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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/04/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed 05/04/2026 have been entered. Claims 12-15 remain pending. Claims 1-11 have been cancelled. Claims 12-15 are new.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 4 line 1 to page 6 line 10, filed 05/04/2026, with respect to Claim Objections, Claim Rejections under 35 USC 112, & Claim Rejections under 35 USC 101 of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The corresponding Objections & Rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 6 line 11 to page 6 line 28, filed 05/04/2026, with respect to The Claim Rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 6 line 18-20):
“Neither in the cited paragraph, nor anywhere else in Pasalodos, there is taught a computer implemented method for the non-destructive determination of the juice content of a juice fruit.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The reference of Pasalodos states “selection of lower qualities and/or for other uses, such as juices”. For use in juices there must be evaluation of the juice content of fruit; if there were no juice in the fruit it would not be suitable for juices.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 7 line 29 to page 7 line 20, filed 05/04/2026, with respect to The Claim Rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 6 line 18-20):
“The Office Action has then cited Benedetti, which discloses a station for identifying the incorrect growth of the kernel of nuts or other horticultural products”
& (page 7 lines 7-9):
“The measurement of juice content, and the related equipment and steps recited in claim 12, are neither taught nor suggested by Pasalodos nor Benedetti, regardless of whether those references are considered individually or in combination.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Pasalodos in column 6 lines 1-3 states: “to be sent for a new selection of lower qualities and/or for other uses, such as juices”
Benedetti in column 3 lines 26-29 states: “an estimate of the weight, of the specific gravity and/or information on flaws otherwise not detectable (or in any case difficult to identify).”. horticultural products includes fruits.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the specific gravity of the fruits provides information about how much juice is within the fruit.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9468949 B2 "Automatic Device For Separating Products According To External Defects, And Method For Releasing Said Products" (Gual Pasalodos) in view of US 12358726 B2 "Station For The Conveyance And Measurement Of Horticultural Products" (Benedetti).
Regarding claim 12, Gual Pasalodos teaches an apparatus for determining a juice content of at least one juice fruit (column 5 line 65- column 6 line 3: “According to information obtained during the processing of the fruit, it is determined whether the fruit is in suitable condition to be packed and marketed or whether it has to be rejected through being unsuitable, for example, to be sent for a new selection of lower qualities and/or for other uses, such as juices”, packs those fruits without defects and therefore system is non-destructive)), comprising: an inlet for receiving the at least one juice fruit in the apparatus (column 3 lines 34-36: “The fruit is fed in at the rear of the machine (the inlet) and converges in the nests created by each set of four supporting pads so that only one piece of fruit fits in each of these.”); an outlet for discharging the at least one juice fruit from the apparatus (column 7 lines 23-27: “As can be seen in FIG. 10, when a fruit reaches the outlet head, it can be freely housed in the support pad housing, without being retained (73) when this does not have to be rejected, for which reason it falls through gravity onto a conveyor for fruit without flaws”); scanning means … and further comprising, or being connected to, a data collection unit, wherein, in use: the scanning means determine the estimated volume and the weighing means determine the actual weight of the at least one juice fruit (column 2 lines 26-32: “The invention being proposed consists of an automatic selector for distribution of fresh fruit on the processing line depending on the information obtained from an artificial vision device located in a selection unit, where a fruit is determined to be suitable or not, as this fruit goes through said unit.”), … , and the microprocessor calculates an estimated weight percentage of juice in the at least one fruit juice based on the reference density value and the corresponding reference weight percentage of juice provided by the pairs of reference data (column 5 line 65 to column 6 line 3: “According to information obtained during the processing of the fruit, it is determined whether the fruit is in suitable condition to be packed and marketed or whether it has to be rejected through being unsuitable, for example, to be sent for a new selection of lower qualities and/or for other uses, such as juices.”, system uses volume and weight and makes determinations about whether fruit would be good for juice then it must make some estimate about the juice content).
Gual Pasalodos does not as explicitly teach and weighing means arranged between the inlet and the outlet, the scanning means being configured to determine an estimated volume of the at least one juice fruit, the weighing means being configured to determine an actual weight of the at least one juice fruit; and a computer system operatively connected to the scanning means and the weighing means, the computer system collecting the estimated volume and the actual weight of the at least one fruit juice, the computer system comprising a microprocessor … the scanning means and the weighing means provide the estimated volume and the actual weight of the at least one fruit juice to the data collection unit; the computer system collects, from a storage unit or from a cloud, pairs of reference data for juice fruits, each pair of reference data consisting of a reference density value and a corresponding reference weight percentage of juice for juice fruits of a same kind as the at least one fruit juice; the microprocessor calculates a density of the at least one juice fruit based on the estimated volume and the actual weight of the at least one fruit juice ….
Benedetti teaches and weighing means (column 2 lines 23-24: “Within this aim, the disclosure provides a station and an apparatus that allow the weighing of nuts and other horticultural products”) arranged between the inlet and the outlet (Fig. 1-1: “measurement station”, measurement station is between the inlet/(start of the conveyor) and the outlet/(end of the conveyor)), the scanning means being configured to determine an estimated volume of the at least one juice fruit, the weighing means being configured to determine an actual weight of the at least one juice fruit (column 6 lines 50-56: “It has been shown that the extent of the displacement is correlated with the weight and/or specific gravity of the product A: specific gravity obviously is also correlated with the volume and generally with the dimensions of the product A, and therefore by acquiring information also on the dimensions it is possible to obtain a more accurate measurement”); and a computer system operatively connected to the scanning means and the weighing means, the computer system collecting the estimated volume and the actual weight of the at least one fruit juice, the computer system comprising a microprocessor (column 8 lines 50-53: “The electronic system can be of any type, and for example can be a control unit or a computer; typically, in any case, it is the same electronic system that controls the operation of the entire apparatus 100 (and the apparatus 4).”, system has a computer for collecting data and running the system) … the scanning means and the weighing means provide the estimated volume and the actual weight of the at least one fruit juice to the data collection unit (column 6 lines 50-56: “It has been shown that the extent of the displacement is correlated with the weight and/or specific gravity of the product A: specific gravity obviously is also correlated with the volume and generally with the dimensions of the product A, and therefore by acquiring information also on the dimensions it is possible to obtain a more accurate measurement”); the computer system collects, from a storage unit or from a cloud, pairs of reference data for juice fruits, each pair of reference data consisting of a reference density value and a corresponding reference weight percentage of juice for juice fruits of a same kind as the at least one fruit juice (column 4 lines 41-45: “the indirect measurement thus performed allows therefore to easily identify the nuts with a kernel that is not fully grown or in any case products A that have such flaws as to reduce the weight and/or the specific gravity (compared to what is expected),”, system has a storage unit or database to provide reference values); the microprocessor calculates a density of the at least one juice fruit based on the estimated volume and the actual weight of the at least one fruit juice (column 3 lines 23-29: “At the same time, in the preferred application the product A is a nut or other product A having in any case small dimensions and weight and for which one seeks to obtain, in the particular manners that will be shown, an estimate of the weight, of the specific gravity and/or information on flaws otherwise not detectable (or in any case difficult to identify).”, density/(specific gravity))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus taught by Gual Pasalodos with the teachings of Benedetti. One would have added to the “automatic device for separating products according to external defects, and method for releasing said products” of Gual Pasalodos the “Station For The Conveyance And Measurement Of Horticultural Products” of Benedetti. The motivation would have been that the density/(specific gravity) method of Benedetti would enable quicker and more accurate determination of the quality of the fruit (see Benedetti column 10 lines 6-9: “allows to identify quickly and accurately an erroneous growth of the kernel, since this circumstance results in a lower weight/specific gravity of the nut and therefore in a greater deviation than expected for a nut of good quality (with a fully developed kernel).”)
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9468949 B2 "Automatic Device For Separating Products According To External Defects, And Method For Releasing Said Products" (Gual Pasalodos) in view of US 12358726 B2 "Station For The Conveyance And Measurement Of Horticultural Products" (Benedetti) in further view of US 6512577 B1 "Apparatus And Method For Measuring And Correlating Characteristics Of Fruit With Visible/near Infra-red Spectrum" (Ozanich).
Regarding claim 13, Gual Pasalodos in view of Benedetti teaches the apparatus according to claim 12.
Benedetti further teaches … and wherein the reference data are further determined by causing the scanning means to determine an estimated volume and the weighing means to determine an actual weight of each of the sample juice fruits (column 6 lines 50-54: “It has been shown that the extent of the displacement is correlated with the weight and/or specific gravity of the product A: specific gravity obviously is also correlated with the volume and generally with the dimensions of the product A”, specific gravity requires weight and volume)); … wherein the microprocessor calculates a density of each of the sample juice fruits and a weight percentage of juice of each of the sample juice fruits starting from the estimated volume, the actual weight, and the weight of the juice of each of the sample juice fruits so as to define the reference density value and the corresponding reference weight percentage of juice for calculating the estimated weight percentage of juice in the at least one fruit juice (column 4 lines 41-45: “the indirect measurement thus performed allows therefore to easily identify the nuts with a kernel that is not fully grown or in any case products A that have such flaws as to reduce the weight and/or the specific gravity (compared to what is expected),”, system has a storage unit or database to provide reference values).
Neither Gual Pasalodos nor Benedetti as explicitly teach … wherein the at least one juice fruit belongs to a predetermined batch, wherein the reference data are determined starting from a predetermined number of sample juice fruits belonging to the predetermined batch, … further comprising a juice extractor extracting a juice from each of the sample juice fruits, a weight of the juice of each of the sample juice fruits being subsequently determined, wherein the data collection unit collects the estimated volume, the actual weight, and the weight of the juice of each of the sample juice fruits
Ozanich teaches … wherein the at least one juice fruit belongs to a predetermined batch, wherein the reference data are determined starting from a predetermined number of sample juice fruits belonging to the predetermined batch (column 30 lines 9-13: “Using PCA, poor quality fruit can be removed from a batch and the highest quality fruit can be segregated into a premium class. Poor quality fruit was observed to often have a higher pH level than good quality fruit.”, system has batches for comparing characteristics of the fruits and their juice), … further comprising a juice extractor extracting a juice from each of the sample juice fruits, a weight of the juice of each of the sample juice fruits being subsequently determined, wherein the data collection unit collects the estimated volume, the actual weight, and the weight of the juice of each of the sample juice fruits (column 29 lines 53-56: “Other steps in determining predictive algorithms included reference determination of pH using electrode measurement and reference determination of total acidity using end-point titration of extracted juice”, system extracts juice to determine characteristics of the fruit);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus taught by Gual Pasalodos in view of Benedetti with the teachings of Ozanich. One would have added to the “automatic device for separating products according to external defects, and method for releasing said products” with “Station For The Conveyance And Measurement Of Horticultural Products” of Gual Pasalodos in view of Benedetti with the “Apparatus And Method For Measuring And Correlating Characteristics Of Fruit With Visible/near Infra-red Spectrum” and in particular its algorithms for predicting fruit quality. The motivation would have been that the combination would be better able to make predictions about the quality of fruit (see Ozanich column 7 lines 13-18: “Demonstrated in this disclosure is the ability to combine chemical and physical property data permitting the prediction of consumer properties, such as taste, appearance and color; harvest variables, such as time for harvest; and storage variables such as prediction of firmness retention and time until spoilage.”)
Regarding claim 14, Gual Pasalodos in view of Benedetti in further view of Ozanich teaches the apparatus according to claim 13,
Ozanich further teaches wherein the microprocessor further calculates a linear regression of pairs consisting of the density and the weight percentage of juice of each of the sample juice fruits, the microprocessor further providing the data collection unit with the reference data determined from the predetermined number of sample juice fruits belonging to the predetermined batch (column 21 lines 55-60: “Typically, Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression analysis is used during calibration to generate a regression vector that relates the VIS and NIR spectra to brix, firmness, acidity, density, pH, color and external and internal defects and disorders. This stored regression vector is referred to as a prediction or calibration algorithm.”, system does a regression analysis on characteristics of the fruit).
Regarding claim 15, Gual Pasalodos in view of Benedetti in further view of Ozanich teaches the apparatus according to claim 13,
Ozanich further teaches wherein the predetermined number of sample juice fruits is comprised between 40 and 80 (column 28 lines 29-36: “Multiple spectrum, for example fifty spectrum, are detected by the light detector 80 for each sample. The computer program compares each detected discrete spectrum with an expected spectrum from the particular sample, the spectrum not meeting the criteria are discarded, the retained spectrum, e.g., 40-50 samples, are combined to provide the spectrum which becomes the input for the predictive algorithm.”, system makes comparisons against a sample size within range between 40 and 80).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6276536 B1 "Method Of Measuring Ripeness And Texture Of Vegetable Or Fruit And Measuring Instrument" (Terasaki) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 4.
US 8346388 B1 "System And Method For Automated Tactile Sorting" (Tritz) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 3 & Fig. 9.
US 4363408 A "Weighing And Grading Samples In Order To Grade Large Batches Of Fruit" (O'Brien) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 10 & Fig. 11.
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 MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights