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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-11, 13-15, 17-23, 26, 31, 33-35,37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Butussi (EP 2433508, published on 03/28/2012)
Regarding Claim 1, Butussi discloses a system (press machine 23; fig. 2) for optimizing a press cycle for producing one or more press cuts from a fruit and/or vegetable harvest (“the pressing of the grapes can be carried out and controlled in an efficient and automatic way.”, para. 0017 and 0037), the system comprising:
a press (press 1; fig. 2) configured to extract a fluid from a batch of a fruit and/or vegetable harvest (grapes 18) (para. 0026);
a flow path (duct 4; fig. 2) in fluidic communication with the press (press 1) and configured to receive the extracted fluid (para. 0026);
one or more flow sensors (pH sensor means 14) disposed within the flow path (duct 4) and configured to detect and obtain measurements of one or more parameters of the extracted fluid (pH of the extracted must) (para. 0030); and
at least one processor (control device 11) in operative communication with the one or more flow sensors (pH of the extract must) (para. 0029) and configured to determine, based on the measurements (pH of the extracted must), that a threshold value (intervention threshold Si) corresponding to a press cut segregation point (“stop or deviate the crushing must”, para. 0037) has been reached (para. 0043, 0036-0037, and 0027).
Regarding Claim 2, Butussi discloses the system, wherein the one or more parameters (pH of the extracted must) comprise pH (para. 0030).
Regarding Claim 3, Butussi discloses the system, wherein the threshold value (intervention threshold Si) comprises a pH level (para. 0043).
Regarding Claim 5, Butussi discloses the system, wherein the one or more conditions (“the press will be able to automatically set the sequence of operative pressures”) comprises a pressure during a press cycle (para. 0037 and 0027).
Regarding Claim 10, Butussi discloses the system, wherein the at least one processor (control device 11) is configured to determine, based on the measurements (readings of pH), an adjustment to the one or more conditions (pressure of the press on the grapes) in real time (para. 0043 and 0027).
Regarding Claim 11, Butussi discloses the system, wherein the one or more conditions (pressure of the press on the grapes) comprises an operating pressure of the press (para. 0043 and 0027).
Regarding Claim 13, Butussi discloses the system, wherein the flow path (duct 4) comprises a duct (para. 0026).
Regarding Claim 14, Butussi discloses the system, wherein at least one flow sensor of the one or more flow sensors (pH sensor means 14) is coupled to a wall defining the flow path (surface of the duct 4) (para. 0030; fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Butussi discloses the system, wherein at least one flow sensor of the one or more flow sensors (pH sensor means 14) contacts the extracted fluid within the flow path (extracted must within the duct 4) (para. 0030; fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Butussi discloses the system, wherein the extracted fluid (extracted must) comprises a liquid-solid mixture (extracted must) (para. 0029-0030).
Regarding Claim 18, Butussi discloses the system, wherein the fruit and/or vegetable harvest comprises grapes (grapes) (para. 0017).
Regarding Claim 19, Butussi discloses the system, wherein the at least one processor (control device 11) is configured to determine that the threshold value (intervention threshold Si) corresponding to the press cut segregation point (“stop or deviate the crushing must”, para. 0037) has been reached (para. 0043, 0036-0037, and 0027).
Regarding Claim 20, Butussi discloses the system, wherein the at least one processor (control device 11) is configured to determine the one or more conditions for operating the press (operating pressure of the press 1) to produce the at least one press cut (para. 0027).
Regarding Claim 21, Butussi discloses a method for optimizing a press cycle for producing one or more press cuts (extracted must) from a fruit and/or vegetable harvest (grapes) (“the pressing of the grapes can be carried out and controlled in an efficient and automatic way.”, para. 0017 and 0037), the method comprising:
using a press (press 1) to extract a fluid (extracted must) from a batch of a fruit and/or vegetable harvest (grapes) (para. 0026);
receiving the extracted fluid (extracted must) within a flow path (duct 4) in fluidic communication with the press (press 1) (para. 0026);
measuring one or more parameters (pH of the extracted must) in the extracted fluid using one or more flow sensors (pH sensor means 14) (para. 0030);
providing the measurements of the one or more parameters to at least one processor (control device 11) (para. 0029); and
determining, using the at least one processor (control device 11) and based on the measurements (pH of the extracted must), that a threshold value (intervention threshold Si) corresponding to a press cut segregation point ((“stop or deviate the crushing must”, para. 0037) has been reached (para. 0043, 0036-0037, and 0027).
Regarding Claim 22, Butussi discloses the method, wherein the one or more parameters (pH of the extracted must) comprise pH (para. 0030).
Regarding Claim 23, Butussi discloses the system, wherein the threshold value (intervention threshold Si) comprises a pH level (para. 0043).
Regarding Claim 26, Butussi discloses the method, wherein the one or more conditions (“the press will be able to automatically set the sequence of operative pressures”) comprises a pressure during a press cycle (para. 0037 and 0027).
Regarding Claim 31, Butussi discloses the method, further comprising, using the at least one processor (control device 11) and based on the measurements (readings of pH), an adjustment to the one or more conditions (pressure of the press on the grapes) in real time (para. 0043 and 0027).
Regarding Claim 33, Butussi discloses the method, wherein the flow path (duct 4) comprises a duct (para. 0026).
Regarding Claim 34, Butussi discloses the method, wherein at least one flow sensor of the one or more flow sensors (pH sensor means 14) is coupled to a wall defining the flow path (surface of the duct 4) (para. 0030; fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 35, Butussi discloses the method, wherein at least one flow sensor of the one or more flow sensors (pH sensor means 14) contacts the extracted fluid within the flow path (extracted must within the duct 4) (para. 0030; fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 37, Butussi discloses the method, wherein the extracted fluid (extracted must) comprises a liquid-solid mixture (extracted must) (para. 0029-0030).
Regarding Claim 38, Butussi discloses the method, wherein the fruit and/or vegetable harvest comprises grapes (grapes) (para. 0017).
Regarding Claim 39, Butussi discloses the method, wherein the method comprises determining, using the at least one processor (control device 11) and based on the measurements (pH of the extracted must), that the threshold value (intervention threshold Si) corresponding to the press cut segregation point (“stop or deviate the crushing must”, para. 0037) has been reached (para. 0043, 0036-0037, and 0027).
Regarding Claim 40, Butussi discloses the method, wherein the method comprises determining, using the at least one processor (control device 11) and based on the measurements (pH of the extracted must), the one or more conditions for operating the press (operating pressure of the press 1) to produce the at least one press cut (para. 0027).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butussi (EP 2433508, published on 03/28/2012) in view of Shrikhande (US 20150259315)
Regarding Claim 4, Butussi does not disclose the chemical quality comprises a phenolic concentration of the extracted fluid, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the phenolic concentration based on at least one of the measurements.
However, Shrikhande discloses a high-performance liquid chromatography is used to determine a chemical quality, wherein the chemical quality (phenolic profile) comprises a phenolic concentration of the extracted fluid (phenolic profile of grape extract) (para. 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Butussi to include high-performance liquid chromatography configured to determine the chemical quality comprising the phenolic concentration of the extracted fluid as taught by Shrikhande and configure the processor of Butussi to receive the chemical quality (i.e. phenolic profile of grape extract). Doing so would ensure that desired the level of chemical quality (i.e. phenolic concentration of the extracted grape) is attained (para. 0001-0002 of Shrikhande).
Regarding Claim 24, Butussi does not disclose the method further comprising determining, using the at least one processor, a chemical quality in the extracted fluid based on the measurements.
However, Shrikhande discloses a high-performance liquid chromatography is used to determine a chemical quality, wherein the chemical quality (phenolic profile) comprises a phenolic concentration of the extracted fluid (phenolic profile of grape extract) (para. 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Butussi to include the high-performance liquid chromatography to determine the chemical quality in the extracted fluid as taught by Shrikhande and configure the processor of Butussi to receive the chemical quality. Doing so would ensure that desired the level of chemical quality (i.e. phenolic concentration of the extracted grape) is attained (para. 0001-0002 of Shrikhande).
Regarding Claim 25, Shrikhande discloses the chemical quality comprises a phenolic concentration of the extracted fluid (phenolic concentration of the extracted grape) (para. 0026 and 0002).
Claims 6-8 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butussi (EP 2433508, published on 03/28/2012) in view of Strydom (US 20150030721)
Regarding Claim 6, Butussi does not disclose the at least one processor is configured to detect an abnormality associated with the extracted fluid, and identify one or more actions for mitigating the abnormality.
However, Strydom discloses an abnormality (excess levels of oxidation) associated with the extracted fluid (wine) is detected by sensory analysis (para. 0106 and 0008), and one or more actions (adding low amount of sulphur dioxide) for mitigating the abnormality is identified (para. 0007 and 0075).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Strydom to include the sensory analysis to determine the abnormality associated with juice (i.e. excess levels of oxidation) and configure the processor of Strydom to receive the abnormality and identify one or more actions for mitigating the abnormality i.e. introducing sulphur dioxide to the juice, in order to reduce the oxidation of the juice thereby prolong the shelf life of the wine (para. 0007 of Strydom).
Regarding Claim 7, Strydom disclose the abnormality (high oxidation) comprises high redox in the extracted fluid (para. 0106 and 0008) (it is noted Strydom is silent regarding high redox, however according to attached non-patent literature to Jessie Key, “Oxidation-Reduction” Reactions”, https://opentextbc.ca/introductorychemistry/chapter/chapter-4-oxidation-reduction-reactions/, describes “redox” as oxidation reduction reactions. High redox indicates high oxidation of juice).
Regarding Claim 8, Strydom disclose the one or more actions (adding low amount of sulphur dioxide) comprises adding sulphur dioxide to the extracted fluid in the flow path (tank) (para. 0071-0072).
Regarding Claim 27, Butussi does not disclose the method, further comprising detecting, using the at least one processor, an abnormality associated with the extracted fluid, and identifying one or more actions for mitigating the abnormality.
However, Strydom discloses an abnormality (excess levels of oxidation) associated with the extracted fluid (wine) is detected by sensory analysis (para. 0106 and 0008), and one or more actions (adding low amount of sulphur dioxide) for mitigating the abnormality is identified (para. 0007 and 0075).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Butussi to include the sensory analysis configured to determine the abnormality associated with juice (i.e. excess levels of oxidation) and to configure the processor of Butussi to receive the abnomality and identify one or more actions for mitigating the abnormality i.e. introducing sulphur dioxide to the juice, in order to reduce the oxidation of the juice thereby prolong the shelf life of the wine (para. 0007 of Strydom).
Regarding Claim 28, Strydom disclose the abnormality (high oxidation) comprises high redox in the extracted fluid (para. 0106 and 0008) (it is noted Strydom is silent regarding high redox, however according to attached non-patent literature to Jessie Key, “Oxidation-Reduction” Reactions”, https://opentextbc.ca/introductorychemistry/chapter/chapter-4-oxidation-reduction-reactions/, describes “redox” as oxidation reduction reactions. High redox indicates high oxidation of juice).
Regarding Claim 29, Strydom disclose the one or more actions (adding low amount of sulphur dioxide) comprises adding sulphur dioxide to the extracted fluid in the flow path (tank) (para. 0071-0072).
Claims 9 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butussi (EP 2433508, published on 03/28/2012) in view of Bonnet (US 5207154)
Regarding Claim 9, Butussi does not disclose the system further comprising one or more press sensors in operative communication with the at least one processor and configured to detect one or more current conditions of the press.
However, Bonnet discloses the system (device for extraction of juice) (col. 1, lines 7-10) further comprising one or more press sensors (pressure sensor 8; fig. 4) in operative communication with the at least one processor (programmable automation 5) and configured to detect one or more current conditions of the press (pressing pressure P of the press) (col. 7, lines 26-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Butussi to include the one or more press sensors in operative communication with the processor and configured to detect the pressing pressure of the press as taught by Bonnet, in order to automatically determine, without the intervention of the operator, the pressing pressure of the press during different pressing stages, such that a better quality juice will be obtained as well as a more efficient processing of the grapes to be pressed as a result of a more effective process for pressing of the grapes (col. 1, 2 lines 57-69, 1-2 respectively).
Regarding Claim 30, Butussi does not disclose the method further comprising detecting one or more current conditions of the press using one or more press sensors in operative communication with the at least one processor.
However, Bonnet discloses the method (method for extraction of juice) (col. 1, lines 7-10) further comprising detecting one or more current conditions of the press (pressing pressure P of the press) (col. 7, lines 26-39) using one or more press sensors (pressure sensor 8; fig. 4) in operative communication with the at least one processor (programmable automation 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Butussi to include the one or more press sensors in operative communication with the processor and configured to detect the pressing pressure of the press as taught by Bonnet, in order to automatically determine, without the intervention of the operator, the pressing pressure of the press during different pressing stages, such that a better quality juice will be obtained as well as a more efficient processing of the grapes to be pressed as a result of a more effective process for pressing of the grapes (col. 1, 2 lines 57-69, 1-2 respectively).
Claims 12 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butussi (EP 2433508, published on 03/28/2012) in view of Palmaz (US 20200071655)
Regarding Claim 12, Butussi discloses the at least one processor (control device 11) uses a program to determine the one or more conditions (operating pressure of the press 1) (para. 0027 and 0017).
Butussi does not discloses the at least one processor uses a machine learning algorithm to determine the one or more conditions.
However, Palmaz discloses a fermentation vessel (para. 0004), wherein at least one processor (microprocessor 22; fig. 2) uses a machine learning algorithm (machine learning) to determine the one or more conditions (control wine fermentation processes) (para. 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor of Butussi to use the machine learning algorithm to determine the one or more conditions as taught by Palmaz, in order to allow for consistently better monitoring and tighter control over the pressing process (para. 0054 of Palmaz).
Regarding Claim 32, Butussi discloses the method, wherein the at least one processor (control device 11) uses a program to determine the one or more conditions (operating pressure of the press 1) (para. 0027 and 0017).
Butussi does not discloses the at least one processor uses a machine learning algorithm to determine the one or more conditions.
However, Palmaz discloses a fermentation vessel (para. 0004), wherein at least one processor (microprocessor 22; fig. 2) uses a machine learning algorithm (machine learning) to determine the one or more conditions (control wine fermentation processes) (para. 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor of Butussi to use the machine learning algorithm to determine the one or more conditions as taught by Palmaz, in order to allow for consistently better monitoring and tighter control over the pressing process (para. 0054 of Palmaz).
Claims 16 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butussi (EP 2433508, published on 03/28/2012) in view of Kobayashi (US 4745953)
Regarding Claim 16, Butussi does not disclose a user interface in communication with the at least one processor and configured to receive input from an operator, the input including the threshold value.
However, Kobayashi discloses a user interface (display unit 44) in communication with the at least one processor (control unit 11) and configured to receive input from an operator, the input including the threshold value (predetermined value for pH) (col. 15, lines 40-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Butussi to include the user interface configured to receive input from the operator, the input including the threshold value as taught by Kobayashi, in order to yield juice having the desired pH according to desired application.
Regarding Claim 36, Butussi does not disclose the method, further comprising receiving input from an operator via a user interface, the input including the threshold value.
However, Kobayashi discloses a method, comprising receiving input from an operator, the input including the threshold value (predetermined value for pH) via a user interface (display unit 44) (col. 15, lines 40-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Butussi to include the user interface configured to receive input from the operator, the input including the threshold value as taught by Kobayashi, in order to yield juice having the desired pH according to desired application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights