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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc.
In this case, the “Systems, methods and devices for harvesting” should be removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepardson et al (3821987), in view of Lonn et al (6070509).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
It should be noted that the recitation "adjustable," etc. is considered as merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Shepardson teaches the claimed invention, except as noted:
[AltContent: textbox (Blade coupled underside of the inclined blade)][AltContent: textbox (Inclined belt)][AltContent: textbox (Height / angle adjuster)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
372
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“The apparatus includes at its forward end a harvesting head 6 that is pivotally connected with the forward end of the frame 2 by pivot means 8, said harvesting head including angularly arranged disk means 10 that elevate the lower leaves of a lettuce plant, plant elevating means 12 that grip the stump portion of the plant and pull the plant (with the head and stump portions intact) from the soil, stump severing means 14 that sever the stump portion from the head, and supply conveyor means 16 that transport the severed head rearwardly to the front end of the frame 2.”
1. A system for harvesting plants including:
a first conveyor surface (elevating means 12) for moving one or more plants in a linear direction (4);
an ultrasonic (not shown) blade (severing means 14) disposed above the first conveyor surface at an end of a second conveyor surface of a retrieval system (conveyor means 16); and
the retrieval system positioned at least partially above the first conveyor surface for receiving a top portion of the one or more plants cut by the ultrasonic blade (fig 1; see teaching above).
Lonn teaches that ultrasonic cutting provides improved quality of the cut face:
“(6) In recent years, the application of ultrasonic food cutting has been introduced which provides many significant benefits for use in commercial food processing applications. For example, the quality of the cut face is especially clean in visual appearance, multi-layer food products can be easily cut without smearing of the layers, and the cutting operation is especially sanitary in comparison to conventional cutting methods, which is of significant importance in the food preparation industry.
(7) In known ultrasonic food product cutting machines, a cutting blade is generally caused to vibrate at 20-40 kHz to move a cutting tip of the blade rapidly back and forth. This very high frequency movement effectively reduces the co-efficient of friction to a very low level, enabling the blade to slide through the food product.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the blade of Shepardson with the teachings of Lonn, with a reasonable expectation of success since picking and choosing the “ultrasonic” cutting blade provides quality of cut surface (see teachings in Lonn).
2. The system of claim 1, wherein: the first conveyor surface is an infeed conveyor belt (although, it is unclear the type of conveyor used at the elevating means 12, however one skilled would be able to pick and choose among conveyors, including a belt);
the second conveyor surface is an inclined conveyor belt (endless belts 16a / 16b); and
the retrieval system includes a conveyor mounting frame positioning the inclined conveyor belt above the infeed conveyor belt (fig 1; frame 2).
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the conveyor mounting frame includes an angle or height adjuster for adjusting an angle or height of the inclined conveyor belt relative to the infeed conveyor belt (shown/taught in the combination, see Shepardson fig 1, actuator 20).
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the height of the inclined conveyor belt is adjustable between a first height and a second height, the first height corresponding to a first type of the one or more plants and the second height corresponding to a second type of the one or more plants (within the capability of the actuator, shown in the combination, see Shepardson).
5. The system of claim 2, wherein the ultrasonic blade is coupled to an underside of the inclined conveyor belt (shown/taught above in the combination, see Shepardson).
6. The system of claim 2, wherein a blade angle formed by the ultrasonic blade and the infeed conveyor belt is adjustable to correspond to a type or a maturity of the one or more plants (shown/taught in the combination, see Shepardson fig 1, with the actuator 20, the blade is capable of being adjusted to various blade angles).
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the ultrasonic blade includes a row of ultrasonic blades extending perpendicular to the linear direction in which the one or more plants move (perpendicular is taught in the combination; it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. 193 USPQ 8.; choosing a number of blades or row of blades is an obvious duplication of parts is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); and, more than one blades in a row, would only involve routine skill in the art, as discussed above).
9. The system of claim 1, wherein a cutting edge of the ultrasonic blade is directed in a third direction that forms an acute angle with a plane defined by the first conveyor surface (in the combination, the ultrasonic blade can be arranged at any angle, including an acute angle, since it would not be limited by the constraints of the trimming blade in Shepardson).
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the ultrasonic blade includes a honed edge that contacts one or more stems of the one or more plants (design of the combination ultrasonic blade edge is an obvious design choice, which would be within the skill of having sound engineering skill).
11. The system of claim 10, wherein the ultrasonic blade forms a non-perpendicular cutting angle with one or more stems of the one or more plants (in the combination, the ultrasonic blade can be arranged at any angle, including a non-perpendicular cutting angle, since it would not be limited by the constraints of the trimming blade in Shepardson).
The following method steps are already addressed in the apparatus, unless otherwise noted:
12. A method for harvesting plants including: moving one or more plants held by a plant holder in a linear direction using an infeed conveyor belt; cutting the one or more plants with an ultrasonic blade disposed above the infeed conveyor belt to separate a top portion of the one or more plants; and retrieving the top portion of the one or more plants in a retrieval system disposed at least partly above the infeed conveyor belt (cl. 1).
13. The method of claim 12, further comprising: moving, using the infeed conveyor belt a bottom portion of the one or more plants cut by the ultrasonic blade underneath the retrieval system (cl. 5).
14. The method of claim 12, wherein retrieving the top portion of the one or more plants includes: receiving the top portion of the one or more plants on an inclined conveyor belt of the retrieval system positioned above the infeed conveyor belt (cl. 2).
15. The method of claim 14, wherein retrieving the top portion of the one or more plants includes: dropping the top portion of the one or more plants off an end of the inclined conveyor belt into a collection area including at least one of a collection bin, a hopper, another conveyor belt, or a machine intake (shown in fig 1, ref 22, Shepardson).
16. The method of claim 14, wherein retrieving the top portion of the one or more plants includes: sending the top portion of the one or more plants from the inclined conveyor belt onto a takeaway conveyor belt (fig 1, ref 22 Shepardson).
17. The method of claim 12, wherein: the one or more plants comprise first one or more plants; cutting the first one or more plants includes contacting the first one or more plants with the ultrasonic blade at a first cutting angle; and the method further comprises: adjusting a position of the ultrasonic blade relative to the infeed conveyor belt; and cutting a second one or more plants by contacting the second one or more plants with the ultrasonic blade at a second cutting angle that is different than the first cutting angle (cl. 6, 11).
18. The method of claim 17, wherein the first cutting angle corresponds to a first height associated with the first one or more plants and the second cutting angle corresponds to a second height associated with the second one or more plants (obvious arrangement of the combination ultrasonic blades).
“(7) In known ultrasonic food product cutting machines, a cutting blade is generally caused to vibrate at 20-40 kHz to move a cutting tip of the blade rapidly back and forth. This very high frequency movement effectively reduces the co-efficient of friction to a very low level, enabling the blade to slide through the food product.” (Lonn)
19. The method of claim 12, wherein cutting the one or more plants includes severing one or more stems of one or more plants with an edge of the ultrasonic blade vibrating at a frequency of 20 kHz or greater (taught in the combination, see Lonn above).
20. A method for harvesting plants comprising: moving a first plant in a linear direction using an infeed conveyor belt; separating a first top portion of the first plant using an ultrasonic blade by contacting a first portion of the first plant at a first height with the ultrasonic blade; retrieving the first top portion of the first plant with a retrieval system; adjusting a height of the ultrasonic blade; moving a second plant in the linear direction using the infeed conveyor belt; separating a second top portion of the second plant using the ultrasonic blade by contacting a second portion of the second plant at a second height with the ultrasonic blade, the second height being different than the first height; and retrieving the second top portion of the second plant with the retrieval system (cl. 6, 11).
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erhart et al (AU 2005100413), in view of Lonn et al (6070509).
Prima Facie Case: The patent office has the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of invalidity. A prima facie case is adequately articulated by notifying the applicant of the reasons for its rejections so long as the explanation is not "so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection." Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990). This requirement comes straight from Section 132 of the Patent Act. 35 U.S.C. §132(a).
There has never been a requirement for an examiner to make an on-the-record claim construction of every term in every rejected claim and to explain every possible difference between the prior art and the claimed invention in order to make out a prima facie rejection. This court declines to create such a burdensome and unnecessary requirement. "[Section 132] does not mandate that in order to establish prima facie anticipation, the PTO must explicitly preempt every possible response to a section 102 rejection. Section 132 merely ensures that an applicant at least be informed of the broad statutory basis for the rejection of his claims, so that he may determine what the issues are on which he can or should produce evidence." Chester, 906 F.2d at 1578
Erhart teaches the claimed invention, adjustable cutting blade, except the blade being chosen from an “ultrasonic” type (see cl. 1, 12, 20);
[AltContent: textbox (retrieving / inclined belt conveyor)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Blade arranged underside the retrieving / inclined belt conveyor)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
454
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (The height adjustable includes of blades in a row)]
PNG
media_image3.png
464
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“The cutting station may have a frame for supporting the cutting mechanism. Suitably the cutting mechanism may be adjustable in height above a stationary plate or grille located below the cutting mechanism which may separate the first and second conveyors.”
“Each tray may then be placed on a first conveyor and preferably each tray abuts each other so that when a particular tray reaches the cutting station the leaves of each of the seedlings may be subjected to a cutting operation and the cut leaves may then be removed from the cutting station by a second conveyor. Preferably the first and second conveyor are spaced from each other so that the tray being processed at the cutting station may then be momentarily slowed to facilitate cufftting of the leaves before the leaves are removed by the second conveyor.”
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more plants include a plurality of edible plants in a growing tray on the first conveyor surface (see teachings above).
Lonn teaches that ultrasonic cutting provides improved quality of the cut face:
“(6) In recent years, the application of ultrasonic food cutting has been introduced which provides many significant benefits for use in commercial food processing applications. For example, the quality of the cut face is especially clean in visual appearance, multi-layer food products can be easily cut without smearing of the layers, and the cutting operation is especially sanitary in comparison to conventional cutting methods, which is of significant importance in the food preparation industry.
(7) In known ultrasonic food product cutting machines, a cutting blade is generally caused to vibrate at 20-40 kHz to move a cutting tip of the blade rapidly back and forth. This very high frequency movement effectively reduces the co-efficient of friction to a very low level, enabling the blade to slide through the food product.”
In the combination, the ultrasonic blade can be arranged at any angle, including a non-perpendicular cutting angle, since it is more flexible in its orientation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the blade(s) of Erhart with the teachings of Lonn, with a reasonable expectation of success since picking and choosing the “ultrasonic” cutting blade provides quality of cut surface (see teachings in Lonn).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
NÄKKILÄ et al (20230255152) teaches a leaf clipping device (16).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6990. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th.
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 on (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.
/ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671