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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 and Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “The concave 43 is a spacer element used for adjusting the spacing between the spacer teeth 45 and the cutting knives 34 on the rotating drum 33. When the distance between the spacer teeth 45 and the cutting knives 34 is at a minimum the hay strands 27 will be cut into the smallest possible lengths. When the distance between the spacer teeth 45 and the cutting knives 34 is at a maximum the hay strands 27 will be cut into the longest possible lengths. In Bergkamp the spacer teeth 45 are not used to cut the hay strands 27, but only used for adjusting the length of the cut strands of hay. The cutting knives 34 rotating on the rotating drum 33 are used for cutting the hay strands 27”.
In response to this argument, the teeth (45) are adjustable for adjusting the length of the cut strands of hay; but the teeth (45) are used with teeth (34) to cut the hay.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasives.
The Applicant argued that “Loppoli discloses rotary screw feeders. The rotary screw feeders in Loppoli are not a roller as disclosed in the specification of the present application and recited in claim 1. The roller of the present invention is not and does not have the features of a screw feeder”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., The roller of the present invention is not and does not have the features of a screw feeder) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasives.
With respect to claim 17, The Applicant argued that “Heubatec as asserted by the Examiner. The Examiner stated that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the configuration of the conveying unit of Bergkamp by the configuration of the conveying unit as taught by Heubatec; since it has been held the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (Office Action, page 15, lines 16-20). The present invention is something more than the mere substation of one known element for another. The present invention results in improved performance that would not have been possible or obvious in view of the teachings of Bergkamp and Heubatec alone. This combination and cooperation of the plurality of knives and catches of the present invention results in improved performance that would not have been a predictable result from the teachings of Bergkamp and Heubatec. The combination and arrangement of knives and the moving catches, results in the ramped receiving tip portion of the catches lifting the fibrous plant material into the knives and the ramped trailing portion preventing the fibrous plant material from passing over the catches. This combination and structure improves the cutting action of the knives, improving performance. This mutual symbiotic combination is not at all suggested by the disclosure and teaching of Bergkamp or Heubatec. There is nothing in the disclosure and teaching of Bergkamp or Heubatec to provide any motivation to form the combination as recited in claim 17. Without the teachings and disclosure of the present application as guidance there would be no motivation to combine the bits and pieces of the prior art so as to reconstruct the present invention as advocated by the Examiner”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., improve cutting straw) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, the prior art of Heubatec discloses the arrangement of the elements (24) results to tear the hay and transport the material (Heubatec: paragraph 0093), and
the element (24) having a shape of a ramped receiving tip portion (figs.0-12: see the shape of element (24);
Thus, the element (24) carries out the limitation of “preventing the fibrous plant material from passing over the catches”; since it has been held When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See MPEP 2112.02.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the configuration of the conveying unit of Bergkamp by the configuration of the conveying unit as taught by Heubatec; since it has been held the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (MPEP 2143). Thereby having wherein each of said plurality of catches comprise a ramped receiving tip portion extending towards the plurality of knives and a ramped trailing portion extending away from the plurality of knives and wherein the ramped trailing portion extends higher from the conveying surface than the ramped receiving tip portion, whereby the ramped receiving tip portion is capable of moving under the fibrous plant material lifting the fibrous plant material into the plurality of knives and the ramped trailing portion is capable of preventing the fibrous plant material from passing over said plurality of catches when moving through the plurality of knives.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasives.
With respect to claim 17, The Applicant argued that “the drivers 14 and 24 of Heubatec would perform no cutting”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., cutting) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasives.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “a distance between adjacent ones of the plurality of catches” should be changed to “a distance between adjacent one of the plurality of catches”.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “the steps of” should be changed to “steps of”.
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.
Claim 9 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.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “the conveying units comprises rotating rollers” render the claim infinite because it is unclear if “the conveying units comprises rotating rollers” is the same as or different “the conveying unit comprises a roller” that recited in claim 1 which claim 9 depends from.
As bets under stood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “the conveying units comprises rotating rollers” is the same as “the conveying unit comprises a roller” that recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 6-7, 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Bergkamp (US5368238A).
Regarding claim 1, Bergkamp discloses device for shredding fibrous plant material, (abstract and cols.4-5) comprising:
a feed (figs.2-3: (21)) for receiving the fibrous plant material,
a conveying unit (figs.2-3: (22)),
a shredding unit (figs.2-3: (43)),
wherein the conveying unit comprises at least one prong-like catch (fig.2: (34)) for loosening plant fibers from the fed plant material and for conveying the plant fibers to the shredding unit,
wherein the shredding unit comprises at least two spaced-apart stationary knives (figs.2-3: (45)), wherein the conveying unit is designed such that the at least one prong-like catch can be moved through the spaced-apart stationary knives (fig.2), and
wherein: the conveying unit comprises a roller (figs.2-3: (33)).
Regarding claim 6, Bergkamp discloses wherein: the at least one prong-like catch comprises a plurality of catches (fig.2: (34)) are arranged along a line transverse to a direction of transport of the conveying unit.
Regarding claim 7, Bergkamp discloses wherein: the at least one prong-like catch comprises a plurality of catches (fig.2: (34)) arranged longitudinally to the direction of transport of the conveying unit, and arranged in a V shape, W shape or diagonally in a plan view onto a conveying surface of the convoying unit.
Regarding claim 10, Bergkamp discloses wherein: the at least two spaced apart stationary knives comprises a plurality of spaced-apart stationary knives (figs.2-3: (45)) arranged transverse to a direction of transport of the conveying unit at regular distances along a complete width of the conveying unit.
Regarding claim 11, Bergkamp discloses wherein: the plurality of spaced-apart stationary knives (figs.2-3: (45)) are arranged distributed along a line transverse to the direction of transport of the conveying unit, and/or longitudinal to the direction of transport of the conveying unit, arranged in a V shape, W shape or diagonally in a plan view.
Regarding claim 12, Bergkamp discloses wherein: the shredding unit comprises a feed region for the fibrous plant material to the shredding unit, wherein the feed region is arranged in front of the at least two spaced-apart stationary knives, and wherein the at least one prong-like catch can be moved through the feed region (see fig.3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Bergkamp discloses the feed region has a channel shape (see fig.3 above).
Regarding claim 14, Bergkamp discloses wherein: the device for shredding fibrous plant material is a drawn (fig.1: (15)) or self-propelled vehicle, a shredding robot, or a stationary system.
Regarding claim 15, Bergkamp discloses Use of a device according to claim 1 for shredding fibrous plant material, in particular hay, straw or silage (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
the steps of: placing the fibrous plant material in the feed; and moving the fibrous plant material with the conveying unit to the shredding unit.
Regarding claim 16, Bergkamp discloses a method for shredding fibrous plant material with a device according to claim 1, the method comprising the steps of
receiving the fibrous plant material in the feed (figs.2-3: (21)),
loosening plant fibers from the fed fibrous plant material and conveying the plant fibers to the shredding unit (figs.2-3: (43)), and shredding the plant fibers with aid of the shredding unit.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Loppoli (US6000649A).
Regarding claim 1, Loppoli discloses device for shredding fibrous plant material, in particular hay, straw or silage, (abstract and cols.3-4) comprising:
a feed (fig.2: (2)) for receiving the plant material,
a conveying unit (fig.2: (7)),
a shredding unit (fig.3: (20) and (21)),
wherein the conveying unit comprises at least one prong-like catch (fig.2: (7)) for loosening plant fibers from the fed plant material and for conveying the plant fibers to the shredding unit, and
wherein the shredding unit comprises at least two spaced-apart stationary knives (fig.3), wherein the conveying unit is designed such that the at least one prong-like catch can be moved through the spaced-apart stationary knives (fig.2).
wherein: the conveying unit comprises a roller (figs.2: (7)).
Regarding claim 9, Loppoli discloses wherein: the conveying units (fig.2: (7)) comprises rotating rollers, wherein the shredding unit (fig.3: (20) and (21)) is arranged between the rotating rollers, or the rotating rollers are arranged between two positions of the shredding units.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergkamp (US5368238A) in view of Heubatec (DE202016008248U1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Bergkamp does not disclose wherein: the at least one prong-like catch comprises a plurality of catches arranged in blocks, and wherein and wherein a distance between adjacent ones of the plurality of catches arranged in blocks catches within one of the blocks is smaller than a distance between each adjacent one of the blocks with respect to each other.
Heubatec teaches a device for shredding fibrous plant material (paragraphs 0001, 0049-0058 and 0096-0099) comprising:
a conveying unit (fig.3: (8)) comprising a conveying surface having a width,
a plurality of catches (fig.12: (14)) attached to the conveying surface and extending away from the conveying surface
wherein: the plurality of catches arranged in blocks, and wherein and wherein a distance between adjacent ones of the plurality of catches arranged in blocks catches within one of the blocks is smaller than a distance between each adjacent one of the blocks with respect to each other (fig.3).
Both of the prior arts of Bergkamp and Heubatec are related to a device for shredding fibrous plant material;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the configuration of the conveying unit of Bergkamp by the configuration of the conveying unit as taught by Heubatec; since it has been held the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (MPEP 2143). Thereby having wherein: wherein: the at least one prong-like catch comprises a plurality of catches arranged in blocks, and wherein and wherein a distance between adjacent ones of the plurality of catches arranged in blocks catches within one of the blocks is smaller than a distance between each adjacent one of the blocks with respect to each other.
Regarding claims 17-18, Bergkamp discloses a device for shredding fibrous plant material (abstract and cols.4-5) comprising:
a feed region (figs.2-3: (21)) configured to receive the fibrous plant material;
a conveying unit (figs.2-3: the rotary element (22) convoying the materials toward the element (43)) comprising a conveying surface having a width (fig.2: the surface of the element (33) of the element (22) having a width in the horizontal direction);
a shredding unit (fig.2-3: (43)) positioned to receive the conveying surface of the conveying unit, said shredding unit comprising a plurality of knives (fig.2: (45)) positioned in said shredding unit along the width of the conveying surface;
a plurality of catches (fig.2: (34)) attached to the conveying surface and extending away from the conveying surface, said plurality of catches configured to move through the plurality of knives positioned in said shredding unit (fig.2)
wherein: the conveying unit comprises a roller (figs.2-3: (33)).
Regarding claims 17-18, Bergkamp does not disclose wherein each of said plurality of catches comprise a ramped receiving tip portion extending towards the plurality of knives and a ramped trailing portion extending away from the plurality of knives and wherein the ramped trailing portion extends higher from the conveying surface than the ramped receiving tip portion, whereby the ramped receiving tip portion is capable of moving under the fibrous plant material lifting the fibrous plant material into the plurality of knives and the ramped trailing portion is capable of preventing the fibrous plant material from passing over said plurality of catches when moving through the plurality of knives; and said plurality of catches are arranged in blocks of multiple catches wherein a catch distance between adjacent catches within one of the blocks of multiple catches is smaller than a block distance between adjacent blocks of the blocks of multiple catches.
Heubatec teaches a device for shredding fibrous plant material (paragraphs 0001, 0049-0058 and 0096-0099) comprising:
a conveying unit (fig.3: (8)) comprising a conveying surface having a width,
a plurality of catches (fig.12: (14)) attached to the conveying surface and extending away from the conveying surface
wherein each of said plurality of catches comprise a ramped receiving tip portion and a ramped trailing portion and wherein the ramped trailing portion extends higher from the conveying surface than the ramped receiving tip portion (figs.0-12: see the shape of element (24)); and
said plurality of catches are arranged in blocks of multiple catches wherein a catch distance between adjacent catches within one of the blocks of multiple catches is smaller than a block distance between adjacent blocks of the blocks of multiple catches (fig.3).
Both of the prior arts of Bergkamp and Heubatec are related to a device for shredding fibrous plant material;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the configuration of the conveying unit of Bergkamp by the configuration of the conveying unit as taught by Heubatec; since it has been held the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (MPEP 2143). Thereby having wherein each of said plurality of catches comprise a ramped receiving tip portion extending towards the plurality of knives and a ramped trailing portion extending away from the plurality of knives and wherein the ramped trailing portion extends higher from the conveying surface than the ramped receiving tip portion, whereby the ramped receiving tip portion is capable of moving under the fibrous plant material lifting the fibrous plant material into the plurality of knives and the ramped trailing portion is capable of preventing the fibrous plant material from passing over said plurality of catches when moving through the plurality of knives; and said plurality of catches are arranged in blocks of multiple catches wherein a catch distance between adjacent catches within one of the blocks of multiple catches is smaller than a block distance between adjacent blocks of the blocks of multiple catches.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725