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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0216795 (SINGH) in view of FR2956143 (SALIN) (IDS of 6/9/2025). A translation of FR2956143 was provided with a previous Official Action and is relied upon below.
PNG
media_image1.png
368
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SINGH teaches a weighted/ballasted agitation device for the production of red wine [0044]. The body serves as the ballast and naturally circumscribes the apertures [0010]. The agitation device is positioned over a fermentation device with a cap of grape solids and lowered to break the cap (see Fig. 3, [0034] and[0044]).
Fig. 1 of SINGH shows a cylindrical device [0010] with symmetrical holes/apertures [0030].
SINGH teaches an agitation device for the production of red wine [0044]. The agitation device is positioned over a fermentation device with a cap of grape solids and lowered to break the cap (see Fig. 3, [0034] and[0044]). This would naturally disturb the cap of grape solids increases maceration of the of the cap of grape solids so that the caps of solids and liquid would freely pass.
SINGH does not use a bridge crane.
However, SALIN teaches that a displacement unit (5) i.e. bridge crane, allows vertical displacement of a load (4) i.e. feed hopper, between an upper stage and a lower stage (1) through an opening, and a horizontal displacement of the load at the upper stage. This allows one to efficiently move equipment from upper and lower levels, as needed (see abstract and Figure 2). Fig.2 is as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
562
848
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the second paragraph on pg. 4, it is taught that bridge cranes find particular application in the wine industry so that one can efficiently move equipment.
It would have been obvious to use a bridge crane to move the agitation device, as SALIN teaches that the use of a bridge crane allows one to efficiently move equipment (see abstract, Figure 2, and pg. 4, second paragraph). Moreover, it would have been obvious to move the bridge crane in directions as needed based on the type of process steps that need to be completed.
PNG
media_image3.png
138
643
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
110
629
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claims 18 and 19, SALIN teaches that a displacement unit (5) i.e. bridge crane, allows vertical and horizontal movement of displacement of a load. In this regard, it would have been obvious to move in the first, second and third axes, as claimed. It would have been obvious to move the bridge crane in directions as needed, including to raise and lower the punch down device of SINGH, based on the type of process steps that need to be completed.
PNG
media_image5.png
61
648
media_image5.png
Greyscale
SINGH teaches an agitation device for the production of red wine [0044]. It would have been obvious to use pinot noir as pinot noir is a red wine. The agitation device is positioned over a fermentation device with a cap of grape solids and lowered to break the cap (see Fig. 3, [0034] and[0044]). This would naturally disturb the cap of grape solids increases maceration of the of the cap of grape solids.
PNG
media_image6.png
86
665
media_image6.png
Greyscale
SINGH teaches that upper and lower holes/apertures are present to allow the wine to fill and drain from the interior of the device when the device is lowered into and out the fermentation vessel. This device breaks the cap and increases maceration [0007], [0011], [0044].
PNG
media_image7.png
149
671
media_image7.png
Greyscale
SINGH teaches a bladder that can be inflated/extended or not and could also be used as a handle (see Fig. 3). It would have been obvious that one skilled in the art could manually position the ballasted punch down device over the fermentation device.
PNG
media_image8.png
74
654
media_image8.png
Greyscale
SINGH teaches that a rubber/plastic flotation bumper extends outwardly from the housing [0030].
Relevant Art Not Relied Upon
USD854892S1- shows a ballast for pickles
Claim Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, 15-16 are free of the prior art. The prior art as noted above shows that it was known to use bridge cranes and ballasted punch down devices to produce wine. However, the prior art does not teach forming, in a fermentation vessel, a cap of pinot noir grape solids which floats on a fermentate during the fermentation; positioning, using a bridge crane, a ballasted punch down device over the fermentation vessel, the ballasted punch down device comprising:
a stainless steel cylindrical housing; one or more venting apertures extending between bases of the stainless steel cylindrical housing; one or more plastic bumpers extending outwardly from the stainless steel cylindrical housing; a concrete ballast hermetically sealed within the stainless steel cylindrical housing, the concrete ballast circumscribing the one or more venting apertures; and an extendable handle extending outwardly from the fermentation vessel; responsive to the ballasted punch down device not being suspended over the cap of pinot noir grape solids, adjusting, using the extendable handle, a position of the ballasted punch down device over the fermentation vessel; and using the bridge crane, the ballasted punch down device in the fermentation vessel such that the cap of pinot noir grapes solids is disturbed to increase maceration of the cap of pinot noir grape solids and at least a portion of the cap of pinot noir grape solids and at least a portion of the fermentate freely pass through the one or more venting apertures.
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 PHILIP A DUBOIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-6:00p.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/PHILIP A DUBOIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1791 /Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights