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 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 4, 10-13, and 17-20 are 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.
Claims 4, 10 and 17 set forth “transverse branches extending from the ribs.” However, applicant’s specification paragraph [0052], lines 1-5 recites “FIG.9 shows a possible second implementation. Instead of (or in addition to) the ribs96, inwardly protruding rods104 can be arranged on the inside of the body94 of the closing flap66, with transverse branches106 extending radially therefrom, and can be oriented in precisely the same way as the ribs of the first implementation, i.e. they extend in the circumferential direction of the rotors36, 38.”
As can be seen from the above paragraph, the transverse branches are attached to inwardly protruding rods instead of the ribs. Likewise, there are no drawings showing a rib with transverse branches; therefore, the claim contains subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey the inventor has possession at the time of filing.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to read “transverse branches extending from an inwardly protruding rod”.
Due to dependency on the above rejected claims, claims 11-12 and 18-20 are rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schwersmann et al. (US 6802771 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Schwersmann et al. teaches a closer (see Fig. 2) for a separating cage [25] of a separating device [15], wherein the separating cage is provided with separating elements ([26-29], see Col. 4, lines 55-57) which are configured, in cooperation with a separating rotor [18] of the separating device, to separate grain, and the separated grain can pass through passages ([24], see Col. 4, line 54 and Fig. 1) provided between separating elements and reach a cleaning system [66], a cavity (see below) being defined downstream of said passages (cavity is below passage, where crops are prevented from reaching cleaning system through closing flap, see Fig. 3), said closer comprising:
a closing flap ([33], see Col. 4, lines 65-67 and Col. 5, line 1) movable between a closed position (see Fig. 3), in which the closing flap at least partially closes the cavity (see Col. 5, lines 62-67 and Col. 6, lines 1-3), and an open position (see Fig. 2), said closing flap having a side (see below) facing the cavity, the closing flap includes structure (see below; each side of the flap has structure extending from its body) positioned, when the closing flap is in the closed position, to inwardly protrude from the side facing the cavity and into a portion of the cavity (both structures extend from the side facing the cavity into a portion of the cavity, see structures below) between the side facing the cavity and the passages to extract crop which has collected in the cavity as the closing flap moves from the closed to open position (crop is prevented from passing through the passages when the flap is closed, but the flap extracts the crop from the cavity when opened, allowing the crop to pass through the passage, see Figs. 2-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
571
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Schwersmann et al. teaches wherein the closing flap [33] comprises a body (see below) which is pivotally movable (pivots through pivot shaft [37], see Col. 4, lines 65-67 and Col. 5, line 1) between the open (see Fig. 2) and closed positions (see Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
550
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Schwersmann et al. teaches wherein said structure (see above) further comprises at least one rib (structure is a rib due to being a raised piece of material extending from the body, see above) extending from the body (see above) in the direction of the inner circumference of the separating cage [25] and in the circumferential direction of the separating cage (when the flap is closed, the structure extends in the direction of both the inner circumference and circumferential direction of cage [25], see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Schwersmann et al. teaches wherein the at least one rib (see below) comprises a leading edge (see below) relative to a rotational direction ([16], rib slopes upwards, following the rotational direction of the rotor) of the separating rotor [18], which, from a leading end (see below; end of rib where other rib starts) adjacent to a pivot axis ([34]; adjacent to the center of the rotor) in the rotational direction of the separator rotor, gradually draws nearer to the inner circumference (the leading edge draws nearer the cage [25] when closed, see Fig. 3) of the separating cage [25].
PNG
media_image3.png
510
368
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Schwersmann et al. teaches wherein the leading edge (see below) comprises an end point (see below), and wherein the rib (the rib of claim 5, see above) further comprises a trailing edge (see below) extending from the end point of the leading edge in the direction towards the body (see above) of the closing flap [33].
PNG
media_image4.png
510
368
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Schwersmann et al. teaches wherein the trailing edge (see below) of the rib (the rib of claim 5, see above) encloses a trailing angle (see below; forms an angle with the end point of the trailing edge) with the radius (see below; distance from center of rotor to trailing edge) of the separating cage [25].
PNG
media_image5.png
510
368
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Schwersmann et al. teaches a separating device [15] comprising:
a separating rotor [18],
a separating cage [25] provided with separating elements ([26-29], see Col. 4, lines 55-57) which are configured, in cooperation with the separating rotor, to separate grain, and the separated grain can pass through passages ([24], see Col. 4, line 54 and Fig. 1) provided between the separating elements and reach a cleaning system [66], and
a closing flap ([33], see Col. 4, lines 65-67 and Col. 5, line 1) movable between a closed position (see Fig. 3), in which the closing flap at least partially closes a cavity (see below; see Col. 5, lines 62-67 and Col. 6, lines 1-3) arranged downstream of one or more of the passages (cavity is below passage, where crops are prevented from reaching cleaning system through closing flap, see Fig. 3), and an open position (see Fig. 2), said closing flap having a side (see below) facing the cavity, the closing flap includes structure (see below; each side of the flap has structure extending from its body) positioned, when the closing flap is in the closed position, to inwardly protrude from the side facing the cavity and into a portion of the cavity (both structures extend from the side facing the cavity into a portion of the cavity, see structures below) between the side facing the cavity and the passages to extract crop which has collected in the cavity as the closing flap moves from the closed to open position (crop is prevented from passing through the passages when the flap is closed, but the flap extracts the crop from the cavity when opened, allowing the crop to pass through the passage, see Figs. 2-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
571
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Schwersmann et al. teaches wherein the closing flap [33] comprises a body (see below) which is pivotally movable (pivots through pivot shaft [37], see Col. 4, lines 65-67 and Col. 5, line 1) between the open (see Fig. 2) and closed positions (see Fig. 3), and wherein said structure (see above) further comprises at least one rib (structure is a rib due to being a raised piece of material extending from the body, see above) extending from the body (see above) in the direction of the inner circumference of the separating cage [25] and in the circumferential direction of the separating cage (when the flap is closed, the structure extends in the direction of both the inner circumference and circumferential direction of cage [25], see Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
550
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Schwersmann et al. teaches a closer (see Fig. 2) for a threshing cage [25] of a threshing device [15], wherein the threshing cage is provided with threshing elements ([26-29], see Col. 4, lines 55-57) which are configured, in cooperation with a threshing rotor [18] of the threshing device, to thresh grain, and the threshed grain can pass through passages ([24], see Col. 4, line 54 and Fig. 1) provided between threshing elements and reach a cleaning system [66], a cavity (see below) being defined downstream of said passages (cavity is below passage, where crops are prevented from reaching cleaning system through closing flap, see Fig. 3), said closer comprising:
a closing flap ([33], see Col. 4, lines 65-67 and Col. 5, line 1) movable between a closed position (see Fig. 3), in which the closing flap at least partially closes the cavity (see Col. 5, lines 62-67 and Col. 6, lines 1-3), and an open position (see Fig. 2), said closing flap having a side (see below) facing the cavity, the closing flap includes structure (see below; each side of the flap has structure extending from its body) positioned, when the closing flap is in the closed position, to inwardly protrude from the side facing the cavity and into a portion of the cavity (both structures extend from the side facing the cavity into a portion of the cavity, see structures below) between the side facing the cavity and the passages to extract crop which has collected in the cavity as the closing flap moves from the closed to open position (crop is precluding from passing through the passages when the flap is closed, but the flap extracts the crop from the cavity when opened, allowing the crop to pass through the passage, see Figs. 2-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
571
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 4, 10-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwersmann et al. (US 6802771 B2) in view of Turner et al. (US 4875891 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 17, Schwersmann et al. discloses the closer as applied above, but fails to disclose further comprising transverse branches extending from an inwardly protruding rod (please see 112(a) rejection above).
Turner et al. discloses a similar closer (see Fig. 2) comprising a moveable closing flap ([56], see Col. 4, lines 58-60) including structure ([66]; used to guide crop material, see Col. 6, lines 20-25) of transverse branches ([62 and 68] extend to the side of the structure; therefore are transverse branches in relation to the structure) extending from an inwardly protruding rod (structure is a straight leg that extends inwards toward the center of the rotor; therefore, is an inwardly protruding rod, see Fig. 2).
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 closing flap of Schwersmann et al. with the closing flap of Turner et al. since both are moveable mechanisms configured to prevent and let crop material pass to the cleaning system of a harvester; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Schwersmann et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the at least one rib (see below) comprises a leading edge (see below) relative to a rotational direction ([16], rib slopes upwards, following the rotational direction) of the separating rotor [18], which, from a leading end (see below; end of rib where other rib starts) adjacent to a pivot axis ([34], adjacent to the center of the rotor) in the rotational direction of the separator rotor, gradually draws nearer to the inner circumference (the leading edge draws nearer the cage [25] when closed) of the separating cage [25].
PNG
media_image3.png
510
368
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Schwersmann et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the leading edge (see below) comprises an end point (see below), and wherein the rib (the rib of claims 11 and 18, see above) further comprises a trailing edge (see below) extending from the end point of the leading edge in the direction towards the body (see above) of the closing flap [33].
PNG
media_image4.png
510
368
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Schwersmann et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the trailing edge (see below) of the rib (the rib of claims 11 and 18, see above) encloses a trailing angle (see below; forms an angle with the end point of the trailing edge) with the radius (see below; distance from center of rotor to trailing edge) of the separating cage [25].
PNG
media_image5.png
510
368
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Amendment
Please see updated art rejections above in response to applicant’s claim amendments, now including Schwersmann et al. (US 6802771 B2).
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