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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the boom of new claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The phrase “non-solid” is a negative limitation, which is not fully supported by the Original disclosure. Specifically, while the disclosed invention shows bars with openings therebetween, the original disclosure does not provide support for all potential species of non-solid bases (e.g. there is no support for things like grates, screens, etc.).
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, 4-8, 11-16, 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaulent (FR 3012286 A1) in view of Chaplin (US 3707070 A) and Templeton (US 2474557 A).
It is noted that all citations to Jaulent (FR 3012286 A1) are in reference to the corresponding 2025 English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 6, Jaulent discloses a method and apparatus for removing plants or other material existing in water (Figs. 1-4, para. [0001] “cutting and removing plants growing in water”), comprising:
a collector head (100) connected to rest on a work machine (200) moving on land and/or in a water system, the collector head being movable (F1) in water in a plant layer to collect water plants (R) (bottom of para. [0003]),
transfer pipes (130,132) included in the collector head configured to transfer the collected water plants to a cargo area (300),
at least two feeder drums (110a, 110b) placed in the collector head and rotatable on their own shafts (Fig. 2, rotated in opposite directions represented by arrows F2 and F3), via which water plant mass or other material is shreddable and led from between said feeder drums onto the transfer screw located behind said feeder drums (Fig. 3, para. [0006] “The rearward drive of the housing 110…directs them towards a central vertical chute 130”),
wherein said feeder drums have conveyor/shredder members (120a, 120b) located one over the other at a distance from each other and protruding from the surface of the drum (Fig. 1, par. [0004]),
wherein guide members (123a, 123b) formed as counter blades are configured to pass the water plant mass or other material between the drums and guide the flow thereof (top of para. [0006] deflector guides 123a, 123b vertically separate discs of the same drum and guide the flow of reeds toward the cutting area between the discs, see Fig. 3),
gaps are provided between said guide members located at the division of the conveyor/shredder members (Fig. 2, gaps between vertically adjacent deflectors 123 through which discs 120 extend), the guide members and gaps providing the counter blades for the conveyor/shredder members so that entanglement of the plant mass or other material around the drums is preventable (top of para. [0006] “Deflector guides 123a, 123b…prevent the insertion of the R reeds between the discs outside the cutting area” and thus promote shredding of material and prevent entanglement/wrapping around on the surfaces thereof), and
wherein the guide members are configured to lead the water plant mass or other material into range of a central opening and transfer screw (131) (Figs. 3-4),
wherein a bottom part of said collector head is provided with a base via which the work machine is connectable to the bottom of a water system, and wherein the base comprises base structures (lowermost dividers 111) such that under the feeder drums the base is non-solid (Fig. 1-2).
Jaulent does not explicitly detail a suction pump located in the central opening and transfer screw, or wherein the cargo area is floating on water.
In the same field of endeavor, Chaplin in Figs. 3-11 discloses a similar apparatus for removing aquatic weeds from a basin of water, wherein the collector head comprises a transfer screw (108), pump and transfer pipe (Fig.5, col. 4 lines 24-31) configured to create suction to lead collected plant material to a central opening (102) behind the conveyor/shredder members (126-130) and transfer the collected weeds to a cargo area (barge 101) floating on water (col. 5 lines 63-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a suction pump with the transfer tubes and screw of Jaulent, as taught by Chaplin, in order to facilitate the drawing of material inwardly between the drums and thus enhance overall efficiency of the system. It would have been further obvious to discharge the collected plant material to a barge, as taught by Chaplin, in order to provide an alternate collection location capable of expediting the eventual disposal process onto land, and since this is a simple substitution of one known collection container for another to yield predictable results.
Jaulent further discloses wherein the conveyor/shredder members comprise cutting teeth (122), but does not explicitly disclose the cutting teeth having a hook-like structure with the outermost tips are directed forward in the direction of rotation.
Templeton in Figs. 1-6 discloses a similar plant material collection apparatus comprising a centrally disposed suction opening (22) and groups of pairs of inwardly rotating cutting discs (15,16) configured to draw cut plant material therebetween, wherein the cutting discs comprise teeth (19) with hooked cutting edges (20) directed forward in the direction of rotation (see Figs. 4-6, col. 1 lines 40-43 and col. 3 lines 36-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cutting discs of Jaulent to have hook-shaped cutting teeth directed forward in the direction of rotation, as taught by Templeton, in order to promote severing of plant material and impart a centripetal force towards the central cutting area and suction opening (Templeton at col. 1 lines 40-52 and col. 3 lines 36-55).
Regarding claim 4, Jaulent in view of Chaplin and Templeton discloses the method as claimed in claim 1. Jaulent further discloses wherein the conveyor/shredder members (120a, 120b) included in the feeder drums (110a, 110b) are positioned at least partially overlapping in relation to each other (bottom of para. [0004] discs 120a of the first drum partially overlap discs 120b of the second drum).
Regarding claim 5, Jaulent in view of Chaplin and Templeton discloses the method as claimed in claim 1. Jaulent further discloses wherein the feeder drums (110a, 110b) are positioned to rotate around their vertical shafts (Figs. 2-3 vertical rotation axes rotating in opposite directions as shown by arrows F2 and F3).
Regarding claim 7, Jaulent in view of Chaplin and Templeton discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 6. Jaulent further discloses wherein the rotating shafts of the feeder drums (110a, 110b) are vertical (Figs. 2-3 vertical rotation axes rotating in opposite directions as shown by arrows F2 and F3).
Regarding claim 8, Jaulent in view of Chaplin and Templeton discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 6, but does not explicitly detail wherein the height of the feeder drums is at least 80 cm.
However, Jaulent at para. [0003] teaches that the drums are particularly suited to cut plants which reach an average height of three meters (approx. 9.8 feet). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive a height of at least 80 cm (2.6 feet) for the feeder drums, to provide a sufficient height to encompass the entire length of the reeds, which Jaulent teaches grow to an average length of 9.8 feet. Furthermore, 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.
Regarding claim 11, Jaulent in view of Chaplin and Templeton discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 6. Jaulent further discloses wherein the conveyor/shredder members (120a, 120b) are positioned at least partially overlapping in relation to each other (bottom of para. [0004] discs 120a of the first drum partially overlap discs 120b of the second drum).
Regarding claims 12-13, Jaulent in view of Chaplin and Templeton discloses the method and apparatus as claimed in claims 1 and 6. Chaplin further teaches wherein the cargo area includes a barge (101).
Regarding claim 14, Jaulent in view of Chaplin and Templeton discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein plants enter from the front of the pump (combination teaches front-facing suction opening).
Regarding claim 15 and 19, Jaulent in view of Chaplin and Templeton discloses the method and apparatus as claimed in claim 1 and 6. Jaulent further discloses wherein the base structures (111) are spaced apart from one another forming gaps therebetween (see annotated image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
609
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16 and 20, Jaulent in view of Chaplin and Templeton discloses the method and apparatus as claimed in claim 15 and 19. Jaulent further teaches wherein at least end portions of the base structures (111) extend away from the suction opening of the pump in a (horizontal) direction transverse to the shafts (Fig. 1, traverse to vertical shafts).
Regarding claim 18, Jaulent in view of Chaplin and Templeton discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 6, wherein a front of the apparatus is configured to receive plants (Jaulent Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 21, Jaulent in view of Chaplin and Templeton discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 20. Jaulent further teaches wherein the base structures (111) are not directly connected to one another (Fig. 1, spaced from one another).
Regarding claim 22, Jaulent in view of Chaplin and Templeton discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 6, wherein the base structures are the lowermost parts of the apparatus (lowermost dividers 111).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jaulent as applied to claim1 and 6 above, and further in view of Rinklin (EP 2055180 A1).
It is noted that all citations to Rinklin (EP 2055180 A1) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding claim 3 and 10, Jaulent in view of Chaplin and Templeton discloses the method and apparatus of claim 1 and 6, wherein the collector head (100) has a frame (110), and the feeder drums (110a, 110b) are fixed to the frame, but does not explicitly disclose a pivot mounting configured to permit the feeder drums to be turned away from the front of the pump.
Rinklin discloses a work machine (3) for carrying a collector head comprising counter-rotating drums (7), wherein the drums are coupled to the frame via a pivot mounting (5,16) (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the drums of Jaulent to be pivotally coupled to the frame, as taught by Rinklin, so that a user may easily adjust the distance and thus overlap area between the drums as desired.
Regarding claim 17, Jaulent in view of Chaplin and Templeton discloses the method as claimed in claim 1. Jaulent further discloses wherein the collector head (100) is “cutting module supported by means of a lifting module (not shown)” (para. [0003]) while allowing the at least two rotatable feeder drums (110a, 110b) to collect, from at and under the water surface, water plants such that collected water plants are lead to the pump.
Jaulent does not explicitly detail wherein the lifting module is a boom, the collector head being continuously movable in any direction via the boom.
Rinklin discloses a work machine (3) for carrying a collector head comprising counter-rotating drums (7), wherein the collector head is continuously movable in any direction forward, backward, side to side, up, down) via a boom (9,13) (see Fig. 1 double arrows, para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the lifting module of Jaulent as a boom, as taught by Rinklin, in order to maximize the possibilities for movement and thus placement of the cutting module in different positions/locations.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1,3-8,10-22, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot as the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chaplin (US 3546858 A) discloses a harvester for marine growths. Vaughan (US 7036295 B1) discloses an aquatic growth harvester.
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 JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671