DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/5/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The video hyperlink submitted as Non-Patent Literature Document 1 is not proper. Published information, such as the visual output of a software program or a video, may be submitted only if reduced to writing, such as in the form of screen shots and/or a transcript. See MPEP 609.04.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The citation to an embedded hyperlink in paragraph 4 should be removed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
an image acquiring unit,
a boundary identifying unit,
a trajectory determining unit of claim 1, and
a position identifying unit of claim 2.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, 6. and equivalents thereof of the claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, are a central processing unit controlling the operations of the image acquiring unit, the boundary identifying unit, the trajectory determining unit, and the position identifying unit (See Applicant's Specification at paragraph 26).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the elements" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foreman et al. US Patent 11,992,931 (hereafter “Foreman”).
Referring to claims 1, 5 and 6, Foreman discloses an image processing device comprising:
an image acquiring unit configured to acquire an image in which a subject including an element to be cut off is pictured (col. 10, lines 13-21, The vision system 102 includes one or more digital cameras or three dimensional sensors or three dimensional scanners 108, such as a laser scanner, that is operable to capture a three dimensional digital image of a poultry item 104 (or other meat item) positioned on a mounting stand 103 that is placed within the field of view of the vision system 108 or other meat item and the vision system transmits the digital image to the computer system for further processing of the data);
a boundary identifying unit configured to identify a boundary between the element and a part other than the element on the image by performing image processing on the image (col. 10, lines 43-53, One implementation of the technology also includes comparing 114 the point cloud computer generated data 110 with one or more point cloud template data sets 112 and selecting 118 the point cloud template data set that most closely matches the generated point cloud data. The point cloud template data sets 112 are various data sets that are statistically representative of the size and shapes of a typical bird being process. These templates are associated with typical skeletal bone and tendon positions that are typical for a poultry having a particular shape and/or size); and
a trajectory determining unit configured to determine a trajectory of a cutting edge when the element is cut off from the subject on the basis of the boundary (col. 10-11, lines 67-68, 1-6, the method includes aligning 120 with the computer the selected point cloud template data set 118 with a cropped version 116 of the generated point cloud data and calculating a three dimensional cut path 122 based on the alignment 120 and said cut path 122 is calculated to have a minimal cutting depth while having a sufficient cutting depth to sever the tendons around the shoulder joint).
Referring to claim 2, Foreman discloses a position identifying unit configured to superimpose a predetermined figure on the image and to identify a position of the element in the subject using the predetermined figure (col. 10, lines 43-53, One implementation of the technology also includes comparing 114 the point cloud computer generated data 110 with one or more point cloud template data sets 112 and selecting 118 the point cloud template data set that most closely matches the generated point cloud data).
Referring to claim 3, Foreman discloses wherein the image acquiring unit acquires the image in which the subject including at least two of the elements are pictured (col. 11, lines 53-58, The ultrasonic knife is positioned at a series of positions along the cut path to perform the cut as controlled by the computing system. Once the cut is performed, a grasping implement grasps and pulls the wing of the poultry item and pulls the breast meat off a frame of the poultry item), and
the position identifying unit identifies positions of the elements in the subject using a relative positional relationship between the at least two elements (col. 10, lines 43-65, One implementation of the technology also includes comparing 114 the point cloud computer generated data 110 with one or more point cloud template data sets 112 and selecting 118 the point cloud template data set that most closely matches the generated point cloud data. For one implementation of the technology, an iterative closest point methodology can then be utilized).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreman et al. US Patent 11,992,931 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arnason US Publication 2007/0293132 (hereafter “Arnason”).
Referring to claim 4, Foreman discloses wherein the trajectory determining unit sets the trajectory, but does not disclose expressly setting the trajectory to be separated by a predetermined distance from the boundary.
Arnason discloses wherein the trajectory determining unit sets the trajectory to be separated by a predetermined distance from the boundary (paragraph 102, Fillet 54 is a fillet before cutting, wherein the cutting starts in point 55 and extends beyond the fillet to point 56).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to set the trajectory to be separated by a predetermined distance from the boundary. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the cutting path to extend beyond the cutting object to ensure a clean cut. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Arnason with Foreman to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER K HUNTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Benny Q Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/PETER K HUNTSINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682