Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 12-23-25 and this office action is a final rejection.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
Claim(s) 37-55, 60-67 and 68-72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO No. 2013/156783 to Nielsen in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0029277 to Skraedderdal et al. and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,862,262 to Thorsson et al.
Referring to claim 37, Nielsen discloses a method of fulfilling a plurality of weight batch orders in a food item processing line, the method comprising, obtaining an estimated weight data of a first supply batch of food items – see page 3 lines 18-29, page 8 line 30 to page 9 line 12 and page 10 line 16 to page 11 line 16, receiving a plurality of weight batch orders – see page 7 lines 15-27, page 10 lines 8-14 and page 11 lines 6-26, allocating a subset of the plurality of weight batch orders to the first supply batch of food items by determining which weight batch order best corresponds with the estimated weight data – see page 7 lines 15-27, page 10 lines 10-14, page 11 line 6 to page 13 line 2, and scheduling fulfilment of the determined best corresponding weight batch order – see page 7 lines 15-27 and page 11 line 6 to page 13 line 2. Nielsen does not disclose the estimated weight data is attributed to the first supply batch of food items before the food items are weighed on arrival at the processing line. Skraedderdal et al. does disclose the estimated weight data – at 3, is attributed to the first supply batch of food items – at 2, before the food items are weighed – at 10, on arrival at the processing line – at 7 proximate 10 – see figure 1 and paragraphs [0154]-[0167]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Nielsen and add the estimated weight data is attributed to the food items prior to the food items being weighed as disclosed by Skraedderdal et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring a more accurate weight of the food items is determined to better sort/batch the food items into their desired categories/characteristics. Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. further discloses tagging one or more measurable parameters to the first supply batch of food items and wherein each weight batch order has an associated fulfilment characteristic – see page 3 line 18 to page 4 line 25 and page 10 line 8 to page 12 line 2 of Nielsen. Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. further discloses allocating a subset of the plurality of weight batch orders to the first supply batch of food items includes determining which weight batch order best corresponds with the estimated weight data and which associated fulfilment characteristic best corresponds to the one or more measurable parameters – see page 3 line 18 to page 4 line 25 and see page 10 line 8 to page 12 line 2 of Nielsen. Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. does not disclose the weight batch orders are dynamically ranked for fulfilment depending on at least one of fulfilment characteristics and measurable parameters, wherein ranking of orders for fulfilment changes depending on at least one of the fulfilment characteristics and measurable parameters specified by a user. Thorsson et al. does disclose the weight batch orders are dynamically ranked for fulfilment depending on at least one of fulfilment characteristics and measurable parameters – see for example column 5 line 5 to column 6 line 37 detailing characteristics such as shape and measurable parameters such as weights and column 9 lines 7-27 detailing dynamic sorting, wherein ranking of orders for fulfilment changes depending on at least one of the fulfilment characteristics and measurable parameters specified by a user – see for example column 5 line 5 to column 6 line 37 and column 9 lines 7-27. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and add the dynamic ranking for fulfilment based on fulfilment characteristics and measurable parameters as disclosed by Thorsson et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for immediate real time control of the sorting process as desired.
Referring to claim 40, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses updating the tagged one or more measurable parameters of the first supply batch of food items based upon a visual inspection – see manually determining physical abnormalities detailed in page 3 line 18 to page 4 line 25 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 41, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses weighing a number of the individual food items of the first supply batch of food items to obtain measured weight data – see page 4 line 2 to page 5 line 4 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 42, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et a. further discloses verifying the allocation of the subset of the plurality of weight batch orders to the first supply batch of food items by determining which weight batch order best corresponds with the measured weight data – see page 11 line 6 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 43, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses verifying the allocation of the subset of the plurality of weight batch orders to the first supply batch of food items by determining which weight batch order best corresponds with the measured weight data – see page 11 line 6 to page 13 line 2, and which the associated fulfilment characteristic best corresponds to one or more measurable parameters of the first supply batch of food items based upon the visual inspection – see page 11 line 6 to page 13 line 28 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 44, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses re-allocating a subset of the plurality of weight batch orders to the first supply batch of food items – see page 11 line 6 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen, and/or re-scheduling fulfilment of the determined best corresponding weight batch order to a second supply batch of food items – see page 11 line 2 to page 13 line 28 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 45, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses the food items comprise poultry and scheduling fulfilment of the determined best corresponding weight batch order includes allocating whole poultry birds to at least a first and a second batching area – see page 4 lines 1-25 and page 6 line 23 to page 12 line 12 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 46, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses the first batching area includes a breakup line for breaking up a whole poultry bird into poultry items – see page 6 lines 6-13 of Nielsen, and the second batching area includes a batching line for processing whole poultry birds – see figure 1 and page 10 line 8 to page 12 line 24 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 47, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses the food item is poultry and the poultry is slaughtered poultry items carried by a conveyor – see page 4 lines 1-25 and see conveyors in figures 1-3 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 48, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses the food item is poultry and the poultry is slaughtered poultry items carried by carriers attached and conveyed by an overhang rail system – see page 4 line 1-25 and overhead conveyors in figures 1-3 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 49, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses automatically adjusting the allocation of the poultry from the overhang rails system to two or more batching areas when new order data indicating new different weight targets is received – see figures 1-3 and page 9 line 25 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen, with different batch areas such as 106a-106c.
Referring to claim 50, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses bypassing the poultry from the two or more batching areas if resulting smaller poultry pieces do not fulfil a pre-defined weight target data criterion – see for example page 12 line 16 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 51, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses at least one weighing device is integrated into the overhang rail system and where the weight of individual poultry items is determined while the poultry items are conveyed – see figure 1 and page 12 lines 14-24 of Nielsen and see determining weight on a conveyor such as at station 1 as seen in column 5 line 5 to column 6 line 37 of Thorsson et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and add the dynamic ranking for fulfilment based on fulfilment characteristics and measurable parameters as disclosed by Thorsson et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for immediate real time control of the sorting process as desired.
Referring to claim 52, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses the food items are poultry and the measurable parameters are one or more of size of bird, organic, free range, caged, halal, number of blood spots, physical abnormalities, breed of bird, originating farm, number of birds, average weight of birds – see blood spots and physical abnormalities in page 3 lines 18-29 and halal detailed in page 10 lines 24-26 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 53, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses the food items are poultry and the associated fulfilment characteristics includes at least one of priority of order, weight limit, pallet size, price, expiry date, organic, free range, caged, halal, number of blood spots, physical abnormalities, breed of bird, originating farm, whole poultry birds, poultry drum stick, poultry wings, poultry breast fillets – see priority of order, weight limit, halal, blood spots, physical abnormalities, whole birds, drum stick, wings and breast fillets detailed in page 3 lines 18-29, page 10 lines 24-26 and page 12 lines 4-24 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 54, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses at least one of the plurality of weight batch orders includes a whole poultry bird – see page 2 lines 4-24 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 55, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses at least one of the plurality of weight batch orders is for a portion of a poultry bird see page 7 lines 15-27, page 10 lines 8-14 and page 11 lines 6-26 of Nielsen, and the associated fulfilment characteristic includes a number of individual poultry bird portions making up the weight of the order – see page 10 line 8 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 60, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses updating the estimated weight data of subsequent supply batches of poultry based upon historical measured weights – see different parts batched based on known weight of the whole detailed in page 9 line 25 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen and column 5 line 5 to column 6 line 37 of Thorsson et al.
Referring to claim 61, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses updating the tagging of one or more measurable parameters based on historical visually inspected measurable parameters – see manually processed parameters detailed in page 3 line 18 to page 4 line 25 of Nielsen and column 5 line 5 to column 6 line 37 of Thorsson et al.
Referring to claim 62, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. does not disclose the updating is performed by an artificial intelligence module employing a machine learning algorithm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. and add any suitable control system including the claimed artificial intelligence learning algorithm, so as to yield the predictable result of automatically processing and controlling operations so as to allow for more batches to be processed as desired.
Referring to claim 63, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses the weight data is an average, medium or mode weight of first supply batch of food items – see page 4 line 27 to page 5 line 19 and page 10 line 28 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 64, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses a total weight or a number of food items is estimated, or both is estimated for the estimated weight data – see page 4 line 27 to page 5 line 19 and page 10 line 28 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 65, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses the weight data is a weight distribution of the first supply batch of food items – see page 4 line 27 to page 5 line 19 and page 10 line 28 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 66, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. does not disclose the weight distribution is modelled to fit a Gaussian distribution of weight versus frequency. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. and add any suitable control system including the claimed Gaussian distribution as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of automatically processing and controlling operations so as to allow for more batches to be processed as desired.
Referring to claim 67, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. does not disclose the weight data is a list of weight of food items stored in a look up table for a given number of food items. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. and use any suitable control system including the lists and look up tables as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for better automatic controls for different items to be processed as desired.
Referring to claim 68, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses a fulfilment indicator and a reference value attributed to the weight data – see page 3 line 18 to page 4 line 25 and see page 10 line 8 to page 12 line 2 of Nielsen, wherein determining which weight batch order best corresponds with the estimated weight data occurs when the reference value meets or is within a threshold from the fulfilment indicator – see page 9 line 25 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 69, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses the threshold differs for individual fulfilment characteristics and measurement parameters – see page 9 line 25 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 70, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses the weight batch order is a fixed weight batch order – see page 2 lines 22-28, page 7 lines 15-27, page 10 lines 8-14 and page 11 lines 6-26 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 71, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses the subset of the plurality of weight batch orders comprises two or more weight batch orders – see page 9 line 25 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen.
Referring to claim 72, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses the allocation of the subset of the plurality of weight batch orders to the first supply batch of food items comprises determining which weight batch orders best correspond with the estimated weight data – see page 9 line 25 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen, the method further comprising scheduling fulfilment of the determined best corresponding weight batch orders – see page 7 lines 15-27 and page 11 line 6 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen.
Claim(s) 56-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view WIPO No. 2016/113428 to Marel.
Referring to claim 56, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. does not disclose at least one handling device having at least one robotic device, and wherein transferring food items to multiple batching areas comprises picking up the food items and placing them at the multiple of batching areas. Marel does disclose at least one handling device having at least one robotic device, and wherein transferring food items to multiple batching areas comprises picking up the food items and placing them at the multiple of batching areas – see figure 3 and page 12 line 12 to page 18 line 7. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. and add the robotic handling device of Marel, so as to yield the predictable result of automatically processing the batched material so as to facilitate quicker and easier processing as desired.
Referring to claim 57, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al., Thorsson et al. and Marel further discloses at least one handling device comprises a sweep arm placed along the conveyor device – see at 301 in figure 3 of Marel, and where transferring the food items to a multiple of batching areas is performed via opening and closing the of sweep arm – see gripping element detailed in page 12 line 12 to page 18 line 7 of Marel. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and add the robotic handling device of Marel, so as to yield the predictable result of automatically processing the batched material so as to facilitate quicker and easier processing as desired. Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al., Thorsson et al. and Marel does not disclose multiple sweep arms. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al., Thorsson et al. and Marel and add any number of arms including the claimed multiple arms, so as to yield the predictable result of increasing the processing capacity and speed as desired.
Referring to claim 58, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al., Thorsson et al. and Marel further discloses a control unit controls the at least one handling device – see figure 3 and page 12 line 12 to page 18 line 7 of Marel. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. and add the robotic handling device of Marel, so as to yield the predictable result of automatically processing the batched material so as to facilitate quicker and easier processing as desired.
Referring to claim 59, Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. further discloses batching via trays as seen in page 13 lines 4-8 of Nielsen, but does not disclose at least one tray feeding device for feeding empty trays acting as batching areas, wherein the trays are advanced by an advancing device continuously or in discrete steps relative a conveyor device while the generation of the batches takes place. Marel does disclose at least one tray feeding device for feeding empty trays acting as batching areas – see figure 3, wherein the trays are advanced by an advancing device – at 109, continuously or in discrete steps relative a conveyor device – at 311, while the generation of the batches takes place – see figure 3 and page 12 line 12 to page 18 line 7. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Nielsen as modified by Skraedderdal et al. and Thorsson et al. and add the tray handling devices of Marel, so as to yield the predictable result of facilitating sorting and conveying of the batches during operation.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 12-23-25 obviates the 35 US.C. 103 rejections of claim 37 detailed in the office action dated 10-1-25. However, applicant’s claim amendments dated 12-23-25 necessitates the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 51, the prior art discloses at least one weighing device is integrated into the overhang rail system and where the weight of individual poultry items is determined while the poultry items are conveyed – see figure 1 and page 12 lines 14-24 of Nielsen and see determining weight on a conveyor such as at station 1 as seen in column 5 line 5 to column 6 line 37 of Thorsson et al.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 60, the prior art discloses updating the estimated weight data of subsequent supply batches of poultry based upon historical measured weights – see different parts batched based on known weight of the whole detailed in page 9 line 25 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen, where estimated weight data being the average weight of a chicken portion of batches is based on historical measured weights – such as weights previously determined of the entire chicken and the Thorsson et al. reference discloses dynamic sorting based on weights as seen in column 5 line 5 to column 6 line 37.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 61, the prior art discloses updating the tagging of one or more measurable parameters based on historical visually inspected measurable parameters – see manually processed parameters detailed in page 3 line 18 to page 4 line 25 of Nielsen and column 5 line 5 to column 6 line 37 of Thorsson et al. detailing using manual inspection to provide for dynamic sorting.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 66, the prior art discloses determining weights to effect batching/sorting of the weighed objects as seen in page 4 line 27 to page 5 line 19 and page 10 line 28 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen and column 5 line 5 to column 6 line 37 of Thorsson et al. and it would have been obvious to use any suitable weighing procedure and analysis such as weight distribution is modelled to fit a Gaussian distribution of weight versus frequency as claimed since the controllers of the prior art using computer systems that are capable of providing the claimed weight distribution modelling and therefore it would have been obvious to use the claimed weight distribution modelling with the prior art methods/processes as detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 68 and 69, the prior art discloses a fulfilment indicator and a reference value attributed to the weight data – see page 3 line 18 to page 4 line 25 and see page 10 line 8 to page 12 line 2 of Nielsen, wherein determining which weight batch order best corresponds with the estimated weight data occurs when the reference value meets or is within a threshold from the fulfilment indicator – see page 9 line 25 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen, and further discloses the threshold differs for individual fulfilment characteristics and measurement parameters – see page 9 line 25 to page 13 line 2 of Nielsen, where the typical percentage weight of the chicken portions which is used in the estimated weight determination based on the required batch weight disclosed by Nielsen provides for determining which weight batch order best corresponds with the estimated weight data occurs when the reference value meets or is within a threshold from the fulfilment indicator with the fulfilment indicator being the desired weight of each sorted batch.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 40-50, 52-55, 62-65, 67 and 70-72, applicant relies upon the same remarks/arguments with respect to parent claim 37 discussed earlier
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 56-59, applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to parent claim 37 discussed earlier.
Conclusion
4. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights