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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 16, 2024 and January 9, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a “vehicle 2” and “ a processing machine 1” (page 8, line 19) or “hinges 48” (page 9, line 33) in figure 1 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification fails to contain the appropriate subtitles (i.e., “Background of the Invention”, Brief Description of the Drawings”, etc.).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10 applicant claims “a first discharge the first stream and a second discharge the second stream”. It appears that it should read --a first discharge for the first stream and a second discharge for the second stream--.
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.
Claim 25 is 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.
In claim 25, line 4, applicant claims “a seed part remover”. There is a prior mention of “a seed part remover” (claim 1, line 11) and it is unclear as to exactly how many “seed part remover(s)” that the applicant is attempting to claim in that under 35 USC 112 each distinct feature/limitation is required to have an exact nomenclature and subsequent references to the same feature/limitation should be preceded with a “said” or “the”. The lack of clarity renders the claimed subject matter indefinite.
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 1-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hinds et al. (USP 7,805,916).
Regarding claim 1: Hinds discloses a processing machine to process fiber plants, the processing machine comprising:
a self-propelling vehicle (as seen in figure 1, generally 10) comprising a vehicle chassis (as seen in figure 1, area of 18) including a plurality of wheels (as seen in figure 1) on the vehicle chassis and a drive motor (inherently present) configured to drive at least one of the wheels, the vehicle chassis being provided with at least one fiber plant conveyor (as seen in figure 1, at 28, 36 and 38) configured to transport at least parts of the fiber plants from a first outer end of the vehicle chassis (as seen in figure 1, via 28) to an opposite, second outer second end (as seen in figure 1, via 36 or 38), and with at least one delivering system provided at or close to the second outer end and configured to deliver and place on the ground surface the fiber plants coming from the at least one conveyor (as seen in figure 1, via discharge chute above 36 or at 40);
a seed part remover (as seen in figures 3 and 4, area of 60) mounted or mountable on the self-propelling vehicle (as seen in figures 1, 3 and 4), the seed part remover capable of being configured to remove seed parts (as seen in figure 3) including bolls from the fiber plants to be picked (column 4, lines 23-41); and
a picker (as seen in figure 1, area of 20) mounted on the self-propelling vehicle, the picker being configured to pick fiber plants from which seed parts have been removed; and to transport the picked fiber plants to the at least one fiber plant conveyor of the self-propelling vehicle (column 4, lines 8-22).
Regarding claim 2: Hinds discloses the processing machine of claim 1. Further, Hind discloses the machine comprising a separator (column 2, line 65 to column 3, line 10; the explanation of harvester 10 being “separated” into 2 subsystems: 20 and 22) configured to separate the removed seed parts into a first stream and a second stream, the first stream comprising substantially air, chaff particles and dust particles (column 3, lines 11-18), the second stream comprising substantially seed parts, the separator being one or more of: (i) releasable and (ii) disposed on the vehicle chassis (as seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 3: Hinds discloses the processing machine of claim 1. Further, Hind discloses wherein the seed part remover comprises a stripper (as seen in figures 3 and 4, at 60) capable of being configured to remove the seed parts, including the bolls at free outer ends of the fiber plants, from the fiber plants to be picked (column 4, lines 4-22).
Regarding claims 4 and 5: Hinds discloses the processing machine of claim 1. Further, Hind discloses wherein the seed part remover comprises a rotatable removing element (as seen in figure 3, at 76 or figure 4, at 70) which is provided with radial fingers (as seen in figure 3, at 80 or figure 4, area of 72) configured to remove the seed parts from the fiber plants when the rotatable removing element rotates to strip and one or more of cut off and rip off the seed parts off the fiber plants (column 4, lines 4-22).
Regarding claim 6: Hinds discloses the processing machine of claim 4. Further, Hind discloses wherein the machine comprises a discharge system (as seen in figure 4, area of 58) configured to collect and discharge the removed seed parts.
Regarding claim 7: Hinds discloses the processing machine of claim 6. Further, Hind discloses wherein the discharge system comprises one or more of:
a displacement seed part conveyor configured to receive and laterally displace the seed parts removed by the rotatable removing unit of the seed part removing unit and;
a transport seed part conveyor configured to transport to the vehicle chassis the seed parts transported by the displacement seed part conveyor (as seen in figure 3, at 76 and also via auger as seen in area of 58).
Regarding claim 8: Hinds discloses the processing machine of claim 7. Further, Hind discloses wherein the displacement seed part conveyor could comprise a lateral conveyor belt extending substantially parallel to the rotatable removing element (column 3, lines 45-47).
Regarding claim 10: Hinds discloses the processing machine of claim 2. Further, Hind discloses wherein the separator comprises a first discharge (as seen in figure 2, area of 48) the first stream and a second discharge the second stream (as seen in figure 2, area of 38).
Regarding claim 11: Hinds discloses the processing machine of claim 10. Further, because Hind employs a stripper device having finger and chain means (as seen in figure 4, at 60, 70 and 71) as well as an auger to transport the seeds, these features would inherently “break” at least some of the seeds and therein anticipated the “breaking system” feature/limitation.
Regarding claim 13: Hinds discloses the processing machine of claim 1. Further, Hind discloses wherein the self-propelling vehicle further comprises a releasable storage that is a seed part receptacle (as seen in figure 2, at 50).
Regarding claim 14: Hinds discloses the processing machine of claim 1. Further, Hind discloses wherein a transport system (as seen in figure 2, at 48) configured to transport one or more of separated seed parts and broken seed parts from a separator to a storage (as seen in figure 2, at 50), the transport system comprising a screw conveyor (column 3, lines 44-47).
Regarding claims 18 and 19: Hinds discloses the processing machine of claim 1. Further, Hind discloses wherein the machine can comprise a top cutter configured to cut respective top parts off the fiber plants (column 1, lines 16-19).
Regarding claims 23 and 24: Hinds discloses the processing machine of claim 1. Further, Hind discloses wherein the machine comprises at least one actuator/lifter configured to adjust the height of the seed part remover relative to the vehicle chassis and ground surface (as seen in figure 1, unnumbered but area of 54).
Regarding claim 25: Hinds discloses the processing machine of claim 1. Further, Hind discloses wherein the machine comprises a mount system configured to releasably mount one or more of a first picking element, a second picking element, and the seed part remover, on the vehicle chassis (as seen in figure 1, unnumbered but in the area of 46 and 54).
Regarding method claims 26 and 27: In view of the structure disclosed by Hinds, the method of operating the self-propelled vehicle to remove seeds and separate those seeds from fiber plants would be inherent since it is the normal and logical means by which the device could be employed.
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 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinds et al. (USP 7,805,916) in view of Natarajan et al. (USPGPub 2019/0141892).
Regarding claims 9 and 12: Hinds discloses the claimed device substantially as discussed above but fails to show the transport seed part employing a flexible hose and fan assembly or the separator being a vibrating screen. However, Natarajan teaches that it is well known to employ both a flexible hose and fan assembly as well as a vibrating separating screen in concert with an agricultural processing machine (as seen in figures 1-4). Natarajan discloses a processing machine (as seen in figure 1, generally 100) whereby a flexible hose and fan (as seen in figure 2, at 214 and 216; also, page 2, paragraph [0041]) and a vibrating screen (as seen in figure 1, unnumbered but immediately above reference numeral 116) are employed as a transport and separating means of seed type material for the processing machine. Therefore, 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 device of Hinds with the teachings of Natarajan since it would be a simple substitution of a known set of elements for another to obtain the predictable results of a transport and separating assembly better capable of more quickly handling seed type materials, absent any showing to the contrary.
Claims 15-17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinds et al. (USP 7,805,916) in view of Caillouet (USP 5,379,577).
Regarding claim 15-17: Hinds discloses the claimed device substantially as discussed above. Further, Hinds discloses the use of a base cutter on a lower assembly (as seen in figure 1, at 30) but fails to show the picker having a plurality of picking elements each using a pair of endless conveyor belts. However, Caillouet teaches that it is well known to employ such a picker in concert with an agricultural processing machine (as seen in figures 1 and 2). Caillouet discloses an agricultural processing machine (as seen in figures 1 and 2, generally 10) comprising a picker, the picker having a plurality of independently moveable (as seen between figures 1 and 2, via movement of member 32, 32A in phantom after movement (fig 1)) picking elements (as seen in figure 2, a defined by axes 6) whereby each picking element comprises at least a pair of driven endless conveyor belts (as seen in figure 2, at 42 and 44) and because of the relative independence each picking element, the picking element is capable of engaging plant parts at different heights. Therefore, 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 device of Hinds with the teachings of Caillouet since it would be a simple matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of an agricultural processing machine better suited to engage uneven terrain as well as plant parts of varying heights and therein allow for greater operational effectiveness and efficiency.
Regarding claim 20: Hinds as modified by Caillouet discloses the processing machine of claim 16. Further, Hinds discloses the machine comprising a seed part remover frame (as seen in figure 1, area of 28) configured to support the seed part remover (as seen in figure 1), the seed part remover frame being mounted on one of: the vehicle chassis (as seen in figure 1), the picking element and the additional picking element.
Regarding claim 21: Hinds as modified by Caillouet discloses the processing machine of claim 20. Further, Hinds discloses wherein the seed part remover frame is pivotable relative to the vehicle chassis (as seen in figure 1, via either unnumbered hydraulic cylinder in the area of reference numerals 46 and 54).
Regarding claim 22: Hinds as modified by Caillouet discloses the processing machine of claim 16. Further, Hinds teaches the use of lift and tilt cylinders (as seen in figure 1, via unnumbered hydraulic cylinders in the area of reference numerals 46 and 54) which would allow the resultant device to have one or more of the pair of driven endless conveyor belts and the additional pair of driven endless conveyor belts to be configured to tilt the engaged fiber plants during transport and therein tilting the engaged fiber plants from a substantially upright position to a substantially lying position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prock et al. (USP 12,108,707) discloses a seed harvester employing a plurality of picking elements and flexible hoses and fan assemblies.
Zuzga et al. (USP 11,944,037) discloses a hemp harvester employing various picking elements an pressurized air systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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 M. 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.
/ROBERT E PEZZUTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights