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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references (Paras. 7-9, Zhao Xuanming et al, Guo Zhidong et al, Liu Wenyue et al) in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper."
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.
the “intelligent seed production apparatus” in claim 1 (currently Figures 1a-1d show a machine that is unclear whether it is the intelligent seed production apparatus or not, it needs to label);
the multistage screening and limiting mechanism in claims 1, 2;
the “seed potatoes”, “seed potato pieces”, “a plurality of tubers” in claim 1 (since this is a method claim, the workpiece is positive claimed and The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims);
the “mixing material” in claim 1;
the different openings in claim 2;
the “mass screen” in claims 4, 6;
the material falling station, an identification station, a cutting station, and the disinfection station in claim 6, line 6;
the cutter assembly in claim 6, line 18;
the gravity measurement mechanism in claim 7 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 lengthy specification (32 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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: the “at least three supporting elements” in claims 45-46 and 56.
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:
In claim 1, line 4 “a feeding module, which screens out seed potatoes…” invokes 112F because first, "module" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "module" is modified by functional language including “screens out seed potatoes…”; and third, the " module" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "feeding" preceding module describes the function, not the structure of the module.
Similarly with analysis “a precutting module, which receives the seed potations…and cuts…”; “a bud eye identifying and cutting module….”; and “a material mixing module…” in claim 1.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, lines 16-17 recites “performing a mass screening to screen out special-shaped seed potatoes and elongated see potatoes”. These features were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of performing a mass screening to screen out special-shaped seed potatoes and elongated see potatoes.
See the original specification, paras. 14 and 149 “…a mass screening to screen out special-shaped seed potatoes and elongated seed potatoes” without providing any guidance on how it can be done.
Para, 13 recites “determines a weight of each seed potato piece” without providing any guidance how the weight is determined.
Also, see claim 3 “wherein the performing of the mass screening includes using a plurality of sorting openings of different ranks arranged at the limiting railway sequentially and configured for screening the seed potatoes with different mass”, but it is unclear how it can be screened out mass, special-shaped seed potatoes and elongated seed potatoes.
Thus, the subject matter is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor. Claims 2-4, 6, 8 have the same issue.
All claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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 1-9 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.
The preamble of claim 1 recites the language “intelligent” in the term of “an intelligent seed production apparatus based on multistage screening and bud eye identification” is unclear.
Normally, a machine is considered “intelligent” when it can perform tasks requiring human-like cognitive abilities, such as learning from data, recognizing patterns, solving problems, making decisions, understanding language, and adapting its behavior without explicit reprogramming. This intelligence is achieved through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML), allowing it to process information, learn from experience (even finding patterns humans miss), and act autonomously in complex environments, moving beyond simple instructions to achieve goals.
As the claim is written, there is no controller nor sensor/detector for automatically performance the function language (for an example, “determines a weight of each seed potato piece…”) until claims 6-7, therefore, it is not clear whether this seed production apparatus of claim 1 considers an intelligent or not. Second, this apparatus is based on multistage screening and bud eye identification, it can be considered as intelligent, right? If an art has multistage screening and bud eye identification, it is intelligent, right?
Claim 1, lines 9-13 “a bud eye identifying and cutting module, …determines a weight of each seed potato piece” is unclear what structures of this module can determines a weight of each seed potato piece. Is any controller and sensor/detector or a weight or scale device of some sorts involved in this module? Later “so that bud eyes are distributed on different tubers uniformly” is unclear what and how the bud eyes are distributed on different tubers uniformly. If the bud eyes are distributed on different tubers uniformly by manually, this is still intelligent apparatus, right?
Claim 1, lines 16-25 recites steps of “positioning and ordering seed potatoes to be screened, and performing a mass screening to screen out special-shaped seed potatoes and elongated seed potatoes”; “symmetrically cutting each seed potato along a symmetry plane…”; “respectively, collecting a number and position information……determining a number of cutting pieces…”; “cutting the seed…”; and mixing tubers…”. Since claim 1, line 2 recites “using an intelligent seed production apparatus”, the steps above seem not connecting to the intelligent seed production apparatus. Therefore, it is clear whether these steps are performed by the intelligent seed production apparatus or inherent external devices or a manual performance by a user.
Claim 2 , line 5 “a mass screening” is unclear whether performing the “mass screening” refers to the mass screening in claim 1 or an additional mass screening.
Claim 2, the last 3 lines each of the seed potatoes having “a mass less than a minimum mass, having a mass greater than a maximum mass, having a shape not meeting a requirement, and/or having a mass between the minimum mass and the maximum mass, from different openings” that is confusing what it is actually being claimed. How is a mass having three different masses? What is a minimum mass? What is a maximum mass. How is a mass less than the minimum max, greater than the maximum mass, and between the minimum and maximum masses? Clarification is required.
Claim 4 , line 5 “a mass screening” is unclear whether performing the “mass screening” refers to the mass screening in claim 1 or an additional mass screening. Claims 6, 8 have the same issue.
Claim 7 recites “a cutter module” that is unclear whether it refers to the cutter assembly in claim 6 or an additional cutter module. How many cutters are in this production apparatus (since the cutter assembly of claim 6 is not shown in drawing)?
The scope of claim 2 is unclear. As the claim is written, there is no controller or sensor/detector or a weight or scale device of some sorts involved; therefore, what is a processing structure performing and knowing or identifying “each [of seed potatoes] has a mass less than a minimum mass …a shape not meeting a requirement, and or a mass between the minimum mass and the maximum mass, from different openings”.
The scope of claim 3 is unclear. What is the device configured to be for “screening the seed potatoes with different mass”? It is well understood that the sort openings can be used to screen different sizes of the seed potatoes, but a weight or scale device of some sorts can be used to screen different mass of the seed potatoes, not the sort openings.
Claim 4, lines 5-9 “…performing a mass screening…receiving …the mass and shapes meeting requirements…” is unclear what the device configured to be performing a mass screening? It is well understood that the sort openings can be used to screen different sizes of the seed potatoes, but a weight or scale device of some sorts can be used to screen different mass of the seed potatoes, not the sort openings. See all issue discussions above. Claims 6 and 8 have the same issue.
All claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
Examiner’s notice
With regards to claims 1-9 , there are many issues of 112a, b rejections and drawing objections that make the scope of claims 1-9 render indefinite and are unclear what it is being claimed. Moreover, Examiner does not know how the issue will be overcome. Therefore, there is no art rejection for claims 1-9 at this time because it is not clear how the issues will be overcome and these claims cannot be considered to be “allowable” at this time due to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/1st paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/ 2nd paragraph set forth in this Office action. Therefore, upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action, further consideration of these claims with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
Here is a closest art, Liu (CN 109089467A and Translation), who teaches a seed production method (Figures 1-2), the method comprising steps of:
using an “intelligent” seed production apparatus (Figure 1) based on multistage screening and bud eye identification (abstract “a seed potato processor integrating accurate screening, intelligent identification, dicing and mixing”, with regards to “multistage screen”, see the abstract “different sizes into different grades”), the apparatus comprising:
A control system (The OpenMV bud recognition device 5 Built-in OpenMV photo Head and microcontroller, is responsible for collecting information of the position and the number of buds seed surface 5);
a feeding module (Figure 5 and the 2nd last paragraph of page 7 “as shown in FIG. 5, the graded feed system includes a roller feed sorting device”), which feeds and screens out seed potatoes with requirements of mass and shapes through a multistage screening and limiting mechanism (the roller type grading device);
a pre-cutting module (30, 40), which receives the seed potatoes discharged from the feeding module, and cut each seed potato into two halves along a symmetry plane where a major axis of the seed potato is positioned (the middle paragraph of the last page “As shown in FIG. 10, … the second cutter 40 realizes the horizontal reciprocating pumping movement by means of the rotary cutter bar 32, which facilitates the disinfection of the cutter, and the seed potato is cut into two equal petals”
a bud eye identifying and cutting module (the last two paragraphs, “the OpenMV bud-eye recognition device 5 uses the OpenMV camera … The automatic knife dicing device 4…the first cutter 23 to perform dicing), which receives seed potato pieces discharged from the pre-cutting module; and,
a material mixing module (37), which receives the tubers and complete mixing of the tubers with a mixing material (line 9 of the 2nd page “anti-corrosion treatment”).
However, Liu’s apparatus silently discusses to determine a weight of each seed potato piece and identify bud eye distribution on a surface of the seed potato piece, and cuts the seed potato piece into a plurality of tubers as required, so that bud eyes are distributed on different tubers uniformly, however, as the claim is written, it is unclear what or who is performance this intended used these functions (see the discussions in 112b above), therefore, if these functions can be done by manually or automatically, verification is required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See arts in the 892 for screening, cutting, and mixing or treating for disinfection and antiseptic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 12/17/2025