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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one or more blank cuts” in claims 1, 4-6 and 14, 17-19, the “portioning unit” in claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
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.
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:
The “portioning unit” in claim 12 invokes 112F because first, "unit" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "unit" is modified by functional language including “adapted to …”; and third, the "unit" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "portioning" preceding unit describes the function, not the structure of the unit.
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. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-19 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 1 recites “the cutting unit is configured to perform a run-out movement in order to make one or more blank cuts during which the blade is moved along a direction substantially parallel to the axis of rotation of the blade from a slicing position adapted for cutting the at least one product caliber into slices to a blank cutting position in which, during a respective rotation of the blade about the axis of rotation, no slice is cut off from the at least one product caliber…the one or more blank cuts being made…” (emphasis added) is unclear because it uses one or more blank CUTS. What is constitution of one or more blank cuts? It is unclear because whether the “blank” cuts refer to any partial cut (pre-cut) or no cut at all on the product caliber.
Claims 4-6 and 14, 17-19 have the same issue.
With regards to the language “substantially” is used in the claim 1, line 7 that is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially parallel" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result, the recitation of “substantially parallel” is indefinite because it is unclear what differences are permitted while still being considered “substantially parallel”. If this language “substantial or substantially” refers to relative positions, sizes, dimensions, or values of with sufficient precision so as to accommodate variations for ordinary engineering or manufacturing variations tolerances, Applicant should discuss it in the specification or records. Claim 1 has the same issue.
Claim 1, the last paragraph “wherein the feed unit is furthermore adapted to move the at least one product caliber away from the cutting unit in order to perform a retraction movement against the feed direction while the one or more blank cuts are being made, the cutting unit and the feed unit being configured to be operated in such a way, when making the one or more blank cuts, that a run-in movement of the blade from the blank cutting position to the slicing position and the retraction movement of the at least one product caliber against the feed direction at least partially overlap in time” is confusing because it is a same clause, but many different steps or actions at different time involved, for examples,
“wherein the feed unit is furthermore adapted to move the at least one product caliber away from the cutting unit in order to perform a retraction movement against the feed direction while the one or more blank cuts are being made” is unclear. If the retraction movement of the product caliber is away from the cutting unit, what and how the while the one or more blank cuts are being made. Which structures of the slicing machine perform the one or more blank cuts. Is the human or other device (haven’t been claimed), right? Again, what is constitution of one or more blank cuts?
“the cutting unit and the feed unit being configured to be operated in such a way, when making the one or more blank cuts, that a run-in movement of the blade from the blank cutting position to the slicing position and the retraction movement of the at least one product caliber against the feed direction at least partially overlap in time”. What and how is the one or more blank cuts made? If the at least one product caliber is retracted, it is unclear how the one or more blank cuts being made at least partially overlap time with other movements of the blade.
Examiner also notes that as claim 1 is written, the slicing machine can be a manual operation since there is no controller or sensor or detector or any processing system to perform automatically. Claim 14 has the same issue. See example art, US 20110314989 A1 and US 5353670 A that may read on the claimed invention.
Preamble Claim 1 recites “…foods”, however, the claim body recites “at least one product caliber” is unclear. Is the “at least one product caliber” one of the foods, right?
Claim 1, the last paragraph “the cutting unit and the feed unit are configured to be operated in such a way, when making the one or more blank cuts, that a run-in movement of the blade from the blank cutting position to the slicing position and the retraction movement of the at least one product caliber against the feed direction at least partially overlap in time” is unclear and renders indefinite. First “the retraction movement of the at least one product caliber against the feed direction” is unclear whether the at least one product caliber (including the one or more blank cuts) is retracted the at least one product caliber or not since there are many intermediated steps are not claimed. Examiner read Applicant’s specification, it is not clear what it is intentioned or a purpose of “the retraction movement of the at least one product caliber against the feed direction”. It appears retracting a portion of the at least one product caliber.
Second, the language of “at least partially overlap in time” is unclear what the “at least partially overlap in time” refers to. Is the time during cutting or slicing or using the slicing machine or operating the cutting unit and the feed unit? therefore, it is unclear. Claim 14 has the same issue.
Claims 3-4 used the language “and/or” many times in the claims is unclear what it is actually being claimed. See one of the interpretations in the rejections below. Claims 16-17 have the same issue.
Claim 5 used the language “partially” is unclear what is the “partially” means in the claim. Claim 18 has the same issue.
Claim 6 used the language “initiates” is unclear because if the blade move-ins to slice at the “initiates” time of the food caliber is retracted, the blade may not contact the food caliber and miss slicing or cutting. Therefore, the scope of claim 6 is unclear. Claim 19 has the same issue.
Claim 9, a language of "preferably” is unclear whether the preferably range is requires by the invention or not.
The scope of claim 12 is unclear since it uses “a portioning unit” that is not clearly discussed in the Applicant’s specification. Is the portioning unit is a cutting edge of the blade, right?
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (US 2011/0179922) in view of Joerg (WO 2013164143 A2 and Translation).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Weber shows a slicing machine (Figures 5-7) for slicing foods (see the title “Apparatus for slicing food product”), comprising:
a feed unit (115) which is adapted to feed at least one product caliber (see the product 117) along a feed direction (a direction towards to a cutting plan S1, Figure 7); and
a cutting unit (Figures 3a,b-4a,b) which is adapted to cut the at least one product caliber into slices;
wherein the cutting unit comprises a blade (119) which can be rotatingly driven about an axis of rotation, and the cutting unit is configured to perform a run-out movement in order to make one or more blank cuts during which the blade is moved along a direction “substantially” parallel to the axis of rotation of the blade from a slicing position (Figure 5) adapted for cutting the at least one product caliber into slices to a blank cutting position (Figures 6-7) in which, during a respective rotation of the blade about the axis of rotation, no slice is cut off from the at least one product caliber; and
wherein the feed unit (115) is furthermore adapted to move the at least one product caliber away from the cutting unit in order to perform a retraction movement against the feed direction while the one or more blank cuts are being made (Para. 52 “The product can, for example, lie on a displaceable carriage which is retracted from the cutting blade by a retraction stroke for carrying out blank cuts.”),
However, Weber silently discusses that the cutting unit and the feed unit are configured to be operated in such a way, when making the one or more blank cuts, that a run-in movement of the blade from the blank cutting position to the slicing position and the retraction movement of the at least one product caliber against the feed direction at least partially overlap in time.
Joerg shows a similar slicing machine (Figures 1-11) for slicing a food caliber (8), the machine includes a feed unit (9) for feeding the food product in a feed direction towards a blade (3, Figure 6), wherein the feed unit is withdrawn (retracted) the food caliber against the feed direction at least partially overlap in time (as it is written, see the issue above and it is unclear the “at least partially overlap in time” refers to, therefore, during operating or slicing, a blank cut or an end piece of the food caliber (8.1, Figure 7) is withdrawn or retracted by the feed unit (Figure 11 and Translation, page 5, the 5th paragraph “Subsequently, the remnant piece is withdrawn from the gripper, which is symbolized by the arrow until it is above a gap which is provided between the cutting edge and the support 7 (see Figure 9). Then, the slider is moved up again (see Figure 10) and the engagement between the gripper 9 and the remaining piece 8.1 dissolved so that it slides along the slide 5 in the gap 1 1 and from there into a reservoir (see FIG 1 1). Subsequently, the gripper is retracted to its positions shown in Figure 1 and the cold cuts of a new food product can begin.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the slicing machine of Weber to a remain piece of the food caliber to be retracted and released, as taught by Joerg, in order to allow a new food product or caliber can be installed and continuously sliced. In doing, it can save time and increase productivity.
Regarding claim 2, the modified slicing machine of Weber shows that the feed unit is adapted to move the at least one product caliber away from a cutting plane of the blade during the retraction movement (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the modified slicing machine of Weber shows that the cutting unit is adapted to perform the run-out movement with a speed of the run-in movement against the feed direction (see the discussion in claim 1 above since it is unclear what the speed refers to; any movement of the cutting unit inherently includes a speed).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the modified slicing machine of Weber shows that the feed unit is adapted to move the at least one product caliber, after the one or more blank cuts have been made, a speed of the retraction movement(see Figures 5-7 of Weber. See the discussion in claim 1 above since it is unclear what the speed refers to; any movement of the feed unit inherently includes a speed).
Regarding claim 5, the modified slicing machine of Weber shows that while the one or more blank cuts are being made (Figure 7 of Weber), the feed unit is configured to move the at least one product caliber away from the cutting unit against the feed direction only when the cutting unit has at least partially performed the run-out movement of the blade (see the discussion in claim 1 and see Figure 7 of Weber, in order to make new one or more blank cuts).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the modified slicing machine of Weber shows that the cutting unit is configured, while the one or more blank cuts are being made, to initiate the run-in movement of the blade from the blank cutting position to the slicing position only after the feed unit has started to move the product caliber away from the cutting unit against the feed direction (see the modification above and see Figures 6-8 of Joerg).
Regarding claims 7-8, the modified slicing machine of Weber shows that the run-in or out movement of the cutting unit that has a stroke in the feed direction in a range from 0.5 mm to 15 mm (Para. 104 of Weber “a few millimeters”).
Regarding claims 9-10, the modified slicing machine of Weber shows that the retraction movement or a feed movement of the feed unit has a stroke in a range from 1 mm to 8 mm (see Para. 104 “Alternatively, a reverse procedure could also be followed, that is the product feed 111 could be retracted together with the product support 113 and the conveying means 115 from the cutting blade. The retraction stroke which corresponds to the spacing D1 is shown in exaggerated form in FIG. 6 for illustration. As stated above, it usually amounts to only a few millimeters”).
Regarding claim 11, the modified slicing machine of Weber shows that the slicing machine further comprises a gripper unit (see gripper 25 of Weber, Figure 1) with at least one gripper which is adapted to grip the at least one product caliber at its end facing away from the cutting unit.
Regarding claim 12, the modified slicing machine of Weber shows that the slicing machine further comprises a portioning unit (see a cutting edge of the blade of Figures 3a, b-4a,b of Weber) which is adapted to form portions from the slices cut by the cutting unit, with each portion comprising one or more slices.
Regarding claim 13, the modified slicing machine of Weber shows that the slicing machine further comprises a discharge unit (45, Figure 2b of Weber) which is adapted to discharge the slices cut by the cutting unit along a discharge direction (V).
Regarding claim 14, the modified slicing machine of Weber teaches a method for slicing foods by the slicing machine (see all limitations as stated in claims 1-13 above), comprising:
“feeding, by a feed unit of the slicing machine, at least one product caliber along a feed direction;
slicing, by a cutting unit of the slicing machine, the at least one product caliber into slices, with a blade of the cutting unit being rotatingly driven about an axis of rotation; and
performing a run-out movement with the cutting unit in order to make one or more blank cuts, the blade being moved along a direction substantially parallel to the axis of rotation of the blade from a slicing position, which is adapted to cut the at least one product caliber into slices, to a blank cutting position in which, during a respective rotation of the blade about the axis of rotation, no slice is cut off from the at least one product caliber;
wherein, while the one or more blank cuts are being made, the at least one product caliber is moved away from the cutting unit, in order to perform a retraction movement against the feed direction, and while the one or more blank cuts are being made, the cutting unit and the feed unit are operated in such a way that a run-in movement of the blade from the blank cutting position to the slicing position and the retraction movement of the at least one product caliber against the feed direction at least partially overlap in time” see the modification in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 15, the modified slicing machine of Weber teaches all of the limitations as stated in claims 1-2 above.
Regarding Claims 16-17, as best understood, the modified slicing machine of Weber teaches all of the limitations as stated in claims 3-4 above.
Regarding Claims 18-19, the modified slicing machine of Weber teaches all of the limitations as stated in claims 5-6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220024064 A1; US 20160144527 A1; US 20120222526 A1; US 20120060658 A1; US 20130228054 A1 show at least one cutting unit and a feed unit move two positions (extension and retraction).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 7/20/2026
Prosecution Insights