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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant’s arguments / amendments are persuasive for claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 16-17, and 20-21. The 102 / 103 rejections to these have been withdrawn. However, there are outstanding 112(b) issues related to claims 16 and 21. These claims and any dependents are currently objected.
Claim 10 and its dependents still stand rejected, since the amendment does not bring in the previously allowable subject matter, nor has an argument been made concerning the present amendments which are substantially similar to elements of the previously rejected claim 11.
The 112 (a) rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first locking element” in claims 2-3 and 16-17,
“second locking element” in claims 2-3 and 19-20, and
“retainer” in claims 1, 10, and 14-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a first retainer…that comprises removing a retainer…” This is indefinite since there is only one retainer.
Claim 21 has several issues. It is assumed these are because of the now amended claim 1. As such, claim 21 now recites:
“a second line divider set …. and operably coupled with the structural frame, the second line divider set comprising”
“a second pivoting frame”
“a second connection element operably coupled to the second pivoting frame and the structural frame”
Each of these elements appear now in independent claim 1 from which claim 21 now depends, this creates indefiniteness since it is unclear if a new second element of these is being introduced. As stated, it is assumed these are because of the now amended claim 1.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected for depending on a rejected indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 10 - 12, 15, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyronimus et al. (US 2013/0019581 A1), hereinafter Hyro in view of Bertino (US 20170280626 A1), hereinafter Bert.
Regarding claim 10, Hyro discloses a cutting and harvesting assembly of an agricultural machine (fig. 1, abstract), the cutting and harvesting assembly comprising:
a structural frame (1, fig. 1, par. 0043); and
a line divider set (4, fig. 1, 13, and 14, par. 0048 and 0057) operably coupled with the structural frame (fig. 1, 13, and 14, par. 0048 and 0057), the line divider set comprising:
a pivoting frame (47+48, fig. 14, par. 0058);
a connection element (41a, par. 0058) operably coupled to the pivoting frame and the structural frame (par. 0058), the connection element maintaining the pivoting frame in a first position and a second position (par. 0057-0058) wherein the connection element includes a support arm (43, fig. 13, par. 0058) defining a non-linear portion, and wherein the non-linear portion define a slots (slot that hinges 44 are placed in, par. 0058, fig. 13);
a first feed roller (49a on the left in fig. 14, fig. 1, and 14, par. 0058) operably coupled with the pivoting frame (par. 0048 and 0057-0058); and
a second feed roller (49a on the right in fig. 14, fig. 1, and 14, par. 0058) separated from the first pivoting frame (fig. 14) and operably coupled with the structural frame (par. 0048 and 0057-0058),
wherein the first feed roller is a first distance from the second roller when the pivoting frame is in the first position and the second feed roller is a second, smaller distance from the second roller when the pivoting frame is in the second position (see fig. 1, 2, and 14, wherein the position of 49a on the left in fig. 14 is in one position and 49a on the right in fig. 14 is in a different position and the distance is less when both are closer to 48 as shown by 49a on the right in fig. 14); and
a guide (44, par. 0058, fig. 13) positioned within the slot and operably coupled with the structural frame (par. 0058, fig. 13).
However, Hyro fails to explicitly disclose a first and second feed roller.
Bert teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein a first feed roller (49a on the left in fig. 14, fig. 1, and 14, par. 0058) operably coupled with the pivoting frame (par. 0048 and 0057-0058); and a second feed roller (49a on the right in fig. 14, fig. 1, and 14, par. 0058) separated from the first pivoting frame (fig. 14) and operably coupled with the structural frame (par. 0048 and 0057-0058), wherein the first feed roller is a first distance from the second roller when the pivoting frame is in the first position and the second feed roller is a second, smaller distance from the second roller when the pivoting frame is in the second position (see fig. 1, 2, and 14, wherein the position of 49a on the left in fig. 14 is in one position and 49a on the right in fig. 14 is in a different position and the distance is less when both are closer to 48 as shown by 49a on the right in fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the head 102 of Hyro with the feed rollers of Bert to yield the predictable result of harvesting the particular crop (par. 0002 of Hyro; par. 0051 of Bert).
Regarding claim 11, Hyro in view of Bert further teaches wherein the support arm (43, fig. 13, par. 0058) further defining one or more retaining openings (slot that hinges 44 are placed in, par. 0058, fig. 13).
Regarding claim 12, Hyro in view of Bert further teaches wherein a guide (44, par. 0058, fig. 13) is positioned within the one or more retaining openings and operably coupled with the structural frame (par. 0058, fig. 13).
Regarding claim 15, Hyro in view of Bert further teaches wherein the structural frame (242, fig. 2a-2d, par. 0022) defines a retainment opening (250 and 252), and wherein a segment of the retainer (270 and 272) is positioned within the retainment opening (fig. 2b-2d).
Regarding claim 22, Hyro in view of Bert further teaches a retainer (42a, fig. 13, par. 0057-0058) positioned within a retainer bracket (10, fig. 13, par. 0057-0058) and removably couplable with a connection element (41, fig. 13, par. 0057-0058) comprising the first connection element (41a, fig. 13, par. 0057-0058), wherein the retainer bracket (10, fig. 13, par. 0057-0058) is operably coupled with the structural frame (fig. 13).
Regarding claim 23, Hyro in view of Bert further teaches wherein the retainer (270 and 272 and 274, fig. 2a-2d, par. 0026-0027) is positioned through one or more retainer voids (248 and 250 and 252 and 254, fig. 2b and 2d, par. 0022 and 0026) defined by the retainer bracket (244+246, fig. 2a-2d, par. 0026), and wherein the retainer is configured to be selectively disposed within a retaining opening defined by the support arm (fig. 2b, 0026).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9 are allowed.
Claim 16, 17, and 20-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for incorporating the previously indicated allowable subject matter into independent claim 1; claim 1’s dependents 3-6, 8-9 are likewise allowable.
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 Jennifer A Railey whose telephone number is (571)270-7353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-4).
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/JENNIFER A RAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights