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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on or after October 20, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-12 remain pending in the application. Claims 13-15 are new. Claim 2 is canceled by applicants’ response. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action and references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed October 20, 2025 have been considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
The amendments overcome the original double patenting rejection: The examiner agrees that the amended independent claims narrow the scope of the claim and distinguish it further from Claim 1 of the basis of the double patenting rejection. The rejection is withdrawn.
Seo fails to disclose the limitations of the amended independent claims, and in particular that “Sei fails to disclose or teach the marking start points are set differently in accordance with the detected orientation”: The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. Seo teaches that the “pre-set-marking pattern [is formed] in accordance with the orientation of the edible object based on the orientational data” (Abstract) It would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the starting points of the pre-set pattern would be set differently in accordance with the orientational data.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – 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 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.
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:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations are as follows:
From Claims 1 and 8: “A detection part” defined by the specification in [0022] as follows “detection part… with an irradiation part that irradiates edible bodies carried to a detection area Al with illumination light, an imaging part such as a CCD area camera or CCD line camera… and an image processing part that processes image information of edible bodies imaged by the imaging part…” (In light of the specifications, the detection part will be interpreted as an assembly that detects by means of lighting, imaging, and processing visual information)
From Claims 1 and 8: “A Laser Processing Part” defined by the specification [0025] as “laser processing part… provided with a light source part that emits laser light, a scanning part that scans laser light emitted from the light source part (In light of the specifications, the limitations of the laser processing part will be interpreted as a laser light)
From Claims 1 and 8: “A memory part” defined by the specification as serving the function of holding a “marking pattern stored in advance [0031] (In light of the specifications, the limitations of the memory part will be interpreted as an structure that serves the function of storing data in advance)
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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seo (US 9,710,901 B2):
PNG
media_image1.png
432
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
524
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Seo teaches an edible-body marking device (“edible object marking apparatus” Abstract) comprising :a carrier device that carries an edible body(“a carrier…[that] successively conveys and edible body” Abstract), a detection part that detects the edible body (“detection [part]” Abstract), and a laser processing part that forms a marking pattern on the edible body by using laser light (“the …marking device is a laser marking device and is capable for marking edible objects” Col 5 lines 33-35), wherein the carrier device sequentially carries the edible body to the detection part and the laser processing part (“a carrier…[that] successively conveys and edible body” to the detection and laser processing part Abstract), wherein the detection part images the edible body to acquire a piece of orientation information regarding an orientation of the edible body (The prior art further teaches that“ the detecting means captures an image of the edible object to acquire orientational data” Abstract) such that the orientation of the edible body is determined by the detected piece of the oriental information (“pre-set-marking pattern [is formed] in accordance with the orientation of the edible object based on the orientational data” (Abstract)) and the laser processing part has a memory part (“memory” Col 6 Line 29) that stores in advance multiple pieces of marking procedure information (the memory stores “reference pattern data…set in a reference coordinate system” Col 6 Lines 35-39 corresponding to “ a plurality of pre-set marking patterns” Col 2 Lines 30-35) regarding formation procedures of the marking pattern in association with their respectively different pieces (“plurality of regions” Col 2 Line 33) of the orientation information (The prior art further teaches the memory part “in which reference pattern data corresponding to the marking pattern is stored in advance, and extracts marking pattern data from image data of an edible object acquired by the imaging part” Col 6), wherein each of the multiple pieces of the marking procedure information contains a unique start point data so that each of the formation procedures starts at a different point according to the start point data associated with the detected piece of the orientation information, ( Given that the prior art teaches “ a plurality of pre-set marking patterns” Col 2 Lines 30-35 which are used to create distinct patterns on the “plurality of regions” Col 2 Line 33, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the starting points of the pre-set pattern would be set differently in accordance with the orientational data.) and forms the marking pattern on the edible body according to one piece of the marking procedure information (“pre-set marking pattern” Col 2 Line 34) extracted from the memory part based on the detected piece of the orientation information acquired by the detection part, wherein a point from which the formation procedures of the marking pattern start varies according to the detected piece of orientation information (The prior art further teaches that the laser processing part uses the marking procedure from the memory part as described above in order to “accurately create a marking containing necessary information…[on the edible object’s] surface” Col 6 Lines 30-55 which indicates that the starting point of the marking pattern will vary based on the detected surface)
Regarding Claim 3: Seo further teaches that the carrier device is configured to carry the edible body in a carrying direction (“a carrier…[that] successively conveys and edible body” in a carrying direction Abstract) and multiple pieces of marking procedure information each have the marking start points set on a downstream side of a center of the edible body in the carrying direction (Figure 4 further shows that the multiple marking start points are set downstream of the center of the edible body).
Regarding Claim 4: Seo further teaches that the detection part further acquires position information regarding a position of the edible body (The prior art further teaches that “the detecting means captures an image of the edible object to acquire orientational data” Abstract), and the laser processing part forms the marking pattern on the edible body based on the orientation information and the position information (The prior art further teaches that the laser processing part uses the marking procedure from the memory part as described above in order to “accurately create a marking containing necessary information…[on the edible object’s] surface” Col 6 Lines 30-55) .
Regarding Claim 6: Seo further teaches an edible-body marking method (“method for marking an edible object” Line 43) comprising: a detection step (“detecting step of detecting the edible object by a carrier means while holding the edible object” Col 2 Lines 45-47) that detects an edible body carried by a carrier device, and a marking step (“marking step…forming markings [on surface of the edible body]” Col 2 Line 55) that form a marking pattern on the edible body, wherein the detection step images the edible body to acquire a piece of orientation information regarding an orientation of the edible body such that the orientation of the edible body is determined based on the detected piece of the orientation information (“the detecting step comprises capturing an image of the edible object to acquire orientational data indicating orientation of the edible object: Col 2 Lines 45-47), and the marking step forms the marking pattern on the edible body according to one piece of marking procedure information extracted based on the detected piece of the orientation information acquired in the detection step (“pre-set-marking pattern [is formed] in accordance with the orientation of the edible object based on the orientational data” (Abstract)) from a memory part (“memory” Col 6 Line 29) that memorizes multiple pieces of marking procedure information in association with respectively different pieces of the orientation information (“pre-set-marking pattern [is formed] in accordance with the orientation of the edible object based on the orientational data” (Abstract)), wherein multiple pieces of the marking procedure information are stored in advance (the memory stores “reference pattern data…set in a reference coordinate system” Col 6 Lines 35-39 corresponding to “ a plurality of pre-set marking patterns” Col 2 Lines 30-35), and each of the multiple pieces of the marking procedure information contains a unique start point data so that each of the formation procedures starts at a different marking start point according to the start point data associated with the detected piece of the orientation information (Given that the prior art teaches “ a plurality of pre-set marking patterns” Col 2 Lines 30-35 which are used to create distinct patterns on the “plurality of regions” Col 2 Line 33, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the starting points of the pre-set pattern would be set differently in accordance with the orientational data.).
Regarding Claim 8: Seo teaches an edible-body marking device (“edible object marking apparatus” Abstract) comprising: a carrier device that carries an edible body (“a carrier…[that] successively conveys and edible body” Abstract), a detection part (“detection [part]” Abstract) that detects the edible body, and a laser processing part that forms a marking pattern on the edible body by using laser light (“the …marking device is a laser marking device and is capable for marking edible objects” Col 5 lines 33-35), wherein the carrier device sequentially carries the edible body to the detection part and the laser processing part (“a carrier…[that] successively conveys and edible body” to the detection and laser processing part Abstract), wherein the detection part images the edible body to acquire a piece of orientation information regarding an orientation of the edible body (The prior art further teaches that“ the detecting means captures an image of the edible object to acquire orientational data” Abstract) such that the orientation of the edible body is determined based on the detected piece of the orientation information (“pre-set-marking pattern [is formed] in accordance with the orientation of the edible object based on the orientational data” (Abstract)), and the laser processing part forms the marking pattern on the edible body by extracting marking procedure information regarding formation procedures of the marking pattern, which is stored in advance in a memory part, based on the detected piece of the orientation information acquired by the detection part (The prior art further teaches the memory part “in which reference pattern data corresponding to the marking pattern is stored in advance, and extracts marking pattern data from image data of an edible object acquired by the imaging part” and marks the edible object accordingly Col 6 Lines 29-40), wherein a point from which the formation procedures of the marking pattern start varies according to the detected piece of the orientation information , ( Given that the prior art teaches “ a plurality of pre-set marking patterns” Col 2 Lines 30-35 which are used to create distinct patterns on the “plurality of regions” Col 2 Line 33, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the starting points of the pre-set pattern would be set differently in accordance with the orientational data.).
Regarding Claim 9: Seo further teaches that the detection part further acquires position information regarding a position of the edible body (The prior art further teaches that “the detecting means captures an image of the edible object to acquire orientational data” Abstract), and the laser processing part forms the marking pattern on the edible body based on the orientation information and the position information (The prior art further teaches that the laser processing part uses the marking procedure from the memory part as described above in order to “accurately create a marking containing necessary information…[on the edible object’s] surface” Col 6 Lines 30-55)
Regarding Claim 10: Seo further teaches that the laser processing part acquires the orientation information from a one face of the edible body (The prior art teaches that“ the detecting means captures an image of the edible object to acquire orientational data” Abstract It follows that this data is acquired for one face at a time), and forms the marking pattern on the other face of the edible body (The prior art also discloses that the invention can “perform marking on both front and back surfaces…[as well as] perform marking from below” Col 9 Lines 10-17. As such, the invention of Seo would be able to acquire orientation data from one side and mark the other side as described in the limitation of the claim)
Regarding Claim 11: Seo further teaches that the laser processing part makes start points of the marking patterns that are mutually different among the plurality of the edible bodies based on different pieces of the orientation information among the edible bodies (Figure 4 shows that the multiple pieces of marking procedure have mutually different marking start points. Additionally, Figure 6a and 6b show different start points among the plurality of edible bodies).
Regarding Claim 12: Seo further teaches that the carrier device is configured to carry the edible body in a carrying direction (“a carrier…[that] successively conveys and edible body” in a carrying direction Abstract) and that the laser processing part starts the making procedure from a downstream side in a carrying direction rather than a center of the edible body. Figure 4 further shows that the multiple marking start points are set downstream of the center of the edible body).
Regarding Claim 14: Seo further teaches that the pieces of the orientation information represent angles (“angle[s]” Col 11 Line 55) relative to the carrying direction of the edible body, and the angles are divided at the equal intervals (equal intervals shown in figure 6a).
Regarding Claim 15: Seo further teaches the pieces of the orientation information are composed of at least four (See Figure 6a which shows four distinct pieces of information acquired: Two front sides on either side of the score (element C), the score itself (element C) and the back of the edible object shown in the center of the bottom row).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Seo (US 9,710,901 B2):
Regarding Claim 13: Seo teaches that the pieces of the orientation information represent angles relative to the carrying direction (“angle[s]” Col 11 Line 55)
Seo does not teach that the number of angles is at least four
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Seo such that the number of angles is at least for as it has been held that duplication of elements requires only routine skill in the art In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.VI B
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 9,710,901 B2) in view of Valette (US 2019/0134743 A1):
PNG
media_image3.png
490
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5: Seo does not teach that the body is packaged in a transparent packaging material transmitting the laser light, and the laser processing part forms the marking pattern on the edible body through the packaging material.
However, Valette does teach a body (metal in this case) is contained within a “packaging substrate” [0048] composed of materials such as “paper and thin-film optically transparent polymers [that] may not absorb enough of a laser beam… to generate markings [0048]” and allow the markings to be “absorbed by the metal layer” within the non-metal packaging further shown in figure 6b).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Seo with the limitations of Valette to “reduce the packaging costs” and maximize the life of the “packaged product” [0047].
Regarding Claim 7: Seo does not teach the edible body is packaged in a transparent packaging material transmitting laser light, and the marking step forms the marking pattern on the edible body through the packaging material.
However, Valette does teach a body (metal in this case) is contained within a transparent packaging material or “packaging substrate” [0048] composed of materials such as “paper and thin-film optically transparent polymers [that] may not absorb enough of a laser beam… to generate markings [0048]” and further discloses that the marking step involves allow the markings to be “absorbed by the metal layer” within the non-metal packaging further shown in figure 6b).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Seo with the limitations of Valette to “reduce the packaging costs” and maximize the life of the “packaged product” [0047].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761