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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-22 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-21 are rejected. Claim 22 is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/12/2026, except where otherwise stated.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 22 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-21, drawn to a method to cut a meat product, classified in B26D2210/02.
II. Claim 22, drawn to an apparatus for cutting a meat product, classified in A22C17/0086.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the method Group I could be used with a materially different apparatus, such as an apparatus without a processor or memory, wherein an operator performs the steps of identifying a rectangle, considering adjustments to the size of the rectangle and establishing the final cutting geometry. Conversely, the apparatus of Group II could be used in a materially different method, such as a method of cutting a non-meat product such as fruits or vegetables or a method of cutting a non-food product such as cloth, wood, clay, etc. (where a device configured to cut a meat product is also capable of cutting other substances, such as those listed above, in the same manner).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The method of Group I would require a search in at least CPC B26D2210/02 along with a unique text search. The apparatus of Group II would not be searched as above, but would instead require a search in at least CPC A22C17/0086 along with a unique text search.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 22 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 12, “considering adjustments comprises” should read “wherein the considering adjustments comprises”.
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 1-8, 10, and 12-21 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.
Regarding claim 1, the meaning of “wherein the shape for the final cutting strategy results in a bulk cut portion of the meat product that is configured to be cut into the one or more smaller sized pieces to be sold or as desired for further processing including a most possible yield of the meat product initially presented” is unclear. Does “as desired” indicate that the claim limitation is optional in whole or in part? What constitutes a “most possible yield of the meat product initially presented”? This limitation appears to be grammatically incorrect, and it is unclear how cutting could achieve a “most possible yield of the meat product initially presented” since cutting inherently reduces the yield, if “yield” is understood to indicate an amount such as volume or mass. The “most possible yield” would be an uncut meat product. Consequently, claim 1 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 2-8, 10, and 12-21 are rejected as indefinite as a result of depending upon indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the meaning of “identifying portions of a first predetermined image quality that are different than remaining portions of the meat product which exhibit second or other predetermined image qualities, wherein from the identified portions of the meat product that exhibit the predetermined concentration of fat and when those identified portions are located at a front side edge or a rear side edge of the meat product” is unclear. What constitutes a “first predetermined image quality” and how is it distinct from “second or other predetermined image qualities”? Are image qualities properties of the image itself (e.g. resolution, size, etc.) or qualities of the meat product within the image? Is the limitation “identifying portions of a first predetermined image quality that are different than remaining portions of the meat product which exhibit second or other predetermined image qualities” meant to compare the “predetermined concentration of fat” or some other parameter? Furthermore, “wherein from the identified portions of the meat product that exhibit the predetermined concentration of fat and when those identified portions are located at a front side edge or a rear side edge of the meat product” is unclear in meaning and appears to be grammatically incorrect. Is this limitation intended to state “wherein for the identified portions of the meat product that exhibit the predetermined concentration of fat”? 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 1-8, 10, and 12-21, particularly claim 1, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The claim(s) is/are directed to a method to cut a meat product, 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 a nominal cutting strategy for cutting the meat product within a projection of the meat product within the image, wherein the rectangle includes a cuttable front end cut, a cuttable right side cut, a cuttable left side cut, and a cuttable rear side cut and wherein the rectangle for the nominal cutting strategy is a largest rectangle that can fit within a geometry of the meat product”; “considering adjustments to the size of the rectangle for the nominal cutting strategy based upon one or more identifiable aspects of the meat product from the image, wherein the considering adjustments comprise at least one of: a. identifying a difference in the geometry of the meat product 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 meat product; b. identifying if the meat product is oriented such that both left and right side surfaces are offset from a Y-axis, which is an axis about parallel to left and right side surfaces of the meat product, above a predetermined threshold value, and if above the predetermined threshold value, adjusting the angle of the final cutting lines to establish a cutting rectangle based upon this offset; c. identifying if the meat product includes any areas of a predetermined concentration of fat and adjusting the final cutting geometry to an area that avoids the identified areas of the predetermined concentration of fat as possible; or d. identifying if the meat product includes any voids within the area enclosed by the identified rectangle above a predetermined area or volume or above a predetermined proportion of a total area or volume of the meat product, and adjusting the final cutting geometry to an area that avoids the identified voids.”; and “establishing a final cutting geometry for a shape for a final cutting strategy based on the adjustments to the size of the rectangle for the nominal cutting strategy, wherein the final cutting geometry includes 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 limitations, specifically, “wherein the shape for the final cutting strategy results in a bulk cut portion of the meat product that is configured to be cut into the one or more smaller sized pieces to be sold or as desired for further processing including a most possible yield of the meat product initially presented” and “cutting the meat product according to the final cutting strategy” does not go beyond generally linking the judicial exception(s) to the technical field of cutting a meat product (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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 meat product” 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 meat product provided within a system that is adapted to cut the meat product into one or more smaller sized pieces” appears to simply describe the image rather than actively recite a step of placing a meat product, and, even if actively recited, would constitute merely well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP 2106.05). Additionally, the limitation “cutting the meat product” would also 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) in view of Blaine (US 20090143886 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blaine ‘908 teaches (Paragraph 0006, 0124) a method for trimming a three-dimensional workpiece, which may be a food such as pork belly (meat product). Blaine ‘908 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 (system that is adapted to cut the meat product into one or more smaller sized pieces). 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 ‘908 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 (nominal cutting strategy) 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 cuttable front end cut, a cuttable right side cut, a cuttable left side cut, and a cuttable rear side cut. Additionally, Blaine ‘908 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). It is noted that enlarging a two dimensional area is a specific embodiment of Blaine‘908, which is also generally teaches (Paragraph 0131-0132) mapping an initial two-dimensional area on the workpiece which thereby defines the portion of the workpiece to be harvested, and iteratively repeating the process wherein a further two-dimensional area is mapped on the workpiece until an optimum two-dimensional area and location of the workpiece is identified, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as encompassing embodiments including providing a largest rectangle that can fit within a geometry of the meat product as the nominal cutting strategy, and changing and/or shrinking the rectangle to establish a final cutting geometry. Furthermore, Blaine ‘908 teaches (Paragraph 0156) the area and location corresponding to the last acceptable iteration is used as the mapped area and location on the workpiece(establishing a final cutting geometry for a shape for a final cutting strategy based on the adjustments to the size of the rectangle for the nominal cutting strategy), and the workpiece is then trimmed to this mapped area and location (cutting the meat product according to the final cutting strategy,), 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 ‘908 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 meat product 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 meat product).
Furthermore, while Blaine ‘908 does not explicitly state that the rectangle for the nominal cutting strategy is a largest rectangle that can fit within a geometry of the meat product, as explained above, Blaine ‘908’s disclosed process of mapping an initial two-dimensional area on the workpiece which thereby defines the portion of the workpiece to be harvested, and iteratively repeating the process wherein a further two-dimensional area is mapped on the workpiece until an optimum two-dimensional area and location of the workpiece is identified, would encompass embodiments including providing a largest rectangle that can fit within a geometry of the meat product as the nominal cutting strategy, and changing and/or shrinking the rectangle to establish a final cutting geometry.
The claimed rectangle for the nominal cutting strategy being a largest rectangle that can fit within a geometry of the meat product would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Blaine ‘908 based upon factors such as the size, shape and other physical aspects of the workpiece, including, for example, the length, width, aspect ratio, thickness, thickness profile, surface contours, outer contour configurations, perimeter, outer perimeter configuration, outer perimeter size and shape, volume and/or weight, wherein the optimization process comprising mapping the initial two dimensional area is carried out once the workpiece has been physically characterized (Blain‘908, Paragraph 0129-0130); the presences or lack of undesirable materials, such as bones, fat, cartilage, metal, glass, plastic, etc., and the location of the undesirable materials in the workpiece (Blaine‘908, Paragraph 0129); the weighing factor applied to the cost for the physical attributes or characteristics (Blaine‘908, Paragraph 0160); etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed nominal cutting strategy being a largest rectangle that can fit within a geometry of the meat product that would render it non-obvious.
Also, shrinking the shape of the nominal cutting strategy is known in the art from Blaine ‘886, which teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0010) portioning workpieces, such as food products to a specific shape, and of growing, shrinking, or otherwise altering the shape in order to achieve one or more additional specifications.
While Blaine ‘908 does not explicitly teach the rectangle for the nominal cutting strategy is a largest rectangle that can fit within a geometry of the meat product, doing so would have been obvious to try since decreasing size of the shape of a nominal cutting strategy to achieve one or more additional specifications is known in the art as shown by Blaine ‘886, since adjusting the shape for the nominal cutting strategy has a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (decreasing the size of an initial rectangle or enlarging the size of an initial rectangle), and since one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued these known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (See MPEP 2143 E).
Additionally, while Blaine does not explicitly state that “the shape for the final cutting strategy results in a bulk cut portion of the meat product that is configured to be cut into the one or more smaller sized pieces to be sold or as desired for further processing including a most possible yield of the meat product initially presented”, this limitation is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) as stated above, and the cut pork belly disclosed in embodiments of Blaine may be sold at any size, and, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the cut pork belly product of Blaine constitutes a bulk cut portion that is configured to be cut into the one or more smaller sized pieces to be sold or as desired for further processing including a most possible yield of the meat product initially presented. Furthermore, while Blaine also does not explicitly state that the workpiece is cut into one or more smaller sized pieces to be sold or as desired for further processing including a most possible yield of the meat product initially presented, the limitation is understood to be optional as stated above.
Regarding claim 2, as stated above with regard to claim 1, Blaine ‘908 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 meat product).
Regarding claim 3, as shown above with regard to claim 1, Blaine ‘908 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 ‘908 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 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 ‘908 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 ‘908 does not explicitly state that establishing the respective final right side cut and/or the respective final 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 cuttable left side cut or the cuttable 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 ‘908 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 ‘908 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 cuttable 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 ‘908 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 cuttable left side cut or the cuttable 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 ‘908 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 meat product includes any areas of a predetermined 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 ‘908 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 ‘908 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 the identified areas of the predetermined concentration of fat as possible).
Regarding claim 13, Blaine ‘908 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 ‘908 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 the predetermined concentration of fat as possible). Thus, Blaine ‘908 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 ‘908 is understood to disclose moving the rectangle for cutting the meat product in a direction parallel to a Y-axis of a coordinate plane when identified portions of the meat product that exhibit the predetermined concentration of fat are proximate to a right side edge or a left side edge of the food block.
Regarding claim 14, Blaine ‘908 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 ‘908 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 the predetermined concentration of fat as possible). Thus, Blaine ‘908 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 meat product would obviously be avoided by moving away from the front and rear edges, i.e. lengthwise, and therefore, Blaine ‘908 is understood to disclose moving the rectangle for cutting the meat product in a direction parallel to an X-axis of a coordinate plane when identified portions of the meat product that exhibit the predetermined 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 Blaine (US 20090143886 A1), and further in view of Brink (NL 2004839 C2).
Regarding claim 6, the Examiner notes that the claim language “if the meat product is oriented such that both left and right side surfaces are offset from a Y axis . . . and if above the predetermined 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 ‘908 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 ‘908 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 Blaine ‘908 does not explicitly state that this rotation/angle adjustment is in response to the meat product being oriented such that both left and right side surfaces are offset from a Y axis, which is an axis about parallel to left and right side surfaces of the meat product, above the predetermined threshold value, Blaine ‘908 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 ‘908 to adjusting the angle of the final cutting lines if the meat product is oriented such that both left and right side surfaces are offset from a 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 meat product) is known in the art as shown by Brink, since cutting the meat product 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 ‘908 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 ‘908 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 ‘908 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 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 ‘908 does not explicitly state comparing both of the second straight line and the fourth straight lines with a line 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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaine (US 20200068908 A1) in view of Blaine (US 20090143886 A1) and 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 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, while Blaine ‘908 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 value, the considering adjustments further comprises determining that the meat product 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 final right side cuts are parallel to each other and at an angle with respect to the Y-axis, Blaine ‘908 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 ‘908’s optimization system recognizes an orientation that is offset from the Y-axis). Additionally, 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 ‘908’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 ‘908, 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.
Blaine ‘908, as modified above, is silent on physically removing the meat product from the system to allow the meat product to be at a later time to be repositioned to allow for again preparing an image of the meat product.
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 ‘908 as modified above to reposition the meat product to allow for again preparing an image of the meat product 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 ‘908 as modified above does not explicitly indicate that the meat product 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 ‘908 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 10, as stated above with regard to claim 9, Blaine ‘908 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 ‘908’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 ‘908, 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 ‘908 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).
Additionally, 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 ‘908, 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 ‘908 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 20090143886 A1), and further in view of Blaine (US 8688259 B1), and Lindee (US 20030233918 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the Examiner notes that the claim language “if the meat product includes any voids within an area enclosed by the identified rectangle above the predetermined area or volume or above the predetermined proportion of a total area or volume of the meat product” 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 ‘908 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 ‘908 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 ‘908 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 ‘908 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 meat product in a direction parallel to a Y-axis of a coordinate plane when identified portions of the meat product 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 meat product 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 meat product in a direction parallel to an X-axis of a coordinate plane when identified portions of the meat product 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 20090143886 A1) and further 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 meat product 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 ‘908 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 ‘908 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 ‘908 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 meat product where the measured thickness is less than the minimum food thickness are along or proximate to an outer edge of the meat product” 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 Blaine (US 20090143886 A1) and further in view of Lee (KR 102093747 B1).
Regarding claim 20, Blaine ‘908 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 ‘908 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 ‘908 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 ‘908 does not explicitly state that the volume and width are equal to or as close as possible to a maximum value. Blaine ‘908 is further silent on the distance between the cuttable left side cut and the cuttable right side cut being equal to or as close as possible to the maximum width within the die.
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 ‘908 to calculate a maximum die volume for receipt of meat products within a die of a pressing machine that is disposed to receive the cut meat product 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 meat product 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 meat product, wherein a distance between the cuttable left side cut and the cuttable 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 ‘908 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-8, 10, and 12-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that claim 1, when read as a whole (see MPEP 2106(11)), does not fall into the statutory category of a mental process because the human mind cannot perform "cutting the meat product according to the final cutting strategy" as recited in claim 1, the Examiner maintains, as stated above, that “cutting the meat product according to the final cutting strategy” does not go beyond generally linking the judicial exception(s) to the technical field of cutting a meat product (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Furthermore, “cutting the meat product” would also constitute merely well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP 2106.05).
Therefore, claims 1-8, 10, and 12-21 remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-8, 10, and 12-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Blaine fails to teach or suggest "identifying a rectangle for a nominal cutting strategy for cutting the meat product within a projection of the meat product within the image, ... wherein the rectangle for the nominal cutting strategy is a largest rectangle that can fit within a geometry of the meat product; considering adjustments to the size of the rectangle for the nominal cutting strategy based upon one or more identifiable aspects of the meat product from the image, and establishing a final cutting geometry for a shape for a final cutting strategy based on the adjustments to the size of the rectangle for the nominal cutting strategy, ... wherein the shape for the final cutting strategy results in a bulk cut portion of the meat product that is configured to be cut into the one or more smaller sized pieces to be sold or as desired for further processing including a most possible yield of the meat product initially presented" because Blaine discloses modeling a 2D area on the work product, enlarging the 2D area to create subsequent 2D areas within the 2D area, and then modifying the subsequent 2D areas for desired attributes, rather than modeling the initial 2D area on the work product and then establishing a final cutting geometry of the initial 2D area based on the optimization program analyzing the initial 2D area, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Enlarging a two dimensional area is a specific embodiment of Blaine‘908, which is also generally teaches (Paragraph 0131-0132) mapping an initial two-dimensional area on the workpiece which thereby defines the portion of the workpiece to be harvested, and iteratively repeating the process wherein a further two-dimensional area is mapped on the workpiece until an optimum two-dimensional area and location of the workpiece is identified, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as encompassing embodiments including providing a largest rectangle that can fit within a geometry of the meat product as the nominal cutting strategy, and changing and/or shrinking the rectangle to establish a final cutting geometry. Additionally, if the Applicant is suggesting that Blaine’s process does not include analyzing the initial 2D area, the Examiner notes that the claimed invention is simply directed to considering adjustments to the size of the rectangle based upon one or more identifiable aspects of the meat product from the image generally, not the initial 2D area specifically. Furthermore, Blaine ‘908’s process of analyzing each portion or slice cut from the workpiece for physical characteristics, including the desired attributes, wherein the optimization program is capable of moving the mapped area applies to the initial 2D area and is understood to satisfy the claim language.
Additionally, as stated above with regard to claim 1, the claimed rectangle for the nominal cutting strategy being a largest rectangle that can fit within a geometry of the meat product would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Blaine ‘908 for the reasons stated above; and doing so would also have been obvious to try in view of Blaine ‘886 for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1.
Therefore, claim 1 remains rejected under 35 USC 103.
The Applicant has further argued that the rejections of dependent claims 6-7, 8-11, 15-17, 18-19, and 20-21 do not disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 1 missing from Blaine, let alone the limitations of the dependent claims, and, therefore, these rejections should be withdrawn. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that claim 1 is obvious in view of the prior art for the reasons stated above, and dependent claims 2-8, 10, and 12-21 also remain rejected as shown above.
Regarding newly added independent claim 22, the Examiner notes that claim 22 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention as shown above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights