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 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
line 2 recites “a cutting disc”, should read “the cutting disc” due to earlier mention of the cutting disc in claim 1, line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are 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 1, line 17 recites “approximately helicoidal”. It is unclear how a blade can be approximately helicoidal. Specifically, it is unclear what makes the shape be approximately the shape of a helix; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Due to dependency on claim 1, claims 2-4 and 9-10 are rejected as well.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloan (US 11160206 B2) in view of Voler et al. (US 4787196 A)
Regarding claim 1, Sloan discloses a mower working drum [54] comprising:
a mower drum main body [56] mounted detachably (through end plates, see Col. 6, lines 50-53 and 56-60) on a cutting bar [48] and provided at a bottom (see Figs. 2-3) with cutting knives in a cutting disc ([52], see Col. 5, lines 48-50):
a drum sidewall [58] arranged axially above the cutting disc (see Fig. 2), the sidewall having an outer surface (see outer surface of sidewall in Fig. 4) on which ejecting elements (edges of sidewall [72], see Col. 6, lines 61-65) are mounted,
a cover [70] provided at a top of the drum (see Fig. 5), the diameter of the cover being close to or equal to the diameter of the drum sidewall (see Fig. 5);
at least one limiting blade [76A] positioned in an upper section (see Figs. 4-5) of the drum beneath the cover and between the ejecting elements mounted on the outer surface of the drum sidewall (see Figs. 4-5);
at least one lifting blade [76B] positioned in a bottom section (see Figs. 4-5) of the drum in a counter-clockwise direction relative to the limiting blade (blades ascent and descend in opposite directions; therefore, the lifting blade is counter-clockwise to the limiting blade, see Fig. 4); and
wherein the position of the limiting blade and the lifting blade on a plane (see below) of the drum sidewall is approximately helicoidal (blades positioned to go from an upper portion to a lower portion, or vice versa, of the sidewall; therefore, are approximately helicoidal about a vertical axis of rotation [60], see Fig. 5) in relation to a rotation axis ([60], same rotation axis for drum and disc) of the cutting disc;
wherein shape of the limiting blade is similar to or equal to shape of the lifting blade (see shapes of the blades in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
570
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Sloan fails to disclose the sidewall’s outer surface transitions from a larger diameter to a smaller diameter and the cover being detachable.
Voler et al. discloses a similar mower working drum [50] with a sidewall [33] having an outer surface (outer surface of the sidewall, see Fig. 5) transitioning from a larger diameter (see below) to a smaller diameter (see below), and a detachable cover ([54], detachable through fasteners, see below and Col. 4, lines 59-63) provided at a top (see Fig. 5) of the drum.
PNG
media_image2.png
667
583
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the sidewall and cover of Sloan with the sidewall and cover of Voler et al. since the substitutes are structures forming the drum; therefore, yielding the same predictable result. Moreover, it has been held that a change of shape is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 672-73 (CCPA 1966) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). In this regard, a change of shape does not make a product nonobvious where the claimed shape is not of functional significance and accomplishes the same purpose as the prior art shape.
Regarding claim 2, Solan teaches the mower working drum as disclosed above, as well as the main body [56] is mounted (see Fig. 3) on the cutter bar [48], but fails to explicitly disclose the main body is mounted on the cutting bar at a hub.
Voler et al. discloses a similar mower working drum [50] wherein the main body [52] is mounted (see Fig. 3) on the cutting bar [20] at a hub [28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hub of Voler et al. on the mower working drum of Solan in order to allow adjacent cutter disc cutter assemblies to rotate in opposing directions (see Voler et al. Col. 4, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 3, Solan teaches wherein said cutting knives (see Col. 5, lines 48-50) are provided in a cutting disc [52].
Regarding claim 4, Voler et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein said cover [54] is removably attached (removably attached through fasteners, see above and Col. 4, lines 59-63) to the drum main body (body of [50]).
Regarding claim 9, Solan teaches comprising at least one cutting disk [52] disposed (see Fig. 3) on the cutting bar [48].
Regarding claim 10, Solan teaches comprising multiple working drum main body elements [54] disposed on the cutting bar ([48], see Fig. 3).
Response to Amendment
Please see updated art rejections above in response to applicant’s claim amendments.
Applicant’s remarks in page 3 set forth that “The Sloan reference (US 11,160,206) never refers to "limiting blades" or "lifting blades" on a drum sidewall, and it certainly does not teach that their positions on that sidewall are "approximately helicoidal" about the cutting-disc axis or that the two blades share the same shape. Instead, Sloan describes straight "ramp features" (plates) mounted on the flat wall portions of a rectangular converging-drum body, each set at an acute angle to a reference plane to push the crop either up or down as the drum turns.”
While Sloan does not refer to [76A and 76B] as limiting or lifting blades, they preform the same function as applicant’s blades. The function, as pointed out in applicant’s remarks, is “to push the crop either up or down as the drum turns”. Applicant’s specification page 5, lines 3-4 recite “… mounted are blades 9, arranged around the sidewall 8 at a spiral screw arrangement, thereby lifting the crop material” as well as page 5, lines 25-28 that recite “The arrangement of the blades 9 and 11 … help direct the material clockwise towards the drum rotation direction”. Therefore, it is seen that applicant’s blades push the crop material up, similar to the function of Sloan’s [76A and 76B].
Further, applicant argues that Sloan’s’ [76A and 76B] are straight, ramp features and are not "approximately helicoidal" (please see 112(b) rejection above). However, as can been seen in applicant’s Fig. 4B and below, the ejecting elements 10 separate the lifting and limiting blades, preventing them from forming a full helix around the wall of the drum. The ejecting elements separate each blade into two pieces. While these pieces hug the curve of the wall, they are positioned from a top portion to a bottom portion (or vice versa) on the sidewall and form a ramp-like feature, similar to Sloan.
PNG
media_image3.png
363
351
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sloan’s [76A and 76B] perform the same function as applicant’s lifting and limiting blades, and are placed on the sidewall in a similar manner. Moreover, when Sloan is modified in view of Voler, the inner surface (i.e. sidewall) would be conical showing that the side wall is substantially helicoidal, in at least as much as Applicant’s device is. For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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 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 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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671