Detailed Action
Preliminary Amendment
1. Entry of applicant’s preliminary amendments dated 1-9-25 and 1-14-25 into the application file is acknowledged.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 44 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no components are claimed that provide for the receiving of shape data, the computing and the outputting the target orientation in claim 44 and there are no components claimed as related to the measuring, computing and advancing steps in claim 45. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the cutter detailed in claims 44 and 45 is a well-known component in the art as seen in the cited prior art and the cutter does not provide any function for the receiving of shape data, the computing and the outputting the target orientation in claim 44 and the measuring, computing and advancing steps in claim 45.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 27-29 and 42-43 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 27 recites the limitation "minimum moment of inertia" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 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. The phrase “in particular” in line 3 makes it unclear to whether other criteria than those claimed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 29 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. It is unclear as to whether the visually identifiable anatomical feature detailed in claim 29 is the same or different than the visually identifiable anatomical feature detailed in parent claim 28.
Claim 42 recites the limitation "the size" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 43 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. The phrase “in particular” in line 4 makes it unclear as to whether other properties than those disclosed are being maximized by the claimed invention. Further, it is unclear to whether the degree of compliance detailed in lines 4-5 of claim 43 is the same or different than the degree of compliance detailed in lines 2-3 of claim 43. Further, the phrase "such as" in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
5. 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 29 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. The claim limitations of claim 29 are all found in parent claim 28 when considering the “and” portion of the “and/or” clause in line 4 of claim 28. 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 § 103
6. 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.
Claim(s) 26-29, 31, 35-39 and 42-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,452,266 to Bottemiller in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,395,500 to Nielsen.
Referring to claims 26, 44 and 45, Bottemiller discloses an apparatus and method for portion cutting of meat items and a computer – at 22, implemented method for portion cutting of meat items, wherein the apparatus comprises, a first shape sensor – at 36,38, for measuring the shape of a meat item – at 14a-14c, to be cut into portions – see figures 1-2 and column 5 line 1 to column 6 line 2 where the shape is determined given the length, width and thickness of the meat item is determined, the shape defining a reference direction – at L1-L3, IL and see figures 1-3, a cutter – at 18,20, for cutting the meat item into portions – see figure 1 and column 3 lines 20-51, a cutter feed conveyor – at 12, for conveying the meat item to the cutter – see figure 1, the cutter feed conveyor – at 12, defining a feed direction – see at CL in figure 1, a control module – at 22,32,34, configured to compute, based on the measured shape – from items 36,38, and based on one or more predetermined cut criteria – see physical characteristics/anatomical features detailed in column 6 lines 20-62, a target orientation associated with the meat item – see angular orientation detailed in figures 1-4 and column 4 lines 6-57 and column 6 lines 20-62, the target orientation being indicative of a target angle between the reference direction – at L1-L3,IL, and the feed direction – at CL – see figures 1-4 and see column 5 lines 6-57 and column 6 lines 20-62. Bottemiller does not disclose an item positioner configured to position the meat item on the cutter feed conveyor at the computed target orientation. Nielsen does disclose an item positioner – at 200, configured to position the meat item – at 10, on the cutter feed conveyor – at 20, at the computed target orientation – see figures 1-4 and column 9 line 59 to column 10 line 50. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bottemiller and add the item positioner of Nielsen, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the meat item is in proper position to facilitate accurate cutting of the meat item based on the desired characteristics of the cut meat item.
Referring to claim 27, Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen further discloses the reference direction is an axis of minimum moment of inertia associated with the measured shape – see at L1-L3 and IL and see figures 3-4 and column 5 line 60 to column 7 line 42 of Bottemiller.
Referring to claims 28 and 29, Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen further discloses the meat item is a chiral item having a handedness – see at 14a-14c in figures 1 and 3-4, wherein the control module – at 22, is configured to identify, in particular based on the measured shape and/or on a visually identifiable anatomical feature of the meat item, the handedness of the meat item and to compute the target orientation further based on the identified handedness – see figures 1-4 and column 5 lines 6-57 and column 6 lines 20-62 of Bottemiller where the control module determines shape and anatomical features of the meat item to compute a target orientation and is capable of identifying the handedness of the meat item.
Referring to claim 31, Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen further discloses the item positioner – at 200 of Nielsen, is configured to position the meat item at a placement location on the cutter feed conveyor – at 20 – see figures 1-4 of Nielsen, wherein the cutter – at 18,20 of Bottemiller, defines a cutting location relative to the cutter feed conveyor – at 12 of Bottemiller – see figure 1 of Bottemiller, and where the cutter feed conveyor – at 12, is uninterrupted between the placement location and the cutting location – see figure 1 of Bottemiller in that when the positioner of Nielsen is incorporated into the device of Bottemiller the placement location provided by the positioner and the cutting location of the cutting via the cutter – at 18,20 would be on an uninterrupted conveyor – at 12 as seen in figure 1 of Bottemiller. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bottemiller and add the item positioner of Nielsen, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the meat item is in proper position to facilitate accurate cutting of the meat item based on the desired characteristics of the cut meat item.
Referring to claim 35, Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen further discloses the cutter – at 18,20, is configured to cut the meat item – at 14a-14c, along a first cutting plane relative to the meat item – see figure 1 of Bottemiller.
Referring to claim 36, Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen does not disclose the apparatus further comprises a further cutting device – at 20, configured to cut the meat item – at 14a-14c along a cutting plane – see figure 1 of Bottemiller, but does not disclose the further cutting device positioned upstream from the first shape sensor and the second cutting plane is different from the first cutting plane. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen and add the further cutting device upstream of the first shape sensor and the second cutting plane different from the first cutting plane, so as to yield the predictable result of removing unwanted material from the meat item to allow for a more accurate cutting of the meat item as desired. It is recommended that applicant change “further cutting device” to - -further cutter- - or - -second cutter- - for consistency with respect to the claimed cutter.
Referring to claim 37, Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen further discloses the apparatus further comprises a further cutting device – at 20, positioned downstream from the cutter – at 18 – see figure 1 and column 3 lines 20-51 of Bottemiller, and configured to cut one or more of the cut portions along a second cutting plane – see figure 1 of Bottemiller, but does not disclose the second cutting plane is different from the first cutting plane. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen and add the second cutting plane different from the first cutting plane, so as to yield the predictable result of removing unwanted material from the meat item to allow for a more accurate cutting of the meat item as desired. It is recommended that applicant change “further cutting device” to - -further cutter- - or - -second cutter- - for consistency with respect to the claimed cutter.
Referring to claim 38, Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen further discloses the item positioner – at 200, comprises a pick-and-place robot – see automatic pick and place device – at 200 in figures 1-4 and column 9 line 59 to column 10 line 50. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bottemiller and add the item positioner of Nielsen, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the meat item is in proper position to facilitate accurate cutting of the meat item based on the desired characteristics of the cut meat item.
Referring to claim 39, Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen further discloses a feed conveyor – at first of items 20 in the conveying direction as seen in figure 1 of Nielsen, configured for feeding the meat item – at 10, to the pick-and-place robot – at 200 – see figure 1 of Nielsen, wherein the pick-and-place robot – at 200, is configured to pick the meat item – at 10, after it is moved by the feed conveyor and to place the meat item onto the cutter feed conveyor – at the second of items 20 as seen in figure 1 of Nielsen. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bottemiller and add the item positioner of Nielsen, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the meat item is in proper position to facilitate accurate cutting of the meat item based on the desired characteristics of the cut meat item. Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen does not disclose the pick and place robot picks the meat item directly from the feed conveyor. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen and add pick and place robot picking the meat item directly from the feed conveyor as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the meat is positioned/oriented for a more accurate cutting of the meat item as desired.
Referring to claim 40, Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen further discloses the cutter feed conveyor – first of items 20 in figure 1 of Nielsen, and the feed conveyor – second of items 20 in figure 1 of Nielsen, define a reject gap between them – see gap in figure 1 of Nielsen, the reject gap being configured for receiving any meat item being conveyed by the feed conveyor – first of 20, and not picked up by the pick-and-place robot – at 200 – see figure 1 of Nielsen where the gap is capable of receiving any smaller pieces of meat not intended to be picked up by the pick and place robot and cut by the cutter. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bottemiller and add the item positioner robot of Nielsen, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the meat item is in proper position to facilitate accurate cutting of the meat item based on the desired characteristics of the cut meat item.
Referring to claim 42, Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen further discloses the one or more predetermined cut criteria define one or more target ranges of the size and/or shape of the cut portions of meat – see column 4 lines 6-57, column 6 lines 20-62 and column 8 line 52 to column 9 line 20 of Bottemiller.
Referring to claim 43, Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen further discloses the one or more predetermined cut criteria comprise an optimization criterion to maximize a degree of compliance of the cut portions of meat with one or more target properties or with target ranges of one or more properties of the cut portions – see column 4 lines 6-57, column 6 lines 20-62 and column 8 line 52 to column 9 line 20 of Bottemiller, in particular to maximize a degree of compliance of the cut portions with one or more target sizes and/or target shapes, such as to maximize an amount of cut portions having a size and/or shape within the one or more target ranges – these claim limitations are not required by the claim given the “in particular” and “such as” phrases.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,337,551 to Weinhaus.
Referring to claim 30, Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen further discloses the control module – at 22, is configured to identify features of the meat item – at 14a-14c, based on the measured shape – see figures 1-4 and column 5 lines 6-57 and column 6 lines 20-62 of Bottemiller, but does not disclose identifying a predominant muscle fiber direction of the meat item and to compute the target orientation further based on the identified muscle fiber direction. Weinhaus does disclose identifying a predominant muscle fiber direction – see meat grain, of the meat item and to determine the target orientation further based on the identified muscle fiber direction – see using the meat grain to determine an orientation so as to make cuts across the grain – see column 2 lines 16-25 and column 6 lines 6-44. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen and use the scanning sensor system of Bottemiller to identify muscle fiber direction in a manner as disclosed by Weinhaus, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring a more accurate cutting of the meat item as desired.
Claim(s) 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,641,863 to Blaine et al.
Referring to claims 32 and 33, Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen further discloses the meat item is placed on the cutter feed conveyor by the item positioner – at 200, prior to cutting by the cutter – see figures 1-4 of Nielsen. Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen does not disclose a second shape sensor configured to measure the shape of the meat item after having been placed on the cutter feed conveyor and a cutter control module configured to control the cutter to cut the meat item based on the measured shape determined by the first and/or second shape sensors. Blaine et al. disclose multiple shape sensors – at 20,14-15,17 and 32, configured to measure the shape of the meat item – at 12, after having been placed on the cutter feed conveyor – at 22-24 and 37-39 and prior to cutting by the cutter – see figure 4, and a cutter control module – at 34, configured to control the cutter – at 33, to cut the meat item – at 12, based on the measured shape of the first and second shape sensors – at 20,14-15,17 and 32 – see figure 4 and column 13 line 16 to column 14 line 47. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen and add the second shape sensor as disclosed by Blaine et al., so as to yield the predictable result of more accurately determining the position/orientation of the meat item so as to facilitate a more accurate cutting of the meat item as desired.
Referring to claim 34, Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen further discloses the control module – at 22, is further configured to receive feedback input from sensors, the feedback input being associated with one more previously processed meat items – at 34-38 – see figures 1-6 and column 8 line 45 to column 9 line 32 of Bottemiller. Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen further discloses the meat item is placed on the cutter feed conveyor by the item positioner – at 200, prior to cutting by the cutter – see figures 1-4 of Nielsen. Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen does not disclose feedback input is received from the cutter and/or from a second shape sensor, the second shape sensor being configured to measure the shape of the meat item after the meat item has been placed by the item positioner on the cutter feed conveyor, and to compute the target orientation associated with a current meat item further based on the received feedback input from the cutter and/or the second shape sensor, the feedback input being associated with one or more previously processed meat items. Blaine et al. does disclose input received from a second shape sensor – at 14-15, 17 and 32, to compute the target orientation associated with a current meat item based on the input received from the second shape sensor – see figure 4 and column 13 line 16 to column 14 line 47, prior to cutting by the cutter. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen and add the second shape sensor as disclosed by Blaine et al., so as to yield the predictable result of more accurately determining the position/orientation of the meat item so as to facilitate a more accurate cutting of the meat item as desired.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0210023 to Hocker et al.
Referring to claim 41, Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen does not disclose an item quality sensor configured to detect one or more quality parameters of the meat item. Hocker et al. does disclose an item quality sensor – at 30, configured to detect one or more quality parameters of the meat item – see paragraphs [0051]-[0052]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bottemiller as modified by Nielsen and add the quality sensor of Hocker et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for a more accurate processing of the meat item as desired.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to meat cutting and portioning devices/methods in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 4,875,254 to Rudy et al. – shows meat cutting device
U.S. Pat. No. 6,563,904 to Wijts et al. – shows meat cutting device
U.S. Pat. No. 8,643,851 to Weber – shows meat cutting device
U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0205288 to Strong et al. – shows meat cutting device
U.S. Pat. No. 10,843,362 to Grasselli – shows meat cutting device
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights