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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The title of an invention should clearly and comprehensively reflect the subject matter and kind of the invention for which protection is sought, in other words the title should be commiserate with the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayerle (2016/0150727), in view of Berry (WO 2018/053600).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
NOTE: the current application is a CIP, the subject matter added / claimed, was not disclosed in the parent application 16/817,190, therefore, the priority for the subject matter claimed is the filing of the current CIP application 4/17/2023).
Mayerle teaches the claimed invention, except as noted:
[AltContent: textbox (At shaft a common axis of rotation of the rotors )][AltContent: textbox (Weed seed destructor: inlet, rotors & stators)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Rotary chopper with straw engaging members)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
314
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Connecting screws/bolts on a plate)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (bearing )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
304
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1. A combine harvester comprising:
a separation system including a threshing system which separates harvested crop into a first material stream comprising straw and a second material stream comprising chaff and weed seeds (par. 101);
a rotary member mounted on the combine harvester for rotation about a rotary axis (marked up);
wherein the rotary member carries a plurality of straw engaging members engaging the straw in the first material stream (marked up); and
at least one weed seed destructor section (shown above) comprising:
an inlet receiving the chaff and weed seeds in the second material stream (fig 3);
a first rotor having first rotor surfaces engaging the chaff and weed seeds in the second material stream (marked up);
the first rotor being mounted for rotation about a rotor axis of said at least one weed seed destructor section (marked up);
second stator surfaces engaging the chaff and weed seeds in the second material stream (fig 3);
the first rotor being mounted so that said rotation of the first rotor relative to the second stator surfaces causing the chaff and weed seeds to be impacted between said first rotor and second stator surfaces so that the weed seeds in the second material are devitalized before being spread onto the ground (intended use is shown/taught in fig 3);
wherein the rotor axis of said at least one weed seed destructor section is coaxial with the rotary axis of the rotary member for rotation about a common axis (marked up);
wherein the rotor of said at least one weed seed destructor section is connected by one or more connecting elements to the rotary member for common rotation about the common axis (marked up); and
wherein said one or more connecting elements are releasable to allow the rotor of said at least one weed seed destructor section to remain stationary while the rotary member rotates about the common axis (although capable of being released, but the details of the connection is not clearly shown).
Berry teaches a weed destructor section in greater detail:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Releasable bolts to allow the rotor to remain stationary)]
PNG
media_image3.png
864
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the weed destructor of Mayerle with the teachings of Berry, with a reasonable expectation of success since decoupling the rotor would reduce power usage when weed destruction is not necessary; the releasability of connecting bolts is well within the engineering skill in the art.
2. The combine harvester according to claim 1 wherein the rotary member includes a shaft component along the common axis and wherein the rotor of said at least one weed seed destructor section is mounted on the shaft component (shown/taught in the combination, see Mayerle).
3. The combine harvester according to claim 2 wherein the rotor of said at least one weed seed destructor section is mounted on the shaft component by a bearing to allow the shaft to rotate with the rotary member while the rotor of said at least one weed seed destructor section remains stationary (obvious use of a bearing, see Mayerle & Berry).
4. The combine harvester according to claim 1 wherein the rotary member includes a plate member lying in a radial plane of the common axis at the rotor of said at least one weed seed destructor section and wherein the rotor of said at least one weed seed destructor section is fastened to the plate member by said connecting elements (shown/taught in the combination, see Mayerle).
5. The combine harvester according to claim 4 wherein the connecting elements comprise axially extending releasable screw fasteners passing through a portion of the rotor of said at least one weed seed destructor section into the plate member (shown/taught in the combination).
6. The combine harvester according to claim 1 wherein said at least one weed seed destructor section is located at a position axially separated from the straw engaging members (shown/taught in the combination, see Mayerle).
7. The combine harvester according to claim 1 wherein said at least one weed seed destructor section is located at an end of the rotary member (shown/taught in the combination, see Mayerle).
8. The combine harvester according to claim 1 wherein said at least one weed seed destructor section comprises a first weed seed destructor section at a first end of the rotary member and a second weed seed destructor section at a second end of the rotary member (shown/taught in the combination, see Mayerle).
9. The combine harvester according to claim 1 wherein the rotary member is a rear straw chopper and carries a plurality of straw chopping blades at axially spaced locations therealong (shown/taught in the combination, see Mayerle).
10. The combine harvester according to claim 1 wherein the rotary member is an internal straw chopper and carries a plurality of straw chopping blades at axially spaced locations therealong (shown/taught in the combination, see Mayerle).
11. The combine harvester according to claim 1 wherein the rotor of said at least one weed seed destructor section includes an inner rotor component and at least one coaxial surrounding ring of rotor components and wherein the stator surfaces comprise at least one coaxial ring of stator surfaces located between the inner rotor components and the ring (shown/taught in the combination, see fig 3, Berry).
12. The combine harvester according to claim 1 wherein said at least one weed seed destructor section includes a common discharge with a discharge for the first material (shown/taught in the combination, see fig 2, Mayerle).
13. The combine harvester according to claim 1 wherein said at least one weed seed destructor section is arranged to expel the second material into a secondary spreading device (shown/taught in the combination, see fig 2, Mayerle).
14. The combine harvester according to claim 13 wherein the secondary spreading device comprises a tailboard with a plurality of fins (shown/taught in the combination, see fig 2, Mayerle).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayerle (2016/0150727), in view of Berry (WO 2018/053600), in further view of Mayerle (CA 3231538, see Note above, regarding priority date).
Mayerle ‘727 & Berry teaches the claimed invention, except show the obvious transfer system & drive thereof, as claimed:
15. The combine harvester according to claim 1 wherein there is provided a transfer system to move the second material from a discharge location to said at least one weed seed destructor section wherein the rotary member and the transfer system are driven by a common drive system and wherein the transfer system drive can be decoupled from the common drive.
Mayerle ‘538 teaches the typical transfer system (110; pg. 33, ln 10-15), and a belt drive system (pg. 33, ln 20-22; pg. 34, ln 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the harvester of Mayerle ‘727 & Berry with the teachings of Mayerle ‘538, with a reasonable expectation of success since effective transfer of material is accomplished when using lighter crop material.
16. The combine harvester according to claim 15 wherein there is provided a bypass by which the second material can bypass the transfer system (taught in the combination, see Mayerle ‘538, pg. 34, 1-3).
To adequately traverse a finding of Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b). See also Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 (“[I]n the absence of any demand by appellant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement, we will not consider this contention.”). A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the examiner’s assertion of official notice would be inadequate. If applicant adequately traverses the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner must provide documentary evidence in the next Office action if the rejection is to be maintained. See 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2). See also Zurko, 258 F.3d at 1386, 59 USPQ2d at 1697 (“[T]he Board [or examiner] must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings” to satisfy the substantial evidence test). If the examiner is relying on personal knowledge to support the finding of what is known in the art, the examiner must provide an affidavit or declaration setting forth specific factual statements and explanation to support the finding. See 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2).
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate.
Consequently, the following is deemed to be "well known": a transfer system & drive disengagement and/or bypass from the chopper / WSD system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Mayerle (2005/0282602) teaches in figs 2-6, chopper rotor & straw engaging elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6990. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th.
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 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 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.
/ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671