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 .
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. Fig. 3 shows the first deflector (215-b), the second deflector (275), the fourth deflector (215-a); fig. 5 shows the third deflector (515). Therefore, the fifth deflector positioned above the third deflector, as required by claim 5, 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.
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 10 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.
Claim 10 recites a fifth deflector positioned above the third deflector. Fig. 3 shows the first deflector (215-b), the second deflector (275), the fourth deflector (215-a); fig. 5 shows the third deflector (515). However, none of the figures appear to show a fifth deflector positioned above the third deflector 515. Appropriate clarification is required.
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, 3, 8-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 20190327896 A1) in view of Cote (US 5191758 A) and Segura (WO 2004068933 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 13, and 16, Hill discloses a system, comprising:
a shaker, comprising:
a shaker head (220) configured to engage a trunk of a tree to shake the tree;
a first deflector (215) configured to direct fruits or nuts falling from the tree in response to a shaking of the tree, the first deflector being slanted with respect to ground, and the first deflector having a notch (240) to receive the tree; and
a receiver, comprising:
a hopper (605); and
a conveyor (520) configured to receive the fruits or nuts directed from the first deflector and the second deflector and deposit the fruits or nuts into the hopper, wherein the hopper is at an end of the conveyor, wherein the hopper is configured to deposit the fruits or nuts on the ground.
Hill does not disclose a second deflector within the notch and at least partially covering the shaker head, the second deflector approximately parallel to the ground.
In the same field of endeavor, Cote discloses deflectors (113, 114, 115) surrounding a tree trunk, above a shaker head, to ensure no harvested nuts drop out of the foldable collection canopy (col. 5 lines 8-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Hill with a second deflector within the notch and above the shaker head, as disclosed by Cote, to ensure no harvested crop reaches the shaker head and all harvested crop is deposited from the deflectors and onto the conveyor belt as intended.
Hill does not disclose a blower configured to blow air to direct the fruits or nuts falling from the tree off of the second deflector in response to the shaking of the tree, wherein the blower is configured to blow air toward the conveyor.
In the same field of endeavor, Segura discloses a blower (see air streams 28, fig. 35-36, 38) configured to blow fruit that has fallen from a tree (1) off of a deflector (5) toward a conveyor (13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Hill with a blower, as disclosed by Segura, to ensure all fruit collected on the deflectors is transferred to the conveyor.
Regarding claim 3, the resultant combination discloses the system of claim 1,
The combination does not disclose wherein the hopper is configured to: control a rate of deposition of the fruits or nuts on the ground.
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 resultant combination with an adjustable conveyance rate, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 8 and 14, the resultant combination discloses the system of claim 1.
The combination does not disclose wherein a top of the shaker head is less than or equal to 25 inches from the ground when coupled with the tree.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the height of the top of the shaker head, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9, 15, and 20, Hill, of the resultant combination, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the receiver comprises a third deflector (515) configured to direct the fruits or nuts falling from the tree in response to the shaking of the tree, the third deflector being slanted with respect to the ground, wherein the conveyor is further configured to receive the fruits or nuts directed from the third deflector (see fig. 8).
Regarding claim 10, Hill, of the resultant combination, discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the shaker comprises a fourth deflector (215, see fig.3, 7a-b) positioned above the first deflector and configured to direct the fruits or nuts falling from the tree onto the first deflector in response to the shaking of the tree, and wherein the receiver comprises a fifth deflector (fig. 8) positioned above the third deflector and configured to direct the fruits or nuts falling from the tree onto the third deflector in response to the shaking of the tree.
Regarding claim 11, Hill, of the resultant combination, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the shaker comprises a first plurality of wheels (225) and is configured to travel in a first direction and in a second direction opposite the first direction, and wherein the receiver comprises a second plurality of wheels (530) and is configured to travel in the first direction and in the second direction opposite the first direction independently of the shaker (paragraphs 0043-44).
Regarding claim 12, Hill, of the resultant combination, discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the shaker (220) and the receiver (520) are configured to collect the fruits or nuts that fall from the tree shaken by the shaker.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 20190327896 A1) in view of Cote (US 5191758 A) and Segura (WO 2004068933 A1), and further in view of Gohl (US 20200352210 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the resultant combination discloses the system of claim 1.
The combination does not disclose a second blower configured to blow air to remove debris from the fruits or nuts during deposition of the fruits or nuts from the conveyor into the hopper.
In the same field of endeavor, Gohl discloses a blower (255) configured to blow air to remove debris from fruits or nuts during deposition of the fruits or nuts from a conveyor into a hopper (paragraph 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the resultant combination with a second blower, as disclosed by Gohl, to remove unwanted leaves from the harvested crop.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3477215 A discloses deflectors disposed above a shaker head.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE RUNCO whose telephone number is (469)295-9123. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 5712728971. 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.
/MADELINE I RUNCO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights