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 feed unit, in claim 14, line 2 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is longer than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 18, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4 recites “a corncob”, should read – the corncob –.
Claim 2, line 3 recites “during a gripping process”, should read – during the gripping process –.
Claim 3, line 4 recites “a gripping process”, should read – the gripping process –.
Claim 4, line 3 recites “during a gripping process”, should read – during the gripping process –.
Claim 18, line 4 recites “the blade of which”, should read – a blade of which—.
Claim 22, line 10-11 recites “a second predetermined movement path”, should read – a first predetermined movement path – since there is no mention of a first predetermined movement path before the recitation of the second.
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 7-8 and 22-23 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 in line 3 sets forth “the first gripping apparatus”. However, it is unclear if the gripping apparatus is the gripping unit set forth in dependent claim 1, line 7 or a different limitation. Specifically, it is unclear if these two portions are one and the same or two different portions altogether. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Claim 7 also recites “the second gripping apparatus” in lines 4-5, and is rejected for the same reason as above.
Claim 8, line 2; claim 22, lines 8-9; and claim 23, lines 3-4 are also rejected for the same reason as above.
For the purpose of the examination, examiner is interpreting “the gripping apparatus” as the gripping unit.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bennett (US 0864065 A).
Regarding claim 1, Bennett teaches a device (see Fig. 1) for removing the husks of a corncob, comprising:
a working region (see below), wherein the working region is provided for arranged a corncob along a longitudinal axis (see below) and is divided into a first sub-region (see below) and a second sub-region (see below) along the longitudinal axis;
a first gripping unit ([34]; attached to first guide unit) is provided which is configured to carry out a gripping process (see page 1, lines 103-112) in a first base position (see below) which is located in the first sub-region in order to grip a first part of the husks (see Fig. 5) of the corncob;
a first guide unit [18] is provided for the first gripping unit, wherein the first guide unit is configured to move the first gripping unit (see page 1, lines 66-72) from the first base position along a first movement path (see below) in order to exert a lateral force (see arrow in Figs. 5-6) which runs outwards laterally relative to the longitudinal axis, onto the first part of the husks and remove the first part of the husks from the corncob in a radial direction (see Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
380
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
207
465
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bennett teaches wherein the first base position (see above) is arranged in the first sub-region (see above) such that during a gripping process (see page 1, lines 103-112) of the first gripping unit ([34]; attached to first guide unit) the first part of the husks is gripping in the region of a cob tip of the corncob (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Bennett teaches a second gripping unit ([34]; attached to second guide unit) which is configured to carry out a gripping process (see page 1, lines 103-112) in a second base position (see below), which is located in the second sub-region (see above), in order to grip a second part of the husks of the corncob (see Fig. 5);
a second guide unit [24] is provided for the second gripping unit, wherein the second guide unit is configured to move the second gripping unit from the second base position along a second predetermined movement path (see below) in order to exert a lateral force (see arrow in Figs. 5-6), which runs outwards laterally relative to the longitudinal axis (see above), onto the second part of the husks on the corncob and remove the second part of the husks from the corncob in a radial direction (see Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image3.png
207
465
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Bennett teaches wherein the second base position (see above) is arranged in the second sub-region (see above) such that during a gripping process (see page 1, lines 103-112) of the second gripping unit ([34]; attached to second guide unit), the second part of the husks is gripped in the region of the cob tip of the corncob (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Bennett teaches wherein the first and second base positions (see above) are provided diametrically about the longitudinal axis (see above).
Regarding claim 6, Bennett teaches wherein the respective movement paths (see above) along the longitudinal axis (see above) are symmetrical to one another.
Regarding claim 7, Bennett teaches wherein the first guide unit [18] comprises a first base body [32] on which the first gripping unit ([34]; attached to first guide unit) is arranged, and the second guide unit [24] comprises a second base body [31] on which the second gripping unit ([34]; attached to second guide unit) is arranged (please see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 8, Bennett teaches wherein first and second gripping apparatuses [34] are each arranged in a recess (see Fig. 1) of the associated base body [31 and 32].
Regarding claim 9, Bennett teaches wherein the first and second base bodies [31 and 32] are each designed to be rotationally symmetrical (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Bennett teaches wherein the first guide unit [18] is designed such that the first movement path (see above) includes a first arc movement (see Figs. 5-6) lateral relative to the longitudinal axis (see above), and wherein the second guide unit [24] is designed such that the second movement path (see above) includes a second arc movement (see Figs. 5-6) lateral relative to the longitudinal axis counter to the first arc movement (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Bennett teaches wherein the guide units [18 and 24] are designed such that the first movement path (see above) and the second movement path (see above) comprise a mutually counter-rotating linear movement (see Fig. 6) lateral relative to the longitudinal axis (see above).
Regarding claim 12, Bennett teaches wherein at least one gripping unit [34] includes at least one gripping element (unit comprises fingers; see page 1, lines 66-70) which is displaceable (see Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 13, Bennett teaches wherein at least one, preferably two, gripping units [34] each comprise two gripping elements (unit comprises fingers; see page 1, lines 66-70) which are displaceable in the opposite direction (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Bennett teaches wherein a feed unit [44] is provided which is designed to position the corncob (see page 1, lines 80-84) in the working region (see above).
Regarding claim 15, Bennett teaches wherein a positioning apparatus [47] is provided which is configured to orient the corncob into a predetermined removal position (see page 1, lines 103-112) after removal of the husks.
Regarding claim 16, Bennett teaches wherein the positioning apparatus [47] is designed to receive the corncob in a horizontal receiving position (see Fig. 3) and to bring it to a vertical removal position (through use of [50]) for removing the corncob.
Regarding claim 22, Bennett teaches a method of removing the husks from corncobs (method of using Fig. 1), comprising:
arranging a corncob longitudinally along a longitudinal axis (see below) in a working region (see below), wherein the working region is divided into a first sub-region (see below) and a second sub-region (see below) along the longitudinal axis;
gripping a first part of the husk (see Fig. 5) in the first sub-region by a first gripping apparatus ([34]; attached to first guide unit) located in a first base position (see below);
and moving the first gripping unit by means of a first guide unit [18] from the first base position along a first predetermined movement path (see below), so that a lateral force (see arrow in Figs. 5-6), which runs outwards laterally relative to the longitudinal axis, is exerted onto the first part of the husks and the first part of the husks is removed from the corncob in a radial direction (see Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
380
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
207
465
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Bennett teaches wherein a second part of the husks (see Fig. 5) in the second sub-region (see above) is gripped by a second gripping apparatus ([34]; attached to second guide unit) located in a second base position (see below), and in that the second gripping unit is moved by means of a second guide unit [24] from the first base position along a second predetermined path (see below), so that a lateral force (see arrow in Figs. 5-6), which runs outwards laterally relative to the longitudinal axis is exerted onto the second part of the husks and the second part of the husks is removed from the corncob in a radial direction (see Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image3.png
207
465
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 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.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US 0864065 A) in view of Cummings (US 0249744 A).
Regarding claim 17, Bennett discloses the device as applied above, but fails to disclose the positioning apparatus being pivotable about a pivot axis from the receiving position to the removal position.
Cummings discloses a similar device (see Fig. 1) for removing the husk of a corncob comprising of a positioning apparatus [E] being pivotable about a pivot axis (axis of [L and N]) from the receiving position (see below; horizontal position in which it carries the corn through the device) to the removal position (see below; position where corn goes from being horizontal to vertical, see page 2, lines 93-96).
PNG
media_image4.png
485
961
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the positioning apparatus of Bennett with the positioning apparatus of Cummings since both are mechanisms that receive the corn in a horizontal position and bring it to a vertical position; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US 0864065 A) in view of Evarts (US 0124486 A).
Regarding claim 18, Bennett discloses the device as applied above, but fails to disclose wherein a cutting device is provided, located downstream of the working region, for cutting off a cob stem from the corncob, which includes at least two knives, the blade of the which can be displaced relative to one another for cutting off the cob stem, whereas the blade of at least one knife is designed to be v-shaped or concave.
Evarts discloses a similar device (see Fig. 1) for removing the husk of a corncob wherein a cutting device [A, B and D] is provided, located downstream of the working region, for cutting off a cob stem (see Figs. 3-4) from the corncob, which includes at least two knives [A and B], the blade (blades of [A and B]) of which can be displaced relative to one another for cutting off the cob stem ([B] is moveable while [A] is fixed; see page 1, Col. 1), whereas the blade of at least one knife is designed to be v-shaped or concave (see Fig. 1).
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 cutting device of Evarts on the device of Bennett in order for the knives to press together around the ear to separate the ear at its base from the stalk (see Evarts page 1, Col. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for the full list of references.
Reference US 1256921 A discloses a similar device (see Fig. 4) for removing the husks of a corncob comprising of a first gripping unit ([12] on first side) and a second gripping unit ([12] on second side).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671