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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2026 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
The Applicant argued that “Williams discloses that "a bale of hay 62...is picked up by the bale lifter 56 and rolled... onto the bed 14," and that "the bed 14 can be pivoted between a lowest position in which the third flat section 26 is substantially horizontal to a highest position in which the first flat section 22 is substantially horizontal." (Williams, p. 7.) Thus, Williams's system requires a bale to first bed placed onto bale lifter 56 and then bale lifter 56 transfers the bale to bed 14. However, bed 14 alone does not have a mechanism to pick up or load a bale. Conversely, Spitaler discloses a system designed specifically to avoid the need for such separate loading devices. Spitaler explains that in the prior art, "the pressed bales are picked up using a separate loading device with holding tools." (Spitaler, [0002].) To avoid this, Spitaler discloses that a bale is "pushed onto the forks 18, which are placed in a horizontal loading position and are attached to a beam 17 of the receiving device 2, and is standing on a pallet 27." (Spitaler, [0031].) Spitaler explains that control of this beam 17 "is advantageously carried out mechanically with control tracks" that help to pivot "the pressed bale [with pallet 27] for the advancement of the pressed bale." (Spitaler, [0021]-[0023].) Spitaler further discloses that "the use of a pressed bale standing on a pallet [e.g., pallet 27] is particularly simplified for processing." (Spitaler, [0007].) Spitaler 's disclosures thereby indicate that the mechanisms of picking up the bale (e.g., with forks 18) and rotating/moving the bale through the feeder (e.g., with pallet 27) are part of the same overall component. (Spitaler, [0031].) The forks 18 and thus pallet 27 are therefore designed to pick up the bale "in a horizontal loading position" outside the feeder housing and then rotate the bale into the housing and up towards the shredder. (Spitaler, [0031].) Because Spitaler's system only uses one component to pick up and rotate the bale, it would not have been obvious nor would a POSA have been motivated to combine the references because bed 14 (or support 12) in Williams cannot accomplish both tasks. Williams's bed 14 only rotates the bale of material, thus the combination would require the addition of another component to pick up the bale. Adding an additional component would directly contradict Spitaler's express goal of simplifying bale handling by eliminating the need for multiple components and steps. Incorporating the Williams's structure would defeat the advantage Spitaler identifies and change the principle of operation of Spitaler. For these reasons, a POSA would have had no motivation to combine Spitaler and Williams in the manner proposed by the Examiner, and the Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection under § 103 be withdrawn”.
In response to this argument, the Examiner use only the teaching of Williams of “the position of the movable platform apparatus to be within the housing”; the Examiner never use the elements “62, 14, 26, 22, 56” of Williams to be combined or to modify Spitaler; and the motivation statement of the last office action on 10/07/2025 pages 4-5 clearly recited “to modify the position of the movable platform apparatus of Spitaler to be within the housing as taught by Williams”.
Further, paragraph 0031 of Spitaler never recited “The forks 18 and thus pallet 27 are therefore designed to pick up the bale "in a horizontal loading position “outside the feeder housing and then rotate the bale into the housing and up towards the shredder”;
Therefore, the modification of Spitaler by the teaching of Williams “the position of the movable platform apparatus to be within the housing” would not require another component to pick up the bale because the pick up of Spitaler still function as a pick-up mechanism.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitaler (EP1914344A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Williams (WO1994003043A1).
Regarding claim 1, Spitaler discloses a bale feeder assembly (paragraphs 0001, 0007 and 0031-0046) comprising:
a housing having side walls (figs.1-2: the housing formed by walls (29));
a feed assembly (figs.1-2: (3)) disposed between the side walls of the housing, the feed assembly a support surface sized to receive a bale of material (the surface of the element (3)), a proximal end (fig.1: the end at the element (2)) and a distal end (fig.1: the end at the element (10)), structured to move a bale of material (figs.1-4: (4)); wherein the feed assembly is structured to move the bale of material,
a movable platform (fig.1: (27)) disposed between the side walls of the housing (figs.2-3), the movable platform connected to the proximal end of the feed assembly to move the bale along the housing, and
wherein the movable platform (fig.1: (27)) is rotatable between a generally horizontal position (fig.1) and a generally perpendicular position (fig.2) relative to the housing; and
a shredder (fig.1: (1)) disposed adjacent the distal end of the feed assembly to shred the bale,
the feed assembly (figs.1-2: (3)) being disposed at an angle such that the proximal end (fig.1: the end at the element (2)) is in a plane spaced below a plane the distal end (fig.1: the end at the element (10)) is disposed in, and the feed assembly (figs.1-2: (3)) with the movable platform (fig.1: (27)) are arranged to move the bale of material or a portion of the bale of material towards the shredder for shredding (figs.1-4).
Spitaler does not disclose within the housing;
Williams teaches a shredder (fig.1: (4)) to shred a bale (abstract, claim 1 and pages 6-7); comprising:
a housing having side walls (fig.1 the housing of the element (55));
a movable platform (fig.1: (12)) is rotatable between a generally horizontal position and a generally perpendicular position within the housing to move the bale toward the shredder to shred the bale (fig.1).
Both of the prior arts of Spitaler and Williams are related to a shredder to shred a bale;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the position of the movable platform apparatus of Spitaler to be within the housing as taught by Williams in order to decrease the space that required to operate the bale feeder assembly; thereby having the movable platform is rotatable between a generally horizontal position and a generally perpendicular position within the housing.
Regarding claim 2, Spitaler discloses further comprising a pair of rail members (fig.1: (22)), wherein each one of rail members of the pair of rail members is connected to a respective one of the side walls, and each one of the rail members receive a respective roller (fig.1: (21)) associated with the movable
Therefore, the modification of Spitaler in view of Williams teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Spitaler discloses wherein the feed assembly comprises a drive chain (fig.1: (13) and (14)) disposed below at least one of the rail members (fig.1: (22)),
wherein the drive chain is structured to pull the movable platform towards the shredder (paragraphs 0033-0034).
Therefore, the modification of Spitaler in view of Williams teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Spitaler discloses wherein the movable platform (fig.1: (27)) is attached to the drive chain (fig.1: (13) and (14)), the drive chain structured to pull the movable platform from the generally horizontal position (fig.1) to the generally perpendicular position relative to the housing (fig.2).
Therefore, the modification of Spitaler in view of Williams teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Spitaler discloses wherein the shredder comprises a spinning blade (fig.1: (6)).
Therefore, the modification of Spitaler in view of Williams teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Spitaler discloses wherein the shredder comprises a plurality of spinning blades (fig.1: (6)).
Therefore, the modification of Spitaler in view of Williams teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Spitaler discloses wherein the movable platform (fig.1: (27)), when in the generally perpendicular position relative to the housing (fig.2), moves along with the feed assembly (figs.1-2: (3)) to move the bale of material or the portion of the bale of material towards the shredder (figs.1-2: (1)) to generate a consistent feed rate of the bale of material to the shredder (figs.1-4).
Therefore, the modification of Spitaler in view of Williams teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Spitaler discloses a bale feeder assembly (paragraphs 0001, 0007 and 0031-0046) comprising:
a housing having side walls (figs.1-2: the housing formed by walls (29));
a feed assembly (figs.1-2: (3)) disposed between the side walls of the housing, the feed assembly having a support surface sized to receive a bale of material, a proximal end (fig.1: the end at the element (2)) and a distal end (fig.1: the end at the element (10)), and wherein the feed assembly is structured to move the bale of material (figs.1-4: (4));
a movable platform (fig.1: (27)) disposed between the side walls of the housing (figs.2-3), connected to the feed assembly, the platform structured to move the bale along the housing between the sidewalls, and
wherein the movable platform (fig.1: (18)) is pivotable between a first position (fig.1) and
a second position (fig.2) relative to the housing,
wherein the first position (fig.1) provides an angle between the movable platform (fig.1: (27)) and the feed assembly (fig.1: (3)) that is greater than when in the second position (fig.2); and
a shredder (fig.1: (1)) disposed adjacent the distal end (fig.1: the end at the element (10)) of the feed assembly to shred the bale, the feed assembly (figs.1-2: (3)) disposed at an angle such that the proximal end (fig.1: the end at the element (2)) is in a plane spaced below a plane the distal end distal end (fig.1: the end at the element (10)) is disposed in and the feed assembly (figs.1-2: (3)) with the movable platform (fig.1: (27)) are arranged to move at least a portion of the bale of material towards the shredder for shredding (figs.1-4).
Spitaler does not disclose within the housing;
Williams teaches a shredder (fig.1: (4)) to shred a bale (abstract, claim 1 and pages 6-7); comprising:
a housing having side walls (fig.1 the housing of the element (55));
a movable platform (fig.1: (12)) is rotatable between a first position and a second position within the housing to move the bale toward the shredder to shred the bale (fig.1).
Both of the prior arts of Spitaler and Williams are related to a shredder to shred a bale;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the position of the movable platform apparatus of Spitaler to be within the housing as taught by Williams in order to decrease the space that required to operate the bale feeder assembly; thereby having the movable platform is pivotable between a first position and a second position within the housing.
Regarding claims 8, 11 and 20, Spitaler in view of Williams does not disclose wherein the platform has a width between 75 to 225 cm and a length between 75 to 225 cm.
However, choosing the dimensions of the parts are known in art and a matter routine design engineering design choice that depends on the general design and the required dimensions of the parts as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the dimensions of platform as desired, including wherein the platform has a width between 75 to 225 cm and a length between 75 to 225 cm; in order to obtain a platform with specific dimensions as desired.
Regarding claim 12, Spitaler discloses further comprising a pair of rail members (fig.1: (22)), wherein each one of the rail members of the pair of rail members is connected to a respective one of the side walls and each one of the rail members receives a respective roller (fig.1: (21)) associated with the movable platform.
Therefore, the modification of Spitaler in view of Williams teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Spitaler discloses wherein the feed assembly comprises a drive chain (fig.1: (13) and (14)) disposed below at least one of the rail members (fig.1: (22)),
wherein the drive chain is structured to pull the movable platform towards the shredder (paragraphs 0033-0034).
Therefore, the modification of Spitaler in view of Williams teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Spitaler discloses wherein the movable platform (fig.1: (27)) is attached to the drive chain (fig.1: (13) and (14)), the drive chain structured to pull the movable platform from the generally horizontal position (fig.1) to the generally perpendicular position relative to the housing (fig.2).
Therefore, the modification of Spitaler in view of Williams teaches the limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Spitaler discloses wherein the shredder comprises a plurality of spinning blades (fig.1: (6)).
Therefore, the modification of Spitaler in view of Williams teaches the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Spitaler discloses wherein the movable platform (fig.1: (27)), when in the generally perpendicular position relative to the housing (fig.2), moves along with the feed assembly (figs.1-2: (3)) to move the bale of material or the portion of the bale of material towards the shredder (figs.1-2: (1)) to generate a consistent feed rate of the bale of material to the shredder (figs.1-4).
Therefore, the modification of Spitaler in view of Williams teaches the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, Spitaler discloses a bale feeder assembly (paragraphs 0001, 0007 and 0031-0046) comprising:
a housing (figs.1-2: the housing formed by walls (27) and (29)) having an inlet end (fig.1: the end at the element (2)) and an outlet end (fig.1: the end at the element (10));
a platform (fig.1: (27)) disposed within the housing (figs.2-3), the platform being movable within the housing between the inlet end towards the outlet end (figs1-3), the platform sized to receive a bale of material (figs.1-4: (4));
a shredder (fig.1: (1)) disposed adjacent the outlet end (fig.1: the end at the element (10)) of the feed assembly to shred the bale; and a driving member (fig.1: (13), (14) and (21)) connected with the housing and the platform to drive the platform between the inlet and outlet ends of the housing (figs1-3).
Spitaler does not disclose within the inlet end of the housing;
Williams teaches a shredder (fig.1: (4)) to shred a bale (abstract, claim 1 and pages 6-7); comprising:
a housing having side walls (fig.1 the housing of the element (55));
a movable platform (fig.1: (12)) is rotatable between a first position and a second position within the housing to move the bale toward the shredder to shred the bale’
wherein the platform sized to receive a bale of material within an inlet end of the housing (fig.1).
Both of the prior arts of Spitaler and Williams are related to a shredder to shred a bale;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the position of the movable platform apparatus of Spitaler to be within the housing as taught by Williams in order to decrease the space that required to operate the bale feeder assembly; thereby having the platform sized to receive a bale of material within an inlet end of the housing.
Regarding claim 19, Spitaler discloses wherein the platform (fig.1: (27)) is pivotable between a first position (fig.1) and a second position (fig.2) relative to the housing,
wherein the first position (fig.1) provides an angle between the platform (fig.1: (27)) and the housing that is greater than when in the second position (fig.2); and
the housing disposed at an angle such that the inlet end (fig.1: the end at the element (2)) is in a plane spaced below a plane the outlet end (fig.1: the end at the element (10)) is disposed in, and the platform is arranged to move at least a portion of the bale of material towards the shredder for shredding (figs.1-4).
Therefore, the modification of Spitaler in view of Williams teaches the limitations of claim 19.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitaler (EP1914344A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Williams (WO1994003043A1) as applied to claim 1 above with respect to claim 9, and as applied to claim 10 above with respect to claim 17; and further in view of Wentz (US20140326817A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Spitaler in view of Williams does not disclose wherein the feed assembly comprises a plurality of spaced apart slats.
Wentz teaches a bale feeder assembly (abstract) comprising:
a feed assembly comprises a plurality of spaced apart slats (paragraph 0048).
Both of the prior arts of Spitaler and Wentz are related to a bale feeder assembly;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Spitaler in view of Williams to have a plurality of spaced apart slats as taught by Wentz in order to have better able to grab and move the bale (Wentz: paragraph 0048).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725