DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 reads “said gripping suction-nipple” and should read – said flexible gripping suction-nipple--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 28 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 28 recites the limitation "a mesh at its opening designed to prevent suction of leaves therein" in lines 1-2. Claim 28 depends upon claim 26, claim 26 requires all limitations of claim 2.
It is not clear if this is the same component set forth in claim 2 lines 8-9 (section c). Specifically, it is unclear if these meshes are one and the same, or two different components altogether.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 20210267125 A1) in view of Oten (US 4600229 A) and Yoshida (US 4519193 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lu discloses a vacuum-based fruit gripper assembly for use in a fruit-picking machine, said fruit gripper assembly comprising:
a) a support (18) having a main axis and receivable onto a fruit-picking machine, said support comprising an aperture therethrough for communication with a source of suction generator (28); and
b) a flexible gripping suction-nipple (gripping orifice 34, with bellows 58 shown in fig. 11D) for engaging a fruit (A), mounted on said support and connected to said aperture, wherein said suction nipple is configured to fit a range of fruit shapes and sizes (paragraph 0049).
Lu does not disclose, but in the same field of endeavor Oten discloses a suction-nipple (bellows type cup 10) equipped with an interlock mechanism (60, 62) and two configurations:
- a first open-configuration (fig. 3) when the suction-nipple is not attached to a workpiece and no vacuum/suction is generated, in which said interlock mechanism is open and the suction-nipple is free to twist (col. 4 line 58-col. 5 line 30); and
–a second locked/cramp configuration (fig. 4) when the suction-nipple is attached to a workpiece and vacuum/suction is applied, in which said interlock mechanism is locked thereby preventing twisting of the suction-nipple to add radial stability to the bellows (col. 4 lines 45-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the suction-nipple of Lu with an interlock mechanism, as disclosed by Oten, to add radial stability to the bellows suction-nipple (col. 4 lines 45-57).
Lu does not disclose an air blower designed to push away leaves that get stuck in the nipple, but discloses an automatic debris removal mechanism to prevent foliage from clogging the vacuum system (paragraph 0032).
In the same field of endeavor, Yoshida discloses an air blower (pump 18, to air exhaust port 19) which blows leaves away from fruit to be harvested (col. 2 lines 61-65).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Lu with a blower, as disclosed by Yoshida, to ensure only fruit is harvested and foliage is prevented from clogging the vacuum system (paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 5, Lu, of the resultant combination, discloses the assembly of claim 2, further comprising at least one of: (i) a vacuum/suction-generator (28); (ii) a tilting motor (16) for moving said support (18) along said main axis for tilting a fruit gripped by said suction-nipple, (iii) a rotation motor for rotating or tilting said suction-nipple and/or said support along said main axis.
The resultant combination does not disclose, but in the same field of endeavor Oten discloses a suction-nipple (bellows type cup 10) equipped with an interlock mechanism (60, 62) and two configurations:
- a first open-configuration (fig. 3) when the suction-nipple is not attached to a workpiece and no vacuum/suction is generated, in which said interlock mechanism is open and the suction-nipple is free to twist (col. 4 line 58-col. 5 line 30); and
–a second locked/cramp configuration (fig. 4) when the suction-nipple is attached to a workpiece and vacuum/suction is applied, in which said interlock mechanism is locked thereby preventing twisting of the suction-nipple to add radial stability to the bellows (col. 4 lines 45-57).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the suction-nipple of Lu with an interlock mechanism, as disclosed by Oten, to add radial stability to the bellows suction-nipple (col. 4 lines 45-57).
Regarding claim 6, Lu, of the resultant combination, discloses the assembly of claim 2.
The resultant combination does not disclose, but in the same field of endeavor Oten discloses a suction-nipple (bellows type cup 10) equipped with an interlock mechanism (60, 62) and two configurations:
- a first open-configuration (fig. 3) when the suction-nipple is not attached to a workpiece and no vacuum/suction is generated, in which said interlock mechanism is open and the suction-nipple is free to twist (col. 4 line 58-col. 5 line 30); and
–a second locked/cramp configuration (fig. 4) when the suction-nipple is attached to a workpiece and vacuum/suction is applied, in which said interlock mechanism is locked thereby preventing twisting of the suction-nipple to add radial stability to the bellows (col. 4 lines 45-57).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the suction-nipple of Lu with an interlock mechanism, as disclosed by Oten, to add radial stability to the bellows suction-nipple (col. 4 lines 45-57).
Regarding claim 7, Oten, of the resultant combination, discloses the assembly of claim 6, wherein said interlock mechanism is: (i) a mechanic element (60, 62 are mechanical elements); or (ii) a locking engine.
Regarding claim 19, Oten, of the resultant combination, discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein said interlock mechanism comprises ribs (60, 62), such that when the interlock mechanism is in its open-configuration (fig. 3), the ribs are separated from one another, and when it is in its cramped- configuration (fig. 4), the ribs are engaged with one another.
Claims 23, 25, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 20210267125 A1) in view of Oten (US 4600229 A).
Regarding claim 23, Lu discloses a suction-nipple (gripping orifice 34, with bellows 58 shown in fig. 11D).
Lu does not disclose, but in the same field of endeavor Oten discloses a suction-nipple (bellows type cup 10) equipped with an interlock mechanism (60, 62) and two configurations:
- a first open-configuration (fig. 3) when the suction-nipple is not attached to a workpiece and no vacuum/suction is generated, in which said interlock mechanism is open and the suction-nipple is free to twist (col. 4 line 58-col. 5 line 30); and
–a second locked/cramp configuration (fig. 4) when the suction-nipple is attached to a workpiece and vacuum/suction is applied, in which said interlock mechanism is locked thereby preventing twisting of the suction-nipple to add radial stability to the bellows (col. 4 lines 45-57).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the suction-nipple of Lu with an interlock mechanism, as disclosed by Oten, to add radial stability to the bellows suction-nipple (col. 4 lines 45-57).
Regarding claim 25, Lu, of the resultant combination, discloses the suction-nipple of claim 23, which is flexible to enable fitting any fruit's shape (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 29, Lu discloses a method for harvesting fruits, comprising the steps of:
a) providing a vacuum-based fruit gripper assembly comprising a support (18) and a flexible gripping suction-nipple (gripping orifice 34, with bellows 58 shown in fig. 11D);
b) mounting said fruit gripper assembly onto a fruit-picking machine (10);
c) penetrating said fruit gripper assembly into a tree's foliage (paragraph 0027);
d) approaching and engaging a fruit with said suction-nipple while said interlock mechanism is in said first open-configuration, wherein said suction-nipple is free to twist (paragraph 0027);
e) activating a vacuum to suction-grip said fruit, thereby preventing twisting of said suction-nipple (paragraph 0033, 34 is sealed to the fruit for firm gripping); and
f) twisting and/or tilting said fruit until it is released from the tree (paragraph 0036-37).
Lu does not disclose said suction-nipple having an interlock mechanism with a first open-configuration and a second locked-configuration.
Oten discloses a gripper having a suction-nipple (bellows type cup 10) equipped with an interlock mechanism (60, 62) with a first open-configuration (fig. 3, col. 4 line 58-col. 5 line 30) and a second locked/cramp configuration (fig. 4, col. 4 lines 45-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the suction-nipple of Lu with an interlock mechanism, as disclosed by Oten, to add radial stability to the bellows suction-nipple (col. 4 lines 45-57).
Claims 2-3, 10, 15, 20-21, 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 20210267125 A1) in view of Yoshida (US 4519193 A) and in view of Pellenc (US 4975016 A).
Regarding claim 2, Lu discloses a vacuum-based fruit gripper assembly for use in a fruit-picking machine, said fruit gripper assembly comprising:
a) a support (18) having a main axis and receivable onto a fruit-picking machine, said support comprising an aperture therethrough for communication with a source of suction generator (28); and
b) a flexible gripping suction-nipple (34) for engaging a fruit, mounted on said support and connected to said aperture, wherein said suction-nipple is designed to withstand rotational forces when attached to a fruit (A) by suction/vacuum (paragraph 0036: 34 is sealed to the fruit; paragraph 0037, 18 and 34 twist to pick the fruit, which requires 34 to be rigid when sealed to the fruit to effectively pick the fruit).
Lu does not disclose an air blower designed to push away leaves that get stuck in the nipple, but discloses an automatic debris removal mechanism to prevent foliage from clogging the vacuum system (paragraph 0032).
In the same field of endeavor, Yoshida discloses an air blower (pump 18, to air exhaust port 19) which blows leaves away from fruit to be harvested (col. 2 lines 61-65).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lu with a blower, as disclosed by Yoshida, to ensure only fruit is harvested and foliage is prevented from clogging the vacuum system (paragraph 0032).
Lu does not disclose a mesh at the opening of said suction-nipple, designed to prevent suction of leaves therein.
In the same field of endeavor, Pellenc discloses a harvester having a vacuum operated intake head (21) having a filter making it possible to block and retain sucked-in leaves so as to avoid their obstruction of the vacuum or intake turbine (col. 5 lines 44-52).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lu, in view of Yoshida, with a mesh/filter, as disclosed by Pellenc, to prevent unwanted leaves from being suctioned into the device with the fruit to be harvested.
Regarding claim 3, Lu, of the resultant combination, discloses the assembly of claim 2, wherein the suction-nipple is made of: (i) a semi- rigid material that enables it to adapt its shape according to a fruit's shape while also withstand said rotational forces after sucking onto the fruit; or (ii) layers of flexible material, which enable it to withstand said rotational forces (a soft, flexible material, paragraphs 31, 35).
Regarding claim 10, Lu, of the resultant combination, discloses the assembly of claim 2, wherein said support (18) is: (i) extendable and retractable; (ii) can rotate along said main axis (paragraph 36-37, fig. 3); and/or (iii) equipped with one or more pivotal joints enabling pivoting the suction-nipple relative to said main axis.
Regarding claim 15, Lu, of the resultant combination, discloses the assembly of claim 2, wherein said flexible gripping suction-nipple (34) is: (i) affixed to said support (18) along said main axis (see fig. 1); (ii) affixed to said support pivoted away from a central axis thereof; or (iii) mounted onto said support by a pivotal mounting element for pivotal movement generally toward and away from said main axis.
Regarding claim 20, Lu, of the resultant combination, discloses a fruit-picking machine (10) comprising one or more assemblies of claim 2 (paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 21, Lu, of the resultant combination, discloses the fruit-picking machine of claim 20, comprising two or more of said assemblies, wherein the movement of each assembly is independent from the other(s) (paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 26, the resultant combination discloses a method for harvesting fruits, comprising the steps of mounting one or more assemblies according to claim 2 onto a fruit-picking machine (Lu: 10), and activating same, wherein said method comprises a step of activating said an air blower (Yoshida: 18, 19) to push away leaves to prevent them from getting stuck in the suction-nipple, and optionally comprises a step of continuously rotating said gripper assembly during its penetration into a tree's foliage, such that said rotation enables penetration of the suction nipple through the tree's foliage (Lu: paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 27, Lu, of the resultant combination, discloses the method of claim 26 wherein activation of the fruit-picking machine (10) leads to suction-gripping a fruit (A) by said suction-nipple (34), and the picking of the fruit is carried by twisting and/or tilting the fruit until it is released.
Regarding claim 28, the resultant combination discloses the suction-nipple of claim 26, further comprising a mesh (Pellenc: col. 5 lines 44-52) at its opening designed to prevent suction of leaves therein.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 20210267125 A1) in view of Yoshida (US 4519193 A) and Pellenc (US 4975016 A), and further in view of Bhavani (US 20170094909 A1).
Regarding claim 22, the resultant combination discloses the fruit-picking machine of claim 20.
The combination does not disclose wherein the machine which is a flying harvesting robot.
In the same field of endeavor, Bhavani discloses a fruit picking machine that is a flying harvesting robot (drone 101).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fruit picking machine disclosed by Lu, in view of Yoshida, so that it is attached to a flying robot, as disclosed by Bhavani, to access fruit to be harvested in locations not accessible from the ground.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The remarks argue that none of the cited documents disclose, teach, or suggest a vacuum-based gripper assembly equipped with an interlock mechanism that has two configurations. Applicant argues that Lu and Yoshida fail to disclose a two-phase gripping/twisting mechanism. However, the rejection does not rely only on Lu and Yoshida, and addresses this feature. The rejection of claim 1 points to the interlock mechanism of Oten which adds radial stability to the bellows-type suction nipple of Lu, and applicant does not explain how Oten does not teach the required limitations.
Applicant argues that none of the cited documents disclose or suggest and air blower designed to push away leaves. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that a drone’s ability to navigate is not enhanced by specific mechanical features (the gripper of Lu in view of Yoshida) and thus there is no reason to combine such features with the drone of Bhavani. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, attaching a fruit picking machine of Lu in view of Yoshida to a flying robot, as disclosed by Bhavani, would allow fruit to be harvested from locations not accessible from the ground.
Applicant argues that one would not be motivated to combine a passive mesh as disclosed by Pellenc with an “active air blower”, a solution not taught in any of the cited art. However, Lu, the base reference used to reject claim 2, teaches an air blower as it uses suction to harvest fruit. Further, Yoshida, used in combination with Lu in the rejection of claim 2, teaches a blower which blows away leaves to expose fruit to be harvested (see claim 2 above). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, a mesh would be contemplated by the prior art since the blower of Yoshida of the resultant combination is not guaranteed to clear all leaves when exposing fruit to be harvested, and the suction generating components of Lu of the resultant combination could still potentially suck unwanted leaves into the harvesting nipple despite the presence of the blower of Yoshida.
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 MADELINE RUNCO whose telephone number is (469)295-9123. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 M-F.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 5712728971. 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.
/M.I.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671