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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on01/09/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first sensor device and or one or more sensors in claims 15, 27 (it appears to claim a plurality of sensors, but Figure 1 shows only one sensor 110) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 15-28 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.
Claim 15, line 1 “the processing…” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear which processing refers to. claim 22 has the same issue.
The preamble of Claim 15 is directly to “an apparatus for sorting and orienting the food items prior…a food item processing device, and line 2 states “the apparatus comprising:...” which is unclear whether the food item processing device is positively claimed or not and it belongs to the apparatus or not.
Claim 15, line 8 the phrase “an opening formed at the second end of the first conveyor” is unclear and vague since it is already an end. Moreover, looking at Applicant’s Figure 1, the opening 400 (a space) is formed by or between the 2nd end of the 1st conveyor and the 1st end of the 2nd conveyor. Therefore, the phrase is unclear and vague.
Claim 15, lines 5-6 “…for transporting in a second feed direction…” is unclear what the second conveyor transports in the second feed direction.
The last paragraph of claim 15 “controlling said pick-and – place robot, to pick categorized food items…” that is unclear whether the robot picks food items from the first and second categories or food items from one of the 1st and 2nd categories or food items from the 1st category only.
Claim 18 “the food item processing device …a knife” is unclear whether the food item processing device (knife) belongs to the apparatus or not. See the issue in claim 15 above.
A preamble of Claim 22 recites “a method…the method comprises…”, however, the structures of the apparatus (lines 2-14) are unclear whether these structures are positively claimed or not since it is a method claim.
If the structures are positively claimed, it should be written:
--A method for sorting and orienting items prior to a processing of the food items in a food item processing device of an apparatus, wherein the method comprises:
providing the apparatus comprising:
a first conveyor…
a second conveyor…
…
determining…
categorizing…
controlling…
--
Claim 22, steps of “determining …categorizing ..controlling” are unclear whether these steps are performed by human (possible abstract idea) or a controller (haven’t claimed or linked to the steps). Verification is required.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claims 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 does not refer back to and further limit the claim from which it depends (see the last 3 paragraph of claim 15). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 15-17, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chew (WO 2013105899, Art of Record).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Chew shows an apparatus (Figures 7-8) “for sorting and orienting food items prior to the processing of the food items in a food item processing device” (this is an intended use; since the system can be used to sort and orient cutleries, it is able to perform food items if the food items have the similar shapes of the cutleries), the apparatus comprising:
a first conveyor (70a) having a first end and a second end, and for transporting food items in a first feed direction (see items 31) ;
a second conveyor (70b) extending from the second end of the first conveyor, and for transporting items (31b) in a second feed direction (it is same direction of the first feed direction since the claim is not defined they are different), food items received from the first conveyor to the food item processing device;
an opening (between the 1st and 2nd conveyors for a bin 248) formed at the second end of the first conveyor;
at least a first sensor device (a camera 244) for obtaining information on the food items on said first conveyor;
a pick-and-place robot (242, Figures 7-8 and Para. 95) arranged to pick individual food items from the first conveyor and place them on the second conveyor; and
a control module (Paras. 89-95, there is an inherent controller for performing and controlling the robot arm, conveyors, and camera) configured for determining at least a shape of each food item based on the information from said first sensor device (see Para. 94 “captured images with preloaded templates of quality-compliant cutlery items. Criteria of the quality- compliant cutlery items include surface cleanness (e.g. free from water stain), profile integrity (no broken corner and bending) and free from discoloring”),
categorizing said food items in at least a first category (“criteria of the quality- compliant cutlery items”) and a second category (“profile integrity (no broken corner and bending) and free from discoloring”) based on the information from said first sensor device arranged upstream of the first sensor device; and
controlling said pick-and-place robot, to pick items of the first category from the first conveyor and to place and selectively orient, based on said shape determination, on the second conveyor in the second feed direction, if the food item belongs to the first category only, and
if food items belonging to the second category, they will pass into the opening (see Figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 16, Chew shows that said opening is a gap between the first conveyor and the second conveyor, the second conveyor being arranged in line with and downstream of the first conveyor (see Figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 17, Chew shows that the second conveyor forms part of the food item processing device (as it is written, it is unclear what structures of the “food item” processing device be, therefore, the serviettes 37 for wrapping by the cutlery packaging machine 42 meets this limitation).
Regarding claim 19, Chew shows that said categorizing of said food items is based on at least said shape determination (see claim 15 above).
Regarding claim 20, Chew shows that the first sensor device arranged upstream of the first sensor device is configured to detect one or more quality parameters of the food item, and where the categorization is based on said one or more quality parameters (see the discussion in claim 15 above).
Regarding claim 21, Chew shows that the first sensor device comprises a detection system configured to detect undesirable natural parts of the food items and/or foreign objects (see claim 15 above and see “profile integrity (no broken corner and bending) and free from discoloring”).
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.
Claims 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arni (CN 109983337 and Translation) in view of Chew.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Arni shows an apparatus (Figure 1) “for sorting and orienting food items (“meat… bone or bone fragments, cartilage blocks or other objects, such as metal piece, glass piece, plastic piece, blood, abscess or infection, and the like” as discussed in Figure 1) prior to the processing of the food items in a food item processing device (rotary cutter 131), the apparatus comprising:
a first conveyor (102) having a first end and a second end, and for transporting food items in a first feed direction (see the arrow 154 of the conveyor 102) ;
a second conveyor (the same conveyor 102) for transporting food items in a second feed direction (it is same direction of the first feed direction since the claim is not defined they are different), food items received from the first conveyor to the food item processing device;
an opening (163, Figures 1-2);
at least a first sensor device (a radiation inspection apparatus 101) for obtaining information on the food items on said first conveyor;
a control module configured for determining at least a shape of each food item based on the information from said first sensor device (see page 7 of translation, the last few paras “…shaped meat layer …, the corresponding working capacity of the radiation detection device”,
categorizing said food items in at least a first category (quality meat “object free”) and a second category (“undesired object”) based on the information from said first sensor device arranged upstream of the first sensor device; and
separating food items of the first category and the second category.
However, Arni fails to discuss two different first and second conveyors, the opening between the 1st and 2nd conveyors, and a pick-and-place robot for picking the food items of the first category place on the second conveyor.
See Chew’s in claim 15 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) above, Chew shows two different first and second conveyors, the opening between the 1st and 2nd conveyors, and the pick-and-place robot for picking the food items of the first category place on the second conveyor based on shapes of the items.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of Arni to have two different first and second conveyors, the opening between the 1st and 2nd conveyors, and the pick-and-place robot for picking the food items of the first category place on the second conveyor based on shapes of the items, as taught by Chew, in order to allow a whole processing line can be automatically operated and in order to allow size and shape of the food items to cut accurately.
This modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirements. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See in re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Regarding claims 16-17 and 19-21, the modified apparatus of Arni shows all of the limitations as stated in the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) above.
Regarding claim 18, the modified apparatus of Arni shows that the food item processing device comprises a knife for portioning food items (see the rotary cutter 131).
Regarding Claim 22, the modified apparatus of Arni teaches a method for sorting and orienting food items prior to a processing of the food items in a food item processing device of an apparatus (see all structures of this apparatus in claims 15-21 above)
“the apparatus comprising:
a first conveyor having a first end and a second end;
a second conveyor extending from the second end of the first conveyor, and for transporting in a second feed direction, food items received from the first conveyor to the food item processing device;
an opening formed at the second end of the first conveyor; at least a first sensor device for obtaining information on the food items on said first conveyor;
a pick-and-place robot arranged to pick individual food items from the first conveyor and place them on the second conveyor; and
a control module configured for receiving information from at least the first sensor device and for controlling said pick-and-place robot”, and
wherein the method comprises:
determining at least a shape of each food item based on the information from said first sensor device, categorizing said food items in at least a first category and a second category based on the information from said first sensor device arranged upstream of the first sensor device (see claim 15 above); and
controlling said pick-and-place robot to pick categorized food items from the first conveyor and to place and selectively orient, based on said shape determination, the food item relative to the second feed direction on the second conveyor, if the food item belongs to the first category only, and such that food items belonging to the second category will pass into the opening (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 23, the modified apparatus of Arni teaches that the second conveyor is arranged in line with and downstream of the first conveyor, and said opening is a gap between the first conveyor and the second conveyor (see Chew’s reference).
Regarding claim 24, the modified apparatus of Arni teaches that said categorizing of said food items is based on said shape determination (see Chew and Arni’s references).
Regarding claim 25, the modified apparatus of Arni teaches that, if the detected shape of a food item deviates from a target shape, the food item is categorized in the second category (see the discussion in claim 15 above).
Regarding claim 26, the modified apparatus of Arni teaches that at least one predetermined dimension of the detected shape is calculated from the shape information, and if the calculated dimension deviates from a set of predetermined threshold values, the food item is categorized in the second category (see claim 15 above with the second category).
Regarding claim 27, the modified apparatus of Arni teaches that the first sensor device arranged upstream of the first sensor device is configured to detect one or more quality parameters of the food item, and where the categorization is based on said one or more quality parameters (see claim 20 above and both references)
Regarding claim 28, the modified apparatus of Arni teaches that the first sensor device comprises a detection system configured to detect undesirable natural parts of the food items and/or foreign objects, and where the categorization comprises categorizing the food items in the second category if undesirable natural parts and/or foreign objects are detected (see the discussion in claim 21 and Arni’s reference for undesired objects).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9095146 B2 shows two different conveyors and an opening therebetween for collecting undesired items
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights