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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 101709299 B1 Hyeon (KR 101709299 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Hyeon discloses a crop operating device comprising:
an operating tool (cutting means 400) configured to operate a crop;
a crop holding mechanism (clamping means 200) configured to hold the crop; and
an advance and retreat mechanism (tilting means 500, advancing means 600) that configured to advance and retract the operating tool (400) to and from the crop held by the crop holding mechanism,
wherein the operating tool (400) is a cutting mechanism configured to cut a stalk of a crop; and
wherein the operating tool (400) is held to be rotatable (rotatable about cutting axis 412) independently of the advance and retreat mechanism.
Regarding claim 2, Hyeon discloses the crop operating device according to claim 1, further comprising a drive unit (520, 630) configured to drive the advance and retreat mechanism and the operating tool.
Regarding claim 4, Hyeon discloses the crop operating device according to claim 1, wherein the advance and retreat mechanism (500, 600) includes an extendable arm unit (610) to which the operating tool (400) is attached.
Regarding claim 11, Hyeon discloses the crop operating device according claim 1, wherein:
the cutting mechanism includes scissors having a pair of cutting blades (cutting blades 410) of which blade portions are arranged to face each other (see fig. 4).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyeon (KR 101709299 B1) in view of Mushikami (US 20150059511 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hyeon discloses the crop operating device according to claim 2, wherein the drive unit comprises a drum (510).
Hyeon does not disclose wherein the drive unit includes a plurality of drums having different diameters and fixed to a same drive shaft.
In the same field of endeavor, Mushikami discloses a plurality of drums having different diameters (491, 492, see fig. 8).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the drive system of Mushikami for that of Hyeon to yield the predictable result of a crop operating device having a drive unit comprising a plurality of drums having different diameters (See MPEP 2141(I)(B)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyeon (KR 101709299 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Hyeon discloses the crop operating device according to claim 4, wherein the arm (610) is a divided arm (page 5, paragraph 10).
Hyeon does not disclose wherein the arm unit includes a plurality of divided arms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the arm unit of Hyeon with a plurality of divided arms, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyeon (KR 101709299 B1) in view of Xiong (US 20200396900 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hyeon discloses the crop operating device according to claim 11.
Hyeon does not disclose wherein:
in the cutting mechanism, a biasing force for opening the scissors is configured to be applied by a spring, and
a driving force for closing the scissors is configured to be transmitted via a wire member having a double structure including an outer wire and an inner wire.
In the same field of endeavor, Xiong discloses a cutting mechanism (see fig. 5) wherein a biasing force for opening scissors (28) is configured to be applied by a spring (36, paragraph 0136), and a driving force for closing the scissors is configured to be transmitted via a wire member having a double structure including an outer wire (32) and an inner wire (see fig. 5, attached to spring 36).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the cutting mechanism of Xiong for the of Hyeon to yield the predictable result of scissors biased in an open position and driven with a wire (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 13, Xiong, of the resultant combination, discloses the crop operating device according to claim 12, wherein:
a moving pulley (30) is provided on one blade side of the scissors (28), and
the inner wire is wound around the moving pulley, and a tip end of the inner wire is connected to another blade side of the scissors (see fig. 5).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyeon (KR 101709299 B1) in view of Arihara (JP 2021093968 A).
Regarding claim 14, Hyeon discloses the crop operating device according to claim 11.
Hyeon does not disclose wherein a blade cover is provided on a blade portion side of the scissors, and the blade cover covers surfaces, facing the crop, of the scissors.
In the same field of endeavor, Arihara discloses a blade cover (50) on a blade portion side of scissors (42a, 42b), and the blade cover covers surfaces, facing the crop, of the scissors (see fig. 1, 10-14) so that only a stem may be cut thereby preventing damage to the fruit with the scissors (see abstract).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the scissors of Hyeon with the blade cover of Arihara to avoid damaging the fruit to be harvested.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 are allowed.
Claims 5-6, 8-10, 15-16 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7-8, filed 3/16/2026, with respect to Takemura (US 20210045290 A1) used to reject claim 1 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection using Takemura has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 regarding Hyeon (KR 101709299 B1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The remarks argue that Hyeon fails to disclose that the operating tool is held to be rotatable independently of the advance and retreat mechanism. However, the operating tool 400 can rotate about axis 412 regardless of the position of advance and retreat mechanism 500, 600. The claims do not provide structure that preclude this interpretation of Hyeon.
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 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 MADELINE RUNCO whose telephone number is (469)295-9123. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 5712728971. 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.
/M.I.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights