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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application with claims 1, 16, and 18 being independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 7-11, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 7, 9, 11, and 13, the phrase "may" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will assume “may” connotes --must--.
Regarding claim 3, “a weighted value of a finished workpiece weight” appears nonsensical and it is recommended that Applicant changes this language to --a value of a finished workpiece weight-- or --a weighted value of a finished workpiece-- or something similar.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear if “a treatment solution” is referring to “a treatment solution” in claim 4. The Examiner will assume they are the same for purposes of examination.
Claims 10, 14, and 15 are rejected for depending from one of the above rejected claims.
Regarding claim 20, it is not understood what is meant by a “clean break production run” because a “clean break” and a “production run” would appear to have opposite connotations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0077670 to Hjálmarsson et al. (“Hjálmarsson”):
Regarding claim 1, Hjálmarsson discloses a workpiece processing optimization system (Figure 2 and [0056]-[0058] illustrates/discloses a food (workpiece) processing apparatus and [0084] discusses providing feedback to a computer controlling a cutting robot so that the computer can adjust operation of the cutting robot to optimize yield; also see automated food processing system in [0014]), comprising:
a first cutting assembly configured to generate workpiece trim and trimmed workpieces (cutting conveyor 214 and cutting machine 216 including cutting robot 400 (first cutting assembly) in Figure 2 which generates parts of a fish fillets/workpieces having bones (trim) and parts not having bones (trimmed workpieces) per [0068]);
a sensor assembly configured to generate at least one of trimmed workpiece sensor data and trim sensor data ([0082] discusses how second x-ray machine 217 (sensor assembly) of Figure 2 captures images of the fillet portions 217 after passing through the cutting machine 216 to determine whether any still have bones; thus, the images include images of fillet portions with bones (trim sensor data) and images of fillet portions without bones (trimmed workpiece sensor data); additionally or alternatively, second imaging system 235 of Figure 2 and [0087] obtains images/sensor data of the fillet portions);
a sorting assembly configured to divert trim from the first cutting assembly to a trim use assembly (removal section 244 includes robotic arm 500 (sorting assembly) that grabs fillet portions with bones (trim) and puts (diverts) onto conveyor/tray 252 (part of a trim use assembly) per [0081]; additionally or alternatively, [0087], [0089], [0105], [0117], [0128] discuss how a grading robot 224 (sorting assembly) can, based on the second x-ray images (the trim and trimmed piece sensor data) move/divert fillet portions 117 in various manners such as onto other conveyors or removing portions with bones (trim) into a tub 258 or onto another conveyor (trim use assembly)), the trim use assembly configured to perform at least one of receiving trim and processing trim (the end of [0081] discloses how the fillet portions placed on the conveyor/tray 252 are used in other products/applications (receiving/processing trim));
a processor (the computer at the end of [0058] necessarily includes a processor; also see [0140]); and
a memory (the computer at the end of [0058] necessarily includes a memory; also see [0140]) storing instructions (computer programming in [0014], [0015], [0018], [0140]) that, when executed by the processor, cause a computing device (the computer at the end of [0058]) of the workpiece processing optimization system to:
process input data including at least one of trimmed workpiece sensor data, trim sensor data, trim demand for the trim use assembly, workpiece supply data, and workpiece processing requirements ([0014], [0083]-[0084] discuss how the computer programming can use the images from the second x-ray machine 217 (i.e., the trimmed workpiece sensor data and trim sensor data) as feedback to adjust the operation of the cutting robot 400 to approach an optimal error rate and optimize yield; therefore, the computer programming would process the images/input data to determine how to adjust the cutting robot 400); and
output a trim optimization plan including at least one of:
a trim designation location in the trim use assembly for an amount of trim ([0105], [0128] note how the grading robot 224 can move fillet portions 117 with bones (an amount of trim) to a tub 258 or other conveyor (trim designation location in the trim use assembly) while [0117] discloses how the grading robot 224 is controlled by the computer based on the second x-ray images (trim and trimmed workpieces sensor data));
instructions for adjusting settings of the first cutting assembly to change an amount of workpiece trim generated by the first cutting assembly ([0014], [0083]-[0084] discuss how the computer programming can use the images from the second x-ray machine 217 (i.e., the trimmed workpiece sensor data and trim sensor data) as feedback to adjust the operation of the cutting robot 400 to approach an optimal error rate and optimize yield which would necessarily change an amount of workpiece trim generated by the “first cutting assembly”).
Regarding claim 2, Hjálmarsson discloses the workpiece processing optimization system of Claim 1, further including wherein the trim optimization plan may include instructions for adjusting settings of the first cutting assembly to change a fat content level in workpiece trim generated by the first cutting assembly ([0014], [0083]-[0084] discuss how the computer programming can use the images from the second x-ray machine 217 (i.e., the trimmed workpiece sensor data and trim sensor data) as feedback to adjust the operation of the cutting robot 400 to remove more of the bones from flesh portions that are supposed to be bone-free thereby optimizing yield; furthermore, [0048] discloses how in addition to bones, other unwanted components can include fat; therefore, the “trim optimization plan” can also include adjusting the settings of the cutting robot 400 so as to remove more of the fat in the trim (change fat content level in workpiece trim generated by first cutting assembly)).
Regarding claim 12, Hjálmarsson discloses the workpiece processing optimization system of Claim 1, further including wherein the first cutting assembly includes at least one of a slicer and a portioner configured to perform at least one of slicing and portioning a workpiece, respectively, to generate an amount of workpiece trim and trimmed workpieces ([0044], [0056] disclose how the cutting machine cuts/slices/portions the fillets into portions and cutting conveyor 214 and cutting machine 216 including cutting robot 400 (first cutting assembly) in Figure 2 generate parts of a fish fillets/workpieces having bones (workpiece trim) and parts not having bones (trimmed workpieces) per [0068]).
Regarding claim 18, Hjálmarsson discloses a method of optimizing trim for a workpiece processing system (Figure 2 and [0056]-[0058] illustrates/discloses a food (workpiece) processing apparatus and [0084] discusses providing feedback to a computer controlling a cutting robot so that the computer can adjust operation of the cutting robot to optimize yield; also see automated food processing system in [0014]), comprising:
cutting, with a first cutting assembly, incoming workpieces to generate an amount of workpiece trim and trimmed workpieces ([0068] and Figure 2 discusses/illustrates how cutting conveyor 214 and cutting machine 216 including cutting robot 400 (first cutting assembly) generates parts of a fish fillets/workpieces having bones (trim) and parts not having bones (trimmed workpieces));
capturing, with a sensor assembly, sensor data of at least one of incoming workpieces, trimmed workpieces, and trim ([0063]-[0064] and Figure 2 discuss/illustrate how first x-ray machine 212 and imaging system 234 (sensor assembly) obtain images of fillets 101 before being cut (sensor data of incoming workpieces) while [0082] discusses how second x-ray machine 217 (sensor assembly) of Figure 2 captures images of the fillet portions 217 after passing through the cutting machine 216 to determine whether any still have bones; thus, the images include images of fillet portions with bones (trim sensor data) and images of fillet portions without bones (trimmed workpiece sensor data); additionally or alternatively, second imaging system 235 of Figure 2 and [0087] obtains images/sensor data of the fillet portions);
diverting, with a sorting assembly, trim from the first cutting assembly to a trim use assembly (removal section 244 includes robotic arm 500 (sorting assembly) that grabs fillet portions with bones (trim) and puts (diverts) onto conveyor/tray 252 (part of a trim use assembly) per [0081]; additionally or alternatively, [0087], [0089], [0105], [0117], [0128] discuss how a grading robot 224 (sorting assembly) can, based on the second x-ray images (the trim and trimmed piece sensor data) move/divert fillet portions 117 in various manners such as onto other conveyors or removing portions with bones (trim) into a tub 258 or onto another conveyor (trim use assembly));
at least one of receiving trim and processing trim at the trim use assembly (the end of [0081] discloses how the fillet portions placed on the conveyor/tray 252 are used in other products/applications (receiving/processing trim));
processing, with a computing device, input data including at least one of incoming workpieces, trimmed workpiece sensor data, trim sensor data, trim demand for the trim use assembly, and workpiece processing requirements ([0014], [0083]-[0084] discuss how the computer programming can use the images from the second x-ray machine 217 (i.e., the trimmed workpiece sensor data and trim sensor data) as feedback to adjust the operation of the cutting robot 400 to approach an optimal error rate and optimize yield; therefore, the computer programming would process the images/input data to determine how to adjust the cutting robot 400); and
outputting, with a computing device, a trim optimization plan including at least one of:
a trim designation location in the trim use assembly for an amount of trim ([0105], [0128] note how the grading robot 224 can move fillet portions 117 with bones (an amount of trim) to a tub 258 or other conveyor (trim designation location in the trim use assembly) while [0117] discloses how the grading robot 224 is controlled by the computer based on the second x-ray images (trim and trimmed workpieces sensor data));
instructions for adjusting settings of the first cutting assembly to change an amount of workpiece trim generated by the first cutting assembly ([0014], [0083]-[0084] discuss how the computer programming can use the images from the second x-ray machine 217 (i.e., the trimmed workpiece sensor data and trim sensor data) as feedback to adjust the operation of the cutting robot 400 to approach an optimal error rate and optimize yield which would necessarily change an amount of workpiece trim generated by the “first cutting assembly”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0077670 to Hjálmarsson et al. (“Hjálmarsson”):
Regarding claim 3, Hjálmarsson discloses the workpiece processing optimization system of Claim 1, but appears to be silent regarding wherein the instructions for adjusting settings of the first cutting assembly are based on at least one of a weighted value of finished workpiece thickness, a weighted value of finished workpiece weight, and a weighted value of excess trim.
However, [0083] of Hjálmarsson discusses how the feedback from the second x-ray machine can be used to adjust settings of the cutting robot 400 (first cutting machine) to optimize yield. Furthermore, [0056] discloses how the food processing apparatus 200 can grade the fillet portions 117 based on weight and [0068] discloses how cutting pattern can be determined to cut the fillets 101 into portions 117 of fixed weight to optimize yield.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the instructions for adjusting the settings of the first cutting assembly of Hjálmarsson to correspond to a particular cutting pattern based on a weighted value of a finished workpiece weight similar to as taught by Hjálmarsson to advantageously to cut the fillets into portions of fixed weight to optimize yield. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 13, Hjálmarsson discloses the workpiece processing optimization system of Claim 12, but appears to be silent regarding wherein at least one of the slicer and the portioner may be configured to slice and portion workpieces, respectively, in first and second lanes according to first and second finished workpiece specifications.
However, Hjálmarsson already discloses ([0108]) that the grading robot 224 can move/position/portion different portions 117 of a fillet to different positions/lanes of grading conveyor 218 according to one or more of weight, size, type, etc. (finished workpiece specifications) which advantageously facilitates downstream processing of the fillet portions/workpieces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for at least one of the slicer and the portioner of Hjálmarsson to be configured to slice and portion workpieces, respectively, in first and second lanes according to first and second finished workpiece specifications similar to as already taught by Hjálmarsson to advantageously facilitate downstream processing of the fillet portions/workpieces. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0077670 to Hjálmarsson et al. (“Hjálmarsson”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0110348 to Hunt (“Hunt”):
Regarding claim 4, Hjálmarsson discloses the workpiece processing optimization system of Claim 1, but appears to be silent regarding wherein the trim use assembly includes a treatment solution assembly configured to produce a treatment solution using the workpiece trim and apply the treatment solution to trimmed workpieces.
Nevertheless, Hunt teaches (Figures 1-2B and [0043]-[0053]) that it was known in the food processing art to produce a composition of pork belly trimmings and brine (treatment solution) using mixing tanks 26, emulsifier 31, and storage tanks 35 (a “treatment solution assembly”) and inject the composition/solution into pork bellies (apply the treatment solution to trimmed workpieces) to advantageously cure and/or flavor the resulting trimmed workpieces leading to improved taste and the like.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the trim use assembly of Hjálmarsson to include a treatment solution assembly configured to produce a treatment solution using the workpiece trim and apply the treatment solution to trimmed workpieces as taught by Hunt to advantageously cure and/or flavor the resulting trimmed workpieces leading to improved taste and the like. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 14 is rejected in view Hjálmarsson/Hunt combination as discussed above in relation to claim 4.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0077670 to Hjálmarsson et al. (“Hjálmarsson”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0110348 to Hunt (“Hunt”), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0215551 to Garwood (“Gardwood”):
Regarding claim 6, the Hjálmarsson/Hunt combination discloses the workpiece processing optimization system of Claim 4, but appears to be silent regarding wherein the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause a computing device of the workpiece processing optimization system to:
determine a fat content level of at least one of incoming workpieces and trim; and
output instructions for adjusting the fat content level of trim generated by the first cutting assembly.
Nevertheless, Garwood teaches (middle of [1082]) that it was known in the food processing art for a computer to adjust a content of fat in proportion to lean tissue by directing a slicing/cutting machine to cut a predetermined amount of product in differing sizes/shapes. In order to adjust a content of fat in proportion to lean tissue by directing a slicing/cutting machine to cut a predetermined amount of product in differing sizes/shapes, there would necessarily be a determination of the fat content level/amount in the incoming food product so that the computer can determine how to adjust the slicing/cutting machine to cut the predetermined amount of product in differing sizes/shapes. This arrangement advantageously achieves a desired amount of fat in a food product thereby meeting customer expectations and increasing yield.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the memory of the Hjálmarsson/Hunt combination to store instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause a computing device of the workpiece processing optimization system to: determine a fat content level of at least one of incoming workpieces and trim; and output instructions for adjusting the fat content level of trim generated by the first cutting assembly as taught by Garwood to advantageously achieve a desired amount of fat in a food product thereby meeting customer expectations and increasing yield. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claims 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0077670 to Hjálmarsson et al. (“Hjálmarsson”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2024/0008500 to Feddema et al. (“Feddema”):
Regarding claim 16, Hjálmarsson discloses a workpiece processing system (Figure 2 and [0056]-[0058] illustrates/discloses a food (workpiece) processing apparatus), comprising:
a portion of a sensor assembly configured to generate incoming workpiece sensor data (x-ray machine 212 and/or imaging system 234 in Figure 2 (portion of sensor assembly) generate images (sensor data) of incoming fillets/workpieces per [0063]-[0068]);
a first cutting assembly configured to generate an amount of workpiece trim and trimmed workpieces (cutting conveyor 214 and cutting machine 216 including cutting robot 400 (first cutting assembly) in Figure 2 which generates parts of a fish fillets/workpieces having bones (trim) and parts not having bones (trimmed workpieces) per [0068]);
…;
a portion of the sensor assembly configured to generate at least one of trimmed workpiece sensor data and trim sensor data (second x-ray machine 217 and second imaging system 235 in Figure 2 (portion of the sensor assembly) capture images of the fillet portions 217 after passing through the cutting machine 216 to determine whether any still have bones; thus, the images include images of fillet portions with bones (trim sensor data) and images of fillet portions without bones (trimmed workpiece sensor data));
a portion of the sorting assembly configured to divert trim from the first cutting assembly to a trim use assembly (removal section 244 includes robotic arm 500 (sorting assembly) that grabs fillet portions with bones (trim) and puts (diverts) onto conveyor/tray 252 (part of a trim use assembly) per [0081]; additionally or alternatively, [0087], [0089], [0105], [0117], [0128] discuss how a grading robot 224 (sorting assembly) can, based on the second x-ray images (the trim and trimmed piece sensor data) move fillet portions 117 in various manners such as onto other conveyors or removing portions with bones (trim) into a tub 258 or onto another conveyor (trim use assembly)), the trim use assembly configured to perform at least one of receiving trim and processing trim (the end of [0081] discloses how the fillet portions placed on the conveyor/tray 252 are used in other products/applications (receiving/processing trim)); and
a first portion of a secondary processing assembly configured to perform at least one secondary processing step on the trimmed workpieces, including at least one of portioning the trimmed workpieces, sorting the trimmed workpieces, packaging the trimmed workpieces, slicing the trimmed workpieces, breading the trimmed workpieces, and thermally processing the trimmed workpieces (the end of [0108] discloses how the trimmed workpieces can be placed onto various different processing conveyors leading to different processes such as packaging, cutting, breading, freezing, etc.); and
a movement assembly configured to move workpieces (conveyors 214, 218, etc.).
However, Hjálmarsson appears to be silent regarding a portion of a sorting assembly configured to divert incoming workpieces having a first physical characteristic to a first portion of the first cutting assembly and workpieces having a second physical characteristic to a second portion of the first cutting assembly to generate at least one of a target amount of trim and a target size of trimmed workpieces from each of the first and second portions of the first cutting assembly.
Nevertheless, Feddema teaches (Figure 2 and [0063]-[0068]) that it was known in the food processing art for a sweep assembly 211 (portion of a sorting assembly) to divert incoming food objects 201 (workpieces) having different physical characteristics (e.g., weight, size, shape, color) to different cutting devices 202 (different portions of a “first cutting assembly”) to generate resulting food pieces having different weights/sizes that might be better suited for particular customers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a portion of a sorting assembly to be configured to divert incoming workpieces having a first physical characteristic to a first portion of the first cutting assembly and workpieces having a second physical characteristic to a second portion of the first cutting assembly to generate at least one of a target amount of trim and a target size of trimmed workpieces from each of the first and second portions of the first cutting assembly in the system of Hjálmarsson as taught by Feddema to advantageously generate workpieces that are better suited for particular customers thereby increasing yield. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 17, the Hjálmarsson/Feddema combination discloses the workpiece processing optimization system of Claim 16, further including:
a processor (the computer at the end of [0058] necessarily includes a processor; also see [0140]); and
a memory (the computer at the end of [0058] necessarily includes a memory; also see [0140]) storing instructions (computer programming in [0014], [0015], [0018], [0140]) that, when executed by the processor, cause a computing device (the computer at the end of [0058]) of the workpiece processing optimization system to:
process input data including at least one of trimmed workpiece sensor data, trim sensor data, trim demand for the trim use assembly, workpiece supply data, and workpiece processing requirements ([0014], [0083]-[0084] discuss how the computer programming can use the images from the second x-ray machine 217 (i.e., the trimmed workpiece sensor data and trim sensor data) as feedback to adjust the operation of the cutting robot 400 to approach an optimal error rate and optimize yield; therefore, the computer programming would process the images/input data to determine how to adjust the cutting robot 400); and
output a trim optimization plan including at least one of:
a trim designation location in the trim use assembly for an amount of trim ([0105], [0128] note how the grading robot 224 can move fillet portions 117 with bones (an amount of trim) to a tub 258 or other conveyor (trim designation location in the trim use assembly) while [0117] discloses how the grading robot 224 is controlled by the computer based on the second x-ray images (trim and trimmed workpieces sensor data));
instructions for adjusting settings of the first cutting assembly to change an amount of workpiece trim generated by the first cutting assembly ([0014], [0083]-[0084] discuss how the computer programming can use the images from the second x-ray machine 217 (i.e., the trimmed workpiece sensor data and trim sensor data) as feedback to adjust the operation of the cutting robot 400 to approach an optimal error rate and optimize yield which would necessarily change an amount of workpiece trim generated by the “first cutting assembly”).
Claim 19 is rejected in view of the Hjálmarsson/Feddema combination as discussed above in relation to claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 5, the Hjálmarsson/Hunt combination does not further specifically disclose or suggest the memory to store instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause a computing device of the workpiece processing optimization system to: analyze at least one of workpiece and trim temperature data to determine whether trim temperature is above or below a target temperature for producing a treatment solution at the treatment solution assembly; and output instructions for adjusting one or more temperature control devices to change the temperature of the trim.
Claims 7-11, 15, and 20 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.
Regarding claim 7, the Hjálmarsson/Hunt/Garwood combination does not further specifically disclose or suggest the instructions to include at least one of: adjusting a vertical cut path of at least some of the workpieces at the first cutting assembly; and designating a workpiece having a first fat content level for horizontal slicing at a first slicing height and designating a workpiece having a second fat content level for horizontal slicing at a second slicing height.
Regarding claims 8-11, the Hjálmarsson/Hunt combination does not further specifically disclose or suggest the memory to store instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause a computing device of the workpiece processing optimization system to: determine if the amount of workpiece trim generated by the first cutting assembly is sufficient to produce a treatment solution at the treatment solution assembly; and at least one of: provide instructions for generating more trim at the first cutting assembly if the amount of workpiece trim generated by the first cutting assembly is insufficient to produce a treatment solution at the treatment solution assembly; and provide instructions to the sorting assembly to divert a portion of an untrimmed incoming supply of workpieces to the treatment solution assembly for use in producing a treatment solution.
Regarding claim 15, the Hjálmarsson/Hunt combination does not further specifically disclose or suggest a second cutting assembly configured to portion workpieces that are trimmed by the first cutting assembly and treated by the treatment solution assembly; and a secondary processing assembly configured to perform at least one secondary processing step on trimmed, treated, portioned workpieces, including at least one of sorting, slicing, packaging, breading, and thermal processing the trimmed, treated, portioned workpieces.
Regarding claim 20, Hjálmarsson does not further specifically disclose or suggest producing a treatment solution using the workpiece trim; and applying the treatment solution to trimmed workpieces of a same clean break production run as the workpieces used to generate the workpiece trim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
US 20260240177 A1 discloses an apparatus for portion cutting of meat items that includes: a first shape sensor for measuring a shape of a meat item to be cut into portions, the shape defining a reference direction, a cutter for cutting the meat item into portions, a cutter feed conveyor for conveying the meat item to the cutter, the cutter feed conveyor defining a feed direction, a control module configured to compute, based on the measured shape and based on one or more predetermined cut criteria, a target orientation associated with the meat item, the target orientation being indicative of a target angle between the reference direction and the feed direction, and an item positioner configured to position the meat item on the cutter feed conveyor at the computed target orientation.
US 20200288729 A1 discloses an animal ribcage primal cut having a bone array located therein that is portioned into one or more sub primal cuts, each having at least one bone located therein. The primal cut is scanned at scanning station 14 while being conveyed on a conveyor 12 to determine the physical characteristics of the primal cut. A processor 18 determines how to portion the primal cut into desired sub primal cuts in accordance with desired physical characteristics of the sub primal cut and production requirements for the sub primal cuts. A controller controls a cutter to divide the primal cut into one or more sub primal cuts according to the determination previously made on how to portion the primal cut into desired sub primal cuts.
WO 2024067933 A1 discloses The invention relates to a method of tracking a part of a meat cut between a first position of a slaughterhouse process line and a second position. The method includes: associating meat cut data with said meat cut, establishing a first image of said meat cut at a first image generating station and associating said first image with meat cut data, transporting said meat cut from said first image generating station to a meat cut generating station where said meat cut is cut in at least two meat cut parts, establishing a second image, at a second image generating station, of at least one of said at least two meat cut parts and when said second image is generated associating said meat cut parts with said meat cut data based on information derived from said first and said second images.
NPL “Automated Chicken Processing” discloses a food portioning system that uses high-speed image processing and automated water jets to cut chicken fillets into portions, nuggets, and strips of specified sizes and shapes. The system takes images of fillets moving on a conveyor belt and, for each fillet, determines an optimal pattern for the cuts. The cuts are made by focused water jets. The first widely used portioning system was produced in 1991. The most recent model contains several cameras and four cutters (see Figure 1). These machines have four basic algorithmic tasks: imaging, portioning, path planning for the cutters, and control loops.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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, Jason Dunham, can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights