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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
support arms in claim 1, line 4;
the belt seal being composed of one or more parts in claim 12, line 3;
the crop intake area of the at least one center belt in claim 14, line 3
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 2 recites “a compressive force”, should read – the compressive force –.
Claim 20, line 2 recites “a respective side belt”, should read – the respective side belt –.
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 12 and 14 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 12, line 3 sets forth “the belt seal is comprised of one or more parts”, however, the specification and the claim fails to disclose what the parts are. Specifically, it is unclear what parts the belt seal is made up of; therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to distinctly claim the subject matter.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to read “the belt seal is comprised of one or more layers”.
Claim 14, lines 2-3 sets forth “the plurality of catching ribs are always located in the crop intake area of the at least one center belt”. However, the crop intake area in the specification paragraph [0036], lines 1-2 and claim 1, line 6, is defined as an area adjacent to the flexible cutter bar. It is unclear how the catching ribs, located on the side belts as seen in the drawings, is located in the crop intake area of the center belt using the limitation of the crop intake area as an area adjacent to the flexible cutter bar. Moreso, it is unclear if the crop intake area extends across the entire draper and therefore covers the area adjacent the center belt and cutter bar as well, or if the crop intake area of the center belt is a different limitation altogether; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to read “the plurality of catching ribs are always located in the crop intake area”.
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) 1-12, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talbot et al. (US 10918017 B2) in view of Cook (US 10477768 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Talbot et al. discloses a draper (see Col. 2, lines 11-15) comprising:
a frame (not shown but inherently present on every draper header; see Col. 1, line 10) having at least one laterally conveying, endlessly circulating side belt [13];
wherein a respective side belt [13] has, in a crop intake area (see below, extends across belt) adjacent to the cutter bar, a circumferential limiting rib [13X, Y, and Z] which is overlapped by a belt seal ([15B], see Col. 4, lines 57-61) extending substantially over a width of a respective side segment (not shown, but inherently present as the cutter bar extends across the entire length of the draper and the seal is connected to the cutter bar, see Col. 1, lines 10-14);
wherein the belt seal is attached to the cutter bar using one or more segmented retaining elements ([18]; segmented into sections [18C, D, and E], see Fig. 5); and
wherein the one or more segmented retaining elements are configured to exert a compressive force (through [17]; see Col. 7, lines 1-7) on the belt seal to press the belt seal against the circumferential limiting rib (presses the belt seal against the support arm of the cutter bar; therefore, maintaining the seal’s position against the limiting rib, see Fig. 1 and see Col. 7, lines 1-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
425
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Talbot et al. fails to explicitly disclose the draper having a center segment having at least one endlessly circulating center belt and two side segments each having at least one laterally conveying, endlessly circulating side belt; and a flexible cutter bar, wherein the side belts are configured to follow a movement of the flexible cutter bar.
Cook discloses a similar draper [100] having a center segment (see below) having at least one endlessly circulating center belt [112] and two side segments (see below) each having at least one laterally conveying, endlessly circulating side belt [200]; and a flexible cutter bar ([108], see Col. 4, lines 10-14) positioned on one or more support arms [118] pivotably articulated (connected to flexible cutter bar; therefore moves with it), wherein the side belts are configured to follow a movement of the flexible cutter bar (see Col. 4, lines 60-65).
PNG
media_image2.png
331
724
media_image2.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 provide the draper seal, retaining elements, and limiting rib of Talbot et al. on the center and side segments of the draper of Cook in order for the seal to prevent a build-up of materials inside the cutter bar and between the draper upper and lower run (see Talbot et al. Col. 5, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 2, Talbot et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the belt seal ([15B], see Col. 4, lines 57-61) consists of a flexible material (see Col. 4, lines 57-61).
Regarding claim 3, Talbot et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the belt seal ([15B], see Col. 4, lines 57-61) consists of plastic or rubber (see Col. 6, lines 19-28).
Regarding claim 4, Talbot et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein an overlap-free area (see below) formed between the circumferential limiting rib [13X, Y, and Z] and the one or more segmented retaining elements ([18]; segmented into sections [18C, D, and E], see Fig. 5) is covered (see below) by the belt seal ([15B], see Col. 4, lines 57-61).
PNG
media_image3.png
475
746
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Talbot et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the circumferential limiting rib [13X, Y, and Z] with the belt seal ([15B], see Col. 4, lines 57-61) forms a barrier (see Fig. 1) with a height (see below).
PNG
media_image4.png
475
746
media_image4.png
Greyscale
But Talbot et al. fails to disclose the height is between 10 mm and 15 mm.
However, Cook discloses the side belt draper flexes in accordance with the movement of the cutter bar, extending forwardly or rearwardly while the cutter tilts or flexes to follow the terrain of the field (see Col. 4, lines 60-65). The height of the side belt and the cutter bar is a result effective variable; therefore, the height of the circumferential limiting rib attached to the side belt and the belt seal attached to the cutter bar is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention for the height of the barrier to be between 10 mm and 15 mm as the circumferential limiting rib and the belt flexes with the side belt and cutter bar respectively through the terrain of the field. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, Talbot et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the circumferential limiting rib [13X, Y, and Z] has a substantially cuboidal (sections [13X and Y] are cuboidal) or trapezoidal cross-section ([13Z] is trapezoidal).
Regarding claim 7, Talbot et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the circumferential limiting rib [13X, Y, and Z] is configured to form a contact surface (see below) parallel to a crop-conveying upper side [13D] of the respective side belt [13].
PNG
media_image5.png
475
746
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Talbot et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the contact surface (see above) is continuous (continuous throughout width of the cutter bar) as viewed in a conveying direction (across the width of the belt [13]), and is a substantially planar surface (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Talbot et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the one or more segmented retaining elements ([18], segmented into sections [18C, D, and E]) are configured to exert a compressive force (through [17]; see Col. 7, lines 1-7) on the belt seal to press the belt seal ([15B], see Col. 4, lines 57-61) against the contact surface (see above) on an upper side (contact surface is on the upper side of the rib, see above) of the circumferential limiting rib [13X, Y, and Z].
Regarding claim 10, Talbot et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein a respective retaining element [18] has an inclined front section (see below) and a substantially parallel rear section (see below) facing the respective side belt [13], relative to the respective side belt.
PNG
media_image6.png
475
746
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It can be seen then that when the respective retaining element of Talbot et al. is provided to the flexible cutter bar of Cook that the inclined front section faces the flexible cutter bar as disclosed by Talbot et al. (see above).
Regarding claim 11, Talbot et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the one or more segmented retaining elements ([18], segmented into sections [18C, D, and E]) comprise profiled parts (see Fig. 5) formed from a metal sheet (see Col. 6, lines 41-46).
Regarding claim 12, Talbot et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the belt seal ([15B], see Col. 4, lines 57-61) is strip-shaped (see Fig. 1) and has a cuboidal cross-section (see cube cross-section in Fig. 1); and
wherein the belt seal is composed of one or more layers ([16A and 16B], see Col. 6, lines 19-24) (please see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 17, Cook, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the center segment (see above) has at least one center belt [112] which is oriented perpendicular (see Fig. 1) to a conveying direction (see arrows in Fig. 1) of the side belts [200].
Regarding claim 19, Talbot et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the circumferential limiting rib [13X, Y, and Z] in the crop intake area (see above) runs parallel (see below) to the cutter bar [12].
PNG
media_image7.png
475
746
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Talbot et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein a respective retaining element [18] has an inclined front section (see above) and a substantially parallel rear section (see above) facing the respective side belt [13], relative to the respective side belt.
It can be seen then that when the respective retaining element of Talbot et al. is provided to the flexible cutter bar of Cook that the inclined front section faces the flexible cutter bar as disclosed by Talbot et al. (see above).
Claim(s) 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talbot et al. (US 10918017 B2) in view of Cook (US 10477768 B2) as applied to claims 1-12, 17, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Cunningham (US 2999348 A).
Regarding claim 13, the above combination discloses the draper as applied, but fails to disclose at least one trough-shaped or arc-shaped catching rib positioned on a surface of the respective side belt between conveying ribs running perpendicular to the circumferential limiting rib and positioned equidistant to each other, an open side of which faces away from the cutter bar.
Cunningham discloses a similar draper (see Fig. 1) comprising at least one trough-shaped or arc-shaped catching rib [80] positioned on a surface (see Fig. 1) of the respective side belt [56 and 57] between conveying ribs [53] running perpendicular (see Fig. 1) and positioned equidistant (see Fig. 1) to each other, an open side (see below) of which faces away from the cutter bar [13].
PNG
media_image8.png
438
776
media_image8.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 provide the catching and conveying ribs of Cunningham on the draper of Talbot et al. and Cook in order to assist in guiding the material as it lays on the side belt (see Cunningham Col. 4, lines 49-53); therefore, when the conveying ribs of Cunningham are applied to the draper of the Talbot et al. and Cook the conveying ribs run perpendicular to the circumferential limiting rib as disclosed by Cunningham (see position of [80] in Fig. 1, laying perpendicular to the cutter bar).
Regarding claim 14, Cunningham, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein a plurality of the catching ribs [80] are positioned side-by-side in at least one row (see Fig. 1).
It can be seen then that when the catching ribs of Cunningham are provided to the draper of Talbot et al. and Cook that the catching ribs are positioned at a distance from the circumferential limiting rib within the crop intake area of Talbot et al. as disclosed by Cunningham (see location of catching ribs in Fig. 1, positioned from cutter bar on belt within the crop intake area).
Regarding claim 15, Cunningham, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the catching ribs [80], starting from the cutter bar [13], are positioned above a lower third (see below) of a respective side belt ([56 and 57]; located the same on either belt).
PNG
media_image9.png
438
776
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Cunningham, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the catching ribs [80] extend substantially (top and bottom portions of [80] extend substantially to [53], see Fig. 1) to the conveying ribs [53].
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talbot et al. (US 10918017 B2) in view of Cook (US 10477768 B2) as applied to claims 1-12, 17, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Schoenrock (US 2608041 A).
Regarding claim 18, the above combination discloses the draper as applied above, as well as the center segment (see above), but fails to disclose wherein the center segment has two center belts positioned side by side in a V-shape which, viewed in their conveying direction, are positioned to converge towards each other.
Schoenrock discloses a similar draper (see Fig. 1) comprising of two center belts [21] positioned side by side in a V-shape (see Fig. 1) which, viewed in their conveying direction, are positioned to converge towards each other (see Fig. 1).
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 two center belts of Schoenrock on the center segment of the draper of Talbot et al. and Cook in order to converge the cut crop materials into the region of the center of the conveyor to reduce losses of material and increase efficiency (see Schoenrock Col. 1, lines 40-47).
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 10694675 B2 discloses a similar draper [10] with a cutter bar [14], crop seal [30], and retaining elements [42].
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