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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. EP 20171114.0 filed on 04/23/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The (1) information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1:
The phrase “A device for the dehusking” in line 1 should be read “A device for dehusking”.
In claim 10:
The phrase “the distance” in line 2 should be read “a distance” because it is a first instance of “distance” recited.
In claim 12:
The phrase “in the direction opposite to the second disk” in lines 3-4 should be removed because it is mentioned twice.
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.
Claims 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1:
The limitation "in particular as a laboratory or small-quantity peeler of husk cereals and for the production of de-husk cereal seeds,” in lines 2-3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase “in particular” is part of the claimed invention.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed that the limitation following “in particular” is only optionally required to be met by the prior art.
The limitation "the downpipe” in line 11 renders the claim indefinite because it lacks an antecedent basis.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed to read “a downpipe”.
The limitation "wherein the disks are formed between their one surface made of a temperature-stable and elastic material to enclose a working space, which can be filled by the second disk opposite side through a filling opening of the first disk in the region of its center point with husk grain,” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the limitation is intended to be construed. However, according to para. 0013 of the published specification, it is stated that “the disks enclose a working space between their main surfaces having a surface made of a plastic material, which working space can be filled by a filling hole of the first disk in the region of its center point with husk grain,”
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed the limitation is intended to mean that the disks having a surface made of a temperature-stable and elastic material to enclose a working space, which can be filled by a filling hole of the fist disk in the region of its center point with husk grain.
In claim 2:
The limitation "preferably" in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation following “preferably” is part of the claimed invention or not.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed that the limitation following “preferably” is only optionally required to be met by the prior art.
In claim 7:
The limitation "wherein the electric motor is additionally coupled to a suction fan for generating the air flow.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how this is achieved. Claim 6 states that the electric motor is electrically connected to the second disk to drive the second disk, it is unclear how the electric motor is additionally coupled to the fan for generating the air flow. However, in the published specification of the instant application, para. 0044 states the motor 10 drives the rotation of the disk 42. Para. 0042 states that a separate motor 26 drives the fan 14. There is no where in the specification that supports that the same motor electrically connected to the disk to drive the rotation of the disk and electrically connected to the fan to generate air flow.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed to read an additional electric motor is coupled to a suction fan for generating the air flow.
In claim 10:
The limitation "in particular in a range between 0.1 mm and 10 mm” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase “in particular” is part of the claimed invention.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed that the limitation following “in particular” is only optionally required to be met by the prior art.
In claim 14:
The limitation “in particular as laboratory or small-quantity peeler of husk grains” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase “in particular” is part of the claimed invention.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed that the limitation following “in particular” is only optionally required to be met by the prior art.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-9, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefas (US 20190262837) in view of Crane (US 2791254)
Regarding Claim 1, Lefas discloses a device for the dehusking of husk cereals (apparatus 100; fig. 1A. it is noted “for the dehusking of husk cereals” is in a statement of intended use), in particular as a laboratory or small-quantity peeler of husk cereals and for the production of de-husk cereal seeds (it is noted the limitation following the phrase “in particular” is optionally met by the prior art), which comprises a peeling device (mill assembly 200; fig. 2) which comprises a first disk (stationary disc 300) and a second disk (rotating disc 500) which is movable relative to the first disk and which can be driven by a vertical axis of rotation (“a stationary disc 300, and a second disc, which in a preferred embodiment is a rotating disc 500”, para. 0026), wherein the disks enclose a working space (annotated fig. 1B), which can be filled by the second disk opposite side through a filling opening of the first disk (annotated fig. 1B) in the region of its center point with husk grain (“relative rotation of the first disc 300 with respect to the second disc 500 reduces the input material 10 between the cutting surfaces 301, 502 to produce the reduced material 11”, para. 0026), wherein by rotation of the second disk (rotating disc 500) a peeling off of grain and husk of the husk grain (input material 10) takes place by means of a radial movement along the disks (discs 300, 500) (“input material 10 and/or course material 12 will pass down towards the rotating disc 500 and then be disbursed radially outwardly by the centripetal force caused by rotation of the rotating disc 500”, para. 0042) so that grain and husk of the husk grain (reduced material 11) leave the downpipe (duct 140) on its outer circumference via an outlet opening (it is noted the duct 140 has an outlet through which the reduced material enters the cyclone 142) which opens into a collecting vessel (cyclone 142; fig. 1A) via a downpipe (duct 140) (para. 0042 and 0032; fig. 1A), wherein the downpipe (duct 140) has a lateral supply air opening (annotated fig. 1A) (para. 0031. It is noted the duct 140 is fluidly connected to a fan that causes air to flow along the duct 140 as indicated by 155 in fig. 1A), which is acted upon by an air flow (air flow 155) such that husk (reduced materials 11) leaves the downpipe (duct 140) laterally in front of the collecting vessel (cyclone 142) (para. 0032. It is noted the reduced material 11 leaves the duct 140 to enter the cyclone 142 in the direction of fluid flow).
PNG
media_image1.png
678
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
393
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lefas does not disclose the disks having a surface made of a temperature-stable and elastic material.
However, Crane discloses the plate facings 65, 66 fig. 4 having a surface made of a temperature-stable and elastic material (plastic) (col. 3, lines 25-39) (according to published specification of the instant application, para. 0017 states that the material consisting of a temperature-stable and elastic material is a plastic material or a natural rubber).
Therefore, 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 disks (i.e. stationary disc 300 and rotating disc 500 of Lefas) having the surface of the temperature-stable and elastic material as taught by Crane, in order to prevent serious abrasion by the seed to be treated.
Regarding Claim 2, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. Lefas discloses the device (apparatus 100; fig. 1A), wherein the first disk (stationary disc 300) and the second disk (rotating disc 500) each have a support plate (housing lid 232, housing body 234 respectively) (para. 0028).
The modification does not disclose the support plates are preferably made of aluminum.
However, Crane discloses the support plates (plates 50, 51) are preferably made of aluminum (aluminum) (col. 3, lines 30-32).
Therefore, 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 support plates of Lefas to be made of aluminum as taught by Crane, because aluminum is known for its strength and mechanical stability.
Regarding Claim 3, the modification discloses the temperature-stable and elastic material (plastic) is a plastic material (plastic) (col. 3, lines 25-39 of Crane).
Regarding Claim 4, the modification discloses the temperature-stable and elastic material (plastic of Crane), except the temperature stable and elastic material is made with a smooth surface, a corrugation or a microstructure on the surface.
However, Crane discloses the temperature stable and elastic material (facing 65 made of plastic) is made with a corrugation on the surface (col. 2, 3, lines 66-72, 25-26 respectively; fig. 4).
Therefore, 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 surface of the discs 300, 500 of Lefas to be made with the corrugation on the surface as taught by Crane, in order to manipulate, strike, and abrade the seed according to desired application (col. 2, lines 67-72 of Crane).
Regarding Claim 5, Lefas discloses the device, in which the temperature stable and elastic material (stationary disc 300) is connected to the carrier plate (housing lid 232) in a form-fitting manner (para. 0028; fig. 1B) (it is noted the disc 300 is directly connected to the housing lid 232 that results their intimate contact).
Regarding Claim 6, Lefas discloses the device, wherein the second disk (rotating disc 500) is coupled to an electric motor (motor 132) (para. 0030, lines 1-5; fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 7, Lefas discloses the device, wherein the electric motor (motor of fan 150) is additionally coupled to a suction fan (blades of fan 150) for generating the air flow (para. 0031; fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 8, Lefas discloses the device, in which a further electric motor (motor of fan 150) is additionally coupled to a suction fan (blades of fan 150) for generating the air stream (para. 0031; fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 9, Lefas discloses the device, in which the axial spacing of the disks (stationary disc 300, rotating disc 500) can be adjusted in a variable manner (para. 0027).
Regarding Claim 11, Lefas discloses the device, in which the first disk (stationary disc 300) is thermally connected to a main body of the device (base 138) (para. 0030, lines 1-5. It is noted since the disc 300 is physically supported by base 138, therefore it is thermally connected to the base 138 to some degree).
Regarding Claim 12, Lefas discloses the device, wherein the main surface of the first disk (stationary disc 300) tapers in a wedge-shaped manner (fig. 1B) in the direction opposite to the second disk (rotating disc 500) in the region of the filling opening (it is noted the disc 300 widens in the region of the opening of the disc 300 as seeds enter the opening and spread out to cover more contact areas with the discs 300, 500; fig. 1B).
Regarding Claim 14, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. Lefas discloses a method for the dehusking of husk cereals (“for the dehusking of husk cereals” is a statement of intended use), in particular as laboratory or small-quantity peeler of husk grains (it is noted the limitation is not required by the prior art), and for the production of de-husk cereal seeds with the device according to claim 1 (“for the production of de-husk cereal seeds” is a statement of intended use).
The modification does not disclose the method of using the device according to claim 1 delivers approximately 1 kg of corresponding grain or seed per minute.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify the method such that it delivers approximately 1 kg of corresponding grain or seed per minute, 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 (MPEP 2144.05). The motivation to ensure the desired milling speed is obtained to meet the production demand by adjusting the speed of the rotation of the rotating disc.
Regarding Claim 15, Lefas discloses a dehusked grain of a husk grain (reduced input material 11) produced with the device according to claim 1 (para. 0026).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Lefas (US 20190262837) and Crane (US 2791254) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Andersen (US 4667888)
Regarding Claim 10, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. Lefas discloses the first disk (stationary disc 300) is provided with a spindle drive (servo motor 1030) in order to adjust the distance from the second disk (rotating disc 500) (para. 0038-0039).
The modification does not disclose the second disk is provided with a spindle drive in order to adjust the distance from the first disk.
However, Andersen discloses the adjustment of the distance between the first disk and the second disk can be made by adjusting the axial movement of the second disk (rotatable milling disk) (col. 12, lines 8-24; fig. 2)
Therefore, 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 second disk of Lefas (i.e. rotating disc 500) to include the spindle drive such that it is axially adjusted by the spindle drive relative to the first disk of Lefas (stationary disc 300) to arrive the same predictable result, which is to set the gap between the discs 300 and 500 to grind the seeds to desired degree of milling (col. 12, lines 8-24 of Andersen). The modification would result in the structure in which the second disk (rotating disc 500) is provided with spindle drive (servo motor 1030) to adjust the gap between the first and second disks.
The modification does not disclose the distance in particular in the range between 0.1 mm and 10mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the distance between the first disc and the second disc to be between 0.1 mm and 10 mm, 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 (MPEP 2144.05). The motivation to ensure the desired degree milling.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Lefas (US 20190262837) and Crane (US 2791254) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Mock (US 5564636)
Regarding Claim 13, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except one or more strippers are arranged below the second disk, which support the leaving of grain and husk of the husk grain in the direction of the outlet opening.
However, Mock discloses one or more strippers (brush 30) are arranged below the second disk (mill stone 7), which support the leaving of grain and husk of the husk grain in the direction of the outlet opening (discharge end of the shaft 29) (col. 4, lines 8-17).
PNG
media_image3.png
562
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 device of Lefas to include the one or more strippers arranged below the second disk, which guide the grain in the direction of the outlet opening as taught by Mock, in order to effectively guide all the milled grain toward the outlet opening.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571)272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761