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.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the frame that includes the vibrator”. It is not clear if the claimed frame is one of the frames previously cited in claim 1 or a separate frame.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the de-stemmers" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that claim 10 was intended to depend from claim 2, rather than claim 1. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenias Sancho (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0238466) in view of Canela Sacanell et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0200524).
In reference to claim 1, Tenias Sancho discloses a self-propelled fruit harvesting machine 15 for harvesting fruit from a tree by means of the action of a vibrator 30 on the trunk of the tree when the presence of the tree trunk is detected by means of probe 31 (par. 0027),
the machine having two lateral frames 16 and 17 between which there is a lower longitudinal opening (Fig. 2, par. 0022) for the passage of the tree as the machine 15 moves, these two side frames 16 and 17 being linked at the top by means of two parallel gantries 20 and 21, extended transversely and separated by a certain distance in longitudinal direction (Fig. 2),
the machine having dragging means 28, located inside respective longitudinal channels 27, to move the detached fruits towards the rear part of each of the side frames 16 and 17, wherein each of said frames 16 and 17 has a folding character (Figs. 2 and 3), characterized in that the dragging means 28 of the side frames 16 and 17, which feed voluminous hoppers 33 equipped with peelers 34 at their entrance (par. 0029), in which the fruits are stored.
Tenias Sancho discloses a probe rather than probes.
Canela Sacanell discloses a fruit harvesting machine comprising multiple probes 30 (par. 0077, Fig. 10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use multiple probes rather than one probe with a reasonable expectation of success to better detect the dimensions of a tree.
Tenias Sancho fails to disclose that the dragging means unload over lateral conveyor belts or that the fruits are stored so that they can be unloaded with the machine in motion through expulsion conveyor belts which include means of activation/unloading in the presence of a transfer vehicle, by means of a mechanical push button, optical, magnetic sensors or any other sensor without magnetic contact.
Canela Sacanell discloses a fruit harvesting machine comprising dragging means 43 (Fig. 3) that unload over lateral conveyor belts 7 and that the fruits are stored in a hopper 8 (Fig. 3) so that they can be unloaded with the machine in motion through expulsion means 82 in the presence of a transfer vehicle (par. 0082, “a trailer which is following the vehicle”). Canela Sacanell does not make clear if means 82 includes a conveyor belt, but in other embodiments discloses a conveyor belt 72b for the same purpose (par. 0076). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the above structure in a fruit harvesting machine with a reasonable expectation of success so that collected fruit can be transported to a separate transfer vehicle.
Further, Canela Sacanell fails to disclose a means of activation/unloading, by means of a mechanical push button, optical, magnetic sensors or any other sensor without magnetic contact. The examiner takes Official Notice that activating a machine by means of a mechanical push button, optical, magnetic sensors or any other sensor without magnetic contact is well known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to activate the machine with a mechanical push button, optical, magnetic sensors or any other sensor without magnetic contact with a reasonable expectation of success as these means are known in the art to function effectively for activating a machine.
In reference to claim 5, Tenias Sancho discloses that the cabin includes a control panel with means of control and programming of all the vibration and movement variables of the machine (par. 0026).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenias Sancho (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0238466) in view of Canela Sacanell et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0200524) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zaun et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0063968).
In reference to claim 6, Tenias Sancho fails to disclose the fruit harvesting machine characterized by the fact that it includes hopper load sensors.
Zaun discloses a harvesting machine with hopper load sensors (par. 0033). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include hopper load sensors with a reasonable expectation of success so that the fill level of the hopper can be determined.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenias Sancho (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0238466) in view of Canela Sacanell et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0200524) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pippi (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0208705).
In reference to claim 8, Tenias Sancho fails to disclose the fruit harvesting machine characterized by including four-wheel drive.
Pippi discloses a four-wheel drive fruit picking machine (claim 28). 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 fruit picking machine to be four-wheel drive with a reasonable expectation of success so that the machine can more effectively approach trees.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenias Sancho (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0238466) in view of Canela Sacanell et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0200524) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keller (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0208705).
In reference to claim 9, Tenias Sancho fails to disclose the fruit harvesting machine characterized by including a fan for the radiator of the machine's engine, fan that has a rotation reversal system for the same.
Keller discloses a harvesting machine characterized by including a fan 30 for the radiator 28 of the machine's engine, fan 30 that has a rotation reversal system for the same (col. 3, lines 56-62). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a reversible fan for the radiator with a reasonable expectation of success so that airflow can be reversed through the radiator to clear any accumulations on the radiator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tenias Sancho (US Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0029551) discloses a fruit harvesting machine with two frames 3 and 4 separated by gantries 1 and 2 (Fig. 1); WIPO Publication WO 2020/159370 discloses a fruit harvesting machine (Fig. 1); Hill et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0327896) discloses a fruit harvesting machine with two frames 215 (Fig. 7A); and Majors (US Patent No. 9,832,929) discloses a fruit harvesting machine with two frames separated by gantries 28 (Fig. 1).
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
1/30/26