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 .
Election/Restrictions
In light of the current state of claim 1, the restriction requirement has been withdrawn and all claims have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
It is noted that the list of references is in paragraph [0003]. Applicant does not need to do anything because all of these references have been considered and include in the PTO-892.
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 recessed surface spanning at least a portion of the longitudinal length of the cam rod, of claim 5
The unitary knife, of claim 9
It is noted that the recessed surface may be shown but not labeled. If an item is important enough to claim it is important enough to be labeled in the Figures and discussed in the Detailed Description.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 6, the phrase “the knife holder and knife” should be replaced with “the knife holder and the knife”.
In claim 1 lines 14-15, the phrase “the tab blades are received” should be replaced with “the tab blades are respectively received”.
In claim 4 line 2, the phrase “are received” should be replaced with “are respectively received”.
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.
Claims 1-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the thickness" on line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 1 lines 16-17, the phrase “applying a clamping load to the clamp” is unclear. Earlier in the claim the clamp is disclosed as having a base portion. As written, the load is not associated with the base portion of the clamp which is not supported. Since the base portion is claimed it needs to be incorporated into this limitation. The phrase should be replaced with “applying a clamping load to the base portion of the clamp”.
With regards to claim 1 line 7, the phrase “a knife-engaging portion” is unclear. As written, the knife-engaging portion is unrelated to the tab blades which is not supported. The specification supports that the tab blades are received in the knife-engaging portion of the clamp (also see claim 4). If the tab blades are not in the knife-engaging portion, it is unclear how the station comprises the knife with tab blades and the clamp. Since both are claimed and there is never a time where the tab blades are not received in the knife-engaging portion, the claim needs to, at least broadly, acknowledge this relationship.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the thicknesses" on lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 3, it is unclear what gate structures define the trialing end and the distal portion of the trailing end and what gate structure define the distal edge. It seems that the distal end would be part of the distal portion of the trialing end. If that is the case, it is unclear how the gate tapers toward itself? As written, it is unclear if the gate slots are part of the taper. Figure 6A clearly shows the slots being tapered as well, so the claim needs to be clear that the slots are tapered along with the distal portion of the trailing end.
With regards to claim 4, claim 1 discloses the knife-engaging portion and the tab blade are unrelated to each other. It is unclear how unrelated items can now have a relationship where the tab blades are received in the knife-engaging portion. Claim 1 needs to broadly disclose the tab blades are in the knife-engaging portion and then claim 4 can introduce the slots that respectively receive the tab blades.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the width" on lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 5, the phrase “The recessed surface spanning at least a portion of the longitudinal length of the cam rod” is unclear. It is unclear what structure represents the recessed surface. There is no explanation on where the recessed surface is located or how it is defined in the specification.
With regards to claim 8, the phrase “and individual tab blades” is unclear. Claim 1 already discloses tab blades. It is unclear if the claim 8 tab blades represent the same or different blades as the claim 1 tab blades. As written, there are two different sets of tab blades which does not appear to be supported. Claim 1 also already discloses the tab blades are perpendicular to the cutting edge.
With regards to claim 8, claim 1 discloses a portion of the knife-engaging portion having a shape complementary to the knife. It is unclear what structures of the strip-cut knife and/or the second knife that has the shape that the complementary in shape to the to the knife-engaging portion?
With regards to claim 8, claim 1 discloses “applying a clamping load. It is unclear what structures of the strip-cut knife and/or the second knife receives the clamping load?
With regards to claim 9, what structure defines the unitary knife.
With regards to claim 11, the phrase “promote complete strip cuts” is unclear. It is unclear how the tab blades/gate slots perform a “promoting” function. It is unclear what is meant by “promote”.
With regards to claim 11, the phrase “that are difficult to cut into strips at high production rates” is indefinite. It is unclear what can and cannot be considered difficult. It is unclear what can and cannot be considered food products that are difficult to cut into strips. It is unclear what can and cannot be considered food products that are difficult to cut into strips at high rates. It is unclear what rates can and cannot be considered high rates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art discloses a cutting station for a slicing machine with a knife holder, a strip-cut knife having a cutting edge and tab blades, a clamp, a gate having a trailing end that defines with the cutting edge a gate opening that determines a thickness of a slice produced, and the trailing end of the gate has gate slots in which the tab blades are received in combination with the remaining limitations. Sanders (3,395,742) is considered close prior art as it incorporates a cutting station (Fig. 2) for a slicing machine (Fig. 1) with a knife holder (28), a strip-cut knife (38) having a cutting edge (42) and tab blades (44), a clamp (31), a gate (100) having a trailing end that defines with the cutting edge a gate opening that determines a thickness of a slice produced (Fig. 2). However, Sanders fails to disclose the trailing end of the gate has gate slots in which the tab blades are received.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:30 am-3:30 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, Andrea Wellington can be reached on (571)272-4483. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
17 August 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights