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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 38 line 3 “platorms” should be –platforms--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 23 is 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 23 lines 2-3 recite “wherein the non-rigid elements comprise flexible, pliable or articulated elements including cables and chains”. However, Applicant’s invention does not appear to use a combination of cables and chains, but rather, uses cables or chains alternatively as the non-rigid suspension element (see Applicant’s specification page 17 line 11-12). Thus, claim 23 appears to lack support in the specification as filed. The Examiner has therefore interpreted this portion of the claim as reading –wherein the non-rigid elements comprise flexible, pliable or articulated elements including cables or chains--.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 22, 24, 32, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashton (US 3593719 A) in view of Downing (US 1405766 A), Mayerle (US 20180070534 A1), and Oni (DE 2447078 A).
It is noted that all citations to Oni (DE 2447078 A) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding independent claim 22, Ashton discloses a chaff feed stream conditioning system (10, Fig. 2) for installation in a combine (Fig. 1, “combine harvester”) having:
(a) a crop residue handling system, where the crop residue handling system operates to separate crop residue into a straw feed stream and a chaff feed stream which may include weed seeds (col. 2 lines 18-21 separation into straw and chaff streams); and
(b) a straw spreader or chopper (straw spreader 86), where the straw feed stream is directed to flow towards the straw spreader or chopper and the chaff feed stream blown out of the rear of the machine (col. 4 lines 1-2);
the feed stream conditioning system comprising:
one or more platforms (60,76) extending between the straw feed stream and the chaff feed stream (straw feed stream flows above conveyor 60 + straw walker 76, chaff feed stream flows below 60,76 into shaker shoe 114) from an upstream end of the straw feed stream to a downstream end of the straw feed stream (Figs. 1-2), the one or more platforms configured to impede material from the straw feed stream from entering the chaff feed stream or otherwise reaching a downstream end of the chaff feed stream (conveyor 60 and straw walker 76 impede straw from falling through, col. 3, lines 31-33 and 40-45), wherein the one or more platforms are able to move to induce movement of the straw landing thereon towards the straw spreader or chopper (col. 2 lines 56-58 and col. 3 lines 11-15).
Ashton further teaches wherein the platform (76) is oscillated via rotatable crank shafts (78), but fails to disclose wherein it is supported by non-rigid elements. However, such a structure is extremely old and well-known in the art of separating systems.
Downing discloses a similar platform (18) for a crop residue handling system, wherein the platform is oscillated by rotatable shaft (20) and supported by non-rigid elements (hangers 19) to move straw toward the rear of the machine (page 1 lines 70-81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate similar hangers for supporting the platforms of Ashton, as taught by Downing, as a mere simple substitution of one oscillating and support means for another to yield predictable results.
Ashton teaches the chaff feed stream being directed toward the rear of the machine but does not explicitly detail toward a mechanical devitalisation system at the rear of the machine, wherein a baffle is movable between a first position for directing the chaff feed stream into the mechanical devitalisation system and the straw feed stream into the straw spreader or chopper, and a second position for directing the chaff feed stream to bypass the mechanical devitalisation system and flow into the straw spreader or chopper, the platforms extending to, or beyond an upstream end of the baffle when the baffle is in the first position.
In a similar field of endeavor, Mayerle discloses a combine comprising a baffle (356) movable between: a first position (Fig. 14) in which the baffle directs the chaff feed stream into a mechanical devitalisation system (35), and the straw feed stream into a straw chopper and spreader assembly (9, 16A) (para. [0167]), and a second position (Fig. 15) in which the baffle directs the chaff feed stream to bypass the mechanical devitalisation system and flow into the straw chopper and spreader assembly (para. [0168]), wherein an upstream end of the baffle contacts a downstream end (361) of a straw channel when the baffle is in the first position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar mechanical devitalisation system, straw chopper and spreader assembly, and movable baffle in the conditioning system of Ashton, as taught by Mayerle, in order to allow the user to selectively set the chaff discharge and prevent weed seed germination as desired (Mayerle at para. [0014, 0232]).
Ashton fails to disclose one or more magnets located upstream of the crop residue handling system to capture at least some metallic matter entrained in the crop residue and thereby reduce an amount of metallic matter in at least the chaff feed stream or otherwise reaching a downstream end of the chaff feed stream.
In the same field of agricultural harvesting, Oni discloses that it is advantageous to include a permanent magnet separator (6, Fig. 1) at the intake of a pick-up drum (1) of a harvester such that ferromagnetic foreign bodies (7) contained in the crop stream are attracted and held by the permanent magnet separator as they pass through it (para. [0012-0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a magnet in the header of Ashton, as taught by Oni, to attract metallic foreign bodies upstream of the crop residue handling system and therefore prevent significant damage to the harvesting machine due to metal parts being ingested with the harvested crop (Oni at para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 24, The combination of Ashton discloses the chaff feed stream conditioning system according to claim 22. Ashton further teaches wherein the one or more platforms (60,76) comprises two platforms instead of a single platform.
However, such a configuration is old and well-known as disclosed by Downing wherein a single platform (18) is utilized for moving straw toward the rear of the machine (page 1 lines 70-81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the platforms of Ashton with a single platform, as taught by Downing, as a mere simple substitution of one known arrangement for conveying straw toward the rear for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 32, The combination of Ashton discloses the chaff feed stream conditioning system according to claim 22. Ashton further teaches wherein the one or more platforms (60,76) are formed with holes (Fig. 2, col. 2 lines 58-60 and col. 3 lines 9-10) through which air can flow (note “can” flow is not “configured to” flow, thus air is capable of flowing through holes in platforms 60,76).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Ashton discloses the combine having the crop residue handling system and chaff feed conditioning system according to claim 22. Ashton further discloses a sieve (124) located below the one or more platforms (60,76) along which the chaff feed stream flows (Ashton col. 2 line 73-col. 3 line 2). Note all other limitations in claim 37 have been analyzed in view of claim 22, and it has been determined that claim 37 does not define any other limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 22; therefore, the remainder of claim 37 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 22.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ashton as applied to claims 22 above, and further in view of Snyder (US 0005630 A).
Regarding claim 23, The combination of Ashton discloses the chaff feed stream conditioning system according to claim 22, wherein the non-rigid elements comprise flexible, pliable or articulated elements to enable movement of the one or more platforms to induce movement of the straw landing thereon towards the chopper (Downing at page 1 lines 70-81 hangers 19 are articulated elements configured to enable oscillation of platform 18 to move straw toward the rear).
Downing does not explicitly detail wherein the hangers including cables or chains, however, such a provision is old and well-known.
Snyder discloses a machine for separating straw and chaff from grain (Figs. 1-2, page 1 lines 5-7, 25-30), wherein the machine comprises a horizontal separating conveyor (B) suspended by oscillating straps or chains (a) and driven to oscillate back and forth via rotatable shaft (b) in order to move straw rearward toward a discharge end (page 2 lines 126 – page 3 line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use straps or chains for the oscillating hangers of the combination, as taught by Snyder, as a mere simple substitution of one known hanger for facilitating oscillation of a separating platform for another to yield predictable results.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ashton as applied to claims 22 above, and further in view of Huber et al. (US 0286930 A).
Regarding claim 28, The combination of Ashton discloses the chaff feed stream conditioning system according to claim 22, wherein the one or more platforms (60,76) comprise two or more platforms (two platforms 60,76), but fails to disclose wherein the platforms are overlapping.
However, such an arrangement is old and well-known. Hubert discloses two overlapping straw carriers (C, D) supported by hangers (B) (Fig. 1, page 1 lines 31-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the platforms of Ashton to be overlapping, as taught by Huber, in order to provide a continuous passage for the dropping of material from one platform to the other (Hubert at page 1 lines 40-45).
Claims 31,35,38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ashton as applied to claims 22 and 37 above, and further in view of Maher et al. (US 4257215 A).
Regarding claims 31 and 35, The combination of Ashton discloses the chaff feed stream conditioning system according to claim 22, wherein the combine includes a sieve (Ashton discloses sieves 124) along which the chaff stream travels towards the mechanical devitalisation system, but does not explicitly wherein at least one of the one of more magnets is incorporated in or on or supported by the one or more platforms, as per claim 31, or wherein at least one of the magnets is located between the sieve and the mechanical devitalisation system, as per claim 35.
In the same field of chaff conditioning systems, Maher discloses a self-propelled chaff-production vehicle (Fig. 2) comprising a separation platform (34) and magnet (45) supported by the separation platform toward the rear to remove metallic debris such as pieces of wire from the chaff before it is discharged further rearward (C4,L7-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a magnet supported by the separation platforms and/or located between the sieve and the rear mechanical devitalisation system (i.e. upstream the chopping and devitalisation devices), as taught by Maher, to further remove metallic foreign matter from the chaff stream prior to discharge from the machine, thereby reducing the risk of accidental chopping up of metal pieces (Maher at col. 5 lines 17-19).
Regarding claims 38-39, The combination of Ashton discloses the combine according to claim 37, but does not explicitly detail wherein at least one of the one of more magnets is incorporated in or on or supported by the separation platform, as per claim 38, or wherein at least one of the one of more magnets is located between the sieve and the mechanical devitalisation system, as per claim 39.
In the same field of chaff conditioning systems, Maher discloses a self-propelled chaff-production vehicle (Fig. 2) comprising a separation platform (34) and magnet (45) supported by the separation platform toward the rear to remove metallic debris such as pieces of wire from the chaff before it is discharged further rearward (C4,L7-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a magnet supported by/in the separation platform or located between the sieve and the rear mechanical devitalisation system (i.e. upstream the chopping and devitalisation devices and prior to straw/chaff discharge from the machine) as taught by Maher to further remove metallic foreign matter from the chaff stream, thereby reducing the risk of accidental chopping up of metal pieces (Maher at col. 5 lines 17-19).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ashton as applied to claims 22 above, and further in view of Matthews (US 3757797 A).
Regarding claim 34, The combination of Ashton discloses the chaff feed stream conditioning system according to claim 22, but fails to disclose wherein a flexible web of material is coupled between the one or more platforms to prevent a flow of straw between adjacent platforms into the chaff feed stream.
In a similar field of endeavor, Matthews discloses a flexible web of material (col. 6 lines 56-58 teaches dam 33 formed of perforated sheet metal) coupled between platforms (30,70) (see Fig. 1 and 6, col. 7 lines 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a similar dam between the platforms of Ashton, as taught by Matthews, in order to serve as a barrier preventing straw from entering the chaff stream as well as an air flow equalizer to permit the separating action to take place (Matthew col. 1 lines 56-62).
Claims 36 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ashton as applied to claims 22 and 37 above, and further in view of Redekop et al. (US 20050245301 A1).
Regarding claims 36 and 40, The combination discloses the chaff feed stream conditioning system according to claim 22 and the combine according to claim 37, but fails to disclose an air vent through which air is vented to the outside of the combine harvester.
In the same field of combines, Redekop discloses rear air vents (115) and side air vents (116) for reducing the pressure differential between the internal body of the combine harvester and the exterior (Figs. 1-2, para. [0001]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a vent through which air is vented to the outside in the combine harvester of Ashton, as taught by Redekop, to allow excess air to escape the combine, thereby allowing air to flow through the sieve with the trajectory remaining substantially rearward (Redekop at para. [0016 and 0031]).
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 22-24, 28, 31-32, and 34-40, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Flagg (US 0367750 A) discloses a grains separator. Peterson (US 0912610 A) discloses a threshing machine. Zieber (US 1147911 A) discloses a straw and grain separator. Luedke (US 1290610 A) discloses a threshing machine. Bozarth (US 2500448 A) discloses a screen leveling device. Adamson et al. (US 7927199 B2) discloses a grain cleaning assembly supported by flexible hangers.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671