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 .
The status of the 05/26/2026 claims, is as follows: Claims 1-2, 8, 10, 12, and 14 have been amended; Claim 7 has been canceled; and Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are pending.
Note: an updated specification has been provided on 05/26/2026 and is found acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roberg (US 20140342787)
Regarding Claim 15, Roberg discloses a dehusked grain of a husk grain (de-husked crop) produced with the device according to claim 1 (para. 0043) (it is noted claim 15 is directed to a product-by-process claim and based on MPEP 2113, the claim is not to be limited by the manipulation of the recited step(s). It is Examiner’s position that Roberg discloses resulting structure (i.e. dehusked grain) implied by the steps of using the device of claim 1.
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 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, and 14 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 dehusking of husk cereals (apparatus 100; fig. 1A. it is noted “for the dehusking of husk cereals” is in a statement of intended use), 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 (discs 300, 500) enclose a working space (annotated fig. 1B), which can be filled with husk grain using a filling opening of the first disk (annotated fig. 1B) in the region of its center point (“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 peeling device (mill assembly 200; fig. 2) on its outer circumference via an outlet opening (annotated fig. 1A. 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) for grain (reduced material 11) via a downpipe (duct 140) (para. 0042 and 0032; fig. 1A) that has a lower end, which is arranged above the collecting vessel (annotated fig. 1A), and 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 separated from the grain (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).
Regarding the limitation “such that husk separated from the grain”, it recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.", and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP § 2114.
In this case, the prior art apparatus of Lefas teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus and is capable of dehusking the husk cereals by the rotation of the discs 300, 500 such that the husk separated from the grain.
PNG
media_image1.png
678
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
616
1122
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, 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).
Regarding Claim 3, Crane discloses the temperature-stable and elastic material (plastic) is a plastic material (plastic) (col. 3, lines 25-39).
Regarding Claim 4, Crane discloses the temperature-stable and elastic material (plastic) (col. 3, lines 25-39). The modification does not disclose the temperature stable and elastic material is made with a smooth surface, a corrugation or a microstructure on the surface.
However, Crane further 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 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 flow (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, Lefas discloses a method for the dehusking of husk cereals (“for the dehusking of husk cereals” is a statement of intended use. The apparatus of Lefas is capable of dehusking of husk cereals) with the device according to claim 1.
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.
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, 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.
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 does not disclose 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.
Response to Amendment
With respect to claim objections: since amendments made to the claims, therefore the claim objections are withdrawn.
With respect to 112b rejections: since amendments made to the claims, therefore the 112b rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are respectfully not persuasive because:
Applicant’s Arguments: with respect to claim 1 on p. 12-13 of the Remarks “Applicant's invention as set forth in amended claim 1 aims to provide a compact device for the dehusking of husk cereals, which can be used as a laboratory or small-quantity peeler (see page 2, last full paragraph, of Applicant's disclosure). This compact device is achieved by combining two functionalities:
The removal of the husk from the grain by means of a rotating and a stationary disk, whereby the grain stays intact in accordance with its intended use as seeds (page 2, last full paragraph, of Applicant's
disclosure).
In another step, air flow separation is used to separate the two fractions (see paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of Applicant's disclosure).
First, it is noted, that the milling assembly by Lefas cannot be used to remove husk from grain leaving the grain intact. There is also no teaching in Lefas or the secondary reference to Crane implying that the milling assembly by Lefas could be turned into a dehusking device by adding elastic surfaces to the milling plates.
In Applicant's invention as set forth in amended claim 1, one claimed feature enabling this functionality are the disc surfaces made of temperature stable elastic material. Although the Examiner has taken the position that it would have been obvious to modify Lefas because this feature is disclosed by Crane in the seed sheller shown therein, it is respectfully submitted that this position is unfounded. Crane is entirely silent about the function of the material and merely
states that the use of a yielding material is preferred (column 3, lines 23 to
25). It is not disclosed whether the material affects the deshelling process itself, or if the surface is yielding only to achieve integrity of the seeds.
In fact, Crane describes in column 3, lines 4 to 16, that it is not the surface material but rather grooves in the plate facings that enable deshelling. They move the seed in a position normal to the plates as shown in Figure 4, subjecting them to edgewise pressure to remove the shell. A person of ordinary skill in the art has therefore no reason to believe that adding the yielding plate surfaces from Crane to the milling assembly of Lefas creates a device suitable for dehusking.
In the Office Action, the position is further taken that the feature of the downpipe 48 with its lateral supply air opening 52 in Applicant's amended claim 1 is equivalent to the duct 140 by Lefas, which is open at one horizontally oriented end through which enters an air flow 155. The
position is further taken that the collecting vessel 24 is comparable to the cyclone in Lefas. Applicant respectfully disagrees citing para. 0032 of Lefas.
From this section follows that there is a mill housing unit, which is separate from a cyclone, and that the duct 140 with its air flow 155 is a conveyance mechanism transporting reduced material between the two. Paragraph [031] of Lefas explains, that the term "reduced material" refers to the input material after milling, i.e. ground particles of a certain size
distribution.
In Applicant's device as set forth in amended claim 1, there is no active conveyance mechanism for transporting all output components to another unit. There is thus no feature equivalent to the horizontally arranged (Figures 1A, 1B and 2) duct 140 of Lefas and its air flow 155 in Applicant's device as set forth in amended claim 1.
Applicant's invention as set forth in amended claim 1 is instead one single, compact unit. Two distinct components, grain and husk, leave the working space and are moved by gravitational force along the downpipe 48 (see Figures 1 through 5). As the term implies and as shown in the Figures, the downpipe exhibits an orientation with a substantial vertical component Consequently, the lateral supply air opening 52 is a structurally different feature from the opening of the duct 140 in Lefas, through which air flow 155 enters. The opening in Lefas is simply the open end of a horizontal pipe. The downpipe exhibits a lateral opening 52, an upper end and a lower end 50, while the duct is a horizontal pipe with two horizontally oriented end openings.
To clarify the geometry and arrangement of the downpipe 48, Applicant has added the feature of its lower end in amended claim 1. The arrangement of the downpipe above the collecting vessel emphasizes the design of the dehusking device as one compact unit. Further amendments emphasize the air separation functionality discussed in the next paragraphs.
Thus, Applicant's amended claim 1 now recites:
"grain and husk of the husk grain leave the peeling device (4) on its outer circumference via an outlet opening (46) which opens into a collecting vessel (24) for grain via a downpipe (48) that has a lower end (50), which is arranged above the collecting vessel (24), and a lateral supply air opening (52), which is acted upon by an air flow such that husk separated from the grain leaves the downpipe (48) laterally in front of the collecting vessel (24)."
A further key difference is that Applicant's device as set forth in amended claim
1 separates two distinct components, grain and husk, by air, whereas Lefas teaches
separation of ground particles with a continuous size distribution in a cyclone.
As disclosed in the paragraph bridging pages 8 and 9 of Applicant's
specification, the process "referred to as air separation" is implemented, whereby the
husk is discharged into a collecting container 20, while the grain arrives in the
collecting vessel 24. According to the last clause in Applicant's amended claim 1,
separation of the two factions happens inside the downpipe.
The duct 140 shown by Lefas, however, merely transports all the reduced
material with its different components to the cyclone, which again leads to the
conclusion that the downpipe and the duct 140 by Lefas are neither structurally nor
functionally comparable.
It follows that the collecting vessel 24 and the cyclone are also not
comparable as stated inthe Office Action, because onlydehusked grain, i.e. only
one component falls into the collecting vessel. At the same time, the downpipe, a passive conveyance mechanism driven by gravity combined with air separation, is
not comparable to the cyclone, a centrifugal force separating machine. To clarify
the function of the collecting vessel, Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite as
follows:
"which opens into a collecting vessel (24) for grain via a downpipe (48)",
which is disclosed in the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of Applicant's specification
("wherein only the grain is received in the collecting vessel".)
Consequently, it is respectfully submitted that he structural features of a
downpipe with a lateral supply air opening and a lower end combined with the
arrangement of the collecting vessel 24 below the working space are not
disclosed in Lefas. These features add the functionality of air separation to
create a single, compact device for dehusking.
In contrast, the milling assembly presented by Lefas exhibits instead a horizontal, active conveying mechanism and a cyclone for separation of a continuous particle size distribution by centrifugal forces.
In conclusion, Lefas fails to disclose
(i) an apparatus able to dehusk husked grain while ensuring its integrity. There is no teaching in Lefas or Crane implying that the milling assembly in Lefas can be turned into a dehusking device by adding elastic surfaces to the milling plates;
(ii) (ii) an apparatus able to process the input by rotating discs and separate the output fractions within a single unit;
(iii) (iii) air separation; and
(iv) (iv) the structural claimed features enabling these benefits: Discs with surfaces made of an elastic material, a downpipe with a lateral supply air opening and arrangement of the collecting vessel below the working space.
Examiner’s Responses:
The applicant’s arguments are respectfully not persuasive because the limitation “dehusking of husk cereals” in line 1 of claim 1, “so that husk separated from the grain” in line 16 of claim 1 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.", and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP § 2114.
In this case, the prior art apparatus of Lefas teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus and is capable of dehusking the husk cereals and separating the husk from the grain by imparting enough rotation force to husk cereals
Applicant argues the disc surfaces made of temperature stable elastic material enables the dehusking of the husk cereals. However, Examiner disagrees. Lefas uses the two discs 300, 500 to produce the reduced material 11 by rotation of the disc. Lefas is fully capable of dehusking the husk cereals by the rotation of the discs 300, 500 that results in the husk separated from the grain.
Crane is relied upon for the disclosure of discs having a surface made of temperature-stable and elastic material for the motivation to prevent serious abrasion by the grain to be treated.
On p. 14-16 of the Remarks, Applicant’s argues that the downpipe that has the air opening is not equivalent to the duct 140 that has air opening through which air enters the duct 140.
Applicant’s argument that there is no active conveyance system in the claimed invention for transporting all output components to another unit. Instead, Applicant’s states that the claimed invention is one single, compact unit. The grain and the husk leaves the working space and are moved by gravity along the downpipe, which is substantially vertical.
However, there is no language in the claim that requires the downpipe to be substantially vertical, nor preclude the downpipe from being equated to the duct 140 of Lefas. The claim merely requires the downpipe to have an end positioned above the vessel and an air supply opening, which is acted upon by an air flow such that the husk separated from the grain leave the downpipe in front of the vessel. The duct 140 of Lefas meets the claim limitation because it has an air opening (annotated fig. 1A) which is fluidly connected to the fan 150 to move the reduced material (claimed husk separated from the grain) through the duct 140 to be dispensed downward into the vessel and the duct 140 has an end (annotated fig. 1A) that is positioned above the vessel 142 (para. 0031-0032; fig. 1A).
PNG
media_image4.png
616
1122
media_image4.png
Greyscale
On p. 16-18 the Applicant states that air flow separation is used to separate the fractions i.e. husk from the grain, but the language is not in the claim. With the regards to the air flow, the claim merely requires the downpipe has the air opening that is acted upon by the air flow such that the husk separated from the grain leaves the downpipe laterally in front of the collecting vessel. Lefas teaches the downpipe 140 has the opening (annotated fig. 1A) that is acted upon by the air flow 155 such that the reduced material (claimed husk separated from the grain) moves through the downpipe/duct 140 and leaves the downpipe in front of the vessel 142 (para. 0031-0032). In other words, the flow air helps move the reduced material (claimed husk separated from the grain) from the downpipe 140 down into the vessel, which is essentially recited by the claim.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on (571)270-5569. 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
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights