DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 08/19/2026. Claim(s) 1–20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that adjacent panels of Bloemendaal do not vertically overlap. It appears to Examiner, based on Figure 2 of Bloemendaal (reproduced with markups below), that the panels overlap in the vertical direction, at least slightly.
Applicant also argues that Bloomendaal fails to disclose a restrictive air path. However, as Applicant notes, Bloomendaal discloses that the speed of the airflow is affected by the spacing between vertically adjacent panels. As such, one of ordinary skill would have understood that a desired airflow can be achieved by designing a properly sized spacing between the panels.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 18–20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the new claims include a limitation for a cooling section, but do not include all the limitations of claim 1.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 18–20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 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.
Claims 1–11 & 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0014404 to Bloemendaal in view of US 2019/0145706 to Heilskov et al.
With regard to claim 1, Bloemendaal discloses a grain dryer (abstract) comprising: a receiving area having an inlet port to receive grain entering the dryer (10) (¶ 0031); a heated drying section comprising a pair of heating columns with an upper plenum in communication with the pair of heating columns (16), each heating column (16) having an inner boundary and an outer boundary (Fig. 2); a heater (12) (¶ 0024), wherein air is heated by the heater (12) as the air is being pulled into the upper plenum (32) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0029); a plurality of angled containment baffles (18) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0025), the inner boundary and outer boundary of each heating column (16) being formed by the plurality of containment baffles (18) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0025), wherein the plurality of containment baffles (18) funnel grain down the heating column (16) while allowing heated air to be drawn from the upper plenum (32) through the grain (Fig. 2; ¶ 0025), wherein the containment baffles (18) are arranged in rows such that there is a vertical overlap between an upper end of a containment baffle of one of the inner boundary or the outer boundary and a lower end of a vertically neighboring containment baffle of the one of the inner boundary or the outer boundary (Fig. 2; ¶ 0025; when viewing Fig. 2, it appears that if one were to draw a horizontal line, it would touch both the lower edge of one panel and the upper edge of the next lower adjacent panel; see Fig. 2 reproduced with markups below), and wherein the containment baffles (18) are angled such that there is a horizontal space between the upper end and the lower end (see Fig. 2 reproduced with markups below; ¶ 0025); a ductwork (42) connected to the outer boundary of each heating column (16) (Fig. 2); at least one fan (14) that takes a suction from the ductwork (42) to draw heated air from the upper plenum (32) through the heating column (16) such that grain entering the grain dryer (10) through inlet port flows from the receiving area into the heating columns (16) where the grain is exposed to heated air being pulled from the upper plenum (32) through the heating column (16) and into the ductwork (42) (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0025–0027), wherein because of the horizontal space formed by the containment baffles (18) forms a restrictive air path (Fig. 2), a velocity of the heated air as it flows out of the outer boundary into the ductwork (42) is greater than the velocity of the heated air as it flows through the ductwork (42) such that debris that is entrained in the higher velocity heated air leaving the outer boundary settles to a bottom portion of the ductwork (42) because of the lower velocity of the heated air in the ductwork (42) (¶ 0047).
PNG
media_image1.png
722
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bloemendaal fails to disclose an access port attached in a bottom portion of the ductwork that is operable between a closed position and an open position, wherein debris that settles in the bottom portion of the ductwork is removed from the ductwork when the access port is in the open position. Heilskov teaches an access port (39) attached in a bottom portion of the ductwork (30) that is operable between a closed position and an open position (Figs. 8 & 8A; ¶¶ 0071, 0118), wherein debris that settles in the bottom portion of the ductwork is removed from the ductwork when the access port (39) is in the open position (Figs. 8 & 8A; ¶¶ 0071, 0118). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the grain dryer of Bloemendaal with the access port of Heilskov because such a combination would have had the added benefit of allowing a user to clean out the plenum to reduce or eliminate buildup which could restrict flow.
With regard to claim 2, Bloemendaal further discloses the ductwork (28, 32, 34, 42) adjacent each heating column (16) comprises a plurality of vertical sections arranged along a length of the grain dryer (10) from a forward end to a rearward end of the grain dryer (10) (Fig. 2), wherein the containment baffles (18) forming the inner boundary and the outer boundary are arranged side-to-side such that there are substantially continuous rows from the forward end of the grain dryer to the rearward end (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 3, Bloemendaal further discloses the containment baffles (18) are shaped such that the containment baffles (18) forming the inner boundary are angled in a downward and inward direction such that upper ends are closer to the upper plenum and lower ends are closer to a central portion of the heating column (16) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0025) and the containment baffles (18) forming the outer boundary are angled in a downward and inward direction such that upper ends are closer to the ductwork and lower ends are closer to the central portion of the heating column (16) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0025).
With regard to claim 4, Bloemendaal further discloses a plurality of rows of the containment baffles (18) are arranged in a stacked formation substantially an entire height of the heating column (16) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0025).
With regard to claim 5, Bloemendaal further discloses a lower plenum (34) below the upper plenum (32) (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 6, Bloemendaal further discloses the lower plenum (34) is between a pair of cooling columns in communication with the pair of heating columns (Fig. 2; ¶ 0045).
With regard to claim 7, Bloemendaal further discloses a barrier (26) between the lower plenum (34) and the upper plenum (32) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0027).
Bloemendaal fails to disclose the heater is mounted to the barrier. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the heater mounted to the barrier, since to shift the location of parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
With regard to claim 8, Bloemendaal fails to disclose the at least one fan is above an uppermost horizontal level of the heating columns. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the at least one fan above an uppermost horizontal level of the heating columns, since to shift the location of parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
With regard to claim 9, Bloemendaal fails to disclose the at least one fan creates a negative pressure within the ductwork. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the at least one fan positioned in a location such that it was sucking air through the system instead of blowing air through the system, since to shift the location of parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). Since fans cause both a negative pressure stream on the inlet side and a positive pressure on the outlet side, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to move the fan to a different location and rely on the negative pressure to move the air through the system instead of a positive pressure to blow the air through since both would have produced the same result and would have simply been a design choice preference.
With regard to claim 10, Bloemendaal further discloses a cooling section below the heating section (Fig. 2; ¶ 0045), wherein the at least one fan (14) causes ambient air (50) to flow through perforations in an outer wall of the cooling section (Fig. 2; ¶ 0045).
With regard to claim 11, Bloemendaal further discloses the ambient air is preheated by the grain in the cooling section (Fig. 2; ¶ 0045; cooling grain transfers heat to warming air).
With regard to claim 15, Bloemendaal further discloses a plurality of grain diverters in each heating column (Fig. 2 depicts some of the panels (18) as being much larger than some others; as such, the larger panels can be considered grain diverters since they change the direction of flow of the grain).
With regard to claim 16, Bloemendaal fails to disclose the grain dryer comprises one grain diverter for every row of containment baffles. The ratio of panels to diverters is a known results-effective variable because the greater the number of diverters, the more turbulence the grain experiences. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a grain diverter for every row of containment baffles, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With regard to claim 17, Bloemendaal as previously combined with Heilskov further discloses the access port (Heilskov: 39) is at a bottom of the heating section (Heilskov: 28) (Heilskov: Fig. 8; ¶ 0065).
Claim 12–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloemendaal in view of Heilskov, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 9,885,520 to Abbasi.
With regard to claim 12, Bloemendaal fails to disclose a cooling air bypass system configured to cause at least some of the ambient air to bypass the grain in the cooling section. Abbasi teaches a cooling air bypass system (115, 260) configured to cause at least some of the ambient air to bypass an intake air modification unit (IAMU) (Col. 6, lines 22–30; Col. 7, lines 36–46; Col. 8, lines 15–20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the grain dryer of Bloemendaal with the bypass duct of Abbasi because such a combination would have had the added benefit of allowing a portion of the air to bypass certain sections of the dryer to provide fresh air to other sections of the dryer.
With regard to claim 13, Bloemendaal as previously combined with Abbasi further discloses the cooling air bypass system comprises a bypass tube (Abbasi: 260) (Abbasi: Fig. 2).
Bloemendaal as previously combined with Abbasi fails to disclose plurality of bypass tubes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a plurality of bypass tubes, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloemendaal in view of Heilskov, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
Bloemendaal fails to disclose the containment baffles comprise sheet metal. However, sheet metal is old and well-known in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the grain dryer of Bloemendaal with the sheet metal components known to the prior art because such a combination would have been one of a limited number of ways to construct the panels such that they would be resistant to both thermal changes and erosion/abrasion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
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 DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
August 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights