DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 9-12 are amended.
Claims 15-18 are canceled.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art of record does not teach or render obvious storing "selection setting information indicating whether a priority is given to first automatic additional processing work performed by a working machine or the priority is given to second manual additional processing work" and that a "setting unit is configured to change the priority for each type of the article that is stored in the memory based on a setting input". Further, Applicant argues the prior art only describes that the workstations can be manual or automatic, without ever suggesting that a workstation be particularly selected because it is automatic or manual let alone doing so based on both the type of defect detected and the stored priority information.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In [0036], Kjaer states: “The processor could be configured to appoint the selected food items to a selected workstation for the further processing. The appointment could be based on workload at the individual workstations or it could be based on a combination between specific skills of a workstation or an operator at a workstation and specific requirements related to the need for further processing, e.g. specific abilities for removing a certain bone fragment etc.” Further, in [0021], Kjaer states: “the food items are selected for further processing if the statistic value is outside predetermined limits.” The selection for further processing is based on whether a statistic value expressing probability of a foreign object within the food item is outside a predetermined limit. Therefore, Kjaer has a selection process based on predetermined requirements that can be changed by an input.
It would be obvious for the processor to be configured to appoint the selected food items to a selected workstation (manual or automatic) based on the specific requirements (type of defect) and the predetermined limit (stored priority information). Because Kjaer has a selection process based on specific requirements, it is believed to read on the limitation as currently claimed.
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, 2, and 5-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KJÆR (US 20220118483 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: KJÆR teaches an article inspection system (Fig. 1) comprising:
an article inspection unit (9) that inspects a transported article (Fig. 2, 12); and
an additional processing control unit that executes additional processing on an article determined to be defective among inspected articles, according to an inspection result of the article inspection unit ([0083]: An activation controller activates the object diverter based on the processing indicator. In the disclosed embodiment, the activation controller and the processor for determining the processing indicator are integrated in the same processor 8. Alternatively, one or both of the activation controller and the processor could be integrated in the imaging system 9.); and
a setting unit (8),
wherein the article inspection unit detects at least an abnormality in a quality state of the article ([0010]: “The image data is communicated to the processor which is configured to process the data and determine a processing indicator;” [0011]: “The process indicator, which is determined for each of the incoming food items, is an indicator which indicates a need for further processing. In one relatively simple implementation, the process indicator is a binary integer indicating yes or no, i.e. should be further processed or should not be further processed. In a more advanced implementation, the process indicator could be an integer e.g. from 1 to 10 where a higher number indicates a higher need for processing”),
wherein the additional processing control unit includes a quality state determination unit and a memory (8 and 9),
wherein the quality state determination unit determines which one of a plurality of defect modes the abnormality corresponds to when the abnormality is detected by the article inspection unit, ([0012]: “The process indicator could be defined based on different predefined identifiers in the food item. Below is a list of identifiers which could be used for defining the process indicator: [0013] a) size of food item; [0014] b) colour of food item; [0015] c) colour variations in food item; [0016] d) shape of food item; [0017] e) a minimum fat content; [0018] f) a maximum fat content; or [0019] g) identifiable patterns in food item;” [0073]-[0078]: “[0073] When the image data is received by the processor 8, it is converted into a processing indicator. In an alternative embodiment, the processor 8 is integrated in the imaging system 9. [0074] The processing indicator for each of the incoming food items is based on the image data and indicates a need for processing of the food items. [0075] In one embodiment, the processing indicator is a result of a comparison between an image of a desired end result for the food items and the image taken of a specific food item. The difference in the images is converted into an integer. [0076] In another embodiment, the image data is processed to recognize characteristic features. Such characteristic features could be characteristic colours, characteristic shapes, e.g. characteristic boundary shapes of the food item, or characteristic shapes of undesired objects on or in the food items. Methods and devices for recognisng characteristics in a picture are well known in the art. The discovery of one or more or the predefined characteristics may then trigger a processing indicator indicating a need for processing”).
Kjaer fails to explicitly teach
wherein the memory stores selection setting information indicating whether a priority is given to first automatic additional processing work performed by a working machine or the priority is given to second manual additional processing work,
wherein the system further comprises a processing request selection means for selecting any one of first processing request information for requesting the working machine to perform the first automatic additional processing work by the working machine and second processing request information for requesting the second manual additional processing work, according to the one of the plurality of defect modes determined by of the quality state determination unit, and
wherein the setting unit is configured to change the priority for each type of the article that is stored in the memory based on a setting input.
However, Kjaer teaches postprocessing workstations that “…may include manual workstations configured for human operators to process the food items, it may include automatic workstations for machine processing of the food items, and it may be a combination between manual and automatic workstations.” [0022]
Further, “the processor could be configured to appoint the selected food items to a selected workstation for the further processing. The appointment could be based on workload at the individual workstations or it could be based on a combination between specific skills of a workstation or an operator at a workstation and specific requirements related to the need for further processing, e.g. specific abilities for removing a certain bone fragment etc.” [0036]
In [0021], Kjaer states: “the food items are selected for further processing if the statistic value is outside predetermined limits.” The selection for further processing is based on whether a statistic value expressing probability of a foreign object within the food item is outside a predetermined limit. Therefore, Kjaer has a selection process based on predetermined requirements that can be changed by an input.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the processor to appoint the selected food items to a selected workstation (manual or automatic) based on the specific requirements (type of defect). Further, it would have been obvious to store the specific requirements and their respective thresholds in a memory and change the thresholds based on a user input.
Regarding Claim 2: KJÆR discloses the article inspection system according to claim 1,
wherein for a plurality of inspection items which are inspectable by the article inspection unit, the processing request selection means presets a condition for selecting the first processing request information or the second processing request information ([0084]: “…the processor can appoint the selected food items to a specific one workstation of the plurality of workstations for the further processing of the selected food item.”; [0073]: “When the image data is received by the processor 8, it is converted into a processing indicator. In an alternative embodiment, the processor 8 is integrated in the imaging system 9.”; [0074]: “The processing indicator for each of the incoming food items is based on the image data and indicates a need for processing of the food items.”; [0075]: “In one embodiment, the processing indicator is a result of a comparison between an image of a desired end result for the food items and the image taken of a specific food item. The difference in the images is converted into an integer.”; [0076]: “In another embodiment, the image data is processed to recognize characteristic features. Such characteristic features could be characteristic colours, characteristic shapes, e.g. characteristic boundary shapes of the food item, or characteristic shapes of undesired objects on or in the food items. Methods and devices for recognising characteristics in a picture are well known in the art. The discovery of one or more or the predefined characteristics may then trigger a processing indicator indicating a need for processing.”; [0077]: “The device comprises an identification structure 10 in the form of a movable arm which can push food items to a particular location on the conveyor line.”)
Regarding Claim 5: KJÆR discloses the article inspection system according to claim 3,
wherein when a foreign substance is detected in the article, the quality state determination unit determines which one of the plurality of the defect modes the foreign substance corresponds to, based on a type, a size, a shape, a density, or a contamination position of the foreign substance ([0076]: “…the image data is processed to recognize characteristic features. Such characteristic features could be characteristic colours, characteristic shapes, e.g. characteristic boundary shapes of the food item, or characteristic shapes of undesired objects on or in the food items. Methods and devices for recognising characteristics in a picture are well known in the art. The discovery of one or more or the predefined characteristics may then trigger a processing indicator indicating a need for processing.”).
Regarding Claim 6: KJÆR discloses the article inspection system according to claim 4,
wherein when a foreign substance is detected in the article, the quality state determination unit determines which one of the plurality the of defect modes the foreign substance corresponds to, based on a type, a size, a shape, a density, or a contamination position of the foreign substance ([0076]).
Regarding Claim 7: KJÆR discloses the article inspection system according to claim 1,
wherein when an excess or shortage of a content quantity of the article is detected, the quality state determination unit determines which one of the plurality of the defect modes the excess or shortage of the content quantity corresponds to, based on a state of the excess or shortage of the content quantity ([0012]: “Below is a list of identifiers which could be used for defining the process indicator: [0013] a) size of food item…”; [0020]: “The above identifiers a)-f) may e.g. be defined within lower and upper limits. In the simple implementation, the food items are selected for further processing if outside the limits. In the more advanced implementation, the process indicator may increase in number when the difference between the desired size, colour, colour variation, or shape and the actual size, colour, colour variation or shape increases.”).
Regarding Claim 8: KJÆR discloses the article inspection system according to claim 2,
wherein when an excess or shortage of a content quantity of the article is detected, the quality state determination unit determines which one of the plurality of the defect modes the excess or shortage of the content quantity corresponds to, based on a state of the excess or shortage of the content quantity ([0012]: “Below is a list of identifiers which could be used for defining the process indicator: [0013] a) size of food item…”; [0020]: “The above identifiers a)-f) may e.g. be defined within lower and upper limits. In the simple implementation, the food items are selected for further processing if outside the limits. In the more advanced implementation, the process indicator may increase in number when the difference between the desired size, colour, colour variation, or shape and the actual size, colour, colour variation or shape increases.”).
Regarding Claim 9: KJÆR discloses the article inspection system according to claim 5,
wherein the processing request selection means stores priority setting information for preferentially selecting any one of the first processing request information and the second processing request information, depending on which one of the plurality of different quality states occurring for each inspection item the inspection result of the article inspection unit corresponds to, in a memory (implicit to a processor capable of claim 1, see [0022]; [0070]; [0073]-[0078]; [0083]).
Regarding Claim 10: KJÆR discloses the article inspection system according to claim 6,
wherein the processing request selection means stores priority setting information for preferentially selecting any one of the first processing request information and the second processing request information, depending on which one of the plurality of different quality states occurring for each inspection item the inspection result of the article inspection unit corresponds to, in a memory (implicit to a processor capable of claim 1, see [0022]; [0070]; [0073]-[0078]; [0083]).
Regarding Claim 11: KJÆR discloses the article inspection system according to claim 7,
wherein the processing request selection means stores priority setting information for preferentially selecting any one of the first processing request information and the second processing request information, depending on which one of the plurality of different quality states occurring for each inspection item the inspection result of the article inspection unit corresponds to, in a memory (implicit to a processor capable of claim 1, see [0022]; [0070]; [0073]-[0078]; [0083]).
Regarding Claim 12: KJÆR discloses the article inspection system according to claim 8,
wherein the processing request selection means stores priority setting information for preferentially selecting any one of the first processing request information and the second processing request information, depending on which one of the plurality of different quality states occurring for each inspection item the inspection result of the article inspection unit corresponds to, in a memory (implicit to a processor capable of claim 1, see [0022]; [0070]; [0073]-[0078]; [0083]).
Regarding Claim 13: KJÆR discloses the article inspection system according to claim 1,
wherein when the processing request selection means selects the first processing request information, the additional processing control unit causes the working machine to execute a predetermined work operation for removing an abnormal portion of the quality state from an article of which an abnormality is detected in the quality state, and when the processing request selection means selects the second processing request information, the additional processing control unit causes a notification device to output a work request for the second manual additional processing, based on the second processing request information (see [0069]: “The processing may particularly be trimming where excessive fat is removed, or bone removal where unwanted fragments are removed from the food items.”; [0092]: “The monitors 39 illustrated on FIGS. 3 and 4 at each of the workstations are configured to receive data from a guidance controller (not shown). The data includes a processing guide for processing of the food items selected for further processing, e.g. including cutting instructions for trimming of food items, c.f. example in FIG. 5 where trim lines of a salmon filet are illustrated.”; [0073]-[0078]; [0084]; [0070]; [0022]).
Regarding Claim 14: KJÆR discloses the article inspection system according to claim 2,
wherein when the processing request selection means selects the first processing request information, the additional processing control unit causes the working machine to execute a predetermined work operation for removing an abnormal portion of the quality state from an article of which an abnormality is detected in the quality state, and when the processing request selection means selects the second processing request information, the additional processing control unit causes a notification device to output a work request for the second manual additional processing, based on the second processing request information (see [0069]: “The processing may particularly be trimming where excessive fat is removed, or bone removal where unwanted fragments are removed from the food items.”; [0092]: “The monitors 39 illustrated on FIGS. 3 and 4 at each of the workstations are configured to receive data from a guidance controller (not shown). The data includes a processing guide for processing of the food items selected for further processing, e.g. including cutting instructions for trimming of food items, c.f. example in FIG. 5 where trim lines of a salmon filet are illustrated.”; [0073]-[0078]; [0084]; [0070]; [0022]).
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 MIYA DOWNING whose telephone number is (703)756-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
/MIYA DOWNING/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights