UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`13/099,325
`
`05/02/2011
`
`Scott A. Lindee
`
`PRV10-102-US
`
`1557
`
`Khntworth & Rozenblat IP LLP
`
`19 North Green Street
`
`Chicago, IL 60607
`
`NGUYEN' PHONG H
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3724
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`12/19/2019
`
`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):
`
`doeketing @ kandrip. com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`017/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`13/099,325
`Examiner
`PHONG H NGUYEN
`
`Applicant(s)
`Lindee et al.
`Art Unit
`3724
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`N0
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f 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).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 10/31/2019.
`CI A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) D This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] 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 Expade Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1—5,84—88,90,92—94 and 99 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 2—5 and 84 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`
`E] Claim(ss) _ is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(ss) 1 ,85—88, 90, 92 ,94 and 99 is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(ss_) is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`S)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`C] 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
`
`http://www.jjgptgng/patents/init_event§/pph/index.'sp or send an inquiry to PPeredhack@g§ptg.ggv.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10):] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`is/are: a)[:| accepted or b)D objected to by the Examiner.
`11):] The drawing(s) filed on
`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):] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)i:i All
`
`b)C] Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.1:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`SD 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)
`
`1) [3 Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) C] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) E] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20191213
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`A-Lindee as a primary reference
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`1.
`
`The following is aquotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(b) the invention was patented ordescribed in a printed publication in this or a foreign country
`or in public use oron sale in this country, more than one year priorto the date of application
`for patent in the United States.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1, 88, 92, 94 and 99 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
`
`being anticipated by Lindee etal. (2004/0055439), hereinafter Lindee.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Lindee teaches a food article slicing machine comprising:
`
`a slicing station comprising a knife blade and a knife blade drive driving the blade
`
`along a cutting path in a cutting plane;
`
`a food article feed apparatus comprising an upper conveyor assembly with
`
`independently driven endless conveyor belts 334, and a food article gripper 125
`
`connected to each conveyor belt, each food article gripper configured to engage and
`
`move a food article along a food article feed path, wherein each food article gripper 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;
`
`and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`Page 3
`
`a food loading apparatus (163, 164, 116, 117) disposed under the food article
`
`feed apparatus.
`
`See Figs. 1-2.
`
`Regarding claim 88, since the grippers run independent,
`
`the grippers can be
`
`programed to move food at the same rate.
`
`Regarding claims 92 and 94, the conveyor belts with the grippers move in a
`
`plane parallel to a feed path. See Figs. 3-5.
`
`Regarding claim 99, the food article is disposed directly under the conveyor belt.
`
`See Fig. 4.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`3.
`
`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 identicallydisclosedordescribed
`as set forth in section 102 ofthis title, if the differences between the subject mattersought to
`be patented and the priorart are such thatthe subject matteras awhole would have been
`obvious atthe time the invention was made to a person having ordinaryskill in the art to which
`said subject matterpertains. Patentabilityshall notbe negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 85-87 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Lindee etal. (2004/0055439), hereinafter Lindee in view of Moi (2005/0082147).
`
`Regarding claim 85, Lindee does not teaches “each independently driven
`
`endless conveyor belt is wrapped around adrive 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.”
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`Page 4
`
`lVlol teaches an endless conveyor belt wrapped around adrive roller. The driver
`
`roller has 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.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to use the drive rollers having teeth as taught by lVlol
`
`in the slicing
`
`machine of Lindee for creating friction between the conveyor belt and the drive roller for
`
`driving the conveyor belt.
`
`Regarding claim 86, Lindee teaches using a servomotor for driving the conveyor
`
`belts.
`
`Regarding claim 87, Lindee does to teach the location of the servomotors, 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 an invention involves only routine skill
`
`in the art.
`
`In
`
`re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
`
`5.
`
`Claim 90 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Lindee et al. (2004/0055439), hereinafter Lindee in view of JP200-288983.
`
`Lindee teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the slicing
`
`machine having three conveyor belts each connected to a gripper.
`
`JP200-288983 teaches a slicing machine having three feeding devices for
`
`feeding three food products simultaneously. See Fig. 1.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to provide the slicing machine of Lindee three conveyor belts each
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`Page 5
`
`connected to a gripper for feeding three food products simultaneously as taught by
`
`JP200-288983.
`
`B-Hartman as a primary reference
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`6.
`
`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 identicallydisclosedordescribed
`as set forth in section 102 ofthis title, if the differences between the subject mattersought to
`be patented and the priorart are such thatthe subject matteras awhole would have been
`obvious atthe time the invention was made to a person having ordinaryskill in the art to which
`said subject matter pertains. Patentabilityshall notbe negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1, 85, 88, 92, 94 and 99 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Hartmann (5,191,820) in view of Weber (2005/0132855), and
`
`EP0547389.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Harmann teaches afood 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 comprising an upper conveyor assembly with
`
`independently driven endless conveyor belts, and a food article gripper 11
`
`connected to each conveyor belt, each food article gripper configured to engage and
`
`move a food article along a food article feed path, wherein each food 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;
`
`and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`Page 6
`
`a food loading apparatus 2 disposed under the food article feed apparatus.
`
`See Figs. 1-2.
`
`It is noted that the bolded texts are not taught by Hartmann.
`
`A—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.
`
`Weber teaches independent driven feeding devices 36 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. 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 Weber 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.
`
`B-As to a gripper driven by an endless belt, EP0547389 teaches using an
`
`endless belt 3 for driving a gripper 16. See Figs. 1-2.
`
`The driving track in Hartmann and the driving belt in EP0547389 are art
`
`equivalents for driving a gripper.
`
`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.
`
`Regarding claim 85, EP0547389 teaches atoothed belt. Typically, the toothed
`
`belt is used with a toothed drive roller.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`Page 7
`
`Regarding claim 88, the modified belts and grippers can move food at the same
`
`rate.
`
`Regarding claims 92 and 94, EP0547389 teaches the belt 4 running a plane
`
`parallel to a feeding path.
`
`Regarding claim 99, the food article loading apparatus 2 in Hartmann is directly
`
`under the modified conveyor belts of the food article feed apparatus.
`
`8.
`
`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 Weber (2005/0132855), and
`
`EP0547389 as applied to claims 1 and 85 above, and further in view of Gutknecht
`
`(2008/0185095).
`
`Regarding claim 86, the modified slicing machine of Murray 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 EP0547389 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, 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 an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
`
`In re Japikse, 86
`
`USPQ 70 (CC PA 1950).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`Page 8
`
`9.
`
`Claim 90 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Hartmann (5,191,820) in view of Weber (2005/0132855), and EP0547389 as applied to
`
`claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2000-288983.
`
`The modified slicing machine of Hartman teaches the invention substantially as
`
`claimed except for the slicing machine having three conveyor belts each connected to a
`
`gripper.
`
`JP200-288983 teaches a slicing machine having three feeding devices for
`
`feeding three food product simultaneously. See Fig. 1.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to provide the slicing machine of Hartman three conveyor belts
`
`each connected to a gripper for feeding three food product simultaneously as taught by
`
`JP200-288983.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`10.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2019 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive.
`
`Lindee (2004/0055439)
`
`The Applicant argues that Lindee does not teach the food article loading apparatus
`
`(163, 164, 116, 117) is under the independently driven endless conveyor belts 334
`
`having a gripper. This argument is not persuasive. Elements (163, 164, 116, 117)
`
`define a support for food articles (para. [0036], [0045], Figs. 2-4) and the grippers are
`
`positioned in a midsection of a food article. Therefore, the grippers are positioned
`
`above elements (163, 164, 116, 117). Furthermore, Lindee teaches independent
`
`loaf
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`Page 9
`
`paths (116-118) in para. [0058]. The belt 334 above elements (163, 164, 116, 117) is
`
`best seen in Figs. 4 and 5.
`
`Hartmann (5,191,820)
`
`Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to Pryor, Lindee, Weber ‘855, and
`
`JP200-288983,
`
`those references were withdrawn since they don’t establish well the
`
`grippers driving by belts positioned above the feeding paths but not because they don’t
`
`teach the concept of independent grippers. The concept of independent grippers is well
`
`known the art. In fact, Weber ‘855 is retained to teach independent grippers.
`
`Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to Hartmann, Hartmann teaches
`
`the grippers 11 driven by the ball spindle positioned above the food loading apparatus
`
`2. Fig.
`
`1
`
`is a side view of the device and it shows the ball spindle 19 above the food
`
`loading apparatus. Hartmann does not teach the grippers 11 driven by endless belts.
`
`EP0547389 teaches using endless belts for driving the grippers in Figs. 1-3. The ball
`
`spindle in Hartman and the belt in EP0547389 perform the same function which is
`
`driving the grippers and thus are art equivalents. To substitute equivalent arts known
`
`for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art.
`
`Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to Anstalt, there is a difference
`
`between Anstalt and EP0547389, Anstalt teaches the belt functioning as a driving belt
`
`for the gripper and a food article loading apparatus. EP0547389 teaches the belt 4 and
`
`the food article loading apparatus being separated components similar to the invention.
`
`The Applicant argues that the combination of Hartman, Weber ‘855, and
`
`EP0547389 would not work because of the top loading of the food article. This
`
`argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not teach how the food article is loaded.
`
`lf
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`Page 10
`
`the top loading of the food article is not working as argued by the Applicant then how to
`
`position the belts of the food article feed apparatus above the food article loading
`
`apparatus in claim 1 would work for the invention. The Applicant may clarify this issue in
`
`claim 1
`
`to overcome the combination of Hartman, Weber ‘855, and EPO547389.
`
`Furthermore, the combination of Hartman, Weber ‘855, and EPO547389 would work for
`
`side loading.
`
`Regarding Applicant’s argument that the combination of Hartman, Weber ‘855,
`
`and EP0547389 is based on hindsight reasoning. This argument is not persuasive.
`
`In
`
`response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is
`
`based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on
`
`obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning.
`
`But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of
`
`ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include
`
`knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
`
`See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
`
`Conclusion
`
`11.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/099,325
`Art Unit: 3724
`
`Page 11
`
`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.
`
`12.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is
`
`(571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached on M—F: 6-3.
`
`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 H NGUYEN/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 3724
`
`