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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: the language “said vertebrae” is incorrect because the vertebrae have not yet been referred too. Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention of group I in the reply filed on 5/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/13/2026.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 9 the examiner is unclear what the language “ and any combinations thereof.” is intended to mean in the context of this claim, The claim requires a set of analysis does this mean that the claim is intended to require every possible way of combining the analysis or one additional element which could be any particular way of combining two or more of the analysis into an additional analysis. It is confusing to the examiner what applicant means here. The examiner suggests deleting this language
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.
Claim 1-8 and 10-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The limitation of obtaining at least one image generated by said scanning, and processing the at least one image to identify variations in material color, depth, and/or surface texture, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, obtaining and processing to identify in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally looking at the image and identifying various in color depth or surface texture.
The limitation of measuring location and/or extent of said cut material by analyzing color, depth, or surface texture, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, measuring in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally measuring location or extent of cut by mentally analyzing.
The limitation of comparing the at least one image with predetermined data having acceptable values of variations in said material color, depth, and/or surface texture to ascertain quality of said cut material and/or an amount of salient material observed, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, comparing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the comparison.
The limitation of reporting results of any comparison to a user, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, reporting results of any comparison to a user in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally reporting the results to one self or verbally to another user.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – scanning a surface of cut material of said carcass using at least one visual imaging sensor. The image sensor in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic image sensor capturing an image) such that it amounts no more than mere insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering i.e. capturing an image. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of scanning a surface of cut material of said carcass using at least one visual imaging sensor amounts to no more than insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. Mere insignificant extra solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
Re claim 2 The limitation of quantitatively measuring color contrast and making an analytical determination as to the amount of color in a designated area., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, quantitatively measuring and making an analytical determination in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally measuring and making a determination.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not substantially changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 3 the limitation of quantitatively measuring surface depth and/or texture and making an analytical determination as to the amount of measurable surface depth or texture, respectively, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, quantitatively measuring and making an analytical determination in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally measuring and making a determination.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not substantially changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 4 The limitation of reporting results includes providing pass/fail criteria to said user., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, reporting in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing reporting of results to oneself or verbally to another person.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not substantially changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 5 The limitation of determining and recognizing a perimeter and/or outline of a 2-D representation depicted in said at least one image, based either on color contrast, surface texture, or both as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determining or recognizing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the recognition or determination.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not substantially changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 6 contains the same abstract idea as claim 5. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – scanning a surface of cut material of said carcass using at least one visual imaging sensor and enhancing recognition of said perimeter and/or outline of said 2-D representation by positioning various environment lighting elements at said carcass. The image sensor in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic image sensor capturing an image) such that it amounts no more than mere insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering i.e. capturing an image. Further it is well known to enhance visibility of an object by illuminating it see for example Vick US 2016/0223146 “LED lamps are known to enhance the color preference relative to their counterpart lamps that employ standard phosphors. GE Lighting has products of each of the first two types, also under the Reveal® brand name. LED light sources of the third type are known, for example in grocery applications to enhance the colors of meats, vegetables, and produce (e.g. fruit)” (see paragraph 11). Capturing an image of an illuminated carcass is mere insignificant extra solution activity Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of scanning a surface of cut material of said carcass using at least one visual imaging sensor amounts to no more than insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. Further it is well known to enhance visibility of an object by illuminating it see for example Vick US 2016/0223146 “LED lamps are known to enhance the color preference relative to their counterpart lamps that employ standard phosphors. GE Lighting has products of each of the first two types, also under the Reveal® brand name. LED light sources of the third type are known, for example in grocery applications to enhance the colors of meats, vegetables, and produce (e.g. fruit)” (see paragraph 11). Mere insignificant extra solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 7 The limitation of step of processing said at least one image includes identifying a portion of said carcass by quantifying color and/or color contrast from adjacent area surrounding said vertebrae, and validating via geometric shape analysis and inherent location on said carcass., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, identifying and validating in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the identifying and validating.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not substantially changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 8 The limitation of wherein said portion of said carcass includes lumbar vertebrae aligned down each section of said carcass, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, including the lumbar vertebrae in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying the lumbar vertebrae.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not substantially changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 10 The limitation of wherein said step of comparing the at least one image with predetermined data having acceptable values of variations includes validating said lumbar based on rectangularity, roughness, area, and distance to carcass centerline, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, comparing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally comparing the using the claimed metrics.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not substantially changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 11 The limitation of assessing splitting quality of said carcass cutting process by quantifying a number of visually consecutive absent or missing lumbar vertebrae, such that a smaller the number of said consecutive absent or missing vertebrae results in a higher splitting quality achieved., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, assessing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the assessment.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not substantially changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 12 The limitation of assessing splitting quality of said carcass cutting process symmetrical bisection of feather bones by identifying said feather bones via color or color contrast, distinguishing said feather bones from proximate features on said carcass, and validating said symmetrical bisection through geometric shape analysis, wherein said geometric shape is image-compared to a predetermined shape, and inherent location on said carcass, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, assessing identifying distinguishing and validating in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the assessing identifying distinguishing and validating described in the claim.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not substantially changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 13 The limitation of each identified feather bone requires a predetermined minimal area and identifiable shape to be valid, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, identifying feather bones using the specified criteria in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the identification.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not substantially changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 14 The limitation of empirically determining spinal cavity geometric continuity of said carcass cutting process, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, empirically determining spinal cavity geometric continuity in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the determination of continuity.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not substantially changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 15 The limitation of identifying an Aitch bone via a combination of color and 3D shape variations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, identifying in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the identification.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – scanning a surface of cut material of said carcass using at least one visual imaging sensor and utilizing machine learning and AI technology. The image sensor in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic image sensor capturing an image) such that it amounts no more than mere insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering i.e. capturing an image. The machine learning is merely a reference to generic machine learning and ai technology. This merely limits the claim to the field of “ai technology”. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of scanning a surface of cut material of said carcass using at least one visual imaging sensor amounts to no more than insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. The machine learning is merely a reference to generic machine learning and ai technology. Mere insignificant extra solution activity combined with a generic reference to AI technology cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
Re claim 16 The limitation of taking and storing color imaging and surface topology empirical data, and implementing corrective actions for prospective cut, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, taking and storing and implementing corrective action in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the taking and storing of the data and mentally determining a correction.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not substantially changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 17 The limitation of visually monitoring and auditing the backfat thickness of said carcass., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, visually monitoring and auditing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally monitoring and auditing.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not substantially changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 18 The limitation of assessing a proper cut for a neck bone via color contrast, textual pattern, and/or intensity discontinuity in an image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, assessing a proper cut in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing an assessment.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not substantially changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 19 The limitation of assigning a pattern matching score based on comparing an image taken to known patterns in a predetermined database, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, assigning a pattern matching score in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing a pattern matching scores.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not substantially changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aggarwall US 20210015113 A1.
Re claim 1 A method of performing quality control in a carcass cutting process, said method comprising (see abstract paragraph 23):
scanning a surface of cut material of said carcass using at least one visual imaging sensor (see paragraph 27 and 28 and 29 note that an image and depth data of of the cut meat is obtained via a camera);
obtaining at least one image generated by said scanning ( see paragraph 30 and 31 note that the image and depth data are received by the control circuit ),
and processing the at least one image to identify variations in material color, depth, and/or surface texture ( see paragraph 33 “The control circuit evaluates the cut of meat based on the image of the cut of meat, the depth data associated with the cut of meat, and the meat cut specification associated with the cut of meat. For example, the control circuit can compare the image of the cut of meat and the depth data associated with the cut of meat to the meat cut specification associated with the cut of meat. The evaluation can consider the size of the cut of meat, the thickness of the cut of meat, proper trimming of the cut of meat, proper shape of the cut of meat, etc. The flow continues at block” note depth data is used to determine appropriate size and thickness and compare them to expected values);
measuring location and/or extent of said cut material by analyzing color, depth, or surface texture (see paragraph 33 and 34 “note depth data is used to determine appropriate size and thickness of the meat [extent of cut material])
comparing the at least one image with predetermined data having acceptable values of variations in said material color, depth, and/or surface texture to ascertain quality of said cut material and/or an amount of salient material observed (see paragraph 32 33 “ For example, the control circuit can compare the image of the cut of meat and the depth data associated with the cut of meat to the meat cut specification associated with the cut of meat. The evaluation can consider the size of the cut of meat, the thickness of the cut of meat, proper trimming of the cut of meat, proper shape of the cut of meat, etc. The flow continues at block” note that size trimming shape and thickness can be compared to specifications );
and reporting results of any comparison to a user (see paragraph 14 “in some embodiments, the mobile device 102 can present meat cut quality information after the training phase is complete. For example, the mobile device 102 can present meat cut quality information as classified in an autonomous manner. The presentation of the meat cut quality information can include an image (e.g., the image 104 of the cut of meat), markings created by the system, as well as indications of any quality issues or variations. In such embodiments, a user can verify the system's accuracy and/or consistency”).
Re claim 3 Aggarwal discloses quantitatively measuring surface depth and/or texture and making an analytical determination as to the amount of measurable surface depth or texture, respectively (see paragraph 32-34 note that depth data is used to determine the thickness of the meat [surface depth] )
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) 2, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwall US 20210015113 A1 in view of Tong US 5944598 A.
Re claim 2 Aggarwal does not expressly disclose including quantitatively measuring color contrast and making an analytical determination as to the amount of color in a designated area. Tong discloses quantitatively measuring color contrast (see column 13 lines 45-55 “Turning to the carcass image, if the hue of a given image pixel differs from the average hue of the blue background by a pre-determined significant amount (for example--more than 40 degrees on the HSL colour wheel), then the pixel is presumed to represent a portion of the image containing the carcass.” Note the color difference [contrast] between the meat and the background is used to distinguish the meat from the background) and making an analytical determination as to the amount of color in a designated area (see column 28 lines 63-column 29 lines 5 “The full colour information of pixels in the original acquired image corresponding to muscle tissue pixels identified in the IMap are recorded and used to calculate an accurate average colour of the rib eye muscle tissue. The average rib eye muscle tissue colour is corrected with the colour information obtained during camera calibration. Average rib eye muscle tissue colour information may be used for meat grading purposes.” Note the average color or the ribeye section is used for grading). The motivation to combine is “Average rib eye muscle tissue colour information may be used for meat grading purposes.” (see column 28 lines 63-column 29 lines 5).One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily modified the teachings of Aggerwal to use the color information as described in Tong. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Aggarwal and Tong to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 5 Aggarwal does not expressly disclose determining and recognizing a perimeter and/or outline of a 2-D representation depicted in said at least one image, based either on color contrast, surface texture, or both. Tong discloses determining and recognizing a perimeter and/or outline of a 2-D representation depicted in said at least one image, based either on color contrast, surface texture, or both (see column 21 line 31-column 22 line 20 note that the out fat edge of the image is traced which corresponds to recognizing an outline of the based on. a rise in pixel brightness). The motivation to combine is “Techniques are needed to reliably take accurate and reproducible measurements of carcass dimensions without manual identification of anatomical features of the carcass.” (See column 3 lines 45-55) One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily used the method of Tong to locate the edges of the cut meat of Aggarwal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Aggarwal and Tong to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 6 Aggarwal does not expressly disclose enhancing recognition of said perimeter and/or outline of said 2-D representation by positioning various environment lighting elements at said carcass. Tong discloses enhancing recognition of said perimeter and/or outline of said 2-D representation (see column 21 line 31-column 22 line 20 note that the out fat edge of the image is traced which corresponds to recognizing an outline of the based on a rise in pixel brightness) by positioning various environment lighting elements at said carcass (see column 8 lines 35-50 “the rib eye image system 32 includes a hand held rib eye camera 34 and a CPU 36. Rib eye images are taken of a partial cross section of the carcass 16 between the 12th and 13th ribs. This is the rib eye muscle site normally graded by government inspectors. Therefore, the camera 34 should be portable so that it can be placed into the V-shaped notch cut between the 12th and 13th ribs of the carcass. The hand held camera 34 may be a Panasonic 3-CCD camera, similar to CCD camera 24, mounted inside a stainless steel housing 38. Two EXN 12 V, 50 W low voltage display lamps 40 are mounted on each side of the camera 34.” Note the image of the rib eye is taken using two lamps). The motivation to combine is “Techniques are needed to reliably take accurate and reproducible measurements of carcass dimensions without manual identification of anatomical features of the carcass.” (see column 3 lines 45-55). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily used the method of Tong to locate the edges of the cut meat of Aggarwal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Aggarwal and Tong to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal US 20210015113 A1 in view of Carlsen US2007/0207242.
Re claim 4 Aggarwal discloses reporting results includes providing to said user (see paragraph 14 “in some embodiments, the mobile device 102 can present meat cut quality information after the training phase is complete. For example, the mobile device 102 can present meat cut quality information as classified in an autonomous manner. The presentation of the meat cut quality information can include an image (e.g., the image 104 of the cut of meat), markings created by the system, as well as indications of any quality issues or variations. In such embodiments, a user can verify the system's accuracy and/or consistency”).Aggarwal does not expressly disclose results includes providing pass/fail. Carlsen results includes providing pass/fail (see paragraph 24 “where said predefined parameters defines criteria for accept or reject of portion” see paragraph 21). The motivation to combine is “in a further advantageous embodiment of the invention the control system is provided with a device for rejection meat portions falling outside pre-specified parameters” (see paragraph 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Aggarwal and Carlsen to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal US 20210015113 A1 in view of Hwang US 20110110563 A1.
Re claim 17 Aggarwal does not expressly disclose visually monitoring and auditing the backfat thickness of said carcass. Hwang discloses visually monitoring and auditing the backfat thickness of said carcass (see paragraph 112 “The back fat portion of which the thickness should be measured is selected from the fat layers surrounding the lean region using the selected straight line. Finally, the normal line perpendicular to the longest straight line is drawn on the back fat, and the length of the normal line is measured and is determined as the back fat thickness” see also figure 18 note that back fat thickness is measured) The motivation to combine is “graders synthetically consider the size of a lean portion, the distribution of intramuscular fat, the fat and lean colors, and the back fat thickness to grade the beef quality” (see paragraph 106). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Aggarwal with Hwang to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal US 20210015113 A1 in view of Cooke US 20150317803 A1 in view of Neilsen US 2005/0186896.
Re claim 18 Aggarwal discloses assessing a proper cut (see abstract and paragraphs 22 ” For example, the control circuit 202, based on the meat cut specification, can determine that the cut of meat is too thick or thin, has an undesirable or improper fat content, improperly trimmed (e.g., overtrimmed or undertrimmed), improperly shaped (e.g., square cow, hacked tail, etc.), misaligned (e.g., improperly positioned within the packaging), etc.”) Aggarwal does not expressly disclose assessing the neck bone for a via color contrast, textual pattern, and/or intensity discontinuity in an image. Cooke discloses assessing ( see paragraph 36 “ The blocks included in the above described process are for illustration purposes. The process for assessing the quality of a piece of meat may be performed by similar processes with fewer or additional blocks.”) via color contrast, textual pattern, and/or intensity discontinuity in an image (see paragraph 29 and 30 “The texture of the animal may include one or more of a variation in color and a variation in intensity. To obtain information about patterns within the x-ray CT image 200, the variation in the color and the variation in the intensity of neighboring pixels within the x-ray CT image 200 may be compared” note that texture and color variations are determined). The motivation to combine is “gain information about the quality of the meat” see paragraph 19. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Agarwal and Cooke to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Aggarwal and Cooke do not expressly disclose assessing the neck bone. Neilson discloses assessing the neck bone (see paragraph 73 and 74 note that the neckpiece is cut and processed and assessed see paragraph 87 “When the meat comes out from the table, it will pass the scale 10 where it is weighed and then transferred to the belt 12. Here, at the workstation 44, a quality control will be effected at frequent intervals. The control is effected by the regular selection of samples by means of an arm 50 (FIG. 2), which removes the pieces of meat. The quality inspector evaluates the meat against the cutting rule”). The motivation to combine is “ facilitate a quality control in connection with the cutting and with the use of visual equipment” (see paragraph 55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Aggarwal and Cooke with Neilson to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 19 Aggarwal further does not disclose assigning a pattern matching score based on comparing an image taken to known patterns in a predetermined database. Cooke further discloses assigning a pattern matching score based on comparing an image taken to known patterns in a predetermined database (see paragraph 19 “The image may be compared with known marbling arrangements to determine a degree of marbling for the animal and/or the piece of meat” see also paragraph 34). The motivation to combine is “the value of the animal and/or the piece of meat may be determined based on the marbling” (see paragraph 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Aggarwal Cooke and Neilson to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 7, 8 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 however no art rejection has been made.
Cited Art
The following is a listing of art considered relevant but not cited in a rejection above:
KJAER US 20230389559 discloses “A method of determining a measure of gaping in a fish fillet item, involves the steps of obtaining three-dimensional profile data of a first area of the fish fillet item, obtaining optical imaging data of a second area of the fish fillet item, wherein the first area and the second area are overlapping at least within an overlap area; and determining the measure of gaping in the fish fillet item based on the three-dimensional profile data within the overlap area and the optical imaging data within the overlap area.” (See abstract)
LAURIDSEN US 20200077667 discloses “A method and system of imaging carcasses involves acquiring a first set of multi-view images from respective multiple positions at a first side of a passageway, and a second set of multi-view images from respective multiple positions at a second side of the passageway. The multi-view images are acquired at a first time point upon detection of a carcass at a predetermined position at the passageway. A 3D carcass model is computed from the first and the second set of multi-view images, and is based on a 3D point cloud and/or a polygon surface. An occluded or spatially sparsely represented region locates a first region of the 3D model. The 3D model is manipulated at least at the first region to change the volume or distribution of volume of the 3D model in accordance with a weight registered by a load cell and/or a representation of a carcass suspension position.” (see abstract)
HANNING US 20180360054 discloses “This invention relates generally to a system and method of detecting woody breast using image analysis of carcass features, and more particularly to a real-time system and method of detecting woody breast in broilers using non-destructive and/or non-contact image analysis of carcass features. The system and method assess woody breast in broilers at the fillet level using image analysis of the angle or area associated with the tip of the keel bone and surrounding breast meat of broiler carcasses. The method is configured be incorporated into and utilized by vision grading system.” See abstract
Schimitzek US 20080310684 A non-invasive method is described for identifying contours with complex structures having an error recognition rate tending towards zero, which method can be used to distinguish and identify features of a slaughtered animal body with respect to each other, said method being utilised on the basis of a characteristic piece in particular to determine, by means of image processing, data for calculating the muscle-meat percentage, the trade classification and the associated trade value and market value, and also to rate the quality of slaughtered animal bodies, taking into account legal requirements. See abstract
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN T MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1237. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/SEAN T MOTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights