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 § 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, 5-7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Farley et al. (US 8926415 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Farley et al. teaches an agricultural machine [10] for processing harvested crop comprising:
a cutting head [22] configured to harvest crop; and
a dual rotor threshing assembly (see Fig. 3A) configured to process the harvested crop and including:
a first threshing rotor ([27] on the left, see Fig. 3A) rotationally coupled to a frame [26];
a second threshing rotor ([27] on the right, see Fig. 3A) rotationally coupled to the frame; and
a deflector [123] that is moveable relative to the frame (see Col. 4, lines 66-67 and Col. 5, lines 1-2) to increase an amount of harvested crop (increases amount of crop when deflector is retracted, allowing for more crops to insert the threshing assembly, slowing the transport speed; see Col. 5, lines 34-42) directed toward the first threshing rotor or the second threshing rotor (guides crop towards the rotor the deflector is attached to, see Col. 4, lines 60- 65).
Regarding claim 5, Farley et al. teaches wherein the deflector [123] is configured to be pivoted (see Col. 5, lines 53-56) relative to the frame [26].
Regarding claim 6, Farley et al. teaches wherein the deflector [123] is configured to be slid (see Col. 6, lines 31-37) relative to the frame [26].
Regarding claim 7, Farley et al. teaches wherein the deflector [123] is configured to be rotated (see Col. 5, lines 53-56; free end of deflector rotates about pivot point, see Figs. 4-5) relative to the frame [26].
Regarding claim 20, Farley et al. teaches a method (method of using [27]) of processing harvested crop with an agricultural machine [10] comprising:
harvesting crop as the agricultural machine moves along a ground surface (harvests through header [22]);
moving a deflector [123] in one of a first direction (fully inserted downwards; see Col. 5, lines 34-42) and a second direction (retracted upwards; see Col. 5, lines 34-42) to increase an amount of harvested crop (increases amount of crop when deflector is retracted, allowing for more crops to insert the threshing assembly, slowing the transport speed; see Col. 5, lines 34-42) directed toward a first threshing rotor ([27] on the left, see Fig. 3A) coupled to a frame [26] or a second threshing rotor ([27 on the right, see Fig. 3A) coupled to the frame and positioned adjacent to the first threshing rotor (guides crop towards the rotor the deflector is attached to, see Col. 4, lines 60-65);
wherein moving the deflector in one of the first direction and the second direction comprises at least one of:
pivoting (see Col. 5, lines 53-56) the deflector toward one of the first threshing rotor and the second threshing rotor;
sliding (see Col. 6, lines 31-37) the deflector toward one of the first threshing rotor and the second threshing rotor; and
rotating (see Col. 5, lines 53-56; free end of deflector rotates about pivot point, see Figs. 4-5) the deflector about a rotational axis (see below) in one of a clockwise direction and a counterclockwise direction (rotates about pivot point back-and-forth for full insertion and retraction positions, both clockwise and counterclockwise directions, see Col. 5, lines 34-42).
PNG
media_image1.png
322
260
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) 8-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley et al. (US 8926415 B2) in view of Lesher et al. (US 11013181 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Farley et al. discloses the agricultural machine as applied above, as well as comprising an actuator (see Col. 7, lines 62-67), wherein actuation of the actuator causes movement of the deflector [123] relative to the frame [26], but fails to disclose a controller operatively coupled to the actuator; and wherein the controller is configured to receive signals used by the controller to determine a direction of movement for the deflector.
Lesher et al. discloses a similar agricultural machine [10] comprising of a controller [312] operatively coupled (see Col. 8, lines 14-16) to the actuator [218], wherein the controller is configured to receive signals used by the controller to determine a direction of movement (movement of the deflector towards or away from the rotor, see Col. 7, lines 34-47 and Col. 8, lines 8-16) for the deflector [210].
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 controller of Lesher et al. on the actuator of Farley et al. in order to for the operator to be able to control the position of the deflector based on a variety of factors such as speed thresholds, throughput, loss, yield, and type of crop (see Col. 8, lines 8-16).
Regarding claim 9, Lesher et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses at least one sensor [318] operatively coupled (see Col. 8, lines 14-20) to the controller [312] and configured to send signals to the controller that are used by the controller to determine the direction of movement (movement of the deflector towards or away from the rotor, see Col. 7, lines 34-47 and Col. 8, lines 14-20) for the deflector [210].
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 sensor coupled to the controller of Lesher et al. on the machine of Farley et al. in order to provide an accurate indication of conditions.
Regarding claim 15, Lesher et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses a user interface [304] operatively coupled (see Col. 8, lines 9-16) to the controller [312] and configured to send signals thereto indicating a direction of movement (actuator retracted or extended, see Col. 7, lines 34-47) for the actuator [218] based on user input (see Col. 8, lines 9- 16).
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 interface of Lesher et al. on the machine of Farley et al. in order to provide the operator with information on the operational state of the machine.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley et al. (US 8926415 B2) in view of Roberg (US 5928079 A).
Regarding claim 16, Farley et al. discloses the agricultural machine as applied above, as well as the first and second threshing rotor ([26], see Fig. 3A) and the deflector [123], but fails to explicitly disclose a guide drum configured to rotate relative to the frame to direct harvested crop towards the first threshing rotor and the second threshing rotor; wherein the deflector is positioned downstream of the guide drum.
Roberg discloses a similar agricultural machine [1] comprising of a guide drum [26] configured to rotate relative to the frame (frame of [2]) to direct harvested crop towards the first threshing rotor [3] and the second threshing rotor [4].
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 guide drum of Roberg on the agricultural harvester of Farley et al. in order to thresh and guide the material into the separating device comprising the rotors (see Roberg Col. 4, lines 13-16); therefore, when the guide drum of Roberg is provided to the agricultural harvester of Farley et al., the deflector of Farley et al. is positioned downstream of the guide drum due to the location of the deflectors on the rotors (see Farley et al.'s Fig. 3A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 10-14 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.
Claims 17-19 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments in page 3 set forth “Farley does not disclose changing the transport speed within the chamber 26 alters the amount of crop entering that chamber, nor does Farley disclose any diversion of crop away from that chamber to another component. In particular, Farley does not teach or suggest that retracting crop transport vane 123 causes any portion of the incoming crop stream to be redirected to another rotor or to any other processing path”.
However, there is no support regarding the transport speed altering the amount of crop entering the chamber found within the specification; therefore, this argument is moot. Further, claim 1, lines 6-7 set forth “a deflector… to increase an amount of harvested crop directed toward the first threshing rotor or the second threshing rotor”. This limitation does not claim a diversion of crop away to another component nor a portion of the incoming crop stream being redirected to another rotor or processing path. Instead, it claims a moveable deflector increasing the crop directed to the first threshing rotor or to the second threshing rotor.
Specifically, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with Appellant’s claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of appellant's arguments fail from the outset because … they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”).
Even so, Farley et al.’s crop deflector does meet the argument of redirecting the crop stream towards another rotor. When the deflector [123] is moved inwards towards the rotor as seen in Figs. 4-5, the crop material is pushed further inwards; therefore, the material is pushed towards the side of the rotor and is directed towards the other rotor (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
489
907
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This interpretation, paired with the lack of support for applicant’s arguments regarding the transport speed, meets the limitations for claim 1 and therefore the rejection still stands. Independent claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
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 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