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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant appears to be arguing that Grady fails to disclose a chute assembly that rotates the first and second bales as the bales drop from the chute assembly. This argument is unpersuasive because the bales do rotate as the bales drop from the chute assembly (see par. 0033) and it is a chute assembly (70, fig. 8 and 9, par. 0033).
The applicant appears to be arguing that Grady fails to disclose that the bales drop to form in a single line of bales arranged in a spaced apart end-to-end orientation behind the baler. This argument is unpersuasive because the claim is written so that it can be read that each set bales creates their own single line of bales or that the two bales form a single line, which is what the prior art teaches. Additionally, it does not exclude the possibility of multiple single lines such as shown in the annotated figure 14 of Grady (US 2020/0000041 A1) below.
The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Unless otherwise repeated below, all other objections and rejections previously presented have been withdrawn.
PNG
media_image1.png
1044
898
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a plunger" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. It is assumed for purposes of examination this should be “the reciprocating plunger”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the knife" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. It is assumed for purposes of examination this should be “the stationary knife”. The other occurrences of “the knife” have already been addressed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grady (US 2020/0000041 A1), hereinafter Grady
Regarding claim 1, Grady discloses an agricultural baler (20, fig. 1, par. 0029) having a pickup assembly (50, fig. 3, par. 0031) configured to take cut plant material from the ground (26, fig. 3, par. 0031) and move the plant material to a baling chamber (38, fig. 3, par. 0030) and compress the plant material in the baling chamber with a reciprocating plunger (62, fig. 3, par. 0032) into growing bales (par. 0032), the baler comprising:
a stationary knife (64, fig. 6, par. 0032) mounted in the baling chamber extending vertically between the floor and the roof such that plant material moved into the baling chamber is split by movement of a plunger relative to the knife to simultaneously form a first bale on one side of the stationary knife and a second bale on an opposite side of the stationary knife (fig. 6, par. 0032); and
a chute assembly (70, fig. 8 and 9, par. 0033) extending in a rearward direction from the baling chamber (fig. 4) configured to simultaneously receive the first and second bales as the bales are urged through out of the baling chamber (fig. 4 and 10, par. 0032), the chute assembly comprising a rail assembly (72, fig. 8 and 9, par. 0033) and an opposing shelf assembly (74, fig. 8 and 9, par. 0033), the rail assembly, and the shelf assembly cooperating to form a cavity therebetween (area under 97, fig. 8 and 9);
wherein the rail assembly (72, fig. 8 and 9, par. 0033) includes an upper rail (side of 76 farther to 96 in fig. 8 and 9) and a lower rail (side of 76 closer to 96 in fig. 8 and 9) with the lower rail is offset from the upper rail in a horizontal direction toward the cavity (fig. 8 and 9);
wherein the shelf assembly (74, fig. 8 and 9, par. 0033) includes a horizontal first surface (80), an ejection plate (78), an angled second surface (surface connecting 80 to 78 in fig. 8) and a guide rail (side of 74 closer to 96 in fig. 8 and 9), wherein as the first and second bales urged from the bale chamber (66 and 68, fig. 6 and 10, par. 0032) are the first bale engages the rail assembly and the second bale engages the shelf assembly (fig. 10, par. 0033);
such that the chute assembly rotates the first and second bales as the bales drop from the chute assembly (par. 0033) in a single line of bales arranged in a spaced apart end-to-end orientation (par. 0035, fig. 14, wherein bales 68 form a single line which are spaced end to end).
Regarding claim 2, Grady further discloses wherein the upper rail of the rail assembly and the first surface of the shelf assembly maintain the first and second bales in a side-by-side orientation as the bales advance out of the baling chamber (66 and 68, fig. 6 and 8-10, par. 0032-0033).
Regarding claim 9, Grady further discloses wherein the baler binds the first and second bales with a binding material (par. 0030) and the chute assembly rotates the first and second bales 90 degrees as the first and second bales are dropped from the chute assembly to the field such that the first and second bales come to rest in the field such that the binding material used to bind the first and second bales is wrapped around the four vertical sides of the first and second bales such that the binding material does not touch the ground (par. 0032-0033).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 3 is allowable because the “lower rail” does not cause the bales to rotate 90 degrees nor does the bale move into the “cavity” nor does the first bale interfere with the second bale in combination with the other limitations of the claims. There is no obvious reason to modify this device and such modification would interfere with the operation of the device.
Claims 4-8 are objected to as being dependent on claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
D. A. Murray et al. (2,947,400) – Murray has a similar chute assembly but is missing the lower rail being oriented towards the cavity and modification is would disrupt the function of Murray.
Olander et al. (US 2020/0215918 A1) – discloses most elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the specific the details of the chute assembly.
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 Jennifer A Railey whose telephone number is (571)270-7353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-4).
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/JENNIFER A RAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672