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 § 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 1-5, 7 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. Claim 1 recites “the delivery mechanism having one or more receptacles for housing the piece of fruit”. However, the application does not appear to disclose this limitation. Paragraph 0025 of the specification only discloses the delivery mechanism having a tray or cup.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maroney [Pat. No. 5,528,967].
Maroney teaches a fluid jet fruit slicer (title) which performs a method by receiving a
piece of fruit on a delivery mechanism (Figure 1, #30; column 2, line 50; column 1, line 34), the piece of fruit being a frozen cherry (column 2, line 50), the frozen cherries having been previously pitted immediately after harvesting (column 1, line 16), moving the fruit piece past a water-based cutting mechanism including water-blades (Figure 1-2, #20, 56), the water-blades having a diameter and pressure (column 4, line 45; column 6, line 41), cutting the fruit without slicing or shattering any remaining pit material (column 2, line 52), the delivery mechanism including a resilient rubber ring receptacle (Figure 1, #34; column 5, line 62), contacting the fruit with the water-jet while it is in the ring receptacle (Figure 1-3, #22, 56), receiving the cut fruit in a receptacle (Figure 1, #26), and cutting the fruit into two hemispherical pieces (Figure 1, #24).
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maroney.
Maroney teaches the above mentioned components and concepts, as well as cutting frozen cherries by use of water-jets with a diameter of 0.001-0.010 inches, or 25-254 micrometers (column 6, lines 40-45) and using water pumps capable of generating up to 40,000 psi (column 4, line 45). Maroney does not explicitly recite a diameter of approximately 5 micrometers (claim 3) and a pressure of approximately 15,000 psi (claim 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed diameter and pressure values into the invention of Maroney since Maroney already included water-jets with a diameter of 0.001-0.010 inches, or 25-254 micrometers (column 6, lines 40-45) and using water pumps capable of generating up to 40,000 psi (column 4, line 45), and since the claimed pressure and diameter values would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the type of fruit, the desired fineness of the cut line, the state of the fruit (eg., frozen or non-frozen), the size of the fruit, and/or the type or shape of cut to be made in the invention of Maroney.
Claims 2, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maroney as applied above, and further in view of Johnson [US 2021/0037875A1].
Maroney teaches the above mentioned components and concepts, as well as cutting the fruit without slicing or shattering any remaining pit material (column 2, line 52), and cutting the fruit without pits into two hemispherical pieces (Figure 1, #24).
Maroney does not explicitly recite detecting a pit based upon size after cutting (claim 2), an inspection process at the receptacle (claim 7).
Johnson teaches pit detection in processed fruit (title) comprising a fruit pitting system (Figure 2, #210), placing the pitted fruit in a receptacle (Figure 2, #240, 220), a weighing mechanism (Figure 2, #230), a pit detection system which measures fruit size (Figure 2, #250; paragraph 0056-0057), and a weight estimation system to estimate the size and/or weight (Figure 1, #110; paragraph 0035-0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed pit detection and inspection features into the invention of Maroney, in view of Johnson, since both are directed to fruit processing systems, since Maroney already included cutting the fruit without slicing or shattering any remaining pit material (column 2, line 52) and cutting the fruit into two hemispherical pieces if no pit is present (Figure 1, #24), since fruit systems commonly included a pit detection system which measures fruit size (Figure 2, #250; paragraph 0056-0057) and a weight estimation system to estimate the size and/or weight (Figure 1, #110; paragraph 0035-0036) as shown by Johnson, since the inability of the water cutter of Maroney to cut through the pit would have kept the two hemispheres connected, since it would have been readily apparent that a fruit with linked hemispheres also still included the pit, since consumers and producers did not desire fruit with intact pit material, and since separating/isolating of fruit with pit material would have benefited the system of Maroney, in view of Johnson, by improving product quality.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maroney as applied above, and further in view of Crescenzo [Pat. No. 10,455,856].
Maroney teaches the abovementioned concepts. Maroney does not explicitly recite a conveyor belt with a receptacle (claim 5). Crescenzo teaches a system for pitting fruit comprising a conveyor belt with receptacles for fruit (Figure 1-3, #5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed conveyor belt and receptacles into the invention of Maroney, in view of Crescenzo, since both are directed to fruit systems, since Maroney already included a resilient rubber ring forming a receptacle, since fruit systems commonly included a conveyor belt with receptacles as shown by Crescenzo, since the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art , and since a belt with individual receptacles would provided a more secure setting for the fruit of Maroney, in view of Crescenzo.
Claims 13, 15-17, 21-24, 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maroney as applied above, and further in view of Henneuse [Pat. No. 4,538,491].
Maroney teaches the above mentioned concepts as well as the two fruit halves falling into a receptacle (Figure 1, #24, 26), and the water blades being angled and thus being both vertically and horizontally arranged (Figure 1, #56). Maroney does not explicitly recite the fruit falling from the delivery mechanism and being cut during the fall (claim 13, 21), the water blade being 5 micrometers and 15,000 psi (claim 15-16) or at least 3 micrometers and 10,000 psi (claim 23-24).
Henneuse teaches a system for slicing foods comprising a delivery mechanism (Figure 1, 4-5, #27) from which the food falls and is cut by blades into pieces as they fall (Figure 1, 4-5, #20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed falling cut into the invention of Maroney, in view of Henneuse, since both are directed to food cutting systems, since Maroney already included water blades as well as the fruit halves falling after cutting, since food cutting systems commonly included a delivery mechanism from which the food falls and is cut by blades into pieces as they drop (Figure 1, 4-5, #27, 20) as shown by Henneuse, since the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, and since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed diameter and pressure values into the invention of Maroney since Maroney already included water-jets with a diameter of 0.001-0.010 inches, or 25-254 micrometers (column 6, lines 40-45) and using water pumps capable of generating up to 40,000 psi (column 4, line 45), and since the claimed pressure and diameter values would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the type of fruit, the desired fineness of the cut line, the state of the fruit (eg., frozen or non-frozen), the size of the fruit, and/or the type or shape of cut to be made in the invention of Maroney.
Claims 14, 19, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maroney, in view of Henneuse, as applied above, and further in view of Johnson [US 2021/0037875A1].
Maroney teaches the above mentioned components and concepts, as well as cutting the fruit without slicing or shattering any remaining pit material (column 2, line 52), and cutting the fruit without pits into two hemispherical pieces (Figure 1, #24).
Maroney does not explicitly recite detecting a pit based upon size after cutting (claim 14), an inspection process (claim 19, 25).
Johnson teaches pit detection in processed fruit (title) comprising a fruit pitting system (Figure 2, #210), placing the pitted fruit in a receptacle (Figure 2, #240, 220), a weighing mechanism (Figure 2, #230), a pit detection system which measures fruit size (Figure 2, #250; paragraph 0056-0057), and a weight estimation system to estimate the size and/or weight (Figure 1, #110; paragraph 0035-0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed pit detection and inspection features into the invention of Maroney, in view of Johnson, since both are directed to fruit processing systems, since Maroney already included cutting the fruit without slicing or shattering any remaining pit material (column 2, line 52) and cutting the fruit into two hemispherical pieces if no pit is present (Figure 1, #24), since fruit systems commonly included a pit detection system which measures fruit size (Figure 2, #250; paragraph 0056-0057) and a weight estimation system to estimate the size and/or weight (Figure 1, #110; paragraph 0035-0036) as shown by Johnson, since the inability of the water cutter of Maroney to cut through the pit would have kept the two hemispheres connected, since it would have been readily apparent that a fruit with linked hemispheres also still included the pit, since consumers and producers did not desire fruit with intact pit material, and since separating/isolating of fruit with pit material would have benefited the system of Maroney, in view of Johnson, by improving product quality.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maroney, in view of Henneuse, as applied above, and further in view of Crescenzo [Pat. No. 10,455,856].
Maroney teaches the abovementioned concepts. Maroney does not explicitly recite a conveyor belt with a receptacle (claim 20). Crescenzo teaches a system for pitting fruit comprising a conveyor belt with receptacles for fruit (Figure 1-3, #5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed conveyor belt and receptacles into the invention of Maroney, in view of Crescenzo, since both are directed to fruit systems, since Maroney already included a resilient rubber ring forming a receptacle, since fruit systems commonly included a conveyor belt with receptacles as shown by Crescenzo, since the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art , and since a belt with individual receptacles would provided a more secure setting for the fruit of Maroney, in view of Crescenzo.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Maroney did not include a prior pitting operation. However, Maroney disclosed that the cherries were pitted immediately after harvest (column 1, line 16) and that the frozen cherries do not contain a pit (column 2, line 51) but if pit fragments are still present the fluid force will not slice the pit in two or shatter it (column 2, line 52).
Applicant argues that Maroney does not disclose cutting the fruit as it falls. However, Henneuse teaches a system for slicing foods comprising a delivery mechanism (Figure 1, 4-5, #27) from which the food falls and is cut by blades (Figure 1, 4-5, #20) into pieces as they drop.
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 DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792