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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coers (USPN 6170244) in view of Fuller (USPN 3813859).
Regarding claims 1-2, Coers discloses a constructive arrangement applied to harvesting machines, comprising: (a) a reel (24); (b) a plurality of reel fingers (48) extending from the reel; (c) a bearing structure (32) attached to the reel; (d) a cam system (indicator 60) attached to the bearing structure that regulates attack angle of the reel fingers, the cam system comprising a plurality of cams (follower 68) and a cam path (channels 66), the plurality of cams travelling along the cam path; wherein the cam system facilitates cutting of raw plant when the raw plant is lifted from soil; wherein when the cut raw plant is unloaded onto a conveyor (18) of a platform (16),
the plurality of cams of the cam system changes the attack angle of the reel fingers at the starting point of unloading the cut raw plant, from 14° immediately before the unloading of the cut raw plant over the conveyor belts of the platform to at least -3°, then to at least -8° and then to at least 3° at a final unloading point and wherein the attack angle is measured with respect to a vertical plane.
See annotated figure 2 below. At or about an unloading zone, the tines travel between a large range of angles in relationship to a vertical plane to approximately include the claimed range of 14 degrees to -8 degrees which would also include ranges in-between.
PNG
media_image1.png
844
1082
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The annotated figure only shows a snapshot of tine positioning and does not fully capture every tine angle nor does Coers disclose precise angles in relationship to a vertical plane as interpreted above. Coers does clearly show a similar range of tine angles as applicant with the tines assuming a negative angle in relationship to a vertical plane. Coers is lacking exact angles.
As concerns claimed range of angles to include the negative angle it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the combination to include the range of 14 degrees to at least negative 8 degrees since applicant has not disclosed that these exact ranges solve any particular problem or purpose and it appears other similar ranges would work equally well. Furthermore, routine experimentation would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to these ranges.
Coers further gives an example of a header with an auger conveyor and is therefore lacking a draper belt platform. Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to use draper platforms on a header. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have replaced the auger with a conveyor belt. Further taught by Honey (US 2015/0272006) ¶0039.
Coers discloses a cutterbar but the invention of Coers is drawn to the reel and therefore is lacking detail of the cutting bar comprising roller sets.
Fuller discloses a header with a cutterbar and teaches a top tether (Annotated figure 2 below); and a cutting bar comprising crossbeams (20) with roller sets (hinges shown in figure 3 and described in Column 2 lines 30-35) attached to a rear part of the crossbeams; wherein the roller sets and attachment of the top tether to upper shafts of the crossbeams sustain the flexibility of the cutting bar and widen a freedom of movement (Enables the cutter bar to closely follow the contour of the ground, Column 2 lines 28-30).
PNG
media_image2.png
310
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 header of Coers by adding a flexible cutter with a top tether and rollers at the ends as taught by Fuller for the purpose of allowing the cutter to flex and follow the contours of the ground.
Regarding claims 3-5, Fuller’s tether is made of chain, however each these claim limitations are drawn to known material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use any known material as a top tether such as chain, cable, rope, belt, etc, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coers (USPN 6170244) in view of Neely (US 2018/0103580).
Regarding claim 6, Coers discloses a cutterbar that is inherently driven, but is lacking details of its drive.
Neely discloses a header with a flexible cutterbar and teaches a drive for the cutterbar comprising a counterfoil (Figure 1) with an altered profile (The profile is altered to fit the drive), situated below a gear box (Figure 16 shows that the counterfoil is attached below a gearbox drive 138), and the counterfoil increasing a height of the base of the gearbox in at least 25 mm over the cutting bar, without changing the height of the cutting bar (Figure 16 further displays that the gearbox is well above the cutterbar, see annotated figure 16).
PNG
media_image3.png
498
894
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 combination by using the drive system for the cutterbar as taught by Neely for the purpose of placing the drive system out of wear contact with the ground.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2-24-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claim language regarding “roller sets” would be recognized by one skilled in the art as being distinct from hinges as roller sets allow for linear movement while hinges don’t. Examiner respectively disagrees.
The claims are read and interpreted in their broadest reasonable interpretation. The phrase: “roller sets” is not considered an instantly recognizable phase of the art that carries structural and functional limitations with it. The claim as currently presented does not further define the movement of the arms or structure of the roller sets to clearly impart linear movement to the rear parts of the arms. “roller sets” when reasonable interpreted would impart some type of rolling action coupled with sets of components. A hinge system as shown and defined by Fuller would be considered “roller sets” with left and right hinge components (sets) about a centerline that impart rolling action in the form of rotation. As the claim language is considered broad the rejection is deemed appropriate and is maintained by the office.
Conclusion
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 ADAM J BEHRENS whose telephone number is (303)297-4336. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-2pm MST.
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 M. 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.
/ADAM J BEHRENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671