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 plurality of spaced apart guide surfaces in claim 46, line 2;
the straw cutting edge in claim 58, line 6;
and the fan or thrower portion in claim 58, line 6
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 36 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 36, line 9 recites “at least a first outlet”, should read – at least the first outlet – from previous mention of the first outlet in line 8.
Claim 38, line 6 recites “in third direction”, should read – in a third direction –.
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 46-48 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 46 in lines 1-2 sets forth “a plurality of spaced apart guide surfaces”. However, it is unclear how these guide surfaces are related to the plurality of surfaces also set forth in lines 1-2. Specifically, it is unclear if these two portions are one and the same or two different portions altogether. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to read “a plurality of spaced apart guide plates” from applicant’s specification page 9, lines 25-26.
Due to dependency on claim 46, claims 47-48 are rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 36-47, 54, and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Roberg (EP 2225929 A1).
Regarding claim 36, Roberg teaches a straw processing system [1] comprising:
a straw pickup assembly (not shown but inherently present in order to produce straw feed stream [32]);
a straw chopper [5], the straw pickup assembly operable to pick up windrowed straw from the ground (not shown but inherit in order to produce straw feed stream [32]) and pass it to the straw chopper for producing a straw feed stream [32] flowing in a feed direction (see arrows of [32] in Fig. 2); and
a straw distribution system [10] having:
a chamber [14] with a feed inlet [15] for receiving the straw feed stream, a central outlet (see below) located downstream of the feed inlet in the feed direction, and, at least a first outlet (see below), the central outlet being downstream (see below) of the at least a first outlet in the feed direction;
wherein the straw distribution system is operable to divert (diverts straw feed stream [32] through use of the guide members [20-26], see paragraph [0019], lines 2-6) at least a first fraction of straw (fraction of [32], see arrows in Fig. 2) from the straw feed stream received in the feed inlet to flow into the first outlet in a first direction (see below) which is divergent from the feed direction, and wherein the central outlet discharges a fraction of the straw feed stream (fraction of [32], see arrows in Fig. 2) that continues to flow in the feed direction (see below).
Examiner’s Note: Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the outlets as designated in the below drawings are considered outlets due to being an area that receives straw from the inlet and expels it from the chamber.
PNG
media_image1.png
579
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 37, Roberg teaches wherein the straw distribution system [10] includes a second outlet (see below) formed in the chamber [14], the central outlet (see below) being downstream (see below) of the second outlet in the feed direction (see arrows of [32] in Fig. 2);
and wherein the straw distribution system is operable to divert at least a second fraction of the straw (fraction of [32], see arrows in Fig. 2) from the straw feed stream [32] to flow into the second outlet in a second direction (see below) which is divergent (second direction diverts straw in opposite direction than the first direction, see Fig. 2) from the first direction (see below) and the feed direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
579
699
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 38, Roberg teaches wherein the straw distribution system [10] includes a third outlet (see below) formed in the chamber [14], the central outlet (see below) being downstream (see below) of the third outlet in the feed direction (see arrows of [32] in Fig. 2);
and wherein the straw distribution system is operable to divert at least a third fraction of the straw (fraction of [32], see arrows in Fig. 2) from the straw feed stream [32] to flow into the third outlet in third direction (see below) which is divergent (angled from feed direction, see Fig. 2) from the feed direction.
PNG
media_image3.png
579
699
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 39, Roberg teaches wherein the straw distribution system [10] includes a fourth outlet (see below) formed in the chamber [14], the central outlet (see below) being downstream (see below) of the fourth outlet in the feed direction (see arrows of [32] in Fig. 2);
and wherein the straw distribution system is operable to divert at least a fourth fraction of the straw (fraction of [32], see arrows in Fig. 2) from the straw feed stream [32] to flow into the fourth outlet in a fourth direction (see below) which is divergent from the feed direction.
PNG
media_image4.png
579
699
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 40, Roberg teaches wherein the first direction (see above) and the third direction (see above) are substantially parallel (see above) to each other.
Regarding claim 41, Roberg teaches wherein the second direction (see above) and the fourth direction (see above) are substantially parallel (see above) to each other.
Regarding claim 42, Roberg teaches wherein the chamber [14] comprises opposing side walls [20 and 23] between the feed inlet [15] and the central outlet (see above) and wherein the at least a first outlet (see above) is formed in one of the opposing side walls (formed in wall [20], see above).
Regarding claim 43, Roberg teaches wherein the straw distribution system [10] comprises a plurality of surfaces (see below; side surfaces) depending from an upper inside surface (see below) of the chamber [14].
PNG
media_image5.png
465
624
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
363
663
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 44, Roberg teaches wherein at least two of the surfaces (see below) meet to form a common edge (see below).
PNG
media_image7.png
465
624
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 45, Roberg teaches wherein the at least two of the surfaces (see above) are mutually diverted (see Fig. 2) from the common edge (see above) when viewed downstream with reference to the feed direction (see arrows of [32] in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 46, Roberg teaches wherein the plurality of surfaces (see above) comprises a plurality of spaced apart guide plates (surfaces define guide plates [20-25]) depending from the upper inside surface (see above) of the chamber [14] (please see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 47, Roberg teaches wherein the guide surfaces [20-25] are adjustably supported (see paragraph [0019], lines 6-9) on the chamber [14] in a manner to allow adjustment of an orientation (adjusts orientation through adjustment mechanism [35]; see paragraph [0019], lines 6-9) of the guide surfaces relative to the feed direction (see arrows of [32] in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 54, Roberg teaches wherein the straw chopper [5] comprises at least one shredder rotor ([5] is a shredder rotor) arranged to chop straw (see paragraph [0017], lines 3-5) and produce the straw feed stream [32] received by the feed inlet [15] of the chamber [14], wherein the at least one shredder rotor is rotatable about an axis (see below) perpendicular to the feed direction (see arrows of [32] in Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image8.png
465
624
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 62, Roberg teaches further comprising a ramp (housing [7] acts as a ramp; arranged to deflect straw into straw distribution system [10], see Fig. 1) arranged to deflect straw chopped by the straw chopper [5] toward an upper region ([8], see paragraph [0017], line 5) of the feed inlet [15].
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) 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberg (EP 2225929 A1) in view of Scharf (EP 0212270 A1).
Regarding claim 48, Roberg discloses the straw processing system as applied above, as well as an adjustment mechanism [35] for adjusting the orientation (see paragraph [0019], lines 6-9) of the guide plates [20-25] (please see 112(b) rejection above).
But Roberg fails to disclose the adjustment mechanism is operable from an outside of the chamber.
Scharf discloses a similar straw processing system (see Fig. 2) comprising an adjustment mechanism [24 and 27] operable from an outside (through use of the handle; see paragraph [0020], lines 1-6) of the chamber [4] for adjusting the orientation (adjusts orientation through [11 and 14]; see paragraph [0018], lines 4-13) of the guide surfaces [6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the adjustment mechanism of Roberg with the adjustment mechanism of Scharf since both are mechanisms used to adjust the guides through slots formed within the chamber of the straw processing system; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Claim(s) 55-56 and 59-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberg (EP 2225929 A1) in view of Myrold et al. (US 2701596 A).
Regarding claim 55, Roberg discloses the straw processing system as applied above, but fails to disclose wherein the straw chopper comprises a first shredder rotor and a second shredder rotor arranged to rotate about mutually parallel axes and wherein the second shredder rotor is downstream of the first shredder rotor whereby straw chopped by the first shredder rotor subsequently passes to the second shredder rotor.
Myrold et al. discloses a similar straw processing system (see Fig. 1) wherein the straw chopper [11 and 12] comprises a first shredder rotor [11] and a second shredder rotor [12] arranged to rotate about mutually parallel axes (see below) and wherein the second shredder rotor is downstream (see Fig. 1) of the first shredder rotor whereby straw chopped by the first shredder rotor subsequently passes to the second shredder rotor (rotors overlap; therefore the straw chopped by the first rotor is passed to the second rotor, see Col. 2, lines 66-75).
PNG
media_image9.png
387
333
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the straw chopper of Roberg with the straw chopper of Myrold et al. since both are devices comprising of at least one rotor configured to shred straw for distribution; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Regarding claim 56, Myrold et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the second shredder rotor [12] rotates at a speed greater than (see Col. 3, lines 20-24, and Col. 5, lines 47-52) the first shredder rotor [11].
Regarding claim 59, Roberg, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the straw chopper [5] comprises a housing [7], but fails to disclose a replaceable wear liner seated in the housing.
However, Myrold et al. discloses a replaceable wear liner ([10]; lines the rotors and is replaceable through bolts [20], see Col. 3, lines 55-63).
It can be seen then that when Myrold et al.’s straw chopper is provided to the straw processing system of Roberg that the replaceable wear liner is seated within the housing as disclosed by Myrold et al. (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, lines 55-63).
Regarding claim 60, Roberg, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the straw chopper [5] comprises a cover [9] operable to move (see paragraph [0017], lines 6-8) between a closed position (see Fig. 1) where the cover closes the housing [7], and an opened position (not shown, but [9] is pivotable, see paragraph [0017], lines 6-8; therefore, open position is opposite of what’s shown in Fig. 1) where the cover is moved away from the housing to allow access to the at least one shredder rotor ([5] is a shredder rotor).
Regarding claim 61, Myrold et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the straw chopper [11 and 12] includes a plurality of deflector plates [18 and 19] arranged to deflect straw (see Col. 3, lines 41-48) chopped by the first shredder rotor [11] towards respective ends of the second shredder rotor [12].
Claim(s) 57 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberg (EP 2225929 A1) and Myrold et al. (US 2701596 A) as applied to claims 55-56 and 59-61 above, and further in view of Felix et al. (US 3338037 A).
Regarding claim 57, Myrold et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the first shredder rotor [11] is provided with a first arrangement of blades [11c] and the second shredder rotor [12] is provided with a second arrangement of blades [12c], but the combination fails to disclose wherein the first arrangement of blades is different to the second arrangement of blades.
Felix et al. discloses similar straw chopper (see Fig. 10) wherein the first shredder rotor [120] is provided with a first arrangement of blades (arrangement of [122 and 127]; see Fig. 10) and the second shredder rotor [140] is provided with a second arrangement of blades (arrangement of [142, 144, and 145]; see Fig. 10), wherein the first arrangement of blades is different (see Fig. 10 and Col. 7, lines 4-17) to the second arrangement of blades.
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 blade arrangements of Felix et al. on the shredder rotors of Roberg and Myrold et al. in order to accommodate different lengths of blades off of the ends of the rotor (see Felix et al. Col. 7, lines 22-27).
Regarding claim 58, Felix et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the first arrangement of blades (arrangement of [122 and 127]; see Fig. 10) includes a first number of thrower blades ([122 and 127]; thrower blades due to the perpendicular portion), and the second arrangement of blades (arrangement of [142, 144, and 145]; see Fig. 10) includes a second number of thrower blades ([142, 144, and 145]; thrower blades due to the perpendicular portion) and wherein the second number of thrower blades is more than (see Figs. 10 and 12) the first number of thrower blades, and wherein each thrower blade comprises a straw cutting edge (see below, edge that makes contact with straw in cutting direction [8]) lying in a first plane (see below) and a fan or thrower portion (see below, portion perpendicular to cutting edge) lying in a plane perpendicular (see below) to the first plane.
PNG
media_image10.png
356
495
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myrold et al. (US 2701596 A) in view of Farley et al. (US 7510472 B1).
Regarding claim 63, Myrold et al. discloses a straw chopper [11 and 12] for use in a ground traversing agricultural machine (see Col. 1, lines 74-77), comprising:
a first shredder rotor [11] and a second shredder rotor [12] arranged to rotate about mutually parallel axes (see below) and wherein the second shredder rotor is downstream (see Fig. 1) of the first shredder rotor and wherein straw chopped by the first shredder rotor subsequently passes to the second shredder rotor (rotors overlap; therefore, the straw chopped by the first rotor is passed to the second rotor; see Col. 2, lines 66-75); and
first and second blade racks ([16 and 17]; see Fig. 3) to enable control of a degree of chopping straw (see Col. 4, lines 40-46).
PNG
media_image9.png
387
333
media_image9.png
Greyscale
But Myrold et al. fails to disclose the first and second blade racks being movable toward and away from the first and second shredder rotors respectively to enable control of a degree of chopping straw.
Farley et al. discloses a similar straw chopper ([46’], see Fig. 6) comprising of a blade rack (rack [76] with blades [78] mounted thereon) being moveable toward and away (through adjustment mechanism [138]; see Col. 10, lines 38-48 and 63-67, and Col. 11, lines 1-3) from the shredder rotor [47].
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 adjustment mechanism of Farley et al. on the blade racks of Myrold et al. in order to rotate the blade rack between a fully engaged position where the blades project maximally and fully retracted position where the blades project minimally for greater control of the chopper assembly (see Farley et al. Col. 10, lines 38-48).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 49-53 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 consider ed pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for the full list of references.
Reference US 6840854 B2 discloses a similar straw chopper [17] with a straw distribution system (see Fig. 2).
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