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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 03, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iyer US Patent Publication No. US-10458965-B1 (hereinafter Iyer).
Regarding claim 1, Iyer discloses food inspection apparatus configured to inspect food being conveyed by a conveyance mechanism (Iyer in [Column – 2, Line 45 – 49] discloses, “the food products 101 are being conveyed along a food product path such as a conveyor 103 and the like ... the food products 101 being optically analyzed while being conveyed on the conveyor 103”), the food inspection apparatus comprising: an optical unit that is disposed above the conveyance mechanism and that includes an imager (Iyer [Column – 14, Line 19 – 20] discloses, “FIG. 1A, the conveyor 103 is located beneath the device 105”. Iyer in [Column – 3, Line 11 – 13] discloses device 105 got imaging device, “The device 105 comprises: a first imaging device 111 sensitive to first wavelengths), the imager being configured to image the conveyed food to acquire inspection information on the food (Iyer in [Column – 5, Line 44 – 47] discloses, “Such spectroscopic images of the food products 101 may be transmitted to the computing device 130 for analysis to determine quality of the food products 101 in the segments of the line 109”. Additionally, Iyer in [Column – 15, Line 32 – 36] discloses, “other types of notification devices) of an impurity and/or a contaminant in a food product being optically analyzed, and/or a notification of impurity and/or a contaminant type, and/or a notification of fat content and/or a notification of fat marbling, and the like”); and a transparent window member disposed between the conveyance mechanism and the optical unit (Iyer in [Column – 13, Line 55 – 60] discloses about transparent window, “generally include an enclosure configured to enclose a first imaging device, a second imaging device, an optical filter, and a frame, the enclosure including a window transparent to the first wavelengths (e.g. of a first imaging device) and the second wavelengths (e.g. of a first imaging device)”. Furthermore, Iyer [Column – 14, Line 19 – 20] discloses, “FIG. 1A, the conveyor 103 is located beneath the device 105”. Iyer in [Column – 3, Line 11 – 13] discloses device 105 got imaging device, “The device 105 comprises: a first imaging device 111 sensitive to first wavelengths).
Summary of Citations (Iyer)
[Column – 2, Line 45 – 49]; “the food products 101 are being conveyed along a food product path such as a conveyor 103 and the like, for example in a food product path direction 104 (e.g. from right to left with respect to FIG. 1), the food products 101 being optically analyzed while being conveyed on the conveyor 103”.
[Column – 3, Line 11 – 13]; “The device 105 comprises: a first imaging device 111 sensitive to first wavelengths”.
[Column – 5, Line 44 – 47]; “Such spectroscopic images of the food products 101 may be transmitted to the computing device 130 for analysis to determine quality of the food products 101 in the segments of the line 109”.
[Column – 13, Line 55 – 60]; “generally include an enclosure configured to enclose a first imaging device, a second imaging device, an optical filter, and a frame, the enclosure including a window transparent to the first wavelengths (e.g. of a first imaging device) and the second wavelengths (e.g. of a first imaging device)”.
[Column – 14, Line 19 – 20]; “FIG. 1A, the conveyor 103 is located beneath the device 105, the aperture 811 of the enclosure 801 may be located through a bottom wall of the enclosure 801”.
[Column – 15, Line 32 – 36]; “other types of notification devices) of an impurity and/or a contaminant in a food product being optically analyzed, and/or a notification of impurity and/or a contaminant type, and/or a notification of fat content and/or a notification of fat marbling, and the like”.
Regarding claim 2, Iyer discloses the food inspection apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a cooling mechanism configured to cool at least one of the food being conveyed and the window member (Iyer discloses about the cooling mechanism in [Column – 13, Line 31 – 34] and [Column – 13, Line 44 – 46], “the device 505 may be adapted to include one or more of a humidity control device 750 and a temperature control device 760 located inside the enclosure 701” and “The temperature control device 760 may include one or more thermoelectric cooling (TEC) devices, attached to one or more an interior wall of the enclosure 701”).
Summary of Citations (Iyer)
[Column – 13, Line 31 – 34]; “the device 505 may be adapted to include one or more of a humidity control device 750 and a temperature control device 760 located inside the enclosure 701”.
[Column – 13, Line 44 – 46]; “The temperature control device 760 may include one or more thermoelectric cooling (TEC) devices, attached to one or more an interior wall of the enclosure 701”.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Nishio Patent Application Publication No. WO-2013089046-A1 (hereinafter Nishio).
Regarding claim 3, Iyer discloses the food inspection apparatus according to claim 1.
Iyer doesn’t disclose the following limitations as further recited in the claim.
Nishio discloses the window member is made of polycarbonate and has a glass transition temperature [Tg] of 170 0C or higher (Nishio in [0064] discloses, “gas barrier film No.7 of Example 1 was changed to the following substrate. A polycarbonate (PC) film (trade name "Bayer LP202") having a glass transition temperature of 220 °C”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Nishio into the system of Iyer because it would allow the transparent window to protect the image even when temperature become high.
Summary of Citations (Nishio)
Paragraph [0064]; “gas barrier film No.7 of Example 1 was changed to the following substrate. A polycarbonate (PC) film (trade name "Bayer LP202") having a glass transition temperature of 220 °C”.
Claims 4, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Taguchi Patent Application Publication No. WO-2018198403-A1 (hereinafter Taguchi).
Regarding claim 4, Iyer discloses the food inspection apparatus according to claim 1.
Iyer doesn’t disclose the following limitations as further recited in the claim.
Taguchi discloses comprising a stand on which the optical unit is placed, wherein the stand determines a height of the optical unit from the conveyance mechanism and supports the optical unit such that the optical unit is movable (Taguchi in [Page – 6, Paragraph – 6] discloses, “the imaging device 53 according to the present embodiment includes an imaging position adjustment mechanism (imaging position adjustment means) 55 that can adjust the imaging position”. Furthermore, Taguchi in [Page – 6, Paragraph – 7] discloses about Z-axis moving mechanism (determining the height), “The imaging position adjusting mechanism 55 includes a Z-axis moving mechanism 56 for sliding the imaging device 53 (main body 53a) along the vertical direction (Z direction) that is the normal direction of the container film 3, and the Z-axis movement”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Taguchi into the system of Iyer because it would help to accurately align the optical unit by moving over the actual path of food.
Summary of Citations (Taguchi)
[Page – 6, Paragraph – 6]; “the imaging device 53 according to the present embodiment includes an imaging position adjustment mechanism (imaging position adjustment means) 55 that can adjust the imaging position”.
[Page – 6, Paragraph – 7]; “The imaging position adjusting mechanism 55 includes a Z-axis moving mechanism 56 for sliding the imaging device 53 (main body 53a) along the vertical direction (Z direction) that is the normal direction of the container film 3, and the Z-axis movement”.
Regarding claim 5, Taguchi in the combination discloses the food inspection apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the stand includes an adjustment mechanism that adjusts the height of the optical unit from the conveyance mechanism (Taguchi in [Page – 6, Paragraph – 7] discloses about Z-axis moving mechanism (determining the height), “The imaging position adjusting mechanism 55 includes a Z-axis moving mechanism 56 for sliding the imaging device 53 (main body 53a) along the vertical direction (Z direction) that is the normal direction of the container film 3, and the Z-axis movement”).
Summary of Citations (Taguchi)
[Page – 6, Paragraph – 7]; “The imaging position adjusting mechanism 55 includes a Z-axis moving mechanism 56 for sliding the imaging device 53 (main body 53a) along the vertical direction (Z direction) that is the normal direction of the container film 3, and the Z-axis movement”.
Regarding claim 6, Iyer in the combination discloses the food inspection apparatus according to claim 4, wherein: the stand includes a frame having an opening, the opening allowing the imager to image the food being conveyed (Iyer in [Column – 12, Line 8 – 13] discloses, “a first aperture 711 located in the first food-path-facing direction 515; and a second aperture 712 located in the second food-path-facing direction 615. Hence, the imaging devices 511, 512 may be used to optically analyze food products through either of the apertures 711, 712”), and the window member is detachably attached to the frame of the stand (Iyer in [Column – 12, Line 31 – 34] discloses about detachable window, “as depicted in FIG. 7, where the fold mirror 530 is present, and hence optical analysis occurs through the aperture 711, the aperture 711 is covered by a detachable window 721 (e.g. in a frame)”).
Summary of Citations (Iyer)
[Column – 12, Line 8 – 13]; “a first aperture 711 located in the first food-path-facing direction 515; and a second aperture 712 located in the second food-path-facing direction 615. Hence, the imaging devices 511, 512 may be used to optically analyze food products through either of the apertures 711, 712”.
[Column – 12, Line 31 – 34]; “as depicted in FIG. 7, where the fold mirror 530 is present, and hence optical analysis occurs through the aperture 711, the aperture 711 is covered by a detachable window 721 (e.g. in a frame)”.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Taguchi and further in view of Mairhofer Patent Application Publication No. US-20200193587-A1 (hereinafter Mairhofer).
Regarding claim 7, Iyer in the combination discloses the food inspection apparatus according to claim 4.
Iyer and Taguchi in the combination don’t disclose the following limitations as further recited in the claim.
Mairhofer discloses the conveyance mechanism includes a support member that supports a belt on which the food is placed (Mairhofer [0050] discloses, “each conveyor 102, 104 of the system 100 is supported by a support structure 106, wherein a conveyor surface 112 translates via rollers 108”), and the stand is attached to the support member of the conveyance mechanism by an attachment member (Mairhofer in [0064] discloses, “The supports 416 are preferably an adjustable collar coupled to and extending from plates 420 coupled to the conveyor system 402, and more specifically, each of the first and second conveyors 404, 406”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Mairhofer into the system of Iyer in view of Taguchi because it would provide better structural stability.
Summary of Citations (Mairhofer)
Paragraph [0050]; “each conveyor 102, 104 of the system 100 is supported by a support structure 106, wherein a conveyor surface 112 translates via rollers 108”.
Paragraph [0064]; “The supports 416 are preferably an adjustable collar coupled to and extending from plates 420 coupled to the conveyor system 402, and more specifically, each of the first and second conveyors 404, 406”.
Regarding claim 8, Iyer in the combination discloses the food inspection apparatus according to claim 7, wherein: the optical unit includes a housing that houses the imager (Iyer in [Column – 12, Line 1 – 5] discloses about enclosure 701 (housing), “FIG. 7 which depicts a schematic view of the device 505 adapted to include an enclosure 701 configured to enclose the first imaging device 511, the second imaging device 512, the optical filter 517, the removeable fold mirror 530, and the frame 519”), the housing has an opening in a surface facing the conveyance mechanism (Iyer in [Column – 12, Line 8 – 13] discloses, “a first aperture 711 located in the first food-path-facing direction 515; and a second aperture 712 located in the second food-path-facing direction 615. Hence, the imaging devices 511, 512 may be used to optically analyze food products through either of the apertures 711, 712”), the opening allowing the imager to image the food being conveyed, and the window member is detachably attached to the opening (Iyer in [Column – 12, Line 31 – 34] discloses about detachable window, “as depicted in FIG. 7, where the fold mirror 530 is present, and hence optical analysis occurs through the aperture 711, the aperture 711 is covered by a detachable window 721 (e.g. in a frame)”).
Summary of Citations (Iyer)
[Column – 12, Line 1 – 5]; “FIG. 7 which depicts a schematic view of the device 505 adapted to include an enclosure 701 configured to enclose the first imaging device 511, the second imaging device 512, the optical filter 517, the removeable fold mirror 530, and the frame 519”.
[Column – 12, Line 8 – 13]; “a first aperture 711 located in the first food-path-facing direction 515; and a second aperture 712 located in the second food-path-facing direction 615. Hence, the imaging devices 511, 512 may be used to optically analyze food products through either of the apertures 711, 712”.
[Column – 12, Line 31 – 34]; “as depicted in FIG. 7, where the fold mirror 530 is present, and hence optical analysis occurs through the aperture 711, the aperture 711 is covered by a detachable window 721 (e.g. in a frame)”.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Taguchi and further in view of Rother US Patent Publication No. US-11504872-B2 (hereinafter Rother).
Regarding claim 9, Taguchi in the combination discloses the food inspection apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the stand includes a guide member that stands on the frame so as to intersect a conveyance direction of the conveyance mechanism (Taguchi in [Page – 6, Paragraph – 7] discloses, “The imaging position adjusting mechanism 55 includes a Z-axis moving mechanism 56 for sliding the imaging device 53 (main body 53a) along the vertical direction (Z direction) that is the normal direction of the container film 3, and the Z-axis movement”).
Taguchi and Iyer in the combination don’t disclose the following limitations as further recited in the claim.
Rother discloses that guides the optical unit to a position above the food (Rother in [Column – 3, Line 12 – 17] discloses, “the scanning unit can respectively be driven to the food product to be irradiated, where in particular an optimal arrangement of the scanning unit, or the X-ray source, respectively, and the associated detector to the respective food product can be achieved, so that an analysis of the food product can be performed at high quality”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Rother into the system of Iyer in view of Taguchi because would allow the imager to perform more reliable imaging ensuring the food is within the imager intended imaging area.
Summary of Citations (Taguchi)
[Page – 6, Paragraph – 7]; “The imaging position adjusting mechanism 55 includes a Z-axis moving mechanism 56 for sliding the imaging device 53 (main body 53a) along the vertical direction (Z direction) that is the normal direction of the container film 3, and the Z-axis movement”.
Summary of Citations (Rother)
[Column – 3, Line 12 – 17]; “the scanning unit can respectively be driven to the food product to be irradiated, where in particular an optimal arrangement of the scanning unit, or the X-ray source, respectively, and the associated detector to the respective food product can be achieved, so that an analysis of the food product can be performed at high quality”.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Tsugawa Patent Application Publication No. WO-2019069952-A1 (hereinafter Tsugawa).
Regarding claim 10, Iyer discloses the food inspection apparatus according to claim 1, the information processing apparatus being connected to the optical unit (Iyer in [Column – 4, Line 45 – 49] discloses, “each of the first imaging device 111 and the second imaging device 112 are each in communication with a computing device 130 via respective wired and/or wireless links (depicted as arrows therebetween)”) and configured to analyze the inspection information obtained by the imager of the optical unit (Iyer in [Column – 5, Line 44 – 47] discloses, “Such spectroscopic images of the food products 101 may be transmitted to the computing device 130 for analysis to determine quality of the food products 101 in the segments of the line 109”).
Iyer doesn’t disclose the following limitations as further recited in the claim.
Tsugawa discloses further comprising a processing apparatus main body that houses an information processing apparatus (Tsugawa in [0083] discloses, “The portable casing 60 a incorporates an infrared camera 60 b and an infrared light 60 c, and is connected to the main body of the X wire inspection device 10 via a connection cable 60 d ... When using iris imaging device 60, a user may remove portable casing 60 a from shield box 11 and hold portable casing 60 a as needed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Tsugawa into the system of Iyer because would have dedicated protection for processing hardware.
Summary of Citations (Iyer)
[Column – 4, Line 45 – 49]; “each of the first imaging device 111 and the second imaging device 112 are each in communication with a computing device 130 via respective wired and/or wireless links (depicted as arrows therebetween)”.
[Column – 5, Line 44 – 47]; “Such spectroscopic images of the food products 101 may be transmitted to the computing device 130 for analysis to determine quality of the food products 101 in the segments of the line 109”.
Summary of Citations (Tsugawa)
Paragraph [0083]; “The portable casing 60 a incorporates an infrared camera 60 b and an infrared light 60 c, and is connected to the main body of the X wire inspection device 10 via a connection cable 60 d ... When using iris imaging device 60, a user may remove portable casing 60 a from shield box 11 and hold portable casing 60 a as needed”.
Regarding claim 11, Tsugawa discloses the food inspection apparatus according to claim 10, wherein at least one of the processing apparatus main body and the conveyance mechanism is portable (Tsugawa in [0083] discloses, “The portable casing 60 a incorporates an infrared camera 60 b and an infrared light 60 c, and is connected to the main body of the X wire inspection device 10 via a connection cable 60”).
Summary of Citations (Tsugawa)
Paragraph [0083]; “The portable casing 60 a incorporates an infrared camera 60 b and an infrared light 60 c, and is connected to the main body of the X wire inspection device 10 via a connection cable 60 d ... When using iris imaging device 60, a user may remove portable casing 60 a from shield box 11 and hold portable casing 60 a as needed”.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Tsugawa and further in view of Nakajima Patent Application Publication No. WO-2019039329-A1 (hereinafter Nakajima).
Regarding claim 12, Iyer in the combination discloses the food inspection apparatus according to claim 10.
Iyer and Tsugawa in the combination don’t disclose the following limitations as further recited in the claim.
Nakajima discloses the processing apparatus main body includes a housing (Nakajima in [Page – 5, Paragraph – 7] discloses, “FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, the housing 2 covers the inspection region R and shields the inspection region R from outside light (indoor artificial light or natural light etc.) ... The housing 2 has a base portion 21 and a protective case 23”), and
a calibration member is positioned in the housing (Nakajima in [Page – 5, Paragraph – 7] discloses, “The light conversion unit 8 is installed in the examination area R, and generates fluorescence by excitation light irradiated by the excitation light irradiation unit 4. As shown in FIGS. 2 and 4, the light converting portion 8 is fixed to the inner wall surface 21 e of the pedestal portion 21”), such that a distance between the imager of the optical unit and a top surface of a belt of the conveyance mechanism is recreated when the optical unit is placed on the housing (Nakajima in [Page – 7, Paragraph – 3] discloses about detection unit 5 (imager of the optical unit) above the conveying surface 31 (top surface of a belt), “The detection unit 5 detects the fluorescence generated within the preset inspection region R. The detection unit 5 is attached to the inner wall surface of the casing 2 ... above the conveying surface 31 a in the vertical direction)”. Nakajima in [Page – 10, Paragraph – 7] and [Page – 10, Paragraph – 8] discloses about distance relationship, “the excitation light irradiation unit 4, the detection unit 5, and the light conversion unit 8 are fixed to the housing 2” and “the positional relationship between the excitation light irradiation unit 4, the detection unit 5 and the light conversion unit 8 does not change. Therefore, the light converting section 8 is prevented from coming off the inspection region R of the fluorescence detecting section 52”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Nakajima into the system of Iyer in view of Tsugawa because would improve the consistency and reliability of the inspection result.
Summary of Citations (Nakajima)
[Page – 5, Paragraph – 7]; “FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, the housing 2 covers the inspection region R and shields the inspection region R from outside light (indoor artificial light or natural light etc.). The inspection area R is a three-dimensional area in which the detection unit 5 detects fluorescence in the inner area L of the casing 2. The housing 2 has a base portion 21 and a protective case 23”.
[Page – 5, Paragraph – 7]; “The light conversion unit 8 is installed in the examination area R, and generates fluorescence by excitation light irradiated by the excitation light irradiation unit 4. As shown in FIGS. 2 and 4, the light converting portion 8 is fixed to the inner wall surface 21 e of the pedestal portion 21”.
[Page – 7, Paragraph – 3]; “The detection unit 5 detects the fluorescence generated within the preset inspection region R. The detection unit 5 is attached to the inner wall surface of the casing 2 and is disposed on one side of the conveyance surface 31 a (one side of the conveyance surface 31 a in a direction parallel to the Z axis orthogonal to the X axis and the Y axis , For example, above the conveying surface 31 a in the vertical direction)”.
[Page – 10, Paragraph – 7]; “the excitation light irradiation unit 4, the detection unit 5, and the light conversion unit 8 are fixed to the housing 2”.
[Page – 10, Paragraph – 8]; “the positional relationship between the excitation light irradiation unit 4, the detection unit 5 and the light conversion unit 8 does not change. Therefore, the light converting section 8 is prevented from coming off the inspection region R of the fluorescence detecting section 52”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1684.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm ET. 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, Vu Le can be
reached on (571)272-7332. 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.
/ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH/
Examiner, Art Unit 2668
08/26/2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights