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 Status
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed 4/14/2026. Claims 13-24 are currently pending. Claims 13, 18-21, and 24 have been amended. Claims 1-12 have been previously canceled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In this case, the following limitations use the word “means” and are thus being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
the “independent rotation means” of claim 13 corresponding to element 8, the assembly of a drive unit 13 and a motion transmission element 14 which is in the form of a belt.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “at least one system of handling horticultural products” of claim 13 corresponding to element 2, which is a conveyor having bodies 10;
the “at least one instrument for viewing the horticultural products” of claim 13 corresponding to element 3 which is electronic video cameras;
the “at least one electronic control and management unit” of claim 13 corresponding to element 9 which is a controller, a PLC, or a computer;
the “traction element” of claim 16 corresponding to element 12 which is a chain wound in a loop;
the “repositioning apparatus” of claim 19 corresponding to element 17 which is an actuator 18 that rotates; and
the “at least one preliminary rotation device” of claim 20 corresponding to a transmission element such as a belt or chain.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 13-18 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Njluland (US 2019/0076883 A1) in view of Gomez (US 2018/0044045 A1) and Mills (US 4726898).
Regarding claim 13, Njluland discloses a packaging assembly for the preparation of packages of horticultural products, comprising: at least one system (12 – Fig. 1) for handling horticultural products (P – Fig. 1), configured at least for an advancement of the horticultural products one by one along a predefined path (from left to right along 12 and onto 16 – Fig. 1), at least one instrument (54 – Fig. 1) for viewing the horticultural products, which is arranged along said path and is configured at least for an acquisition of information regarding a first spatial orientation, assumed by each horticultural product advanced along said path (para. 0083, first sentence), at least one apparatus (28 – Fig. 1) for the transfer of horticultural products, which comprises a grip element (44 – Fig. 1) provided with 4 degrees of freedom (3 degrees of freedom from moving in X-Y-Z space and two more degrees of freedom from the rotation of 44 about 70 and 72 – Fig. 2, para. 0081) and configured for the transfer of the horticultural products one by one from a terminal portion of said path to a respective packaging area (para. 0080), in which it is possible to arrange at least one respective container of horticultural products (74 – Fig. 1), comprising: at least independent means rotation of each horticultural product (16 – Fig. 1), which are arranged along said path, said means being configured to impart to each advancing horticultural product a selectively independent rotation about a first axis, which is substantially horizontal and transverse to an advancement direction (the means comprises two rollers, 22, 24 with respective shafts, 18, 20 for rotating the products, para. 0077; as can be seen in Fig. 1, the shafts point horizontal and transverse to the advancement direction, hence the products are rotated horizontal and transverse to the advancement direction), at least one electronic control and management unit (60 – Fig. 1), provided with instructions for control at least of said apparatus and of said independent rotation means of each product on the basis at least of information acquired by said instrument, for a variation of a spatial orientation of each horticultural product, performed by said means and by said apparatus, until the horticultural product is oriented according to a target spatial orientation (para. 0079).
However, Njluland does not expressly disclose that the instrument is along a first portion of said path, the apparatus is downstream from the first portion at a terminal portion of said path, and the means is arranged along a second portion of said path downstream from the first portion since Njluland discloses that the instrument, apparatus, and means is located at materially the same location though Njluland does disclose an embodiment in which the apparatus is located at a terminal portion downstream from the instrument and means (the rightmost position of 91 as seen in Fig. 1, para. 0086, last two sentences).
Gomez disclose a packaging assembly comprising at least one system (70 – Fig. 7) for handling horticultural products one by one along a predefined path (from left to right in Fig. 7), at least one instrument for viewing the products (84 – Fig. 12) located at a first portion of said path (at 58 – Fig. 12; para. 0034), a station for a transfer of horticultural products located at a terminal portion of said path (at 52 – Fig. 7, the products are discharged at this portion, para. 0030), and at least rotation of each product means (the machinery depicted in Fig. 9, paras. 0035-0039) located at a second portion of said path (at 60 – Fig. 12), wherein the first portion, the second portion, and the terminal portion are at different locations along said path with the second portion and the terminal portion downstream of the first portion (see Fig. 12). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Gomez, would have recognized that the system, instrument, apparatus, and means of Gomez are analogous to the system, instrument, apparatus, and means of Njluland since they perform the same function and the instrument, apparatus, and means of Njluland may be placed at different locations as taught by Gomez without any loss of functionality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the positions of the instrument, apparatus, and means of Njluland to be at a first portion, a terminal portion, and a second portion along said path as suggested by Gomez. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide the benefit of providing more space between the components in order to allow for easier access to the components for maintenance.
However, Njluland, as modified by Gomez, does not teach that said means rotate each horticultural product while said each advancing horticultural product is made to advance along said path.
Mills teaches a similar invention comprising independent rotation means (the assembly of 14, 16, 54, 56, 60, 62, and 64 – fig. 4) of horticultural products, said means being configured to impart to each advancing horticultural product while said each advancing horticultural product is made to advance along said path (from left to right in Fig. 4) a selectively independent rotation about a first axis, which is substantially horizontal and transverse to an advancement direction (col. 3, line 54 – col. 4, line 30). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Mills, would have recognized that compared to the independent rotation means of Njluland, the independent rotation means of Mills has the advantage of allowing continuous operation, thereby improving throughout.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the independent rotation means of Njluland to rotate horticultural products as the horticultural product is advancing as taught by Mills in order to increase throughput.
Njluland, as modified by Gomez and Mills further teaches (citations are to Njluland unless otherwise noted):
Claim 14, said grip element (44 – Fig. 1) is provided at least with the possibility to rotate about a second axis (70 – Fig. 2), which is substantially vertical (70 is clearly vertical in Fig. 2), the rotation about said second axis constituting one of said four degrees of freedom of said grip element (the rotation about 70 is interpreted to be one of the four degrees of rotation).
Claim 15, a plurality of substantially symmetrical bodies (14 – Fig. 1, Mills) which are aligned and can move cyclically along said path (col. 2, lines 65-68, Mills), at least some pairs of said bodies, which are consecutive, defining respective reception and conveyance seats (see Fig. 4 where product F2 rests on a pair of 14, Mills) for corresponding products, which can be rested on said pairs substantially at an interspace between the respective two bodies (see again Fig. 4 where the product F2 rests substantially at a interspace between two 14, Mills).
Claim 16, each one of said bodies (14 – Fig. 1, Mills) is supported by a traction element (16 – Fig. 1, Mills) with a possibility of rotation about an axis of symmetry thereof, which is parallel to said first axis (as can be seen in Fig. 4, the longitudinal axis of 14 is oriented at the midline of 16 and rotates about the longitudinal axis, Mills).
Claim 17, each one of said bodies (14 – Fig. 1, Mills) is supported by said traction element (16 – Fig. 1, Mills) with a possibility of rotation according to a mode chosen between free rotation and an at least partially braked rotation (col. 4, lines 12-29, Mills).
Claim 18, the independent rotation means further comprises a drive unit (62 – Fig. 4, Mills), which is controlled by said electronic unit (signal 62 runs from 60 to 64 – Fig. 1), said motion transmission element being wound and movable along a predefined trajectory and comprising a respective active segment which faces in a parallel arrangement said second portion of said path (see Fig. 4, 60 is in the form of a belt whose upper face parallel to the path which is the direction of travel of F3 from left to right, Mills) and is proximate thereto, said motion transmission element being engageable with a pair of consecutive bodies (14 – Fig. 4; col. 4, lines 12-26, Mills) that transits along said second portion (see Fig. 4, Mills), and being configured to impart to the respective horticultural product which rests on said pair a selectively independent rotation about a first axis (see the arrow indicating rotation of F3 – Fig. 4, Mills) as a consequence of an engagement of said motion transmission element with said pair of consecutive bodies and of a motion imparted selectively by said drive unit to said motion transmission element (col. 4, lines 12-26, Mills).
Claim 22, said instrument (54 – Fig. 1) is configured for the acquisition of data related to at least one parameter of interest of each advancing horticultural product, said at least one parameter being color and shape (para. 0054).
Claim 23, essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 13.
However, Njluland, as modified by Gomez, does not disclose providing instructions for depositing in a destination chosen from a list of sorting options.
In this case, an electronic unit using a property of a product to sort the product according instructions for depositing in a list of sorting options, wherein the list comprises at least one container and at least one other collection element is old and well-known in the art. Note that the examiner took Official Notice in the Office action dated 1/14/2026. Since this Official Notice has not been challenged in the reply dated 4/14/2026, it has been applicant admitted prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the electronic unit of Njluland to provide it with instruction for depositing each horticultural product in a destination chosen from a list of sorting options, said list comprising at least one container and at least one other collection element, as a function of the data acquired regarding said at least one parameter of interest since sorting via properties is old and well-known and would provide the benefit of allowing the assembly to handle horticulture products of different types thereby improving the applicability of the assembly.
Claim 24, a packaging method for preparing packages of horticultural products which can move along a predefined path along which the horticultural products are made to advance one by one, comprising the following steps: a. acquiring information regarding a first spatial orientation assumed by each horticultural product (P – Fig. 1 and para. 0083, first sentence) advancing along a first portion of the path (at 58 – Fig. 12, Gomez), b. comparing a first spatial orientation with a target spatial orientation to be given to the horticultural products in respective packages to be prepared (although this is not expressly disclosed, this must necessarily occur in order to provide the intended rotation, para. 0083, first sentence), c. imparting to each horticultural product while said each horticultural product (col. 3, line 54 – col. 4, line 30, Mills) is advancing along a second portion of the path (at 60 – Fig. 12, Gomez), downstream of the first portion, a selectively independent rotation about a first axis which is substantially horizontal and transverse to the advancement direction, with an extent chosen as a function of the comparison performed in said step b (para. 0083, as noted above in the rejection of claim 13, the first axis is horizontal and transverse), d. picking up one by one the horticultural products from a terminal portion (at 52 – Fig. 7, Gomez) of the path (para. 0080), e. imparting to each horticultural product picked up a rotation about a second substantially vertical axis (70 – Fig. 2), with an extent chosen as a function of the comparison performed in step b, until the target spatial orientation is given to each horticultural product (para. 0080, note that the rotation is necessarily chosen as a function of the comparison performed in step b since 60 sends control signals to 36, para. 0079), f. depositing each horticultural product in a respective container (para. 0080).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 19, the combination of Njluland, Gomez, and Mills does not disclose a repositioning apparatus arranged upstream of said means of independent rotation. Regarding claim 20, Njluland, Gomez, and Mills, similarly do not disclose a preliminary rotation device. Since such devices are not known, it is not clear how the Njluland may be further modified to include this feature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Njluland and Gomez does not teach that the horticultural products are oriented while advancing.
The examiner agrees, hence the new grounds of rejection set forth herein. Note that applicant later asserts that Mills does not remedy the defect of the combination of Njluland and Gomez. The examiner takes the position, as set forth above in the rejection of claim 13, that Mills provides the teaching to meet the missing limitation.
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 THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
6/1/2026
Prosecution Insights