DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
The previous objection to the title of the invention is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Claims 1-4 are no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, due to Applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection to claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 O’Neill US Patent 6,623,348 (hereafter “O’Neill”).
Referring to claims 1, 5 and 6, O’Neill discloses an image processing device comprising a processor that:
acquires an image in which a subject including an element to be cut off is pictured (col. 4, lines 13-17, In an exemplary embodiment, the sensing device 102 may be comprised of one or more cameras each capable of generating an image of the carcass which is transmitted to a controller 104 as a series of electrical impulses),
superimposes a predetermined figure on the image and identifies a position of the element in the subject using the predetermined figure, wherein the predetermined figure has a shape different from a shape of the subject and circumscribes a region picturing a part of the subject other than the element (col. 10, lines 1-5, A grid pattern is overlain onto the carcass 810 of a slaughtered animal so that the size, shape, and orientation of the carcass 810 may be determined and points on the carcass 810 where cutting members 804 should be inserted may be ascertained),
identifies a boundary between the element and the part of the subject on the image by performing image processing on the image (col. 9, lines 42-46, Each cutting member 802 includes a cutting implement 812 suitable for cutting the connecting tissue attaching the hide 806 and muscle 808 while avoiding damage (e.g., cutting, burning, etc.) to the hide 806 and muscle 808); and
determines a trajectory of a cutting edge when the element is cut off from the subject based on the boundary (col. 9, lines 46-51, the cutting member 810 also includes a flexible appendage 814 having one or more articulated segments 816 that may be manipulated so as to determine the path taken by the cutting implement 812 through the connecting tissue layer).
Referring to claim 2, O’Neill discloses the predetermined figure consists of identical figures (col. 10, lines 1-5, A grid pattern is overlain onto the carcass 810 of a slaughtered animal so that the size, shape, and orientation of the carcass 810 may be determined and points on the carcass 810 where cutting members 804 should be inserted may be ascertained).
Referring to claim 3, O’Neill discloses wherein the processor:
acquires the image in which the subject further includes one or more additional elements to be cut off, and
identifies positions of the element and the one or more additional elements in the subject using a relative positional relationship between the element and the one or more additional elements (col. 11, lines 30-31, The controller uses the information to orient each primal cut of meat 1110 for trimming by trimming assembly 1108).
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 O’Neill US Patent 6,623,348 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arnason US Publication 2007/0293132 (hereafter “Arnason”).
Referring to claim 4, O’Neill discloses wherein the processor 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 processor 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 O’Neill to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
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 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
Prosecution Insights