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
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claim “about” in the claim language does not provide an exactitude, but rather a contemplated variation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 3, 6-13, and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “fuzzy cottonseed” throughout the claims does not appear accurate because after the acid spray treatment and neutralization, the “fuzzy” or “lint” of the cottonseed should have been removed from the cottonseed, therefore, the “fuzzy” limitation should be revised, in order to avoid 35 USC 112 (b) / 2nd rejection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 recites the limitation "the drum", “the horizontal ”, “the fluid bed dryer” in lines 4, 6, and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All the claims dependent of claim 1 are also rejected.
The term “partially” in claims 1 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “partially” 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.
All the claims dependent of claims 1 and 15 are also rejected.
The term “fuzzy” in claims 1, 3, 6-13, and 15-16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fuzzy” 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.
All the claims dependent of claims 1, 11, and 15 are also rejected.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the rotatable drum" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the drum", “the horizontal in lines 4, and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All the claims dependent of claim 11 are also rejected.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the drum", “the fluid bed dryer” , and “the temperature of the quantity of fuzzy cottonseed” in lines 4, 15 and 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All the claims dependent of claim 15 are also rejected.
Claim limitation “ an aeration system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1, 3, 11, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long Jr. et al. (US 5,443,637) (“Long” herein – provided by applicant) and further in view of Borst et al. (US 2018/0263172 A1) (“Borst” herein).
Claim 1.
Long discloses, as best understood based on the indefiniteness above, a method of processing cottonseed, the method comprising: (Col. 2 l. 26+)
applying a solution to a quantity of seed within a solution application device, wherein the acid application device comprises a rotatable drum (Col. 2 l. 26-+, Col. 3 l. 31-55) and including internal baffles on an interior surface of the drum. (44) (Col. 3 l. 41-55
and
the solution application device further comprises a spray bar (50), said applying the solution to the quantity of seed comprising spraying the solution onto the cottonseed with the spray bar as the horizontal drum rotates about a horizontal axis; (Col. 2 l. 26-+; Col. 3 l. 55+, Col. 4 l. 1-10)
transferring, after said applying the acid solution, the quantity of seed to a fluid bed dryer station; (10) and drying, at least partially, the quantity of seed at the fluid bed dryer station, wherein drying the quantity of seed comprises supplying heated air to the cottonseed with the fluid bed dryer at temperatures of between about 150. degree. F. (65.degree. C.) to about 300. degree. F. (149. degree. C.). (Col. 2 l. 26-+, Col. 4 l. 28-47, Col. 5 l. 4-11)
Long however does not explicitly disclose a solution as an acid solution, fuzzy cottonseed .
Borst teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0002-0004 → Borst teaches this limitation in that Ginning processes remove impurities and waste (e.g. burs, dirt, stems, leaf material, etc.) from harvested cotton and yield cotton and cotton seeds. The cotton is used in textile and other applications, and the cotton seed is used for planting or is processed into cottonseed oil, meal, and hulls. However, before use in planting, the cotton seed is typically delinted in a delinting process. The delinting process is required because a cotton seed separated in the ginning process typically has a residual covering of cotton, i.e., lint, attached to a hull of the cotton seed. This lint interferes with subsequent handling, processing, grading, and planting of the cotton seed. Conventional delinting processes also include chemical delinting processes, especially when the intended use of the cotton seed is planting.
In a typical chemical delinting process, acid is applied to cotton seeds having lint thereon to ‘degrade’ the lint attached to the hulls. Conventional chemical delinting processes typically utilize acid, e.g. hydrochloric acid gas (HCl) or liquid sulfuric acid (H.sub.2SO.sub.4).) for the purpose of delinting the cotton seed before planting. [0003]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Long, with the above limitation, as taught by Borst, in order to delint the cotton seed before planting.
Claim 3.
Long discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the rotatable drum is angled relative to horizontal to facilitate movement of the cottonseed from an inlet of the drum to an outlet of the drum. (Col. 2 l. 26-+, Col. 3 l. 31-55)
Claim 11.
Long discloses, as best understood based on the indefiniteness above, a method of processing seed, the method comprising:
applying a solution to a quantity of seed within a solution application device, wherein the solution application device comprises a rotatable drum including internal baffles on an interior surface of the drum (Col. 2 l. 26-+, Col. 3 l. 31-55) and
the solution application device further comprises a spray bar, said applying the solution to the quantity of seed comprising spraying the solution onto the seed with the spray bar as the horizontal drum rotates about a horizontal axis; (Col. 2 l. 26-+; Col. 3 l. 55+, Col. 4 l. 1-10)
Long however does not explicitly disclose a solution as an acid solution, fuzzy cottonseed and transferring, after said applying the solution, the quantity of seed to a seed neutralization station including a neutralization device; and
neutralizing the solution on the quantity of seed in the neutralization device by spraying a neutralization solution on the cottonseed in the neutralization device, the neutralization device comprising a rotary device configured to spin the cottonseed in the rotary device.
Borst teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0002-0004, 0050-0051, 0055 → Borst teaches this limitation in that Ginning processes remove impurities and waste (e.g. burs, dirt, stems, leaf material, etc.) from harvested cotton and yield cotton and cotton seeds. The cotton is used in textile and other applications, and the cotton seed is used for planting or is processed into cottonseed oil, meal, and hulls. However, before use in planting, the cotton seed is typically delinted in a delinting process. The delinting process is required because a cotton seed separated in the ginning process typically has a residual covering of cotton, i.e., lint, attached to a hull of the cotton seed. This lint interferes with subsequent handling, processing, grading, and planting of the cotton seed. Conventional delinting processes also include chemical delinting processes, especially when the intended use of the cotton seed is planting. In a typical chemical delinting process, acid is applied to cotton seeds having lint thereon to ‘degrade’ the lint attached to the hulls. Conventional chemical delinting processes typically utilize acid, e.g. hydrochloric acid gas (HCl) or liquid sulfuric acid (H.sub.2SO.sub.4). The alkyl amine (or in some embodiments, the composition) can be applied to the surface of the delinted cotton seeds by various methods, such as by applying the alkyl amine to the surface (e.g. by dipping the delinted cotton seeds in the alkyl amine), spraying the alkyl amine onto the delinted cotton seeds surface, etc. Various application apparatuses understood in the art can be employed, such as a spraying apparatus, a dip tank, etc. In a preferred embodiment, the alkyl amine is sprayed on the delinted cotton seeds. Further, it should be appreciated that the alkyl amine (or in some embodiments, the composition) can be applied to the surface of the delinted cotton seeds in a single step or in multiple sub-steps. The method may also include the step of agitating the delinted cotton seeds having the alkyl amine applied thereto to produce the neutralized delinted cotton seeds. The step of agitating is conducted simultaneous with and/or subsequent to the step of applying the alkyl amine. Agitation can be accomplished with various methods, such as by exposing the delinted cotton seeds having the alkyl amine applied thereto to blown air, tumbling the delinted cotton seeds having the alkyl amine applied thereto in a rotating and/or vibrating vessel, etc. ) for the purpose of delinting the cotton seed before planting. [0003]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Long, with the above limitation, as taught by Borst, in order to delint the cotton seed before planting.
Claim 12.
Long discloses the method of claim 11. Long however does not explicitly disclose, wherein transferring the quantity of fuzzy cottonseed to said seed neutralization station comprises bypassing another seed neutralization station before transferring the cottonseed to said seed neutralization station. (Same as claim 11)
Claim 13.
Long teaches the method of claim 12. Long however does not explicitly disclose, further comprising determining, using a controller, to which neutralization station to transfer the quantity of fuzzy cottonseed.
It is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, possessed by things in the prior art, foes not cause a claim drawn to distinguish over the prior art. Additionally, where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be a characteristic of the prior art, it possess the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Claim 15.
Long discloses, as best understood based on the indefiniteness above, a method of processing cottonseed, the method comprising:
applying a solution to a quantity of seed within a solution application device, wherein the solution application device comprises a rotatable drum including internal baffles on an interior surface of the drum (Col. 2 l. 26-+, Col. 3 l. 31-55) and
the solution application device further comprises a spray bar, said applying the solution to the quantity of seed comprising spraying the solution onto the seed with the spray bar; (Col. 2 l. 26-+; Col. 3 l. 55+, Col. 4 l. 1-10)
drying, at least partially, the quantity of fuzzy cottonseed at the fluid bed dryer station, wherein drying the quantity of seed comprises supplying heated air to the seed with the fluid bed dryer at temperatures of between about degree. F.(.degree. C.) to about 300. degree. F. (149.degree. C.) and the temperature of the quantity of seed during drying is from about 110.degree. F. (43.degree. C.) to about 145.degree. F. (63.degree. C.). (Col. 2 l. 26-+, Col. 4 l. 28-47, Col. 5 l. 4-11)
Long however does not explicitly disclose a solution as an acid solution, fuzzy cottonseed and transferring, after said applying the solution, transferring, after said applying the solution, the quantity of seed to a seed neutralization station including a neutralization device; and
neutralizing the solution on the quantity of seed in the neutralization device by at least one of submerging the seed in a neutralization solution bath and
spraying a neutralization solution on the cottonseed in the neutralization device, the method further comprising:
transferring, after neutralizing the acid solution, the quantity of seed to a fluid bed dryer station; and the quantity of seed to a seed neutralization station including a neutralization device; and
neutralizing the solution on the quantity of seed in the neutralization device by spraying a neutralization solution on the cottonseed in the neutralization device, the neutralization device comprising a rotary device configured to spin the cottonseed in the rotary device.
Borst teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0002-0004, 0050-0051, 0055 → Borst teaches this limitation in that Ginning processes remove impurities and waste (e.g. burs, dirt, stems, leaf material, etc.) from harvested cotton and yield cotton and cotton seeds. The cotton is used in textile and other applications, and the cotton seed is used for planting or is processed into cottonseed oil, meal, and hulls. However, before use in planting, the cotton seed is typically delinted in a delinting process. The delinting process is required because a cotton seed separated in the ginning process typically has a residual covering of cotton, i.e., lint, attached to a hull of the cotton seed. This lint interferes with subsequent handling, processing, grading, and planting of the cotton seed. Conventional delinting processes also include chemical delinting processes, especially when the intended use of the cotton seed is planting. In a typical chemical delinting process, acid is applied to cotton seeds having lint thereon to ‘degrade’ the lint attached to the hulls. Conventional chemical delinting processes typically utilize acid, e.g. hydrochloric acid gas (HCl) or liquid sulfuric acid (H.sub.2SO.sub.4). The alkyl amine (or in some embodiments, the composition) can be applied to the surface of the delinted cotton seeds by various methods, such as by applying the alkyl amine to the surface (e.g. by dipping the delinted cotton seeds in the alkyl amine), spraying the alkyl amine onto the delinted cotton seeds surface, etc. Various application apparatuses understood in the art can be employed, such as a spraying apparatus, a dip tank, etc. In a preferred embodiment, the alkyl amine is sprayed on the delinted cotton seeds. Further, it should be appreciated that the alkyl amine (or in some embodiments, the composition) can be applied to the surface of the delinted cotton seeds in a single step or in multiple sub-steps. The method may also include the step of agitating the delinted cotton seeds having the alkyl amine applied thereto to produce the neutralized delinted cotton seeds. The step of agitating is conducted simultaneous with and/or subsequent to the step of applying the alkyl amine. Agitation can be accomplished with various methods, such as by exposing the delinted cotton seeds having the alkyl amine applied thereto to blown air, tumbling the delinted cotton seeds having the alkyl amine applied thereto in a rotating and/or vibrating vessel, etc. ) for the purpose of delinting the cotton seed before planting. [0003]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Long, with the above limitation, as taught by Borst, in order to delint the cotton seed before planting.
Claims 6, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long, Borst, as applied to claims 1 and 15, and further in view of et al. Nimmo, SR. (US 2015/0247266 A1) (“Nimmo” herein)
Claim 6.
Long discloses the method of claim 1. Long however does not explicitly disclose, further comprising detecting a moisture of the fuzzy cottonseed after exiting the fluid bed dryer.
Nimmo teaches the above limitation (See paragraph 0064→ Nimmo teaches this limitation in that connected to the inclined cleaner 22 is a cotton outlet 96 leading to the gin stands 24. An air lock 98 prevents air from travelling toward the gin stands 24 while transferring seed cotton to a conveyor/distributor 100 so cotton moves by gravity toward and through the gin stands 24, meaning than conveying air is removed upstream of the gin stands 24 and conveying air downstream of the gin stands 24 is used to separately convey lint, seeds and trash to their destinations. A moisture sensor 102 upstream of the gin stands 24 detects the moisture content of seed and lint and is used to control operation of the generators 58 as discussed hereinafter.) for the purpose of having the flexibility allowing the control of temperature in the heater and may provide an important advantage by reducing electricity costs when measurements suggest that liquid moisture on lint in the heater is at or below a desired value. [0039]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Long, with the above limitation, as taught by Nimmo, in order to reduce electricity costs when measurements suggest that liquid moisture on lint in the heater is at or below a desired value.
Claim 7.
Long discloses the method of claim 1. Long however does not explicitly disclose, further comprising storing the quantity of fuzzy cottonseed in storage bins prior to applying the acid solution to the cottonseed, each storage bin including an aeration system.
It is well-known in the art and evidenced by Nimmo, that ¶ [0004] Picking of cotton from the field does not normally start until the morning sun warms the plants sufficiently to drive off any dew or other moisture. A moisture sensor is typically used to determine the moisture content of the plant so picking can be delayed until the moisture content in the seed cotton and debris falls below some predetermined value, typically around 12%. The reason is that, at higher moisture levels, there is a risk of plant debris rotting or excessive moisture causing microbial changes in cotton fibers resulting in staining which cannot be removed before the cotton is ginned because there is often a delay of up to several months from the time cotton is picked until it is ginned. When considerable rotting or staining occurs, the cotton fibers are degraded thereby reducing the grade of the ginned cotton and thus the price obtained for it.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art that before any treatment is performed in the cotton seed and before harvesting, that some type of aeration system would be applied to the cotton seed, in order to avoid cotton seed rotting.
Claim 16.
Long discloses the method of claim 15,. Long however does not explicitly disclose further comprising detecting a moisture of the fuzzy cottonseed after exiting a fluid bed dryer at the fluid bed dryer station. (Same as claim 6)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 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 and there is no other rejection pending against the claim limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SILVANA C RUNYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/SILVANA C RUNYAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616 07/09/2026
Prosecution Insights