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 August 7th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 12, 14-16 and 18-19 have been amended. Claims 5 and 20 have been canceled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-4, 6-19 and 21 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 7th, 2026.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brook (US 6689963) in view of Chao et al. (“A Spectroscopic System for High-Speed Inspection of Poultry Carcasses”).
Regarding claim 1, Brook (US 6689963) teaches a system for inspecting food products (Col. 1 lines 32-37), comprising:
a supply transport line (Fig. 4 #23) comprising successive first product carriers (Col. 3 lines 62-67, “carcass carrying shackles”);
at least two inspection lines (Fig. 4 #28) comprising successive inspection product carriers (Col. 4 lines 1-6, 15-25 “second shackle”);
at least one discharge transport line (Fig. 4 #24) comprising successive second product carriers (Col. 3 lines 62-67, “carcass carrying shackles”),
a first product transfer system (Fig. 4 #27) for successively transferring the products from the first product carriers of the supply transport line (Fig. 4 “shackles” of #23) to the inspection product carriers (Col. 4 lines 4-6, 15-25 “shackles” of #28) while distributing the products over the at least two inspection lines (Fig. 4 see #27 distributing products over two #28);
a second product transfer system (Fig. 5 #29) for successively transferring the products from the inspection product carriers to respective second product carriers of the at least one discharge transport line (Col. 4 lines 26-33);
and an inspection station along each of the at least two inspection lines (Col. 3 lines 20-31, Col. 4 lines 1-9), each inspection station arranged for quality inspection of the products passing said inspection station while being transported by a respective one of the at least two inspection lines (Col. 5 lines 15-22, Fig. 4 products transported by #28).
Brook (US 6689963) lacks teaching wherein each of the at least two inspection lines operate at an inspection line speed less than a supply transport speed of the supply transport line.
Chao et al. (“A Spectroscopic System for High-Speed Inspection of Poultry Carcasses”) teaches a system for inspecting food products (Page 1 lines 1-5), wherein each of the at least two inspection lines (Fig. 1 “Evisceration Line-1” and “Evisceration Line-2”) operate at an inspection line speed less than a supply transport speed of the supply transport line (Fig. 1 speed of “Evisceration Line” (90 bpm) less than speed of “Kill Line” (180 bpm)).
Chao et al. (“A Spectroscopic System for High-Speed Inspection of Poultry Carcasses”) states that automatic processing systems are needed in the poultry industry to improve product safety, quality, consistency, and increase processing efficiency by increasing line throughput and reducing wastewater output (Page 1 lines 1-5), wherein manual inspection is limited to a maximum of 35 birds per min which limits the production efficiency of processing plants seeking to satisfy consumer demand for poultry products (Page 1 lines 14-18). Finally, Chao et al. states that for the 180 birds per min line speed, the model achieved classification accuracies of 94% and 92% for wholesome and unwholesome birds (Abstract lines 8-12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brook (US 6689963) to include wherein each of the at least two inspection lines operate at an inspection line speed less than a supply transport speed of the supply transport line as taught by Chao et al. (“A Spectroscopic System for High-Speed Inspection of Poultry Carcasses”) in order to increase processing efficiency to satisfy consumer demand for poultry products.
Regarding claim 2, Brook (US 6689963) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each of said first, second, and inspection product carriers (Fig. 4 “shackles” of #23, 28, and 24) are configured to carry and transport a respective one of the products (Col. 3 lines 62-67).
Regarding claim 3, Brook (US 6689963) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the supply transport line (Fig. 4 #23) is an overhead conveyor to which the first product carriers are formed as shackles or suspension hooks, from which the products are suspended (Col. 3 lines 1-5, 62-67).
Regarding claim 6, Brook (US 6689963) teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising one discharge transport line (Fig. 4 #24), wherein the second product transfer system (Fig. 5 #29) is arranged for successively transferring the products from the inspection product carriers to the second product carriers of the discharge transport line (Col. 4 lines 26-33, Fig. 5 #29 transfers products from “shackles” of #28 to “shackles” of #24), wherein the products are merged from the at least two inspection lines to the discharge transport line (Fig. 5 see #25 merged from #28 to #24).
Regarding claim 7, Brook (US 6689963) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first product transfer system (Fig. 4 #27) has at least two first product transfer devices (Fig. 4 see two devices #27), each arranged for transferring the products from first product carriers of the supply transport line to the inspection product carriers of one of the at least two inspection lines, respectively (Fig. 4 each #27 transferring #25 from “shackles” of #23 to “shackles” of #28).
Regarding claim 9, Brook (US 6689963) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second product transfer system (Fig. 5 #29) has first and second product transfer devices (Fig. 5 see first and second #29), each arranged for transferring the products from the inspection product carriers of one of the at least two inspection lines to the second product carriers of the at least one discharge transport line (Col. 4 lines 26-33, Fig. 5 #29 transfers products from “shackles” of #28 to “shackles” of #24).
Regarding claim 10, Brook (US 6689963) teaches the system of claim 9, wherein each of the first product transfer devices (Fig. 4 #27) comprises a first buffer track (Fig. 4 see track around #27) having first buffer product carriers (Fig. 4 “shackles” of #27) is arranged for transferring the products from the first product carriers of the supply transport line to the first buffer product carriers (Fig. 4 transferring #25 from “shackles” of #23 to “shackles” of #27) and from the first buffer product carriers to the inspection product carriers of a respective one of the at least two inspection lines (Fig. 4 transferring #25 from “shackles” of #27 to “shackles” of #28).
Regarding claim 12, Brook (US 6689963) teaches a method of inspecting food products (Col. 1 lines 32-37) using a system according to claim 1, the method comprising the steps of:
supplying, using the supply transport line (Fig. 4 #23), the products to be inspected (Col. 3 lines 62-67);
successively transferring, using the first product transfer system (Fig. 4 #27), the products from first product carriers of the supply transport line to respective inspection product carriers (Fig. 4 #27 transferring products from “shackles” of #23 to “shackles” of #28) while distributing the products over at least two inspection lines (Fig. 4 #27 distributing products over two #28);
inspecting the products while being transported by a respective one of the at least two inspection lines (Col. 3 lines 20-31, Col. 4 lines 1-9);
successively transferring the products, which have been inspected, from the inspection product carriers to respective second product carriers of the at least one discharge transport line (Fig. 4 transferring products from “shackles” of #28 to “shackles” of #24, Col. 4 lines 26-33).
Regarding claim 13, Brook (US 6689963) teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the step of successively transferring the products which have been inspected comprises:
successively transferring, using the second product transfer system (Fig. 5 #29), the products, which have been inspected, from the inspection product carriers to the second product carriers of the one discharge transport line (Fig. 5 #29 transfers products from “shackles” of #28 to “shackles” of #24), wherein the products are merged from the at least two inspection lines to the discharge transport line (Col. 4 lines 26-33, Fig. 5 see products #25 merged from “shackles” of #28 to “shackles” of #24).
Regarding claim 14, Brook (US 6689963) teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the supply transport line speed of the supply transport line is the same as the speed of the discharge transport line (Col. 1 lines 50-55).
Brook (US 6689963) lacks teaching wherein an inspection line speed of each of the two inspection lines is at least equal to half of the supply transport line speed of the supply transport line and of the discharge transport line.
Chao et al. (“A Spectroscopic System for High-Speed Inspection of Poultry Carcasses”) teaches a method of inspecting food products (Page 1 lines 1-5), wherein an inspection line speed of each of the two inspection lines (Fig. 1 see “Evisceration Line” speed of “90 bpm”) is at least equal to half of a supply transport line speed of the supply transport line (Fig. 1 see “Evisceration Line” speed of “90 bpm” equal to half of “Kill Line” speed of “180 bpm”).
Chao et al. (“A Spectroscopic System for High-Speed Inspection of Poultry Carcasses”) states that automatic processing systems are needed in the poultry industry to improve product safety, quality, consistency, and increase processing efficiency by increasing line throughput and reducing wastewater output (Page 1 lines 1-5), wherein manual inspection is limited to a maximum of 35 birds per min which limits the production efficiency of processing plants seeking to satisfy consumer demand for poultry products (Page 1 lines 14-18). Finally, Chao et al. states that for the 180 birds per min line speed, the model achieved classification accuracies of 94% and 92% for wholesome and unwholesome birds (Abstract lines 8-12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brook (US 6689963) to include wherein an inspection line speed of each of the two inspection lines is at least equal to half of a supply transport line speed of the supply transport line and of the discharge transport line as taught by Chao et al. (“A Spectroscopic System for High-Speed Inspection of Poultry Carcasses”) in order to increase processing efficiency to satisfy consumer demand for poultry products.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brook (US 6689963) in view of Chao et al. (“A Spectroscopic System for High-Speed Inspection of Poultry Carcasses”).
Regarding claim 4, Brook (US 6689963) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one discharge transport line operates at a discharge transport line speed greater than the inspection line speed.
Brook (US 6689963) teaches that the supply transport line speed is the same as the speed of the discharge transport line (Col. 1 lines 50-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brook (US 6689963) to include wherein the at least one discharge transport line operates at a discharge transport line speed greater than the inspection line speed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/variables are obvious and that said parameters can be recognized as result-effective variables whose optimization would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.05 I.II (ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”).
Regarding claim 15, Brook (US 6689963) lacks teaching the method according to claim 14, wherein a line speed of each of the two inspection lines is over 6,000 of the products per hour.
Chao et al. (“A Spectroscopic System for High-Speed Inspection of Poultry Carcasses”) teaches method of inspecting food products (Page 1 lines 1-5), wherein a line speed of each of the two inspection lines is 5400 of the products per hour (Fig. 1 see “Evisceration Line” speed of “90 bpm”; 90 birds per min equals 5400 birds per hour).
Chao et al. (“A Spectroscopic System for High-Speed Inspection of Poultry Carcasses”) states that automatic processing systems are needed in the poultry industry to improve product safety, quality, consistency, and increase processing efficiency by increasing line throughput and reducing wastewater output (Page 1 lines 1-5), wherein manual inspection is limited to a maximum of 35 birds per min which limits the production efficiency of processing plants seeking to satisfy consumer demand for poultry products (Page 1 lines 14-18). Finally, Chao et al. states that for the 180 birds per min kill line speed, the model achieved classification accuracies of 94% and 92% for wholesome and unwholesome birds (Abstract lines 8-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brook (US 6689963) to include wherein a line speed of each of the two inspection lines is over 6,000 of the products per hour in order to increase the capacity of the system, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brook (US 6689963) in view of Chao et al. (“A Spectroscopic System for High-Speed Inspection of Poultry Carcasses”) and further in view of Maschf (NL 8900871).
Regarding claim 8, Brook (US 6689963) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, further comprising a control system having a processor and a memory element for storing thereon data relating to an individual product carried by a specific first product carrier of the supply transport line, the control system being operatively connected to the first product transfer system and the second product transfer system, and arranged for associating said data to a specific inspection product carrier of the inspection line to which said product is transferred by the first product transfer system, and for associating said data to a specific second product carrier of the at least one discharge transport line to which said product is transferred from said inspection product carrier by the second product transfer system.
Maschf (NL 8900871) teaches a system for inspecting food products (Paragraph 1 lines 1-2), further comprising a control system (Fig. 1 #7) having a processor and a memory element for storing thereon data relating to an individual product (Paragraph 13 lines 1-5) carried by a specific first product carrier of the supply transport line (Fig. 1 #1, Paragraph 12 lines 1-4), the control system being operatively connected to the first product transfer system (Fig. 1 #7 operatively connected to #19, 22, Paragraph 26 lines 1-4) and the second product transfer system (Fig. 1 #7 operatively connected to #23), and arranged for associating said data to a specific inspection product carrier of the inspection line to which said product is transferred by the first product transfer system (Paragraph 13 lines 1-5), and for associating said data to a specific second product carrier of the at least one discharge transport line to which said product is transferred from said inspection product carrier by the second product transfer system (Paragraph 13 lines 1-5).
Maschf (NL 8900871) explains that each information carrier possesses information regarding the product carried by the corresponding carrier member, and this information can be already read in the information carrier beforehand or after a particular measurement has been carried out, and by reading out the data stored in the information carrier, the control unit can determine which transfer means are to be activated in order to add the product to the appropriate processing devices (Paragraph 13 lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brook (US 6689963) to include a control system having a processor and a memory element for storing thereon data relating to an individual product carried by a specific first product carrier of the supply transport line, the control system being operatively connected to the first product transfer system and the second product transfer system, and arranged for associating said data to a specific inspection product carrier of the inspection line to which said product is transferred by the first product transfer system, and for associating said data to a specific second product carrier of the at least one discharge transport line to which said product is transferred from said inspection product carrier by the second product transfer system as taught by Maschf (NL 8900871) in order to provide information regarding the product carried by a specific product carrier and determine the appropriate processing thereof.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brook (US 6689963) in view of Chao et al. (“A Spectroscopic System for High-Speed Inspection of Poultry Carcasses”) and further in view of Minderman et al. (US 5340351).
Regarding claim 11, Brook (US 6689963) lacks teaching the system of claim 9, wherein each of the second product transfer devices comprises a second buffer track having second buffer product carriers, and is arranged for transferring the products from the inspection product carriers of a respective one of the at least two inspection lines to the second buffer product carriers, and from the second buffer product carriers to the second product carriers of the at least one discharge transport line.
Minderman et al. (US 5340351) teaches a system for inspecting food products (Col. 1 lines 64-68), wherein each of the second product transfer devices (Fig. 1 #10) comprises a second buffer track (Fig. 9 see track formed along #119) having second buffer product carriers (Fig. 9 #32), and is arranged for transferring the products (Fig. 9 #120) from the first product carriers (Fig. 1 #32 transfers product from #16 of #12) of a first lines (Fig. 1 #12) to the second buffer product carriers (Fig. 1 #10 transfers products from #16 of #12 to #32), and from the second buffer product carriers to the second product carriers of the at least one discharge transport line (Fig. 1 #10 transfers products from #32 to #16 of #14).
Minderman et al. (US 5340351) explains that the system automatically transfers birds from one suspended conveyor line to another suspended conveyor line wherein the spacing of the shackles of the two conveyor lines is different (Col. 1 lines 64-68), and states that the system is able to quickly and efficiently remove the birds from the shackles of a first conveyor and rehang the birds on shackles of a second conveyor, with a simple design, efficient operation, and durable structure (Col. 3 lines 21-30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brook (US 6689963) to include wherein each of the second product transfer devices comprises a second buffer track having second buffer product carriers, and is arranged for transferring the products from the inspection product carriers of a respective one of the at least two inspection lines to the second buffer product carriers, and from the second buffer product carriers to the second product carriers of the at least one discharge transport line as taught by Minderman et al. (US 5340351) in order to quickly and efficiently transfer the products between product carriers with a simple design, efficient operation, and durable structure.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brook (US 6689963) in view of Persoon et al. (US 5326311).
Regarding claim 16, Brook (US 6689963) teaches a system for inspecting products including poultry slaughter products (Col. 1 lines 32-37), comprising
a supply transport line (Fig. 4 #23) comprising successive first product carriers (Col. 3 lines 62-67, “carcass carrying shackles”);
at least two inspection lines (Fig. 4 #28) comprising successive inspection product carriers (Col. 4 lines 1-6, 15-25 “second shackle”);
at least one discharge transport line (Fig. 4 #24) comprising successive second product carriers (Col. 3 lines 62-67, “carcass carrying shackles”), wherein each of said first, second and inspection product carriers (Fig. 4 “shackles” of #23, 28, and 24) are configured to carry and transport a respective one of the products (Col. 3 lines 62-67);
a first product transfer system (Fig. 4 #27) for successively transferring the products from the first product carriers of the supply transport line to the inspection product carriers (Col. 4 lines 4-6, 15-25, Fig. 4 #27 transferring products from “shackles” of #23 to “shackles” of #28) while distributing the products over the at least two inspection lines according to a predetermined manner (Fig. 4 #27 distributing products over two #28);
an inspection station along each of the at least two inspection lines (Col. 3 lines 20-31, Col. 4 lines 1-9), each inspection station arranged for quality inspection of the products passing said inspection station while being transported by a respective one of the at least two inspection lines during use (Col. 5 lines 15-22, Col. 3 lines 20-31, Fig. 4 products transported by #28); and
a second product transfer system (Fig. 5 #29) for successively transferring the products from inspection product carriers to respective second product carriers of the at least one discharge transport line (Fig. 4 transferring products from “shackles” of #28 to “shackles” of #24, Col. 4 lines 26-33).
Brook (US 6689963) lacks teaching wherein predetermined products identified as having a potential defect are configured to be selectively transferred to one of the at least two inspection line.
Persoon et al. (US 5326311) teaches a system for inspecting products including poultry slaughter products (Col. 1 lines 7-10), wherein predetermined products identified as having a potential defect (Col. 2 lines 32-38) are configured to be selectively transferred to one of the at least two inspection line (Col. 3 lines 37-49, 54-68).
Persoon et al. (US 5326311) explains that it is decided on the basis of the weight of each bird and/or on the basis of a visual inspection which conveyance route must be followed form bifurcations fitted at certain points on the conveyor lines (Col. 1 lines 29-39). Persoon et al. (US 5326311) states that it is important that the most suitable processing should be carried out on the birds on the machine most suitable for that purpose, resulting in the maximum production output (Col. 1 lines 40-43). Finally, Persoon et al. (US 5326311) explains that using image analysis techniques, it is possible to establish from the observed contour not only the positions of body parts of the birds, but also any damage such as broken wings, or other irregularities (Col. 2 lines 34-38).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brook (US 6689963) to include wherein predetermined products identified as having a potential defect are configured to be selectively transferred to one of the at least two inspection line as taught by Persoon et al. (US 5326311) in order to carry out the most suitable processing on the products, thus resulting in maximum production output.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brook (US 6689963) in view of Persoon et al. (US 5326311) and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding claim 21, Brook (US 6689963) lacks teaching the system of claim 16, wherein the discharge transport line operates at a discharge transport line speed greater than the inspection line speed.
Brook (US 6689963) teaches that the supply transport line speed is the same as the speed of the discharge transport line (Col. 1 lines 50-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brook (US 6689963) to include wherein the discharge transport line operates at a discharge transport line speed greater than the inspection line speed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/variables are obvious and that said parameters can be recognized as result-effective variables whose optimization would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.05 I.II (ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brook (US 6689963) in view of Persoon et al. (US 5326311) and further in view of Maschf (NL 8900871).
Regarding claim 17, Brook (US 6689963) lacks teaching the system of claim 16, further comprising a control system having a processor and a memory element for storing thereon data relating to an individual product carried by a specific first product carrier of the supply transport line, the control system being operatively connected to the first and second product transfer systems, and arranged for associating said data to a specific inspection product carrier of the inspection line to which said product is transferred by the first product transfer system, and for associating said data to a specific second product carrier of the at least one discharge transport line to which said product is transferred from said inspection product carrier by the second product transfer system.
Maschf (NL 8900871) teaches a system for inspecting products including poultry slaughter products (Paragraph 1 lines 1-2), further comprising a control system (Fig. 1 #7) having a processor and a memory element for storing thereon data relating to an individual product (Paragraph 13 lines 1-5) carried by a specific first product carrier of the supply transport line (Fig. 1 #1, Paragraph 12 lines 1-4), the control system being operatively connected to the first and second product transfer systems (Fig. 1 #7 operatively connected to #19, 22, 23, Paragraph 26 lines 1-4), and arranged for associating said data to a specific inspection product carrier of the inspection line to which said product is transferred by the first product transfer system (Paragraph 13 lines 1-5), and for associating said data to a specific second product carrier of the at least one discharge transport line to which said product is transferred from said inspection product carrier by the second product transfer system (Paragraph 13 lines 1-5).
Maschf (NL 8900871) explains that each information carrier possesses information regarding the product carried by the corresponding carrier member, and this information can be already read in the information carrier beforehand or after a particular measurement has been carried out, and by reading out the data stored in the information carrier, the control unit can determine which transfer means are to be activated in order to add the product to the appropriate processing devices (Paragraph 13 lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brook (US 6689963) to include a control system having a processor and a memory element for storing thereon data relating to an individual product carried by a specific first product carrier of the supply transport line, the control system being operatively connected to the first and second product transfer systems, and arranged for associating said data to a specific inspection product carrier of the inspection line to which said product is transferred by the first product transfer system, and for associating said data to a specific second product carrier of the at least one discharge transport line to which said product is transferred from said inspection product carrier by the second product transfer system as taught by Maschf (NL 8900871) in order to provide information regarding the product carried by a specific product carrier and determine the appropriate processing thereof.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brook (US 6689963) in view of Persoon et al. (US 5326311) and further in view of Chao et al. (“A Spectroscopic System for High-Speed Inspection of Poultry Carcasses”).
Regarding claim 18, Brook (US 6689963) teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the supply transport line speed of the supply transport line is the same as the speed of the discharge transport line (Col. 1 lines 50-55).
Brook (US 6689963) lacks teaching wherein an inspection line speed of each of the two inspection lines is at least equal to half of a supply transport line speed of the supply transport line and of the discharge transport line.
Chao et al. (“A Spectroscopic System for High-Speed Inspection of Poultry Carcasses”) teaches a system for inspecting products including poultry slaughter products (Page 1 lines 1-5), wherein an inspection line speed of each of the two inspection lines (Fig. 1 see “Evisceration Line” speed of “90 bpm”) is at least equal to half of a supply transport line speed of the supply transport line (Fig. 1 see “Evisceration Line” speed of “90 bpm” equal to half of “Kill Line” speed of “180 bpm”).
Chao et al. (“A Spectroscopic System for High-Speed Inspection of Poultry Carcasses”) states that automatic processing systems are needed in the poultry industry to improve product safety, quality, consistency, and increase processing efficiency by increasing line throughput and reducing wastewater output (Page 1 lines 1-5), wherein manual inspection is limited to a maximum of 35 birds per min which limits the production efficiency of processing plants seeking to satisfy consumer demand for poultry products (Page 1 lines 14-18). Finally, Chao et al. states that for the 180 birds per min line speed, the model achieved classification accuracies of 94% and 92% for wholesome and unwholesome birds (Abstract lines 8-12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brook (US 6689963) to include wherein an inspection line speed of each of the two inspection lines is at least equal to half of a supply transport line speed of the supply transport line and of the discharge transport line as taught by Chao et al. (“A Spectroscopic System for High-Speed Inspection of Poultry Carcasses”) in order to increase processing efficiency to satisfy consumer demand for poultry products.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brook (US 6689963) in view of Steffler et al. (US 6905404) and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding claim 19, Brook (US 6689963) teaches a method of inspecting poultry slaughter products (Col. 1 lines 32-37), the method comprising the steps of:
supplying the products to be inspected using a supply transport line (Fig. 4 #23) comprising successive first product carriers (Col. 3 lines 62-67, “carcass carrying shackles”);
successively transferring the products to at least two inspection lines (Fig. 4 #28) using a first product transfer system (Fig. 4 #27) for transferring the products from the first product carriers of the supply transport line to inspection product carriers (Col. 4 lines 4-6, 15-25, Fig. 4 #27 transferring products from “shackles” of #23 to “shackles” of #28) while distributing the products over the at least two inspection lines (Fig. 4 #27 distributing products over two #28);
inspecting the products at an inspection station located along each of the at least two inspection lines (Col. 3 lines 20-31, Col. 4 lines 1-9) as the products are transported along the at least two inspection lines (Col. 3 lines 20-31, Fig. 4 products transported by #28);
successively transferring the products, which have been inspected, from the at least two inspection lines to at least one discharge transport line using a second product transfer system (Fig. 5 #27) for transferring the products from the inspection product carriers to respective second product carriers of the at least one discharge transport line (Fig. 4 transferring products from “shackles” of #28 to “shackles” of #24, Col. 4 lines 26-33).
Brook (US 6689963) lacks teaching wherein each of the at least two inspection lines operates at a reduced inspection line speed for manual inspection by an individual or a robot system, wherein the reduced inspection line speed is less than a supply transport speed of the supply transport line.
Steffler et al. (US 6905404) teaches a method of inspecting poultry slaughter products (Col. 1 lines 7-12), wherein the inspection line (Fig. 1 #14) operates at an inspection line speed for manual inspection by an individual (Fig. 1 speed of #14 for inspection at #42) or a robot system, wherein the inspection line speed (Fig. 1 speed of #14) is different than a supply transport speed of the supply transport line (Fig. 1 speed of #12, Col. 4 lines 20-26).
Steffler et al. (US 6905404) explains that the line speeds of the kill line and the evisceration line are driven independently and therefore may be the same or different (Col. 4 lines 20-26). Steffler et al. (US 6905404) explains that the technicians determine whether or not the carcasses are of edible quality (Col. 5 lines 51-54), and explains that the predetermined standard used in the inspection is a government-prescribed quality standard which is used to determine whether or not each carcass is of edible quality (Col. 5 lines 21-24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brook (US 6689963) to include wherein each of the inspection lines operates at an inspection line speed for manual inspection by an individual or a robot system, wherein the inspection line speed is different than a supply transport speed of the supply transport line as taught by Steffler et al. (US 6905404) in order to determine whether the products are of edible quality.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brook (US 6689963) to include wherein each of the inspection lines operates at a reduced inspection line speed, wherein the reduced inspection line speed is less than a supply transport speed of the supply transport line, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/variables are obvious and that said parameters can be recognized as result-effective variables whose optimization would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.05 I.II (ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 6-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-9 and 14-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,128. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 and 6-15 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-2, 5-9 and 14-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,128.
Application 18/652,019
U.S. Patent No. 12,161,128
1. A system for inspecting food products, comprising: a supply transport line comprising successive first product carriers; at least two inspection lines comprising successive inspection product carriers; at least one discharge transport line comprising successive second product carriers, a first product transfer system for successively transferring the products from the first product carriers of the supply transport line to the inspection product carriers while distributing the products over the at least two inspection lines; a second product transfer system for successively transferring the products from the inspection product carriers to respective second product carriers of the at least one discharge transport line; and an inspection station along each of the at least two inspection lines, each inspection station arranged for quality inspection of the products passing said inspection station while being transported by a respective one of the at least two inspection lines; wherein each of the at least two inspection lines operate at an inspection line speed less than a supply transport speed of the supply transport line.
Claim 1: “A system for inspecting poultry slaughter products, comprising: a supply transport line comprising successive first product carriers; at least two inspection lines comprising successive inspection product carriers; at least one discharge transport line comprising successive second product carriers, wherein each of said first, second, and inspection product carriers are configured to carry and transport a respective one of the products; a first product transfer system including a first carrousel rotating for successively transferring the products from the first product carriers of the supply transport line to the inspection product carriers while distributing the products over the at least two inspection lines according to a predetermined manner; an inspection station along each of the at least two inspection lines, each inspection station arranged for inspecting the products passing said inspection station while being transported by a respective one of the at least two inspection lines; and a second product transfer system including a second carrousel rotating for successively transferring the products from the inspection product carriers to respective second product carriers of the at least one discharge transport line; wherein the supply transport line is an overhead conveyor to which the first product carriers are formed as shackles or suspension hooks, from which the products are suspended; wherein the supply transport line operates at a supply transport line speed greater than an inspection line speed of at least one of the two inspection lines.”
2. The system of claim 1, wherein each of said first, second, and inspection product carriers are configured to carry and transport a respective one of the products.
Claim 1: “wherein each of said first, second, and inspection product carriers are configured to carry and transport a respective one of the products”
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the supply transport line is an overhead conveyor to which the first product carriers are formed as shackles or suspension hooks, from which the products are suspended.
Claim 1: “wherein the supply transport line is an overhead conveyor to which the first product carriers are formed as shackles or suspension hooks, from which the products are suspended”
6. The system of claim 1, further comprising one discharge transport line, wherein the second product transfer system is arranged for successively transferring the products from the inspection product carriers to the second product carriers of the discharge transport line, wherein the products are merged from the at least two inspection lines to the discharge transport line.
Claim 2: “The system according to claim 1, comprising a single discharge transport line, wherein the second product transfer system is arranged for successively transferring the products from the inspection product carriers to the second product carriers of the discharge transport line, wherein the products are merged from the at least two inspection lines to the single discharge transport line.”
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the first product transfer system has at least two first product transfer devices, each arranged for transferring the products from first product carriers of the supply transport line to the inspection product carriers of one of the at least two inspection lines, respectively.
Claim 5: “The system according to claim 1, wherein the first product transfer system has at least two first product transfer devices, each arranged for transferring the products from first product carriers of the supply transport line to the inspection product carriers of one of the at least two inspection lines, respectively.”
8. The system of claim 1, further comprising a control system having a processor and a memory element for storing thereon data relating to an individual product carried by a specific first product carrier of the supply transport line, the control system being operatively connected to the first product transfer system and the second product transfer system, and arranged for associating said data to a specific inspection product carrier of the inspection line to which said product is transferred by the first product transfer system, and for associating said data to a specific second product carrier of the at least one discharge transport line to which said product is transferred from said inspection product carrier by the second product transfer system.
Claim 6: “The system according to claim 1, further comprising a control system having a processor and a memory element for storing thereon data relating to an individual product carried by a specific first product carrier of the supply transport line, the control system being operatively connected to the first product transfer system and the second product transfer system, and arranged for associating said data to a specific inspection product carrier of the inspection line to which said product is transferred by the first product transfer system, and for associating said data to a specific second product carrier of the at least one discharge transport line to which said product is transferred from said inspection product carrier by the second product transfer system.”
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the second product transfer system has first and second product transfer devices, each arranged for transferring the products from the inspection product carriers of one of the at least two inspection lines to the second product carriers of the at least one discharge transport line.
Claim 7: “The system according to claim 1, wherein the second product transfer system has first and second product transfer devices, each arranged for transferring the products from the inspection product carriers of one of the at least two inspection lines to the second product carriers of the at least one discharge transport line.”
10. The system of claim 9, wherein each of the first product transfer devices comprises a first buffer track having first buffer product carriers is arranged for transferring the products from the first product carriers of the supply transport line to the first buffer product carriers and from the first buffer product carriers to the inspection product carriers of a respective one of the at least two inspection lines.
Claim 8: “The system according to claim 7, wherein each of the first product transfer devices comprises a first buffer track having first buffer product carriers is arranged for transferring the products from the first product carriers of the supply transport line to the first buffer product carriers and from the first buffer product carriers to the inspection product carriers of a respective one of the at least two inspection lines.”
11. The system of claim 9, wherein each of the second product transfer devices comprises a second buffer track having second buffer product carriers, and is arranged for transferring the products from the inspection product carriers of a respective one of the at least two inspection lines to the second buffer product carriers, and from the second buffer product carriers to the second product carriers of the at least one discharge transport line.
Claim 9: “The system according to claim 8, wherein each of the second product transfer devices comprises a second buffer track having second buffer product carriers, and is arranged for transferring the products from the inspection product carriers of a respective one of the at least two inspection lines to the second buffer product carriers, and from the second buffer product carriers to the second product carriers of the at least one discharge transport line.”
12. A method of inspecting food products using a system according to claim 1, the method comprising the steps of: supplying, using the supply transport line, the products to be inspected; successively transferring, using the first product transfer system, the products from first product carriers of the supply transport line to respective inspection product carriers while distributing the products over at least two inspection lines; inspecting the products while being transported by a respective one of the at least two inspection lines; successively transferring the products, which have been inspected, from the inspection product carriers to respective second product carriers of the at least one discharge transport Line.
Claim 14: “A method of inspecting poultry slaughter products using a system according to claim 1, the method comprising the steps of: supplying, using the supply transport line, the products to be inspected; successively transferring, using the first product transfer system, the products from first product carriers of the supply transport line to respective inspection product carriers while distributing the products over the at least two inspection lines; inspecting, at the inspection stations along each of the at least two inspection lines, the products passing a respective one of the at least two inspection stations while being transported by a respective one of the at least two inspection lines; successively transferring, using the second product transfer system, the products, which have been inspected, from the inspection product carriers to respective second product carriers of the at least one discharge transport line; and discharging, using the at least one discharge transport line, the products.”
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the step of successively transferring the products which have been inspected comprises: successively transferring, using the second product transfer system, the products, which have been inspected, from the inspection product carriers to the second product carriers of the one discharge transport line, wherein the products are merged from the at least two inspection lines to the discharge transport line.
Claim 15: “The method according to claim 14, wherein the step of successively transferring the products which have been inspected comprises: successively transferring, using the second product transfer system, the products, which have been inspected, from the inspection product carriers to the second product carriers of the one discharge transport line, wherein the products are merged from the at least two inspection lines to the discharge transport line.”
14. The method of claim 13, wherein an inspection line speed of each of the two inspection lines is at least equal to half of the supply transport line speed of the supply transport line and of the discharge transport line.
Claim 16: “The method according to claim 15, wherein the inspection line speed of each of the two inspection lines is at least approximately equal to half of the supply transport line speed of the supply transport line and of the discharge transport line.”
15. The method according to claim 14, wherein a line speed of each of the two inspection lines is over 6,000 of the products per hour.
Claim 17: “The method according to claim 15, wherein a line speed of each of the two inspection lines is about 6,000 of the products per hour.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 7th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Brook does not disclose an inspection station located along an inspection line nor quality inspection performed while products are transported by that inspection line, the Examiner would like to clarify that the wheel #28 as taught by Brook is cited as the inspection line, and the inspection station is explained as a weighing unit within the wheel #28 (see Col. 5 lines 15-22), therefore Brook teaches the claimed inspection station located along an inspection line. Brook states that during rotation of a transfer wheel, a tiltable spoon engages a common weighing rail unit (Col. 5 lines 15-22), therefore teaching that the quality inspection is performed while the products are transported by the inspection line.
Additionally, the Examiner would like to clarify that the instant application has not defined ‘quality’ inspection, and the weight of the products is a common metric used to determine the quality of products.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Persoon et al. (US 5326311).
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Steffler et al. (US 6905404).
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 Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights