DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 2A-4G are in gray-scale rather than composed of solid line drawings. See 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) and 37 CFR 1.84 (l). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0261566) in view of Faulring et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0183230).
In reference to claim 1, Robertson discloses a method for automatically selecting, sorting and discarding harvested damaged fruits during harvesting by an unmanned autonomous harvester (UAH) (Fig. 1) equipped with a harvesting arm 100 having a fruit-gripper assembly (Fig. 8, “Picking Head”), the method comprising the steps of:
immediately after grasping a fruit and immediately after detaching it from the branch, while holding the fruit with said harvesting arm, scanning 360° of said fruit (Fig. 9, pars. 0130-0132);
analyzing the scan and identifying and classifying blemishes within said fruit (par. 0134); and
determining whether the identified blemishes render the fruit as damaged or not (par. 0150, distributing fruit into the “discard container” implies that that the fruit has been determined to be damaged),
and
the method is carried out on-site in the orchard immediately for each fruit that is harvested, such that if a fruit is determined as damaged, the UAH discharges the fruit (par. 0150, to the “discard container”), and continues harvesting, and if the fruit is determined as not-damaged, it is placed in a collection bin and the UAH continues harvesting (par. 0150).
Robertson fails to disclose that the fruit-gripper assembly is based on suction-gripping by a suction-nipple that keeps over 90% of the fruit’s surface visible for said scanning.
Faulring discloses a fruit-gripper assembly based on suction-gripping by a suction nipple 756 that keeps over 90% of the fruit’s surface visible for said scanning (Fig. 7C). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the fruit-gripper of Faulring in place of the fruit-gripper of Robertson as it amounts to a substitution of equivalents to perform the same function, which is in this case to grip fruit.
In reference to claim 2, Robertson discloses scanning the exterior (par. 0132, with a camera).
In reference to claim 3, Robertson discloses determining on-site a fruit’s grade based on said identified and classified blemishes (par. 0134), and placing each fruit in a suitable collection bin according to its determined grade (par. 0150).
In reference to claim 5, Robertson discloses that scanning of the fruit is carried out by rotating the fruit (par. 0132, “rotate the fruit in front of a single camera to obtain multiple views”) in front of an optical image capturing device to allow scanning the fruit. In combination with Faulring, this would result in rotating by said suction-nipple 756.
In reference to claim 6, Robertson discloses that the scanning of the fruit is carried out by rotating an optical image capturing device around the fruit that is held by said harvesting arm (Fig. 9, par. 0132).
In reference to claim 7, Robertson discloses that the scanning of the fruit is carried out by an optical image capturing system comprising an image capturing device and at least one mirror (par. 0132, “use mirrors positioned and oriented so as to provide multiple virtual views of the fruit to a single camera”).
In reference to claim 8, Robertson discloses that the identification of blemishes is carried out using visible and near infrared multispectral imaging instrument(s) and/or a polarizer imager (par. 0136).
In reference to claim 9, Robertson discloses that the identification of blemishes is on the outside surface of the fruit (par. 0132).
In reference to claim 10, Robertson discloses a method for harvesting fruits, comprising the steps of:
activating at least one unmanned autonomous harvester (UAH) (Fig. 1) equipped with a harvesting arm 100 with a fruit-gripper assembly (Fig. 8, “Picking Head”);
after detaching a fruit from a branch and while holding said fruit, scanning 360° of said fruit (Fig. 9, pars. 0130-0132);
identifying blemishes within the fruit (par. 0134); and
determining whether said identified blemishes render the fruit as damaged or not (par. 0150, distributing fruit into the “discard container” implies that that the fruit has been determined to be damaged),
wherein:
the method is carried out on-site in the orchard for each harvested fruit, such that if a fruit is determined as damaged, the harvester discharges the fruit (par. 0150, to the “discard container”) and continues harvesting, and if a fruit is determined as not-damaged, it is placed in a collection bin and the harvester continues harvesting (par. 0150).
Robertson fails to disclose that the fruit-gripper assembly is based on suction-gripping by a suction-nipple that keeps over 90% of the fruit’s surface visible for said scanning.
Faulring discloses a fruit-gripper assembly based on suction-gripping by a suction nipple 756 that keeps over 90% of the fruit’s surface visible for said scanning (Fig. 7C). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the fruit-gripper of Faulring in place of the fruit-gripper of Robertson as it amounts to a substitution of equivalents to perform the same function, which is in this case to grip fruit.
In reference to claim 11, Robertson discloses that the scanning of the fruit in the step of after detaching a fruit from a branch and while holding said fruit, scanning 360° of said fruit means scanning the fruit’s exterior (Fig. 9, par. 0132).
In reference to claim 12, Robertson discloses determining a fruit’s grade based on said identified blemishes (par. 0134); and placing the fruit in a suitable fruit-collection bin according to the determined fruit’s grade (par. 0150).
In reference to claim 15, Robertson discloses a system for harvesting fruits, the system comprising an unmanned autonomous harvester (UAH) (Fig. 1) equipped with one or more harvesting arms 100 having a fruit-gripper (Fig. 8, “Picking Head”), and a fruit scanner (Fig. 9), wherein the UAH is designed to:
scan each harvested fruit, immediately after detaching it from a branch and while holding the fruit with said harvesting arm (Fig. 9, pars. 0130-0132);
analyze each scan and identify blemishes (par. 0134); and
determine whether the identified blemishes render the fruit is damaged or not (par. 0150, distributing fruit into the “discard container” implies that that the fruit has been determined to be damaged); and
discard a fruit that is determined as damaged and continue harvesting, and place a fruit that is determined as not-damaged in a fruit collection bin and continue harvesting (par. 0150).
Faulring discloses a fruit-gripper assembly based on suction-gripping by a suction nipple 756 (Fig. 7C). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the fruit-gripper of Faulring in place of the fruit-gripper of Robertson as it amounts to a substitution of equivalents to perform the same function, which is in this case to grip fruit.
In reference to claim 16, Robertson discloses that the UAH is further designed to determine a fruit’s grade based on the identified blemishes (par. 0134), and to place each fruit in a dedicated fruit collection bin according to the fruit’s determined grade (par. 0150).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0261566) in view of Faulring et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0183230) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Moore (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0092304).
In reference to claim 4, Robertson fails to disclose uploading the fruit blemishes data to a cloud.
Moore discloses uploading fruit data to a cloud (par. 0400). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to upload fruit blemish data to a cloud with a reasonable expectation of success so that the data does not have to be stored locally.
In reference to claim 13, Robertson fails to disclose a step of storing data regarding the identified blemishes together with the fruit’s global position on the tree.
Moore discloses storing data regarding the fruit’s global position on a tree (par. 0052). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to store global positioning data of the fruit and tree with a reasonable expectation of success so that this data can be used to optimize the harvesting.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0261566) in view of Faulring et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0183230) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Maor (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0166765).
In reference to claims 14 and 17, Robertson fails to disclose that the UAH is a flying UAV.
Maor discloses a flying UAH (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the UAH as a flying UAV with a reasonable expectation of success so that the UAH can harvest fruit farther from the ground.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Salisbury et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0323174) discloses a suction cup fruit gripper 604 (par. 0112); Maor et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0283788) discloses a flying harvester (Fig. 4) with suction cup fruit grippers (Figs. 2A-2C); and Russel et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0029178) discloses a suction cup fruit gripper 40 (Fig. 7a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAD HARCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-7303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571)272-4137. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRAD HARCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
12/10/25