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. Double Patenting Claims 1-13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18319991. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because no new inventive structure or function is presented. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Objections Claims 5 and 7-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: MPEP 608.01(m) allows the use of reference numbers in the claim however the reference numbers generally do not affect the scope of the claim. The claims refer to rocker arms (34) and to rocker arms (40) and to rocker arms (46). The reference numbers make the claim able to be understood, however the claim language must not rely on the reference numbers to determine the scope of the claims. In other words, the claims must be clear without relying on the reference numbers. Without the reference numbers the rocker arms presented in the claims are indistinguishable from one another. The different rocker arms must be renamed within the claims or the claims must clearly distinguish them from one another in view of additional structure. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1-13 are 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. The claim(s) are replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. Below is a listing of rejections under 35 U.S.C 112, however this list is not exhaustive and the claims must be revisited and revised to conform to current US practice. Claim 1 , “the cut stalk material”, “the conveying direction”, “the transition region”, “the upper knife”, and “the lower knife” all lack antecedent basis. Claim 2 , “the direction of extent” and “the free ends” lack antecedent basis. The phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Claim 3 , “the upwardly pointing side” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 5 , “the coverings” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 6 , “the joints” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 11 , “their respective cutting unit-side rotational axes.” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 12 , “the rocker arms” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 13 , refers to “a different blade pitch”. It is unclear in view of the specification and drawings as to what part of the blades this is in reference to. Depending claims are rejected for depending from a rejected base claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Talbot (USPN 6962040). Regarding claim 1 , Talbot discloses a cutting unit ( header ) for attachment to a combine harvester which comprises a frame ( 3 4), a knife bar ( 31 ), a depositing surface ( 32 ) for depositing the cut stalk material, conveying apparatuses ( drapers 36 ) for conveying away the cut stalk material, drive apparatuses for driving the knife bar ( Drive 1 and 2 ) and the conveying apparatuses ( the conveyors would inherently be driven ), and a sliding surface ( 32 ), inclined obliquely in the conveying direction of the harvested crops, in the transition region from the knife bar to the depositing surface, further including a double knife cutting system that is configured on the knife bar, in the case of which double knife cutting system a first part of the knife blades ( First sickle 10, figure 2 ) present on the cutting unit are fastened to a first knife back ( 11 ), this first part of the knife blades together with the first knife back forming the upper knife, and a second part of the knife blades ( Second sickle 20 ) present on the cutting unit being fastened to a second knife back ( 21 ), this second part of the knife blades together with the second knife back forming the lower knif e, the upper knife and the lower knife being driven in opposite directions (Column 5 lines 25-26 discloses a sickle phase difference wherein the knives would be driven in opposite directions during portions of the phase) , and the sliding surface ( 32 ) being configured as a bar is connected in a stationary manner to the upper knife ( sliding surface bar 32 is stationary in relationship to the upper knife during operation and is operationally connected to the bar to guide crop material upwardly onto the conveying surface ). Regarding claim 3 , Talbot discloses wherein that the depositing surface is configured on the upwardly pointing side of one or more belt conveyors ( draper 36 ) which are driven in circulation. 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) 2 , 5 - 7 , 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talbot (USPN 6962040) in view of Neely (US 2018/0103580). Regarding claim 2 , Talbot discloses in column 4 lines 14-17 that the inventive sickle bar may be used with various header designs. Talbot discloses only a typical header and is lacking specifics of the header design such as a flexible header with pivotable supporting arms for the sickle bar. Neely discloses a header with a cutter bar and teaches wherein the cutter bar is supported over its length via a flexible cutter bar (120) attached to a plurality of supporting arms (128) that are connected to the header frame and can be moved into height positions different from one another (As displayed in figure 10 for example). 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 Talbot to use a flexible cutter bar supported by pivotable arms as taught by Neely for the purpose of providing the header with a contour following cutting action. Regarding claim 5 , Talbot clearly discloses drives on each side of the header but is lacking specifics on the drives. Neely discloses a header with a cutter bar and teaches the use of a rocker arm (Figure 14 shows a drive rocker arm 48 connected to a trunnion 28. The term Rocker arm is not considered a term of the art to carry further structure and function with it. As arm 48 is capable of rocking back and forth and up and down it is considered a rocker arm), Figure 16 shows that the rocker arm is vertically covered by a portion of the drive 138 which would shield it from crops and dirt. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Talbot to use rocker arm drives as taught by Neely for Neely’s drives 1 and 2 to power the sickle bars. It is noted that cover is considered broad and this interpretation is deemed proper. However for the sake of argument examiner takes official notice that merely providing coverings on moving mechanical parts of a combine harvester to protect them is notoriously old and well known in the art. Regarding claim 6 , Talbot discloses wherein the cutting unit (header) is of multiple-part configuration (A header is comprised of an assembly of components). Talbot is lacking the specific structure of the bar. Neely discloses a header with a cutter bar and teaches wherein the cutter bar is of a flexible design to conform to ground contours, Neely teaches the use of a flexible crop ramp bar with joints (Figure 5 bar sections 139, ¶0042). Neely discloses the use of the cutter bar with multiple header configuration ( column 4 lines 14-17 ) therefore, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Talbot to use a flexible cutter configuration that further comprises a flexible bar with joints as taught by Neely for the purpose of allowing flexing during operation to follow the ground contours . Regarding claim 7 , Talbot clearly discloses drives on each side of the header but is lacking specifics on the drives. Neely discloses a header with a cutter bar and teaches the use of a rocker arm (Figure 14 shows a drive rocker arm 48 connected to a trunnion 28. The term Rocker arm is not considered a term of the art to carry further structure and function with it. As arm 48 is capable of rocking back and forth and up and down it is considered a rocker arm), Figure 14 shows that the rocker arm drive connected via a mechanism (Pivot structure 244) which is arranged at a location between the side walls of the cutting unit (Figure 16 shows that the defined mechanism is between an outer side wall of the header). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Talbot to use rocker arm drives as taught by Neely for Neely’s drives 1 and 2 to power the sickle bars. Regarding claim 10 , the combination discloses wherein the upper knife and the lower knife are held on rocker arms which have the same length between their cutting unit-side rotational axis and the knife side rotational axis, via which they are connected to the upper knife or the lower knife, as the rocker arms, via which the upper knife and the lower knife are connected to the mechanism (The combination is considered to place the same drive on either side of the header. The drives are considered identical in structure and therefore length). Regarding claim 1 2 , Talbot discloses the use of two drive but is lacking the specifics of the drives. Neely discloses a header with a cutter bar and teaches the use of a rocker arm (Figure 14 shows a drive rocker arm 48 connected to a trunnion 28. The term Rocker arm is not considered a term of the art to carry further structure and function with it. As arm 48 is capable of rocking back and forth and up and down it is considered a rocker arm), Figure 16 shows the rocker arm is connected to a buffer element (bearing 160) that builds up restoring forces at their frame-side and/or knife-side end (Bearing 160 is located on a frame side end and builds up rotational forces during operation and releases/restores these forces via rotation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Talbot to use rocker arm drives as taught by Neely for Neely’s drives 1 and 2 to power the sickle bars. It is noted that the claim language regarding a “buffer element” is considered broad. Further amendment to the buffer element will result in further review of the prior art for similar drives that may comprise other types of buffer elements. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talbot (USPN 6962040) in view of Geringhoff (DE 102015110746 A1) . Regarding claim 4 , Talbot discloses the invention of a double sickle knife but is lacking the further use of air outlet openings on the bar between the cutting knife and the conveyor. Geringhoff discloses a header with a sickle bar and sliding surface bar between the knife and a conveyor and teaches the further use of a number of air outlet openings (12) which are oriented upwards and/or in the direction of the depositing surface (Figure 3 shows arrows of air flow) and distributed transversely over the working width. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Talbot to place a number of air outlet openings along the working width of the header bar as taught by Geringhoff for the purpose of pushing loose grain up onto the conveyor to prevent grain loss. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 8-9 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections in section 2 and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Coers (US 2007/0204586). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ADAM J BEHRENS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4336 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Chris Sebesta can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-0547 . 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