Automated Fish Processing With Vision-Guided Humane Slaughter

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing seafood processing methods struggle with variability in fish size, shape, and anatomical features across species, leading to inconsistent processing results, stress-induced lower quality meat, and a high reliance on manual labor.

Innovation Solution

Integrating computer vision into the fish processing pipeline to analyze individual fish anatomy and attributes, automating euthanasia and exsanguination using precise tool trajectories determined by machine learning models, and processing fish on-site to reduce stress and improve efficiency.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Manufacturing precision

If manual processing methods are used for fish, then flexibility in handling different fish sizes and species is maintained, but processing consistency and quality are poor due to human variability and stress on fish

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveprocessing consistencyVSAvoidsystem complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Manufacturing precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces manual mechanical processing with an automated system that uses computer vision to detect fish anatomical features and control robotic tools for euthanasia and exsanguination. This substitution eliminates human variability in processing while maintaining adaptability to different fish sizes and species through software-based feature detection and trajectory planning.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The system enables fish to be processed autonomously based on their own anatomical features. The computer vision system detects individual fish characteristics, and the control system automatically adjusts processing parameters and tool trajectories without requiring manual intervention for each fish, allowing the system to serve itself in adapting to variability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

2Productivity

If fish are processed after transport to processing facilities, then centralized processing is achieved, but fish stress increases during transport leading to lower quality meat

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveprocessing efficiencyVSAvoidfish stress

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements processing at the harvest site before fish are transported to processing facilities. By performing euthanasia and exsanguination immediately after capture, the system eliminates the stress that would otherwise occur during transport and holding, preserving meat quality while maintaining processing efficiency through on-site automation.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

3Extent of automation

If automated processing systems are implemented, then labor needs are reduced and processing speed increases, but adaptability to varying fish anatomy decreases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveautomation levelVSAvoidanatomy adaptability

Core Design Contradiction:

Extent of automationVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent employs dynamic adaptability through computer vision systems that detect and respond to individual fish anatomical features in real-time. The control system adjusts tool trajectories, cutting depths, and processing parameters based on detected anatomy, allowing the automated system to adapt to varying fish sizes, shapes, and species characteristics without manual intervention.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes processing parameters dynamically based on detected fish anatomy. The computer vision system measures fish dimensions and features, and the control system adjusts operational parameters such as tool position, speed, and force to match the specific anatomy of each fish, maintaining high automation while achieving full adaptability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

4Reliability

If traditional processing methods are used, then equipment complexity is low, but processing precision and humane treatment standards are not met

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvehumane processing reliabilityVSAvoidsystem complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces simple mechanical processing tools with an integrated system combining computer vision, machine learning, and controlled robotic actuators. This substitution ensures reliable humane processing by precisely targeting anatomical features for euthanasia and exsanguination, while the automated control eliminates variability and ensures consistent adherence to humane standards.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Data Source

PatentUS12550904B2Systems and methods for automated fish processing

Publication Date: 2026.02.17 SHINKEI SYSTEMS CORP

AI summary

A method for processing a live fish can include: determining a set of fish attributes of a fish, optionally sorting the fish based on the set of fish attributes, euthanizing the fish, exsanguinating the fish, and/or any other suitable steps. In variants, the method can additionally or alternatively include: discarding the fish after sorting, further processing the fish, and/or tracking the fish. However, the method can additionally and/or alternatively include any other suitable elements.