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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on September 9, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Since the restriction requirement properly made, the restriction requirement is now made final.
Priority
The claim to priority to IT 102022000001979, filed on February 4, 2022 is acknowledged in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on January 31, 2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “anchor element” and “support elements” (claims 8 and 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said” should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “first openings” recited in line 9 should be changed to “first opening”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a device for inflating the walls …”; and “actuators for moving the blades …: in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-13 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 claims 1-2, 5 and 11-12, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 recites “a clamping tool”, a fruit” and “a first opening” in lines 2-3 renders the claim indefinite and unclear whether they are the same “a clamping tool”, a fruit” and “a first opening” in claim 1 or not. Clarification is requested. NOTE: for purpose of examination, it is presumed it is the same clamping tool, fruit and first opening.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomelleri (US Pat. 3,835,765) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Tomelleri discloses an apparatus for destoning and halving fruit having a clamping tool for clamping a fruit (8), in particular peaches (Abstract), in a given position in a processing station of a pitting machine, the clamping tool (38) having a tubular shape and extending about a given axis and being provided with: a first opening (bottom of 38) configured to allow the clamping tool (38) to be arranged over and around the fruit (8); a second opening (top of 38) smaller than the first opening and arranged on the opposite side of the first opening to allow the insertion of cutting tools (two blades 26) inside the clamping tool (38) in a direction parallel to the axis; two through channel (38a) substantially parallel to the axis extending from the first opening to the second opening; and two walls (Fig. 2, two walls of 38) facing each other and separated by the channel (38a) and conveying towards the axis between the first and second openings (Fig. 1-2; Col. 1, Lines 53-59; Col. 2, Line 59 to Col. 3, Line 2).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomelleri (US Pat. 3,835,765) in view of Crescenzo (US Pub. 2019/0069592) (new cited).
Regarding claim 2, Tomelleri discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the walls (Fig. 2, two walls of 38) except the walls are made of deformable material, in particular rubber. Crescenzo discloses the walls are made of deformable material (Fig. 5-6; Par. 41 and 51; Claim 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Tomelleri, the walls are made of deformable material, in particular rubber, as taught by Crescenzo, for the purpose of clamping/holding the fruit securely.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomelleri (US Pat. 3,835,765) in view of Berry et al. (US Pat. 2,852,053) (new cited).
Regarding claim 3, Tomelleri discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including a tubular body (38) configured to support the wall, the tubular body extending about the axis except two through grooves parallel to the axis; and two faces separated by the grooves and converging toward the axis. Barry et al. discloses the tubular body (10) provided with a through groove (12) parallel to the axis (vertical axis); face separate by the groove (2) and converging toward the axis (Fig. 1 and 4; Col. 1, Lines 47-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Tomelleri, two through grooves parallel to the axis; and two faces separated by the grooves and converging toward the axis, as taught by Barry et al., for the purpose of providing projecting lug and slot for guiding the plunger.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomelleri (US Pat. 3,835,765) in view of Berry et al. (US Pat. 2,852,053) and further view of Crescenzo (US Pub. 2019/0069592).
Regarding claim 2, Tomelleri/Berry disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the walls (Fig. 2, two walls of 38) except the walls adhere to the faces. Crescenzo discloses the walls (29) adhere to the faces (39) (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Tomelleri/Berry, the walls adhere to the faces, as taught by Crescenzo, for the purpose of supporting the deformable wall.
Regarding claim 5, Crescenzo discloses the tubular body (28) is coated along its inner surface (27) with a tubular membrane of deformable material, which follows the shape of the inner surface (Fig. 5-6; Par. 41 and 51; Claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, Crescenzo discloses the tubular membrane (27 or 69, 70) is made integral with the tubular body (28 or 58, 59) at the first and second openings (Fig. 5-6 and 17).
Regarding claim 7, Crescenzo discloses the tubular body (28) comprises a through hole (54) at each face for feeding a compressible fluid between each face and the respective wall (Fig. 6 and 17; Par. 51 and 54).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 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.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571)272-5567. 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.
/HUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
HUNG D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761