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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/25/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14, 15, 16 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 14, 16 and 23 each recite “The method” in line 1 and since they each have been amended to not depend from any claim, “The method” in line 1 of each of the claims 14, 16 and 23 should be changed to “A method”.
Claims 1, 14, 16 and 23 recite “in order to be cored, pitted and halved on a multilane belt advancing step by step and comprising mesh elements and fruit holding flights, having a plurality of pear housing and centering cups in an apparatus controlled by a control unit”. In order to improve the form of the claims it is suggested the claims be changed to recite “in order to be cored, pitted and halved on a multilane belt advancing step by step in an apparatus controlled by a control unit, the multilane belt comprising mesh elements and fruit holding flights, having a plurality of pear housing and centering cups,…”.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the ratchet mechanism comprises an arm integral with the jaw wall provided with teeth in a free end of the arm…” . In order to improve the form of the claim it is suggested that the claim be amended to recite “wherein the ratchet mechanism comprises an arm integral with one jaw wall of the jaw walls, the arm provided with teeth in a free end of the arm….”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 14 requires that “wherein at least one of the jaw walls has on its side a ratchet mechanism” which is supported by the originally filed claim 5. However, this is not specifically recited in the specification. This language is not specifically recited in the specification, it is noted that the specification at paragraph [0061] recites that the “with reference to Fig. 16, in the fixed front wall 50 of the housing and centering cup 9 there is shown, projecting downwards, a ratchet mechanism 72”. The specification should be amended to include the subject matter presented in original claim 5 to provide adequate support in the specification for claim 14. “All amendments and claims must find descriptive basis in the original disclosure. No new matter may be introduced into an application after its filing date. Applicant may rely for disclosure upon the specification with original claims and drawings, as filed” MPEP 608.
Claim 15 recites that “the ratchet mechanism comprises an arm integral with the jaw wall provided with teeth in a free end of the arm and a hook pivoted on a respective fixed wall of the housing and centering cup…”. Which is not specifically recited in the specification but is supported by original claim 6. The specification should be amended to include the subject matter presented in original claim 6 to provide adequate support in the specification for claim 15 (see PGPUB specification paragraph [0066]). “All amendments and claims must find descriptive basis in the original disclosure. No new matter may be introduced into an application after its filing date. Applicant may rely for disclosure upon the specification with original claims and drawings, as filed” MPEP 608.
Claim 16, lines 30-38 is supported by originally filed claim 7. The specification should be amended to include the subject matter presented in original claim 7 to provide adequate support in the specification for claim 16. “All amendments and claims must find descriptive basis in the original disclosure. No new matter may be introduced into an application after its filing date. Applicant may rely for disclosure upon the specification with original claims and drawings, as filed” MPEP 608.
Claim 17 is supported by originally filed claim 8. The specification should be amended to include the subject matter presented in original claim 8 to provide adequate support in the specification for claim 17 (see PGPUB specification paragraph [0066]). “All amendments and claims must find descriptive basis in the original disclosure. No new matter may be introduced into an application after its filing date. Applicant may rely for disclosure upon the specification with original claims and drawings, as filed” MPEP 608.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 14, 16 and 23, claims 1, 14, 16 and 23 recites “lowering a coring rod of the coring substation for each of said pears” and “lowering a pitting knife for each of said pears in response to receiving endocarp position information…”. Claim 1 previously required that the method be carried out by “simultaneously lowering a coring rod and a pitting knife of the coring substation for each of said pears, in response to receiving endocarp position information…”. It is noted that MPEP 2163.05 recites “Under certain circumstances, omission of a limitation can raise an issue regarding whether the inventor had possession of a broader, more generic invention.” In this case the original claims, the specification and the drawings only describe a method and apparatus with structure that allows for “simultaneously lowering a coring rod and a pitting knife of the coring substation for each of said pears, in response to receiving endocarp position information…”. The specification does not disclose that the lowering of the pitting knife and coring rod can be carried out separately and does not describe an apparatus that carries out the coring and pitting separately. Therefore, the broadening of the scope of the claim to remove the limitation that the method be carried out by “simultaneously” lowering a coring rod and a pitting knife of the coring substation for each of said pears, in response to receiving endocarp position information, raises an issue of new matter.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 has been amended to recite “a helical spring abutted between a ribbed part and each jaw wall”. However, this is not specifically recited in the specification and raises an issue of new matter. (see paragraphs [0062] and [0067] of PGPUB specification). It is noted that this is not specifically recited in original claim 7 either.
Regarding claim 16 claim 16 recites “wherein the method further comprises the helical spring loading each jaw wall towards an open position delimited by protrusions at ends of the front and rear fixed walls”, this language is slightly different than the language of original claim 7, and therefore appears to raise an issue of new matter. (see also PGPUB paragraphs [0062], [0063], and [0067]). It is noted that original claim 7 recites “a helical spring being abutted between a ribbed part and the facing jaw wall, so that each jaw wall is loaded towards the open position delimited by protrusions at the ends of the front and rear fixed walls”.
Claims 13, 15, 17-22 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 15-17 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.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites “wherein the ratchet mechanism comprises an arm integral with the jaw wall provided with teeth in a free end of the arm and a hook pivoted on a respective fixed wall of the housing and centering cup and loaded by a spring to engage with the teeth of the arm of a facing jaw wall and wherein the method further comprises the hook and the teeth locking the jaw walls both in the open position and in the clamping position”. It is unclear what is loaded by a spring since the claim does not clearly specify what is loaded by a spring. It is noted that paragraph [0066] of the PGPUB specification discloses that hook 77 is spring loaded by means of spring 79. Additionally, it is unclear what jaw wall “the jaw wall” is referring to and it is unclear if “a facing jaw wall” is different from the recited “jaw walls” in claim 14 or is one of the recited “jaw walls”.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites in lines 35-37 “a helical spring being abutted between a ribbed part and each jaw wall”. It is unclear if “each jaw wall” is the same as or different from the “jaw walls” recited in line 31.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites “each jaw wall” in line 37. It is unclear if “each jaw wall” is the same as or different from the “jaw walls” recited in line 31.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites “each housing and centering cup” in lines 3 and 5. It is unclear if this is referring to each of the plurality of pear housing and centering cups recited in claim 16, since the claim does not specifically recite “each of the plurality of pear housing and centering cups”.
Regarding claim 17, line 7 recites “the helical springs”, however claim 16 only recites “a helical spring”. It is unclear what springs “the helical springs” is referring to. There is still insufficient antecedent basis for “the helical springs”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant recites in the remarks that the claims were amended to clarify that the coring rod and the pitting knife need not be lowered simultaneously. Applicant argues that Pg. 4, line 26 through Pg. 5 line 2 discusses lowering the pitting knife without reference to any simultaneous lowering of the coring rod.
This argument has not been found persuasive; the portion cited by Applicant just recites that the control unit controls the lowering of the pitting knife of the substation. However, when discussing how the method of the invention is carried out, the specification only describes that the coring rod is simultaneously lowered with the pitting knife, see for example that Pg. 4 lines 8-10 which is above the portion cited by Applicant, requires that the coring rod is simultaneously lowered with the pitting knife. The original claims, the specification and the drawings only describe a method and apparatus with structure that allows for “simultaneously lowering a coring rod and a pitting knife of the coring substation for each of said pears, in response to receiving endocarp position information…”. The specification does not disclose that the lowering of the pitting knife and coring rod can be carried out separately and does not disclose an apparatus that allows the pitting knife and coring rod to be lowered separately. It is noted that MPEP 2163.05 recites “Under certain circumstances, omission of a limitation can raise an issue regarding whether the inventor had possession of a broader, more generic invention.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 5:30.
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, ERIK KASHNIKOW can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/A.A/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792