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 .
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 .
Introduction
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and are subject to examination herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 6 and 15 each recite “convenor arrangement” in line 1 rather than “conveyor arrangement”. 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 1-9 and 15-16 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 recites the limitation “the main support frame” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “the main support frame” to be equivalent to “the main support structure” recited in line 2.
Claims 2-9 each depend, either directly or ultimately, from Claim 1 and are, therefore, likewise rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 9 is further rejected as indefinite due A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “less than 5,000 lbs.”, and the claim also recites “more typically, less than 4,500 lbs.” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the lower harvesting head" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “the lower harvesting head” to be equivalent to “the harvesting head” recited in line 14.
Claim 16 depends directly from Claim 15 and is, therefore, likewise rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Russian Pat. Pub. No. RU 75533 U1 to Matyushin et al. (hereinafter Matyushin).
Regarding claim 17, Matyushin discloses a method of operating a harvesting system (Abstract; Fig. 1), comprising, as an agricultural combine (Fig. 1) moves along a field:
(A) cutting top, seed bearing portions (panicles) (P. 5, lines 3-5) of plant stalks using a cutter (cutting apparatus 3) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7) of a harvesting head (Abstract; Fig. 1) to form cuttings (cut panicles) (P. 5, lines 3-5), the harvesting head (Abstract; Fig. 1) being mounted on the combine (See Fig. 1);
(B) directing the cuttings (cut panicles) (P. 5, lines 3-5) onto a conveyor arrangement (sloping plane 10 and/or auger 27) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 21-24; p. 5, lines 3-5) of the harvesting head (Abstract; Fig. 1) using a rotatable gathering reel (reel comprising central shaft 4, beams 5, strips 6 and rake 7) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 7-11) located above the cutter (cutting apparatus 3) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7);
(C) using the conveyor arrangement (sloping plane 10 and/or auger 27) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 21-24; p. 5, lines 3-5), conveying the cuttings (cut panicles) (P. 5, lines 3-5) downwardly and rearwardly (See Fig. 1) into an inlet opening of a feeder housing (inclined chamber 28 with chain-slat conveyor 29) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 19-24) of the combine (See Fig. 1);
(D) conveying the cuttings (cut panicles) (P. 5, lines 3-5) through the feeder housing (inclined chamber 28 with chain-slat conveyor 29) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 19-24) and into a thresher of the combine (P. 5, lines 3-8); and
(E) threshing the cuttings (P. 5, lines 3-8).
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) 1-2 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matyushin) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0128745 to Bueermann.
Regarding claim 1, Matyushin discloses a harvesting system (Abstract) comprising:
(A) a main support structure (beam 11) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 9-15) that is configured to be mounted on an agricultural combine (see Fig. 1);
(B) a harvesting head (header for cleaning panicles) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-13) that is supported on the main support structure (beam 11) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 9-15) and that is configured to be powered by the combine, the harvesting head (header for cleaning panicles) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-13) including
(1) a frame (frame comprised of lower supporting beam 1 and side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7) mounted on the main support structure (beam 11) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 9-15) and having front and rear ends and left and right ends (see Fig. 1);
(2) a cutter (cutting apparatus 3) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7) mounted on the frame (frame comprised of lower supporting beam 1 and side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7) and extending between the left and right ends (see Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7) of the frame (frame comprised of lower supporting beam 1 and side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7) in the vicinity of the front end (see Fig. 1) of the frame (frame comprised of lower supporting beam 1 and side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7);
(3) a rotatable gathering reel (reel comprising central shaft 4, beams 5, strips 6 and rake 7) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 7-11) mounted on the frame (frame comprised of lower supporting beam 1 and side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7) above the cutter (cutting apparatus 3) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7);
(4) a conveyor arrangement (sloping plane 10 and/or auger 27) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 21-24; p. 5, lines 3-5) mounted on the frame (frame comprised of lower supporting beam 1 and side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7) behind the cutter (cutting apparatus 3) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7) and underneath the reel (reel comprising central shaft 4, beams 5, strips 6 and rake 7) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 7-11) and extending between the left and right ends of the frame (frame comprised of lower supporting beam 1 and side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7), the conveyor arrangement (sloping plane 10 and/or auger 27) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 21-24; p. 5, lines 3-5) inclined downwardly and rearwardly (see Fig. 1) relative to the frame (frame comprised of lower supporting beam 1 and side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7) and that is configured to convey materials (cut panicles) (P. 5, lines 3-5) into an inlet opening of a feeder housing (inclined chamber 28 with chain-slat conveyor 29) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 19-24) of the combine (See Fig. 1).
However, while Matyushin discloses conveyor arrangement comprising a sloping plane 10 that is inclined downwardly and rearwardly relative to the frame (See Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 3-5) and that is configured to convey materials (cut panicles) (P. 5, lines 3-5) into an inlet opening of a feeder housing of the combine, Matyushin does not expressly recite the conveyor arrangement including a discharge conveyor (interpreted as being a motorized conveyor). Nevertheless, Bueermann teaches a conveyor arrangement including a discharge conveyor (central belt conveyor 48) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0032]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the harvesting system disclosed in Matyushin with the discharge conveyor taught in Bueermann with a reasonable expectation of success in order provide a cross-conveying draper belt conveyor system, as taught in Bueermann (Para. [0003]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the harvesting system disclosed in Matyushin with the discharge conveyor taught in Bueermann with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Moreover, it would have been obvious for the discharge conveyor taught in Bueermann to be inclined downwardly and rearwardly when the combined header is raised to a height similar to that disclosed in Matyushin.
Regarding claim 2, Matyushin in view of Bueermann teaches the harvesting system of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Bueermann teaches that the conveyor arrangement further comprises first and second draper conveyors (two outer belt conveyors 44) (Fig. 2; Para. [0031], [0034]-[0035]) which are disposed on opposite sides of the discharge conveyor (central belt conveyor 48) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0032]) and which are configured to feed materials onto the discharge conveyor (central belt conveyor 48) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0032]).
Regarding claim 10, Matyushin discloses a harvesting head (Abstract; Fig. 1) that is configured to be mounted on and controlled by an agricultural combine (Fig. 1), comprising:
(A) a frame (beam 11, lower supporting beam 1 and/or side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-15) that is configured to be mounted on the combine (See Fig. 1);
(B) a cutter (cutting apparatus 3) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7) mounted on the frame (beam 11, lower supporting beam 1 and/or side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-15) and extending between the left and right ends of the frame (beam 11, lower supporting beam 1 and/or side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-15) in the vicinity of a front end of the frame (beam 11, lower supporting beam 1 and/or side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-15);
(C) a rotatable gathering reel (reel comprising central shaft 4, beams 5, strips 6 and rake 7) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 7-11) mounted on the frame (beam 11, lower supporting beam 1 and/or side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-15) above the cutter (cutting apparatus 3) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7); and
(D) a conveyor arrangement (sloping plane 10 and/or auger 27) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 21-24; p. 5, lines 3-5) mounted on the frame (beam 11, lower supporting beam 1 and/or side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-15) behind the cutter (cutting apparatus 3) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7) and underneath the reel (reel comprising central shaft 4, beams 5, strips 6 and rake 7) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 7-11) and extending between the left and right ends of the frame (beam 11, lower supporting beam 1 and/or side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-15), the conveyor arrangement (sloping plane 10 and/or auger 27) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 21-24; p. 5, lines 3-5) inclined downwardly and rearwardly (See Fig. 1) relative to the frame (beam 11, lower supporting beam 1 and/or side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-15) and that is configured to convey materials (cut panicles) (P. 5, lines 3-5) into an inlet opening of a feeder housing (inclined chamber 28 with chain-slat conveyor 29) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 19-24) of the combine (See Fig. 1).
However, while Matyushin discloses conveyor arrangement comprising a sloping plane 10 that is inclined downwardly and rearwardly relative to the frame (See Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 3-5) and that is configured to convey materials (cut panicles) (P. 5, lines 3-5) into an inlet opening of a feeder housing of the combine, Matyushin does not expressly recite the conveyor arrangement including a discharge conveyor (interpreted as being a motorized draper-style conveyor). Nevertheless, Bueermann teaches a conveyor arrangement including a discharge conveyor (central belt conveyor 48) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0032]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the harvesting system disclosed in Matyushin with the discharge conveyor taught in Bueermann with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a cross-conveying draper belt conveyor system, as taught in Bueermann (Para. [0003]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the harvesting system disclosed in Matyushin with the discharge conveyor taught in Bueermann with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Moreover, it would have been obvious for the discharge conveyor taught in Bueermann to be inclined downwardly and rearwardly when the combined header is raised to a height similar to that disclosed in Matyushin.
Regarding claim 11, Matyushin in view of Bueermann teaches the harvesting head of claim 10 (see above). Furthermore, Bueermann teaches that the conveyor arrangement further comprises first and second draper conveyors (two outer belt conveyors 44) (Fig. 2; Para. [0031], [0034]-[0035]) which are disposed on opposite sides of the discharge conveyor (central belt conveyor 48) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0032]) and which are configured to feed materials onto the discharge conveyor (central belt conveyor 48) (Figs. 1-3; Paras. [0032]).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matyushin in view of Bueermann as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Int’l. Pat. Pub. No. WO 2021/261343 A1 to Fujita et al. (hereinafter Fujita).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Matyushin in view of Bueermann teaches the harvesting system of claim 2 and the harvesting system of claim 11, respectively (see above). Furthermore, Matyushin discloses that the frame of the harvesting head (header for cleaning panicles) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-13) is vertically movable relative to the main support structure (beam 11) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 9-15). However, neither Matyushin nor Bueermann expressly discloses or teaches that the inclination of the discharge conveyor is adjustable so as to retain the discharge conveyor in general alignment with the feeder housing upon vertical movement of the frame of the harvesting head relative to the main support structure. Nevertheless, Fujita teaches a header wherein the inclination of the discharge conveyor is adjustable so as to retain the discharge conveyor in general alignment with the feeder housing upon vertical movement of the frame of the harvesting head relative to the main support structure (see Figs. 9-11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the harvesting system taught by Matyushin in view of Bueermann with the adjustable inclination discharge conveyor taught in Fujita with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the steady and continuous flow of crop material via the conveyor to the feederhouse and avoid crop material falling through a separation gap. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the harvesting system taught by Matyushin in view of Bueermann with the adjustable inclination discharge conveyor taught in Fujita with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matyushin in view of Bueermann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 4,274,247 to Schmidt et al. (hereinafter Schmidt).
Regarding claim 5, Matyushin in view of Bueermann teaches the harvesting system of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Matyushin discloses a harvesting system wherein the harvesting head (header for cleaning panicles) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-13) is an upper harvesting head (See Fig. 1), and further comprising a lower harvesting head (See Fig. 1) mounted on the main support structure (beam 11) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 9-15) beneath the upper harvesting head (See Fig. 1), the lower harvesting head (See Fig. 1) including
(A) a frame (frame comprised of lower supporting beam 1 and side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7) mounted on the main support structure (beam 11) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 9-15) and having front and rear ends and left and right ends (See Fig. 1);
(B) a cutter (rotor knife 20) (Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 8-12) mounted on the frame (frame comprised of lower supporting beam 1 and side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7) and extending between the left and right ends of the frame (frame comprised of lower supporting beam 1 and side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7) in the vicinity of the front end of the frame (frame comprised of lower supporting beam 1 and side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7);
(C) a conveyor arrangement (beater 22 and/or chopper 23) (Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 8-12) mounted on the frame (frame comprised of lower supporting beam 1 and side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-7) behind the cutter (rotor knife 20) (Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 8-12) and configured to discharge cut materials (leaf-stem mass 21) (Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 8-12) deposited onto the conveyor arrangement (beater 22 and/or chopper 23) (Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 8-12).
However, Matyushin does not disclose discharging the cut bottom portions of the stalks into plural parallel windrows extending longitudinally of the combine. Nevertheless, Schmidt teaches using a conveyor arrangement discharging the cut bottom portions of the stalks into plural parallel windrows extending longitudinally of the combine (Figs. 1, 3; Col. 1, lines 5-8; col. 2, lines 39-49; col. 3, lines 3-10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method disclosed in Matyushin with the method of discharging stalks into plural parallel windrows taught in Schmidt with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow a relatively wide swath of crop to be cut while depositing relatively shallow windrows that reduce the time it would take for the stalks to dry while also leaving crop-free areas where the wheels of the combine can travel without compressing the discharged stalks, as taught in Schmidt (Col. 2, lines 18-21; col. 2, lines 32-38; col. 3, lines 30-38). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method disclosed in Matyushin with the method of discharging stalks into plural parallel windrows taught in Schmidt with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matyushin in view of Bueermann, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0153436 to DeChristopher and further in view of Chinese Pat. Pub. No. CN 216775520 U to Zhang.
Regarding claim 9, Matyushin in view of Bueermann teaches the harvesting system of claim 1 (see above). However, neither Matyushin nor Bueermann expressly discloses or teaches that the harvesting system weighs less than 5, 000 lbs. and, more typically, less than 4,500 lbs. Nevertheless, Optimizing weight of the header is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, DeChristopher and Zhang teach that the weight of the header is a result-effective variable. DeChristopher teaches that the weight of the header can cause significant deflection with respect to the ground (Para. [0003]). Zhang teaches that lightweight design and structure optimization to reduce the weight of the header is good for improving the interchangeability of a harvester headers (Abstract). Therefore, header weight is recognized as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the header weight to the lowest weight that achieves the desired performance since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 14 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matyushin in view of Schmidt.
Regarding claim 14, Matyushin discloses a harvesting head (Abstract; Fig. 1) that is configured to be supported on and powered by a power unit (combine) (Fig. 1), the harvesting head (Abstract; Fig. 1) comprising:
(A) a frame (beam 11, lower supporting beam 1 and/or side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-15) that is configured to be supported on the power unit (combine) (Fig. 1) and that has front and rear ends and left and right ends (See Fig. 1);
(B) a cutter (rotor knife 20) (Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 8-12) mounted on the frame (beam 11, lower supporting beam 1 and/or side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-15) and extending between the left and right ends of the frame (beam 11, lower supporting beam 1 and/or side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-15) in the vicinity of the front end of the frame (beam 11, lower supporting beam 1 and/or side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-15),
(C) a conveyor arrangement (beater 22 and/or chopper 23) (Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 8-12) that is mounted on the frame (beam 11, lower supporting beam 1 and/or side bars 2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 5-15) behind the cutter (rotor knife 20) (Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 8-12) and that is configured to discharge cut materials (leaf-stem mass 21) (Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 8-12) deposited onto conveyor arrangement(beater 22 and/or chopper 23) (Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 8-12).
However, Matyushin does not disclose discharging the cut bottom portions of the stalks into plural parallel windrows extending longitudinally of the combine. Nevertheless, Schmidt teaches using a conveyor arrangement discharging the cut bottom portions of the stalks into plural parallel windrows extending longitudinally of the combine (Figs. 1, 3; Col. 1, lines 5-8; col. 2, lines 39-49; col. 3, lines 3-10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method disclosed in Matyushin with the method of discharging stalks into plural parallel windrows taught in Schmidt with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow a relatively wide swath of crop to be cut while depositing relatively shallow windrows that reduce the time it would take for the stalks to dry while also leaving crop-free areas where the wheels of the combine can travel without compressing the discharged stalks, as taught in Schmidt (Col. 2, lines 18-21; col. 2, lines 32-38; col. 3, lines 30-38). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method disclosed in Matyushin with the method of discharging stalks into plural parallel windrows taught in Schmidt with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 19, Matyushin discloses the method of claim 17 (see above). Furthermore, Matyushin discloses that the harvesting head is an upper harvesting head (See Fig. 1) and further comprising,
(A) using a cutter (rotor knife 20) (Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 8-12) on a lower harvesting head (See Fig. 1), cutting off bottom portions of the stalks (P. 5, lines 8-12);
(B) directing the cut bottom portions of the stalks (leaf-stem mass 21) (Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 8-12) on to a conveyor arrangement (beater 22 and/or chopper 23) (Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 8-12) of the lower harvesting head (See Fig. 1); and
(C) using the conveyor arrangement (beater 22 and/or chopper 23) (Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 8-12), discharging the cut bottom portions of the stalks (leaf-stem mass 21) (Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 8-12).
However, Matyushin does not disclose discharging the cut bottom portions of the stalks into plural parallel windrows extending longitudinally of the combine. Nevertheless, Schmidt teaches using a conveyor arrangement discharging the cut bottom portions of the stalks into plural parallel windrows extending longitudinally of the combine (Figs. 1, 3; Col. 1, lines 5-8; col. 2, lines 39-49; col. 3, lines 3-10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method disclosed in Matyushin with the method of discharging stalks into plural parallel windrows taught in Schmidt with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow a relatively wide swath of crop to be cut while depositing relatively shallow windrows that reduce the time it would take for the stalks to dry while also leaving crop-free areas where the wheels of the combine can travel without compressing the discharged stalks, as taught in Schmidt (Col. 2, lines 18-21; col. 2, lines 32-38; col. 3, lines 30-38). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method disclosed in Matyushin with the method of discharging stalks into plural parallel windrows taught in Schmidt with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, Matyushin in view of Schmidt teaches the method of claim 19 (see above). Furthermore, Schmidt teaches a method wherein the discharging comprises discharging the cut bottom portions of the stalks into first, second, and third parallel windrows (Figs. 1, 3; Col. 1, lines 5-8; col. 2, lines 39-49; col. 3, lines 3-10), the first and second windrows being disposed beyond opposed lateral sides of the combine (see Fig. 3), and the third windrow extending under the combine (see Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matyushin in view of Bueermann and further in view of Schmidt, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0274249 to Piersanti.
Regarding claim 6, Matyushin in view Bueermann and further in view of Schmidt teaches harvesting system of claim 5 (see above). Furthermore, Bueermann teaches that the conveyor arrangement includes first and second draper belts (two outer belt conveyors 44) (Fig. 2; Para. [0031], [0034]-[0035]). However, neither Matyushin, Bueermann nor Schmidt discloses or otherwise teaches that the first and second draper belts are configured to discharge materials off opposed end portions of the lower harvesting head to form first and second windrows. Nevertheless, Piersanti teaches a harvesting system wherein first and second draper belts (canvases/drapers 4 and 5) (Figs. 1, 2; Paras. [0012], [0020]-[0021]) are configured to discharge materials off opposed end portions of the lower harvesting head to form first and second windrows (Abstract; Figs. 1-2; Para. [0012]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the harvesting system taught by Matyushin in view of Bueermann and further in view of Schmidt with the draper swather taught in Piersanti with a reasonable expectation of success in order to make multiple windrows to allow for quicker and more uniform drying, as taught in Piersanti (Para. [0002]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the harvesting system taught by Matyushin in view of Bueermann and further in view of Schmidt with the draper swather taught in Piersanti with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matyushin in view of Schmidt, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Piersanti.
Regarding claim 15, Matyushin in view of Schmidt teaches the harvesting head of claim 14 (see above). However, neither Matyushin nor Schmidt discloses or otherwise teaches that the conveyor arrangement includes first and second draper belts that are configured to discharge materials off opposed end portions of the harvesting head to form first and second windrows. Nevertheless, Bueermann teaches that the conveyor arrangement includes first and second draper belts (two outer belt conveyors 44) (Fig. 2; Para. [0031], [0034]-[0035]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the harvesting system taught by Matyushin in view of Schmidt with the discharge conveyor taught in Bueermann with a reasonable expectation of success in order provide a cross-conveying draper belt conveyor system, as taught in Bueermann (Para. [0003]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the harvesting system disclosed in Matyushin with the discharge conveyor taught in Bueermann with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Moreover, Piersanti teaches a harvesting system wherein first and second draper belts (canvases/drapers 4 and 5) (Figs. 1, 2; Paras. [0012], [0020]-[0021]) are configured to discharge materials off opposed end portions of the lower harvesting head to form first and second windrows (Abstract; Figs. 1-2; Para. [0012]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the harvesting system taught by Matyushin in view of Bueermann and further in view of Schmidt with the draper swather taught in Piersanti with a reasonable expectation of success in order to make multiple windrows to allow for quicker and more uniform drying, as taught in Piersanti (Para. [0002]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the harvesting system taught by Matyushin in view of Bueermann and further in view of Schmidt with the draper swather taught in Piersanti with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-8 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13 and 18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Russian Pat. Pub. No. RU 2772915 C1 to Ignatov et al. relates to a harvester with upper and lower headers and an infeed conveyor that appears to adjust inclination based on the height of the upper header. Chinese Pat. Pub. No. CN 20660244 U to Sun et al. relates to a harvester with upper and lower headers. U.S. Pat. Pub. Nos. 2014/0250850 to Boenig and 2020/0253120 to Hefner relate to a stalky-crop harvester and header. Int’l. Pat. Pub. No. WO 2014/180788 A1 to Vande Ryse et al. relates to a chopper/blower arrangement for a header on an agricultural harvester. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0400615 to Franke et al. relates to agricultural headers with draper conveyors. U.S. Pat. No. 3,695,015 to Twidale et al. relates to swathers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAUDE J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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 M. 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.
/CLAUDE J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671