DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The Specification is objected to for failing to include the BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION and the BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, and 12-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “wherein the method includes one or more of the following possible adjustments” should read “wherein the method includes one or more of the following
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5, and 20, the terms "possible front end cut", "possible right side cut", "possible left side cut", and "possible rear side cut" should be replaced with "cuttable front end line", "cuttable right side line", "cuttable left side line" and "cuttable rear side line" respectively.
Regarding claim 1, “which is an axis about parallel to typical and left and right side surfaces” should read “which is an axis about parallel to typical
Regarding claim 1, the word “certain” should be removed from “certain threshold value”, “certain area”, and “certain proportion”.
Regarding claim 6, the word “certain” should be removed from “certain threshold value”.
Regarding claim 14, “identifying portions of the a first certain predetermined image quality” should read “identifying portions of predetermined image quality”.
Regarding claim 14, “moving the rectangle for cutting the block in a direction parallel to a X-axis” should read “moving the rectangle for cutting the block in a direction parallel to [[a]] an X-axis”.
Regarding claim 15, the word “certain” should be removed from “certain area” and “certain proportion”.
Regarding claim 2, “wherein the method includes the adjustment of identifying a difference in the geometry of the food item” should read “wherein the method includes the adjustment of the identifying a difference in the geometry of the food item”.
Regarding claim 6, “wherein the method includes the adjustment of identifying if the food block is oriented” should read “wherein the method includes the adjustment of the identifying if the food block is oriented”.
Regarding claim 12, “wherein the method includes the adjustment of identifying if the food block includes any areas of high concentration” should read “wherein the method includes the adjustment of the identifying if the food block includes any areas of high concentration”.
Regarding claim 15, “further comprising identifying if the food block includes any voids within an area enclosed by the identified rectangle” should read “wherein the method includes the adjustment of the identifying if the food block includes any voids within an area enclosed by the identified rectangle”.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6-9, and 12-21, the Examiner advises substituting the term “meat product” for the term “food block” in all instances. As indicated in claim 1 by “cutting a block of meat within a projection of the food block”, the claimed “food block” is understood to be a meat product, and, therefore, substituting “meat product” for “food block” clarifies the scope of the claims.
Regarding claim 3, “a third straight line that best fits the right rear edge of the food block” should read “a third straight line that best fits the rear edge of the food block”.
Regarding claim 7, “a third straight line that best fits the right rear edge of the food block” should read “a third straight line that best fits the
Regarding claim 9, “both of the differential angles being greater than a threshold valve” should read “both of the differential angles being greater than a threshold angle”.
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.
Claims 1-21 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.
The term “size that is desired for sale” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “size that is desired for sale” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if the limitation “and in some embodiments for cutting into multiple smaller salable pieces” is actively required by the claim or is an optional limitation since the language “in some embodiments” suggests that the following limitation is not necessarily required. For the purposes of further examination, the Examiner has understood “and in some embodiments for cutting into multiple smaller salable pieces” to be an optional limitation.
The term “salable” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “salable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the food item" in step “a”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the meaning of “the Y-axis, which is an axis about parallel to typical and left and right side surfaces” in step “b” is unclear. The term “typical” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “typical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Consequently, claim 1 is rejected as indefinite.
The term “high concentration” in claims 1 and 12-14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high concentration” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-21 are rejected as indefinite as a result of depending upon indefinite claim 1.
Claims 13-14 are rejected as indefinite as a result of depending upon indefinite claim 12.
Regarding claim 3, the meaning of “straight lines that best fit the actual geometry of food block”, “a first straight line that best fits the front edge of the food block”, “a second straight line that best fits the left side edge of the food block”, “a third straight line that best fits the right rear edge of the food block”, and “a fourth straight line that best fits the right side edge of the food block” is unclear. The term “best” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “best” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Consequently, claim 3 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 4-5 are rejected as indefinite as a result of depending upon indefinite claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the meaning of “if both of the right or left sides if larger than the predetermined threshold angle” is unclear since a “side” is measured in units of length while an angle is measured in degrees, and the size of a side and an angle is not comparable. It is further unclear if “the right or left sides” refers to the “right side cut” and “left side cut”, the “right side edge” and “left side edge”, or something else entirely. In the latter case, “the right or left sides” lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, it is unclear if “the respective left side cut” on lines 9-10 of claim 4 refers to the “final left side cut” or the “possible left side cut”. Consequently, claim 4 is rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, the meaning of “straight lines that best fit the actual geometry of food block”, “a first straight line that best fits the front edge of the food block”, “a second straight line that best fits the left side edge of the food block”, “a third straight line that best fits the right rear edge of the food block”, and “a fourth straight line that best fits the right side edge of the food block” is unclear. The term “best” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “best” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Consequently, claim 7 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 8-11 are rejected as indefinite as a result of depending upon indefinite claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the meaning of “establishing the final cutting geometry such that the final left side cut and the final right side cuts are each along parallel lines that are at an angle with respect to the Y-axis”. Are the final left side cut and right side cut parallel to each other, to each of second and fourth straight lines, or to something else entirely? The claim does clarify with which line or lines the final cuts are parallel, and, therefore, claim 9 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 10-11 are rejected as indefinite as a result of depending upon indefinite claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, the meaning of “identifying portions of the a first certain predetermined image quality than remaining portions of the food block that exhibit second or other certain predetermined image qualities, wherein from the identified portions of the food block that exhibit the high concentration of fat and when those identified portions are proximate to a front side edge or a rear side edge of the food block” is unclear. What constitutes a “first certain predetermined image quality” and how is it distinct from “second or other certain predetermined image qualities”? Are image qualities properties of the image itself (e.g. resolution, size, etc.) or qualities of the food block within the image? Is the limitation “identifying portions of the a first certain predetermined image quality than remaining portions of the food block that exhibit second or other certain predetermined image qualities” meant to compare portions? The use of the word “than” renders the limitation’s meaning unclear. Furthermore, “wherein from the identified portions of the food block that exhibit the high concentration of fat and when those identified portions are proximate to a front side edge or a rear side edge of the food block” is unclear in meaning and appears to be grammatically incorrect. Consequently, claim 14 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21, particularly claim 1, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The claim(s) is/are directed to a method to cut a food block, which falls into the statutory category of a process.
The claim(s) is/are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to identifying a rectangle within an image, considering adjustments to the size of the rectangle, and establishing a final cutting geometry without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “identifying a rectangle for cutting a block of meat within a projection of the food block within the image, wherein the rectangle includes a possible front end cut, a possible right side cut, a possible left side cut, and a possible rear side cut”; “considering adjustments to the size of the rectangle based upon one or more identifiable aspects of the food block from the image, wherein the method includes one or more of the following possible adjustments: a. identifying a difference in the geometry of the food item from the identified rectangle and adjusting the final cutting geometry to align one or more of the final cut sides to be similar to the geometry of the food item; b. identify if the food block is oriented such that both left and right side surfaces are offset from the Y-axis, which is an axis about parallel to typical and left and right side surfaces, above a certain threshold value, and if above the certain threshold value, adjusting the angle of the final cutting lines to establish a cutting rectangle based upon this offset; c. identify if the food block includes any areas of high concentration of fat and adjusting the final cutting geometry to an area that avoids the identified high concentration of fat as possible; and d. identify if the food block includes any voids within the area enclosed by the identified rectangle above a certain area or volume or above a certain proportion of a total area or volume of the food block, and adjust the final cutting geometry to an area that avoids the identified voids”; and “establishing a final cutting geometry with a final front end cut, final right side cut, final left side cut, and final rear side cut”. These are mental processes (a process that could be performed in the human mind) which falls within the category of the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not go beyond generally linking the judicial exception to the technical field of cutting a food product.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “preparing an image of a food block” is mere data gathering that is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, “preparing an image” does not impose meaningful limits on the claim because it reads on making an image of a food block and nothing more. Furthermore, the limitation “the food block provided within a system that is adapted to cut the food block into a size that is desired for sale, and in some embodiments for cutting into multiple smaller salable pieces” appears to simply describe the image rather than actively recite a step of placing a food product, and, even if actively recited, would constitute merely well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP 2106.05).
Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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) 1-5 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaine (US 20200068908 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0006, 0124) a method for trimming a three-dimensional workpiece (food block), which may be a food such as pork belly. Blaine further teaches (Paragraph 0008-0009, 0127, 0128, 0136; Fig. 3 #10, 14, 16) scanning the workpiece to obtain electronic data regarding the physical characteristics of the workpiece and generating a three-dimensional model of the scanned workpiece, wherein, in some embodiments the scanning system may include a video camera 14 for scanning a workpiece in a system 10 including a cutting station 16. The three-dimensional model generated with electronic data obtained from scanning is understood to be an image in consideration of the Applicant’s Specification, wherein the Applicant has stated that an image may be prepared by other than a photograph of the surface of the food block, including by moving the food block past an image scanner (Applicant’s Specification, Paragraph 0024). In addition, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0010, 0019) mapping an initial two-dimensional area on the workpiece to select a portion of the workpiece to be harvested from the workpiece based on the generated three-dimensional model of the workpiece, wherein the two-dimensional area of the workpiece is rectangular in shape. As shown in Figures 4 and 5, the two dimensional area 62 comprises four sides that may be understood to be a possible front end cut, a possible right side cut, a possible left side cut, and a possible rear side cut. Additionally, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148) an initial two-dimensional area 62 on the work product is mapped and then an optimization program will enlarge the two-dimensional area iteratively and for each subsequent two-dimensional area, the optimization program will analyze each portion or slice cut (by simulation) from the workpiece for physical characteristics, including the desired attributes, wherein the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area lengthwise of the modeled workpiece, laterally of the modeled workpiece, as well as capable of rotating the mapped area on the shape of the workpiece as viewed from above the workpiece (considering adjustments to the size of the rectangle based upon one or more identifiable aspects of the food block from the image). Furthermore, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0156) the area and location corresponding to the last acceptable iteration is used as the mapped area and location on the workpiece, and the workpiece is then trimmed to this mapped area and location (establishing a final cutting geometry), wherein it will be understood that the final cutting geometry comprises four sides that may be understood to be a final front end cut, final right side cut, final left side cut, and final rear side cut when the two-dimensional area of the workpiece is rectangular in shape. Furthermore, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148, 0150-0152) the simulated end portions or slices are analyzed or evaluated based on desired physical characteristics or attributes of the slices, including the over edge area, which corresponds to a situation in which the modeled two-dimensional area extends beyond the perimeter of the workpiece and the area of the mapped two-dimensional area on the workpiece relative to the total two-dimensional area of the workpiece (identifying a difference in the geometry of the food item from the identified rectangle) where extending beyond the perimeter of the workpiece is an undesired attribute or physical characteristic and it is desirable to utilize as much of the total two-dimensional area of the workpiece as possible while maintaining a desired quality level and the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area lengthwise of the modeled workpiece, laterally of the modeled workpiece, as well as capable of rotating the mapped area on the shape of the workpiece as viewed from above the workpiece (adjusting the final cutting geometry to align one or more of the final cut sides to be similar to the geometry of the food item).
Additionally, while Blaine does not explicitly state that the system is adapted to cut the food block into a size that is desired for sale, this limitation is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) as stated above, and describes a feature of the system in which the food block image is prepared, rather than being an explicitly required limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the functionality of a system from which an image is taken would not have a meaningful impact on the image itself. Furthermore, meat such as the pork belly disclosed in embodiments of Blaine may theoretically be sold at any size, and, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the cut pork belly product of Blaine has a size that is desired for sale. Furthermore, while Blaine also does not explicitly state that the workpiece is cut into for into multiple smaller salable pieces, the limitation is understood to be optional as stated above.
Regarding claim 2, as stated above with regard to claim 1, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148, 0150-0152) the simulated end portions or slices are analyzed or evaluated based on desired physical characteristics or attributes of the slices, including the over edge area, which corresponds to a situation in which the modeled two-dimensional area extends beyond the perimeter of the workpiece and the area of the mapped two-dimensional area on the workpiece relative to the total two-dimensional area of the workpiece (identifying a difference in the geometry of the food item from the identified rectangle) where extending beyond the perimeter of the workpiece is an undesired attribute or physical characteristic and it is desirable to utilize as much of the total two-dimensional area of the workpiece as possible while maintaining a desired quality level and the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area lengthwise of the modeled workpiece, laterally of the modeled workpiece, as well as capable of rotating the mapped area on the shape of the workpiece as viewed from above the workpiece (adjusting the final cutting geometry to align one or more of the final cut sides to be similar to the geometry of the food item).
Regarding claim 3, as shown above with regard to claim 1, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0010, 0019) mapping an initial two-dimensional area on the workpiece to select a portion of the workpiece to be harvested from the workpiece based on the generated three-dimensional model of the workpiece, wherein the two-dimensional area of the workpiece is rectangular in shape. Additionally, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148) an initial two-dimensional area 62 on the work product is mapped and then an optimization program will enlarge the two-dimensional area iteratively, wherein the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area lengthwise of the modeled workpiece, laterally of the modeled workpiece, as well as capable of rotating the mapped area on the shape of the workpiece as viewed from above the workpiece. Furthermore, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148) FIGS. 3, 4 and 5 illustrate two-dimensional areas 62 mapped on the workpiece toward the end of the iterative process in that such two-dimensional areas—occupy substantially the entire area of the workpiece. The lines resulting from the optimization process, such as those shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5, may be understood to be first, second, third, and fourth straight lines that best fit each of the front edge, left side edge, rear edge and right side edge respectively. As shown in the Figures, and as is required by the inherent nature of a rectangle, these lines are straight and opposite ends of the first straight line connect with ends of the second and fourth straight lines, and ends of the third straight line connect with ends of the second and fourth straight lines.
Regarding claim 4, as stated above, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148) an initial two-dimensional area 62 on the work product is mapped and then an optimization program will enlarge the two-dimensional area iteratively, wherein the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area lengthwise of the modeled workpiece, laterally of the modeled workpiece, as well as capable of rotating the mapped area on the shape of the workpiece as viewed from above the workpiece. In embodiments where the mapped area is rotated, rotation of a rectangle will necessarily result in an angle between the possible left side cut (i.e., the initial position of the left side of the rectangle) and the second straight line (i.e., the position of the left side of the rectangle after optimization/rotation). The same applies to the right side cut (initial position of the right side of the rectangle) and the fourth straight line (position of the right side of the rectangle after optimization/rotation).
While Blaine does not explicitly state that establishing the respective final right side cut and/or the respective left side cut that is at an orientation that is equal to the predetermined threshold angle or at an angle with respect to the respective possible left side cut or the possible right side cut that is less than the predetermined threshold angle, if either the second angle or the fourth angle is larger than the predetermined threshold angle or if both of the right or left sides if larger than the predetermined threshold angle resulting from comparing the second straight line with the possible left side cut and identifying a second angle therebetween, and comparing the fourth straight line with the possible right side cut and identifying a fourth angle therebetween, Blaine does indicate (Paragraph 0148, 0150-0152) that extending beyond the perimeter of the workpiece is an undesired attribute or physical characteristic and it is desirable to utilize as much of the total two-dimensional area of the workpiece as possible while maintaining a desired quality level. Thus, avoiding rotation of the rectangle to a degree that would place the rectangle beyond the perimeter of the workpiece would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, where such a limitation in the rotation and difference between the initial positions of the left and right sides and the final position of the left and right sides would correspond to the claimed threshold angle.
Regarding claim 5, as stated above, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148) an initial two-dimensional area 62 on the work product is mapped and then an optimization program will enlarge the two-dimensional area iteratively, wherein the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area lengthwise of the modeled workpiece, laterally of the modeled workpiece, as well as capable of rotating the mapped area on the shape of the workpiece as viewed from above the workpiece. In embodiments where the mapped area is rotated, rotation of a rectangle will necessarily result in an angle between the possible left side cut (i.e., the initial position of the left side of the rectangle) and the second straight line (i.e., the position of the left side of the rectangle after optimization/rotation). The same applies to the right side cut (initial position of the right side of the rectangle) and the fourth straight line (position of the right side of the rectangle after optimization/rotation).
While Blaine does not explicitly state that establishing the respective final right side cut or the respective left side cut that is at an orientation that is equal to the predetermined threshold angle or at an angle with respect to the respective possible left side cut or the possible right side cut that is less than the predetermined threshold angle, if the chosen second angle or fourth angle is larger than the predetermined threshold angle or at an angle with respect to the respective possible left side cut or the possible right side cut that is less than the predefined threshold angle resulting from comparing the chosen second angle or the fourth angle to a predetermined threshold angle, Blaine does indicate (Paragraph 0148, 0150-0152) that extending beyond the perimeter of the workpiece is an undesired attribute or physical characteristic and it is desirable to utilize as much of the total two-dimensional area of the workpiece as possible while maintaining a desired quality level. Thus, avoiding rotation of the rectangle to a degree that would place the rectangle beyond the perimeter of the workpiece would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, where such a limitation in the rotation and difference between the initial positions of the left and right sides and the final position of the left and right sides would correspond to the claimed threshold angle.
Regarding claim 12, the Examiner notes that the claim language “if the food block includes any areas of high concentration of fat” constitutes a contingent limitation. A contingent limitations is not required, such that, if the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A (See MPEP 2111.04(II)).
But, in an effort to expedite prosecution, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148) an initial two-dimensional area 62 on the work product is mapped and then an optimization program will enlarge the two-dimensional area iteratively and for each subsequent two-dimensional area, the optimization program will analyze each portion or slice cut (by simulation) from the workpiece for physical characteristics, including the desired attributes, wherein the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area lengthwise of the modeled workpiece, laterally of the modeled workpiece, as well as capable of rotating the mapped area on the shape of the workpiece as viewed from above the workpiece (adjustments to the final cutting geometry). Furthermore, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0129, 0151) the scanning system 14 scans the workpiece WP to produce electronic scanning data representative of physical characteristics the workpiece including whether the workpiece contains any undesirable materials, such as fat, wherein an undesired attribute or physical characteristic is viewed as a reduction of the quality of the final piece or slice, and once the quality of the final pieces or slices decreases below an established limit or set point, then the iteration process is terminated and the area and location corresponding to the last acceptable iteration is used as the mapped area and location on the workpiece (i.e., adjusting the final cutting geometry to an area that avoids this high concentration of fat as possible).
Regarding claim 13, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148) an initial two-dimensional area 62 on the work product is mapped and then an optimization program will enlarge the two-dimensional area iteratively and for each subsequent two-dimensional area, the optimization program will analyze each portion or slice cut (by simulation) from the workpiece for physical characteristics, including the desired attributes, wherein the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area laterally of the modeled workpiece (where lateral, i.e., side to side, movement would be parallel to a Y-axis of a coordinate plane). Furthermore, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0129, 0151) the scanning system 14 scans the workpiece WP to produce electronic scanning data representative of physical characteristics the workpiece including whether the workpiece contains any undesirable materials, such as fat, wherein an undesired attribute or physical characteristic is viewed as a reduction of the quality of the final piece or slice, and once the quality of the final pieces or slices decreases below an established limit or set point, then the iteration process is terminated and the area and location corresponding to the last acceptable iteration is used as the mapped area and location on the workpiece (i.e., adjusting the final cutting geometry to an area that avoids this high concentration of fat as possible). Thus, Blaine discloses lateral movement (parallel to Y-axis) in the optimization program and avoidance of fat, where fat located on the sides would obviously be avoided by moving away from the sides, i.e. laterally, and therefore, Blaine is understood to disclose moving the rectangle for cutting the block in a direction parallel to a Y-axis of a coordinate plane when identified portions of the food block that exhibit the high concentration of fat are proximate to a right side edge or a left side edge of the food block.
Regarding claim 14, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148) an initial two-dimensional area 62 on the work product is mapped and then an optimization program will enlarge the two-dimensional area iteratively and for each subsequent two-dimensional area, the optimization program will analyze each portion or slice cut (by simulation) from the workpiece for physical characteristics, including the desired attributes, wherein the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area lengthwise of the modeled workpiece (where lengthwise movement would be parallel to X-axis of a coordinate plane). Furthermore, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0129, 0151) the scanning system 14 scans the workpiece WP to produce electronic scanning data representative of physical characteristics the workpiece including whether the workpiece contains any undesirable materials, such as fat, wherein an undesired attribute or physical characteristic is viewed as a reduction of the quality of the final piece or slice, and once the quality of the final pieces or slices decreases below an established limit or set point, then the iteration process is terminated and the area and location corresponding to the last acceptable iteration is used as the mapped area and location on the workpiece (i.e., adjusting the final cutting geometry to an area that avoids this high concentration of fat as possible). Thus, Blaine discloses lateral movement (parallel to X-axis) in the optimization program and avoidance of fat, where fat located on the front and rear edges of the food block would obviously be avoided by moving away from the front and rear edges, i.e. lengthwise, and therefore, Blaine is understood to disclose moving the rectangle for cutting the block in a direction parallel to a X-axis of a coordinate plane when identified portions of the food block that exhibit the high concentration of fat are proximate to a front side edge or a rear side edge of the food block.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) in view of Brink (NL 2004839 C2).
Regarding claim 6, the Examiner notes that the claim language “if the food block is oriented such that both left and right side surfaces are offset from the Y axis . . . and if above the certain threshold value” constitutes a contingent limitation. A contingent limitations is not required, such that, if the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A (See MPEP 2111.04(II)).
But, in an effort to expedite prosecution, as stated above with regard to claim 1, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0010, 0019) mapping an initial two-dimensional area on the workpiece to select a portion of the workpiece to be harvested from the workpiece based on the generated three-dimensional model of the workpiece, wherein the two-dimensional area of the workpiece is rectangular in shape. Additionally, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148) an initial two-dimensional area 62 on the work product is mapped and then an optimization program will enlarge the two-dimensional area iteratively and for each subsequent two-dimensional area, the optimization program will analyze each portion or slice cut (by simulation) from the workpiece for physical characteristics, including the desired attributes, wherein the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area lengthwise of the modeled workpiece, laterally of the modeled workpiece, as well as capable of rotating the mapped area on the shape of the workpiece as viewed from above the workpiece. Rotating the rectangle would adjust the angle of the final cutting lines. While Blain does not explicitly state that this rotation/angle adjustment is in response to the food block being oriented such that both left and right side surfaces are offset from the Y axis, which is an axis about parallel to typical and left and right side surfaces, above a certain threshold value, Blaine does teach (Paragraph 0148, 0150-0152) the simulated end portions or slices are analyzed or evaluated based on desired physical characteristics or attributes of the slices, including the over edge area, which corresponds to a situation in which the modeled two-dimensional area extends beyond the perimeter of the workpiece and the area of the mapped two-dimensional area on the workpiece relative to the total two-dimensional area of the workpiece. In situations where the left and right side surfaces are offset from the Y-axis, the rectangle would include over edge area until rotated/angle adjusted.
Additionally, Brink teaches (Claim 9) a method for processing a body of a food product comprising: determining the body shape of the food product with an imaging device and controlling the cutting device based on the determined body shape of the food product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Blaine to adjusting the angle of the final cutting lines if the food block is oriented such that both left and right side surfaces are offset from the Y axis in view of Brink since both are directed to methods of cutting food products based on sensed parameters of the food product, since adjusting the cut based on the shape of the food product (where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that left and right side surfaces that are offset from the Y-axis define the shape of the food block) is known in the art as shown by Brink, since cutting the food block according to the shape/ offset from the Y-axis would ensure that the cut occurs at the desired location, since cutting according to the shape of food would ensure that the cutting tool does not miss the food, wasting time and leading undesired results, and since the shape of an incision is not constant because foods like dough pieces can vary in shape and length (Brink, Background, Page 2).
Regarding claim 7, as shown above with regard to claim 1, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0010, 0019) mapping an initial two-dimensional area on the workpiece to select a portion of the workpiece to be harvested from the workpiece based on the generated three-dimensional model of the workpiece, wherein the two-dimensional area of the workpiece is rectangular in shape. Additionally, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148) an initial two-dimensional area 62 on the work product is mapped and then an optimization program will enlarge the two-dimensional area iteratively, wherein the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area lengthwise of the modeled workpiece, laterally of the modeled workpiece, as well as capable of rotating the mapped area on the shape of the workpiece as viewed from above the workpiece. Furthermore, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148) FIGS. 3, 4 and 5 illustrate two-dimensional areas 62 mapped on the workpiece toward the end of the iterative process in that such two-dimensional areas—occupy substantially the entire area of the workpiece. The lines resulting from the optimization process, such as those shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5, may be understood to be first, second, third, and fourth straight lines that best fit each of the front edge, left side edge, rear edge and right side edge respectively. As shown in the Figures, and as is required by the inherent nature of a rectangle, each of the first through fourth straight lines establish a four sided polygon such that opposite ends of the first straight line connect with ends of the second and fourth straight lines, and ends of the third straight line connect with ends of the second and fourth straight lines. Furthermore, while Blaine does not explicitly state comparing both of the second straight line and the fourth straight lines with a line (1007) that is parallel to a Y-axis of a coordinate system set up such that the Y-axis is a direction between the front and rear end surfaces of the rectangle and an X-axis is a direction parallel to the front and rear end surfaces of the rectangle and determining a differential angle between each of the respective second straight line and the fourth straight line and the line parallel to the Y-axis, such a comparison would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for substantially the same reasons as stated above with regard to claim 6.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) in view of Brink (NL 2004839 C2), and further in view of Weber (US 20100267320 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the Examiner notes that the claim language “if the comparison between both of the second and fourth straight lines with the line that is parallel to the Y-axis of the coordinate system results in both of the differential angles being greater than a threshold valve” constitutes a contingent limitation. A contingent limitations is not required, such that, if the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A (See MPEP 2111.04(II)).
But, in an effort to expedite prosecution, while Blaine does not explicitly state, if the comparison between both of the second and fourth straight lines with the line that is parallel to the Y-axis of the coordinate system results in both of the differential angles being greater than a threshold valve, determining that the food block is set up in an orientation that is offset from the Y axis, Blaine does teach (Paragraph 0148, 0150-0152) the simulated end portions or slices are analyzed or evaluated based on desired physical characteristics or attributes of the slices, including the over edge area, which corresponds to a situation in which the modeled two-dimensional area extends beyond the perimeter of the workpiece and the area of the mapped two-dimensional area on the workpiece relative to the total two-dimensional area of the workpiece. In situations where the left and right side surfaces are offset from the Y-axis, the rectangle would include over edge area until rotated/angle adjusted (i.e., Blaine’s optimization system recognizes an orientation that is offset from the Y-axis).
Blaine, as modified above, is silent on physically removing the food block from the system to allow the food block to be at a later time to be repositioned to allow for again preparing an image of the food block.
Weber teaches (Paragraph 0026, 0037) a method for cutting a meat product comprising measurement of the meat product via a contactless optical measurement with a camera, wherein, on a detected misalignment of the meat product, an optical and/or acoustic error message can be displayed via an output means 24 connected to the evaluation unit so that an operator of the apparatus can take corresponding measures to remedy the error.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Blaine as modified above to reposition the food block to allow for again preparing an image of the food block in view of Weber since both are directed to methods of cutting meat products that are detected with cameras, since physically correcting misalignment of a meat product to be detected by a camera and cut is known in the art as shown by Weber, since an offset orientation could adversely affect the cutting process, resulting in cuts at undesired locations on the food block, since the cutting device and camera may be unable to adequately scan or cut the food block if the orientation is offset too much, and since an operator can correct the error to allow the operation to be performed as desired.
It is noted that Blaine as modified above does not explicitly indicate that the food block is removed and repositioned at a later time. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the time at which adjustment occurs would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Blaine as modified above based upon factors such as the number of meat products to be treated, where a delay may occur in repositioning the meat if other meat products need to be scanned and cut first, the time spent in the cutting system (where the meat product may need to be refrigerated before returning to the cutting system to prevent the growth of bacteria), user preference and availability, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant does not appear to have identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed removal and return of the food block at a later time that would render it non-obvious.
Regarding claim 9, the Examiner notes that the claim language “if the comparison between both of the second and fourth straight lines with the line that is parallel to the Y-axis of the coordinate system results in both of the differential angles being greater than a threshold valve” constitutes a contingent limitation. A contingent limitations is not required, such that, if the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A (See MPEP 2111.04(II)).
But, in an effort to expedite prosecution, while Blaine does not explicitly state, if the comparison between both of the second and fourth straight lines with the line that is parallel to the Y-axis of the coordinate system results in both of the differential angles being greater than a threshold valve, determining that the food block is set up in an orientation that is offset from the Y axis, and establishing the final cutting geometry such that the final left side cut and the final right side cuts are each along parallel lines that are at an angle with respect to the Y-axis, Blaine does teach (Paragraph 0148, 0150-0152) the simulated end portions or slices are analyzed or evaluated based on desired physical characteristics or attributes of the slices, including the over edge area, which corresponds to a situation in which the modeled two-dimensional area extends beyond the perimeter of the workpiece and the area of the mapped two-dimensional area on the workpiece relative to the total two-dimensional area of the workpiece. In situations where the left and right side surfaces are offset from the Y-axis, the rectangle would include over edge area until rotated/angle adjusted (i.e., Blaine’s optimization system recognizes an orientation that is offset from the Y-axis, and rotation of the rectangle would align the final left side cut and right side cut in parallel at an angle with respect to the Y-axis).
Furthermore, the claimed cutting geometry such that the final left side cut and the final right side cuts are each along parallel lines that are at an angle with respect to the Y-axis would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Blaine, as modified above, based upon factors such as the size and shape of the food block, the intended shape of the block of meat, the presence of undesirable components in the food block (e.g., fat, voids, bone), the intended weight of the block of meat, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant does not appear to have identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed cutting geometry such that the final left side cut and the final right side cuts are each along parallel lines that are at an angle with respect to the Y-axis that would render it non-obvious.
Regarding claim 10, as stated above with regard to claim 9, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148, 0150-0152) the simulated end portions or slices are analyzed or evaluated based on desired physical characteristics or attributes of the slices, including the over edge area, which corresponds to a situation in which the modeled two-dimensional area extends beyond the perimeter of the workpiece and the area of the mapped two-dimensional area on the workpiece relative to the total two-dimensional area of the workpiece. In situations where the left and right side surfaces are offset from the Y-axis, the rectangle would include over edge area until rotated/angle adjusted (i.e., Blaine’s optimization system recognizes an orientation that is offset from the Y-axis, and rotation of the rectangle would align the final left side cut and right side cut in parallel at an angle with respect to the Y-axis).
Furthermore, the claimed cutting geometry such that the final left side cut and the final right side cuts are along lines that are parallel to the one of the second or fourth straight lines that was at a larger differential angle would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Blaine, as modified above, based upon factors such as the size and shape of the food block, the intended shape of the block of meat, the presence of undesirable components in the food block (e.g., fat, voids, bone), the intended weight of the block of meat, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant does not appear to have identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed cutting geometry such that the final left side cut and the final right side cuts are along lines that are parallel to the one of the second or fourth straight lines that was at a larger differential angle that would render it non-obvious.
Additionally, Brink teaches (Claim 9) a method for processing a body of a food product comprising: determining the body shape of the food product with an imaging device and controlling the cutting device based on the determined body shape of the food product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Blaine to configure the final left side cut and the final right side cut along lines that are parallel to the one of the second or fourth straight lines that was at a larger differential angle in view of Brink since both are directed to methods of cutting food products based on sensed parameters of the food product, since adjusting the cut based on the shape of the food product (where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that left and right side surfaces that are offset from the Y-axis define the shape of the food block) is known in the art as shown by Brink, since cutting the food block according to the shape/ offset from the Y-axis would ensure that the cut occurs at the desired location, since cutting according to the shape of food would ensure that the cutting tool does not miss the food, wasting time and leading undesired results, and since the shape of an incision is not constant because foods like dough pieces can vary in shape and length (Brink, Background, Page 2).
Regarding claim 11, as stated above with regard to claim 9, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148, 0150-0152) the simulated end portions or slices are analyzed or evaluated based on desired physical characteristics or attributes of the slices, including the over edge area, which corresponds to a situation in which the modeled two-dimensional area extends beyond the perimeter of the workpiece and the area of the mapped two-dimensional area on the workpiece relative to the total two-dimensional area of the workpiece. In situations where the left and right side surfaces are offset from the Y-axis, the rectangle would include over edge area until rotated/angle adjusted (i.e., Blaine’s optimization system recognizes an orientation that is offset from the Y-axis, and rotation of the rectangle would align the final left side cut and right side cut in parallel at an angle with respect to the Y-axis).
Furthermore, the claimed cutting geometry such that the final left side cut and the final right side cuts are along lines that are parallel to a line that is at an angle that is equal to the average of the differential angle established with the second straight line and the Y-axis and the differential angle established with the fourth straight line and the Y-axis would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Blaine, as modified above, based upon factors such as the size and shape of the food block, the intended shape of the block of meat, the presence of undesirable components in the food block (e.g., fat, voids, bone), the intended weight of the block of meat, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant does not appear to have identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed cutting geometry such that the final left side cut and the final right side cuts are along lines that are parallel to a line that is at an angle that is equal to the average of the differential angle established with the second straight line and the Y-axis and the differential angle established with the fourth straight line and the Y-axis that would render it non-obvious.
Additionally, Brink teaches (Claim 9) a method for processing a body of a food product comprising: determining the body shape of the food product with an imaging device and controlling the cutting device based on the determined body shape of the food product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Blaine to configure the final left side cut and the final right side cut along lines that are parallel to a line that is at an angle that is equal to the average of the differential angle established with the second straight line and the Y-axis and the differential angle established with the fourth straight line and the Y-axis in view of Brink since both are directed to methods of cutting food products based on sensed parameters of the food product, since adjusting the cut based on the shape of the food product (where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that left and right side surfaces that are offset from the Y-axis define the shape of the food block) is known in the art as shown by Brink, since cutting the food block according to the shape/ offset from the Y-axis would ensure that the cut occurs at the desired location, since cutting according to the shape of food would ensure that the cutting tool does not miss the food, wasting time and leading undesired results, and since the shape of an incision is not constant because foods like dough pieces can vary in shape and length (Brink, Background, Page 2).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) in view of Blaine (US 8688259 B1), and Lindee (US 20030233918 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the Examiner notes that the claim language “if the food block includes any voids within an area enclosed by the identified rectangle above a certain area or volume or above a certain proportion of a total area or volume of the food block” constitutes a contingent limitation. A contingent limitations is not required, such that, if the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A (See MPEP 2111.04(II)).
But, in an effort to expedite prosecution, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148) an initial two-dimensional area 62 on the work product is mapped and then an optimization program will enlarge the two-dimensional area iteratively and for each subsequent two-dimensional area, the optimization program will analyze each portion or slice cut (by simulation) from the workpiece for physical characteristics, including the desired attributes, wherein the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area lengthwise of the modeled workpiece, laterally of the modeled workpiece, as well as capable of rotating the mapped area on the shape of the workpiece as viewed from above the workpiece (adjustments to the final cutting geometry). Furthermore, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0144) scanning the workpiece WP to obtain information or data concerning the physical parameters/characteristics of the work products including discontinuities in the workpiece, including depressions or concavities (voids). Also, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0159-0162) in the optimization program, a weighing factor can be applied to the cost for the physical attributes or characteristics, wherein a cost refers to the negative or opposite of the term value, and the cost function definition can require that an attribute or characteristic can never be above or below a threshold (i.e., adjusting the final cutting geometry to an area in relation to the identified voids).
It is noted that Blaine does not explicitly state that the depressions or concavities (voids) are avoided.
Blaine (US 8688259 B1) teaches (Col. 3, lines 2-11) a method and system for portioning workpieces wherein tears, holes, (voids) and other defects are unattractive in a meat portion.
Also, Lindee (0001, 0006) teaches a method of operating a slicing apparatus and a food quality scanning and control system, wherein it may be desirable that meat slices have a predetermined minimum amount of flaws, such as voids.
Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) to adjust the final cutting geometry to an area that avoids the identified voids in view of Blaine (US 8688259 B1) and Lindee since each is directed to method of cutting a meat product, since avoiding voids is known in the art as shown by Blaine (US 8688259 B1) and Lindee, since voids decrease the amount of meat in a given area, which is undesirable for consumers, since tears, holes, (voids) and other defects are unattractive in a meat portion (Blaine (US 8688259 B1), Col. 3, lines 2-11), and since it may be desirable that meat slices have a predetermined minimum amount of flaws, such as voids (Lindee, Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 16, Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) teaches (Paragraph 0148) an initial two-dimensional area 62 on the work product is mapped and then an optimization program will enlarge the two-dimensional area iteratively and for each subsequent two-dimensional area, the optimization program will analyze each portion or slice cut (by simulation) from the workpiece for physical characteristics, including the desired attributes, wherein the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area laterally of the modeled workpiece (where lateral, i.e., side to side, movement would be parallel to a Y-axis of a coordinate plane). Furthermore, Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) teaches (Paragraph 0144) scanning the workpiece WP to obtain information or data concerning the physical parameters/characteristics of the work products including discontinuities in the workpiece, including depressions or concavities (voids). Also, Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) teaches (Paragraph 0159-0162) in the optimization program, a weighing factor can be applied to the cost for the physical attributes or characteristics, wherein a cost refers to the negative or opposite of the term value, and the cost function definition can require that an attribute or characteristic can never be above or below a threshold (i.e., adjusting the final cutting geometry to an area in relation to the identified voids). Thus, Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) discloses lateral movement (parallel to Y-axis) in the optimization program and which may be in relation to voids, where voids located on the sides would obviously be avoided by moving away from the sides, i.e. laterally, and therefore, Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) is understood to disclose moving the rectangle for cutting the block in a direction parallel to a Y-axis of a coordinate plane when identified portions of the food block exhibit void in the image.
Additionally, avoiding the voids would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) teaches (Paragraph 0148) an initial two-dimensional area 62 on the work product is mapped and then an optimization program will enlarge the two-dimensional area iteratively and for each subsequent two-dimensional area, the optimization program will analyze each portion or slice cut (by simulation) from the workpiece for physical characteristics, including the desired attributes, wherein the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area lengthwise of the modeled workpiece (where lengthwise movement would be parallel to X-axis of a coordinate plane). Furthermore, Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) teaches (Paragraph 0144) scanning the workpiece WP to obtain information or data concerning the physical parameters/characteristics of the work products including discontinuities in the workpiece, including depressions or concavities (voids). Also, Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) teaches (Paragraph 0159-0162) in the optimization program, a weighing factor can be applied to the cost for the physical attributes or characteristics, wherein a cost refers to the negative or opposite of the term value, and the cost function definition can require that an attribute or characteristic can never be above or below a threshold (i.e., adjusting the final cutting geometry to an area in relation to the identified voids). Thus, Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) discloses lateral movement (parallel to X-axis) in the optimization program and avoidance of voids, where voids located on the front and rear edges of the food block would obviously be avoided by moving away from the front and rear edges, i.e. lengthwise, and therefore, Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) is understood to disclose moving the rectangle for cutting the block in a direction parallel to a X-axis of a coordinate plane when identified portions of the food block exhibit voids in the image.
Additionally, avoiding the voids would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 15.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) in view of Blaine (US 20190317467 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the Examiner notes that the claim language “whether there is a minimum food thickness specified and if the minimum food thickness is specified . . . if the food block has any areas of food thickness that are below a minimum thickness level” constitutes a contingent limitation. A contingent limitations is not required, such that, if the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A (See MPEP 2111.04(II)).
But, in an effort to expedite prosecution, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148) an initial two-dimensional area 62 on the work product is mapped and then an optimization program will enlarge the two-dimensional area iteratively and for each subsequent two-dimensional area, the optimization program will analyze each portion or slice cut (by simulation) from the workpiece for physical characteristics, including the desired attributes, wherein the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area lengthwise of the modeled workpiece, laterally of the modeled workpiece, as well as capable of rotating the mapped area on the shape of the workpiece as viewed from above the workpiece (adjustments to the final cutting geometry). Furthermore, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0144) scanning the workpiece WP to obtain information or data concerning the physical parameters/characteristics of the work products, including thickness. Also, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0159-0162) in the optimization program, a weighing factor can be applied to the cost for the physical attributes or characteristics, wherein a cost refers to the negative or opposite of the term value, and the cost function definition can require that an attribute or characteristic can never be above or below a threshold (i.e., adjusting the final cutting geometry to an area in relation to the identified thickness).
It is noted that Blaine does not explicitly state that areas of food thickness that are below a minimum thickness level are avoided.
Blaine (US 20190317467 A1) teaches (Claim 1) a method of automatically portioning a food product comprising entering an adjustable two-dimensional reference shape into which a food product is to be portioned, selecting a physical criteria from a group including the minimum thickness, and determining a cut path to portion the food product into one or more final pieces having the adjustable two-dimensional reference shape and meeting the at least one additional selected physical criteria of the one or more final pieces.
Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) to adjust the final cutting geometry to an area that avoids areas of food thickness that are below the minimum thickness in view of Blaine (US 20190317467 A1) since each is directed to method of cutting a meat product, since avoiding areas of food thickness that are below the minimum thickness is known in the art as shown by Blaine (US 20190317467 A1), since customers expect the meat portions to be of a specific shape or close enough to it with a fairly narrow thickness range so that standardized processing can occur, such as a cooking process that will yield uniformly cooked meat (Blaine (US 20190317467 A1), Paragraph 0011), and since, if the thickness of the workpiece is too thin throughout the entire workpiece such that within the length and width limits it is not possible to achieve the desired weight, some other solution will have to be sought (Blaine (US 20190317467 A1), Paragraph 0123).
Regarding claim 19, the Examiner notes that the claim language “if the determined areas upon the food block where the measured thickness is less than the minimum food thickness are along or proximate to an outer edge of the food block” constitutes a contingent limitation. A contingent limitations is not required, such that, if the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A (See MPEP 2111.04(II)).
But, in an effort to expedite prosecution, Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) teaches (Paragraph 0148) an initial two-dimensional area 62 on the work product is mapped and then an optimization program will enlarge the two-dimensional area iteratively and for each subsequent two-dimensional area, the optimization program will analyze each portion or slice cut (by simulation) from the workpiece for physical characteristics, including the desired attributes, wherein the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area lengthwise of the modeled workpiece, laterally of the modeled workpiece, as well as capable of rotating the mapped area on the shape of the workpiece. Furthermore, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0144) scanning the workpiece WP to obtain information or data concerning the physical parameters/characteristics of the work products, including thickness. Also, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0159-0162) in the optimization program, a weighing factor can be applied to the cost for the physical attributes or characteristics, wherein a cost refers to the negative or opposite of the term value, and the cost function definition can require that an attribute or characteristic can never be above or below a threshold (i.e., adjusting the final cutting geometry to an area in relation to the identified thickness). Thus, Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) discloses movement lengthwise, laterally, and rotationally in the optimization program and avoidance of areas without the desired thickness, where areas without the desired thickness located on the outer edge of the food block would obviously be avoided by moving away from the outer edge, e.g. lengthwise, laterally, etc., and therefore, Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) is understood to disclose moving the final cutting geometry in a direction away from the outer edge of the food block.
Additionally, avoiding areas specifically below a minimum food thickness would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 18.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) in view of Lee (KR 102093747 B1).
Regarding claim 20, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0148) an initial two-dimensional area 62 on the work product is mapped and then an optimization program will enlarge the two-dimensional area iteratively and for each subsequent two-dimensional area, the optimization program will analyze each portion or slice cut (by simulation) from the workpiece for physical characteristics, including the desired attributes, wherein the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area lengthwise of the modeled workpiece, laterally of the modeled workpiece, as well as capable of rotating the mapped area on the shape of the workpiece as viewed from above the workpiece (adjustments to the final cutting geometry). Furthermore, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0144) scanning the workpiece WP to obtain information or data concerning the physical parameters/characteristics of the work products, including width, thickness, and volume. Also, Blaine teaches (Paragraph 0159-0162) in the optimization program, a weighing factor can be applied to the cost for the physical attributes or characteristics, wherein a cost refers to the negative or opposite of the term value, and the cost function definition can require that an attribute or characteristic can never be above or below a threshold (i.e., adjusting the final cutting geometry to an area in relation to the width or volume).
It is noted that Blaine does not explicitly state that the volume and width are equal to or as close as possible to a maximum value. Blaine is further silent on the maximum volume and maximum width being a
Lee teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0030, 0036) a method for manufacturing sliced meat wherein meat is cut into a preset size (i.e. width and volume) for processing including pressing the meat in a press device with an inner space in which the processed meat is received.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Blain to calculate a maximum die volume for receipt of food blocks within a die of a pressing machine that is disposed to receive the cut food block and a maximum width within the die in view of Lee since both are directed to methods of preparing cut meat products, since determining a size (i.e. width and volume) for a die pressing device for a cut meat product is known in the art as shown by Lee, since pressing with a press device has the effect of enabling a plurality of pieces of meat (or processed meat) to be easily (quickly, uniformly, etc.) manufactured into minced meat (Lee, Paragraph 0013), since establishing the final cutting geometry to establish a cut food block volume that is one of equal to the maximum die volume or as close as possible to the maximum die volume based upon the volume of the food block within an area bounded by the rectangle for cutting the food block, wherein a distance between the possible left side cut and the possible right side cut is equal to or as close as possible to the maximum width within the die would ensure that the cut meat fits in the pressing device and does not need additional processing prior to addition to the pressing device, since exceeding a maximum volume or width may make the cut meat difficult or impossible to add to the die or may allow meat to escape from the die when pressed.
Regarding claim 21, while Blaine as modified above does not explicitly state that the die is filled to a percent die fill, using a percentage value instead of a volume measurement, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since conversion measurement units to a percentage is a well know mathematical process that is readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and is merely a unit conversion. Consequently, claim 21 is obvious in view of the prior art for substantially the same reasons as claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jurs (US 6604991 B1) teaches a device for processing flesh, including at least one separating means and at least one regulating and/or control device, wherein the separating means communicates by means of the regulating and/or control device with the element for position detection.
Nielsen (US 20070202229 A1) teaches a method and an arrangement for portion cutting of food items, especially meat products, into pieces of predetermined shape, such as quadratic meat pieces.
Havik (US 20200268001 A1) teaches an automatic meat cutting apparatus including: a sensor device arranged to provide a sensor signal representative for a location of the meat.
Kim (US 20030145699 A1) teaches a method for portioning foodstuffs in three dimensions, including scanning the foodstuff to be portioned.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN P TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2652. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/AUSTIN PARKER TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792