both regions merely receive a scale at substantially the same location with respect to the food product slicer. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make both the first and second surface portions of Van Berkel as vertical, planar surfaces, to provide as few nooks and crannies as possible for food residue to become lodged, thus enhancing sanitation and simplifying cleaning. By making both the first and second surface portions of Van Berkel as vertical planar surface, the inset corner region becomes bound only on two sides by the vertical planar surfaces, such that the base does not extend into the inset corner region.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-4 and 8-9 is/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. Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Van Berkel, as modified, fails to disclose that at least part of the upper mating portion forms an upwardly open trough for catching food debris as required by claim 2 (instead, the upper mating portion of Van Berkel, as modified, form a trough that faces downward as can be seen in Fig. 3 of Wood).
Van Berkel, as modified, fails to disclose that the upper mating portion of the tray includes an elongated retaining segment that extends into, and in a direction along, a gap between the knife mount portion of the housing and the knife, wherein the elongated retaining segment has a shape that conforms, at least in part, to a shape of the upwardly extending knife mount portion of the housing as required by claim 3 (e.g., in Van Berkel, as modified, the upper mating portion of the tray does not include an elongated retaining segment that extends into a gap between the knife mount portion of the housing and the knife).
Van Berkel, as modified, fails to disclose that the upper mating portion of the tray defines a trough-shape, and an opening into the trough-shape faces upwardly as required by claim 6 (instead, the upper mating portion of Van Berkel, as modified, form a trough that faces downward as can be seen in Fig. 3 of Wood).
Van Berkel, as modified, fails to disclose that the upper mating portion of the tray includes a first segment that extends upward along and conforms to portions of the knife mount portion of the housing as required by claim 8 (the upper mating portion of the tray of Van Berkel, as modified, does not extend along and conform to portions of the knife mount portion – see Fig. 3 of Wood showing the upper mating portion only extending along a carriage support portion).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks of 6 July 2026 that, in each of the Wood and Campbell references cited as primary references in the Non-Final Office action mailed 8 April 2026, the base is present in the inset corner region is persuasive. Thus, a new grounds of rejection for claim 1 is set forth herein citing Van Berkel as a primary reference.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights