`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`13/099,325
`
`05/02/2011
`
`James E. Pasek
`
`PRV10—102—US
`
`1557
`
`Klintworth & Rozenblat IP LLP
`19 North Green Street
`
`Chicago, IL 60607
`
`NGUYEN, PHONG H
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3724
`
`PAPER NUIVIBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/22/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`docketing @kandrip.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 13/099,325 PASEK ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`3724Phong Nguyen it?“
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 06/14/2017.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:l This action is non-final.
`2a)|Z| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1-5 and 84-94 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 2-5,84,91 and 93 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`
`7)|Z| Claim(s) 1 85-90 92 and 94 is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`:/'I’\WIIW.usnto. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`hI/index.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|Xl The drawing(s) filed on 05/02/2011 is/are: a)IXI accepted or b)|:l objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) I] InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20170919
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`1.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis
`
`for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described
`as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to
`be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1, 88-90, 92, and 94 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Hartmann (5,191,820) in view of Pryor et al. (2008/0250944),
`
`hereinafter Pryor, Lindee et al. (2004/0031363), hereinafter Lindee, Weber
`
`(2005/0132855), JP2000-288983, Anstalt (DE 195 25 742), Walter (2,047,400), and
`
`Weber et al. 4,934,232), hereinafter Weber’ 232.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Harmann teaches a food article slicing machine comprising:
`
`a slicing station comprising a knife blade 46 and a knife blade drive driving the
`
`blade along a cutting path in a cutting plane;
`
`a food article feed apparatus diepesed—ever—a—fmad—artiele loading apparatus 2,
`
`said food article feed apparatus having an upper conveyor assembly with
`
`independerttly—drherrendless—eerweyepbeltsreaeh—belt—connected to a food article
`
`gripper 11 for moving a food article along a food article feed path, wherein each food
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`article gripper 11 is activated between a closed position, in which the food article gripper
`
`seizes a food article, and an open position, in which the food article gripper releases a
`
`food article.
`
`See Figs. 1-2.
`
`Hartmann teaches a single gripper connected to a track assembly (22, 23, 24,
`
`26) but not a plurality of independent grippers each connected to an endless belt.
`
`Pryor teaches independent driven feeding device so that slices cut from one loaf
`
`may vary in thickness from slices cut from another loaf. See paragraph [002].
`
`Lindee teaches independent driven feeding devices in form of conveyor belts (20,
`
`24, 22, 26). See Fig. 1 and paragraph [0020].
`
`Weber teaches independent driven feeding devices 3. See Fig. 1.
`
`JP2000-288983 teaches independent driven feeding devices 36. See Fig. 1.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the invention
`
`was made to provide independent grippers to the food slicing machine of Hartmann as
`
`taught by Pryor or Lindee or Weber or JP2000-288983 so that multiple loaves can be
`
`cut at the same time and slices cut from one loaf may vary in thickness from slices cut
`
`from another loaf.
`
`As to a gripper driven by an endless belt, Anstalt teaches using an endless belt 3
`
`for driving a gripper 7. See Fig. 1.
`
`The driving track in Hartmann and the driving belt in Anstalt are art equivalents
`
`for driving a gripper.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to use belts for driving the modified grippers in Hartmann since it
`
`has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to
`
`one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
`
`The modified driving belt as taught by Anstalt does not teach the driving belt
`
`being positioned in an upper position.
`
`Weber '232 teaches a driving source 5 for a gripper 6 being positioned in an
`
`upper position.
`
`Walter teaches a driving source 131 for a gripper 121 being positioned in an
`
`upper position. See Fig. 1.
`
`To position the drive source for the gripper at an upper position or a lower
`
`position is art equivalent known in the art.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to position the driving belt of Anstalt at an upper position since it
`
`has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to
`
`one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
`
`Regarding claim 88, the modified belts and grippers can move food at the same
`
`rate.
`
`Regarding claim 89, a food gripper 11 is best seen in Fig. 1
`
`in Hartmann.
`
`Regarding claim 90, it is within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to provide
`
`three conveyor belts for driving three grippers simultaneously as evidenced by JP200-
`
`288983. JP200-288983 teaches three feeding devices 36 in Fig. 1.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`Regarding claim 92, Hartmann, Lindee, and Weber teach the conveyor belt
`
`moving in a plane parallel to the feed path.
`
`Regarding claim 94, see Fig.
`
`1
`
`in Anstalt.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 85 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Hartmann (5,191,820) in view of Pryor et al. (2008/0250944), hereinafter Pryor, Lindee
`
`et al. (2004/0031363), hereinafter Lindee, Weber (2005/0132855), JP2000-288983 and
`
`Anstalt (DE 195 25 742), Walter (2,047,400), and Weber et al. 4,934,232), hereinafter
`
`Weber’ 232 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moi (2005/0082147).
`
`Anstalt does not teaches “each independently driven endless conveyor belt is
`
`wrapped around a drive roller; said driver roller having a toothed outer diameter for
`
`engaging with the endless conveyor belt and a toothed recessed diameter for engaging
`
`with a drive belt.”
`
`Mol teaches “each independently driven endless conveyor belt is wrapped
`
`around a drive roller; said driver roller having a toothed outer diameter for engaging with
`
`the endless conveyor belt and a toothed recessed diameter for engaging with a drive
`
`belt.” See Fig. 1.
`
`The drive rollers in Mol and Anstal are art equivalents known in the conveyor belt
`
`art.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to use the drive rollers and the belts as taught by Mol in the
`
`modified slicing machine of Hartmann since it has been held that substituting
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP.
`
`2144.06.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 86 and 87 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Hartmann (5,191,820) in view of Pryor et al. (2008/0250944),
`
`hereinafter Pryor, Lindee et al. (2004/0031363), hereinafter Lindee, Weber
`
`(2005/0132855), JP2000-288983, Anstalt (DE 195 25 742), Walter (2,047,400), Weber
`
`et al. 4,934,232), hereinafter Weber’ 232 and Mol (2005/0082147) as applied to claims
`
`1 and 85 above, and further in view of Gutknecht (2008/0185095).
`
`Regarding claim 86, Anstalt teaches the invention substantially as claimed
`
`except for the conveying belt being driven by a servomotor.
`
`Gutknecht teaches a belt driven by a servomotor. See paragraph [0144].
`
`The motors in Anstalt and Gutknecht are art equivalents known in the art.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to use a servomotor for driving the belts in Anstalt since it has been
`
`held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled
`
`in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
`
`Regarding claim 87, Pryor, Lindee, Weber and JP2000-288983 teach providing
`
`each conveyor belt an independent drive.
`
`Gutknecht teaches using servomotor for driving a conveyor belt.
`
`As to the location of the servomotor, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the servomotors
`
`on the same side of the conveyor belts since it has been held that rearranging parts of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA
`
`1950).
`
`5.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed on 06/14/2017 have been fully considered but they
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`are not persuasive.
`
`Regarding Applicant's argument with respect to the Pre-Appeal Brief, finality of
`
`the Final office action dated 07/21/2016 was re-opened due to claim 92 had not been
`
`fully addressed but not the non-obviousness of the prior art.
`
`Regarding Applicant’s with respect to the number of references, the limitations in
`
`the claims are not novelty. For each limitation, the Examiner has cited several
`
`references to show the non-novelty of the limitation. For example, the limitation of
`
`independents grippers, a single Pryor or Lindee or Webb ‘855 or JP '893 teaches that
`
`limitation but not all of them.
`
`Regarding Applicant's argument with respect to 35 USC 103 rejections, Hartman
`
`teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except for a plurality of independent grippers
`
`positioned above food products. As to the limitation of a plurality of independent
`
`grippers, this is not a novelty feature as the Examiner has shown four different
`
`references, Pryor or Lindee or Webb ‘855 or JP '893, teaching this limitation. As to the
`
`limitation of driving the grippers by belts, this is not new either. Anstalt teaches using a
`
`belt to drive a gripper. As to the limitation of positioning the grippers above the food
`
`product, Weber ‘232 or Walter teaches this limitation.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to Mol, Mol is applied to teach a
`
`belt having teeth but not a plurality of belts. A plurality of belts are taught by the
`
`combination of Hartman, Anstalt and one of Pryor or Lindee or Webb ‘855 or JP '893.
`
`Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 87, combination of
`
`Hartman, Anstalt and one of Pryor or Lindee or Webb ‘855 or JP '893 teaches
`
`independent feeding grippers which each gripper has its own drive. When a servomotor
`
`is used, it is obvious that each feeding gripper is provided with a servomotor.
`
`Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 90, JP ‘893 teaches three
`
`feeding grippers each with its own motor. When the motors are replaced, they must be
`
`replaced with three driving belt.
`
`Conclusion
`
`6.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
`
`extension fee 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`7.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Phong Nguyen whose telephone number is (571 )272—
`
`4510. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday.
`
`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.
`
`/Phong Nguyen/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
`September 19, 2017
`
`