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 .
It is noted that the examiner is examining the marked-up set of claims filed on 11/20/2025 as the clean set of claims filed on 11/20/2025 contain numerous 112 issues. Moreover, it is noted that per MPEP 714, an accompanying clean version is not required and should not be presented for claims that are amended.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 1 been renumbered 13.
Misnumbered claim 2 been renumbered 14.
Misnumbered claim 3 been renumbered 15.
Misnumbered claim 4 been renumbered 16.
Misnumbered claim 5 been renumbered 17.
Misnumbered claim 6 been renumbered 18.
Misnumbered claim 7 been renumbered 19.
Misnumbered claim 8 been renumbered 20.
Misnumbered claim 9 been renumbered 21.
Misnumbered claim 10 been renumbered 22.
Misnumbered claim 11 been renumbered 23.
Misnumbered claim 12 been renumbered 24.
Misnumbered claim 13 been renumbered 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 13-25 are 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 13 line 10 discloses a “standard U.S. extension pole”. No such thing is known in the art and the specification does further disclose what applicant means. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the insert" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 line 15 discloses “except for optional modular attachments”. Due to the use of the word “optional” it is unclear whether or not the modular attachments are being claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “large” in claim 13 line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “large” in claim 14 line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spalding (GB 2234417) in view of Strus (US 5440867) and Southwork (US 0898696).
Regarding claim 1, Spalding discloses a harvesting device [10] comprising:
a unitary conical-cylindrical hybrid receptacle [12] formed of a flexible, tacky elastomeric material (Page 3 lines 18-21 discloses the unitary conical-cylindrical hybrid receptacle is made of a soft rubber material that has a co-efficient of friction suitable to engage with a fruit to be picked.) and a tapered conical transition section (as seen in the annotated Fig. 3 below), and a smaller cylindrical terminal section [20];
a tacky, elastic silicone interior gripping surface [14] disposed along an interior wall of the receptacle [12], the gripping surface [14] being configured to conform to produce and temporarily retain the produce without bruising, tearing, or puncturing (Page 3 lines 18-21 discloses the unitary conical-cylindrical hybrid receptacle [12] including its interior surface [14] is formed of a soft rubber material with a suitable coefficient of friction. Silicone is a type of rubber, therefore it would be obvious to make the receptacle out of silicone with a tack or “high coefficient of friction” surface. The surface has no sharp points and would therefore not cause damage to the fruit.);
and wherein the harvesting device [10] is free of mechanical gripping fingers, serrated cutting structures, compressible foam liners, or powered mechanisms (It is seen in the figures and the description of the invention that no gripping fingers, serrated cutting structures, compressible foam lines, or powered mechanisms are part of the invention.), except for optional modular attachments (Page 4 lines 11-15 disclose a feature of the harvesting device is one or more inserts which may be inserted into the receptacle of varying sized to vary the size of the receiving portion of the receptacle.).
However, Spalding does not disclose the conical-cylindrical hybrid receptacle comprising having a large cylindrical entry section, a threaded base insert positioned within the smaller cylindrical terminal section, the threaded base insert comprising a female internal thread configured for attachment to a standard U.S. extension pole, outwardly projecting anchoring points configured to secure the insert against rotation within the receptacle,
and an upper tapered surface configured to support or center produce.
Southwork discloses an electric light bulb changer (as seen in Fig. 1) which acts in similar manner as the instant invention in that it comprises a receptacle [A, D] for gripping and twisting;
and wherein the receptacle [A, D] comprises a cylindrical entry section [D].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Southwork’s conical entry section to Spalding’s conical-cylindrical hybrid receptacle in order to grip a larger surface area of the fruit and help the fruit not slip out of the receptacle.
Strus discloses a receptacle attached to a threaded base [18] with a female thread [26] compatible with standard U.S. extension pole (A standard U.S. extension pole is assumed to be an extension pole with standard U.S. threads.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Strus’ threaded base comprising a female internal thread configured for attachment to a standard U.S. pole for Spalding permanent connection between the smaller end of the receptacle and the pole in order to be able to be able to replace just the pole if necessary and for easier manufacturing.
Strus also discloses a receptacle with an upper tapered surface configures to support or center produce (Strus’ receptacle consists of a tapered upper entrance surface similar to the application and as such would act in a similar manner.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Strus’s tapered upper surface to Spalding’s receptacle in order to be able to more easily receive fruit which is usually spherical in shape.
Schroy discloses a fruit picker comprising a base with ears (Page 2 lines 4-6 which are considered to have sharp points as they come to a point) that slide into ferrules.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Schroy’s ears comprising sharp points to engage ferrules to Spalding and Strus’ harvesting device in order to provide another means of adjusting the length of the extension pole (Page 2 column 2 lines 6-9.).
[AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
256
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Spalding, Strus, and Southwork disclose a harvesting device [10] comprising:
a unitary conical-cylindrical hybrid receptacle [12, Spalding] formed of a flexible elastomeric material (Spalding’s page 3 lines 18-21 discloses the unitary conical-cylindrical hybrid receptacle is made of a soft rubber material that has a co-efficient of friction suitable to engage with a fruit to be picked.), a tapered conical transition section (as seen in Spalding’s annotated Fig. 3 above), and a smaller cylindrical terminal section [20, Spalding];
a tacky, elastic silicone interior gripping surface configured to conform to produce and provide sufficient adhesive engagement to transmit rotational force without bruising or tearing (Spalding’s page 3 lines 18-21 discloses the unitary conical-cylindrical hybrid receptacle [12] including its interior surface [14] is formed of a soft rubber material with a suitable coefficient of friction. Silicone is a type of rubber, therefore it would be obvious to make the receptacle out of silicone with a tack or “high coefficient of friction” surface. The surface has no sharp points and would therefore not cause damage to the fruit.);
wherein produce is detached from its stem by applying a twisting rotational motion through the extension pole, the twisting motion being transmitted through the threaded base insert and the tacky silicone interior gripping surface (Spalding’s page 3 line 25 – Page 4 line 8 discloses that the operator rotates the extension rod [18] which is transmitted through smaller cylindrical terminal section [10] and the internal surface [14] to detach the fruit stem.);
and wherein the harvesting device [10, Spalding] contains no powered or motorized components (As seen in Spalding’s figures and no powered or motorized components are used).
However, Spalding does not disclose the receptacle having a large cylindrical entry section;
a threaded base insert positioned within the smaller cylindrical terminal section and comprising a female thread, outwardly projecting anchoring points, and an upper tapered surface configured to stabilize produce.
Southwork discloses an electric light bulb changer (as seen in Fig. 1) which acts in similar manner as the instant invention in that it comprises a receptacle [A, D] for gripping and twisting;
and wherein the receptacle [A, D] comprises a cylindrical entry section [D].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Southwork’s conical entry section to Spalding’s conical-cylindrical hybrid receptacle in order to grip a larger surface area of the fruit and to help the fruit not slip out of the receptacle.
Spalding discloses a conical-cylindrical hybrid receptacle attached to a threaded base [18] with a female thread [26] compatible with standard U.S. extension pole (A standard U.S. extension pole is assumed to be an extension pole with standard U.S. threads.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Strus’ threaded base comprising a female internal thread configured for attachment to a standard U.S. pole for Spalding permanent connection between the smaller end of the receptacle and the pole in order to be able to be able to replace just the pole if necessary and for easier manufacturing.
Schroy discloses a fruit picker comprising a base with ears (Page 2 lines 4-6 which are considered to have sharp points as they come to a point) that slide into ferrules.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Schroy’s ears comprising sharp points to engage ferrules to Spalding and Strus’ harvesting device in order to provide another means of adjusting the length of the extension pole (Page 2 column 2 lines 6-9.).
Regarding claim 4, Spalding, Strus, and Southwork disclose the harvesting device of claim 1.
However, Spalding, Strus, and Southwork do not disclose wherein the wall thickness of the receptacle is between 4 millimeters and 5 millimeters
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wall thickness of the receptacle be between 4 millimeters and 5 millimeters since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It is also obvious that the wall of the receptacle would need to be thick enough to not deform when rotating the extension rod and thin enough that the harvesting device is not too heavy to be operated by the user.
Regarding claim 5, Spalding, Strus, and Southwork disclose the harvesting device of claim 1, wherein the exterior surface of the receptacle is smooth or tapered to reduce snagging on branches (Spalding’s fig. 1 shows that the exterior surface of the receptacle [10] is smooth which would reduce snagging on branches.).
Regarding claim 6, Spalding, Strus, and Southwork disclose the harvesting device of claim 1, further comprising one or more modular inserts sized to nest within the receptacle to adapt the interior gripping area (Spalding’s page 4 lines 11-15 disclose a feature of the harvesting device is one or more inserts which may be inserted into the receptacle of varying sized to vary the size of the receiving portion of the receptacle.).
Regarding claim 8, Spalding, Strus, and Southwork disclose the harvesting device of claim 1,further comprising slits [24, Spalding] formed in the large cylindrical entry section (as seen in the annotated Fig. 3 above) to allow controlled outward expansion for accommodating larger produce (The slits [24] seen in Spalding’s annotated Fig. 3 above are similar in structure to the instant application and as the shape and material are the same, would also outwardly expand to accommodate larger fruit.).
Regarding claim 9, Spalding, Strus, and Southwork disclose the harvesting device of claim 2, wherein the tacky silicone interior gripping surface is configured to distribute rotational force uniformly around the fruit during twisting (Spalding page 3 lines 29-30 discloses the interior surface [14] surrounds and engages the fruit which distributes the rotational force.).
Regarding claim 11, Spalding, Strus, and Southwork disclose the harvesting device of claim 2, further comprising one or more nested inserts configured to transmit rotational force to smaller fruits during twisting (Spalding’s page 4 lines 11-15 disclose a feature of the harvesting device is one or more inserts which may be inserted into the receptacle of varying sized to vary the size of the receiving portion of the receptacle including to receive smaller fruits to which the interior surface [14] may apply the rotational force.).
Regarding claim 13, Spalding, Strus, and Southwork disclose the harvesting device of claim 2, wherein the device is configured for manual operation and contains no motorized or powered components (It is seen in the combination disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 that no motorized or powered parts are part of the device.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spalding (GB 2234417), Strus (US 5440867), and Southwork (US 0898696) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rios (WO 2011/102973).
Regarding claim 3, Spalding, Strus, and Southwork disclose the harvesting device of claim 1.
However, Spalding, Strus, and Southwork do not disclose wherein the receptacle comprises a layered construction including an inner silicone layer, a fabric reinforcement layer, and an outer silicone layer.
Rios discloses a method of creating a multilayer silicone grip comprising a layered construction including an inner silicone layer, a fabric reinforcement layer, and an outer silicone layer is a tie layer (Page 35 section 0123 lines 10-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Rios’ method of creating a multilayer silicone grip comprising a layered construction including an inner silicone layer, a fabric reinforcement layer, and an outer silicone layer to Spalding’s fruit receiving receptacle in order to give the material strength and flexibility (Page 35 section 0123 lines 10-12).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spalding (GB 2234417), Strus (US 5440867),and Southwork (US 0898696) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Rios (WO 2011/102973).
Regarding claim 10, Spalding, Strus, and Southwork disclose the harvesting device of claim 2.
However, Spalding, Strus, and Southwork do not disclose wherein the tackiness of the silicone interior gripping surface is enhanced by a surface treatment or coating that increases its friction coefficient.
Rios discloses a spray coating that can be applied to a surface in order to increase the friction coefficient (Page 35 section 0124 lines 1-3 disclose that the coefficient can be controlled by controlling the viscosity of the spray solution.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Rios’ spray coating to Spalding’s interior gripping surface in order to be able to control the friction coefficient and thickness of the dripping layer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spalding (GB 2234417), Strus (US 5440867), and Southwork (US 0898696) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ACME (https://www.dependableacme.com/internal-and-external-thread-dimensions/).
Regarding claim 7, Spalding, Strus, and Southwork disclose the harvesting device of claim 1.
However, Spalding, Strus, and Southwork do not disclose wherein the threaded base insert includes a female ACME thread having a 3/4-inch diameter and 5 threads per inch (TPI).
ACME discloses A 3/4-inch diameter and 5 threads per inch (TPI) is a standard ACME thread as found in the ACME table.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a standard female ACME thread such as ¾ inch diameter and 5 threads per inch (TPI) for the threads on Spalding and Strus’s threaded base insert in order to ensure the threads can handle the appropriate force load and not cause structural damage to the screw.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spalding (GB 2234417), Strus (US 5440867), and Southwork (US 0898696) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Trayhorn (US 1500016A).
Regarding claim 12, Spalding, Strus, and Southwork disclose the harvesting device of claim 2.
However, Spalding, Strus, and Southwork do not disclose the harvesting device further comprising a modular rake insert having prongs or teeth configured to engage stems of clustered fruits, the rake insert being operable through twisting rotational motion.
Trayhorn discloses a harvesting device comprising a modular rake insert [18], wherein the rake insert [18] includes a plurality of prongs or teeth (as seen at the end of the modular rake insert [18]) configured to engage the stems of clustered fruits, such as elderberries (Column 2 lines 15-22)). The rake insert is structured in a similar manner to that of the instant invention, having teeth, and as such would act similarly to grip and twist the stems, enabling efficient detachment and gently collection of fruit without causing damage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Trayhorn’s rake insert onto Spalding, Strus, and Southwork’s harvesting device in order to be able to harvest clustered fruits (Trayhorn’s page 2, column 15-22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ara (WO 9934660) discloses a fruit harvesting device. Tia (US 2015/0296710) discloses an apparatus for harvesting fruits. Ruppee (US 2113518) discloses a fruit picker.
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 ASHLEY A KAERCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0128. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (7-11 AM).
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/ASHLEY A KAERCHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671 2/17/2026
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671