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 .
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 10 is 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 10 recites “wherein the pick-up rotor is joined to the machine frame of the pick-up attachment such that the pick-up rotor as a whole cannot pivot relative to the machine frame”. The wording of “such that the pick-up rotor as a whole cannot pivot relative to the machine frame” is unclear. Per the examiner’s best understanding of the invention, the Applicant discloses two embodiments designated (a) and (b) as described below:
wherein a frame of the flexible pick-up rotor (12) is rigidly joined to a machine frame (24) of the pick-up attachment, as depicted in Figs. 1-3, such that “the adaptation to the contours of the ground then takes place almost exclusively via the flexibly constructed pick-up rotor” (see Applicant’s specification page 10, paragraph 4).
wherein a frame of the of the flexible pick-up rotor (12) is linked in reciprocating or swinging manner to a machine frame (24) of the pick-up attachment (e.g. via swing arm 26), as depicted in Figs. 7a-7c, in order to “permit a kind of vertical movement between pick-up rotor and machine frame of the pick-up attachment” (Applicant’s specification page 11, paragraph 3).
However, it appears that the pick-up rotor segments are still each individually pivotable relative to the machine frame in both cases, regardless of whether a rigid or swingable attachment is provided between the pick-up rotor frame and the machine frame. Thus, the pick-up rotor may still be considered to be “pivotable as a whole” since each of the segments and thus the entire pick-up rotor remains pivotable relative to the machine frame in both cases. The examiner believes that for embodiment (a), Applicant intends to claim that a pick-up rotor frame is rigidly secured to a machine frame of the pick-up attachment and has interpreted it as such for purposes of examination.
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 1-5, 8-10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knüsel (EP 3326448 A1) in view of Guenter et al. (HU 176665 B).
It is noted that all citations to Knüsel (EP 3326448 A1) and Guenter et al. (HU 176665 B) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated documents attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding claim 1, Knüsel discloses a pick-up attachment (200) for a forage harvester (100, i.e. pick-up is configurable for use with a “forage harvester”, para. [0002]), comprising a pick-up rotor (1) with pick-up implements (2) for picking up crops (FG) from the ground (Fig. 1), wherein the pick-up rotor is assembled from several segments (25a-25d) joined to one another in at least partly articulated relationship for adaptation to the contours of the ground (Fig. 3, para. [0035] “Ground adaptation is optimized by the flexible or articulated pickup roller” wherein sections 25a-25d are connected to each other with universal joints 26a-26c, para. [0028]).
Knüsel fails to disclose a transverse auger arranged behind the pick-up rotor, on a side of the pick-up rotor facing the forage harvester, the transverse auger being configured to gather together the crops picked up by the pick-up rotor and to deliver the crops to the forage harvester.
In the same area, Guenter teaches a similar pick-up attachment (3) attached to the forward end of a forage harvester (1) (page 2, “processing device behind the pick-up…such as the forage harvester”) comprising an articulated pick-up rotor (7) and a transverse auger (6) arranged behind the pick-up rotor (Fig. 1), the transverse auger being configured to gather together the crops picked up by the pick-up rotor and to deliver the crops to the forage harvester (page 3 “harvested crop…is grabbed by the transverse conveyor screw 6 and transported to a trough in the middle of the trough back wall and then fed to a processing unit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the pick-up rotor of Knüsel on a forage harvester pick-up attachment, as taught by Guenter, as a mere simple substitution of one known articulated pick-up rotor for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Knüsel in view of Guenter discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1. Knüsel further teaches wherein the pick-up rotor (1) is flexible over the entire working width (Fig. 3, para. [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Knüsel in view of Guenter discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1. Knüsel further teaches wherein several guide elements (4c-4f) distributed over the working width are provided in order to guide the pick-up rotor (1) to and/or over the ground (para. [0011]).
Regarding claim 4, Knüsel in view of Guenter discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 3. Knüsel further teaches wherein the guide elements (4c-4f) are disposed underneath and directly behind the pick-up rotor (1) (Fig. 1) within its effective working width (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 5, Knüsel in view of Guenter discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 3. Knüsel further teaches wherein the guide elements (4c-4f) are constructed at least partly as sliding disks (Figs. 2-3, para. [0008] formed as circular sliding disks).
Regarding claim 8, Knüsel in view of Guenter discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1. Knüsel further teaches wherein the pick-up attachment (200) has a transport width that is equivalent to the working width (Knüsel teaches only one position which is therefore interpreted as both the working and transport position).
Regarding claim 9, Knüsel in view of Guenter discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1. Knüsel further teaches wherein the pick-up rotor (1) is designed as a non-steered pick-up rotor (Fig. 1, see circular trajectory 3 of tines).
Note - “a non-steered pick-up rotor” has been interpreted as defined in Applicant’s specification: “In the non-steered design, the tines extend along a circular trajectory and can rotate around a fixed axis of rotation.” (page 9 last paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Knüsel in view of Guenter discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1. Knüsel further teaches wherein a pick-up rotor frame (i.e. see end plates of rotor below) is rigidly secured to the machine frame of the pick-up attachment such that the pick-up rotor frame cannot pivot relative to the machine frame.
PNG
media_image1.png
564
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Knüsel Fig. 1
Regarding claims 15-16, Knüsel in view of Guenter discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 9. Knüsel further teaches wherein the pick-up implements (2) are designed as degressively arranged pick-up implements, as per claim 15, or wherein the pick- up implements (2) are designed as degressively arranged tines, as per claim 16 (as seen in Fig. 1, conveyor tines 2 are angled away/bent counter to the direction of rotation R1).
Note - “degressively arranged pick-up implements/tines” has been interpreted as defined in Applicant’s specification: “Degressive means that the legs of the tines or spring tines are angled away or bent counter to the direction of rotation” (page 10 paragraph 2).
Claims 6-7, 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knüsel in view of Guenter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Poettinger (DE 202010010038 U1).
It is noted that all citations to Poettinger (DE 202010010038 U1) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 13, Knüsel in view of Guenter discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a machine frame of the pick-up attachment can be folded to a folded condition having a predetermined transport width and unfolded to an unfolded condition having a predetermined working width, as per claim 6, wherein the pick-up attachment in the folded condition has a transport width that is 3 m, and in the unfolded condition has a working width that is larger than the transport width, as per claim 7, and wherein the pick- up attachment in the unfolded condition has a working width that is 6 m, as per claim 13.
Poettinger in the same area discloses a similar pick-up attachment (2) comprising a pick-up rotor (3) assembled from several segments (3a, 3b, 3n) joined to one another in at least partly articulated relationship for adaptation to the contours of the ground (Fig. 3, para. [0043]), wherein a machine frame (1a,1b,1c) of the pick-up attachment can be folded to a folded condition having a predetermined transport width (para. [0053]) and unfolded to an unfolded condition (Fig. 5) having a predetermined working width, wherein the pick-up attachment in the unfolded condition has a working width of about 6 m (para. [0026] teaches each rotor segment 3a, 3b,…3n can have width between 0.5 and 3 meters, e.g. approx. 1 meter, six segments shown in Fig. 5 = approximately 6 meters) and in the folded condition has a transport width of 3 m (para. [0007] teaches it is desirable to provide a folding transport width to comply with the maximum permissible road width, and para. [0053] teaches outer machine units 1a, 1c are pivoted from the lowered working position shown in Fig. 5 into a raised transport position for road transport. Given the dimensions provided in para. [0026], a transport width of 3 can be readily obtained).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pick-up attachment of the combination to be movable between an unfolded condition and a folded condition having similar dimensions as disclosed by Poettinger (i.e. about 3 meters folded and 6 meters unfolded), in order to allow for a large working width while still allowing for compliance with vehicle road transport laws (Poettinger at para. [0053]).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 17, Knüsel in view of Guenter and Poettinger discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 6.
Poettinger further teaches wherein the pick-up rotor (3) of the pick-up attachment (2) is combinable with a transverse reciprocating frame (para. [0049] linkage frame 14 connections to suspension points 9 and 10 extending in a transverse direction), which is disposed on the attachment side (Fig. 2), as per claim 11, wherein the pick-up rotor is in reciprocating or swinging operative communication with a machine frame (22) of the pick-up attachment, as per claim 12, via at least one swing arm (15,16,17), as per claim 17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pick-up rotor of the combination to be combinable with a transverse reciprocating frame, as taught by Poettinger, in order to further improve ground adaptation to ensure a clean raking result for large working widths (Poettinger at para. [0049, 0051]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knüsel in view of Guenter as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Dow (US 9386749 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Knüsel in view of Guenter discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 8, but does not explicitly detail wherein the working width is 3 m to at most 4.50 m.
In the same area, Dow discloses a similar pickup head for a forage harvester (col. 6 lines 57-58), wherein the overall width of the pickup head is 3 meters (col. 8 line 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design Knüsel’s pick-up attachment to comprise a similar width of 3 meters, as taught by Dow, in order to comply with the maximum legally permissible width to move safely down the highway in the United States and most European countries (Dow at col. 8 lines 27-30).
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-17, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights