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 . Claims 1-22 are being treated on the merits.
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. Therefore, the claimed features: 1) the pair of feed rollers are arranged abutting one another with a line of contact therebetween" in claim 1, and 2) the cutting mechanism comprising both a guillotine cutter that is configured to move substantially vertically up and down at predetermined intervals and a cutting wheel having a plurality of protrusions and is configured to rotate in claim 15, 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 Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 3, 5, 13-14,18-20 and 22, "are" with multiple instances appears to read "being" as it is positioned after the transitional term "comprising";
In claim 1, line 10, "is" appears to read "being" as it is positioned after the transitional term "comprising";
In claim 5, line 2, "the range" appears to read "a range" as it is the first time the limitation is recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
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:
In claim 15, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for the cutting mechanism comprising both a guillotine cutter and a cutting wheel. It is noted that claim 15 depends from claim 14 and inherits the subject matter of claim 14.
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: "cutting mechanism" in claim 13.
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.
Specifically, the following interpretation has been made in the Office action according to the instant specification:
The "cutting mechanism" in claim 13 has been interpreted as either a guillotine cutter that has an angled straight blade or serrated blade and is configured to drop down substantially vertically from a starting position to cut the plant fiber sections and then lift back up to the starting position at predetermined intervals (para. 0044), or including a drive cutting wheel that has a plurality of bladed protrusions extending radially outward from and uniformly spaced along the circumference thereof and a driven polymeric-coated backing wheel (para. 0045).
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 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites the cutting mechanism comprising both a guillotine cutter that is configured to move substantially vertically up and down at predetermined intervals to cut the plant fiber sections and a cutting wheel having a plurality of protrusions configured to cut the plant fiber sections. However, the disclosure fails to provide any description how the guillotine cutter and the cutting wheel are arranged in the decorticator to perform the same cutting function. There is a lack of written description for this limitation.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being which renders the claim indefinite. for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pair of feed rollers are arranged abutting one another along a substantially horizontal axis with a line of contact therebetween", which renders the claim indefinite. As the pair of feed rollers abut each other with a line of contact therebetween, there is not space to pass the plant stalk therebetween. It is unclear how the decorticator is configured to allow the plant stalk to pass through the pair of feed rollers to the splitting wedge. The disclosure does not provide a standard for ascertaining the feature. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the splitting wedge is manually or automatically moved from the top splitting position to the bottom passive position after the splitting wedge has split the plant stalk and directed the plant fiber stalk halves to the first and second pair of peeling rollers", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has been set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the limitation appears to be positively a process of practicing the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the bottom driven peeling rollers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 depends from claim 1; however, bottom driven peeling rollers are first recited in claim 8. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that claim 9 depends from claim 8.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the rotation of the top drive peeling roller", which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 depends from claims 1 and 13-15; however, two top drive peeling rollers are first set forth in claim 8. In addition, it is unclear which top drive peeling roller is being referred to. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that claim 13 depends from claim 8, the limitation has been interpreted as a rotation of one of the top drive peeling rollers.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "wherein the rotation of the cutting wheel is coordinated with the rotation of the top drive peeling roller", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has been set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the limitation appears to be positively a process of practicing the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claims 17-18 recite the limitation "the rotational speed of the first and second top drive peeling rollers", which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 17-18 each depend from claim 1; however, two top drive peeling rollers are first set forth in claim 8. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that claim 17 depends from claim 8, the limitation has been interpreted as a rotational speed of the first and second top drive peeling rollers.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "wherein the rotational speed of the first and second top drive peeling rollers are coordinated mechanically or electromechanically", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has been set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the limitation appears to be positively a process of practicing the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "wherein the rotational speed of the pair of feed rollers is coordinated mechanically or electromechanically with the rotational speed of the first and second top drive peeling rollers such that a velocity of the plant stalk fed through the pair of feed roller is equal to a velocity of the plant fiber bark sections pulled through the first and second pairs of peeling rollers", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has been set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the limitation appears to be positively a process of practicing the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 19 soles recites "wherein the plant stalk is from a bast fiber plant" in the claim body, which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has been set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the limitation positively claims a material to be processed by the apparatus which is not a part of the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 20 soles recites "wherein the bast fiber plant is hemp" in the claim body, which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has been set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the limitation positively claims a material to be processed by the apparatus which is not a part of the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
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 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 1-10 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman (WO 2022/118265 A1) in view of Harrap (CA 2919565 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Coleman discloses a plant stalk decorticator (a decorticator; fig. 1; paras. 0068-0069) comprising:
a frame (outer casing 15 and inner frame 17; fig. 1; paras. 0071, 0079);
a pair of feed rollers (sizing wheels 2; fig. 1; para. 0071), the pair of feed rollers are arranged adjacent one another along a substantially horizontal axis (see annotated fig. 1; para. 0066) with a path therebetween, the pair of feed rollers are configured to receive a plant stalk in the path and at least partially flatten and feed the plant stalk below the pair of feed rollers (as gripping and squeezing the stalks to a consistent predetermined diameter; fig. 1; para. 0071) in a substantially vertical orientation (fig. 1; para. 0066);
a splitting wedge (cutting head 4; fig. 1; para. 0071) attached to the frame (fig. 1; para. 0079) and positioned at least partially below the pair of feed rollers (fig. 1; para. 0079) and aligned along a substantially vertical axis (see annotated fig. 1; para. 0079) that is substantially centrally located in the path between the pair of feed rollers (fig. 1; para. 0079), the splitting wedge is configured to split the plant stalk fed from the pair of feed rollers into two plant fiber stalk halves (fig. 1; para. 0072);
a first pair of peeling rollers (rollers 6a, 10a for guiding and peeling an outer bark layer; fig. 1; paras. 0072, 0073) at least partially attached to the frame (roller 10a attached to inner frame 17; fig. 1; para. 0079), the first pair of peeling rollers are arranged adjacent one another substantially parallel to the substantially vertical axis (fig. 1; para. 0066) and are positioned below the pair of feed rollers (fig. 1; para. 0066) and laterally from a first side of the substantially vertical axis (fig. 1); and
a second pair of peeling rollers (rollers 6b, 10b for guiding and peeling an outer bark layer; fig. 1; paras. 0072, 0073) at least partially attached to the frame (roller 10b attached to inner frame 17; fig. 1; para. 0079; fig. 1; para. 0079), the second pair of peeling rollers are arranged adjacent one another substantially parallel to the substantially vertical axis (fig. 1; para. 0066) and are positioned below the pair of feed rollers (fig. 1; para. 0066) and laterally from a second side of the substantially vertical axis (fig. 1) such that the first pair of peeling rollers and the second pair of peeling rollers are substantially symmetrical about the substantially vertical axis (fig. 1);
each of the first and second pairs of peeling rollers are configured to receive a respective one of the plant fiber stalk halves from the splitting wedge and separate the plant fiber stalk half from the respective other one of the plant fiber stalk halves thereby forming plant fiber bark sections (fig. 1; paras. 0072-0074).
PNG
media_image1.png
674
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 from WO 2022/118265 A1
Coleman does not explicitly disclose wherein the pair of feed rollers and the peeling rollers 6a, 6b are attached to the frame. However, one of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that the rollers of the decorticator inside the outer casing are generally attached to either the outer casing or the inner frame either directly or indirectly. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the plant stalk decorticator as disclosed by Coleman, with wherein all the rollers, including the pair of feed rollers and the peeling rollers 6a, 6b, are attached to the frame, in order to provide a compact stand-alone decorticator with all the internal structures being supported by the decorticator itself. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art. By this configuration, the feed rollers and all the peeling rollers would be attached to the frame.
Coleman does not explicitly disclose wherein the pair of feed rollers are arranged abutting one another, the path therebetween is a line of contact therebetween, and the pair of feed rollers are configured to receive a plant stalk in the line of contact. However, Coleman does disclose the pair of feed rollers are configured to squeeze the plant stalk to a consistent predetermined diameter (para. 0071). Further, Harrap, in an analogous art, teaches a plant stalk decorticator (fig. 1; para. 0043) comprising a pair of feed rollers (rollers 2; fig. 1; para. 0058), the pair of feed rollers appear to be arranged abutting one another with a line of contact therebetween (see fig. 1; para. 0058). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the plant stalk decorticator as disclosed by Coleman, with wherein the pair of feed rollers are arranged abutting one another, and the path therebetween is a line of contact therebetween as taught by Harrap, in order to provide the pair of feed rollers being capable of generating sufficient squeezing force to effectively flatten the plant stalk (Harrap; para. 0058). By this modification, the pair of feed rollers would be configured to receive a plant stalk in the line of contact.
Regarding claim 2, Coleman and Harrap, in combination, disclose the plant stalk decorticator of claim 1, and Coleman further discloses wherein the splitting wedge (cutting head 4; fig. 1) comprises:
a bottom portion (see annotated fig. 1); and
a top portion (see annotated fig. 1) having opposing tapered sides (see annotated fig. 1) that form a triangular cross section (see annotated fig. 1), the top portion is configured to split the plant stalk into the two plant fiber bark sections (see annotated fig. 1).
Coleman does not explicitly disclose wherein the bottom portion having a rectangular cross section. However, Applicant does not set forth any criticality for the shape of the bottom portion. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the bottom portion of the splitting edge of Coleman having a rectangular cross section, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results, therefore is not considered to be a patentably distinct limitation. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, B.
Regarding claim 3, Coleman and Harrap, in combination, disclose the plant stalk decorticator of claim 2. Coleman does not explicitly disclose wherein the splitting wedge is moveable between a top splitting position and a bottom passive position. However, Coleman does disclose that a process control program can control and adjust a height of the splitting wedge by generating and delivering real-time instructions upon sensor measurements (paras. 0039-0041, 0084, 0101), which indicates that the splitting wedge is moveable between a top splitting position and a bottom passive position (see fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the plant stalk decorticator as disclosed by Coleman, with wherein the splitting wedge is moveable between a top splitting position and a bottom passive position, in order to optimize the splitting operation and allow the rate of material flow through the decorticator device to be controlled, and delivery of the exact product cut and size desired (Coleman; paras. 0039-0041, 0084).
Regarding claim 4, Coleman and Harrap, in combination, disclose the plant stalk decorticator of claim 3. As the splitting wedge would be moveable between a top splitting position and a bottom passive position when in use, the splitting wedge is capable of being moved either manually or automatically from the top splitting position to the bottom passive position after the splitting wedge has split the plant stalk and directed the plant fiber stalk halves to the first and second pair of peeling rollers.
Regarding claim 5, Coleman and Harrap, in combination, disclose the general conditions of the plant stalk decorticator of claim 3, except for wherein when the splitting wedge is in the top splitting position, a top point of the splitting wedge is within the range of about 3.2mm below a substantially horizontal plane defined by a bottom of the pair of feed rollers to about 3.2mm above the substantially horizontal plane defined by the bottom of the pair of feed rollers. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the splitting wedge to be movable in the claimed range, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range, and can be discovered by routine experimentation depending on the desired characteristics of a final product. 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. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Coleman and Harrap, in combination, disclose the general conditions of the plant stalk decorticator of claim 5, except for wherein when the splitting wedge is in the top splitting position, the top point of the splitting wedge is substantially aligned with the substantially horizontal plane defined by the bottom of the pair of feed rollers. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the top splitting potion of the splitting wedge as claimed, since 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 7, Coleman and Harrap, in combination, disclose the general conditions of the plant stalk decorticator of claim 5, except for wherein when the splitting wedge is in the top splitting position, the top point of the splitting wedge is about 3.2mm above the substantially horizontal plane defined by the bottom of the pair of feed rollers. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the top splitting potion of the splitting wedge as claimed, since 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 8, Coleman and Harrap, in combination, disclose the plant stalk decorticator of claim 1, and Coleman further discloses wherein each of the first and second pairs of peeling rollers comprises a top drive peeling roller (roller 6a or 6b configured to drive a half stalk; fig. 1; para. 0072) and a bottom driven peeling roller (roller 10a or 10b configured to be driven to rotate; fig. 1; para. 0074), the top drive peeling roller has a diameter that is smaller than a diameter of the bottom driven peeling roller (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Coleman and Harrap, in combination, disclose the plant stalk decorticator of claim 8, and Coleman further discloses wherein the first and second pairs of peeling rollers are positioned such that the plant fiber stalk halves are received on the bottom driven peeling rollers (for removing the hurd from the stalk halves; fig. 1; paras. 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 10, Coleman and Harrap, in combination, disclose the plant stalk decorticator of claim 1, and Coleman further discloses the plant stalk decorticator further comprising a plant stalk loader (a funneled chute 1; fig. 1; para. 0070) attached to a top of the frame (fig. 1; para. 0070), the plant stalk loader is configured to load at least one plant stalk into the line of contact between the pair of feed rollers (fig. 1; para. 0070).
Regarding claim 17, Coleman and Harrap, in combination, disclose the plant stalk decorticator of claim 1, and Coleman further discloses wherein the rotational speed of the first and second top drive peeling rollers (roller 6a or 6b; fig. 1) are coordinated mechanically or electromechanically (can be adjusted by the process control program mechanically or electromechanically; paras. 0086, 0101).
Regarding claim 18, Coleman and Harrap, in combination, disclose the plant stalk decorticator of claim 17. Coleman does not explicitly disclose wherein the rotational speed of the pair of feed rollers is coordinated mechanically or electromechanically with the rotational speed of the first and second top drive peeling rollers such that a velocity of the plant stalk fed through the pair of feed roller is equal to a velocity of the plant fiber bark sections pulled through the first and second pairs of peeling rollers. However, the above limitation is a process limitation as to speed and velocity, and does not provide any further structural feature to the plant stalk decorticator. The plant stalk decorticator of Coleman includes speed sensors and the process control program (paras. 0101), and is capable of performing the above function when in use.
Regarding claim 19, Coleman and Harrap, in combination, disclose the plant stalk decorticator of claim 1, wherein the plant stalk is from a bast fiber plant (paras. 0004, 0067).
Regarding claim 20, Coleman and Harrap, in combination, disclose the plant stalk decorticator of claim 19, and further discloses wherein the bast fiber plant is hemp (paras. 0004, 0067).
Regarding claim 21, Coleman and Harrap, in combination, disclose the plant stalk decorticator of claim 1, except for wherein each of the pair of feed rollers and the first and second pairs of peeling rollers comprises a metal roller coated with a layer of rubber. However, Applicant does not set forth any criticality for the material of the rollers (see para. 0046 of the instant specification). In addition, one of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that it has been a common practice to use metal rollers with or without rubber coatings in plant decortication apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the material for the rollers as disclosed by Coleman, with wherein each of the pair of feed rollers and the first and second pairs of peeling rollers comprises a metal roller coated with a layer of rubber, in order to use a common high-strength and wear-resistant material for the rollers in plant decortication apparatus. Such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 22, Coleman and Harrap, in combination, disclose the plant stalk decorticator of claim 1, Coleman does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the pair of feed rollers and the first and second pairs of peeling rollers comprises a solid metal roller. However, one of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that it has been a common practice to use solid metal rollers in plant decortication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the material for the rollers as disclosed by Coleman, with wherein each of the pair of feed rollers and the first and second pairs of peeling rollers comprises a solid metal roller, in order to use a common high-strength and wear-resistant material for the rollers in plant decortication apparatus. Such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Status of Claims
Claims 11-16 are currently free of prior art rejections. As to claims 11-12, none of the prior art of record alone or in combination discloses, teaches or reasonably suggests wherein the plant stalk loader comprises a plurality of compartments formed into a matrix having a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns, and a support shelf positioned below the plurality of compartments as required by claim 11. As to claims 13-16, none of the prior art of record alone or in combination discloses, teaches or reasonably suggests the cutting mechanism as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in the Claim Interpretation section.
However, the claims should not be construed as reciting allowable subject matter. It is noted that all the pending claims are subjected to 35 USC 112(b) rejections as discussed above; and substantive amendments to the claims may result in prior-art-based rejections in a future Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional relevant references cited on attached PTO-892 form(s) can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary. Mierisch (WO 00/20667) also discloses a plant stalk decorticator comprising a pair of feed rollers arranged along a substantially horizontal axis, and a splitting wedge positioned at least partially below the pair of feed rollers and aligned along a substantially vertical axis that is substantially centrally located between the pair of feed rollers, the splitting wedge is configured to split the plant stalk fed from the pair of feed rollers into two plant fiber stalk halves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 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, KHOA HUYNH can be reached on (571)272-4888. 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.
/AIYING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732