DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 8, 13, 23, and 39 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-22, & 24-38 are pending. Claims 29-38 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-22, & 24-28 are subject to examination on the merits.
Response to Amendments
The 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of “movement mechanism” is withdrawn, because the claim now recites sufficient structures (i.e., “at least two motors”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (“Remarks”) filed on 12/29/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant contends that the prior art of record does not teach certain features of the claims as amended (see Remarks at 13-14). Because those limitations are newly introduced through amendment, they are addressed in the updated 35 USC 103 rejections below.
Claim Interpretation
As explained in previous Office Action(s), this application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” thereby triggering 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Such claim limitation is:
“UV radiation means” in claims 27-28.
Additionally, 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), 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. See MPEP § 2181. Such claim limitations are:
“return feed” in claim 1.
“filtration unit” in claims 18-20, 28.
“SO2 monitoring element” in claim 25.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“UV radiation means” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of a UV light source (see specification at pg. 47 line 8-17), and equivalents thereof.
“return feed” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of an opening or inlet (see Fig. 5F, reference number “503” connected to return hose 509), and equivalents thereof.
“filtration unit” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of a centrifugal filter or a cartridge filter (see specification at pg. 44 line 5-7, pg. 60 line 11), and equivalents thereof.
“SO2 monitoring element” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of a SO2 sensor (see specification at pg. 3 lines 16-17), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Examiner’s Comments
In Claim 1 line 12, the semicolon after “ii. a plurality of wheels” should be changed to a comma.
In Claim 1 line 15, the semicolon after “at least two motors” should be changed to a comma.
In Claim 10 line 2, “insertion in” should be changed to “insertion into.”
In Claim 28, it’s recommended that the treatment and the structure be grouped together:
“filtering” should be grouped together with “filtration unit” to become “filtering by means of a filtration unit”;
“UV radiation” should be grouped together with “UV radiation means” to become “UV radiation by means of an UV radiation means”;
“SO2 addition” should be grouped together with “SO2 gas unit” to become “SO2 addition by means of a SO2 gas unit.”
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, 3-7, 9-12, 14-22, & 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “higher level of friction” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher level of friction” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the following:
“wherein said internal unit comprises a robot comprising one or more of the following: i. a robot body . . .” (lines 10-11); and
“wherein the robot body comprises a width that is sized for insertion into an opening having a diameter in the range of 20 mm to 100 mm” (lines 18-20).
It’s unclear whether the phrase “wherein the robot body comprises a width that is sized for insertion . . .” is a requisite feature or an optional feature of the claimed system, given the “one or more of the following” language recited at lines 10-11. In other words, the language of “one or more” at lines 10-11 may be interpreted to mean that “robot body” is optional (i.e., not requisite), which in turn means the phrase at lines 18-20 is also optional (i.e., not requisite). Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, the phrase “wherein the robot body comprises a width that is sized for insertion . . .” at lines 18-20 is interpreted as optional (i.e., not requisite) because “robot body” at lines 10-11 is interpreted as optional (i.e., not requisite).
Claim 9 recites the phrase “said plurality of wheels are made of elastic material,” but claim 1 recites “wherein said internal unit comprises a robot comprising one or more of the following: . . . ii. a plurality of wheels . . .” It’s unclear whether the recited “wheels” are requisite or optional features of the claimed system. Therefore, it’s also unclear whether the recited “elastic material” is requisite or optional. Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, the phrase “said plurality of wheels are made of elastic material” is interpreted as optional (i.e., not requisite) because “plurality of wheels” is interpreted as optional (i.e., not requisite).
Claim 10 recites “said sized for insertion,” but Claim 1 recites two instances of “sized for insertion”: one instance at Claim 1 line 2 when discussing the “internal unit,” another instance at Claim 1 line 18-19 when discussing the “width” of the robot body. Therefore, it’s unclear which instance of “sized for insertion” from Claim 1 is being referenced in Claim 10.
Claim 14 recites the phrase “said at least two motors are activated by a circuitry,” but claim 1 recites “wherein said internal unit comprises a robot comprising one or more of the following: . . . iii. a movement mechanism comprising at least two motors. . .” It’s unclear whether the recited “motors” are requisite or optional features of the claimed system. Therefore, it’s also unclear whether the recited “activated by a circuitry” is requisite or optional. Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, the phrase “said at least two motors are activated by a circuitry” is interpreted as optional (i.e., not requisite) because “at least two motors” is interpreted as optional (i.e., not requisite).
Claim 15 recites the phrase “each motor from said at least two motors is activated independently,” but claim 1 recites “wherein said internal unit comprises a robot comprising one or more of the following: . . . iii. a movement mechanism comprising at least two motors. . .” It’s unclear whether the recited “motors” are requisite or optional features of the claimed system. Therefore, it’s also unclear whether the recited “each motor . . . is activated independently” is requisite or optional. Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, the phrase “each motor from said at least two motors is activated independently” is interpreted as optional (i.e., not requisite) because “at least two motors” is interpreted as optional (i.e., not requisite).
Claim 16 recites the phrase “said plurality of wheels are configured to rotate forwards and backwards,” but claim 1 recites “wherein said internal unit comprises a robot comprising one or more of the following: . . . ii. a plurality of wheels . . .” It’s unclear whether the recited “wheels” are requisite or optional features of the claimed system. Therefore, it’s also unclear whether the recited “configured to rotate forwards and backwards” is requisite or optional. Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, the phrase “said plurality of wheels are configured to rotate forwards and backwards” is interpreted as optional (i.e., not requisite) because “plurality of wheels” is interpreted as optional (i.e., not requisite).
Claim 24 recites “said circuitry comprises instructions to activate said plurality of wheels of said internal unit . . .” at lines 1-3. It’s unclear whether “plurality of wheels” are requisite or optional features of the claimed system. Clarification is requested.
Claim 28 recites “said UV radiation means” at line 3-4. There’s insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a claim rejected herein.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 16-22, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DRORI (US PGPUB 20180237732), in view of ZHAO (Chinese Publication CN211195718U, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 1, DRORI teaches a barrel cleaning system (e.g., system 300, see Figs. 3-4, ¶¶ 0246-49; system 520, see Figs. 5A-5H, ¶ 0264; system 1600, see Fig. 16, ¶ 0443).
DRORI’s system comprises:
(a) an internal unit (in-barrel portion 522, see Fig. 5A, ¶ 0264; inner apparatus 501, see Figs. 5F, 5G, 12, ¶¶ 0292, 0335) sized for insertion into an opening (apparatus 522/501 fits through bung hole 211, see Figs. 2, 5A, 5F-5H, 12, ¶¶ 0077, 0252, 0264, 0333, 0342, claim 46) in a wine barrel (barrel 220) and including an extraction cleaning head assembly (snout 401, see Figs. 4, 5F-5H, 7, 12, 16; snout 540, see Figs. 5A-5D) and a return feed (upper segment 506 having a portion 503, see Figs. 5F-5G; see also Fig. 4, 9A, ¶ 0077, claim 46);
(b) an external unit (outer unit 534 having wine processing portion 536, see Fig. 5A, 14B-14C, ¶¶ 0264, 0417-18; outer apparatus 1602, Fig. 16, ¶ 0449);
(c) a first tube (one of tubes 532; one of tubes 1603; conduit 1462 may also be considered a first tube, see Fig. 14C, ¶ 0417) coupled to said internal unit and leading to said external unit (a tube connects inner portion 522 and outer portion 534, see Fig. 5A, 14B-14C, ¶ 0264; see also Fig. 16, ¶ 0448) and a second tube (another one of tubes 532, see Fig. 5A; another one of tubes 1603, see Fig. 16; return hose 509, see Fig. 5F, ¶ 0303) leading from said external unit to said return feed (leading from outer unit 534 to upper segment 506, see Figs. 5A, 5F, 5G, ¶¶ 0303; see also Fig. 16, ¶ 0448), wherein said first tube and said second tube are flexible tubes (see ¶¶ 0087, 0264, 0421); and
(d) at least one pump (e.g., pump 404, pump 409, pump 924, pump 926) to drive wine in said system (see, e.g., Figs. 4, 9A, 16, ¶¶ 0261, 0363-64).
DRORI teaches that the internal unit—which comprises the snout—comprises a width that is sized for insertion into an opening having a diameter in the range of 38-54 mm (see Table 1 in ¶ 0239), including a diameter of 50 mm (see ¶¶ 0184, 0249). These disclosed diameters fall within the claimed range of “20 mm to 100 mm.”
DRORI teaches that the internal unit (e.g., apparatus 522/501) comprises a scrubber (see, e.g., scrubber 542, Fig. 5B, ¶ 0269; brush 592, Fig. 5C, ¶ 0282; bristle 588, Fig. 5D, ¶ 0288; scrubber 1201, Fig. 12, ¶ 0386), wherein “the scrubber moves, for example, to cover the entire bottom of the barrel, optionally us[ing] an automated mechanism” (¶ 0193).
DRORI teaches that the internal unit (e.g., apparatus 522/501) comprises a plurality of wheels (e.g., wheels 598, see Fig. 5D, ¶¶ 0286-88) configured to move the internal unit (e.g., the snout) along the bottom of the barrel (see also ¶¶ 0195, 0205, 0388).
DRORI teaches a circuitry (e.g., a controller) configured to control the various operations of the internal unit (e.g., apparatus 522/501), including: injecting gas (see ¶¶ 0212, 0327); extracting wine (see ¶ 0212); monitoring turbidity (see ¶¶ 0292, 0298, 0451); and moving the snout (see ¶ 0313; see also ¶¶ 0195, 0205, 0388), wherein the snout comprises the scrubber (e.g., scrubber 542 in snout 540, see Fig. 5B; brush 592 in snout 540, see Fig. 5C; bristle 588 in snout 540, see Fig. 5D). Moreover, because DRORI teaches that a circuitry controls the various operations of the internal unit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the internal unit comprises a “robot” comprising the plurality of wheels (e.g., wheels 598).
DRORI teaches that many modifications of its invention are possible (¶ 0465), and explicitly states that “certain features of the invention . . . described in the context of separate embodiments, may also be provided in combination in a single embodiment” (¶ 0464).
DRORI does not explicitly teach that the wheels 598 have “a rugged surface configured to provide a higher level of friction that allows movement of said robot on slippery surfaces.”
But these features are already well known in the art. For example, ZHAO teaches rubber wheels having a rugged surface (see Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0018, 0034) configured to provide a higher level of friction that allows movement of those wheels on slippery surfaces (see id., protrusions 7 increase the friction between the caster 1 and the ground, preventing the caster 1 from slipping when moving on a smooth surface).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the plurality of wheels (i.e., DRORI’s wheels 598) such that those wheels have a rugged surface configured to provide a higher level of friction that allows movement of said robot on slippery surfaces, with reasonable expectation of moving the robot inside the barrel. First, the rugged surface prevents the wheels from slipping by increasing their friction; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to modify DRORI’s wheels 598 to have such rugged surface. Second, it’s well known in the art for wheels to have a rugged surface configured to provide a higher level of friction that allows movement of those wheels on slippery surfaces (see ZHAO). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “wherein said first tube and said second tube are telescopic tubes.”
But DRORI teaches that making something telescopic has benefits such as: self-lengthening (see ¶¶ 0086, 0393); conforming to changes in distance between two objects (see ¶¶ 0195, 0312). DRORI also teaches that many modifications of its invention are possible (see ¶ 0465) and that “certain features of the invention . . . described in the context of separate embodiments, may also be provided in combination in a single embodiment” (see ¶ 0464).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of DRORI and SILVERMAN such that the first tube and the second tube are telescopic tubes, with reasonable expectation of making them self-lengthening. First, a telescopic design has benefits such as self-lengthening and conforming to changes in distance between two objects (see DRORI); given these benefits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to make the first tube and the second tube—which connect the internal unit to the external unit—telescopic tubes. Second, it’s already well known in the art that elongated objects can be made telescopic (see DRORI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. Here, the first and second tubes—configured as telescopic tubes—would still perform the same function as before (e.g., transporting material between the internal unit and the external unit), thereby yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 1. The combination teaches the system further comprising a turbidity sensor (see DRORI at, e.g., ¶¶ 0105, 0176, 0256, 0270, 0278, 0292, 0451, Figs. 4, 5B-5D).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 4. The combination teaches wherein said turbidity sensor (e.g., sensor 414, sensor 546) is located in said robot (see DRORI at Figs. 4, 5F-5G, ¶ 0256, turbidity sensor 414 located in snout 401, which is part of the robot; see also DRORI at Figs. 5B-5D, ¶¶ 0270, 0278, turbidity sensor 546 located in snout 540, which is part of the robot).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 4. As explained above, the combination teaches using a turbidity sensor to monitor the wine’s turbidity.
The combination also teaches that “wine turbidity is monitored outside the barrel; for example, within a tube that transfers wine from the barrel” (DRORI at ¶ 0228), and the combination already teaches a first tube (one of DRORI’s tubes 532) that transfers wine from the barrel (see DRORI at Figs. 5A, 14B, 14C, ¶¶ 0264, 0421). This means the combination teaches or reasonably suggests that said turbidity sensor may be located in the first tube.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 4. As explained above, the combination teaches using a turbidity sensor to monitor the wine’s turbidity.
The combination teaches that wine is first extracted from the barrel and then supplied to an external unit (e.g., DRORI’s outer unit 534, outer apparatus 1602, see Figs. 5A, 14B, 14C, 16, ¶¶ 0078, 0206, 0449)—here, “external” means outside of the barrel—wherein the external unit filters the extracted wine (see DRORI at ¶¶ 0078, 0206, 0449). The external unit includes a collection reservoir (e.g., DRORI’s tanks 902, 908, see Figs. 9A, 16; DRORI’s tanks 928, 930, see Fig. 9B) for holding the wine.
The combination also teaches that “wine turbidity is monitored outside the barrel; for example, in a collection reservoir outside of the barrel” (DRORI at ¶ 0234), wherein the combination already the collection reservoir (e.g., tanks 902, 908, 928, 930 of DRORI) outside of the barrel (as explained above). This means the combination teaches or reasonably suggests that said turbidity sensor may be located in the external unit.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 1. The combination teaches the plurality of wheels are made of elastic material (see ZHAO at ¶¶ 0018, 0034, rubber material).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 1. The combination teaches wherein said sized for insertion is sized for insertion in an opening having a diameter in the range of 38-54 mm (see DRORI at Table 1 in ¶ 0239), including a diameter of 50 mm (see DRORI at ¶¶ 0184, 0249). Because the prior-art diameter overlaps with the claimed diameter of “about 45 mm,” the claimed diameter is considered obvious. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 1. The combination teaches the system comprising circuitry (see DRORI at ¶¶ 0120-21, 0125, 0264, using computer; see also controller 1610 in Fig. 16, ¶¶ 0448, 0451-53 of DRORI) for controlling various components of the barrel cleaning system (see DRORI at, e.g., Fig. 16, ¶¶ 0189, 0120-21, 0125, 0212, 0264, 0292, 0313, 0329, 0339, 0355, 0359, 0448, 0451-53). This includes controlling said pump (see DRORI at, e.g., ¶¶ 0080, 0189, 0214, 0339-40, 0452 controlling various pumps) and controlling said robot (see DRORI at ¶¶ 0193, 0212, 0313, 0452, 0437, 0452, controlling the brush/scrubber/snout).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 11. The combination teaches wherein a turbidity sensor delivers turbidity information to said circuitry (see DRORI at ¶¶ 0292, 0451).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 1. The combination teaches the plurality of wheels (e.g., DRORI’s wheels 598), which are structurally fully capable of rotating forwards and backwards: one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that caster wheels in general can rotate forwards and backwards. A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structure. See MPEP 2114.II ("Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does").
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 1. The combination teaches wherein said first tube and said second tube are connected to a top of said internal unit (see DRORI at Figs. 5A, 5F, 5G, 16, tubes 532/1603 are connected to the top of internal unit 522/501).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 1. The combination teaches wherein said external unit comprises a filtration unit (see DRORI at ¶ 0078, claim 46, outer apparatus comprises filtration unit; see id. at ¶¶ 0206, 0449, filtering system may be disposed in the outer apparatus; see id. at Fig. 5A, 9B, outer apparatus 534 comprises a filtering system; see also Figs. 9A, 16 of DRORI), wherein the filtration unit is structurally fully capable of separating wine from sediments. A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structure. See MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 18. The combination teaches wherein said first tube is connected to said filtration unit (see DRORI at ¶ 0078 claim 46; see id. at Figs. 5A, 9B, tube 532 connects to the filtration unit in wine processing portion 536; see id. at Figs. 9A, 16, ¶¶ 0353, 0356, tube 1603 connects to filtration unit 904, which is a filter pump).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 18. The combination teaches wherein said external unit comprises a collection tank (see DRORI at Figs. 9A, 16, ¶ 0357, tank 908 receives treated wine; see id. at Fig. 9B, ¶ 0364, tank 930 receives filtered wine) for receiving filtered wine from said filtration unit (see DRORI at Figs. 9A, 9B, 16, ¶¶ 0357, 0364).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 20. The combination teaches wherein said second tube is connected to said collection tank (see DRORI at Fig. 16, tank 908 is connected to a tube 1603 that leads back to barrel 220). In particular, the combination teaches that the external unit comprises the collection tank (as explained above for claim 20), wherein the second tube leads from the external unit to the return feed (as explained above for claim 1), and the second tube is for returning treated wine from the external unit back to the barrel (see DRORI at Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0261, pump 409 returns wine back to barrel 220; see id. at Fig. 5A, one of tube 532 is for returning wine from the external unit back to the barrel; see id. at Fig. 5F-5G, return hose 509 is for returning wine back to the barrel).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 1. The combination teaches a cable (e.g., DRORI’s cable 1458/1464/1466, see Fig. 14C, ¶¶ 0108, 0211, 0417) running from said external unit to said internal unit (see DRORI at Fig. 14C, ¶ 0108) inside said first tube (see id. at Fig. 14C, inside tube 532) for providing electrical and electronic needs to said internal unit (see id. at ¶¶ 0108, 0211, 0417).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 1. The combination teaches the system further comprising UV radiation means (see DRORI at, e.g., abstract, ¶¶ 0045, 0147, 0172, 0190, 0204-05, 0289, 0316, 0382-84, 0417, UV light source 599 in Fig. 5D, UV light source 1102 in Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 1. As explained above, the external unit comprises a filtration unit (see DRORI at ¶ 0078, claim 46; see id. at ¶¶ 0206, 0449; see id. at Fig. 5A, 9B; see also Figs. 9A, 16 of DRORI). This means the external unit is structurally fully capable of treating extracted wine by filtering by means of said filtration unit. A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structure. See MPEP 2114.
Claims 1, 11-12, 14-15, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DRORI (US PGPUB 20180237732), in view of SILVERMAN et al. (US Patent 5205174).
Regarding Claim 1, DRORI teaches a barrel cleaning system (e.g., system 300, see Figs. 3-4, ¶¶ 0246-49; system 520, see Figs. 5A-5H, ¶ 0264; system 1600, see Fig. 16, ¶ 0443).
DRORI’s system comprises:
(a) an internal unit (in-barrel portion 522, see Fig. 5A, ¶ 0264; inner apparatus 501, see Figs. 5F, 5G, 12, ¶¶ 0292, 0335) sized for insertion into an opening (apparatus 522/501 fits through bung hole 211, see Figs. 2, 5A, 5F-5H, 12, ¶¶ 0077, 0252, 0264, 0333, 0342, claim 46) in a wine barrel (barrel 220) and including an extraction cleaning head assembly (snout 401, see Figs. 4, 5F-5H, 7, 12, 16; snout 540, see Figs. 5A-5D) and a return feed (upper segment 506 having a portion 503, see Figs. 5F-5G; see also Fig. 4, 9A, ¶ 0077, claim 46);
(b) an external unit (outer unit 534 having wine processing portion 536, see Fig. 5A, 14B-14C, ¶¶ 0264, 0417-18; outer apparatus 1602, Fig. 16, ¶ 0449);
(c) a first tube (one of tubes 532; one of tubes 1603; conduit 1462 may also be considered a first tube, see Fig. 14C, ¶ 0417) coupled to said internal unit and leading to said external unit (a tube connects inner portion 522 and outer portion 534, see Fig. 5A, 14B-14C, ¶ 0264; see also Fig. 16, ¶ 0448) and a second tube (another one of tubes 532, see Fig. 5A; another one of tubes 1603, see Fig. 16; return hose 509, see Fig. 5F, ¶ 0303) leading from said external unit to said return feed (leading from outer unit 534 to upper segment 506, see Figs. 5A, 5F, 5G, ¶¶ 0303; see also Fig. 16, ¶ 0448), wherein said first tube and said second tube are flexible tubes (see ¶¶ 0087, 0264, 0421); and
(d) at least one pump (e.g., pump 404, pump 409, pump 924, pump 926) to drive wine in said system (see, e.g., Figs. 4, 9A, 16, ¶¶ 0261, 0363-64).
DRORI teaches that the internal unit—which comprises the snout—comprises a width that is sized for insertion into an opening having a diameter in the range of 38-54 mm (see Table 1 in ¶ 0239), including a diameter of 50 mm (see ¶¶ 0184, 0249). These disclosed diameters fall within the claimed range of “20 mm to 100 mm.”
DRORI teaches that the internal unit (e.g., apparatus 522/501) comprises a scrubber (see, e.g., scrubber 542, Fig. 5B, ¶ 0269; brush 592, Fig. 5C, ¶ 0282; bristle 588, Fig. 5D, ¶ 0288; scrubber 1201, Fig. 12, ¶ 0386), wherein “the scrubber moves, for example, to cover the entire bottom of the barrel, optionally us[ing] an automated mechanism” (¶ 0193).
DRORI teaches that the internal unit (e.g., apparatus 522/501) comprises a plurality of wheels (e.g., wheels 598, see Fig. 5D, ¶¶ 0286-88) configured to move the internal unit (e.g., the snout) along the bottom of the barrel (see also ¶¶ 0195, 0205, 0388).
DRORI teaches a circuitry (e.g., a controller) configured to control the various operations of the internal unit (e.g., apparatus 522/501), including: injecting gas (see ¶¶ 0212, 0327); extracting wine (see ¶ 0212); monitoring turbidity (see ¶¶ 0292, 0298, 0451); and moving the snout (see ¶ 0313; see also ¶¶ 0195, 0205, 0388), wherein the snout comprises the scrubber (e.g., scrubber 542 in snout 540, see Fig. 5B; brush 592 in snout 540, see Fig. 5C; bristle 588 in snout 540, see Fig. 5D). Moreover, because DRORI teaches that a circuitry controls the various operations of the internal unit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the internal unit comprises a “robot.”
DRORI teaches that many modifications of its invention are possible (¶ 0465), and explicitly states that “certain features of the invention . . . described in the context of separate embodiments, may also be provided in combination in a single embodiment” (¶ 0464).
DRORI does not explicitly teach:
“iii. a movement mechanism comprising at least two motors; wherein for at least two wheels from said plurality of wheels each wheel comprises a motor.”
SILVERMAN teaches a container cleaning system (see annotated Fig. 1 below; see also Figs. 1-4, col. 4 line 12 to col. 6 line 33).
PNG
media_image1.png
550
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SILVERMAN’s cleaning system comprises:
an internal unit and an external unit (see annotated Fig. 1), wherein the internal unit comprises an extraction cleaning head assembly (vacuuming compartment 11, see Figs. 2A-2B, col. 4 line 52-54);
a first tube (see annotated Fig. 1; pipe 38, see Fig. 4A, col. 5 line 50-60) coupled to the internal unit and leading to the external unit (see annotated Fig. 1); and
a robot (vehicle 1) having a plurality of wheels (wheels 14 with treads 5, see Figs. 2A-2B, col. 4 line 59-65) for moving the robot.
SILVERMAN teaches that the robot (vehicle 1) comprises a movement mechanism comprising two independently controllable motors (see Figs. 2A-2B, col. 4 line 52 to col. 5 line 7, a left motor 4 for a left wheel 14 and a right motor 4 for a right wheel 14), wherein for two wheels from a plurality of wheels, each wheel comprises a motor (see id.). By being independently controllable, the two motors can control the direction and speed of the robot—including the extraction cleaning head assembly that’s mounted on the robot—thereby controlling the cleaning operations (see col. 4 lines 24-39, col. 4 line 52 to col. 5 line 7).
SILVERMAN also teaches a circuitry (see, e.g., col. 3 lines 26-28, col. 4 lines 34-39) for controlling the various operations of the robot (see id.), including: robot movement and surface cleaning (see col. 4 lines 34-39). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the circuitry controls the robot’s movement via instructions/signals to the two motors (see col. 4 lines 40-41, col. 5 lines 1-6, the motors control the robot’s speed and direction).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify DRORI to incorporate two independently controllable motors for two different wheels, with reasonable expectation of moving the robot. First, by being independently controllable, the two motors can control the direction and speed of the robot—including the extraction cleaning head assembly that’s mounted on the robot—thereby controlling the cleaning operations. Given these benefits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate two independently controllable motors for two different wheels. Second, it’s well known in the art for a cleaning robot to comprise a plurality of wheels and two independently controllable motors, wherein for two wheels from the plurality of wheels, each wheel comprises a motor (see SILVERMAN). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The two independently controllable motors—as incorporated into DRORI’s robot—would still perform the same function (e.g., moving the robot and the extraction cleaning head assembly mounted thereon), thereby yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of DRORI and SILVERMAN: the circuitry (i.e., DRORI’s controller) would be configured to move the robot via the two independently controllable motors.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of DRORI and SILVERMAN teaches the system according to claim 1. The combination teaches the system comprising circuitry (see DRORI at ¶¶ 0120-21, 0125, 0264, using computer; see also controller 1610 in Fig. 16, ¶¶ 0448, 0451-53 of DRORI) for controlling various components of the barrel cleaning system (see DRORI at, e.g., Fig. 16, ¶¶ 0189, 0120-21, 0125, 0212, 0264, 0292, 0313, 0329, 0339, 0355, 0359, 0448, 0451-53). This includes controlling said pump (see DRORI at, e.g., ¶¶ 0080, 0189, 0214, 0339-40, 0452 controlling various pumps) and controlling said robot (see DRORI at ¶¶ 0193, 0212, 0313, 0452, 0437, 0452; as explained above, the circuitry would be configured to move the robot via the two independently controllable motors).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of DRORI and SILVERMAN teaches the system according to claim 11. The combination teaches wherein a turbidity sensor delivers turbidity information to said circuitry (see DRORI at ¶¶ 0292, 0451).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of DRORI and SILVERMAN teaches the system of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches wherein said two motors are activated by the circuitry.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of DRORI and SILVERMAN teaches the system of claim 1. The combination teaches that each motor from the two motors is controlled independently (as explained above; see also SILVERMAN at abstract, col. 4 lines 59-61, col. 5 lines 4-6, claim 5).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of DRORI and SILVERMAN teaches the system of claim 11. As explained above, the combination teaches that the circuitry (e.g., DRORI’s controller) is configured to move the internal unit (which comprises the snout) via instructions to the two independently controllable motors. In other words, the combination teaches “said circuitry comprises instructions to activate said plurality of wheels of said internal unit to move said internal unit.”
The combination teaches moving the internal unit—e.g., the snout—along the bottom of the barrel (see DRORI at, e.g., Fig. 12, ¶¶ 0212, 0255, 0375, 0388, 0391, 0402, 0406, 0412, 0437) to clean the barrel. During the cleaning process, the wine’s turbidity is monitored (see DRORI at ¶¶ 0228, 0402) using a turbidity sensor (see DRORI at, e.g., ¶¶ 0105, 0176, 0256, 0270, 0278, 0292, 0451, Figs. 4, 5B-5D), wherein a higher turbidity measurement means more debris/soil/sediment in the wine (see DRORI at ¶ 0299).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that certain locations (e.g., a “second location”) along the barrel’s bottom have higher levels of turbidity (as sensed by the turbidity sensor) in comparison with other locations (e.g., a “first location”). For example, the lowest point on the barrel’s curvature would have higher levels of turbidity, because more debris/soil/sediment would settle there under the influence of gravity. In other words, on the bottom of the barrel, there is a second location comprising higher levels of turbidity (as sensed by the turbidity sensor) in comparison with a first location comprising lower levels of turbidity.
Because the circuitry comprises instructions to activate the wheels of said internal unit to move the internal unit (as explained above) and because the internal unit is moved along the bottom of the barrel—the bottom includes the recited “second location”—this means the circuitry comprises instructions to activate said plurality of wheels to move the internal unit towards a second location comprising higher levels of turbidity (as sensed by the turbidity sensor) in comparison with a first location comprising lower levels of turbidity.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of DRORI and ZHAO (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of MOROTE et al. (French Publication FR2931837A1, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “a SO2 monitoring element.” But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional to use a SO2 monitoring element to measure SO2 in wine. See MOROTE at Fig. 1, lines 122-25 (SO2 sensors H1, M1, B1, H2, M2, B2). It’s well known in the art to add SO2 into wine (see MOROTE at lines 13-27), wherein the SO2 monitoring element monitors the SO2.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of DRORI and ZHAO to incorporate a SO2 monitoring element, with reasonable expectation of monitoring SO2. First, because it’s well known in the art to add SO2 into wine, the SO2 monitoring element allows the SO2 to be monitored; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate a SO2 monitoring element. Second, it’s well understood, routine, and conventional to use a SO2 monitoring element to measure SO2 in wine (see MOROTE). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The SO2 monitoring element as incorporated would perform the same function as before (e.g., monitoring SO2), thereby yielding predictable results.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of DRORI and ZHAO (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of TOMASELLO et al. (US PGPUB 20100278980).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of DRORI and ZHAO teaches the system according to claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “a SO2 gas unit for adding SO2 into wine as treatment.” But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional to add SO2 gas into wine (see TOMASELLO at ¶¶ 0001-02), wherein the SO2 gas is supplied from a SO2 gas unit (see id. at Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0041-42, 0081). Adding the SO2 gas provides benefits such as delaying undesired microflora and controlling fermentation (see id.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of DRORI and ZHAO to incorporate a SO2 gas unit, with reasonable expectation of adding SO2 into wine. First, the SO2 gas provides benefits such as delaying undesired microflora and controlling fermentation; given these benefits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate a SO2 gas unit for adding SO2 into wine. Second, it’s well understood, routine, and conventional to use a SO2 gas unit to add SO2 into wine (see TOMASELLO). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The SO2 gas unit as incorporated would serve the same function as before (e.g., adding SO2), thereby yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714