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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 20 recite: In claim 20, it is not definite what is meant by “the sorting and removing device picks up tofu determined das a non- defective product in the inspection result and align the tofu on the conveying device”. It appears this recitation should recite: the sorting and removing device picks up tofu determined as a non-defective product in the inspection result and aligns the tofu on the conveying device.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
the conveyance device comprises an inversion mechanism configured to invert the tofu being conveyed, and wherein the tofu inspection device inspects the tofu using images captured before and after inversion performed by the inversion mechanism (as recited in claim 9).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation of “tofu production system” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
production device in claims 1, 2, 16 and 20, which is interpreted as a continuous coagulation machine, a continuous molding machine, a continuous cutting machine, a continuous alignment machine, a continuous fryer, a continuous freezer, a continuous sterilizer and equivalents thereof.
conveyance device in claims 1-3, 6, 9, 16 and 20, which is interpreted as a belt conveyor, a net conveyor, a bar conveyor, a slat band chain and equivalents thereof;
tofu inspection device in claims 1, 3, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, 16 and 20, which is interpreted as a displacement sensor or a distance sensor using three-dimensional data, or an image inspection device, an X-ray detector, a metal detector, and a weight inspection device and equivalents thereof;
sorting and removing device in claims 1, 3, 8 and 20, which is interpreted as a high-speed robot comprising a linear motion cylinder or multiple joints and equivalents thereof; and
alignment device in claims 6, 9 and 19, which is interpreted as a high-speed robot comprising a linear motion cylinder or multiple joints and equivalents thereof.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 9 recites “inversion mechanism” which includes a generic placeholder (“mechanism”) and functional language (“inversion”). However, corresponding structure is not claimed or disclosed such that the recitation of “inversion mechanism” is not enabled.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “inversion mechanism” which includes a generic placeholder (“mechanism”) and functional language (“inversion”). However, corresponding structure is not claimed or disclosed such that the recitation of “inversion mechanism” is not definite.
In claims 16 and 20, there is no antecedent basis for the recitation of “the number of rows or arrangement”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090080706 A1 to TAO et al. (“TAO”) in view of JP H0930638 A to YAMAMOTO et al. (“YAMAMOTO”).
TAO discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
a conveyance device (e.g., conveyor 3) configured to arrange the tofu produced by the production device according to a predetermined rule corresponding to the tofu and convey the tofu (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 33);
a tofu inspection device (e.g., computer 2, cameras 6, 6', 7, 7', x-ray line-scan camera 4) configured to inspect the tofu on the conveyance device (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 33); and
a sorting and removing device (e.g., rejection device 15, actuator 19) configured to sort or remove a defective product in the tofu being conveyed by the conveyance device based on an inspection result of the tofu inspection device (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 33);
Regarding claim 3: the tofu production system according to claim 2,
wherein the tofu inspection device inspects the tofu on at least one of the first conveyance device and the second conveyance device (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 33), and
wherein the sorting and removing device sorts or removes the defective product in the tofu being conveyed by the first conveyance device or the second conveyance device based on the inspection result of the tofu inspection device (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 33);
Regarding claim 10: the tofu production system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a display device (e.g., screen of computer 2) configured to display a captured image indicating the tofu determined as the defective product based on the inspection result of the tofu inspection device (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 33); and
Regarding claim 15: the tofu production system according to claim 1, wherein the tofu inspection device is used in combination with a displacement sensor or a distance sensor using three-dimensional data, or an image inspection device, an X-ray detector, a metal detector, and a weight inspection device (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 33).
TAO disclose a production device configured to continuously produce tofu (as recited in claim 1).
However, YAMAMOTO discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
a production device (e.g., article (container tofu) manufacturing machine A) configured to continuously produce tofu (e.g., the article 5 is the container tofu) (e.g., Fig. 1-19 and para 3-6, 9 and 32-34);
Regarding claim 2: the tofu production system according to claim 1, wherein the conveyance device comprises:
a first conveyance device (e.g., first conveyor 1) configured to arrange the tofu produced by the production device in a plurality of rows and convey the tofu (e.g., Fig. 1-19 and para 3-6, 9 and 32-34); and
a second conveyance device (e.g., second conveyor 2) located downstream of the first conveyance device in a conveyance direction, the second conveyance device being configured to arrange the tofu conveyed from the first conveyance device in a single row and convey the tofu in a direction perpendicular to the conveyance direction of the first conveyance device (e.g., Fig. 1-19 and para 3-6, 9 and 32-34); and
Regarding claim 14: the tofu production system according to claim 1, wherein the tofu is any one of packaged silken tofu, silken tofu, cotton tofu, grilled tofu, dried-frozen tofu, deep-fried tofu, a deep-fried tofu pouch, thin deep-fried tofu, thick deep-fried tofu, a fried cutlet, and a deep-fried tofu burger (e.g., Official notice is taken that silken tofu was well-known at the time of invention and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to for the tofu of YAMAMOTO to be silken tofu in order provide a popular form of tofu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify TAO as suggested and taught by YAMAMOTO in order for an article transferred on the first conveyor is kept in a normal posture while providing a simple configuration.
Claim(s) 4-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAO in view of YAMAMOTO and further in view of US 20190217342 A1 to PARR et al. (“PARR”).
TAO in view of YAMAMOTO discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
TAO in view of YAMAMOTO does not explicitly disclose a high-speed robot (as recited in claim 4).
However PARR discloses:
Regarding claim 4: the tofu production system according to claim 1,
wherein the sorting and removing device comprises a high-speed robot (e.g., robotic sorters 304) comprising a linear motion cylinder or multiple joints (e.g., joints of the six axis robot disclosed in para 51), configured to adjust a position of a sorting operation or a removing operation (e.g., Fig. 1-8 and para 28-31, 46, 50-56, 62-69, 75, 80, 84 and 87);
Regarding claim 5: the tofu production system according to claim 1,
wherein the tofu inspection device comprises a SCARA robot (e.g., robotic sorters 304 may include any form of robotic sorting such as, but not limited to, a six axis robot, Selective Compliance Assembly Robot Arm (SCARA) Robot) comprising a linear motion cylinder or multiple joints (e.g., joints of the six axis robot disclosed in para 51), configured to adjust a position of an inspection operation (e.g., Fig. 1-8 and para 28-31, 46, 50-56, 62-69, 75, 80, 84 and 87);
Regarding claim 6: the tofu production system according to claim 1, further comprising:
an alignment device (e.g., robotic sorters 304) configured to align a non-defective product in the objects corresponding to the tofu being conveyed by the conveyance device according to a predetermined rule based on the inspection result of the tofu inspection device (e.g., Fig. 1-8 and para 28-31, 46, 50-56, 62-69, 75, 80, 84 and 87);
Regarding claim 7: the tofu production system according to claim 6, wherein the alignment device comprises a high-speed robot (e.g., robotic sorters 304) comprising a linear motion cylinder or multiple joints (e.g., joints of the six axis robot disclosed in para 51), configured to adjust a position of an alignment operation (e.g., Fig. 1-8 and para 28-31, 46, 50-56, 62-69, 75, 80, 84 and 87);
Regarding claim 8: the tofu production system according to claim 6, wherein the sorting and removing device also serves as the alignment device (e.g., Fig. 1-8 and para 28-31, 46, 50-56, 62-69, 75, 80, 84 and 87);
Regarding claim 9, as best understood: the tofu production system according to claim 1,
wherein the conveyance device comprises an inversion mechanism (e.g., drum 26) configured to invert the objects corresponding to the tofu being conveyed (e.g., Fig. 1-8 and para 28-31, 46, 50-56, 63-69, 75, 80, 84 and 87), and
wherein the tofu inspection device inspects the objects corresponding to the tofu using images captured before and after inversion performed by the inversion mechanism (e.g., Fig. 1-8 and para 28-31, 46, 50-56, 62-69, 75, 80, 84 and 87); and
Regarding claim 13: the tofu production system according to claim 1, wherein inspection of the objects corresponding to the tofu by the tofu inspection device is implemented by pattern matching (e.g., Fig. 1-8 and para 28-31, 46, 50-56, 62-69, 75, 80, 84 and 87, wherein para 64 discloses pattern matching).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify TAO in view of YAMAMOTO as suggested and taught by PARR in order provide automated control of sorting with minimal human intervention.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAO in view of YAMAMOTO and further in view of US 20160307072 A1 to Zhou et al. (“Zhou”).
TAO in view of YAMAMOTO discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
TAO in view of YAMAMOTO does not explicitly disclose a learned model (as recited in claim 11).
However Zhou discloses:
Regarding claim 11: the tofu production system according to claim 1,
wherein the tofu inspection device comprises:
an image capturing device (e.g., image capture device) configured to capture an image of the tofu to be inspected (e.g., Fig. 1-6 and col 1, ln 60-67, col 2-3 and col 9, ln 1-40);
a processor (e.g., processing system 100 includes at least one processor (CPU) 104) (e.g., Fig. 1-6 and col 1, ln 60-67, col 2-3 and col 9, ln 1-40); and
a memory (e.g., a cache 106, a Read Only Memory (ROM) 108, a Random Access Memory (RAM) 110) storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause a computer to perform operations comprising determining a quality of the tofu indicated by a captured image using an evaluation value as output data obtained by inputting the captured image of the tofu captured by the image capturing device as input data with respect to a learned model for determining a quality of tofu indicated by input data, the learned model being generated by performing machine learning using learning data including a captured image of tofu (e.g., Fig. 1-6 and col 1, ln 60-67, col 2-3 and col 9, ln 1-40); and
Regarding claim 12: the tofu production system according to claim 11, wherein the learned model is generated by deep learning using a neural network (e.g., convolutional neural network (CNN)) (e.g., Fig. 1-6 and col 1, ln 60-67, col 2-3 and col 9, ln 1-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify TAO in view of YAMAMOTO as suggested and taught by Zhou in order provide image classification of real-world physical objects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The prior art, including TAO, YAMAMOTO, PARR and Zhou, does not disclose or render obvious the subject matter of claims 16 and 20 such as a conveyance device configured to arrange the tofu produced by the production device according to a predetermined rule corresponding to the tofu and convey the tofu; a tofu inspection device configured to inspect the tofu on the conveyance device; and a sorting and removing device configured to align or remove the tofu being conveyed according to the predetermined rule by the conveyance device based on an inspection result of the tofu inspection device, wherein the sorting and removing device comprises a robot comprising a linear motion cylinder or multiple joints, and wherein in the predetermined rule, the number of rows or arrangement are adjusted according to a relationship between a size of the tofu produced by the production device and a width of the conveyance device (as in claim 16) and a conveyance device configured to arrange the tofu produced by the production device according to a predetermined rule corresponding to the tofu and convey the tofu; a tofu inspection device configured to inspect the tofu on the conveyance device; and a sorting and removing device configured to align or remove the tofu being conveyed according to the predetermined rule by the conveyance device based on an inspection result of the tofu inspection device, wherein the conveyance device arranges the tofu produced by the production device such that cakes of the tofu are arranged in a matrix or in a staggered manner or such that the cakes of the tofu are randomly arranged so as not to overlap with one another, and convey the tofu, wherein in the predetermined rule, the number of rows or arrangement are adjusted according to a relationship between a size of the tofu produced by the production device and a width of the conveyance device, and wherein the sorting and removing device picks up tofu determined as a non-defective product in the inspection result and aligns the tofu on the conveying device (as in claim 20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S STAPLETON whose telephone number is (571)270-3492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday regular business hours.
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, EDWARD (NED) LANDRUM can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/ERIC S STAPLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 September 28, 2025