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 filed 21 August 2025 has been entered. Claims 7, 11-16, and 18-23 are pending, of which claims 20-23 are withdrawn from consideration as explained in the Election/Restrictions section below. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 21 May 2025, except for any objection(s) repeated below.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 20-23 are directed to inventions that are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Regarding newly added claims 22-23, the invention as originally claimed and the invention of claims 22-23 are related as combination (the originally presented claims) and subcombination (newly added claims 22-23). That is, the invention of claims 22-23 is directed to a subcombination sorting system that does not require any processing system having a blade, whereas the originally claimed invention is directed to a combination food processing system having a processing system, where the processing system includes a blade for cutting food. Inventions in the combination-subcombination relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed at least because neither of claims 7 and 14 requires that the control system determines a quality grade for the food items. That is, the lack of the control system in claims 7 and 14 being required to determine a quality grade for the food items is an assertion by the Applicant that this feature is not required for the patentability of claims 7 and 14. Further, the invention of claims 7 and 14 does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability because a feature of, e.g., the processing system having the blade may potentially distinguish over the prior art. The subcombination has separate utility such as for sorting different grades of corn into different bins based on whether the corn should be provided to be eaten whole, or whether the corn should be further processed (such as to create canned corn). That is, the subcombination has separate utility include in a system that does not cut tip and tail ends of the corn. Furthermore, there is a search and examination burden to examining claims 22-23 because the subcombination of these claims is separately classified in a sorting classification, such as A01D 33/08. That is, the originally present invention is classified in cutting classifications, such as B26D 5/007, due to being a combination including a processing system having a blade. The separate classifications of combination and subcombination are evidence of search burden.
Regarding newly added claims 20-21, the invention as originally claimed and the invention of claims 20-21 are related as combination (newly added claims 20-21) and subcombination (originally present claimed1). That is, the invention of claims 20-21 is directed to a combination including the food processing system of claim 14 and the additional feature of the control system including sorting capabilities. The invention as originally claimed is directed to a subcombination food processing system that does not require the control system to include sorting capabilities. Inventions in the combination-subcombination relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). The combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability. For example, the combination as claimed does not require two blades as required by the invention as originally presented, nor does the combination as claimed require that one of the blade is movable and the other is fixed as also required by the invention as originally presented. The subcombination has separate utility such as for use to cut ears of corn or other produce without sorting the ears of corn or produce. For example, manual labor that harvests ears of corn can pre-select the corn for use with the food processing system in the subcombination as originally presented. Furthermore, there is a search and examination burden to examining claims 20-21 because the combination of these claims necessitates a search within sorting classifications, such as A01D 33/08. Since the invention as originally presented did not require sorting, no search within A01D 33/08 or other sorting areas was required to be performed. The addition of claims 20-21 thus results in a search burden requiring entirely new areas of search.
Claim 14 link(s) the inventions of claims 20-21 with the invention as originally presented. The restriction requirement between the linked inventions is subject to the nonallowance of the linking claim, claim 14. Upon the indication of allowability of the linking claim(s), the restriction requirement as to the linked inventions shall be withdrawn and any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable linking claim(s) will be rejoined and fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Claims that require all the limitations of an allowable linking claim will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116; amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312.
Applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, the allowable linking claim, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Where a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
The Applicant is welcome to amend independent claims 7 and 14 to include the features of, for example, claims 20 and 21 if the Applicant would like these features to be examined.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 20-23 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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. No structure that moves one of the blades relative to the other blade is illustrated in the present drawings. For example, Figs. 43 and 44, which do illustrate a pair of blades “128”, do not illustrate any structure that moves one of the blades “128”. Therefore, the feature of “wherein during actuation of the blades the first blade is movable relative to the second blade which remains fixed in a position relative to the first blade” as recited in claims 13 and 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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
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:
“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); and
“a control system” as recited in claim 14 (first, “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by functional language including “configured to receive the image for each of the ears of corn from the imaging system and process the image to identify defects in each of the ears of corn and determine a product region of in [sic] each of the ears of corn based on the defects”; 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 3 recites, “an imaging system having an x-ray”. The x-ray is a wave emitted by the imaging system, rather than a component of the imaging system. As such, this recitation should read – an imaging system emitting an x-ray – or similar. Alternatively, the recitation can be amended to recite, “an imaging system having an x-ray generator” or otherwise recite the imaging system as having some structure.
Claim 7 at line 5 recites, “the image of each of the ears of corn”. However, there are a plurality of images of the ears of corn, since claim 7 at line 3 requires that the imaging system generates “an image of each of the ears of corn”. Thus, line 5 should be amended to reflect that there are a plurality of images of the ears of corn.
Each additional recitation of “the image” in claim 7 and its dependent claims should likewise be amended to reflect the fact that claim 7 at line 3 introduces a plurality of images.
Claim 7 at line 7 recites, “the each of the ears”. The word “the” in this recitation should be deleted.
Claim 7 at lines 6-7 recites, “a corresponding cutline plane for each of the ears of corn along the corresponding cutline plane the each of the ears of corn is cut”. This recitation should read -- a corresponding cutline plane for each of the ears of corn, wherein each of the ears of corn is cut along the corresponding cutline plane
Claim 7 at line 12 recites, “a processing system”. Since the claim as a whole is directed to “A food processing system”, the processing system of line 12 should be provided with a unique name. As one option, the examiner suggests reciting “a cutting processing system”, or “a cutting system”, noting that the ‘processing system’ is required to include a blade per line 16.
Note that all future recitations of “the processing system” in claim 7 and in any claims depending therefrom should be amended to use the full name of the system. For example, claim 7 at line 15 recites, “wherein the processing system includes…”. This recitation should read – wherein the cutting processing system includes – depending on the manner in which the Applicant elects to amend line 12. This amendment ensures that the processing system at line 15 clearly refers to the processing system introduced at line 12 instead of the processing system introduced in the preamble.
Claim 7 at line 18 recites, “corn ,”. The space between “corn” and the comma should be deleted.
Claim 7 at line 18 recites, “the each of the”. This recitation should read – each of the –.
Claim 7 at line 19 recites, “each each of the ears”. One of the two recitations of “each” in this phrase should be deleted.
Claim 14 at line 3 recites, “an imaging system having an x-ray”. The x-ray is a wave emitted by the imaging system, rather than a component of the imaging system. As such, this recitation should read – an imaging system emitting an x-ray – or similar. Alternatively, the recitation can be amended to recite, “an imaging system having an x-ray generator” or otherwise recite the imaging system as having some structure.
Claim 14 at line 4 recites, “the image of each of the ears of corn”. However, there are a plurality of images of the ears of corn, since claim 14 at line 3 requires that the imaging system generates “an image of each of the ears of corn”. Thus, line 4 should be amended to reflect that there are a plurality of images of the ears of corn.
Each additional recitation of “the image” in claim 14 and its dependent claims should likewise be amended to reflect the fact that claim 14 at line 3 introduces a plurality of images.
Claim 14 at line 6 recites, “a product region of in each of the ears”. One of the words “of” and “in” should be deleted in this recitation.
Claim 14 at lines 11-12 recites, “a processing system”. Since the claim as a whole is directed to “A food processing system”, the processing system of lines 11-12 should be provided with a unique name. As one option, the examiner suggests reciting “a cutting processing system”, or “a cutting system”, noting that the ‘processing system’ is required to include a blade per line 14.
Note that all future recitations of “the processing system” in claim 14 and in any claims depending therefrom should be amended to use the full name of the system. For example, claim 14 at line 13 recites, “wherein the processing system includes…”. This recitation should read – wherein the cutting processing system includes – (depending on the manner in which the Applicant elects to amend lines 11-12). This amendment ensures that the processing system at line 13 clearly refers to the processing system introduced at lines 11-12 instead of the processing system introduced in the preamble.
Claim 14 recites, “a blade defining a blade cut plane configured to cut”. A plane is an imaginary geometric feature and does not in and of itself perform any cutting; instead, the blade is the structure that performs the cutting. As such, this recitation should read – a blade defining a blade cut plane, the blade configured to cut –.
Claim 15 at line 6 recites, “configured to track position”. This recitation should read – configured to track a respective position – or otherwise be amended to include an article.
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 and 11-13 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 line 8 recites, “and a tip end of each of the ears of the corn”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear what prior clause is modified by this recitation. Is each of the ears of corn required to be cut along a respective tip end of each of the ears of corn? Does the corresponding cutline plane include a tip end of each of the ears of corn? Is the control system configure to process an image of the tip end of each of the ears of corn? The clause “and a tip end of each of the ears of corn” is not clearly grammatically linked to any preceding clause, and as such the effect of this limitation is unclear, rendering claim 7 indefinite. For examination purposes, the examiner considers claim 7 as being satisfied by any of the options set forth in this paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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.
Regarding claim 7, Scaroni discloses a food processing system (including processing system 100; see Fig. 1) for processing a plurality of ears of corn (see paragraph 28 and Fig. 3A; the particular type of produce that is process is merely an intended use of the claimed processing system; the fact that the system of Scaroni is usable to process various types of produce similar in size to an ear of corn, such as a carrot brunch, is evidence that the system of Scaroni is ablet o process ears of corn; note that all future recitations of the produce being ears of corn are likewise merely intended use recitations, and that the system of Scaroni is usable to trim ears of corn consistent with paragraph 28; as further evidence that the processing system of Scaroni is able to process ears of corn, Rauth teaches that ears of corn can be processed by a similar system as that disclosed by Scaroni, where the system includes a conveyor having paddles to transport ears of corn relative to rotary blades – see Rauth at Figs. 3 and 4 and col. 1, lines 22-27), the food processing system comprising:
each of the ears of corn being moved into a processing system 100 (see step 202 in Fig. 2; see also paragraph 25) such that the tip end of each of the ears of corn is oriented in a first direction and a tail end of each of the ears of corn is oriented in a second direction opposite the first direction (see Figs. 3A and 4 showing the produce aligned with the tip end oriented in one direction and the tail end in an opposing direction; see also paragraph 27 where the tip end as claimed corresponds to the ‘top portion’ of the produce as described at paragraph 27 and the tail end as claimed corresponds to the ‘bottom portion’ as described at paragraph 27),
wherein the processing system 100 includes a processing conveyor 112 onto which each of the ears of corn is received (see Fig. 1 and also step 202 in Fig. 2) and a blade 122 configured to cut each of the ears of corn based on a respective cutline plane for each of the ears of corn (see Fig. 1, step 214 in Fig. 2, and paragraph 27), and wherein the processing conveyor 112 conveys the each of the ears of corn past the blade 122 such that each of the ears of corn is a processed food product (see Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 11, Scaroni discloses that the blade 122 is a first blade 122, and wherein the first blade 122 is configured to cut each of the ears of corn along the cutline plane (see Fig. 1, step 214 in Fig. 2, and paragraph 27); and wherein the processing system 100 includes a second blade 120 configured to cut off the tail end of each of the ears of corn (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 12, Scaroni discloses that the first blade 122 defines a blade cut plane (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 27); and each ear of corn is moved onto the processing conveyor 112 such that the cutline plane for each of the ears aligns with the blade cut plane (see Figs. 1 and 2, noting especially steps 202 and 204 in Fig. 2 – i.e., Scaroni discloses, as one option, that the produce is manually aligned by an operator such that the cutline plane aligns with the blade cut plane).
Further, in regards to moving the food product into the processing system, Scaroni discloses that produce “may be received from automated harvesting machinery or frame harvesting personnel without limitation” (see paragraph 25).
Scaroni fails to disclose: an imaging system having an x-ray configured to generate an image of each of the ears of corn; a control system configured to process the image of each of the ears of corn and determine a cutline for the image and a corresponding cutline plane for each of the ears of corn along the corresponding cutline plane the each of the ears of corn is cut and a tip end of each of the ears of corn; a conveyor configured to convey each of the ears of corn through the food processing system; and a robot configured to move each of the ears of corn from the conveyor into the processing system; wherein that the food product is received in the processing system from the robot, as required by claim 7. Scaroni also fails to disclose that the cutline plane is determined for each of the ears of corn as recited in claim 11. Scaroni fails to disclose that the robot is configured to move each of the ears of corn as required by claim 12.
Bergmann teaches a food processing system (see Fig. 1 and the Abstract) that includes an imaging system configured to generate an image of each food product of a plurality of food products (see the imaging sensor of paragraph 9; furthermore, this feature is further satisfied upon the further modification in view of Rusko below); a control system 400 configured to process the image of each food product (see paragraphs 9 and 61 – the control system 400 processes the image because the imaging system is the structure that detects the image, and the control system 400 determines the location of the food product based on the image; furthermore, this feature is further satisfied upon the further modification in view of Rusko below); a conveyor 200 configured to convey each food product through the food processing system (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 70; consistent with claim 7 also requiring a processing conveyor, this limitation is satisfied so long as the conveyor conveys each food product at least partially through the food processing system, since claim 7 requires a processing conveyor that receives each food item in the processing system); and a robot R configured to move each food product from the conveyor 200 into a processing system 300 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 75; the robot R moves the food product from conveyor 200 into the processing system 300), such that the processing system receives each food item from the robot R (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 75). [Claim 7] Bergmann further teaches that the robot R is configured to move each food product into the processing system 300 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 75; the robot R moves the food product from conveyor 200 into the processing system 300). [Claim 12] The imaging system, the control system, the robot, and the conveyor of Bergmann are advantageous because these structures cooperate to automatically deliver food products into the processing system without requiring manual labor. That is, the conveyor transports food products toward the robot, the imaging system detects the food products, the robot moves the food products from the conveyor into the processing system, and the control unit coordinates these operations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the food processing system of Scaroni with an imaging system, a control system, a robot, and a conveyor as taught by Bergmann, including configuring the robot to load produce into the processing conveyor of the processing system of Scaroni in the alignment of the food product already disclosed by Scaroni. This modification is advantageous because the imaging system, control system, robot, and conveyor cooperate to provide an automated structure for loading food items into the processing system of Scaroni, such that the need for manual labor to load food products into the processing system is reduced. The obviousness of this modification is further evidenced by Scaroni, which explicitly discloses that produce can be received into the processing system of Scaroni through automated machinery (see paragraph 25), and which expresses a desire to reduce the amount of manual labor required to process produce (see paragraph 2).
Still, it is known in the art of processing systems of the style disclosed by Scaroni that food products being processed in the processing system have different processing needs, where manual labor may be used to assess the food products and determine the cutting needs of each respective food product, including determining alignment of the food products with respect to a cutting blade (see, e.g., Rauth at col. 3, lines 18-51). As disclosed by Bergmann, the imaging system only detects a presence of the food products, but does not determine any particular characteristics of the food products (such as the position of the food products on the conveyor, or the conditions of the food products). Thus, even in Scaroni as modified by Bergmann, the need for manual labor continues to exist because the control system is not explicitly disclosed as controlling the robot based on the characteristics of each particular food item, nor is the control system explicitly disclosed as being able to determine a cutting plane for each of the food products.
Turning to claimed features, Scaroni as modified by Bergmann fails to disclose that the imaging system has an x-ray configured to generate the image of each of the ears of corn, and that the control system is configured to determine a cutline for the image and a corresponding cutline plane for each of the ears of corn along the corresponding cutline plane the each of the ears of corn is cut and a tip end of each of the ears of corn, as required by claim 7. Scaroni as modified by Bergmann similarly fails to disclose that the cutline plane is determined for each of the ears of corn as recited in claim 11.
In general, Rusko teaches a system that is able to identify and automatically remove undesired portions of food products (see the Abstract and paragraph 8). Turning to claimed features, Rusko teaches an imaging system 20 that has an x-ray configured to generate an image of each food product of a plurality of food products (see paragraph 49); and a control system 26 (see paragraph 64) that is configured to determine a cutline for the image (see paragraphs 66-67; the control system 26 determines the cutline for the image when the control system 26 determines the portions of the food product to be removed) and a corresponding cutline plane for each food product along which the food product is cut (see the final sentence of paragraph 66). [Claim 7] Rusko teaches that the cutline plane is determined for each food product (see paragraphs 66-67, where the control system 26 determines the cutline plane). [Claim 11] The teachings of Rusko, including having the imaging system include an x-ray configured to generate an image of the food product, and including configuring the control system to determine a cutline for the image and a corresponding cutline plane for each food product along which the food product is cut, are advantageous in order to allow the robot to position each food product at an optimal position in relation to the processing system in order to optimize the cutting result of the processing system (see paragraph 11). Moreover, the cited teachings of Rusko allow all cuts to be made automatically based on the information detected from the imaging system (see the Abstract), so that manual labor is not required in order to position the food products.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Scaroni as modified by Bergmann by having the imaging system have an x-ray configured to generate an image each food product, configuring the control system to determine a cutline for the image and a corresponding cutline plane for each food product along which the food product is cut, and configuring the robot to move the food product into the processing system of Scaroni such that the cutline plane aligns with the blade cut plane in view of the teachings of Rusko. This modification is advantageous because it allows for automatically aligning each food product relative to the processing system in order to optimize cutting results. Furthermore, this modification avoids the need for manual labor to assess each food product and to judge the cutting needs of the food product, since this modification relies on the control system to process the image of the food product in order to determine how the food product should be positioned for optimized cutting. Further, configuring the imaging system to have an x-ray is advantageous because such an imaging system is able to determine a size, extent, alignment, orientation, and distribution of a food product (see paragraph 49 of Rusko) rather than merely sensing the presence of the food product as is the case prior to modification. Blaine provides further evidence of this modification, since Blaine discloses that x-ray imaging is usable on both fish or meat products and vegetables (see Blaine at paragraphs 7 and 56). Scaroni, as thus modified, discloses that the control system processes the image of the tip end of each of the ears of corn, since Scaroni, as thus modified, discloses imaging the food product, and the food product can be provided as an ear of corn having at tip end.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaroni as modified by Bergmann and Rusko as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of further in view of US Pat. No. 9,457,474 B1 to Lisso et al.
Regarding claim 13, Scaroni, as modified, discloses that one of the blades is movable relative to the other blade (see Scaroni at paragraph 27).
However, Scaroni, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose how such movement occurs. As a result, Scaroni, as modified, fails to disclose that the movement is during actuation of the blades and that the other blade remains fixed in a cut position during the movement of the one of the blades, as required by claim 13.
Lisso, though, teaches rotating blades that are mounted on robots, where during actuation of the blades the blades are movable (see col. 8, lines 27-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount each of the rotating blades of Scaroni, as modified, to a respective robot where the blades are movable during actuation of the blades by the robots in view of the teachings of Lisso. This modification is obvious because it fills a gap in the disclosure of Scaroni, as modified, by providing a structure that is able to perform the adjustments of the blades disclosed by Scaroni. Moreover, using robots to adjust the blades is advantageous because robots can be provided with interchangeable end effectors, such that the robots can also be re-purposed for other operations beyond merely adjusting blades or performing a limited type of cutting. As a result, this modification leads to a more cost effective adjustment system in the long run, since the robots that perform the adjustment are also usable for other purposes rather than creating a complex adjustment structure that is only usable for the singular purpose of adjusting the blades as disclosed by Scaroni. As a result of this modification, the structure of Scaroni, as modified, permits either blade to remain stationary since the robots that control the respective blades are independently movable.
Claim(s) 14, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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.
Regarding claim 14, Scaroni discloses a food processing system (including processing section 100; see Fig. 1) for processing ears of corn (see Fig. 3A showing that each item of produce is processed when the respective item of produce is contacted by a blade 120 and/or 122; regarding the intended use function of process ‘ears of corn’, the system of Scaroni is able to process a variety of produce having similar shape as ears of corn as is evident from Fig. 1 and paragraph 28, and Rauth provides evidence that ears of corn can be processed by a similar system as that disclosed by Scaroni, such that the system of Scaroni is able to perform the intended use function of processing ears of corn depending on the particular type of produce loaded into the system of Scaroni), the food processing system comprising:
that each ear of corn is moved into a processing section 100 (see the item of produce being moved at 302 in Fig. 3A; note that ears of corn are not claimed and that this feature is satisfied when the produce of Scaroni is provided in the form of ears of corn);
wherein the processing section 100 includes a processing conveyor 112 onto which each of the ears of corn is received (see Fig. 3A) and a blade 122 defining a blade cut plane (see a plane defined by blade 122 in Fig. 1) configured to cut each of the ears corn along a cutline plane determined for each of the ears of corn such that each of the ears of corn is a processed ear of corn that corresponds to a product region (see Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph 27; in Fig. 2, see in particular the alignment step 204, where Scaroni teaches that alignment of the food to be cut can be performed manually by an operator at paragraph 25 – this alignment includes alignment of the food relative to the blades 120 and 122 to perform the cuts recited in paragraph 27, where the ‘product region’ is the food portion remaining after cutting off both ends per paragraph 27); and wherein an operator manually each of the ears of corn onto the processing conveyor 112 such that the cutline plane for each of the ears aligns with the blade cut plane (see the alignment step 204 in Fig. 2 and paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 16, Scaroni discloses that the blade 122 is a first blade 122, and wherein the first blade 122 is configured to cut each of the ears of corn along the cutline plane (see Fig. 1, step 214 in Fig. 2, and paragraph 27); and wherein the processing system 100 includes a second blade 120 configured to cut off a tail end of each of the ears of corn (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 19, Scaroni discloses that a tip end of each ear of corn is oriented in a first direction and a tail end of each ear of corn is oriented in a second direction opposite the first direction (this feature is satisfied when each ear of corn is arranged between a pair of adjacent paddles 110, with the corn extending into and out of the page relative to Fig. 3A; see paragraph 27 indicating that this is the desired orientation of produce).
Further, in regards to moving the food product into the processing section, Scaroni discloses that produce “may be received from automated harvesting machinery or frame harvesting personnel without limitation” (see paragraph 25).
Scaroni fails to disclose: an imaging system having an x-ray for generating an image of each of the ears of corn; a control system configured to receive the image for each of the ears of corn from the imaging system and process the image to identify defects in each of the ears of corn and determine a product region of in [sic] each of the ears of corn based on the defects, wherein the control system further determines a cutline for the image and a corresponding cutline plane relative to the product region for each of the ears of corn; a conveyor configured to convey each of the ears corn through the food processing system; a robot configured to move each of the ears of corn from the conveyor into the processing system, with each of the ears of corn being received from the robot; and the robot is configured to move each of the ears of corn onto the processing conveyor as required by claim 14. Scaroni also fails to disclose: that the cutline plane is determined for each ear of corn by the control system as required by claim 16; and that the robot is configured move each ear of corn onto the processing conveyor as required by claim 19.
Bergmann teaches a food processing system (see Fig. 1 and the Abstract) that includes an imaging system configured to generate an image of each food product (see the imaging sensor of paragraph 9; furthermore, this feature is further satisfied upon the further modification in view of Rusko below); a control system 400 configured to receive the image for each food product from the imaging system and process the image (see paragraphs 9 and 61 – the control system 400 processes the image because the imaging system is the structure that detects the image, and the control system 400 determines the location of the food product based on the image; furthermore, this feature is further satisfied upon the further modification in view of Rusko below); a conveyor 200 configured to convey each food product through the food processing system (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 70; consistent with claim 14 also requiring a processing conveyor, this limitation is satisfied so long as the conveyor conveys each food product at least partially through the food processing system, since claim 14 requires a processing conveyor that receives each food item in the processing section); a robot R configured to move each food item from the conveyor 200 into a processing section 300 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 75), with the food products being received in the processing section 300 from the robot R (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 75), and the robot R is configured to move each of the food products into the processing section 300 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 75). [Claim 14] Bergmann further teaches: that the robot R is configured to move each food product into the processing section 300 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 75). [Claim 19] The imaging system, the control system, the robot, and the conveyor of Bergmann are advantageous because these structures cooperate to automatically deliver food products into the processing section without requiring manual labor. That is, the conveyor transports food products toward the robot, the imaging system detects the food products, the robot moves the food products from the conveyor into the processing section, and the control unit coordinates these operations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the food processing system of Scaroni with an imaging system, a control system, a robot, and a conveyor as taught by Bergmann, including configuring the robot to load produce into the processing conveyor of the processing system of Scaroni in the alignment of the food product already disclosed by Scaroni. This modification is advantageous because the imaging system, control system, robot, and conveyor cooperate to provide an automated structure for loading food items into the processing section of Scaroni, such that the need for manual labor to load food products into the processing section is reduced. Having the robot move each food item into the processing conveyor is obvious because the robot of Bergmann loads food items into a processing section, and the processing section of Scaroni requires food items to be loaded into the processing conveyor as can be seen in Fig. 3A of Scaroni, such that this modification loads the food items into the required position of Scaroni. The obviousness of this modification is further evidenced by Scaroni, which explicitly discloses that produce can be received into the processing system of Scaroni through automated machinery (see paragraph 25), and which expresses a desire to reduce the amount of manual labor required to process produce (see paragraph 2).
Still, it is known in the art of processing sections of the style disclosed by Scaroni that food products being processed in the processing section have different processing needs, where manual labor may be used to assess the food products and determine the cutting needs of each respective food product, including determining alignment of the food products with respect to a cutting blade (see, e.g., Rauth at col. 3, lines 18-51). As disclosed by Bergmann, the imaging system only detects a presence of the food products, but does not determine any particular characteristics of the food products (such as the position of the food products on the conveyor, or the conditions of the food products). Thus, even in Scaroni as modified by Bergmann, the need for manual labor continues to exist because the control system is not explicitly disclosed as controlling the robot based on the characteristics of each particular food item, nor is the control system explicitly disclosed as being able to determine a cutting plane for each of the food products.
Turning to claimed features, Scaroni as modified by Bergmann fails to disclose that the imaging system has an x-ray configured to generate an image of each ear of corn; that the control system is configured to identify defects in the of the ears of corn and determine a product region of the ear of in [sic] each of the ears of corn based on the defects; and wherein the control system further determines a cutline for the image and a corresponding cutline plane relative to the product region for each of the ears of corn, as required by claim 14. Scaroni also fails to disclose: that the cutline plane is determined for each of the ears of corn by the control system as required by claim 16.
In general, Rusko teaches a system that is able to identify and automatically remove undesired portions of food products (see the Abstract and paragraph 8). Turning to claimed features, Rusko teaches an imaging system 20 having an x-ray configured to generate an image of each food item (see paragraph 49); and a control system 26 that is configured to identify defects in the food item (since the control system 26 uses the image from the imaging system 20 to cut out the undesired portions of the food product per the final sentence of paragraph 66 – i.e., since the control system 26 determines how to control cutting apparatuses 21, 24, and 25 to remove the undesired portions of the food items, the control system 26 identifies the undesired portions as defective) and determine a product region of the food item based on the defects (the product region being the remaining region of the f