Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9-25-25 has been entered.
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 § 112
2. 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 8 is 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. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed positioning means and as seen in page 8 lines 1-5 of applicant’s originally filed disclosure the positioning means is detailed as an imaging device, encoder or computing means and if the positioning means is a computing means it is unclear to whether this computing means is the same or different than the computing means detailed in parent claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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) 1-12, 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0236953 to Wells Campagna et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,611,046 to Blaine.
Referring to claims 1, 7 and 20, Wells Campagna et al. discloses an apparatus and method for cutting and/or trimming food items, the apparatus comprising, a processing conveyor belt – at 3, adapted to receive food items for cutting and/or trimming – see figure 15, a cutting unit – at 10, the cutting unit further comprising a first water jet cutting device – at 12, one or more second water jet cutting devices – at 14, and a controller – inherent in that the device of Wells Campagna et al. is a robot with automatically controlled manipulator, wherein the first water jet cutting device – at 12, and the one or more second water jet cutting devices – at 14, of the cutting unit(s) are operated by the controller – see figures 10-12, 15-16, 21-26 and paragraphs [0131]-[0132], in that the one or more second water jet cutting devices – at 14, are arranged to rotate around the first water jet cutting device – at 12, during cutting and/or trimming food items on the processing conveyor belt – at 3 – see figures 10-12, 15-16, 21-26 and paragraph [0122]. Wells Campagna et al. does not disclose a computing means operating the water jet cutting devices. Blaine does disclose a computing means – at 220 for operating the water jet cutting devices – at 18,19,30 – see column 5 lines 17-32. It is noted that applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed computing means and applicant’s originally filed disclosure details the computing means as a device having a processor that executes software and the computing means – at 220 of Blaine comprises a processor that executes software as detailed in column 5 lines 17-32. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wells Campagna et al. and add any type of electric controls including the processor for executing software disclosed by Blaine, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring automatic and accurate cutting of the food items during use. Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses the first water jet cutting unit – at 12, is configured to produce a base cut – along plane 13, in the food items – see figures 9-15 and paragraphs [0122] thru [0138] of Wells Campagna et al., the second water jet cutting unit – at 14, configure to produce one or more secondary cuts – along plane 15, in the food items – see figures 9-15 and paragraphs [0122] thru [0138] of Wells Campagna et al., the second water jet cutting device – at 14, configured to rotate around the first water jet cutting device – at 12, relative to the first water jet cutting device – at 12 – see figure 13c and paragraph [0122] of Wells Campagna et al. detailing the second water jet cutting device – at 14, rotates about the first water jet cutting device – at 12, reduce cut thickness, and produce the one or more secondary cuts – along plane 15, in the food item while the first water jet cutting device – at 12, is producing the base cut – along plane 13, in the food item – see figures 9-15 and paragraphs [0122] thru [0138] of Wells Campagna et al., in that in paragraph [0123] each of the water jets – at 12,14 can be operated simultaneously. Specific to claim 7, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses a processing conveying means – at 3, for receiving and advancing food items for cutting and/or trimming – see figures 10-12, 15-16 and 21-26 of Campagna et al., and the computing means – at 220 of Blaine, for giving operating instructions to the first water jet cutting device and the one or more second water jet cutting device of the cutting unit – see at 18,19 and column 5 lines 17-32 of Blaine. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wells Campagna et al. and add any type of electric controls including the processor for executing software disclosed by Blaine, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring automatic and accurate cutting of the food items during use. Further, it is noted that applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed processing conveying means and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the processing conveying means is detailed as a conveyor belt and Wells Campagna et al. discloses a conveyor belt – at 3 as seen in figure 15. Specific to claim 20, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses the first water jet cutting device and the one or more second waiter jet cutting device – at 12,14, of the cutting unit – at 10, are independently operated by the computing means – see paragraphs [0123], [0131]-[0132], [0139], [0150] and [0153]-[0155] of Wells Campagna et al. and see the computing means – at 220 of Blaine. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wells Campagna et al. and add any type of electric controls including the processor for executing software disclosed by Blaine, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring automatic and accurate cutting of the food items during use. Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses the first water jet cutting device – at 12, is defined as a master cutting device – see paragraphs [0122]-[0123] of Wells Campagna et al. detailing the cutting device – at 12 as the cutter about which the second cutter – at 14 rotates and one of the cutters can be continuously operating and therefore be the main/master cutting device, and operating instructions for the one or more secondary water jet cutting devices – at 14, involve rotating the one or more secondary water jet cutting devices around the master cutting device – at 12, to bring them into and maintaining their cutting position – see figures 10-16 and 21-26 and paragraphs [0122]-[0123] and [0131]-[0132] of Wells Campagna et al where movement of the cutting devices are controlled.
Referring to claim 2, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses the first water jet cutting device – 12, and the one or more second water jet cutting device(s) – at 14, of the cutting unit – at 10, are arranged on a single robotic arm – at 30,34 – see figures 10-12 and 15-16 of Wells Campagna et al.
Referring to claim 3, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses each water jet cutting device – at 12,14, comprises one to six degrees of freedom movement – see at least one degree of freedom given the movement of the cutting devices – at 12,14 via the robotic arm – at 30,34 as seen in figures 10-12, 15-16 and 21-26 of Wells Campagna et al.
Referring to claim 4, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses a diameter of an aperture of each water jet cutting device – at 12,14, is adjustable – see valves used to control the cutting devices as detailed in paragraphs [0123], [0139], [0150] and [0153]-[0155] of Wells Campagna et al. where an aperture associated with the cutting devices for supplying liquid to the cutting devices is adjustable via opening and closing the valves.
Referring to claim 5, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses a diameter of the aperture of each water jet cutting device – at 12,14, can be adjusted or altered between or during the cutting and/or trimming of the food items – see valves used to control the cutting devices as detailed in paragraphs [0123], [0139], [0150] and [0153]-[0155] of Wells Campagna et al. where an aperture associated with the cutting devices for supplying liquid to the cutting devices is adjustable via opening and closing the valves.
Referring to claim 6, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses each water jet cutting device can be switched on and off during cutting and/or trimming of each food item – see for example paragraphs [0131]-[0132] of Wells Campagna et al. and – see via item 220 of Blaine.
Referring to claim 8, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses the system further comprises a positioning means – see guidance system detailed in paragraph [0131] of Wells Campagna et al., adapted to obtain real-time position and orientation data of the food items on the processing conveying means – at 3 – see paragraph [0131] of Wells Campagna et al., and transfer the real-time position and orientation data to the controller – see paragraphs [0131] of Wells Campagna et al. and – see the computing means – at 220 of Blaine. It is noted that applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed positioning means and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the positioning means is detailed as an imaging device, encoder or computer means and Wells Campagna et al. discloses an imaging device as seen in paragraph [0131]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wells Campagna et al. and add any type of electric controls including the processor for executing software disclosed by Blaine, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring automatic and accurate cutting of the food items during use.
Referring to claim 9, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses the system further comprises a first imaging means – see vision system and x-ray system detailed in paragraph [0131] of Wells Campagna et al., for obtaining first image data of the food items on the processing conveying means – at 3 – see paragraph [0131] of Wells Campagna et al., and/or on an imaging conveying means that is separate from the processing conveying means – not required by the claim given the “or” clause. It is noted that applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first imaging means and the imaging conveying means and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the first imaging means is detailed as a x-ray device, and the imaging conveying means is detailed as a conveyor belt and Wells Campagna et al. discloses a x-ray system in paragraph [0131].
Referring to claim 10, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses the computing means, processes the first image data to determine a cutting pattern for the food items – see paragraphs [0131]-[0132] of Wells Campagna et al. and – see at 200,220 and column 3 line 53 to column 5 line 32 of Blaine. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wells Campagna et al. and add any type of electric controls including the processor for executing software disclosed by Blaine, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring automatic and accurate cutting of the food items during use.
Referring to claim 11, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses the first imaging means comprises an x-ray device – see paragraph [0131] of Wells Campagna et al., to identify a position of undesired tissue in the food items – see x-ray system detailed in paragraphs [0131]-[0132] of Wells Campagna et al. and – see x-ray device detailed in column 3 line 53 to column 5 line 32 of Blaine. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wells Campagna et al. and add any type of electric controls including the processor for executing software disclosed by Blaine, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring automatic and accurate cutting of the food items during use.
Referring to claim 12, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses the computing means is configured to compare the position of the undesired tissue in X-ray images received from the X-ray device – see paragraph [0131] of Wells-Campagna et al., to real-time position and orientation data of the food items on the processing conveying means – at 3, to give operating instructions to the cutting unit – at 10, for removing undesired tissue in the food items – see figures 10-12, 15-16, 21-26 and paragraphs [0131]-[0132] of Wells Campagna et al. and – see computing means – at 220 with position/imaging via an x-ray device in column 3 line 53 to column 5 line 32 of Blaine. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wells Campagna et al. and add any type of electric controls including the processor for executing software disclosed by Blaine, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring automatic and accurate cutting of the food items during use.
Referring to claim 14, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses the system further comprises an imaging device – see scanning and X-ray device detailed in paragraph [0131] of Wells-Campagna et al., for capturing volumetric/size data of the food items – see thickness data detailed in paragraph [0131] of Wells Campagna et al., on the processing conveying means – at 3 – see figure 15 and paragraph [0131] of Wells Campagna et al., and/or an imaging conveying means that is separate from the process conveying means – not required by the claim given the and/or clause.
Referring to claim 15, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses the processing means – guidance system of paragraph [0131] of Wells Campagna et al., uses the volumetric/size data to maintain a constant distance between the cutting unit and the food item during cutting – see thickness data that is used to control operation of the cutting unit and therefore is at least capable of performing these functional/intended use limitations in that the orientation of the cutting unit and robotic arm in relation to the food item is controlled based on the processing means as seen in figures 10-12, 15-16, 21-26 and paragraphs [0131]-[0132] of Wells Campagna et al.
Referring to claim 16, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses the processing means uses the volumetric/size data – see thickness data in paragraph [0131] of Wells Campagna et al., to determine a speed of movement of the cutting unit – see column 16 lines 22-48 of Blaine, in relation to a thickness of the food items. – see thickness data detailed in paragraph [0131] and see figures 10-12, 15-16 and 21-26 of Wells Campagna et al. Therefore adding the computing means determining speed of the cutting unit as disclosed by Blaine into the device of Wells Campagna et al. discloses the claimed invention, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring automatic and accurate cutting of the food items during use.
Referring to claim 17, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine further discloses the volumetric/size data of the food items is used for determining portion cutting of food items – see paragraphs [0131]-[0132] of Wells Campagna et al., and wherein the operating instructions for the one or more second water jet cutting devices – at 12,14 of Wells Campagna and – at 18,19 of Blaine, are determined by the position of the first water jet cutting device to obtain portion cutting of the food items by a pre-defined criteria – criteria such as size of the food item and fat content of the food item that is desired – see figures 10-12, 15-16, 21-26 and paragraphs [0131]-[0132] of Wells Campagna et al. and see column 3 line 53 to column 5 line 32 of Blaine. Therefore adding the computing means determining speed of the cutting unit as disclosed by Blaine into the device of Wells Campagna et al. discloses the claimed invention, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring automatic and accurate cutting of the food items during use.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,085,615 to Gundlach et al.
Referring to claim 18, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine does not disclose the system further comprises a thermal form-fixing means for bringing the food items into the phase transition of freezing contact cooling of the food items prior to cutting and/or trimming. Gundlach et al. does disclose the system further comprises a thermal form-fixing means for bringing the food items into the phase transition of freezing contact cooling of the food items prior to cutting/ and or trimming – see cooling the food items prior to cutting as seen in column 3 line 67 to column 5 line 28 and Examples 1 and 2. Therefore it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine and add the thermal form-fixing means of Gundlach et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the food product is fresh during processing. It is noted that applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed thermal form-fixing means and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the thermal form-fixing means is detailed as a chamber with conveyor in the chamber and Gundlach et al. discloses a chamber such as a room with a conveyor in the room as seen in column 3 line 67 to column 4 line 13.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0073646 to Riley.
Referring to claim 19, Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine does not disclose the system further comprises means for bringing the food items to an undercooled state by agitation in a salt controlled and temperature-controlled solution prior to cutting/ and or trimming. Riley does disclose the system further comprises means for bringing the food items to an undercooled state by agitation in a salt controlled and temperature-controlled solution prior to cutting and/or trimming – see figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0014], [0064] thru [0070] and [0114] thru [0120]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wells Campagna et al. as modified by Blaine and add the means for bring the food items to an undercooled state as disclosed by Riley, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the food items remain fresh during processing. It is noted that applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed means for bringing the food items to an undercooled state in that applicant claims specific components related to the means for bringing the food items to an undercooled statement such as the claimed agitated salt solution.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 9-25-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 7 and 20 detailed in the last office action dated 3-26-25.
It is noted that applicant has not addressed the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 8 detailed in the last office action dated 3-26-25.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 1-12 and 14-20, the Wells Campagna et al. reference US 2020/0236953 discloses the newly added claim limitations of applicant’s amendments dated 9-26-25 in that Wells Campagna et al. discloses the first water jet cutting device – at 12, is defined as a master cutting device – see paragraphs [0122]-[0123] of Wells Campagna et al. detailing the cutting device – at 12 as the cutter about which the second cutter – at 14 rotates and one of the cutters can be continuously operating and therefore be the main/master cutting device, and operating instructions for the one or more secondary water jet cutting devices – at 14, involve rotating the one or more secondary water jet cutting devices around the master cutting device – at 12, to bring them into and maintaining their cutting position – see figures 10-16 and 21-26 and paragraphs [0122]-[0123] and [0131]-[0132] of Wells Campagna et al where movement of the cutting devices are controlled. The claims only require that the first and second cutting devices make at least one cut and the claims do not include limitations relating to the cutting devices having latitude/flexibility, being fine-tuned and having specific precision as applicant discusses and therefore these remarks/arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Therefore the combination of the Wells Campagna et al. reference with the Blaine reference US 10611046 renders the claims obvious as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action.
Conclusion
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