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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the Application Filed on 05/30/2023
Claims 32–62 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawing(s) filed on 05/30/2023 are accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/30/2023 and 07/23/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 32–62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The independent claim(s) 32 and 57 recite(s) a method and system respectively. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claims 32 and 57 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claims 32 and 57 are directed to a method and system respectively.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claims 32 and 57 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim(s) 32: the limitations recite:
A method for tracking a food item in a flow of food items through a handling facility, the method comprising:
receiving the food item in a check-in position (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind);
acquiring at least one check-in image of the food item (insignificant pre-solution);
creating at least one unique identification insignia (UII) from the check-in image (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind);
moving the food item or pieces thereof in the flow of food items through a handling station to a check-out position (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind);
acquiring at the check-out position, at least one check-out image of the food item or a piece thereof (insignificant pre-solution);
conducting a recognition process configured to establish if the check-out image can be assigned to the created UII (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind); and
if it could be established that the check-out image can be assigned to the created UII, defining a data-record including the assigned UII (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind)
Regarding independent claim(s) 57: the limitations recite:
A system for tracking a food item in a flow of food items through a handling facility, the system comprising:
a check-in camera arranged at a check-in position of the handling facility and configured to capture a check-in image of the food item (insignificant pre-solution and data gathering);
a processing structure configured to create unique identification insignias (UII's) from the check-in image (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind); and
a check-out camera arranged at a check-out position of the handling facility and configured to capture a check-out image of the food item or a piece thereof (insignificant pre-solution and data gathering);
wherein the processing structure is configured to conduct a recognition process establishing if the check-out image can be assigned to the created UII (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind); and
configured, if it could be established that the check-out image can be assigned to the created UII, to define a data-record including the assigned UII (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind).
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could mentally a person can mentally observe an identifier of the product such as the color or shape and observe if the product is the same in the later check-out position. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a camera does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 32 and 57 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 57 discloses an a system with a camera, which are generic computer components and/or insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a system.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Independent claim(s) 32 and 57 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a generic computer elements are routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since independent claims 32 and 57 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claims 32 and 57 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claims 33–56 and 58–62: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. Dependent claims 33–56 and 58–62 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Each of the claimed limitations either expand upon or add either 1) new mental process or miasmatical steps, 2) a new additional element, 3) previously presented mental process or miasmatical procedure, and/or 4) a previously presented additional element. As such, claims 33–56 and 58–62 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 32–34, 39, 41, 45, 50–51, 53–60 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Blaine et al. (US 20180027848 A1, hereafter, "Blaine").
Regarding claim 32, Blaine discloses a method for tracking a food item in a flow of food items through a handling facility (See Blaine, [Abstract], The invention relates to an apparatus (10), designed and configured to acquire and analyze product-specific data for products (12) of the food processing industry), the method comprising:
receiving the food item in a check-in position (See Blaine, ¶ [0051], In a disclosed embodiment, as illustrated in FIG. 2, at least two optical cameras 17, 20 are assigned to the conveyor 11. The two optical cameras 17, 20 can be equipped with the same imaging process. However, the two optical cameras 17, 20 can be equipped with a different imaging process);
acquiring at least one check-in image of the food item (See Blaine, ¶ [0070], In a specific embodiment, the apparatus 10 comprises a simple optical camera 17, e.g. a greyscale camera for recording the outer contour, and a complex optical camera 20, e.g. a hyperspectral camera for recording defects, and the processing station 30 comprises a simple optical camera 32, e.g. also a greyscale camera);
creating at least one unique identification insignia (UII) from the check-in image (See Blaine, ¶ [0070], In a specific embodiment, the apparatus 10 comprises a simple optical camera 17, e.g. a greyscale camera for recording the outer contour, and a complex optical camera 20, e.g. a hyperspectral camera for recording defects, and the processing station 30 comprises a simple optical camera 32, e.g. also a greyscale camera. Note: The outer contour is being interpreted as the UII);
moving the food item or pieces thereof in the flow of food items through a handling station to a check-out position (See Blaine, ¶ [0044], FIG. 1 illustrates an apparatus 10 designed and configured to acquire and analyze product-specific data and comprising a conveyor 11, which is gap-free in the transport plane, for transporting separated products 12 in transport direction T from an intake end E to a discharge end A);
acquiring at the check-out position, at least one check-out image of the food item or a piece thereof (See Blaine, ¶ [0077], Product-specific data is acquired on the downstream conveyor 31 by means of an optical camera 32, wherein the acquired data, in particular the outer contour, forming a fourth data set, is received by a control unit 34 and is analyzed by it in order to identify each product);
conducting a recognition process configured to establish if the check-out image can be assigned to the created UII (See Blaine, ¶ [0078], As mentioned, there are several options for identifying, and matching and analyzing the information collected. Identifying of the products and matching can take place, for example, based solely on the basis of the image of one of the optical cameras 17, 20 of the apparatus 10 and on the basis of the image of the optical camera 32 of the processing station 30); and
if it could be established that the check-out image can be assigned to the created UII, defining a data-record including the assigned UII (See Blaine, ¶ [0080], In other words, for identifying the products 12, every optical image taken with the optical camera 32 assigned to the downstream conveyor 31 is compared to the optical images of the optical camera 17 and/or 20 assigned to the first conveyor 11, which are stored in a memory 44 (also referred to as a list) of a control unit 34, and the image with the closest matches is selected. After successful identifying and if necessary matching and analyzing, the relevant optical image is deleted from the memory).
Regarding claim 33, Blaine discloses the method according to claim 32, further comprising storing the data-record in a database or printing the data-record on a label (See Blaine, ¶ [0080], In other words, for identifying the products 12, every optical image taken with the optical camera 32 assigned to the downstream conveyor 31 is compared to the optical images of the optical camera 17 and/or 20 assigned to the first conveyor 11, which are stored in a memory 44 (also referred to as a list) of a control unit 34, and the image with the closest matches is selected. After successful identifying and if necessary matching and analyzing, the relevant optical image is deleted from the memory. Note: list is being interpreted as a database).
Regarding claim 34, Blaine discloses the method according to claim 32, further comprising: defining a first handling station for further handling of the food item or the piece thereof, defining a second handling station for further handling of the food item or the piece thereof, selecting one of the first and second handling stations if the recognition process establishes that the check-out image can be assigned to the created UII (See Blaine, ¶ [0080], In other words, for identifying the products 12, every optical image taken with the optical camera 32 assigned to the downstream conveyor 31 is compared to the optical images of the optical camera 17 and/or 20 assigned to the first conveyor 11, which are stored in a memory 44 (also referred to as a list) of a control unit 34, and the image with the closest matches is selected. Note: When an image is matched then it is cut at the cutting station and processed automatically); and
selecting another one of the of the first and second handling stations if the recognition process establishes that the check-out image cannot be assigned to the created UII (See Blaine, ¶ [0081], If no (appropriate) image/no (appropriate) image data is present in the list or in the memory 44 respectively, or if no image/no image data from the memory 44 achieves an adequate matching result, the product 12 can be skipped in the processing and be transported, for example, to manual processing. Note: Examiner is interpreting the manual processing as another handling station).
Regarding claim 39, Blaine discloses the method according to claim 32, comprising establishing a que of UII's of one or more food items in the flow of food items and deleting from the que, a UII if the recognition process establishes that a check-out image can be assigned to that UII (See Blaine, ¶ [0080], These image data individual to each product 12 are stored in a list. After each product 12 on the second conveyor 31 has been acquired by means of the optical camera 32, the optical image of the optical camera 32 is compared to the image data from the list. The image or images which display the closest matches are selected from the list. After successful matching of the optical image of the optical camera 32 with an image/image data from the list, this image/these image data are removed from the list. Note: Examiner is interpreting the list as the queue).
Regarding claim 41, Blaine discloses the method according to claim 39, further comprising assigning a check-in time to each UII establishing when the UII is created and deleting a UII from the que when a predetermined time has elapsed after the check-in time (See Blaine, ¶ [0081], If an image/image data remains in the memory 44 longer than feasible, it can optionally be removed automatically from the memory 44. Note: Examiner is interpreting the feasible time as predetermined time).
Regarding claim 45, Blaine discloses the method according to claim 32, comprising identifying in the check-in image an undesired food item part and creating at least one UII from a part of the image which does contain the undesired food item part (See Blaine, ¶ [0060], By means of the optical camera 20, for example a hyperspectral camera, and the connected control unit 19, cutting paths can be created or mapped for defects that are not reliably and precisely identified by either the simple optical camera 17 or the X-ray unit 13, namely blood spots, color changes, cuts and the like, and which are to be removed from the product 12. From these data sets, the control unit 19 forms a transfer image as the third data set. The transfer image can be created based on the optical image of the greyscale camera and/or based on the optical image of the hyperspectral camera which, in addition to the cutting paths, can also, among other things, create or map the outer contour of the product 12. The transfer image, optionally enriched by the data set provided by the X-ray unit, can then be usable for potential matching with optical images of downstream optical cameras).
Regarding claim 50, Blaine discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein the UII is generated based on a structural uniqueness of the food item or generated based on a size or shape of the food item or pieces thereof, or generated based on a color or color distribution of the food item, or combinations thereof (See Blaine, ¶ [0047], By means of the control unit 18, the product-specific data acquired by the optical camera 17, e.g. size and shape of the product, its outer contour, length, width, thickness, profile, weight, among others, but also defects, e.g. blood spots, streaks of fat, among others, or portions thereof are analyzed and provided as a second data set).
Regarding claim 51, Blaine discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein the food item is selected from the group consisting of: vegetables, fruits, meat, poultry, fish, and seafood, or slices thereof (See Blaine, ¶ [0043], However, in the same manner, the apparatus and the system are configured to acquire and analyze product-specific data and to process other products of the food processing industry, such as meat, poultry).
Regarding claim 53, Blaine discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein each food item or the pieces thereof in the flow of food items are categorized in at least a first category and a second category, the categorization being carried out between the check-in position and the check-out position, and wherein a food item or pieces thereof being in the first category is directed through the check-out position and wherein a food item or pieces thereof being in the second category is not directed through the check-out position (See Blaine, ¶ [0080], These image data individual to each product 12 are stored in a list. After each product 12 on the second conveyor 31 has been acquired by means of the optical camera 32, the optical image of the optical camera 32 is compared to the image data from the list. The image or images which display the closest matches are selected from the list. After successful matching of the optical image of the optical camera 32 with an image/image data from the list, this image/these image data are removed from the list. ¶ [0081], If no (appropriate) image/no (appropriate) image data is present in the list or in the memory 44 respectively, or if no image/no image data from the memory 44 achieves an adequate matching result, the product 12 can be skipped in the processing and be transported, for example, to manual processing. Note: Examiner is interpreting the list as a category so matching in the list matches to the category and not matching means being a different category).
Regarding claim 54, Blaine discloses the method according to claim 53, wherein a food item or pieces thereof being in the second category is directed through an alternative check-out position (See Blaine, ¶ [0081], If no (appropriate) image/no (appropriate) image data is present in the list or in the memory 44 respectively, or if no image/no image data from the memory 44 achieves an adequate matching result, the product 12 can be skipped in the processing and be transported, for example, to manual processing. Note: Examiner is interpreting the list as a category so matching in the list matches to the category and not matching means being a different category).
Regarding claim 55, Blaine discloses the method according to claim 53, comprising establishing a que of UII's of food items for which a check-in image is acquired at the check-in position and deleting from the que, a UII for a food item or a piece thereof which is categorized in the second category (See Blaine, ¶ [0080], These image data individual to each product 12 are stored in a list. After each product 12 on the second conveyor 31 has been acquired by means of the optical camera 32, the optical image of the optical camera 32 is compared to the image data from the list. The image or images which display the closest matches are selected from the list. After successful matching of the optical image of the optical camera 32 with an image/image data from the list, this image/these image data are removed from the list. Note: Examiner is interpreting the list as a category).
Regarding claim 56, Blaine discloses the method according to claim 32, comprising defining a data-record for each food item or pieces thereof at the check-out position, and if it could be established that the check-out image can be assigned to the created UII, assigning the UII to that food item or pieces thereof (See Blaine, ¶ [0080], In other words, for identifying the products 12, every optical image taken with the optical camera 32 assigned to the downstream conveyor 31 is compared to the optical images of the optical camera 17 and/or 20 assigned to the first conveyor 11, which are stored in a memory 44 (also referred to as a list) of a control unit 34, and the image with the closest matches is selected. After successful identifying and if necessary matching and analyzing, the relevant optical image is deleted from the memory. Note: list is being interpreted as a database).
Regarding claim 57, claim 57 is rejected the same as claim 32 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 32 are equally applicable to the claim 57, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 32 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference. Furthermore, Blaine teaches A system for tracking a food item in a flow of food items through a handling facility, the system comprising (See Blaine, [Abstract], The invention also relates to a system (29) comprising such an apparatus (10) as well as a method for processing products (12) of the food processing industry).
Regarding claim 58, claim 58 is rejected the same as claim 34 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 34 are equally applicable to the claim 58, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 34 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 59, claim 59 is rejected the same as claim 39 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 39 are equally applicable to the claim 59, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 39 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 60, claim 60 is rejected the same as claim 41 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 41 are equally applicable to the claim 60, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 41 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 62, Blaine discloses the system according to claim 58, comprising a conveyor system configured to convey the food item from the check-in position to the check-out position (See Blaine, ¶ [0044], FIG. 1 illustrates an apparatus 10 designed and configured to acquire and analyze product-specific data and comprising a conveyor 11, which is gap-free in the transport plane, for transporting separated products 12 in transport direction T from an intake end E to a discharge end A).
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 35–38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaine et al. (US 20180027848 A1, hereafter, "Blaine") in view of Larsen et al. (See NPL attached, "Vision-based method for tracking meat cuts in slaughterhouses", hereafter, "Larsen").
Regarding claim 35, Blaine teaches the method according to claim 32, [comprising creating a plurality of UIIs from the check-in image].
However, Blaine fail(s) to teach comprising creating a plurality of UIIs from the check-in image.
Larsen, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: comprising creating a plurality of UIIs from the check-in image (See Larsen, [Pg. 4, 3.3.2. Pork loin image representation], The bag-of-words representation disregards all spatial layout of the extracted image patches. This is good for achieving invariance to object translations, but not so good for providing a distinctive object description. We reestablish some of the spatial layout information by sampling multiple bag-of-words histograms at different positions in the image. More specifically, we generate 8 histograms from the pork loin image by weighing the different histogram contributions using Gaussian windows placed in a 2 × 4 grid to reflect the oblong shape of a pork loin).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaine’s reference to comprising creating a plurality of UIIs from the check-in image based on the method of Larsen’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to increase the accuracy of matching (See Larsen, [Pg. 5, 4. Results]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Larsen with Blaine to obtain the invention as specified in claim 35.
Regarding claim 36, Blaine in view of Larsen teaches the method according to claim 35, [wherein the plurality of UIIs comprises a UII relating to one part of the check-in image and other UIIs relating to other parts of the check-in image such that the plurality of UIIs relate to different parts of the food item].
However, Blaine fail(s) to teach wherein the plurality of UIIs comprises a UII relating to one part of the check-in image and other UIIs relating to other parts of the check-in image such that the plurality of UIIs relate to different parts of the food item.
Larsen, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein the plurality of UIIs comprises a UII relating to one part of the check-in image and other UIIs relating to other parts of the check-in image such that the plurality of UIIs relate to different parts of the food item (See Larsen, [Pg. 5, 3.3.2. Pork loin image representation], The final description of a pork loin image is the concatenation of the 8 bag-of-words histograms. Our bag-of-words vocabulary consists of 1500 visual words meaning that each histogram can be represented by a 1500-dimensional vector. Thus, the concatenation of the 8 bag of- words histograms yields a 12,000-dimensional image description vector. See also [Fig. 6], feature descriptor, visual words).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaine’s reference wherein the plurality of UIIs comprises a UII relating to one part of the check-in image and other UIIs relating to other parts of the check-in image such that the plurality of UIIs relate to different parts of the food item based on the method of Larsen’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to increase the accuracy of matching (See Larsen, [Pg. 5, 4. Results]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Larsen with Blaine to obtain the invention as specified in claim 36.
Regarding claim 37, Blaine teaches the method according to claim 36, wherein the different parts are overlapping parts (See Blaine, ¶ [0084], The positions of the undesirable regions generated by the X-ray unit 13 and/or a further optical camera 17, 20 are integrated/implemented as vector data, pixel data or the like in the optical image of the optical camera 17, 20 assigned to the first conveyor 11, wherein matching and analyzing is performed based on the optical image of the optical camera 17, 20 assigned to the first conveyor 11 and the optical image of the optical camera 32 assigned to the second conveyor 31. Thus it is possible that, in addition to identifying (e.g. via the outer contour of the product), the optical image will also be used for generating cutting paths. Note: Since the outer contour includes the undesirable part it overlaps with it).
Regarding claim 38, Blaine in view of Larsen teaches the method according to claim 35, [further comprising grouping the UIIs in a set of UIIs when the UIIs are created from the same check-in image or from the same food item].
However, Blaine fail(s) to teach further comprising grouping the UIIs in a set of UIIs when the UIIs are created from the same check-in image or from the same food item.
Larsen, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: further comprising grouping the UIIs in a set of UIIs when the UIIs are created from the same check-in image or from the same food item (See Larsen, [Pg. 5, 3.3.2. Pork loin image representation], The final description of a pork loin image is the concatenation of the 8 bag-of-words histograms. Our bag-of-words vocabulary consists of 1500 visual words meaning that each histogram can be represented by a 1500-dimensional vector. Thus, the concatenation of the 8 bag of- words histograms yields a 12,000-dimensional image description vector. Note: the final description is a grouping of word histograms).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaine’s reference further comprising grouping the UIIs in a set of UIIs when the UIIs are created from the same check-in image or from the same food item based on the method of Larsen’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to increase the accuracy of matching (See Larsen, [Pg. 5, 4. Results]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Larsen with Blaine to obtain the invention as specified in claim 38.
Regarding claim 40, Blaine teaches the method according to claim 38, comprising deleting all UII's of a set of UIIs if the recognition process establishes that one or more check-out images can be assigned to a predetermined number of UIIs from that set of UIIs (See Blaine, ¶ [0080], These image data individual to each product 12 are stored in a list. After each product 12 on the second conveyor 31 has been acquired by means of the optical camera 32, the optical image of the optical camera 32 is compared to the image data from the list. The image or images which display the closest matches are selected from the list. After successful matching of the optical image of the optical camera 32 with an image/image data from the list, this image/these image data are removed from the list. Note: one or more images can be removed so the more than one image can be interpreted as a set).
Claim(s) 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaine et al. (US 20180027848 A1, hereafter, "Blaine") in view of Ishiyama (US 20130336542 A1, hereafter, "Ishiyama").
Regarding claim 42, Blaine teaches the method according to claim 32, [comprising receiving meta data related to the food item and adding the meta data to the data-record].
However, Blaine fail(s) to teach comprising receiving meta data related to the food item and adding the meta data to the data-record.
Ishiyama, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: comprising receiving meta data related to the food item and adding the meta data to the data-record (See Ishiyama, ¶ [0035], Further, the storage unit 2 may store one image correspondingly to production information such as the production district, the producer name, the variety, the cultivation method, the harvest day, the quality information (the sugar content etc.) and readiness to eat of the above agricultural, forest and fishery product, distribution information such as the shipping location and the shipping date, and the like).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaine’s reference comprising receiving meta data related to the food item and adding the meta data to the data-record based on the method of Ishiyama’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately convey information about the product and remove the limitation of using a tag (See Ishiyama, ¶ [0002–0007, 0016–0018]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ishiyama with Blaine to obtain the invention as specified in claim 42.
Regarding claim 43, Blaine in view of Ishiyama teaches the method according to claim 42, [wherein the meta data relates to at least one of: the handling station or a human operator of the handling station; a place where the food item is originally produced, and a weight, a size, a shape, or a quality of the food item].
However, Blaine fail(s) to teach wherein the meta data relates to at least one of: the handling station or a human operator of the handling station; a place where the food item is originally produced, and a weight, a size, a shape, or a quality of the food item.
Ishiyama, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein the meta data relates to at least one of: the handling station or a human operator of the handling station; a place where the food item is originally produced, and a weight, a size, a shape, or a quality of the food item (See Ishiyama, ¶ [0035], Further, the storage unit 2 may store one image correspondingly to production information such as the production district, the producer name, the variety, the cultivation method, the harvest day, the quality information (the sugar content etc.) and readiness to eat of the above agricultural, forest and fishery product, distribution information such as the shipping location and the shipping date, and the like).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaine’s reference wherein the meta data relates to at least one of: the handling station or a human operator of the handling station; a place where the food item is originally produced, and a weight, a size, a shape, or a quality of the food item based on the method of Ishiyama’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately convey information about the product and remove the limitation of using a tag (See Ishiyama, ¶ [0002–0007, 0016–0018]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ishiyama with Blaine to obtain the invention as specified in claim 43.
Claim(s) 44, 48 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaine et al. (US 20180027848 A1, hereafter, "Blaine") in view of Stelmar et al. (US 20220067897 A1, hereafter, "Stelmar").
Regarding claim 44, the method according to claim 32, [comprising identifying in the check-in image an undesired food item part and creating at least one UII from a part of the image which does not contain the undesired food item part].
However, Blaine fail(s) to teach comprising identifying in the check-in image an undesired food item part and creating at least one UII from a part of the image which does not contain the undesired food item part.
Stelmar, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: comprising identifying in the check-in image an undesired food item part and creating at least one UII from a part of the image which does not contain the undesired food item part (See Stelmar, ¶ [0050], Additionally, in some embodiments the hash function can generate a supplemental first code (shown below as
f
f
i
r
s
t
c
o
d
e
) for the food-product unit each time a food-product subunit is separated from it. The supplemental first code can be based on information (e.g., image label, dimensions, location, time, weight, volume, color) about the food-product unit after each food-product subunit is separated from it).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaine’s reference comprising identifying in the check-in image an undesired food item part and creating at least one UII from a part of the image which does not contain the undesired food item part based on the method of Stelmar’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately track and verify food products (See Stelmar, ¶ [0004–0012]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Stelmar with Blaine to obtain the invention as specified in claim 44.
Regarding claim 48, Blaine teaches The method according to claim 32, comprising defining based upon the check-in image, a portioning plan defining intended cutting of the food item into pieces thereof (See Blaine, ¶ [0082], The first data set, which contains cutting paths generated by the X-ray unit 13, is integrated/implemented in the second data set, namely in the optical image generated by the optical camera 17 or 20 assigned to the first conveyor 11 such that an optical transfer image is forwarded to the control unit 34 as a third data set for matching and analyzing, wherein identification of the products 12 and matching and analyzing of the data sets takes place based on the third and the fourth data set. This means that the image data of the optical camera 17 or 20 (together with the data obtained from the X-ray unit 13) is transmitted to the control unit 34. Note: the cutting path is the portioning plan for cutting the object), and [creating at least one UII for each of the intended pieces thereof].
However, Blaine fail(s) to teach creating at least one UII for each of the intended pieces thereof.
Stelmar, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: creating at least one UII for each of the intended pieces thereof (See Stelmar, ¶ [0050], In an example, in some embodiments, the food-product tracking system can generate a first code for a food-product unit (e.g., 200, FIG. 2A), a second code for a first food-product subunit that was separated (e.g., cut) from the food-product unit (e.g., 230, FIG. 2B), and a third code for a second food-product subunit that was also separated from the food-product unit (e.g., 215, FIG. 2B). Note: Each subunit has its own code (e.g., UII)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaine’s reference creating at least one UII for each of the intended pieces thereof based on the method of Stelmar’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately track and verify food products (See Stelmar, ¶ [0004–0012]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Stelmar with Blaine to obtain the invention as specified in claim 48.
Regarding claim 49, Blaine teaches The method according to claim 48, comprising cutting the food item into the intended pieces in a handling station (See Blaine, ¶ [0062],