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 .
Application Status
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 11-19, 41, and 43 are pending in this application. Claims 2, 6, 7, and 42 have been cancelled in the most recent amendment, which also added claim 43. The recent amendment also amended claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 16-18, and 41. The amendments overcome the objections to certain claims. Claims 10 and 20-40 had previously been cancelled. All of the pending claims are eligible for examination.
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 feature where “the relative position of the guides can be adjusted along an axis which is parallel to the orientation of a plant stalk being transported by a conveyor” (from claim 1) 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not wholly persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, applicant argues that the portion of the main reference, Hutchins, on which the rejection of (what had been) claim 7 does not show the adjustment of guides along a vertical or Y axis. However, the cited portion of Hutchins, paragraph 29, teaches “varying the height” of the guides – called dividers in Hutchins. Applicant argues that this means that dividers of different heights can be used but not that the dividers themselves can be moved to different heights. This portion of applicant’s argument is persuasive to overcome the rejection based on Hutchins because Hutchins is basically silent on how the vertical height is varied; it could be as applicant suggests, by changing out guides of different heights.
However, Hutchins’ disclosure does not so limit the interpretation of varying the height. Applicant’s verbiage even seems to support a broad interpretation because applicant gives adjustment of the size as an example of a way in which the height can be adjusted (“an adjustment of the height (e.g. the size) of the guide”, page 12 of applicant’s response).
With respect to claim 1, applicant also asserts that Hutchins does not show that the guides or dividers can be adjusted vertically for sorting smaller or larger plants. As noted in the previous office action’s rejection of claim 7 (now part of claim 1), the use of “can” in the claim means the claim is not limited to the apparatus to actually adjusting the guides in any particular manner. Even assuming that this limitation is read into the claim, Hutchins’ system might perform better if the height of the dividers is adjusted according to the length of the stalk; because the stalks are denuded from the bottom up, a very short stalk’s leaves would have farther to fall and thus could get blown farther than those of a long stalk – providing dividers that are more closely spaced vertically would thus be advantageous for shorter stalks.
With respect to claim 16, applicant asserts that the rollers of Hutchins are not cylindrical, as mandated by the claim as currently amended. Applicant notes that Hutchins’ rollers are shown with fins extending radially outward. However, in paragraph 4, Hutchins teaches that each “roller can comprise one or more sets of fins”, meaning that the roller can also not comprise one or more sets of fins. In this case the roller without fins is a shaft that is clearly cylindrical.
Further, in figure 8A, Hutchins clearly shows that the distal end of the roller is a cylinder (“roller shaft” in Hutchins’ phrasing in paragraph 4). And a cylinder is necessarily cylindrical.
Even if Hutchins is read to mandate the fins on its roller, arguing that a roller is not cylindrical requires a very precise definition of “cylindrical” which is not provided by applicant’s specification. Hutchins’ rollers, when viewed from an end, have a cylinder (150a or 150b in figure 7C) with fins of consistent length extending radially outwards (152 or 154 in figure 7C). Looking at figure 7B in Hutchins and understanding the distal points are equidistant from the axis, the roller even looks cylindrical. As such, applicant’s argument that Hutchins does not disclose cylindrical rollers is unpersuasive.
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 16, 18, 19, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hutchins (US 2009/0107103).
With respect to claim 16, Hutchins discloses an apparatus for processing plant material to remove leaves from a plant stalk (in the abstract and figure 1, Hutchins discloses a system that is removing leaves from plants), the apparatus comprising:
a conveyor for transporting a plant with leaves hanging down from the stalk (as shown in figure 1, machine 10 conveys a plant P1 with leaves L1, L2, and L3 hanging down from the stalk – the one-sided arrows show the conveyance of the plant to the right in the drawing, from intake side 5 to output side 6, as described in paragraph 22); and
a defoliator mechanism having two cylindrical rollers (in figures 7C and 7D, Hutchins discloses shafts 150a and 150b, with fins extending therefrom – the description of these figures, in paragraph 13, describes the combinations as rollers; as disclosed in paragraph 4 of Hutchins, the fins on the rollers can be present, which reads on being not present; also, the distal ends of the rollers shown in figure 8A are cylindrical roller shafts, and the roller – even with the fins – looks cylindrical because the fins radially extend a uniform distance from the roller shaft), the rollers being movable between (i) a disengaged position for receiving leaves hanging down from the conveyor, and (ii) an engaged position in which the rollers are configured to grip the leaves received by the defoliator mechanism (as disclosed by Hutchins in figure 7C, the rollers rotate thereby widening and narrowing the gap between the fins; in the embodiment of figure 11, where the fins on one shaft mirror the fins on the other shaft, this rotations opens and closes the gap between the rollers will be uniformly at a maximum, minimum or some percentage between along the entirety of the roller, thus altering between a disengaged position at maximum distance and an engaged position where the fins grip the leaves);
wherein when the two rollers are in the engaged position, the defoliator mechanism is configured to rotate the two rollers to apply a force to separate the leaves from the stalk (as disclosed in figure 7C, when the rollers roll, they separate leaves from a stalk).
With respect to claim 18, Hutchins discloses the limitations of claim 16. Hutchins further discloses the two rollers are driven in synchronism but in an opposite rotational direction from one another (in figure 7C, Hutchins discloses the shafts being driven synchronously but in opposite rotational directions).
With respect to claim 19, Hutchins discloses the limitations of claim 18. Hutchins further discloses both of the two rollers are connected to the same drive motor (in figures 9A, 9B, and 9C, Hutchins discloses a single motor 220 driving both shafts, as represented by rotations R4 and R5 in figure 9C).
With respect to claim 43, Hutchins discloses the limitations of claim 16. Hutchins further discloses a method for processing plant material to remove leaves from a plant stalk using an apparatus according to claim 16, the method comprising:
transporting a plant via the conveyor to the defoliator mechanism (in figure 1, Hutchins discloses transport of a plant through the defoliator, as evidenced by the falling leaves);
receiving the leaves hanging down from the conveyor by the defoliator mechanism with the opposing surfaces in a disengaged position (in figure 1, Hutchins discloses the stalk moving through the defoliator – at some times, the fins will be in the disengaged position);
moving the opposing surfaces from the disengaged position to an engaged position in which the opposing surfaces are configured to grip the leaves received by the defoliator mechanism (rotation of the rollers on which the opposing surfaces reside, as shown in figure 7C of Hutchins, will move the opposing surfaces into the engaged position); and
applying a force via the opposing surfaces on the gripped leaves to separate them from the stalk (in figure 7C, Hutchins discloses force separating leaves from the stalk).
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11-15 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Hutchins (US 2009/0107103) in view of Middleton (US 4679338).
With respect to claim 1, Hutchins discloses an apparatus for processing plant material to remove leaves from a plant stalk (in the abstract and figure 1, Hutchins discloses a system that is removing leaves from plants), the apparatus comprising:
a conveyor for transporting a plant with leaves hanging down from the stalk (as shown in figure 1, machine 10 conveys a plant P1 with leaves L1, L2, and L3 hanging down from the stalk – the one-sided arrows show the conveyance of the plant to the right in the drawing, from intake side 5 to output side 6, as described in paragraph 22);
a defoliator mechanism having two opposing surfaces (in figure 7d, Hutchins discloses rollers with fins that pull leaves off of a vegetable stalk), the opposing surfaces (in figure 7d, Hutchins discloses fins, for example 118a and 118b, that are on the rollers are surfaces that, depending on the angle of the roller, are parallel to each other – parallel reads on opposing) being movable between (i) a disengaged position for receiving leaves hanging down from the conveyor (as disclosed in figure 7d of Hutchins, when the fins are angled too far apart to exert stripping force on a stalk, they are in a disengaged position where leaves can freely move to a location between the fins), and (ii) an engaged position in which the opposing surfaces are configured to grip the leaves received by the defoliator mechanism (as disclosed in figure 7d of Hutchins, when the fins are rotated so that they lie in or close to the plane defined by the rollers’ axes, the fins grip leaves); wherein the opposing surfaces act in the engaged position to apply a force on the gripped leaves to separate them from the stalk (as shown in figure 1, Hutchins’ system applies force to leaves so that they are separated from the stalk, as evidenced by the leaves being shown falling downwards); and
a leaf sorting system configured to separate the defoliated leaves into different categories corresponding to position on the stalk (in figure 1, Hutchins discloses bins 20-1 through 20-4 which read on a leaf sorting system because they correspond to how far from the base of the stalk the leaves had been);
wherein the leaf sorting system includes multiple guides, each guide being configured to receive and direct a respective category of leaves such that each category of leaves is received and directed by a different guide (in figure 1, Hutchins discloses dividers 22, 25, 26, and 28 – these dividers read on guides because they separate leaves from different portions of the stalk).
wherein the relative position of the guides can be varied along an axis which is parallel to the orientation of a plant stalk being transported by a conveyor and wherein the guides can be adjusted to be closer together along said axis for sorting smaller plants and further apart from one another along said axis for sorting larger plants (in paragraph 29, Hutchins discloses varying the height of the guides; varying the height means that the guides can be adjusted to be closer or farther apart in along the axis of the stalks because the axis of the stalks is vertical).
Hutchins does not disclose adjusting (as opposed to varying) the guides along an axis. However, Middleton discloses adjusting a guide along an axis (in lines 6-16 of column 3, Middleton discloses adjusting a gate up or down to facilitate material intake; note that in claim 9, Middleton discloses the invention to be usable in agricultural settings – specifically leaf collection).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to modify the guides of Hutchins to make them vertically slidable as taught by Middleton with the motivation of achieving “greatest pickup effectiveness”. Note that Hutchins has already shown the desirability of having its guides be vertically adjustable.
With respect to claim 3, Hutchins in view of Middleton discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hutchins in view of Middleton further discloses the defoliated leaves fall under the action of gravity down from the defoliator mechanism to the guides and onwards past the guides (in figure 1, Hutchins discloses that the leave fall via gravity and descend past at least a portion of the dividers and into bins, as described in paragraph 29, which reads on falling onwards past the guides since the dividers are the guides).
With respect to claim 4, Hutchins in view of Middleton discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hutchins in view of Middleton further discloses the leaf sorting system further comprises multiple containers for receiving defoliated leaves from the guides, each container being configured to receive a respective category of leaves such that each category of leaves is received by a different container (in figure 1, Hutchins discloses bins 20-1, 20-2, 20-3, and 20-4 which are collection points for different categories of leaves – in paragraph 29, Hutchins discloses that the collection points can have bins, which read on different containers).
With respect to claim 5, Hutchins in view of Middleton discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hutchins in view of Middleton further discloses there are N categories of defoliated leaves, N guides, and N containers, each guide being configured to receive and direct a respective category of defoliated leaves from a corresponding position on the stalk to a respective container (in figure 1, Hutchins discloses that there are an equivalent number of categories of defoliated leaves 1, 2, 3, and 4 depending on position on the stalk shown at the far left of the diagram, guides 22, 24, 26, 28, and containers 20-1, 20-2, 20-3, and 20-4; as shown by the shortening stalks above the bins 20, the leaves that the dividers separate out are categorized by their position on the stalk);
wherein the relative position of the guides can be adjusted along an axis which is parallel to the orientation of a plant stalk being transported by a conveyor (the axis of a plant stalk in Hutchins is substantially vertical, as disclosed in figure 1; in paragraph 29, Hutchins discloses varying the height of the dividers to achieve appropriate categorization);
wherein the guides can be adjusted to be closer together along said axis for sorting smaller plants and further apart from one another along said axis for sorting larger plants (in paragraph 29, Hutchins discloses adjusting the dividers along the Y- and the X-axis – as such, the dividers can be adjusted according to plant size – this claim does not limit the apparatus to doing so; adjusting the heights of the dividers will adjust their relative heights, which reads on the guides being closer together or farther apart along the vertical axis).
With respect to claim 9, Hutchins in view of Middleton discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hutchins in view of Middleton further discloses the guides comprise plates, or wherein the guides comprise chutes (in figure 1, Hutchins discloses divider 22 which is a flat, elongated member – this flat, elongated member reads on a plate, and there are multiple dividers).
With respect to claim 11, Hutchins in view of Middleton discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hutchins in view of Middleton further discloses the defoliator mechanism further comprises a roller which provides a first one of the two opposing surfaces (in figures 7C and 7D, Hutchins discloses the fins 118a, 118b, or fin assembly 152 attached to a shaft that, as shown in figure 7C, rotates; the shaft reads on a roller and a shaft provides the first opposing surface because the fins project from the shaft), and wherein the defoliator mechanism is configured to rotate the roller to apply the force to separate the leaves from the stalk (as disclosed in figure 7C of Hutchins, rotation of the shafts strips the leaves off of the stalk so that they fall, as indicated by the downwards arrows under the leaves L7 in the figure).
With respect to claim 12, Hutchins in view of Middleton discloses the limitations of claim 11. Hutchins in view of Middleton further discloses the defoliator mechanism further comprises a second roller which provides a second one of the two opposing surfaces (in figure 7C, Hutchins discloses two shafts 150 – the second shaft reads on the second roller because fins extend from it).
With respect to claim 13, Hutchins in view of Middleton discloses the limitations of claim 12. Hutchins in view of Middleton further discloses the defoliator mechanism is configured to rotate the second roller such that the first and second ones of the two opposing surfaces both move together in the same direction (in figure 7C, Hutchins discloses that the two shafts rotate in opposite directions – that is, one rotates clockwise, the other counterclockwise – when the fins are in contact with the stalk, they will be moving down, regardless of which shaft they are on – note that while figure 7C shows the fins as being angularly offset from the fins on the other shaft, figure 11 shows the fins as mirror images of those on the other shaft).
With respect to claim 14, Hutchins in view of Middleton discloses the limitations of claim 12. Hutchins in view of Middleton further discloses the second roller is enabled to move sufficiently away from the first roller in the engaged position to accommodate the received leaves (in paragraph 42, Hutchins discloses positioning the rollers 118A and 118B “properly” in order to remove leaves from stalks – as such, whichever roller is the second roller is enabled to move to accommodate the received leaves).
With respect to claim 15, Hutchins in view of Middleton discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hutchins in view of Middleton further discloses one or both of the two opposing surfaces is textured (in paragraph 38, Hutchins discloses making the fins from rubber which is generally rougher than metal, among other things – the relative roughness of rubber when compared with the other materials disclosed for the shafts – aluminum or steel – makes the fins textured; arguably, all surfaces have a texture; applicant describes textures that could be used in lines 5-19 of page 11 but “textured” does not limit the claim to any of those embodiments – applicant also differentiates in this section between textured and rubberized, but the claim does not mandate that this distinction be read into “textured”).
With respect to claim 41, Hutchins in view of Middleton discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hutchins in view of Middleton further discloses a method for processing plant material using an apparatus to remove leaves from a plant stalk, the method comprising:
transporting a plant via the conveyor a plant the defoliator mechanism (in figure 1, Hutchins discloses transport of a plant through the defoliator, as evidenced by the falling leaves);
receiving the leaves hanging down from the conveyor by the defoliator mechanism with the opposing surfaces in a disengaged position (in figure 1, Hutchins discloses the stalk moving through the defoliator – at some times, the fins will be in the disengaged position);
moving the opposing surfaces from the disengaged position to an engaged position in which the opposing surfaces are configured to grip the leaves received by the defoliator mechanism (rotation of the rollers on which the opposing surfaces reside, as shown in figure 7C of Hutchins, will move the opposing surfaces into the engaged position); and
applying a force via the opposing surfaces on the gripped leaves to separate them from the stalk (in figure 7C, Hutchins discloses force separating leaves from the stalk).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchins in view of Zhang (CN203427210U).
With respect to claim 17, Hutchins discloses the limitations of claim 16. Hutchins does not disclose one of the two rollers is fixed, and the other of the two rollers is movable to transition the defoliator mechanism between the engaged position and the disengaged position.
However, Zhang discloses one of the two rollers is fixed, and the other of the two rollers is movable to transition the defoliator mechanism between a first position and a second position (in figure 1, Zhang discloses two rollers, 2 and 3; the first roller 2 is fixed with respect to the base 1 while the second roller 3 can move with respect to the base 1 so that it abuts roller 2 or is displaced from it – the axes of the rollers remail parallel regardless of roller 3’s position).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the rollers of Hutchins with the movement movability of Zhang as each element would merely perform the same function as it does separately. The combination would produce the predictable result of a device that has variable space between the rollers, thereby allowing adjustment to an appropriate engaged or disengaged position (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jones (4373323) discloses a pair of cylinders -pulleys 40 and 42 – being used to strip tobacco plants in figures 1 and 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS JAMES MEISLAHN whose telephone number is (703)756-1925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 EST M-Th, 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 (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 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.
/DOUGLAS J MEISLAHN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671