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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/08/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6, & 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 in line 14 recites the limitation "at least one of juice fruit (F)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending line 14 to “at least one juice fruit (F)” which has support in line 2,
Claim 1 & 4 lines 13 & 4 (respectively) recites the limitation "said calculated density". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending claim 1 line 10 to say ‘calculating, based on said first data (VsF, PrF), a calculated density (DcF) of said at least one juice fruit (F).’
Claims 2-6 in line 1 (for each claim) and claim 7 line 3 recites the limitation "The computer-implemented method according to claim 1 [3][4]". There are multiple computer implemented methods within these claims which could be referred to as “computer-implemented method” such as “predetermined batch” or “reference data (Dr1, %r1, Dr2, %r2, Dr3, %r3 …) being determined”. Examiner suggests that the preamble to claims 2-6 be of the form ‘the computer-implemented method for a non-destructive determination of a juice content according to claim 1 [3]’.
Claim 3 in lines 2-3 recites the limitation "determine the juice content of juice fruits (F)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There would be sufficient antecedent basis for “the juice content of at least one juice fruit”, as this is element is recited in claim 1 line 2.
Claim 4 in line 7 recites the limitation "the linear regression of said pairs of calibration data". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends amending this limitation to “a linear regression of said pairs of calibration data”
Claim 8, Examiner suggests that claim 8 be similarly amended as ‘the computer program for a non-destructive determination of juice content according to claim 7’.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct. Otherwise, the claim would likely raise 35 U.S.C § 112(b) antecedent basis issues.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 data collection unit configured to collect at least the following data:" in claim 9 line 3.
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.
Three-Prong test for “a data collection unit”
Prong (A) (As above):
Yes;
“a data collection unit” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (As above)
Yes;
“configured to” is a linking word or phrase connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (As above)
Yes;
It is unclear how “collect at least the following data” is done by the nonce.
Conclusion
The limitation of “a data collection unit” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
Note: the initially filed specification (filed 06/08/2023) was searched for an interpretation of "a data collection unit configured to collect at least the following data:"
The following evidence supporting an interpretation was found in page 5 lines 18-20:
“Essentially, the computer system may include a data collection unit 51 and a microprocessor unit 52, which - in a preferred but non-exclusive embodiment - may be contained in a single PLC unit 53.”
Therefore, (“PLC” is interpreted as a ‘programmable logic controller’) “data collection unit” is interpreted as ‘computing elements including processor and memory’.
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 1-9 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 “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”:
Claim 1 in line 4 recites the limitation "collecting first data". It is not clear how the data is collected or with what sort of device.
Claims 1 & 9 in lines 8-9 (both claims) recites the limitation "and a corresponding value relating to the a reference amount of juice (%r1; %r2; ". It is not clear why a particular density of juice would have a corresponding amount of juice; if a particular density is known then it is known that some unknown mass of juice divided by an unknown volume of that unknown mass of juice has a particular value. A particular density does not imply both mass and volume. Additionally, it is unclear why a database would have values of ‘a reference amount of juice’ when it is the density of the juice which would be referenced; given a volume of juice a density of juice can be referenced and then multiplied by the volume of juice to obtain a mass of juice.
Claims 1 & 9 in lines 4 (both claims) recites the limitation "first data relating to an estimated volume (VsF)...". It is not clear what the ‘relation’ that is being claimed is. For the purposes of examination it is assumed that these limitations are intended to be equivalent to ‘first data consisting of an estimated volume’. Note: there are similar issues with use of the word “relating” throughout the claims; ‘variable y relating to a variable x’ is a broad limitation implying that there is a means of calculating y using x (and possibly using other variables as well).
Claim 2 in line 2 recites the limitation "wherein said at least one juice fruit (F) is of a predetermined known quality". However, the invention (including the parent claim 1) is directed towards ‘determining quality of fruit’ (page 4 lines 13-14: “there may be provided for the use of this
assembly for the quality classification of juice fruits based on the estimated juice content.”). The system would not be determining the quality of the fruit if the fruit were already “of a predetermined known quality”.
Claim 3 in lines 13-14 recites the limitation "and extracted amount of juice of juice (PrSFc1, PrSFc2, PrSFc3...), a value relating to the extracted amount of juice (%Fc1, %Fc2, %Fc3...)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There would be sufficient antecedent basis for ‘the amount of juice (PrSFc1, PrSFc2, PrSFc3...) extracted therefrom’. Additionally, “of juice” is apparently unnecessarily repeated. Additionally, it is unclear how “calculating, based on … extracted amount of juice of juice (PrSFc1, PrSFc2, PrSFc3...), a value relating to the extracted amount of juice (%Fc1, %Fc2, %Fc3...)” since it is unclear how ‘extracted amount of juice of juice (PrSFc1, PrSFc2, PrSFc3...)’ and ‘value relating to the extracted amount of juice (%Fc1, %Fc2, %Fc3...)’ are different.
Claim 3 in lines 13-14 recites the limitation "and ". The parent claim 1 lines 1-2 states “A computer-implemented method for the a non-destructive determination of the a juice content”. At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation and supported by at least (instant application initially filed specification page 3 lines 20-22: “The actual weight and the estimated volume of the sample fruits can be obtained as described above, while the juice can be obtained by means of appropriate extraction means of the known type, for example a professional citrus squeezer of the known type”) the word “extracted” implies that the testing is destructive contrary to the parent claim limitation of “non-destructive”.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitations of a parent claim’:
Claim 2-9 in lines 1-2 (claims 1-6), lines 3 (claim 7), line 1 (claim 8), lines11-12 (claim 9) recite the limitation(s) "according to claim 1[3][4][7][8]". These claims therefore inherit the limitations rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) without rectifying the issues for which the parent claim was rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
claim 2 doesn't teach significantly more than the claim 1 limitations of regarding “reference density value” since at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation ‘quality data’ is not significantly different from ‘reference density value’ data.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams form MPEP 2106(III) & 2106.04(II)(A)
Claims 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
No;
The claim is directed towards “A computer-implemented method …”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.03(I): “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations;”
See MPEP 2106.03(II): “Like the other steps in the eligibility analysis, evaluation of this step should be made after determining what the inventor has invented by reviewing the entire application disclosure and construing the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).”
Analysis:
A computer implemented method which does not disclose significantly more than data collection and calculation/processing is at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation not significantly more than a computer program/code.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not directed towards one of the four statutory categories, but rather is directed towards a computer program.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claims 2-6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
No;
The claim(s) is directed towards “A computer-implemented method …”
Explanation:
The claim(s) is further directed towards the “computer-implemented method” of claim 1 which is not one of the four statutory categories.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim(s) are determined to be “the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101”.
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
No;
The claim is directed towards “A computer program …”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.03(I): “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations;”
See MPEP 2106.03(II): “Like the other steps in the eligibility analysis, evaluation of this step should be made after determining what the inventor has invented by reviewing the entire application disclosure and construing the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).”
Analysis:
A computer program is not one of the four statutory categories.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not directed towards one of the four statutory categories, but rather is directed towards a computer program.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claims 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
No;
The claim(s) is directed towards “A computer program …”
Explanation:
The claim(s) is further directed towards the “computer program” of claim 7 which is not one of the four statutory categories.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim(s) are determined to be “the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101”.
Claim 9:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A computer system …”, which is a machine and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“first data relating to an estimated volume (VsF)”
“wherein said microprocessor unit is configured to run a computer program according to claim 8.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a): “The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as: 1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations … 3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”
See MPEP 2106.04(b): “Laws of nature and natural phenomena, as identified by the courts, include naturally occurring principles/relations and nature-based products that are naturally occurring or that do not have markedly different characteristics compared to what occurs in nature. The courts have often described these exceptions using other terms, including "physical phenomena," "scientific principles", "natural laws," and "products of nature."”
See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I): “Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, ‘estimating a volume’ is either a mathematical concept or a mental process.
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation “juice”, “juice fruit” are products of nature.
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “said microprocessor unit is configured to run a computer program according to claim 8” is adding a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites abstract ideas.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The additional elements and limitations are:
“a data collection unit configured to collect at least the following data: … ”
“and an actual weight (PrF) of said at least one juice fruit (F); at least one first plurality of pairs of reference data (Dr1, %r1; Dr2, %r2; Dr3, %r3...) for said at least one juice fruit, each pair of reference data consisting of a reference density value (Dr1; Dr2; Dr3...) and a corresponding value relating to a reference amount of juice (%r1; %r2; %r3...);”
“and a microprocessor unit operatively connected or connectable to said data collection unit;”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following: … (3) whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
Analysis:
The judicial exceptions as listed in Step 2A Prong One necessarily imply ‘data collection unit’, ‘microprocessor unit’, ‘data collection unit’.
Conclusion:
The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional elements as listed in Revised Step 2A prong 2 are no more than physical or tangible implementation of an exception and so are not significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A): “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, … iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use”
&
“It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility:
The fact that a computer "necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm," is beside the point. There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system (in § 101 terms, a "machine"), or that many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter. But if that were the end of the § 101 inquiry, an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant concept. Such a result would make the determination of patent eligibility "depend simply on the draftsman’s art," Flook, supra, at 593, 98 S. Ct. 2522, 57 L. Ed. 2d 451, thereby eviscerating the rule that "‘[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable,’" Myriad, 133 S. Ct. 1289, 186 L. Ed. 2d 124, 133).”
Analysis:
These elements are no more than computing elements which would necessarily be required to perform the recited judicia exception(s) and there is no more specificity than that implied by the juridical exception(s).
Conclusion:
No elements within the claim(s) is significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Note:
If the independent claims had limitations such as ‘a scanning means and a load cell interposed between the inlet and the outlet’ (as would be supported by the initially filed specifications page 5 lines 2-4), then the claims would be interpreted as overcoming step 1 of the 35 U.S.C. §101 analysis. However, then at revised step 2A prong 1 the analysis would continue with “Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”. Here the “calculating…” and the “processing…” would be interpreted as being directed towards the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of ‘mathematical concepts’ see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Then, at revised step 2A prong two “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”. The additional elements would be interpreted as not significantly more than field of use and technological environment limitations (see MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”) corresponding to at least cpc symbols G01N 5/00: “Analysing materials by weighing” or G01N 9/00: “Investigating density or specific gravity of materials; Analysing materials by determining density or specific gravity” or G01N 2223/633: “thickness, density, surface weight (unit area)”. At step 2B it would be determined that no additional elements are recited. The analysis would conclude with “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
The Examiner recommends considering if there are elements (supported by the initially field specification) which integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and which are significantly more than field of use or technological environment limitations; if so, then amending those elements/limitation into the independent claims.
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(s) 1-9 is/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).
Regarding claim 1, Gual Pasalodos teaches a computer-implemented method for a non-destructive determination of 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), …; collecting at least one first plurality of pairs of reference data (Dr1, %r1; Dr2, %r2; Dr3, %r3...) for said at least one juice fruit, each pair of reference data consisting of a reference density value (Dr1; Dr2; Dr3...) and a corresponding value relating to a reference amount of juice (%r1; %r2; %r3...) (column 4 lines 64 to column 5 line 2: “The purpose of this invention is an automatic device for separating spheroidal products depending on their flaws, in accordance with the information provided by a computer system according to an evaluation previously carried out, normally in part of the machine itself. These products will normally be fruit, particularly citrus fruit.”, system compares measured values against reference data/values in computer system).
Gual Pasalodos does not teach … … comprising at least the following steps: collecting first data relating to an estimated volume (VsF) and an actual weight (PrF) of said at least one juice fruit (F); … calculating, based on said first data (VsF, PrF), a density (DcF) of said at least one juice fruit (F); and processing, based on said at least one first plurality (52), pairs of reference data (Dr1,%r1; Dr2, %r2; Dr3, %r3...) and on said calculated density (DcF), a value relating to an estimated amount of juice (%sF) for said at least one of juice fruit (F)
Benedetti teaches … comprising at least the following steps: collecting first data relating to an estimated volume (VsF) and an actual weight (PrF) of said at least one juice fruit (F) (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); … calculating, based on said first data (VsF, PrF), a density (DcF) of said at least one juice fruit (F) (column 6 lines 50-54: specific gravity is density data); and processing, based on said at least one first plurality (52), pairs of reference data (Dr1,%r1; Dr2, %r2; Dr3, %r3...) and on said calculated density (DcF), a value relating to an estimated amount of juice (%sF) for said at least one of juice fruit (F) (column 3 lines 26-29: “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)”, specific gravity provides density data relating to juice in a 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 device 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).”)
Regarding claim 2, Gual Pasalodos in view of Benedetti teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1,
Gual Pasalodos further teaches wherein said at least one juice fruit (F) is of a predetermined known quality, said at least one first plurality of pairs of reference data (Dr1, %r1; Dr2, %r2; Dr3, %r3...) relating to said predetermined known quality (column 4 lines 64 to column 5 line 2: “The purpose of this invention is an automatic device for separating spheroidal products depending on their flaws, in accordance with the information provided by a computer system according to an evaluation previously carried out, normally in part of the machine itself. These products will normally be fruit, particularly citrus fruit.”, system compares measured values against reference data/values in computer system).
Regarding claim 3, Gual Pasalodos in view of Benedetti teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1,
Gual Pasalodos further teaches wherein the computer-implemented method is configured to determine the juice content of juice fruits (F) belonging to a predetermined batch (LF), said reference data (Dr1,%r1; Dr2, %r2; Dr3, %r3...) being determined starting from a predetermined number of sample juice fruits (Fc1,Fc2, Fc3...) belonging to said predetermined batch (LF), the method further comprising, for each of said sample juice fruits (Fc1,Fc2, Fc3...), at least the following steps: collecting second data relating to an estimated volume (VsFc1, VsFc2, VsFc3...), to an actual weight (PrFc1, PrFc2, PrFc3...) and to an amount of juice (PrSFc1, PrSFc2, PrSFc3...) extracted therefrom (column 4 lines 64 to column 5 line 2: “The purpose of this invention is an automatic device for separating spheroidal products depending on their flaws, in accordance with the information provided by a computer system according to an evaluation previously carried out, normally in part of the machine itself. These products will normally be fruit, particularly citrus fruit.”, system compares measured values against reference data/values in computer system);
Benedetti further teaches calculating, based on said estimated volume (VsFc1, VsFc2, VsFc3...) and actual weight (PrSFc1, PrSFc2, PrSFc3...), a density value (DcFc1, DcFc2, DcFc3...) (column 3 lines 26-29: “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)”, specific gravity provides density data relating to juice in a fruit);and calculating, based on said estimated volume (VsFc1, VsFc2, VsFc3...) and/or actual weight (PrSFc1, PrSFc2, PrSFc3...) and extracted amount of juice of juice (PrSFc1, PrSFc2, PrSFc3...), a value relating to the extracted amount of juice (%Fc1, %Fc2, %Fc3...) (column 3 lines 26-29: specific gravity data is a value relating to the extracted amount of juice).
Regarding claim 4, Gual Pasalodos in view of Benedetti teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 3,
Gual Pasalodos further teaches further comprising the following steps: …; and calculating the linear regression of said pairs of calibration data (DcFc1, %Fc1; DcFc2, %Fc2; DcFc3, %Fc3...) to obtain said at least one first plurality (52) of pairs of reference data (Dr1, %r1; Dr2, %r2; Dr3, %r3...) for said predetermined batch (LF) (column 4 lines 64 to column 5 line 2: “The purpose of this invention is an automatic device for separating spheroidal products depending on their flaws, in accordance with the information provided by a computer system according to an evaluation previously carried out, normally in part of the machine itself. These products will normally be fruit, particularly citrus fruit.”, system compares measured values against reference data/values in computer system).
Benedetti further teaches collecting third data relating to all pairs of data (DcFc1, %Fc1; DcFc2, %Fc2; DcFc3, %Fc3...) consisting of the calculated density (DcFc1, DcFc2, DcFc3...) and the calculated value relating to the extracted amount of juice (%Fc1, %Fc2, %Fc3...) relating to said predetermined number of sample juice fruits (Fc1, Fc2, Fc3...) (column 3 lines 26-29: “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)”, specific gravity provides density data relating to juice in a fruit);
Regarding claim 5, Gual Pasalodos in view of Benedetti teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 3,
Gual Pasalodos further teaches wherein the predetermined number of sample juice fruits (Fc1, Fc2, Fc3...) (column 4 lines 64 to column 5 line 2: “The purpose of this invention is an automatic device for separating spheroidal products depending on their flaws, in accordance with the information provided by a computer system according to an evaluation previously carried out, normally in part of the machine itself. These products will normally be fruit, particularly citrus fruit.”, sample juice fruits/(“fruit, particularly citrus fruit”)) is comprised between 40 and 80 (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”, This limitation requires no more than routine optimization over ranges using techniques well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (i.e., linear regression)).
Regarding claim 6, Gual Pasalodos in view of Benedetti teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 3,
Benedetti further teaches wherein said value relating to an estimated amount of juice (%sF) for said at least one juice fruit (F) and/or said calculated value relating to the extracted amount of juice (%Fc1, %Fc2, %Fc3...) is an estimated by weight percentage value of the juice present in said at least one juice fruit (F) with respect to its actual weight (PrF) and/or the actual weight percentage value of juice extracted from each of the sample juice fruits (Fc1,Fc2, Fc3...) with respect to its actual weight (PrSFc1, PrSFc2, PrSFc3...)(column 3 lines 24-29: “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)”, system makes assessments on the likely quality of fruit).
Regarding claim 7, Gual Pasalodos in view of Benedetti teaches … first instructions to perform the computer-implemented method according to claim 4
Gual Pasalodos further teaches a computer program for a non-destructive determination of juice content of at least one juice fruit, comprising: (column 4 line 64 to column 5 line 2: “The purpose of this invention is an automatic device for separating spheroidal products depending on their flaws, in accordance with the information provided by a computer system according to an evaluation previously carried out, normally in part of the machine itself. These products will normally be fruit, particularly citrus fruit.”);
Benedetti further teaches and second instructions which, when run by a processor, command the processor to carry out at least the steps of the computer-implemented method of calculating the density (DcF) and processing a value relating to the estimated amount of juice (%sF) for said at least one juice fruit (F) (column 3 lines 26-29: “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)”, specific gravity provides density data relating to juice in a fruit).
Regarding claim 8, Gual Pasalodos in view of Benedetti teaches the computer program according to claim 7,
Benedetti further teaches further comprising third instructions which, when run by the processor, command the processor to further carry out the steps of: for each sample juice fruit (Fc1, Fc2, Fc3...), calculating the density (DcFc1,DcFc2, DcFc3...), the value relating to the extracted amount of juice (%Fc1, %Fc2, %Fc3...) and an association thereof, so as to create a plurality of pairs of calibration data (DcFc1, %Fc1;DcFc2, %Fc2; DcFc3, %Fc3...); and calculating a linear regression of the pairs of calibration data (DcFc1, %Fc1; DcFc2, %Fc2; DcFc3, %Fc3...) to obtain said at least one first plurality (52) of pairs of reference data (Dr1, %r1; Dr2, %r2; Dr3, %r3...) for said predetermined batch (LF) (column 3 lines 26-29: “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)”, specific gravity provides density data relating to juice in a fruit).
Regarding claim 9, Gual Pasalodos in view of Benedetti teaches … wherein said microprocessor unit is configured to run a computer program according to claim_8.
Gual Pasalodos further teaches… at least one first plurality of pairs of reference data (Dr1, %r1; Dr2, %r2; Dr3, %r3...) for said at least one juice fruit, each pair of reference data consisting of a reference density value (Dr1; Dr2; Dr3...) and a corresponding value relating to a reference amount of juice (%r1; %r2; %r3...) (column 4 lines 64 to column 5 line 2: “The purpose of this invention is an automatic device for separating spheroidal products depending on their flaws, in accordance with the information provided by a computer system according to an evaluation previously carried out, normally in part of the machine itself. These products will normally be fruit, particularly citrus fruit.”, system compares measured values against reference data/values in computer system); and a microprocessor unit operatively connected or connectable to said data collection unit (column 4 line 64 to column 5 line 2: “The purpose of this invention is an automatic device for separating spheroidal products depending on their flaws, in accordance with the information provided by a computer system according to an evaluation previously carried out, normally in part of the machine itself. These products will normally be fruit, particularly citrus fruit.”);
Benedetti further teaches the computer system for non-destructive determination of juice content of at least one juice fruit, comprising: a data collection unit configured to collect at least the following data: first data relating to an estimated volume (VsF) and an actual weight (PrF) of said at least one juice fruit (F) (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);
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6847447 B2 "Apparatus And Method And Techniques For Measuring And Correlating Characteristics Of Fruit With Visible/near Infra-red Spectrum" (Ozanich) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1D.
US 20240131558 A1 "Device and Method for Classifying Fruits" (Gwak) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 6.
US 12188916 B2 "Means And Methods For Scoring Vegetables And Fruits" (Schwartzer) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 4A.
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