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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument breaks down into three sub arguments: 1) there is no capacity to retain multiple fruit, 2) there is no described function as a storage bay, and 3) there is no disclosed elongate dimension for sequential fruit storage. The first sub-argument is unpersuasive because the claims do not recite this limitation of multiple fruit retention, nor is there an explicit structural limitation for the purpose. While the specification may have a focus on the ability to retain multiple fruit in storage, it is not claimed. The limitation will not be read into the claims. The second sub-argument is unpersuasive because there is a storage function, even if the storage function is only momentarily. The third sub-argument is unpersuasive for two reasons. The first is that again the claims do not recite this limitation of multiple fruit retention, nor is there an explicit structural limitation for the purpose. Secondly, there is an elongate direction because the storage bay is rectangular.
Applicant’s second argument also breaks down into three sub arguments: 1) that the port is not full length of the storage bay in the longitudinal direction, 2) that the opening is only created momentarily, and 3) the opening is for only one fruit at a time. The first sub-argument is unpersuasive because the opening is all the way across the bottom of the storage bay 1610 in fig. 17A. Additionally, the phrase “in the longitudinal direction” is considered broad. The broadest reasonable interpretation could include a along the same longitudinal axis or servicing the longitudinal direction. The port does service the longitudinal direction. The second sub-argument is unpersuasive because there is no claim limitation concerning the time required for the opening. Therefore, a momentary opening still meets the claim limitations. The third sub-argument is unpersuasive again the claims do not recite this limitation of multiple fruit traveling through the opening, nor is there an explicit structural limitation for the purpose.
Applicant’s third argument appears to be that there is no intermediate storage or bulk discharge. Similarly to the other limitations this is unpersuasive because the claims do not recite these limitations of intermediate storage or bulk discharge, nor is there an explicit structural limitation for these purposes.
The objection to the drawings and the claims have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salisbury et al. (US 2021/0323174 A1), hereinafter Salisbury.
Regarding claim 1, Salisbury discloses an end effector (see below) for a fruit picking robot (1700, fig. 17A-17B, [0225]), comprising:
a distal portion (1602, fig. 17A-17B, [0225]) comprising tools for seizing and adapted for detaching a fruit from a mother plant (1710, [0227]);
a proximal portion (side of 1610) comprising an interface (connection between 202 and 1610, fig. 3c, 5, and 17A-B, [0227]) for mounting the end effector (1700) to a robot arm (202, fig. 3c, 5, and 17 [0227], wherein a robotic arm is attached through a connection to 1610 like in fig. 5, see also [0075 and 0102]); and
a storage bay for picked fruit (1610, fig. 17A-17B, [0225]), the storage bay being elongate in a longitudinal direction (fig. 17A-17B, [0225-0227]);
wherein the storage bay includes a discharge port (opening that fruit 1710 falls through that 1706A-B sometimes blocks, fig. 17A-17B, [0226-0228]) extending along a full length of the storage bay in the longitudinal direction (fig. 17A-17B); and
a fruit support member (1706A+1706B, fig. 17A, [0226-0028]) having a longitudinally extending edge that delimits the discharge port (fig. 17A).
Regarding claim 2, Salisbury discloses wherein the fruit support member is pivotably disposed relative to a longitudinally extending axis and configured to enable discharging fruit through the discharge port (1706A+1706B, fig. 17A and 17B, [0226-0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Salisbury discloses wherein the storage bay (1610) is disposed in an intermediate portion of the end effector (middle section of 1700, that is the area between 1602 and the attached arm on the opposite side of 1610 as 1602 in fig. 17A-B) between the distal and proximal portions (1610 is between 1602 and the optional robotic arm with an end effector that connects it to 1610, fig. 3c, 5, and 17A-B, [0227], see also [0075 and 0102]).
Regarding claim 4, Salisbury discloses wherein the fruit support member is shaped as a gutter extending in the longitudinal direction (fig. 17A and 17B).
Regarding claim 5, Salisbury discloses wherein the fruit support member (1706A+1706B, fig. 17A and 17B, [0226-0028]) comprises two flaps (1706A and 1706B, fig. 17A and 17B, [0226-0028]) having swing axes extending in the longitudinal direction (1712A and 1712B, fig. 17A and 17B, [0226-0028]), wherein the discharge port is defined between longitudinally extending edges of the two flaps that face one another (fig. 17A and 17B, [0226-0028]).
Regarding claim 7, Salisbury discloses further comprising a fruit finding sensor disposed on the distal portion of the end effector ([0094-0095, 0097, and 0165-0170], see also [0085-0088]).
Regarding claim 8, Salisbury discloses further comprising a sensor for sensing a distance between the fruit support member and a surface adjacent to it ([0087]).
Regarding claim 9, Salisbury discloses a fruit-picking robot, comprising:
an articulated arm (202, fig. 3c and 5, [0227], wherein a robotic arm is attached through a connection to 1610 like in fig. 5, see also [0075 and 0102]), and an end effector disposed on the articulated arm (fig. 2, 3C, and 5, [0027]), the end effector (see below) comprising:
a distal portion (1602, fig. 17A-17B, [0225]) comprising tools for seizing and adapted for detaching a fruit from a mother plant (1710, [0227]);
a proximal portion (side of 1610) comprising an interface (connection between 202 and 1610, fig. 3c, 5, and 17A-B, [0227]) for mounting the end effector (1700) to the articulated arm (202, fig. 3c and 5, [0227], wherein a robotic arm is attached through a connection to 1610 like in fig. 5, see also [0075 and 0102]); and
a storage bay for picked fruit (1610, fig. 17A-17B, [0225]), the storage bay being elongate in a longitudinal direction (fig. 17A-17B, [0225-0227]);
wherein the storage bay includes a discharge port (opening that fruit 1710 falls through that 1706A-B sometimes blocks, fig. 17A-17B, [0226-0228]) extending along a full length of the storage bay in the longitudinal direction (fig. 17A-17B); and
a fruit support member (1706A+1706B, fig. 17A, [0226-0028]) having a longitudinally extending edge that delimits the discharge port (fig. 17A).
Regarding claim 10, Salisbury discloses wherein the fruit support member is pivotably disposed relative to a longitudinally extending axis and configured to enable discharging fruit through the discharge port (1706A+1706B, fig. 17A and 17B, [0226-0028]).
Regarding claim 11, Salisbury discloses wherein the storage bay is disposed in an intermediate portion of the end effector between the distal and proximal portions (1610 is between 1602 and the optional robotic arm with an end effector that connects it to 1610, fig. 3c, 5, and 17A-B, [0227], see also [0075 and 0102]).
Regarding claim 12, Salisbury discloses wherein the fruit support member is shaped as a gutter extending in the longitudinal direction (fig. 17A and 17B).
Regarding claim 13, Salisbury discloses wherein the fruit support member (1706A+1706B, fig. 17A and 17B, [0226-0028]) comprises two flaps (1706A and 1706B, fig. 17A and 17B, [0226-0028]) having swing axes extending in the longitudinal direction (1712A and 1712B, fig. 17A and 17B, [0226-0028]), wherein the discharge port is defined between longitudinally extending edges of the two flaps that face one another (fig. 17A and 17B, [0226-0028]).
Regarding claim 15, Salisbury discloses further comprising a fruit finding sensor disposed on the distal portion of the end effector ([0094-0095, 0097, and 0165-0170], see also [0085-0088]).
Regarding claim 16, Salisbury discloses further comprising a sensor for sensing a distance between the fruit support member and a surface adjacent to it ([0087]).
Regarding claim 17, Salisbury discloses wherein a distal link (lower section of 502 that is closer to 506 in fig. 5, [0102-0103 and 0027], wherein 502 may represent robotic arms 202 and par. 0227 states that 1700 of fig. 17 can include the robotic arm of 202 or 500) of the articulated arm is connected to the end effector by a distal joint (joint between the upper and lower sections of 502), and wherein the distal joint is operable to form a right angle or an acute angle between the longitudinal axis of the end effector and a longitudinal axis of the distal link (fig. 5, [0102-0103]).
Regarding claim 18, Salisbury discloses further comprising a controller adapted to carry out a picking operation ([402, [0094-0095]]) while the longitudinal axis (arrow in fig. 5) is inclined downwardly from the distal portion towards the proximal portion (fig. 5, [0102-0103], wherein the robotic arms and therefore the distal portion and longitudinal axis are maneuverable to various positions as desired or needed for picking and transporting the fruit, see also [0089-0090, 0093, and 0100]).
Regarding claim 19, Salisbury discloses wherein the controller is adapted to carry out the picking operation when inclination of the longitudinal axis is below a first predetermined threshold (fig. 5, [0089-0090, 0093, 0100, and 0102-0103], wherein the robotic arms and therefore the distal portion and longitudinal axis are maneuverable to various positions as desired or needed for picking and delivering the fruit to the fruit bin undamaged; the calculated positioning needed to efficiently pick the fruit without damaging the fruit would be the first predetermined threshold).
Regarding claim 20, Salisbury discloses wherein the controller is adapted to maintain the longitudinal axis downwardly inclined and below a second predetermined threshold after having picked a fruit and before discharging it (fig. 5, [0089-0090, 0093, 0100, and 0102-0103], wherein the robotic arms and therefore the distal portion and longitudinal axis are maneuverable to various positions as desired or needed for picking and delivering the fruit to the fruit bin undamaged; the calculated positioning needed to deposit the fruit without damaging the fruit would be the second predetermined threshold).
Regarding claim 22, Salisbury discloses wherein an adapter of the articulated arm is rotatable about the longitudinal axis between a position in which the discharge port is facing up and a position in which the discharge port is facing down (fig. 5, [0089-0090, 0093, 0100, and 0102-0103], wherein the robotic arms and therefore the discharge port are maneuverable to various positions as desired or needed for picking and delivering the fruit to the fruit bin undamaged; this can result in the discharge port facing upwards or downward as needed to pick the fruit most effeciently).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salisbury et al. (US 2021/0323174 A1), hereinafter Salisbury in view of Clark et al. (3,459,318), hereinafter Clark.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Salisbury discloses a fruit support member (1706A+1706B, fig. 17A-B, [0226]) with an opening-closing mechanism compromising an actuator (spring, [0226]) that opens flaps (1706A and 1706B) when the weight of the fruit is enough to overcome the spring (0226).
However, Salisbury fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a latch configured for locking the support member in a closed position, and an actuator configured for displacing the latch.
Clark teaches a similar device in the same field of fruit harvesting wherein further comprising a latch (53, fig. 7-9, col. 3 lines 49-72) configured for locking the support member in a closed position, and an actuator (51, fig. 7-9, col. 3 lines 49-72, wherein 51 acts to move the latch 53) configured for displacing the latch (fig. 7-9, col. 3 lines 49-72).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified opening-closing mechanism of Salisbury to incorporate the latch and actuator of Clark in order to ensure a safe deposit of the fruit into the fruit bin (col. 4 lines 36-50 and 64-68 of Clark).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salisbury et al. (US 2021/0323174 A1), hereinafter Salisbury in view of Yu et al. (CN 114532069 A), hereinafter Yu.
Regarding claim 21, Salisbury discloses claim 9, but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a weight sensor or torque sensor for sensing weight or torque of the end effector, the controller being adapted to discharge the fruit when output of the sensor exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Yu teaches a similar device in the same field of fruit harvesting wherein further comprising a weight sensor or torque sensor for sensing weight or torque of the end effector, the controller being adapted to discharge the fruit when output of the sensor exceeds a predetermined threshold ([n0019 and n0021] of Yu).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Salisbury to incorporate the weight sensor of the end effector and the discharge of the fruit by the controller when a predetermined threshold is reached of Yu in order to more efficiently harvest and weigh the fruit ([n0021] of Yu).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salisbury et al. (US 2021/0323174 A1), hereinafter Salisbury in view Gray (US 2008/0010961 A1), hereinafter Gray.
Regarding claim 23, Salisbury discloses further comprising a cart (body that 202 is attached to in fig. 2B and 3C, [0075 and 0079-0081]) having the articulated arm mounted thereon (202, fig. 2B and 3C, [0075 and 0079-0081). Salisbury also discloses a fruit bin (fig. 2B, [0079-0081]) that is placed on the ground ([0082]).
However, Salisbury fails to explicitly disclose the cart having a support for a fruit collecting box into which the end effector is adapted to enter for discharging fruit.
Gray teaches a similar device in the same field of fruit harvesters wherein the cart having a support for a fruit collecting box into which the end effector is adapted to enter for discharging fruit ([0008 and 0010]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Salisbury to have the known arrangement of Gray that yields the predictable result of the fruit being deposited into the fruit bin ([0008] of Gray).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Railey whose telephone number is (571)270-7353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-4).
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/JENNIFER A RAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights