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 § 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) 1-3, 5-7, 10, 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (US 3108064 A) in view of Wilshusen (US 3613691 A).
Regarding claim 1, Grant discloses a cleaning system (system of Fig. 1) for use in an agricultural combine harvester (see Col. 1, lines 10-13) that moves in a forward direction of travel to harvest crop material from a field (moves forward to harvest; see Col. 1, lines 14-17), the cleaning system comprising:
a crop-processing platform (see Fig. 1) arranged to receive crop material thereon and reciprocate in a fore-aft manner to process crop material (see Col. 2, lines 10-18 and 35-40), and a rotatable auger [29] extending laterally in proximity to the crop-processing platform (see Fig. 4) and comprising flightings ([30 and 31]; helical sections of the auger) arranged to convey crop material laterally upon rotation of the auger (see Col. 3, lines 16-23).
But Grant fails to disclose the flightings having fingers.
Wilshusen discloses a similar agricultural combine harvester comprising of a rotatable finger auger ([24 or 26], see Col. 2, lines 2-6) comprising of a flighting ([30]; helical section of the auger) of fingers [34] to convey crop material (auger conveys crop material through the use of the flighting, see Col. 2, lines 2-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fingers of Wilshusen on the flightings of Grant in order to help the auger convey crop material through the agricultural combine (see Wilshusen Col. 2, lines 2-13).
Regarding claim 2, Grant, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the auger [29] comprises a rotatable shaft [32], but fails to disclose the fingers are coupled to and extend radially relative to the shaft.
However, Wilshusen discloses wherein the finger auger ([24 or 26], see Col. 2, lines 2-6) comprises fingers [34] that are coupled to and extend radially relative to the rotatable shaft ([28]; coupled to the shaft through flighting [30], see Fig. 2).
It can be seen then that when Wilshusen’s fingers are provided to the flightings of Grant that the fingers are coupled to and extend radially relative to the rotatable shaft as disclosed by Wilshusen (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Grant, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the finger auger [29] is mounted (mounted through [34 and 35], see Col. 2, lines 61-64) to the crop-processing platform (see Fig. 1) to reciprocate therewith.
Regarding claim 5, Grant, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the crop-processing platform (see Fig. 1) comprises a chaffer [16], and the finger auger [29] is positioned in proximity (see Fig. 1) to the chaffer.
Regarding claim 6, Grant, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the finger auger [29] is positioned at an exit (see below; either end of chaffer the material can exit) of the chaffer [16].
PNG
media_image1.png
317
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Grant, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the finger auger [29] is positioned above (see Fig. 1) a floor (floor of [16]) of the chaffer [16].
Regarding claim 10, Grant, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the crop-processing platform (see Fig. 1) is partitioned laterally into bays (see below) and there are two sets of flightings ([30 and 31]; helical sections of the auger) positioned respectively into the bays (a portion of each flighting is positioned into each bay, see Fig. 3), but fails to disclose the flighting of fingers comprise sets of fingers positioned respectively into the bays.
PNG
media_image2.png
343
753
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Wilshusen discloses a flighting ([30]; helical section of the auger) of fingers [34].
It can be seen then that when Wilshusen’s fingers are provided to the flightings of Grant that the fingers comprises two sets of fingers one for each set of flighting; therefore, when the fingers of Wilshusen are provided to the flightings of Grant, each set of fingers are positioned into the bays as disclosed by Grant (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Grant, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein each flighting ([30 and 31]; helical sections of the auger) of the finger auger [29] extends laterally only partially across the respective bay (each set of flightings ends in the middle bay; therefore, extends laterally only partially across the bays in which the set is positioned within, see Fig. 2), but fails to disclose the sets of flightings having fingers.
However, Wilshusen discloses a flighting ([30]; helical section of the auger) of fingers [34].
It can be seen then that when Wilshusen’s fingers are provided to the flightings of Grant that each set of fingers extends laterally only partially across the respective bay as disclosed by Grant (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Grant, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the bays (see above) comprise a first bay (see below) and a second bay (see below), the first and second bays are positioned on laterally opposite sides of a fore-aft centerline (see below) of the crop-processing platform (see Fig. 1), the flightings ([30 and 31]; helical sections of the auger) comprises a first flighting [30] positioned in the first bay and a second flighting [31] positioned in the second bay, and the first and second sets of flightings are positioned respectively on laterally opposite sides (one flighting is positioned within each bay, with the bays being opposite of each other in relation to the fore-aft centerline, see below) of the first and second bays.
PNG
media_image3.png
343
753
media_image3.png
Greyscale
But Grant fails to disclose the flightings having fingers.
However, Wilshusen discloses a flighting ([30]; helical section of the auger) of fingers [34].
It can be seen then that when Wilshusen’s fingers are provided to the flightings of Grant that each set of fingers are positioned on laterally opposite sides of the first and second bays as disclosed by Grant (see above).
Regarding claim 16, Grant, of the above resultant combination, discloses wherein the sets of flightings ([30 and 31]; helical sections of the auger) comprise a first flighting [30] having a first helical sense (see helix of flighting [30] in Fig. 3) and a second flighting [31] having an identical second helical sense (see helix of flighting [31] in Fig. 3).
But Grant fails to disclose the flightings having fingers.
However, Wilshusen discloses a flighting ([30]; helical section of the auger) of fingers [34].
It can be seen then that when Wilshusen’s fingers are provided to the flightings of Grant that each flighting of fingers has an identical helical sense as disclosed by Grant (see helixes in Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 4 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (US 3108064 A) and Wilshusen (US 3613691 A) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 12-13 and 16 above, and further in view of Louks (US 3581746 A).
Regarding claim 4, the cleaning system is disclosed as applied above, but the combination fails to disclose wherein the finger auger is mounted to a support structure of the agricultural combine harvester against reciprocation with the crop-processing platform.
Louks discloses a similar cleaning system (see Fig. 2) wherein the finger auger [48] is mounted to a support structure [64 and 66] of the agricultural combine harvester [22] against reciprocation (adjustably secured to sides of the combine; therefore, not reciprocating, see Col. 3, lines 37-41) with the crop-processing platform [36, 37, and 42].
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 support structure of Louks on the finger auger of Grant and Wilshusen in order to support the auger and adjust the vertical distance between the auger and the chaffer (see Louks Col. 3, lines 37-41 and 51-55).
Regarding claim 17, Grant, of the above resultant combination, further discloses a belt [39] and pulley [39a] to drive the shaft [38] of the finger auger [29], but fails to disclose an actuator operable to laterally side-shift the finger auger.
Louks discloses a similar cleaning system (see Fig. 2) comprising an actuator [52] operable to rotate the finger auger [48].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the belt and pulley of Grant and Wilshusen with the actuator of Louks in order to rotate the auger in either direction in response to the lateral inclination of the combine (see Louks Col. 3, lines 18-23).
But Louks fails to disclose the actuator is operable to laterally side-shift the finger auger. However, an actuator operable to "laterally side-shift" the finger auger is broad as the claim limitations merely state an operation without claiming elements and their relative movement in relationship to one another; therefore, in a reasonably broad limitation, the actuator of Louks rotating the finger auger is considered to be "laterally side-shifting" the auger during operation as the auger is designed to be side-shifting in nature during rotation.
Regarding claim 18, Louks, of the above resultant combination, further discloses comprising an actuator [52] operable to rotate the finger auger [48] in opposite directions (see Col. 3, lines 18-23).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (US 3108064 A) and Wilshusen (US 3613691 A) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 12-13 and 16 above, and further in view of Vandike (US 11013175 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Grant, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the chaffer [16] is a first chaffer ([16] is a first chaffer), the crop-processing platform (see Fig. 1) comprises a second chaffer [17] positioned in proximity to the first chaffer to receive crop material therefrom, and the finger auger [29] is positioned above (see Fig. 1) a floor (floor of [17]) of the second chaffer, but fails to disclose the second chaffer extending rearwardly away from the first chaffer.
Vandike et al. discloses a similar cleaning system (see Fig. 2) comprising of a first chaffer ([120]; can be a chaffer or a sieve, see Col. 2, lines 36-39) and a second chaffer ([122]; can be a chaffer or a sieve, see Col. 2, lines 36-39) positioned in proximity to the first chaffer to receive crop material therefrom (see Fig. 2) and extending rearwardly away (see below) from the first chaffer.
PNG
media_image4.png
198
494
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first and second chaffer of Grant and Wilshusen with the first and second chaffer of Vandike et al. in order for the chaffers to oscillate via a drive apparatus to move the material along the length of the chaffer to separate the grain (see Vandike et al. Col. 3, lines 12-15 and 20-23).
Regarding claim 9, Grant, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the finger auger [29] is positioned at an exit (see above; either end of chaffer the material can exit) of the first chaffer [16].
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (US 3108064 A) and Wilshusen (US 3613691 A) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 12-13 and 16 above, and further in view of Puryk et al. (US 107971677 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Grant, of the above resultant combination, discloses wherein the sets of flightings ([30 and 31]; helical sections of the auger) comprise a first flighting [30] having a first helical sense (see helix of flighting [30] in Fig. 3) and a second flighting [31] having a second helical sense (see helix of flighting [31] in Fig. 3), but fails to disclose the second flighting has an opposite second helical sense.
Puryk et al. disclose a similar cleaning system [100] of an agricultural combine harvester (see Col. 3, lines 33-34) wherein an auger ([146 and 148], each side of the same auger, see Fig. 2) has a set of flightings ([166 and 168]; helical sections of the auger) comprises a first flighting [166] having a first helical sense (see helix of flighting [166] in Fig. 2) and a second flighting [168] having an opposite second helical sense (see helix of flighting [168] in 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 helical senses of Grant’s first and second flightings with the helical senses of Puryk et al.’s first and second flightings since both are ways to form the flightings for conveying crop material through the cleaning system; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
But both Grant and Puryk et al. fail to disclose each set of flightings having fingers.
However, Wilshusen discloses a flighting ([30]; helical section of the auger) of fingers [34].
It can be seen then that when Wilshusen’s fingers are provided to the flightings of Grant and Puryk et al. that each flighting of fingers has an opposite helical sense as disclosed by Puryk et al. (see helixes in Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 14 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 3, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10, and 12 under Grant (US 3108064) in view of Delfosse et al. (US 3897332) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Grant (US 3108064) and Wilshusen (US 3613691 A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for the full list of references.
Reference US 3638659 A discloses a similar cleaning system (see Fig. 1) with an auger [44] having flightings [48 and 50].
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.
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671