Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/421,482

PEELING, SCREENING AND CLEANING DEVICE FOR TORREYA GRANDIS 'MERRILLII'S

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 24, 2024
Examiner
PEZZUTO, ROBERT ERIC
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Huzhou Vocational & Technical College
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1085 granted / 1274 resolved
+33.2% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+4.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1307
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
§102
34.6%
-5.4% vs TC avg
§112
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1274 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the phrase “The present invention provides”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the specification, on page 11, paragraph [0026], on lines 9-12, applicant states “When the electric telescopic rod 13 is opened, Torreya grandis 'Merrillii's and pericarp can be dropped to the upper side of the first antirust horizontal separating net 4, and smaller pericarp can be dropped into the first antirust horizontal separating net 4 by spraying water”; however, it appears that it should read --When the electric telescopic rod 13 is opened, Torreya grandis 'Merrillii's and pericarp can be dropped to the upper side of the second antirust horizontal separating net 5, and smaller pericarp can be dropped into the first antirust horizontal separating net 4 by spraying water.-- This assumption is made based on the drawings, how it appears the device is to function and the fact that Torreya grandis/pericarp is dropped on one surface and then to another surface and it appears that this can only occur on a drop onto “the second antirust horizontal separating net 5” and subsequently onto “the first antirust horizontal separating net 4”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1-5 are replete with errors under 35 USC 112 too numerous to mention specifically; however, examples of those errors are as follows: In claim 1, line 3, “the inner surface” appears to lack proper antecedent basis. In claim 1, lines 4-5, “the first antirust horizontal separating net” appears to lack proper antecedent basis. In claim 1, lines 6-7, “the second antirust horizontal separating net” appears to lack proper antecedent basis. In claim 1, line 7, “the bottom inner wall” appears to lack proper antecedent basis. In claim 1, line 9, “the output end of the water pump” appears to lack proper antecedent basis. In claim 1, lines 11-12, “the output end of the servo motor” appears to lack proper antecedent basis. In claim 1, line 13, “the upper surface” appears to lack proper antecedent basis. In claim 1, on several occurrences the applicant employs the phrase “far away” (i.e., lines 19-20: “…one end of the first antirust metal transverse supporting rod (11) far away from the outer rectangular water container (1)…”; and lines 21-22: “…one end of the second antirust metal transverse supporting rod (12) far away from the outer rectangular water container (1)…”). As employed, the phrase is inherently unclear in that “far away” is a relative term and does not allow one to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter (i.e., it is impossible to determine the scale of “far away” which could be inches, feet or miles apart). The lack of clarity renders the claimed subject matter indefinite. Note: A similar issue exists in claim 2 with “distributed left and right” (lines 15-16) and “distributed back and forth” (line 17) in that it is not known as to what the respective distribution is relative too. In claim 2, on lines 7, 10 and 12, respectively, each of “the first cavity”, “the second cavity” and “the third cavity” appear to lack proper antecedent basis. In claim 2, lines 3-4 and 5, both of the first side unpacking door” and “the second side unpacking door” appear to lack proper antecedent basis. Note: As mentioned above, these are only examples of errors under 35 USC 112 and each claim should be revisited and revisited as necessary. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest a device for peelings, screening and cleaning Torreya grandis wherein the device comprises in combination with other claimed features/limitations a rectangular water container having enclosed therein first and second antirust horizontal separating nets, a soft and hard water piping assembly including a pump and servo motor capable of conveying pressurized water though the piping assembly and across the first and second nets and a cleaning box attached to the rectangular container, the cleaning box having a conical table enclosed therein wherein the conical table rotates and further includes a plurality of metal wires. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lange (USP 4,621,573) discloses an apparatus for cleaning fruits and vegetables. Wilkins (USP 11,744,185) discloses a method and apparatus for separating flowers from stalks. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm. 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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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. /ROBERT E PEZZUTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 24, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 27, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601151
Universal Hydraulic Connecting Quick Coupler System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601139
CONSTRUCTION MACHINE ATTACHMENT MOUNTING AND DEMOUNTING APPARATUS AND CONSTRUCTION MACHINE EQUIPPED WITH SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590438
IMPLEMENT CONNECTION SYSTEM AND VEHICLE HAVING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590430
CLEARING STRIP FOR THE CLEARING BLADE OF A SNOWPLOW
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588600
ELECTRIC MOWER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+4.6%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1274 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month