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 the combination of Bloemendaal with Bever fails to disclose a cooling section without a plurality of angled containment baffles. As discussed below, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide a cooling section that does now include a plurality of angled containment baffles, since it has been held that the omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
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 original claims include a limitation directed to ductwork; new claims 18-20 include a limitation directed to a heater mounted on a barrier between a drying section and a cooling section. Therefore, the claims contain mutually exclusive limitations.
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 Accordingly, claims 18–20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.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 1–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0014404 to Bloemendaal in view of FR 84,242 to Bever (citations directed to the machine translation provided by Applicant).
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 (32) in communication with the pair of heating columns (16), each heating column (16) having an inner boundary and an outer boundary (Fig. 2); the inner boundary and outer boundary of each heating column (16) being formed with a plurality of angled containment baffles (18) configured to 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 each heating column (16) comprises a plurality of horizontal levels arranged from a lowest horizontal level at a lowest portion of the heating column and an uppermost horizontal level at an uppermost portion of the heating column adjacent the receiving area (Fig. 2; ¶ 0025); a cooling section below the heated drying section (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0045–0046), the cooling section comprising a pair of cooling columns below the pair of heating columns (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0045–0046); a heater (12) (¶ 0024), wherein air is heated by the heater (12) as the air is pulled into the upper plenum (32) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0029); a ductwork (28, 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).
Bloemendaal fails to disclose a plurality of grain diverters mounted between the containment baffles forming the inner boundary and the containment baffles forming the outer boundary, wherein each grain diverter of the plurality of grain diverters is shaped to form a downward facing nook that forms a void in the grain as the grain flows down the heating column. Bever teaches a plurality of grain diverters (26) mounted between the containment baffles (25) forming the inner boundary and the containment baffles (25) forming the outer boundary (Fig. 3), wherein each grain diverter (26) of the plurality of grain diverters (26) is shaped to form a downward facing nook that forms a void (27) in the grain as the grain flows down the heating column (Fig. 3). 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 diverters of Bever because such a combination would have had the added benefit of more uniform mixing of the grain to ensure thorough dryness.
Bloemendaal fails to disclose the cooling section does not include the plurality of angled containment baffles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide a cooling section that does now include a plurality of angled containment baffles, since it has been held that the omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
With regard to claim 2, Bloemendaal as previously combined with Bever further discloses the grain diverters (Bever: 26) are aligned vertically in the center of the heating column (Bever: Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 3, Bloemendaal as previously combined with Bever further discloses grain flowing down each heating column is forced to pass around the plurality of grain diverters (Bever: Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 4, 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 of the grain dryer (10) (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 5, Bloemendaal further discloses a plurality of rows of the containment baffles (18) are arranged in a stacked formation substantially the entire height of the heating column (16) to continually direct the grain column in a downward manner through the heated drying section (Fig. 2; ¶ 0025).
With regard to claim 6, Bloemendaal further discloses the containment baffles (18) are formed into a shape 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 (32) and lower ends are closer to a central portion of the heating column (16) 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 (28, 42) and lower ends are closer to the central portion of the heating column (16) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0025).
Bloemendaal fails to disclose the containment baffles are made of a sheet metal. However, making baffles from 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, at the time of filing, to use sheet metal to form the baffles because doing so would have provided a baffle that could be cheaply made and able to withstand high temperatures and abrasion.
With regard to claim 7, Bloemendaal further discloses the containment baffles (16) are arranged such that there is a vertical overlap between the upper ends of the containment baffles (16) in one row with the lower ends of the containment baffles (16) in the row above (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 8, Bloemendaal further discloses the containment baffles (16) are arranged such that there is a horizontal space between the upper ends of the containment baffles (16) in one row with the lower ends of the containment baffles (16) in the row above (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 9, Bloemendaal as previously combined with Bever further discloses there is one grain diverter (Bever: 26) for each row of containment baffles (Bever: 25) (Bever: Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 10, Bloemendaal further discloses vertically neighboring grain diverters are offset from one another (Fig. 2).
Bloemendaal fails to disclose every other grain diverter is aligned with one another. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have every other grain diverter aligned with one another, 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 11, Bloemendaal as previously combined with Bever further discloses each grain diverter (Bever: 26) is formed with a first leg and a second leg and a peaked junction between the first leg and second leg (Bever: Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 12, Bloemendaal as previously combined with Bever further discloses each of the plurality of grain diverters (Bever: 26) is positioned at a regular height interval between the containment baffles (Bever: 25) and configured to extend longitudinally between the containment baffles (Bever: 25) (Bever: Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 13, Bloemendaal as previously combined with Bever further discloses the grain diverters (Bever: 25) are positioned such that each grain diverter (Bever: 25) is offset from the adjacent grain diverters (Bever: 25) positioned immediately above and below (Bever: Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 14, Bloemendaal further discloses a lower plenum between the cooling columns (Fig. 2; ¶ 0045).
With regard to claim 15, 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 being on the barrier. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the heater on 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 16, Bloemendaal fails to disclose the at least one fan is configured to create 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 17, Bloemendaal fails to disclose the at least one fan is located adjacent the uppermost horizontal level. 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 located adjacent the uppermost horizontal level, 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).
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
September 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights