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 . 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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9-16, 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blaine (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0158537).
Regarding claim 1, Blaine teaches portioning a substantially uniform food product in the form of a sheet having a surface area into a series of unique variations of one or more predetermined reference shapes to resemble naturally occurring food product shapes (Abstract, paragraph, 0038, 0041, 0071), comprising:
digitally generating a series of unique variations of the one or more predetermined reference shapes, the reference shapes resembling naturally occurring food product shapes, the generated series of unique variation shapes are based on specified physical parameters for the variation shapes (Paragraphs 0024, 0038-0042, 0070-0078);
mapping/applying the generated series of unique variation shapes over substantially the entire surface area of the food product (Paragraphs 0076-0079; Note the computer profile provides specific variations and models the work product to determine how the work product may be divided, trimmed, and/or cut into end pieces P composed of specific physical criteria, including, for example, shape, area, weight, and/or thickness);
generating cutting paths for portioning the substantially uniform food product in the form of a sheet into the mapped variation shapes (Abstract, paragraph 0025 and 0076-0079; and
controlling the operation of one or more cutters to cut the food product along the mapped cutting paths thereby portioning the food product into the unique variations of naturally occurring individual end food product shapes (Paragraphs 0071, 0077-0079; Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 9, Blaine teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising: scanning the food product and generating digital data based on the results of the scanning (Abstract); and digitally generating the series of unique variation shapes based on the digital scanning data and on the specified physical parameters for the unique variation shapes (Figures 3-4, Paragraphs,0024, 0034-0038, 0068, 0076-0079).
Regarding claim 10, Blaine teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein in digitally generating the series of unique variations of the one or more predetermined reference shapes, limiting the allowed departure of the variation shapes from: the one or more reference shapes or from each other (Figures 3-4, Paragraphs 0034-0038, 0068, 0076-0079).
Regarding claim 11, Blaine teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the generated unique variation shapes have at least one physical specification in common selected from the group consisting a length dimension of the variation shape, a width dimension of the variation shape, a thickness dimension of the variation shape, the area of the variation shape and the weight of the variation shape (Figures 3-4, Paragraphs 0034-0042, 0076-0079).
Regarding claim 12, Blaine teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the cutting paths for cutting the food product into the variation shapes are along at least portions of periodic wave patterns (Figures 3-4, Paragraphs 0034-0038, 0068 0076-0079).
Regarding claim 13, Blaine teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising mapping the digitally generated series of unique variation shapes on the food product prior to generating cutting paths for cutting the food product (Paragraph 0076-0079; Examiner notes the digitally processed on a computer).
Regarding claim 15, Blaine teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising selecting the level of food product trim remaining after the food product has been portioned in the unique variations of naturally occurring food product shapes (Paragraph 0038, 0041 Figure 3; Paragraph 0076-0078).
Regarding claim 16, Blaine teaches the method of Claim 15, further comprising cutting the trim into one or more selected shapes and/or sizes (Figure 3; Paragraph 0076-0078).
Regarding claim 22, Blaine teaches the method of Claim 15, further wherein the substantially uniform food product is selected from the group consisting of plant-based food products, cultured meat, and cultured fish (Paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 25, Blaine teaches the method of Claim 15, wherein the substantially uniform food product is a protein food product (Paragraph 0070 noting meat, fish, poultry and nuts).
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.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaine (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0158537) as evidenced by Bates (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0134850) as evidenced by Juravic (U.S. Patent No. 2012/0219676) in view of Duncan (U.S. Patent No. 5,780,805).
Regarding claim 2, Blaine teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising: digitally generating the series of unique variation shapes by specifying a physical parameter (Abstract) of the one or more reference shapes by a plurality of points extending along the perimeter of the one or more reference shapes; and allowing the points to vary in at least one direction to generate the unique variation shapes (Paragraphs 0038-0039, 0068,0072-0074).
Blaine does not provide allowing the points to vary randomly in at least one direction.
Bates provides evidence it is known in the art of processing foodstuffs to provide a widely distributed range of sizes, and a virtually infinite array of random shapes, to produce a unique and distinct product that is attractive in appearance (Paragraph 0004,0027,0036
Juravic also provides evidence it is known in the art of manufacturing food products to provide a product that is generally of a different size and shape than the previous one, which eventually results in a plurality of product pieces that are of substantially random shapes, sizes and texture (Paragraph 0036).
Duncan teaches it is known in the art of cutting to incorporate multiple cutting paths, with variable dimensions that allows for geometric X-Y variances as well as random cutting movements (Col. 4, Lines 10-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Blaine to incorporate the teachings of Duncan to provide variable shapes with random points during cutting. In doing so, it allows for the workpiece shapes and dimensions to be cut as desired to reduce the chances of repeating during subsequent cuts.
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Blaine teaches the method of Claim 2, allowing the points to move randomly in the X and Y directions (Blaine Paragraph 0038-0039 and Duncan Col. 4, Lines 10-49).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Blaine teaches the method of Claim 2, further comprising digitally generating the series of unique variation shapes by specifying a physical parameter of the one or more reference shapes by a plurality of points on the surface of the one or more reference shapes and allowing the points to move randomly in the direction transverse to the surface (Blaine Paragraph 0004,0038-0043, 0071-0074, and Duncan Col. 4, Lines 10-49).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Blaine teaches the method of Claim 2, further comprising one of the steps selected from the group consisting of: repeatedly mapping the one or more reference shapes on the food product and then performing digital generation of the series of unique variation shapes by the method of Claim 2; and mapping the series of unique variation shapes generated by the method of Claim 2 onto the product (Blaine Paragraph 0073-0078).
Regarding claim 6, Blaine teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising digitally generating the series of unique variation shapes by: selecting a first reference shape; selecting at least one additional reference shape for pairing with the first reference shape, and randomly selecting the extent that the variation shape resembles the first reference shape and the paired additional reference shape (Blaine Paragraph 0038-0043, 0071-0077 and Duncan Col. 4, Lines 10-49).
Blaine does not provide the specifics of random selection.
Duncan teaches it is known in the art of cutting to incorporate multiple cutting paths, with variable dimensions that allows for geometric X-Y variances as well as random cutting movements (Col. 4, Lines 10-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Blaine to incorporate the teachings of Duncan to provide variable shapes with random points during cutting. In doing so, it allows for the workpiece shapes and dimensions to be cut as desired.
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Blaine teaches the method of Claim 6, further comprising a plurality of additional reference shapes, and a specific additional reference shape randomly paired with the first reference shape (Blaine Paragraph 0038-0043, 0073-0077 and Duncan Col. 4, Lines 10-49).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Blaine teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising digitally generating the series of unique variation shapes by: repeatedly mapping a first reference shape on the food product; selecting at least one additional reference shape; and for each reference shape mapped on the food product, creating a variation shape by randomly selecting the extent that mapped reference shape resembles the first reference shape and the at least one additional selected reference shape (Blaine Paragraph 0038-0043, 0071-0077 and Duncan Col. 4, Lines 10-49).
Blaine does not provide the specifics of random selection.
Duncan teaches it is known in the art of cutting to incorporate multiple cutting paths, with variable dimensions that allows for geometric X-Y variances as well as random cutting movements (Col. 4, Lines 10-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Blaine to incorporate the teachings of Duncan to provide variable shapes with random points during cutting. In doing so, it allows for the workpiece shapes and dimensions to be cut as desired.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaine (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0158537) as evidenced by Bates (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0134850) as evidenced by Juravic (U.S. Patent No. 2012/0219676) in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art (Specification, Page 16).
Regarding claim 2, Blaine teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising: digitally generating the series of unique variation shapes by specifying a physical parameter (Abstract) of the one or more reference shapes by a plurality of points extending along the perimeter of the one or more reference shapes; and allowing the points to vary in at least one direction to generate the unique variation shapes (Paragraphs 0038-0039, 0068,0072-0074).
Blaine does not provide allowing the points to vary randomly in at least one direction.
Bates provides evidence it is known in the art of processing foodstuffs to provide a widely distributed range of sizes, and a virtually infinite array of random shapes, to produce a unique and distinct product that is attractive in appearance (Paragraph 0004,0027,0036
Juravic also provides evidence it is known in the art of manufacturing food products to provide a product that is generally of a different size and shape than the previous one, which eventually results in a plurality of product pieces that are of substantially random shapes, sizes and texture (Paragraph 0036).
Applicant’s admitted prior art provides (Page 16) “Once the reference shapes 70 have been mapped onto the food product 12, as shown in FIGURE 2, each of the reference shapes can be digitally altered to intentionally create unique shapes while still resembling the naturally occurring shape. One way to accomplish this goal is by a process which applicant refers to as "jittering." In the process of jittering, the perimeter of the reference shape 70 is map or defined by coordinate points positioned along the perimeter. Thereafter, each point is allowed to shift to set maximum degree in the X and/or Y direction in a random manner. Standard software tools are available in this regard. The amount of maximum allowed shift may be controlled so that the resulting unique shape is limited in its variation from the reference shape as well as from the neighboring shape. Also, the coordinate points used to define the reference shape need not be uniformly spaced along the perimeter, but rather if a certain section of the reference shape is more significant than another section, then perhaps the coordinate points are positioned closer together in this section of the reference shape. Further, the amount that a point is allowed to shift may differ about the perimeter of the reference shape. In this manner, a certain section of the reference shape maybe more closely controlled than other sections of the reference shape. FIGURE 3 illustrates how each of the reference shapes 70 in FIGURE 2 has been altered in shape due to jittering. As can be seen each of the reference shapes in FIGURE 2 have been altered into a unique variation shape 70' in FIGURE 3, while maintaining the general shape of the reference to 70 of FIGURE 2. Further, the perimeters of the variation25 shapes 70' can be smoothed, using standard software techniques.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue product software to randomly vary final product shape which is known to be useful for a particular cutting function. There are a finite number of software program arrangements which pertain to cutting and shaping random foodstuffs. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to program using standard software any reasonable random product shape in an attempt to provide an improved final product foodstuff shape, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Blaine teaches the method of Claim 2, allowing the points to move randomly in the X and Y directions (Blaine Paragraph 0038-0039 and AAPA Page 16).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Blaine teaches the method of Claim 2, further comprising digitally generating the series of unique variation shapes by specifying a physical parameter of the one or more reference shapes by a plurality of points on the surface of the one or more reference shapes and allowing the points to move randomly in the direction transverse to the surface (Blaine Paragraph 0004,0038-0043, 0071-0074, and AAPA Page 16).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Blaine teaches the method of Claim 2, further comprising one of the steps selected from the group consisting of: repeatedly mapping the one or more reference shapes on the food product and then performing digital generation of the series of unique variation shapes by the method of Claim 2; and mapping the series of unique variation shapes generated by the method of Claim 2 onto the product (Blaine Paragraph 0073-0078).
Regarding claim 6, Blaine teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising digitally generating the series of unique variation shapes by: randomly selecting a first reference shape; selecting at least one additional reference shape for pairing with the first reference shape, and randomly selecting the extent that the variation shape resembles the first reference shape and the paired additional reference shape (Blaine Paragraph 0038-0043, 0071-0077 and AAPA Page 16).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Blaine teaches the method of Claim 6, further comprising a plurality of additional reference shapes, and a specific additional reference shape randomly paired with the first reference shape (Blaine Paragraph 0038-0043, 0073-0077 and AAPA Page 16).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Blaine teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising digitally generating the series of unique variation shapes by: repeatedly mapping a first reference shape on the food product; selecting at least one additional reference shape; and for each reference shape mapped on the food product, creating a variation shape by randomly selecting the extent that mapped reference shape resembles the first reference shape and the at least one additional selected reference shape (Blaine Paragraph 0038-0043, 0071-0077 and AAPA Page 16).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaine (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0158537) in view of Martinez-Montes (U.S. Patent No. 2015/0135921).
Regarding claim 21, Blaine teaches all of the element of the current method except wherein the substantially uniform food product is in the form of a continuous sheet.
Martinez-Montes teaches it is known in the art of food processing to incorporate snack products in the form of a continuous sheet to be processed and cut (Paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Blaine to incorporate the teachings of Martinez-Montes to provide the food product as a continuous sheet. In doing so, it allows for the workpiece to be conveyed in the desired shape and consistency required depending upon the food product to be processed.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaine (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0158537) as evidenced by Goda (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0116014) in view of Waksmundzki (U.S. Patent No. 2008/0077101).
-Regarding claim 23, Blaine does not provide wherein the cutting paths for cutting the food product into the variation shapes are along at least portions of continuous periodic wave patterns.
Goda provides evidence it is known to have workpieces cut utilizing a continual periodic wave pattern (Figures 2 and 9A noting the pattern connects between the workpieces and Figure 8 noting a continual pattern with spacing between the cutouts)
Waksmundzki teaches it is known to cut a workpiece (66) with a continual wave shaped cut (70)(Figures 3-4; Paragraphs 0030-0031, 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Blaine to incorporate the teachings of Waksmundzki to provide the cutting pattern as continuously periodic wave . In doing so, it allows for workpieces to be cut simultaneously and to the specific shape desired.
-Regarding claim 24, Blaine does not provide wherein the cutting path is generated so that the end of one variation shape abuts an adjacent variation shape.
Waksmundzki teaches it is known to cut a workpiece (66) with a continual wave shaped cut so that the end of one variation shape abuts an adjacent variation shape (70)(Figures 3-4; Paragraphs 0030-0031, 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Blaine to incorporate the teachings of Waksmundzki to provide the cutting pattern so that the end of one variation shape abuts an adjacent variation shape. In doing so, it allows for workpieces to be cut simultaneously and to the specific shape desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments (Pages 8-9) concerning the workpiece type of Blaine is noted but not persuasive. See Examiners previous responses noting the method is utilized for food products and the recitations of Blaine below noting a plurality of different workpieces.
Paragraph 0024 states “In accordance with a further aspect of the present disclosure, the target is composed of one or more of the following materials: foamed plastic, foamed thermoplastic, foamed rubber, foamed synthetic rubber, polyactic acid, organic food-based materials, rubber, synthetic rubber, paper, cardboard, and corrugated cardboard” and
Paragraph 0071 provides “Further, the systems, apparatus and methods disclosed in the present application and defined in the present claims, though specifically applicable to food products or food items, may also be used outside of the food area. Accordingly, the present application and claims reference “work products” and “workpieces,” which terms are synonymous with each other. It is to be understood that references to work products and workpieces also include food, food products, food pieces, and food items”.
Paragraph 0076 provides “The work products 104 may be a food product, such as meat, poultry, or fish, that are spaced along the conveyance system. Other types of work products may include items composed of, for example, fabric, rubber, cardboard, plastic, wood or other types of material spaced along the conveyance system”.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the new limitations of mapping (Page 9 are note persuasive. See Blaine, at least Paragraph 0079 noting the computer 150 can specifically model the work product to determine how the work product may be divided, trimmed, and/or cut into end pieces P composed of specific physical criteria, including, for example, shape, area, weight, and/or thickness.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the limitations of claim 12 (Pages 9-15) are noted but not persuasive. Examiner notes the work product is trimmed to a variety of shapes and sizes as provided in the specification and Figures 3-4 specifically note a curved end workpiece reading upon the claimed language.
-Applicant’s further arguments regarding claims 15 and 16 are also noted but not persuasive. As provided above, at least paragraph 0079 of Blaine teaches the required elements of trimming the food product to specific sizes and shapes.
-Applicant also argues “The limitations of claims 15 and 16 are also not disclosed or suggested by Figure 3 of Blaine. The cutter units 122 shown in Figure 3 of Blaine are not operated SO as to produce a selected level of trim. Nor are the cutter units 122 operated to cut trim into one or more selected shapes and/or sizes. There is nothing in Blaine that discloses or even suggest producing a selected level of trim”, See paragraph 0077 below.
“In a cutting/trimming/portioning aspect of the present disclosure, the system 100 includes a cutter system 120 composed of one or more cutter assemblies/units/apparatus 122, which may be arranged in an array or series of cutter assemblies, for cutting/trimming/portioning the work products 104 into end pieces P of desired sizes or other physical parameters”.
Applicants’ notes concerning new claims are noted. New prior art has been applied above for claims 23 and 24. See paragraph 0070 of Blaine for claim 25 as noted in the rejection above.
Conclusion
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 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 RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 01/09/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 01/15/2026
Prosecution Insights