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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 9/10/2025 is acknowledged.
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
the adaption to mount the destemming device to a vehicle in claim 20, line 1;
the power take-off in claim 20, line 3
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The title of the invention is not descriptive due to the method claim being withdrawn; therefore, a new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Destemming Devices.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: missing the period at the end of line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Evans et al. (US 10624384 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Evans et al. teaches a destemming device [100] comprising:
a housing [102 and 300];
a first support block (see below) having a plurality of cutting fingers ([408], see Col. 11, lines 42-51) attached thereto (attached through housing and front plate [108], see Fig. 1); and
a second support block (see below) spaced apart from the first support block and also having a plurality of cutting fingers ([408], see Col. 11, lines 42-51) attached thereto (attached through housing and front plate [108], see Fig. 1);
wherein each cutting finger comprises a base [406] and at least one cutting edge (edge of [408]), and is spring-mounted so as to be able to travel relative to the first support block or the second support block (spring mounted through [422], biases inwards relative to the support blocks; see Col. 12, lines 3-10); and
wherein the plurality of cutting fingers on the first support block and the plurality of cutting fingers on the second support block form a cutting aperture (see below; space formed between the plurality of cutting fingers).
PNG
media_image1.png
704
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
463
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Note: a support block is being interpretated as a large, solid material with flat surfaces on each side (see attached Merriam-Webster NPL for “block”); therefore, the first and second supports as taught by Evans et al. are support blocks.
Regarding claim 7, Evans et al. teaches wherein the first support block (see above) and the second support block (see above) are placed such that the pluralities of cutting fingers ([408], see Col. 11, lines 42-51) float vertically (floats through spring [422] biases cutting fingers, see Col. 12, lines 3-10);
or wherein the cutting edges (edges of [408]) on the first support block and the second support block are recessed (edges do not stick out, rather are a part of the base and therefore recessed relative to the housing, see Fig. 4) relative to the housing [102 and 300];
or wherein the first support block is fixed in place relative to the housing, and the second support block floats relative to the housing.
Regarding claim 18, Evans et al. discloses a destemming device [100] comprising:
a housing [102 and 300];
a first support block (see below) having a plurality of cutting fingers ([408], see Col. 11, lines 42-51) attached thereto (attached through housing and front plate [108], see Fig. 1); and
a cutting surface (see below; second support block with cutting fingers attached) spaced apart from the first support block;
wherein each cutting finger comprises a base [406] and at least one cutting edge (edge of [408]), and is spring-mounted so as to be able to travel relative to the first support block or the second support block (spring mounted through [422], biases inwards relative to the support blocks; see Col. 12, lines 3-10); and
wherein the plurality of cutting fingers on the first support block and the cutting surface form a cutting aperture (see below; space formed between the plurality of cutting fingers located on the first support block and the cutting aperture).
PNG
media_image3.png
704
671
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
463
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Evans et al. teaches wherein the cutting surface (see above) is a flat metal piece, or is a second support block (cutting surface is the second support block, see above) having a plurality of cutting fingers ([408], see Col. 11, lines 42-51) attached thereto (attached through housing and front plate [108], see Fig. 1).
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) 8-12, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al. (US 10624384 B2) in view of Moore (US 3962850 A).
Regarding claim 8, Evans et al. discloses the destemming device as applied above, as well as, a system (system of [104 and 105] and support blocks, see above) configured to fit within the housing [102 and 300], the system comprising:
a first assembly [106 and 112] comprising a first gripper wheel ([106] is a gripper wheel through grippers [112], see Col. 9, lines 64-67 and Col. 10, lines 1-3); and
a second assembly [104 and 110] comprising a second gripper wheel ([104] is a gripper wheel through grippers [110], see Col. 9, lines 64-67 and Col. 10, lines 1-3); and
at least one motor [118] that is operatively connected to rotate the first gripper wheel and the second gripper wheel (see Col. 10, lines 36-40).
But Evans et al. fails to disclose the system is a belt system with gripper belts.
Moore discloses a similar destemming device [10] comprising of a belt system ([48, 80, and 82], see Fig. 2) with first and second gripper belts ([48], sandwich plant material; therefore, gripping it, see Col. 4, lines 7-14).
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 gripper wheels of Evans et al. with the gripper belts of Moore since both are mechanisms gripping onto the crop material to move it from one location to another; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Regarding claim 9, Evans et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the first support block (see above) is fixed in place (support block is a part of the belt assembly; therefore fixed together in place in relation to each other) relative to the first belt assembly [106 and 112], or wherein the second support block (see above) is fixed in place (support block is a part of the belt assembly; therefore fixed together in place in relation to each other) relative to the second belt assembly [104 and 110].
Regarding claim 10, Evans et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the second support block (see above) and the second belt assembly [104 and 110] are attached to a mobile carriage frame [302] which floats (floats within the movement path [126], see Col. 11, lines 6-27) relative to the first belt assembly [106 and 112].
Regarding claim 11, Evans et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the housing [102 and 300] further comprises a device frame [102] having a plurality of channels [126] that guide the mobile carriage frame ([302]; see Col. 10, lines 24-35).
Regarding claim 12, Evans et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the device frame [102] includes a fixed crossbar (see below, member that runs across the frame; therefore, is a fixed crossbar), the fixed crossbar supporting (apart of the housing of the destemming device; therefore, supports the variable length tool, see Fig. 1) a variable length tool ([124]; see Col. 10, lines 45-50) for moving the mobile carriage frame [302] relative to the first belt assembly [106 and 112].
PNG
media_image4.png
704
671
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Evans et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses an activation system (variable length tool [124] is an activation system; see Col. 10, lines 45-50) for increasing the distance between the first belt assembly [106 and 112] and the second belt assembly [104 and 110].
Regarding claim 20, Evans et al. discloses a destemming device [100], comprising:
a frame [102 and 300] comprising a first support block (see below) and a second support block (see below); and
a power source [118];
the first support block having a plurality of cutting fingers ([408], see Col. 11, lines 42-51) attached thereto (attached through housing and front plate [108], see Fig. 1); and
the second support block having a plurality of cutting fingers ([408], see Col. 11, lines 42-51) attached thereto (attached through housing and front plate [108], see Fig. 1); and
wherein the first support block and the second support block are adapted to move relative to each other (rotate relative to each other, see Col. 10, lines 36-40) to change a size of a cutting aperture (see below, aperture between blocks; changes size through grippers [110 and 112] being aligned or misaligned through rotation, see Col. 9, lines 64-67 and Col. 10, lines 1-3), and the power source provides power for such movement (see Col. 10, lines 36-40).
PNG
media_image1.png
704
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
704
671
media_image5.png
Greyscale
But Evans et al. fails to explicitly disclose the destemming device is adapted for mounting to another vehicle and that the power source is a power take-off.
Moore discloses a similar destemming device [10] adapted for mounting to another vehicle (through hitch [27], see Fig. 1) and consisting of a power take-off (motor [64] is in connection with the vehicle’s power take-off, see Col. 5, lines 26-29) used to power movement of the first and second support blocks ([68], see Figs. 2-3).
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 hitch and power take-off connections of Moore on the destemming device of Evans et al. in order for ease of moveability of the destemming device through use of the vehicle (see Moore Col. 4, lines 63-67 and Col. 5, lines 1-5) and in order for the power source of the destemming device to receive its power from the vehicle for precise control while in use (see Moore Col. 5, lines 26-29).
Claim(s) 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al. (US 10624384 B2) and Moore (US 3962850 A) as applied to claims 8-12, 14, and 20 above, and further in view of Hammerstein (US 1338768 A).
Regarding claim 13, the above combination discloses the destemming device as applied above, but fails to disclose wherein the variable length tool comprises a pneumatic cylinder, or a spring, or a linear actuator.
Hammerstein disclose a similar destemming device (see Fig. 1) comprising of a variable length tool ([53 and 54], see page 2, lines 65-93) comprising a pneumatic cylinder, or a spring [54a], or a linear actuator.
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 spring of Hammerstein on the variable length tool of Evans et al. and Moore in order for the variable length tool to return back to the normal position once the user is done with operation (see Hammerstein page 2, lines 74-77).
Regarding claim 15, Evans et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the activation system (variable length tool [124] is an activation system; see Col. 10, lines 45-50) is connected to the second belt assembly [104 and 110], wherein movement of the activation system causes the second belt assembly to move towards (can be moved towards or away from first belt assembly based on direction of movement of the activation system; see Col. 10, lines 45-54) the first belt assembly [106 and 112].
But Evans et al. fails to disclose the activation system comprises a foot pedal.
Hammerstein discloses a similar destemming device wherein the activation system (system of [52, 53 and 54]) comprises a foot pedal [54] that when depressed causes two mechanisms to move (see page 2, lines 74-84).
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 activation system of Evans et al. and Moore with the activation system of Hammerstein since both are moveable mechanisms utilized to separate two moving parts, yielding the same predictable result; therefore, when the foot pedal of Hammerstein is applied to the destemming device of Evans et al. and Moore depression of the foot pedal causes the second belt assembly to move towards the first belt assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 CN 1087471170 A discloses a similar destemming device (see Fig. 1) with a cutting finger (see Fig. 17) comprising of a base [64], a cross bar [37], and a compression spring [38].
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
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671