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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Groot et al. (US 20070095041 A1) in view of George et al. (US 20190297778 A1).
Regarding claim 1, De Groot discloses a machine (10) for harvesting an edible portion (20) of a plant, the machine comprising:
an end effector (25), the end effector including:
a housing (27) having:
an upper portion, and a lower portion coupled to the upper portion (see annotated image below),
a first and second door (28) hingedly coupled to the upper portion (Fig. 3, para. [0026] “each gripper element is pivotally attached to clamp head 27”), the first and second door configured to selectively permit access (when grippers 28 are opened up in “release” configuration) or restrict access (when grippers 28 are closed in “clamp” configuration) to an interior of the housing,
a cutting mechanism (37) including a blade (para. [0030]),
a first actuator (“clamping mechanism”) coupled to the first door and the second door, the first actuator being configured to transition the first door and the second door between an open state and a closed state (para. [0026] “The clamping mechanism…includes an electric motor or a hydraulic actuator configured to clamp and release gripper elements 28”), and
a second actuator coupled to the cutting mechanism (Figs. 4b and 4d, para. [0030] blade is electronically or hydraulically controlled to plunge into or sweep across clamped head to sever the head), the second actuator being configured to transition the blade between a first position in which the blade is disposed external to the housing and a second position in which the blade is disposed at least partially internal to the housing; and
a robotic arm (30) coupled to the end effector.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 3 of De Groot
De Groot further teaches wherein the cut mechanism (37) includes an electronically or hydraulically controlled plunging blade for severing the head from the root (para. [0030]), and wherein the robotic arm (30) is configured to lift and lower housing (27), but does not explicitly detail wherein the robotic arm provides at least three degrees of movement, and wherein the plunging blade is configured to transition between a first position disposed external to the housing and a second position disposed internal to the housing.
In the same field of endeavor, George discloses a similar end effector (41, Fig. 7) for harvesting produce heads comprising a housing (42) coupled to a 6-axis robotic arm (40) (para. [0046]), wherein the end effector includes a cutting mechanism comprises a plunging blade (47) and an actuator (46,48) is configured to transition the blade between a first position disposed external to the housing and a second position disposed internal to the housing (Fig. 7, para. [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the plunging blade assembly and robotic arm of De Groot to utilize a similar design as in George, in order provide more flexible robotic arm positioning system capable of 6 degrees of movement, and since this is a mere simple substitution of one plunging blade mechanism for another in the art of harvesting produce heads to yield predictable results.
If one were to modify the end effector of De Groot per the teaching of George, as combined above, one would inherently acquire the following (a-b below):
Regarding claim 2, the machine of claim 1, wherein in the second position, the cutting mechanism is disposed at least partially between the upper portion of the housing and the lower portion of the housing (see Figs. 7-8 of George, blade 47 is disposed between upper portion 42a and bottom portion 43a of housing).
Regarding claim 23, The machine of claim 1, wherein:
the upper portion has an enclosed top;
the lower portion has an open bottom;
the housing includes a sidewall;
the first door is hingedly coupled to a first side of the sidewall;
the second door is hingedly coupled to a second side of the sidewall; and
the interior is defined by the upper portion, the enclosed top, the sidewall, the first door, and the second door (see annotated image below)
PNG
media_image2.png
360
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 3 of De Groot
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Groot and George as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of D’Arrigo et al. (US 20180035611 A1).
Regarding claim 22, de Groot in view of George discloses the machine of claim 1. George further teaches wherein the second actuator (46,48) is configured to move the cutting mechanism (47) between the first position and the second position by translating instead of rotating the cutting mechanism.
D’Arrigo in the same area discloses a crop harvesting head in Figs. 19-23 comprising a housing (102) and an actuator (138) configured to rotate the cutting blade (130) between a first position disposed external to the housing (Fig. 19) and a second position disposed internal to the housing (para. [0082] blade 130 rotates into housing to sever plant within, and then remains within the housing to support a base of the plant when housing is lifted, para. [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the translating cutting blade of de Groot with a rotating cutting blade, as taught by D’Arrigo, since this is a mere simple substitution of one known cutting mechanism in a harvesting head for another to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7-11 and 13-21 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-2 and 22-23, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“de Groot's gripper elements are external clamping jaws that grip the plant stem from the outside, and they do not control access to any interior within the housing. For example, de Groot's clamp head 27 does not define an interior space to which access could be controlled. As amended claim 1 recites, the first door and the second door are "configured to selectively permit or restrict access to an interior of the housing." This limitation requires both (1) an interior space within the housing and (2) doors that control access to that space by selectively permitting or restricting entry. The gripper elements of de Groot do not control access to any interior cavity.” (see Applicant remarks page 10).
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that the definition of an “interior” is “lying, occurring, or functioning within the limiting boundaries”. Therefore, under BRI, de Groot’s clamp head 27 (see Fig. 3) defines an exterior structure which at least partially surrounds an inner space within which crops may enter and exit, and grippers 28 are considered to selectively permit access to this interior (i.e. when the grippers are moved away from each other toward the open/release configuration, crop may enter and exit the interior) or restrict access to this interior (when the grippers are moved toward each other into the closed/clamp configuration, the grippers themselves along with the any crop held between them are disposed within the interior space, therefore access is blocked off and other plants or crops are unable to enter).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671