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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A shaking module in claims 1, wherein the disclosure provides the following corresponding structure: “the shaking module formed as grills (103)” on pg. 9 and claim 3: “the shaking module has the shape of a grill”.
A sheaf intake module in claims 1 and 4, wherein the disclosure provides the following corresponding structure: “a frame (105) that holds some sheaf intake tubes (106)” on pg. 9 and claim 4: “the sheaf intake module made up of vertical tube sections placed on a frame”.
A transport module in claims 1 and 4, wherein the disclosure provides the following corresponding structure: claim 4: “the transport module made up of the structure around which the conveyor belt moves with a chain of binary links on which successive and alternating lines of cylindrical boxes and evacuation tubes are seated in the same number as the previous ones”.
Means of evacuation in claim 1, wherein the disclosure provides the following corresponding structure: claim 4: “In the center of this structure there is an inclined platform for the evacuation (115) of debris and discards, by vibration of the upper frame of the structure to which it is fixed, and which is supported by springs (116)” on pg. 9 and “means of evacuation of this stage comprising of an inclined vibrating platform, located in the center of the transport structure, which receives and evacuates the discards and previous remains as well as the dislocated garlic heads”.
A lifting module in claim 1, wherein the disclosure provides the following corresponding structure: claim 5: “where the lifting module of the second phase is a conveyor belt that receives the product of the previous phase and deposits the garlic heads and the remains on the distribution module”.
A distribution module in claim 1, wherein the disclosure provides the following corresponding structure: claim 6: “the distribution module is made up of inverted V-shaped chutes, 2 cm apart and arranged in a 30° downward slope”.
A module for advancing and positioning the garlic heads in claims 1 and 7, wherein the disclosure provides the following corresponding structure: “Each line of phase three extends the previous troughs horizontally, avoiding the loss of garlic and forcing them to converge in the center, where there are pairs of advancing
rollers at a lower level, equally spaced 2 cm apart, with the left roller moving clockwise and the right roller moving inversely, each roller is provided with bristles arranged in a helical or spiral brush with a pitch of 100 mm, with a counterclockwise longitudinal feed for the left and clockwise for the right roller” on pg. 5 and claim 7: “the module for the advancement and positioning of the garlic heads is made up of pairs of parallel rollers 2 cm apart, which allow the evacuation of unwanted remains, arranged longitudinally on the horizontal, with clockwise movement of the left roller and vice versa of the right roller”
Means to avoid their overflow and to ensure their correct position in claims 1 and 8, wherein the disclosure provides the following corresponding structure: claim 8: “where the means to avoid overflowing and to ensure a correct position are an extension of the inverted V-shaped channels of the previous module that move parallel to each other and on the upper horizontal of the rollers”.
Means to ensure their correct position in claims 1, 8, and 9, wherein the disclosure provides the following corresponding structure: claim 8: “where the means to avoid overflowing and to ensure a correct position are an extension of the inverted V-shaped channels of the previous module that move parallel to each other and on the upper horizontal of the rollers”.
A root elimination module in claim 1, wherein the disclosure provides the following corresponding structure: “FIG. 9 shows the perspective view of the root removal (410) and root disc grinding (413) modules” on pg. 9 and claim 13: “the root removal module is formed by bristle side rollers that receive the garlic heads as they pass through and lift them, while cleaning the rest of the outline; the two metal rollers are separated to avoid contact, but their reverse rotation allows the roots to enter between them and be eliminated”.
Traction means in claims 1 and 15, wherein the disclosure provides the following corresponding structure: claim 15: “the traction means are formed by pairs of traction belts parallel to each other and perpendicular to the spindles”.
Cutting means in claims 1 and 15, wherein the disclosure provides the following corresponding structure: claim 15: “the cutting means, which are blades mounted in the horizontal plane between the guides that were previously spindles and the traction belt”.
A garlic evacuation module in claims 1 and 16, wherein the disclosure provides the following corresponding structure: claim 16: “the evacuation module is a rotating plate provided with a crank or eccentric crank which, during its rotation, contacts the garlic sufficiently to lift it from its base and extract it from the guides”.
Weighing and distribution means in claims 1 and 16, wherein the disclosure provides the following corresponding structure: claim 16: “the weighing and distribution means made up of a weighing conveyor belt that distributes them among the container means” and “a weighing and transport belt (429)” on pg. 11.
Container means in claims 1 and 16, wherein the disclosure provides the following corresponding structure: claim 16: “the container means, which can be drums, boxes or any other type of container” and “containers, drums, boxes or any type of container appropriate for the storage function (430)” on pg. 11.
A damping system in claim 14, wherein the disclosure provides the following corresponding structure: Figure 9 and “a damping system (416) that is located between the milling machine and a base (417) perforated in its center that allows the milling cutter (418) to operate and whose base has a probe (419) and a sponge (420) in its lower part” on pg. 10
Optical means in claim 14, wherein the disclosure fails to provide any corresponding structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 14, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the limitation “the third phase” and “the fourth phase” in line 10 and 12 to “the third stage” and “the fourth stage” to be consistent with the terminology of “a series of stages” used in line 1-2.
Regarding claim 2, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the limitation “the first phase” in line 2 to “the first stage” to be consistent with the term “the first stage” used in claim 1, which claim 2 depends from.
Regarding claim 4, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the limitation “the previous tubes” in line 6 to “the vertical tube sections” to clarify that the previous tubes refer to the vertical tube sections previously recited in line 3.
Further, Examiner respectfully suggest amending the limitation “the knives” in line 11 to “the blades” to be consistent with the term of the blades used in line 5 and line 8.
Regarding claim 5, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the limitation “the second phase” in line 2 to “the second stage” to be consistent with the terminology of “a series of stages” used in claim 1 line 1-2.
Regarding claim 7, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the limitation “the brushes” in line 9 to “the bristles” to be consistent with the term of the bristles used in line 5.
Regarding claim 8, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “the inverted V-shaped channels” in line 3 to “the inverted V-shaped chutes” and “the space between the troughs” in line 5 to “the space between the channels” to be consistent with the term of channels used in line 3.
Regarding claim 9, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “the inverted V-shaped troughs” in line 2-3 to “the inverted V-shaped channels” to be consistent with the term of channels used in line 3.
Regarding claim 10, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the limitation “the last phase” in line 2 to “the last stage” to be consistent with the terminology of stage used in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the limitation “and then rises” in line 9 to “and then the cutter rises” to clarify which structure is rising.
Regarding claim 16, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the limitation “the container means, which can be drums, boxes or any other type of container: drums, boxes or any type of suitable container” in line 6-8 to ““the container means, which can be drums, boxes or any other type of container”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The limitations “transport module”, “a lifting module”, “means to avoid their overflow and to ensure their correct position”, “traction means”, and a “garlic evacuation module” are recited in the claims, but do not appear in the specification. The limitations recited in the claims should appear in the specification to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
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 1-16 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 1 recites the limitation "the first stage" in line 2. It is unclear whether the first stage refers to one of the series of stages, or a first stage that has not been previously recited for. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “this stage transforms” in line 6. However, it is unclear whether “this stage” refers to the first stage, the receiving stage, the cutting and discarding stage, or a different stage.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sheaf assemblies" in line 6. It is unclear which sheaf assemblies the claim is referring to, since sheaf assemblies have not been previously recited for, or whether the sheaf assemblies refers to the previously recited garlic sheaves. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the garlic heads” in line 6, and “the leaves” and “excess stems” in line 7. It is unclear whether the garlic heads, the leaves, and the stem comprise the garlic sheaves recited in line 1, or whether the garlic heads, leaves, and excess stems are components separate from the garlic sheaves and have not been previously recited for. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the remains of said transformation and the misplaced garlic heads, depositing, those correctly located, in a second stage” in line 7-9. It is unclear whether the remains of said transformation are the garlic heads or the leaves and excess stems. Further it is unclear whether the misplaced garlic heads or the correctly loaded garlic heads are the garlic heads that are separated from the leaves and excess stems, or whether the misplaced garlic heads or the correctly loaded garlic heads refer to different garlic heads. The misplaced garlic heads and correctly loaded garlic heads have not been previously recited for, and therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “which distributes the garlic heads in a fourth phase” in line 12. It is unclear whether it is the module for advancing and positioning the garlic heads or the means to avoid their overflow and to ensure their correct position which performs the function of distributing the garlic heads. Further Examiner respectfully suggests amending the limitation to “into a fourth phase”, since the module for advancing and positioning the garlic heads and the means to avoid their overflow and to ensure their correct position are located in the third phase and it appears that the garlic heads move from the third and into the fourth phase.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “and lastly, comprising a main structure on which conveyor screws run along the entire phase, which phase also comprises” in line 12-13. It is unclear whether the phase refers to the fourth phase, since the claim does not explicitly state that the phase is the fourth phase, and multiple phases or stages have been previously recited for. Further, Examiner suggests amending the limitation “phase” to stage” as noted in the objection of claim 1 above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “below all of them in the center of the structure” in line 15-16. It is unclear whether “all of them” refers to the root brushing module, root combing module, root elimination module, the garlic root saucer or cauline disc grinding module, and the stalk cutting to size stage, or the traction means and cutting means, or a different combination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “as well as their rectified culinary disc” in line 19. It is unclear which rectified culinary disc the limitation is referring to, since a rectified culinary disc has not been previously recited for. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, it is unclear whether the limitation “rectified” is to be interpreted as the position of the misplaced garlic heads that are evacuated, as recited in line 8, are corrected, or rectified refers to the correctly loaded garlic heads recited in line 8, or different garlic sheaves that are loaded into the automatic machine.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “avoids their accumulation in said location” in line 4. It is unclear whether “said location” refers to the location at the first phase, the location at the grid or lattice floor, the location where evacuation of the remains occurs, or a different location.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “said module” and “the platform on which it sits” in line 3. It is unclear whether “said module” is referring to the shaking module recited in claim 3 line 2, or any of the other modules recited in claim 1, which claim 3 depends from, including a sheaf intake module, a sheaf cutting module, a transport module, a lifting module, or a distribution module.
Further, it is unclear from the limitation “the platform on which it sits” whether “the platform” refers to the elevated structural platform recited in claim 1 and claim 2 line 2, or a different platform.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “as the previous tubes” in line 6. It is unclear whether “the previous tubes” refers to any vertical tube sections as recited in line 3 or different tubes.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “attached to an articulated arm” in line 7. It is unclear from the limitation whether the articulated arm is attached to the perforated cutting blades, the previous tubes, or the frame.
Further, claim 4 recites the limitation “moving the blades in a longitudinal back-and-forth movement with respect the phase” in line 8-9. It is unclear whether “the phase” refer to one of the stages previously recited or whether “the phase” refers to a state in a regularly recurring cycle of changes
Claim 4 recites “the lower part of the frame” in line 9. It is unclear which lower part of the frame the claim is referring to, since a lower part of the frame has not been previously recited for. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “which together generate a scissor effect for sheaf cutting” in line 11. It is unclear whether the lateral guides housing in the lower part of the frame and the roller are the two structures that together generate the scissor effect, whether it is the roller and knives that together generate the scissor effect, or whether it is other recited structures that together generate the scissor effect.
Claim 4 recites “the structure around which the conveyor belt moves” in line 13. However, it is unclear which structure and which conveyor belt the claim is referring to, since a structure around which the conveyor belt moves has not been previously recited for. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “and evacuation tubes are seated in the same number as the previous ones” in line 15-16. It is unclear whether “the previous ones” refers to the chain of binary links, the cylindrical boxes, the evacuation tubes, or a different structure.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the housing of the cut heads” in line 17-18. It is unclear which housing the claim is referring to, since a housing has not been previously recited for. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the transport structure” in line 19. It is unclear which transport structure the claim is referring to, since a transport structure has not been previously recited for. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the dislocated garlic heads” in line 20. It is unclear whether the dislocated garlic heads are the same or different from the misplaced garlic heads recited in claim 1 line 8 or different garlic heads.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the product of the previous phase” in line 2-3. It is unclear whether the previous phase refers to the first stage or a different phase, and it is unclear whether the product is the correctly located or misplaced garlic heads recited in claim 1 line 8.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the remains on the distribution module” in line 3-4. However, claim 1 recites the remains of the said transformation and the misplaced garlic heads are evacuated in line 7-8. Therefore, if the remains are evacuated in a first stage and the distribution module is located in the second stage, as recited in claim 1 line 9, then it is unclear how there are remains on the distribution module in the second stage when the remains were evacuated in the first stage prior to reaching the second stage.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “between whose interstices” in line 3. It is unclear whether the interstices are formed by openings that are formed by the V-shaped chutes being 2 cm apart, or whether the interstices are formed by a different structure in the V-shaped chutes.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the garlic stalks” in line 4. It is unclear which garlic stalks the claim is referring to, since garlic stalks have not been previously recited for. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the remains that have reached this module” in line 5. First, it is unclear whether “this module” refers to the distribution module or a different module. Further, as noted in the rejection of claim 5 above, claim 1 recites the remains of the said transformation and the misplaced garlic heads are evacuated in line 7-8. Therefore, if the remains are evacuated in a first stage and the distribution module (which is assumed to be “this module”) is located in the second stage, as recited in claim 1 line 9, then it is unclear how there are remains on the distribution module in the second stage when the remains were evacuated in the first stage prior to reaching the second stage.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “arranged longitudinally on the horizontal” in line 3. It is unclear whether the pairs of rollers or the unwanted remains are arranged longitudinally on the horizontal.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the left roller” in line 4 and “the right roller” in line 5. It is unclear the left roller and right roller refer to a single pair of parallel rollers recites in line 3, or whether they refer to multiple pairs of parallel rollers, with one pair of parallel rollers comprising the left roller and another pair of parallel rollers comprising the right roller.
Claim 7 recites each roller having bristles configured an anti-clockwise longitudinal advance for the left brush and clockwise for the right in line 6-7. However, it is unclear how the bristles are configured to advance in an anti-clockwise rotation when the bristles are attached to each roller, and the rollers are only recited to impart clockwise rotation.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “the garlic heads” and “the stalks” in line 7-9. It is unclear which garlic heads and stalks the claim is referring to, since garlic heads and stalks have not been previously recited for. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “they are pushed by the point where the brushes intersect during their rotation” in line 8-9. It is unclear whether “they” refers to the garlic heads, the stalks, or both. Further, it is unclear whether the point where the brushes intersect refers to the intersection of the bristles on the left and right rollers or the intersection of bristles on rollers of different pairs.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “this module flown over the spindles of the following phase” in line 11-12. It is unclear which module the limitation is referring to, as multiple modules has been previously recited for in claim 1. Further, it is unclear whether the spindles refer to the conveyor screws recited in claim 1 or a different structural limitation. Moreover, it is unclear which phase “the following phase” refers to, since a second phase or stage precedes both a third and fourth phase or stage.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “inverted V-shaped channels” in line 3. It is unclear whether the V-shaped channels refers to the inverted V-shaped chutes recited in line 6 (which claim 8 does not depend on), or different inverted V-shaped channels.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the previous module” in line 3. However, multiple modules are recited for in claim 1, and therefore, it is unclear which module the previous module refers to.
Further, the inverted V-shaped chutes are recited as being part of the distribution module, which is in the second phase or stage in claim 6, and the means to avoid overflowing and to ensure a correct position is recited as being in the third phase or stage in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear whether the V-shaped channels of claim 8 are the same as the V-shaped chutes recited in claim 6 that are located within the second phase or stage, or whether the V-shaped channels are different and located within the third phase or stage.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “upper stops on the inverted V-shaped troughs of said phase”. As noted in the rejection of claim 8 above, it is unclear which phase the inverted V-shaped troughs are located in. The inverted V-shaped chutes are recited as being part of the distribution module, which is in the second phase or stage in claim 6, and the means to avoid overflowing and to ensure a correct position is recited as being in the third phase or stage in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear whether the V-shaped troughs of claim 9 are the same as the V-shaped chutes recited in claim 6 that are located within the second phase or stage, or whether the V-shaped troughs are different and located within the third phase or stage.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “acting to overcome them and place them correctly” in line 4. It is unclear whether “them” refers to the stalks, the garlic heads, or a different component of the garlic sheaves.
Further, claim 9 recites the limitation “such as curtains that adjust the vertical gauge or in the same sense inverted U-shaped arches. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further, it is unclear which vertical gauge the claim is referring to, since a vertical gauge has not been previously recited for and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Moreover, it is unclear whether “in the same sense” defines the inverted U-shaped arches to be a structural equivalent or alternative to the vertical gauge.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a main structure” in line 2. It is unclear whether the main structure recited in claim 10 is the same or different from the main structure recited in claim 1 line 13.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “pairs of transport spindles along the whole phase” in line 3. It is unclear whether the pairs of transport spindles refer to the conveyor screws recited in claim 1 or a different structural limitation.
Claim 10 recites “evacuation of the completely processed garlic heads” in line 4. It is unclear whether the completely processed garlic heads refers to the roots and culinary disc recited in claim 1 line 20 or different completely processed garlic heads. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “these spindles are arranged like the rollers of phase three in terms of movement and configuration of the advance of the rotation” in line 4-5. However, the rollers and the advance of the rotation were not previously recited for in claim 1, which claim 10 depends from, and it is unclear which rollers and advance of rotation the limitations are referring to. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “in this case of the fillet, but with a pitch of 20 mm, they are fixed, to their driving mechanisms at the end of the frame overhung at the beginning” in line 5-7. It is unclear which fillet the claim is referring to, since a fillet has not been previously recited for. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, it is unclear whether the spindles of the rollers comprise the fillet or pitch of 20 mm. Moreover, it is unclear whether “they are fixed” refers to the spindles, the rollers, the fillet, or the pitch being fixed to the driving mechanisms. It is unclear whether the frame refers to the main structure recited in claim 1 line 13, or a different frame that has not been previously recited for and does not have sufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “overhung at the beginning” refers to a beginning end of the frame, the beginning of the driving mechanisms, the beginning of the fillet, the beginning of the pitch, or the beginning of a different structure.
Claim 10 recites “favors the reception of the stalks, for this purpose, the spindles…” in line 8-9. It is unclear what structure favors the reception of the stalks. Are the spindles, the frame, the fillet, the pitch, or a different structure receiving the stalks? Further, it is unclear whether the limitation “for this purpose” is interpreted as the spindles rest on brackets for the purpose of favoring the reception of the stalks or whether the limitation is interpreted as the spindles are fixed to the driving mechanisms for the purpose of preventing garlic and its waste from interaction with the driving mechanisms and favoring the reception of the stalks.
Claim 10 recites “spindles pushes the stalks and therefore the heads of garlic from them that sit on the upper part of their fillets” in line 12-13. It is unclear whether “them” refers to the spindles, the rollers, or a different structure.
Claim 10 recites “without the effect of the same” in line 14-15. It is unclear which same effect the claim is referring to, and therefore it is unclear whether “without the effect of the same” is to be interpreted as without the effect of the spindles pushing the stalks and the heads of garlic from upper parts of the fillet, or without the effect of the garlic heads transformed being continuously advanced through each module and stage.
Claim 11 recites “each pair of spindles” in line 2. It is unclear whether the pair of spindles refers to the conveyor screws recited in claim 1 or a different structural limitation. . Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “a second removable and height-adjustable structure” in line 2-3. A first removable and height-adjustable structure was recited for in claim 11. However, claim 12 does not depend from claim 11. Therefore, it is unclear whether there is a first removable and height-adjustable structure that precedes a second removable and height-adjustable structure.
Claim 12 recites “the spindles” in line 4. It is unclear whether the spindles refers to the conveyor screws recited in claim 1 or a different structural limitation. . Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “resulting in a more intense cleaning than the previous one” in line 5. An initial cleaning has not been recited for, and therefore it is unclear how a subsequent, more intense cleaning than a previous one can occur when the initial cleaning has not been recited for. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the garlic root disc grinding stage” in line 2. It is unclear whether the garlic root disc grinding stage refers to the garlic root saucer or cauline disc grinding module recited in claim 1 line 15, or whether the garlic root disc grinding stage refers to a different structure. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “each pair of transport spindles” in line 2-3. As noted in the rejection of claim 10 above, it is unclear whether the pairs of transport spindles refer to the conveyor screws recited in claim 1 or a different structural limitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “provided with a vertical displacement mechanism” in line 3. It is unclear whether the vertical displacement mechanism is provided for the garlic root disc grinding stage, the milling machine, or for each pair of transport spindles.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a perforated base in its center” in line 4. It is unclear whether “its center” refers to the center of the vertical displacement mechanism, the damping system, or the milling machine.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the milling cutter” in line 4-5 and “the cutter” in line 6 and 8. It is unclear whether the milling cutter refers to the milling machine recited in line 2, the cutting means recited in claim 1 line 16, or a different milling cutter that is either a structural component of the milling machine or a different machine, since a milling cutter has not been previously recited for. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “whose base has a feeler and sponge” in line 5. It is unclear which structure “whose” is referring to. Is “whose” referring to the damping system, the milling machine, the milling cutter, or a different structure?
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the sensor” in line 7. It is unclear which sensor the limitation is referring to, since a sensor has not been previously recited for. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the so-called cauline disc or saucer from which the roots sprout” in line 8-9. It is unclear whether the limitation “so-called” requires the proceeding limitation to be a cauline disc or saucer, or a structural equivalent thereof.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “optical means”, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the traction means are formed by pairs of traction belts parallel to each other and perpendicular to the spindles, remaining under the latter at the moment they lose their fillet, so that they are in charge of receiving and moving the stalks by traction to the cutting means” in line 2-4.
First, as noted in the rejection of claim 10 above, it is unclear whether the pairs of transport spindles refer to the conveyor screws recited in claim 1 or a different structural limitation.
Further, the claim is interpreted as the pairs of traction belts remain under the spindles at the moment the spindles lose their fillet. However, as noted in the rejection of claim 10 above, it is unclear which fillet the claim is referring to, since a fillet has not been previously recited for. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, it is unclear which structure “they” is referring that is in charge of receiving and moving the stalks by traction. Does “they” refer to the pairs of traction belts, the spindles, the fillet, the location where the fillet is lost, or a different structure?
Claim 15 recites the limitation “blades mounted in the horizontal plane between the guides that were previously spindles and the traction belts, being adjustable in height and angle of attack” in line 6-7. It is unclear whether it is the blades or the guides that were previously spindles, the traction belts, or a different structure that are adjustable in height and angle of attack.
Further, claim 15 recites the limitation “use the back and forth movement of the frame on which they are mounted” in line 8. It is unclear whether the back and forth movement of the frame refers to a back and forth movement of the main structure as recited in claim 1 line 13, the frame recited in claim 4 (which claim 15 does not depend on), or a different frame. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the back and forth movement and for the frame in the claim.
Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art (see MPEP 2173.06.II). Therefore, the claims are not rejected on the basis of prior art. However, a lack of prior art rejection(s) should not be interpreted as indication of allowable subject matter.
Relevant Prior Art
The following is a list of relevant prior art not relied upon.
Novaes (“ÁQUINA BENEFICIAMENTO DE CEBOLA 1.400L - GRAN SAFRA - VARGEM GRANDE DO SUL SP”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCAg-4ANRn0- see attached).
Li (CN108576876B- Machine translation provided herein)
Rood (US3764717)
Novaes teaches a first stage at 0:33 seconds (see annotated Figure below) comprising an elevated structural platform, a sheaf intake module, a means of evacuation, and a transport module for dry processing of onions. Examiner notes that claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, and that garlic sheaves, garlic heads, leaves, excess stems, roots, and culinary discs are considered materials worked upon by the apparatus and, therefore, do not impart patentability to the claim (see MPEP 2115). Therefore, the apparatus of Novaes, which processes onions, could be used as prior art to teach the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus.
Further, Novaes teaches a second stage at 0:47 seconds comprising a lifting module and distribution module (see annotated Figure below), and a third stage at 0:47 seconds (see annotated Figure below) comprising a means to avoid overflow and ensure a correct of the material to be processed. Novaes also teaches a fourth stage at 1 minute and 10 seconds (see annotated Figure below) with conveyor screws running along the entire phase, an indented platform, a garlic evacuation module, and a container means.
However, Novaes fails to explicitly teach a shaking module, a sheaf cutting module, a root brushing module, root combing module, root elimination module, a garlic root saucer or cauline disc grinding module, and a weighing and distribution means.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to an automatic machine for dry processing agricultural products, Rood teaches a stage with a shaking module and a cutting module (Abstract: The vegetables are vibrated on the receptacle so that they are horizontally disposed thereon. The receptacles with the vegetables are moved in a path that traverses cutting knives; see Figure 1).
Further, in the same field of endeavor pertaining to an automatic machine for dry processing agricultural products, Li teaches a stage (lotus core and meat separating device 9 in Figure 2) that comprises a root brushing module (931-brush shaft sleeve in Figure 15), a root combing module (separating brush 991 in Figure 15), a root elimination module (conveying rotating shaft 93 in Figure 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
867
1561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
758
1330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
725
1475
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights