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 .
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.
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 51 and 74 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 51, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 74 recites the limitation “the aperture of the end effector is increased or decreased using a non-actuated opening or closing mechanism”. Claim 74 depends from claim 49, which recites that “the end effector includes an aperture that can be changed dynamically by driving a single actuator”. Claim 74 contradicts claim 49, as an actuator is both required to exist and not exist.
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 49, 50, 52, 65 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Nir et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0008355).
In reference to claim 49, Nir discloses a robot fruit picking system, comprising an autonomous robot 50, the robot fruit picking system including:
(a) a computer vision subsystem configured to analyse images of fruit to be picked and to determine a picking position (pars. 0049 and 0050); and
(b) an end effector 100 mounted on a picking arm 60 (par. 0043) or other end effector positioning device, in which the picking arm 60 is configured to position the end effector 100 (par. 0043);
in which the position and/or aperture of the end effector 100 is dynamically updated or controlled (par. 0056, “As the effector 100 is moved towards the fruit stem 40, the sensor unit 410 may continuously obtain fruit related data, e.g. location data”) by the computer vision subsystem (pars. 0049 and 0050; par. 0054), in which the end effector 100 includes an aperture (Fig. 5B, within arms 111a-d) that can be changed dynamically by driving a single actuator 105 (par. 0044) in order to either grip, cut or release a fruit or a stalk or stem of a fruit or bunch of fruits 30 (Figs. 5A-5G).
In reference to claim 50, Nir discloses that the aperture is changed dynamically in order to increase the probability of picking success of a target fruit or bunch of fruits 30 (par. 0056).
In reference to claim 52, Nir discloses that the gripping, cutting, or releasing actions of the end effector 100 are performed without having to move the picking arm 60 (par. 0044, motor 105 operates the end effector 100 without action from arms 60; par. 0043, usage of arms is limited to adjusting the location of end effector 100).
In reference to claim 65, Nir discloses that the computer vision subsystem includes a stereo camera (par. 0050, “Depth from stereo” implies that a stereo camera is present).
In reference to claim 71, Nir discloses that the position and/or aperture of the end effector 100 is selected to allow the computer vision subsystem to gain confidence that the right fruit or stalk or stem 30 has been selected (par. 0056, “it may remove branches and obstacles from the fruit cluster 30”; removing obstacles implies gaining confidence that “the right fruit or stalk or stem” has been selected).
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 51, 53, 54, 56-58, 62, 63, 72 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nir et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0008355) in view of Robertson et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0261566).
In reference to claim 1, Nir fails to disclose that the probability of picking success for a target fruit is estimated by taking account one or more of the following: obstacles near a fruit or stalk or stem of interest, position of target fruit or stalk or stem, environmental conditions such as wind or motion of the picking arm.
Robertson discloses that the probability of picking success for a target fruit is estimated by taking account one or more of the following: obstacles near a fruit or stalk or stem of interest or the position of target fruit or stalk or stem (par. 0126). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to estimate the probability of picking success with a reasonable expectation of success so that the picking system can make adjustments if the probability of success is low.
In reference to claim 53, Nir fails to disclose that the end effector comprises a set of jaws and a cutter assembly that slides along the set of jaws.
Robertson discloses an end effector (Fig. 20) comprising a set of jaws 13 and 15 and a cutter assembly 11 that slides along the jaws 13 and 15 (Figs. 24-26). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the end effector of Robertson in place of the end effector of Nir as it amounts to a substitution of equivalents to perform the same function, which is in this case to pick fruit.
In reference to claim 54, Robertson discloses that the aperture of the set of jaws 13 and 15 is configured to change based on the sliding action of the cutter assembly 11 along the set of jaws 13 and 15 (Figs. 24-26).
In reference to claim 56, Robertson discloses that the picking arm 100 (par. 0064) is configured to position the set of jaws 13 and 15 (Fig. 20) on either side of a fruit or stalk or stem of a fruit or a bunch of fruits to be picked (Figs. 24 and 25).
In reference to claim 57, Nir discloses that the cutter assembly 120 includes a cutting blade (par. 0046).
In reference to claim 58, Nir discloses that the cutter assembly 120 is driven off a single actuator or motor 105 (par. 0044).
In reference to claim 62, Robertson discloses that the cutter assembly is configured to be moved backward in order to release the picked fruit or bunch of fruits (Figs. 26 and 27).
In reference to claim 63, Robertson discloses that the aperture of the set of jaws 13 and 15 can be selected such that the set of jaws 13 and 15 can be configured to be only partially closed around the fruit or stalk or stem so as to encircle the fruit or stalk or stem without applying significant force or cutting to the fruit or stalk or stem (Fig. 27, the jaws partially enclose the stem without applying significant force).
In reference to claim 72, Nir fails to disclose that the computer vision subsystem is configured to detect one or more of the following: if a picking attempt has failed, if a picked fruit or bunch is damaged or rotten or if multiple stalks have been picked simultaneously.
Robertson discloses using a computer vision subsystem to detect if a fruit is damaged or rotten (par. 0134, “image analysis software measures the fruit's 3D shape and detects various kinds of defect (e.g. rot, bird damage, spray residue, bruising, mildew, etc.)”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to detect if the fruit is damaged or rotten with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure that a damaged or rotten fruit is not delivered to customers.
In reference to claim 73, Nir fails to disclose that the computer vision subsystem is configured to determine if picking should be continued or if a fruit or bunch should be transported to a storage subsystem.
Robertson discloses determining using a computer vision subsystem to determine if a fruit or bunch should be transported to a storage subsystem (par. 0065, “the robot picks rotten or otherwise unsuitable fruit (either by accident or design), it is usually desirable to discard the rotten fruit into a suitable container within the robot or onto the ground”; par. 0154). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine if a fruit should be transported to a storage subsystem with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure that rotten or unsuitable fruit are not stored with desirable fruit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 55, 59-61, 66-69, 75 and 76 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Knopf et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0068237) discloses a fruit picking system with computer vision (par. 0012) and a cutting blade 440 (Fig. 4A); Matarazzo et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/026679) discloses a fruit picking system with computer vision (par. 0012); Russell et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0029178) discloses a fruit picking end effector with a computer vision system (par. 0014).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAD HARCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-7303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 6pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571)272-4137. 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.
/BRAD HARCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
9/18/25