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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference numeral 145 is disclosed as being a spring in paragraphs [0020] and [0024], but is 150 in paragraph [0021] and in Fig. 1.
“Pivot 410” [0029] should be --Pivot 430-- to agree with the rest of the disclosure as reference numeral 410 is disclosed elsewhere as the brace.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1-9, “a rail comprising” (line 5) is unclear whether this is the same as the positively recited “a rail comprising” in line 3. For the purpose of examination, the rails are being interpreted as being different parts.
Claims 2-9 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, is it unclear which rail, “the rail” (line 3) is referring back to from claim 1, from which it is dependent.
Regarding claim 5, is it unclear which rail, “the rail” (lines 1 and 2) are referring back to from claim 1, from which it is dependent.
Regarding claim 6, is it unclear which rail, “the rail” (line 2) is referring back to from claim 1, from which it is dependent.
Regarding claim 7, is it unclear which rail, “the rail” (line 2) is referring back to from claim 1, from which it is dependent.
Regarding claims 10-20, “a rail comprising” (line 5) is unclear whether this is the same as the positively recited “a rail comprising” in line 3. For the purpose of examination, the rails are being interpreted as being different parts.
Claims 11-20 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, is it unclear which rail, “the rail” (line 3) is referring back to from claim 10, from which it is dependent.
Regarding claim 14, is it unclear which rail, “the rail” (line 1) is referring back to from claim 10, from which it is dependent.
Regarding claim 15, is it unclear which rail, “the rail” (line 2) is referring back to from claim 10, from which it is dependent.
Regarding claim 16, is it unclear which rail, “the rail” (line 2) is referring back to from claim 10, from which it is dependent.
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, 10, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (WO2016205244) in view of Hironori et al. (JP2020115839).
Regarding claim 1, Cook et al. (hereinafter Cook) teaches a rigidity measuring device comprising: an arm 121 comprising: a rail (portion connecting the arm 121 to reference numeral 110); and a base (the outer body of the load cell) connected to a rail (the portion connecting the reference numerals 130 and 141 to the beam perpendicular to the arm in Fig. 1C) comprising: a load cell 141 attached to the base (Fig. 1C) [0042].
Cook remains silent as to a rail comprising: a limit switch disposed along the length of the rail. Cook teaches that the support may extend from a tractor or the like and engage with stems while the tractor moves along a row of crops measuring information [0038].
Hironori et al. (hereinafter Hironori) teaches a crop harvester with a stem position detection part. The stem position detection part comprises a limit switch 224 disposed long the length of a rail 221 (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the stem position detection part of Hironori on the tractor of Cook, as Cook aims to collect data and quantify lodging resistance and step position detection are a well-known method of counting stalks.
Regarding claim 10, Cook teaches an arm 121 comprising: a rail (portion connecting the arm 121 to reference numeral 110); and a base (the outer body of the load cell) connected to a rail (the portion connecting the reference numerals 130 and 141 to the beam perpendicular to the arm in Fig. 1C) comprising: a load cell 141 attached to the base (Fig. 1C) [0042]; a processor electronically connected to the load cell [0048].
Cook remains silent as to a rail comprising: a limit switch disposed along the length of the rail. Cook teaches that the support may extend from a tractor or the like and engage with stems while the tractor moves along a row of crops measuring information [0038].
Hironori teaches a crop harvester with a stem position detection part. The stem position detection part comprises a limit switch 224 disposed long the length of a rail 221 (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the stem position detection part of Hironori on the tractor of Cook, as Cook aims to collect data and quantify lodging resistance and step position detection are a well-known method of counting stalks.
Regarding claim 20, Cook as modified by Hironori teaches the rigidity measuring system of claim 10, wherein the processor displays a plant rigidity result on a display screen (Cook [0046]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW V DO whose telephone number is (571)270-3420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Walter L Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/A.V.D/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights