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 08/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the prior art of Schitemaker (US4732332A), the Applicant argued that the prior art of Schitemaker does not disclose the new limitations of the amended claims.
In response to this argument, Schitemaker discloses a feed (fig.2: (15)) for receiving the fibrous plant material, and
a conveying unit (fig.2: (13)) comprising a conveying surface (fig.2: the circumferential surface of the element (13)),
wherein the at least one prong-like catch (fig.2: (14)) is directly attached to the conveying surface of the conveying unit (fig.2: the circumferential surface of the element (13)),
Schitemaker does not disclose the feed having a top wherein the feed is open at the top for receiving the fibrous plant material;
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rearrange the feed of Roth to be the feed having a top wherein the feed is open at the top for receiving the fibrous plant material, since it has held that Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). (MPEP 2144.04).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
With respect to the prior art of Kugler (US3915392A), the Applicant argued that the prior art of Kugler does not disclose the new limitations of the amended claims.
In response to this argument, Kugler discloses a feed (fig.2: (12)) for receiving the fibrous plant material, the feed having a top wherein the feed is open at the top for receiving the fibrous plant material (figs.1-2: the top of the element (12) is open for receiving the material (14)), and
a conveying unit (fig.4: (32)) comprising a conveying surface (fig.4: the circumferential surface of the element (32)),
wherein the at least one prong-like catch (fig.4: (54)) is directly attached to the conveying surface of the conveying unit (fig.4: the circumferential surface of the element (32)).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
With respect to the prior art of Loppoli (US6000649A), the Applicant argued that the prior art of Loppoli does not disclose the new limitations of the amended claims.
In response to this argument, Loppoli discloses a feed (fig.2: (2)) for receiving the fibrous plant material, the feed having a top wherein the feed is open at the top for receiving the fibrous plant material (figs.2-3: the top of the element (2) is open for receiving the material), and
a conveying unit (fig.2: (7)) comprising a conveying surface (fig.2: the circumferential surface of the element (7)),
wherein the at least one prong-like catch) is directly attached to the conveying surface of the conveying unit (see fig.2 below).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
700
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kugler (US3915392A).
Regarding claim 1, Kugler discloses a device for shredding fibrous plant material (fig.1; abstract and col.4-col.5), comprising:
a feed (fig.4: (12)) for receiving the fibrous plant material, the feed having a top wherein the feed is open at the top for receiving the fibrous plant material (figs.1-2: the top of the element (12) is open for receiving the material (14)),
a conveying unit (fig.4: (32)) comprising a conveying surface (fig.2: the circumferential surface of the element (32)),
a shredding unit (fig.4: (66)) positioned to receive the conveying surface of the conveying unit,
wherein the conveying unit comprises at least one prong- like catch (fig.4: (54)) for loosening plant fibers from the fed fibrous plant material and for conveying the plant fibers to the shredding unit (fig.4: (66)),
wherein the at least one prong-like catch (fig.4: (54)) is directly attached to the conveying surface of the conveying unit (fig.4: the circumferential surface of the element (32)),
wherein the shredding unit comprises at least two spaced- apart stationary knives (fig.4: (66)) positioned in said shredding unit,
each of the at least two spaced-apart stationary knives comprising a cutting edge (fig.4: the cutting edges of the blade (66)),
wherein the conveying unit (fig.4: (32)) is designed such that the at least one prong-like catch (fig.4: (54)) is movable through the at least two spaced-apart stationary knives (fig.4: (66)) positioned in said shredding unit, and
wherein the conveying unit comprises a roller (figs.4 and 4: (48)), and wherein the conveying surface of said conveying unit comprises a lateral surface area of the roller (fig.4).
Regarding claim 9, Kugler discloses wherein: the conveying unit comprises an additional roller (fig.4: three elements (32)) and an additional shredding unit (fig.4: two elements (66)), wherein the shredding unit and the additional shredding unit are arranged between the roller and the additional roller, or the rotating rollers roller and the additional roller are arranged between two portion- of the shredding unit the shredding unit and the additional shredding unit (fig.4).
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Loppoli (US6000649A).
Regarding claim 1, Loppoli discloses a device for shredding fibrous plant material, in particular hay, straw or silage, (abstract and cols.3-4) comprising:
a feed (fig.4: (20)) for receiving the fibrous plant material, the feed having a top wherein the feed is open at the top for receiving the fibrous plant material (figs.2-3: the top of the element (2) is open for receiving the material),
a conveying unit (fig.2: (7)) comprising a conveying surface (fig.2: the circumferential surface of the element (7)),
a shredding unit (fig.2: (7)) positioned to receive the conveying surface of the conveying unit (fig.3: (20) and (21)),
wherein the conveying unit comprises at least one prong- like catch (see fig.2 below) for loosening plant fibers from the fed fibrous plant material and for conveying the plant fibers to the shredding unit (fig.3: (20) and (21)),
wherein the at least one prong-like catch) is directly attached to the conveying surface of the conveying unit (see fig.2 below),
wherein the shredding unit comprises at least two spaced- apart stationary knives (fig.3) positioned in said shredding unit,
each of the at least two spaced-apart stationary knives comprising a cutting edge (fig.3),
wherein the conveying unit (fig.2: (7)) is designed such that the at least one prong-like catch is movable through the at least two spaced-apart stationary knives (fig.3: (20) and (21)) positioned in said shredding unit, and
wherein the conveying unit comprises a roller (see fig.2 below), and wherein the conveying surface of said conveying unit comprises a lateral surface area of the roller (see fig.2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
700
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Loppoli discloses wherein: the conveying unit comprises an additional roller (fig.2: two elements (7)) and an additional shredding unit (fig.2: (21) (22)), wherein the shredding unit and the additional shredding unit are arranged between the roller and the additional roller, or the rotating rollers roller and the additional roller are arranged between two portion- of the shredding unit the shredding unit and the additional shredding unit (fig.2).
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 1, 6-7, 10-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schitemaker (US4732332A).
Regarding claim 1, Schitemaker discloses a device for shredding fibrous plant material (fig.1; abstract and col.4-col.5), comprising:
a feed (fig.2: (15)) for receiving the fibrous plant material,
a conveying unit (fig.2: (13)) comprising a conveying surface (fig.2: the circumferential surface of the element (13)),
a shredding unit (fig.2: (21)) positioned to receive the conveying surface of the conveying unit,
wherein the conveying unit comprises at least one prong- like catch (fig.2: (14)) for loosening plant fibers from the fed fibrous plant material and for conveying the plant fibers to the shredding unit (fig.2: (21)),
wherein the at least one prong-like catch (fig.2: (14)) is attached to the conveying surface of the conveying unit (fig.2: the circumferential surface of the element (13)),
wherein the shredding unit comprises at least two spaced- apart stationary knives (fig.2: (23)) positioned in said shredding unit,
each of the at least two spaced-apart stationary knives comprising a cutting edge (fig.2: the cutting edges of the knife (23)),
wherein the conveying unit (fig.2: (13)) is designed such that the at least one prong-like catch (fig.2: the prongs of element (14)) is movable through the at least two spaced-apart stationary knives (fig.2: (23)) positioned in said shredding unit, and
wherein the conveying unit comprises a roller (fig.2: the element (14) in the form of roller), and wherein the conveying surface of said conveying unit comprises a lateral surface area of the roller (figs.2 and 7).
Schitemaker does not disclose the feed having a top wherein the feed is open at the top for receiving the fibrous plant material;
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rearrange the feed of Roth to be the feed having a top wherein the feed is open at the top for receiving the fibrous plant material, since it has held that Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 6, Schitemaker discloses wherein: the at least one prong-like catch comprises a plurality of catches are arranged along a line transverse to a direction of transport of the conveying unit (fig.7).
Regarding claim 7, Schitemaker discloses wherein: the at least one prong-like catch comprises a plurality of catches 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 (figs.2 and 7).
Regarding claim 10, Schitemaker discloses wherein: the at least two spaced apart stationary knives comprises a plurality of spaced-apart stationary knives (fig.2: (23)) 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, Schitemaker discloses wherein: the plurality of spaced-apart stationary knives (fig.2: (23)) 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, Schitemaker 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 is movable through the feed region (figs.1-2: the feeding region between elements (18) and (21)).
Regarding claim 13, Schitemaker discloses the feed region has a channel shape (figs.1-2: the feeding region between elements (18) and (21) having a shape of channel).
Regarding claim 14, Schitemaker discloses wherein: the device for shredding fibrous plant material is a drawn (fig.1) or self-propelled vehicle, a shredding robot, or a stationary system.
Regarding claim 15, Schitemaker discloses use of the device according to claim 1 for shredding the fibrous plant material comprising steps of: placing the fibrous plant material in the feed; and moving the fibrous plant material with the conveying unit to the shredding unit (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Bergkamp discloses a method for shredding fibrous plant material with a device according to claim 1, the method comprising steps of
receiving the fibrous plant material in the feed (fig..2: (15)),
loosening plant fibers from the fed fibrous plant material and conveying the plant fibers to the shredding unit (fig.: (21)), and shredding the plant fibers with aid of the shredding unit.
Regarding claim 19, Bergkamp discloses wherein: the cutting edge of each of the at least two spaced apart stationary knives is positioned opposed to the direction of transport of said conveying unit (fig.2).
Claims 8, 17-18 and 20are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schitemaker (US4732332A) in view of Heubatec (DE202016008248U1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Schitemaker 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 one 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 Schitemaker 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 Schitemaker 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 one 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 claim 17, Schitemaker discloses a device for shredding fibrous plant material (fig.1; abstract and col.4-col.5), comprising:
a feed region (fig.2: (15)) configured to receive the fibrous plant material;
a conveying unit (fig.2: (13)) comprising a conveying surface having a width (fig.2: the circumferential surface of the element (13));
a shredding unit (fig.2: (21)) positioned to receive the conveying surface of the conveying unit, said shredding unit comprising a plurality of knives (fig.2: (23)) positioned in said shredding unit along the width of the conveying surface,
each of the plurality of knives comprising a cutting edge (fig.2: the cutting edges of the knife (23));
a plurality of catches (fig.2: (14)) directly attached to the conveying surface (fig.2: the circumferential surface of the element (13)) and extending away from the conveying surface, said plurality of catches configured to move through the plurality of knives (fig.2: (23)) positioned in said shredding unit;
wherein the said conveying unit comprises a roller (fig.2: the element (14) in the form of roller), and wherein the conveying surface of said conveying unit comprises a lateral surface area of the roller (figs.2 and 7).
Schitemaker does not disclose the feed region having a top wherein the feed region is open at the top for receiving the fibrous plant material;
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rearrange the feed of Roth to be the feed region having a top wherein the feed region is open at the top for receiving the fibrous plant material, since it has held that Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claims 17-18, Schitemaker 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 moves under the fibrous plant material lifting the fibrous plant material into the plurality of knives and the ramped trailing portion prevents 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 moves under the fibrous plant material lifting the fibrous plant material into the plurality of knives and the ramped trailing portion prevents 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.
Regarding claim 20, Schitemaker discloses wherein: the each of the plurality of knives (fig.2: (23)) comprising the cutting edge is stationary.
Therefore, the modification of Schitemaker in view of Heubatec teaches the limitations of claim 20.
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 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
Prosecution Insights