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 Amendments and Arguments
Upon further consideration, the previous rejection has been amended and the arguments are substantially moot except as indicated below.
Claim objections have been withdrawn.
Previous 35 USC § 112 claim rejections, regarding antecedent basis, for claims 2-3, 6, and 14 are withdrawn.
Unless otherwise repeated below, all other objections and rejections previously presented have been withdrawn.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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-3, 14-17, and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 16 recites the limitation “retainer” and a “first locking element.” It is unclear what the meaning of these elements are since the specification [0068] specifies that the “retainer” and the “locking element” are the same thing. Neither, is it clear how both can be present and separate in the same claim.
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 1-6, 8-12, 14-17, and 19-20 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.
Claims 2-3 and 16-17 recite the limitation “first locking element” It is unclear what the metes and bounds of this element is since no details are given in the specification. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that this is an element that functions as a means for locking.
Claims 2-3 and 19-20 recite the limitation “second locking element” It is unclear what the metes and bounds of this element is since no details are given in the specification. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that this is an element that functions as a means for locking.
Claims 1, 10, and 14-16 recite the limitation “retainer.” It is unclear what the metes and bounds of this element is since no details are given in the specification. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that this is an element that functions as a means for retaining.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “retainer” and a “first locking element.” It is unclear what the metes and bounds of these elements are since the specification [0068] specifies that they are the same thing. Neither, is it clear how both can be present and separate in the same claim.
Claims 4-6, 8-9, and 11-13 are rejected for depending on a rejected indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bertino (US 20170280626 A1), hereinafter Bert.
Regarding claim 1, Bert 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);
a central portion divider set (4 in center of fig. 1, fig. 1, 13, and 14, par. 0048 and 0057) operably coupled with the structural frame (fig. 1, 13, and 14, par. 0048 and 0057) and including one or more central portion feed rollers (49a, fig. 1, and 14, par. 0058); and
a first line divider set (4 to the left side in fig. 1, fig. 1, 13, and 14, par. 0048 and 0057) laterally offset from the central portion divider set (fig. 1) and operably coupled with the structural frame (fig. 1, 13, and 14, par. 0048 and 0057), the first line divider set comprising:
a first pivoting frame (47+48 of 4 to the left side in fig. 1, fig. 14, par. 0058);
a first connection element (41a of the left side in fig. 1, par. 0058) operably coupled to the first pivoting frame and the structural frame (par. 0058); and
one or more first set feed rollers (49a, fig. 1, and 14, par. 0058) operably coupled with the first pivoting frames (par. 0048 and 0057-0058) wherein the at least one of the one or more first set feed rollers is pivotable between a first position and a second position (par. 0058); and
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 4, Bert discloses further comprising:
a first drive actuator operably coupled with the pivoting frame that assists in moving the first pivoting frame between the first position and the second position (39, fig. 13, par. 0057-0058).
Regarding claim 5, Bert discloses wherein the first drive actuator comprises at least one of a mechanical actuator, an electrical actuator, a hydraulic actuator, a pneumatic actuator, or a combination thereof (hydraulic cylinder 39, fig. 13, par. 0057-0058).
Regarding claim 6, Bert discloses wherein the first connection element (41a of 4 to the left side in fig. 1, par. 0058) articulates with the first pivoting frame (47+48 of 4 to the left side in fig. 1, fig. 14, par. 0058), and wherein a second connection element (41a of 4 to the right side in fig. 1, par. 0058) articulates with the second pivoting frame (47+48 of 4 to the right side in fig. 1, fig. 14, par. 0058).
Regarding claim 8, Bert discloses wherein the structural frame forms part of a chassis of the agricultural machine (fig. 1, par. 0051, wherein there is structure that supports the device and it is connected to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 9, Bert discloses wherein the structural frame (1) is operable as an independent platform (fig. 1, par. 0042 and 0051) and arranged to be coupled and uncoupled from a chassis of the agricultural machine (par. 0051).
Regarding claim 10, Bert 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);
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 retainer (42a, fig. 13, par. 0057-0058) positioned within a retainer bracket (10, fig. 13, par. 0057-0058) and removably couplable with the connection element (41, 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 11, Bert discloses wherein the connection element (41a, fig. 13, par. 0058) includes a support arm (43, fig. 13, par. 0058) defining one or more retaining openings (slot that hinges 44 are placed in, par. 0058, fig. 13).
Regarding claim 12, Bert discloses 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 21, Bert discloses further comprising:
a second line divider set (4 to the right side in fig. 1) positioned on an opposing side of the central portion divider set from the first line divider set (fig. 1) and operably coupled with the structural frame (fig. 1, 13, and 14, par. 0048 and 0057), the second line divider set comprising:
a second pivoting frame (47+48 of 4 to the right side in fig. 1, fig. 14, par. 0058);
a second connection element (41a of the right side in fig. 1, par. 0058) operably coupled to the second pivoting frame and the structural frame (par. 0058); and
one or more second set feed rollers (49a, fig. 1, and 14, par. 0058) operably coupled with the second pivoting frame (par. 0048 and 0057-0058), wherein the at least one of the one or more second set feed rollers is pivotable between a first position and a second position (par. 0058).
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 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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertino (US 20170280626 A1), hereinafter Bert in view of Frese (DE102015113602A1), hereinafter Frese.
Regarding claim 2, Bert teaches wherein the first pivoting frame (47+48 of 4 to the left side in fig. 1, fig. 14, par. 0058) further includes a first position or a second position (par. 0057-0058); and wherein a second pivoting frame (47+48 of 4 to the right side in fig. 1, fig. 14, par. 0058) in a first position or a second position (par. 0057-0058).
However, Bert fails to explicitly disclose a first locking element for maintaining the first pivoting frame in a first position and a second locking element that maintains the second pivoting frame in a first position or a second position.
Frese teaches a similar device in the same field of harvesters wherein a first locking element (49 on the left side of fig. 1a, fig. 1b, par. 0056) for maintaining the first pivoting frame in a first position (fig. 1a, par. 0056) or second position (fig. 2a, par. 0056) and a second locking element (49 on the right side of fig. 1a, fig. 1b, par. 0056) that maintains the second pivoting frame in a first position (fig. 1a, par. 0056) or a second position (fig. 2a, par. 0056).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bert to incorporate the first and second locking element of Frese in order to lock the device into that position (par. 0056 of Frese).
Regarding claim 3, Bert in view of Frese teaches wherein the first locking element and the second locking element are each operable as at least one of a mechanical element, an electrical element, a hydraulic element, a pneumatic element, or a combination thereof (49, fig. 1b, par. 0056, wherein it is a mechanical element).
Claims rejected 10-11, 14-15, and 16-17 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 (102, fig. 1, par. 0018) of an agricultural machine (100, fig. 1, par. 0018), the cutting and harvesting assembly comprising:
a structural frame (242, fig. 2a-2d, par. 0022); and
a line divider set (204, fig. 2a-2d, par. 0021) operably coupled with the structural frame (fig. 2b), the line divider set comprising:
a pivoting frame (208+260, fig. 2a-2d, par. 0023-0024 and 0026);
a connection element (202, fig. 2a-2d, par. 0019) operably coupled to the pivoting frame and the structural frame (fig. 2a-2d, par. 0019), the connection element maintaining the pivoting frame in a first position and a second position (fig. 2b, par. 0020 and 0026);
a retainer (270 and 272 and 274, fig. 2a-2d, par. 0026-0027) positioned within a retainer bracket (244+246, fig. 2a-2d, par. 0026) and removably couplable with the connection element (fig. 2b), wherein the retainer bracket is operably coupled with the structural frame (242, fig. 2a-2d, par. 0022).
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 connection element (202, fig. 2a-2d, par. 0019) includes a support arm (202, fig. 2a-2d, par. 0020 and 0026) defining one or more retaining openings (216 and 218 and 220, fig. 2a-2d, par. 0020 and 0026).
Regarding claim 14, 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).
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 16, Hyro discloses a method of operating a cutting and harvesting assembly (102, fig. 1, par. 0018) of an agricultural machine (100, fig. 1, par. 0018), the method comprising:
releasing a first locking element (274+202, fig. 2a-2d) from a first connection element (206+202, fig. 2a-2d) that comprises removing a retainer (274, fig. 2a-2d, par. 0026) from a locking aperture (254, fig. 2b and 2d, par. 0022 and 0026) defined by the connection element (202, fig. 2a-2d, par. 0019), wherein the first connection element (206+202) operably couples a first pivoting frame (208+214+260, fig. 2a-2d, par. 0023-0024 and 0026) of the harvesting (fig. 1 and 2a-2b) assembly to a structural frame (242, fig. 2a-2d, par. 0022) of the harvesting assembly (fig. 1 and 2a-2b); and
rotating the first pivoting frame (fig. 2b, par. 0026, wherein 274 is moved to a different hole 254 causing a rotation of 202 and 208+214+260) and
harvester head (header of 102, fig. 1, par. 0022 and 0026) is operably coupled with the first pivoting frame from a first position to a second position (fig. 2a-d, par. 0022 and 0026).
However, Hyro fails to explicitly disclose one or more feed rollers.
Bert teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein there are one or more feed rollers (49a on the left and right in fig. 14, fig. 1, and 14, par. 0058)
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 harvester head 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 17, Hyro in view of Bert further teaches further comprising:
engaging the first locking element (274+202) with the first connection element (206+202) maintains the first pivoting frame in the second position (fig. 2a and b, par. 0022 and 0026).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there is no obvious reason to modify the first pivoting frame to be laterally offset from the second pivoting frame given the nature of shoes and deflectors and the other requirements of claim 19 and its parent claim 16. However, it is noted that claim 16 has a 112(a) rejection that could potentially affect this.
Conclusion
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
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672