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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment accompanying the Request for Continued Examination filed 9 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 7, 11-13, 15, 18-19, and 24-28. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 10 October 2025.
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.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
“an imaging system” as recited in claim 7 (first, “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by functional language including “that emits x-rays”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., “imaging” is insufficient structure for emitting x-rays, since various devices such a camera can be considered as an imaging system without performing the function of emitting x-rays); and
“a control system” as recited in claim 7 (first, “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by functional language including “configured to process the image of each of the ears of corn and determine a cutline for the image and a corresponding cutline plane”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “control” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the system).
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 Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 at line 6 recites, “a respective image”. The image of each ear of corn is previously introduced at line 4 of the claim, such that line 6 should be amended to refer to “the” or “said”, rather than “a”, image. The examiner suggests reciting – the respective image –.
Claim 7 at line 16 recites, “each image”. The image of each ear of corn is previously introduced at line 4 of the claim, such that line 16 should be amended to refer to the “image” with the article “the” or “said”.
Claim 7 at line 19 recites, “the cutline”. Claim 7 previously introduces a plurality of cutlines, since each of the ears or corn determined to have one or more defects has a cutline. The examiner suggests reciting – the respective cutline for the ear of corn –.
Claim 7 at line 27 recites, “an ear of corn”. This recitation should avoid using “an” to refer to an ear of corn that is previously introduced. In this case, the ear of corn of line 27 is a member of the plurality of ears of corn that is imaged by the imaging system. As such, the ear of corn of line 27 should be referred to with “the” or “said” to make clear that line 27 cannot be interpreted as introducing a new ear of corn. For example, the Applicant may elect to amend line 27 to read – one of the ears of corn –. This ear of corn can then later be referred to as – the one of the ears of corn – (see line 33, e.g., which would require a corresponding amendment).
Claim 7 at line 31 recites, “a quality grade”. This recitation is previously introduced at line 10. As such, line 31 should be amended to use “the” or “said” when referring to the quality grade.
Claim 7 at line 34 recites, “the cutline plane”. This recitation should read – the respective cutline plane – since the claim previously introduces a plurality of cutline planes (see also lines 34-35 using the terminology “the respectively cutline plane”).
Claim 7 at line 34 recites, “such that the blade the ear of corn along”. This recitation is missing the word “cuts”. This recitation should read – such that the blade cuts the ear of corn along –.
Claim 11 at line 5 recites, “the cutline” and at lines 5-6 recites, “the cutline plane”. Claim 7 introduces a plurality of cutlines and a plurality of cutline planes. Claim 11 should be amended to reflect the fact that claim 7 introduces more than one cutline.
Claim 11 at line 8 recites, “each image”. This recitation should be amended to refer to “the” or “said” image, such as by reciting – each of the images for each of the ears of corn determined to have one or more defects –.
Claim 15 recites, “the conveyor” multiple times. In view of claim 7 being amended to introduce more than one conveyor, claim 15 should be amended to refer to – the first conveyor –.
Claim 27 at line 3 recites, “an ear of corn”. This recitation is referring to one of the ears of corn originally introduced in claim 7, and thus should be amended to refer to “the” or “said” when describing one of the previously introduced ears of corn.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 7, 11-13, 15, 18-19, and 24-28 is/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 7 at lines 36-37 recites, “the processing conveyor conveys the ear of corn past the blade such that each of the ears of corn is a processed food product having the product region”. This recitation is indefinite in conjunction with claim 7 at lines 27-32 because it is unclear whether the claim requires that each of the ears of corn is conveyed past the blade such that each of the ears of corn is a processed food product having the product region. Claim 7 at lines 27-32 explains that the robot moves one of the ears of corn from the first conveyor to the processing conveyor “when the respective ear of corn has a quality grade that satisfies a grade threshold”. Thus, claim 7 does not require that all ears of corn are transferred to the processing conveyor, such that claim 7 does not require that all ears of corn are cut at the processing section. Yet claim 7 at lines 36-37 requires that “each of the ears of corn” is cut to become a processed food product. This internal inconsistency renders claim 7 indefinite because it is unclear which contradictory requirement should be disregarded. Must all ears of corn be moved to the processing conveyor, even those that do not satisfy the grade threshold, such that “each of the ears of corn” is conveyed past the blade as required by lines 36-37? Or, must only those ears of corn that satisfy the grade threshold be moved to the processing conveyor, such that not all ears of corn become processed food product despite the plain language of lines 36-37? Since claim 7 includes contradictory requirements, the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets “each of the ears of corn” at lines 36-37 as describing only those ears of corn that satisfy the grade requirement, rather than all ears of corn. The examiner suggests amending claim 7 to define defective ears of corn (or some other named group of the ears of corn) as members of the ears of corn having one or more defects and also satisfying the quality grade. By defining a group of defective ears of corn, the claim can then be amended to require that the defective ears of corn are the ears that are cut. (Claims depending from claim 7 can then also be amended to refer to the defective ears of corn.)
Claim 11 at lines 11-12 recites, “wherein the second blade cuts each of the ears of corn”. This recitation is indefinite in view of claim 7 and the present specification. Claim 7 and the present specification acknowledge that the images system determines whether each of the ears of corn has one or more defects, and further acknowledge that a cutline is determined for each of the ears determined to have one or more defects. Yet claim 11 requires that the second blade cuts “each of the ears of corn”. Claim 11 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires that the second blade cuts “each of the ears of corn” as suggested by the plain language of the claim, or whether the second blade only cuts members of the ears of corn that are determined to have multiple defective regions (e.g., a first region at a first end of the respective ear of corn and a second region at a second, opposing end of the respective ear of corn). Although the plain language of claim 11 requires the second blade cuts “each of the ears of corn”, a reasonable reading of the claim in view of claim 7 and the specification is that the second blade only cuts selected members of the ears of corn.
Claim 12 at line 3 recites, “wherein the robot is configured to move each of the ears of corn onto the processing conveyor”. This recitation is indefinite for similar reasons as explained above with respect to claims 7 and 11. In particular, claim 7 specifies that the robot moves an ear of corn “when the respective ear of corn has a quality grade that satisfies a grade threshold”, suggesting that not all ears of corn are moved onto the processing conveyor. Yet the plain language of claim 12 appears to require that the robot is configured to move “each of the ears of corn”, regardless of the respective quality grade for each of the ears of corn.
Claim 19 depends from claim 14, which is canceled. Therefore, claim 19 has a dependency error. Claim 19 is indefinite because the claim upon which claim 19 is intended to depend is unclear.
Claim 19 is similarly indefinite because the claim requires that the robot is configured to move “each of the ears of corn”. This recitation is indefinite for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 7 and 12, with it being unclear whether the robot must move “each of the ears of corn” as suggested by the plain language of the claim, or whether the robot must move only certain members of the ears of corn (such as those that satisfy the quality grade) as suggested by claim 7 and the present specification.
Claim 25 is similarly indefinite because the claim requires that the robot rotates “each of the ears of corn”. This recitation is indefinite for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 7 and 12, with it being unclear whether the robot must rotate “each of the ears of corn” as suggested by the plain language of the claim, or whether the robot must rotate only certain members of the ears of corn (such as those that satisfy the quality grade) as suggested by claim 7 and the present specification.
Claim 27 recites that the control system is configured to “inhibit the robot from moving an ear of corn from the first conveyor to the processing conveyor when the respective ear of corn has a quality grade that satisfies a grade threshold”. This recitation is indefinite in view of claim 7, which states that the control system controls the robot to “move an ear of corn from the first conveyor to the processing conveyor when the respective ear of corn has a quality grade that satisfies a grade threshold”. Claim 27 is indefinite because the claim appears to require the opposite of what is already required by claim 7. Alternatively, it is unclear whether claim 27 is describing some new ‘quality grade’ and/or some new ‘grade threshold’. Should claim 27 be interpreted as requiring some second threshold, where corn that satisfies the second threshold (such as being below the second threshold) is not moved to the processing conveyor? Or, is claim 27 describing the same quality grade and same threshold of claim 7? If claim 27 is describing the same quality grade and threshold of claim 7, how can the robot both move and be inhibited from moving one of the ears of corn?
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claim7 in the Remarks of 9 April 2026 do not specifically point out how the language of the claim 7 patentably distinguishes them from the references. Regardless, as explained in the Allowable Subject Matter section below, claim 7 does distinguish over the art of record.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 11-13, 15, 18-19, and 24-28 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 7 requires that the robot is controlled by the control system to perform both functions of “move an ear of corn from the first conveyor to the processing conveyor when the respective ear of corn has a quality grade that satisfies a grade threshold; and position the ear of corn on the processing conveyor with the cutline plane aligned with the blade such that the blade [cuts, sic] the ear of corn along the respective cutline plane as the processing conveyor conveys the ear of corn past the blade such that each of the ears of corn is a processed food product having the product region.” No known reference or combination of references teaches or suggests a robot controlled to perform both functions required by claim 7, in conjunction with the remainder of features required by claim 7. First considering US Pub. No. 2010/0257984 A1 to Scaroni et al. in view of US Pub. No. 2022/0072730 A1 to Bergmann and US Pub. No. 2022/0142190 A1 to Rusko, as evidenced by US Pat. No. 3,349,822 to Rauth and US Pub. No. 2018/0029246 A1 to Blaine et al., as applied to claim 7 in the Final Office Action mailed 10 October 2025, the robot of Scaroni, as modified, is not controlled to perform both functions recited in claim 7. Instead, the robot of Scaroni, as modified, is only controlled to perform the second function of positioning the ear of corn on the processing conveyor. The robot of Scaroni, as modified, does not also move the ears of corn to the processing conveyor based on a quality grade for each ear of corn satisfying a threshold. Thus, claim 7 distinguishes over Scaroni, as modified, as applied to claim 7 in the Final Office Action mailed 10 October 2025.
Further, while it is known in the art to use a robot to remove products from a conveyor that are determined to be lower quality (see, e.g., EP 4 027 135 A1 to Sugimoto at Fig. 1 and paragraph 44), and while it is known in the art use an imaging system to assess the quality of products and to reject products that do not meet a quality threshold (see, e.g. US Pub. No. 2024/0164391 A1 to Mairhofer at paragraph 63), there is no known teaching in the art to use configure a robot to both move an ear of corn from a first conveyor to a processing conveyor when the ear of corn has a quality grade that satisfies a grade threshold, and to position the ear of corn on the processing conveyor with a cutline plane aligned with a blade such that the blade cuts the ear of corn along the cutline plane as the processing conveyor conveys the ear of corn past the blade such that each of the ears of corn is a processed food product having the product region. That is, even further modifying Scaroni in view of Sugimoto and/or Mairhofer would not provide a robot that performs both functions required by claim 7, and would instead provide an additional robot that merely rejects low quality food items.
Finally, while it is known in the art to cut away undesirable portions from a food product after imaging the food product to detect the undesirable portions (see, as two example, US Pat. No. 6,563,904 B2 to Wijts et al. and US Pub. No. 2011/0293797 A1 to Pryor), these references do not include using a robot to position the food item on a processing conveyor with a cutline plane aligned with a blade as required by claim 7. Instead, these references move the blade to the cutline plane, such that the food item is not required to be positioned on the processing conveyor in a particular orientation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
