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 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The argument for claim 1 that the device of Jeanty fails to disclose “a second mode following the first mode to retain contact with the piece of fruit by applying suction while freely allowing extension or retraction of the suction element relative to the plurality of grippers based on the movement of the piece of fruit.” It is unpersuasive because the suction element may suction onto the fruit and retract the suction element in order to free the fruit from the plant and other obstacles.
Claims 19 and 22 have not been amended, but the rational for maintaining the rejection is substantially similar, this is discussed at a high level in paragraphs 0091 and 0098. Claims 19 is slightly broader in regard to the movement of the suction element relative to gripper. Claim 22 does not even mention the grippers let alone relative movement of the suction element relative to the grippers.
The second argument that the invention is an improvement over the art is not persuasive in and of itself. While this may be so, the argument is narrower than the claims and there is a prior art rejection for the claims.
The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
The 112 (b) rejections have been withdrawn.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 1-3, 6-7, 10, 12-16, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeanty et al. (US 2021/0337734 A1), hereinafter Jeanty.
Regarding claim 1, Jeanty discloses a robotic fruit picking apparatus (100, fig. 1, [0037]), including:
a chassis (110, fig. 1, [0037]);
a robotic arm (205 / 512, fig. 1-2B and 5A-6G, [0039 and 0058], wherein end effector 500 is a detailed view of the end effectors already mentioned such as 210 with arm 205) supported by the chassis and having an end effector (210/ 500, wherein end effector 500 is a detailed view of the end effectors already mentioned such as 210), wherein the end effector includes a plurality of grippers (540, fig. 5A-6G, [0057]) and an extendable suction element (522, fig. 6A, [0058]);
a vision system carried by the chassis and configured to identify pieces of fruit for picking (430/ 550, fig. 4A-6G, [0047, 0072 and 0086]); and
a control system (402+426+440+501, fig. 4A-6G, [0047-0048, 0057, and 0072-0073]) carried by the chassis (fig. 1-6G) and in communication with the vision system to control the robotic arm to pick identified pieces of fruit using the end effector (fig. 5A-6G, [0086-0091]);
wherein the control system is configured to operate in a first mode to control the extendable suction element to extend the suction element towards a piece of fruit (fig. 6A-6F, [0091 and 0097]); and
wherein the control system is configured to operate in a second mode following the first mode to retain contact with the piece of fruit by applying suction while freely allowing extension or retraction of the suction element relative to the plurality of grippers ([0030-0031, 0060, 0075-0076, 0091,and 0098], wherein the suction element is extended towards the fruit and suctions onto it during the first mode. Then during the second mode, the suction element is retracted while still suctioned onto the fruit. This is in order to clear the fruit from the surrounding plant, so that the grippers may then latch onto it. As such the suction element during this period moves relative to the grippers while also attached to the fruit.) based on the movement of the piece of fruit (fig. 6F-6G, [0091 and 0098]).
Regarding claim 2, Jeanty discloses wherein the plurality of grippers comprise gripper fingers (540, fig. 5A, [0057]).
Regarding claim 3, Jeanty discloses where each of the gripper fingers (540, fig. 5A, [0057]) has an inner wall and an outer wall coupled to the inner wall by a plurality of tendons (see annotated fig. 5A).
PNG
media_image1.png
1046
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Jeanty discloses wherein the gripper includes three, four or five gripper fingers (540, fig. 5A, [0057]).
Regarding claim 7, Jeanty discloses wherein the suction element includes a suction aperture defined by an end face of the suction element (523, fig. 5A, [0061]).
Regarding claim 10, Jeanty discloses further including a suction line (525, fig. 5B, [0060]) and a pressure sensor (pressure sensor, [0061]) to sense pressure in the suction line ([0060-0061]), wherein the suction line runs through the suction element (fig. 5B, [0060-0061]) and the pressure sensor is configured to provide a pressure output signal to the control system ([0061]), wherein the control system is configured to determine whether the suction element has applied suction to a piece of fruit based on the pressure output signal ([0061]).
Regarding claim 12, Jeanty discloses wherein the vision system (430/ 550, fig. 4A-6G, [0047, 0072 and 0086]) is configured to identify, from the captured and processed images, pieces of fruit for picking and sort them into a picking order, and to provide the output to the control system ([0085-0091]).
Regarding claim 13, Jeanty discloses wherein the vision system is used in pose estimation to determine the path of the robotic arm ([0085-0091]).
Regarding claim 14, Jeanty discloses wherein the imaging subsystem is configured to identify interference objects in the images, and to output interference object identification information to the control unit, and the control unit is configured to determine movement of the robotic arm and end effector to avoid collision with the interference objects based on the interference object identification information ([0096 and 0130]).
Regarding claim 15, Jeanty discloses wherein the control system is configured to operate the suction element in a retraction mode, after either the extension mode or passive mode, to retract the suction element towards the one end of the robotic arm (fig. 6G, [0081-0082], see also [0060-0061 and 0075-0076]).
Regarding claim 16, Jeanty discloses wherein the control system is configured to control the gripper to adopt an expanded position where the gripper fingers are expanded about a longitudinal axis of the end effector (fig. 6B, [0076]) and a contracted position where the gripper fingers are contracted about the longitudinal axis of the end effector (fig. 6C, [0076-0077]).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Jeanty discloses further including a movement system (105, fig. 1, [0037]) coupled to the main body (110, fig. 1, [0037]; alternatively, 110+120, fig. 1, [0037]) to facilitate movement of the main body relative to ground (fig. 1, [0037]).
Regarding claim 19, Jeanty discloses a robotic fruit picking apparatus (100, fig. 1, [0037]), including:
a main body (110+120, fig. 1, [0037]);
a robotic arm (205 / 512, fig. 1-2B and 5A-6G, [0039 and 0058], wherein end effector 500 is a detailed view of the end effectors already mentioned such as 210 with arm 205) coupled to the main body (fig. 1 and 5);
an end effector (210/ 500, wherein end effector 500 is a detailed view of the end effectors already mentioned such as 210) coupled to a first end of the robotic arm (fig. 1 and 5), the end effector including:
a gripper including a plurality of gripper portions (540, fig. 5A-6G, [0057]) to grip a piece of fruit (fig. 6B, [0000076]);
a suction member (fig. 5A-6F) extendable from the end effector (fig. 6A); and
a control unit (402+426+440+501, fig. 4A-6G, [0047-0048, 0057, and 0072-0073]) carried by the main body (fig. 1 and 4-6G) and configured to operate the suction member in an extension mode to apply suction and extend the suction member from the end effector towards the piece of fruit (fig. 6A-6F, [0091 and 0097]), and to operate the suction member in a passive mode after the extension mode, wherein in the passive mode, the suction member can move freely relative to the gripper while applying the suction (fig. 6F-6G, [0091 and 0098]).
Regarding claim 20, Jeanty discloses further including a vision system (430/ 550, fig. 4A-6G, [0047, 0072 and 0086]) coupled to the main body (fig. 1 and 4-6G) comprising: image capturing devices (430/ 550, fig. 4A-6G, [0047, 0072 and 0086]);
wherein the vision system is configured to use the image capturing devices to identify pieces of fruit for picking ([0085-0091]).
Regarding claim 21, Jeanty discloses wherein the vision system is further configured to determine a collision free picking path for the apparatus to pick fruit ([0096 and 0130]).
Regarding claim 22, Jeanty discloses a computer-implemented method for picking pieces of fruit ([0082-0091]), the method comprising:
operating a robotic end effector (210/ 500, wherein end effector 500 is a detailed view of the end effectors already mentioned such as 210) in an extension mode (fig. 6A-6F, [0091 and 0097]) to extend a suction element toward a piece of fruit (fig. 6A-6F, [0091 and 0097]), wherein the suction element is configured to apply suction to the piece of fruit ([0060-0061]);
operating the end effector in a passive mode, wherein in the passive mode the suction element can move freely in a longitudinal direction along a longitudinal axis of the end effector while applying suction by the suction element to the piece of fruit (fig. 6F-6G, [0091 and 0098]);
directing the end effector towards the piece of fruit to pick the piece of fruit (fig. 6A-6G, [0086-0091]).
Regarding claim 23, Jeanty discloses wherein the method further comprises:
actuating a gripper (540, fig. 5A-6G, [0057 and 0086-0091] ) coupled to the end effector to grasp the piece of fruit for picking (fig. 1 and 5A-6G);
rotating the end effector about a longitudinal axis of the end effector to dislodge the piece of fruit (fig. 6F, [0080, 0094-0095, and 0101]).
Regarding claim 24, Jeanty discloses wherein the method further comprises:
directing the end effector towards a storage container;
operating the end effector in a retraction mode to retract the suction element toward the end effector, wherein the suction element stops applying suction to the piece of fruit;
actuating the gripper of the end effector to release the piece of fruit into the storage container ([0093]).
Regarding claim 25, Jeanty discloses wherein the method further comprises:
generating a software-defined fruit map based at least in part on data received by a vision system (0085-0092, wherein the map is within the memory of the computer for calculating approach and priority);
determining a harvesting sequence based at least in part on the fruit map (0085-0092);
determining an end effector approach angle for each piece of fruit within the fruit map based at least in part on the fruit map, the harvesting sequence, and pose estimation ([0085-0092]).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeanty et al. (US 2021/0337734 A1), hereinafter Jeanty in view of Austin (3,810,351), hereinafter Austin.
Regarding claim 4, Jeanty discloses a plurality of gripper fingers (540, fig. 5A, [0057]) with tendons (see annotated fig. 5A), but fails to disclose a wherein each gripper finger includes a reinforce element the respective tendons. Austin teaches a similar device in the same field of fruit harvesters wherein each gripper finger includes a reinforcement element (56, fig. 3 and 5, col. 4 lines 5-10). 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 Jeanty to incorporate the reinforcement of Austin onto the tendons of Jeanty in order to “strengthen and rigidify such fingers.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
