DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 23, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
This action is in response to the application filed on December 23, 2025. Claims 1, 13, and 25-26 are amended. Thus, Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-16, 18-20, 22-23 and 25-26 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant claims the benefit of US Provisional Application No. 63/048,510, filed July 06, 2020. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-16, 18-20, 22-23 and 25-26 have been afforded the benefit of this filing date.
Receipt is acknowledged that application is a National Stage application of PCT CA2021/050922. Priority to 18/013,422 with a priority date of July 06, 2021 is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed December 23, 2025, have been entered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed October 23, 2025, are not persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are upheld in response.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed October 23, 2025, are persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn in response.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: On page 8, the applicant alleges, “(i) applying automatic selection of image segmentation techniques, and (ii) further applying machine learning techniques (e.g., clustering-based segmentation, as recited in allowed claims 25 and 26), is not a mental process capable of being performed by the human mind.”
Response: Applying automatic selection of image segmentation techniques is insignificant pre/post solution extra activity of generating data. Further applying machine learning techniques (e.g., clustering-based segmentation, as recited in allowed claims 25 and 26) are not included in claim 1. The examiner suggests including limitations supported by the Specification in Paragraphs [0071]-[0072], regarding assessing pork marbling scores to overcome the 101 rejection of the record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-16, 18-20, 22-23, and 25-26 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.
The limitations of independent claim 1, includes “automatically selects one or more image segmentation techniques based on the appearance of the meat sample in the digital image.” The limitation is interpretated as the appearance of the meat sample is based on the quality of the digital image. The system of claim 1, does not state digital image quality as what defines the appearance of the meat sample, therefore, it is unclear given the current limitations what “the appearance” is based on in the claim limitations. The dependent claims do not alleviate the issues of the independent claim and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 18-20, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, these claims recite the following limitations which are found to be abstract idea not reciting a practical application or significantly more, with claim 1 being exemplary:
analyze the digital image to identify a muscle of interest (MOI) of the meat sample when two or more muscles are present (abstract idea as a mental process as a human mind is capable of identifying a muscle of interest when two or muscles are present);
segmenting image regions associated with the two or more muscles by applying a dynamic image segmentation method that automatically selects one or more image segmentation techniques based on the appearance of the meat sample in the digital image (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity),
wherein the two or more muscles do not include intermuscular fat layers (abstract idea as a mental process as a human mind is capable of segmenting image regions with two or more muscles not including intermuscular fat);
determining an area of each of the two or more muscles in each of the associated image regions segmented (abstract idea as mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations);
and selecting the MOI based on the determined areas (abstract idea as a mental process as a human mind is capable of selecting a muscle of interest);
segment an area of interest (AOI) in the MOI, the AOI in the MOI comprising a region of interest (ROI) of the image (abstract idea as a mental process as a human mind is capable of segmenting an area of interest from in the muscle of interest to make a region of interest in the image);
detect a number of marbling pixels in the ROI of the image (abstract idea as mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. Claims 1 and 13 both recite the additional element of “and assessing the marbling of the meat sample by determining a marbling score based on a ratio of the number of marbling pixels and the total number of pixels in the ROI of the image,” however, this limitation also recites an abstract idea as mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Claims 1 and 13 further recite the additional elements of “processor,” “memory,” and “wherein at least one of the image segmentation techniques comprises a machine learning technique.” While these limitation includes an additional element it is not sufficient to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas recited in claims 1 and 13 as it amounts to mere generic computer elements and thus amount to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are no more than the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, the above recited additional element from claims 1 and 13 do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. Rather, the additional elements disclosed above perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions.
Therefore, independent claims 1 and 13 are directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claims 2 and 11 the limitations are merely directed towards abstract ideas as mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Regarding claims 3-4, 6-8, 10, and 12 the limitations are merely directed towards insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that nonetheless do not integrate the abstract idea recited from claim 1 into a practical application.
With respect to dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12 dependent claims 14-16, 18-20, and 22-24 recite similar limitations and are also rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-16, 18-20, 22-23, and 25-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIQUE JAMES whose telephone number is (703)756-1655. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm EST.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571)270-3717. 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.
/DOMINIQUE JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666