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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0092903) in view of Rotole et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0328470).
In reference to claim 1, Gross discloses a forage harvester cracker unit 28 comprising a base frame 52 comprising left and right hand side elements 102 (par. 0027),
a first cracker roller 40 (Fig. 2) being mounted on the base frame 52 to be rotatable about a fixed central axis 34 extending between the left and right hand side elements 102 of the base frame 52 and a secondary frame 50 comprising left and right hand side elements 96 (par. 0026),
a second cracker roller 38 (Fig. 2) being mounted on the secondary frame 50 to be rotatable about a central axis 34 extending between the left and right hand side elements 96 of the secondary frame 50,
wherein the forage harvester cracker unit 28 further comprises a pivot axis 34 extending through the base frame 52 and the secondary frame 50 (Fig. 2, par. 0022),
the secondary frame 50 being adjustable about the pivot axis 34 to enable variation of a separation of the first and second cracker rollers 40 and 38 (par. 0022),
a biasing element 66 (Fig. 2) acting between the base frame 52 and the secondary frame 50 to urge the second cracker roller 38 towards the first cracker roller 40 (par. 0022) and a drive element 68 acting against the biasing element 66 to hold the secondary frame 50 in position against the biasing element 66 to maintain a minimum separation of the first and second cracker rollers 40 and 38 characterised in that the drive arrangement 68 comprises includes a drive shaft 124 supported for rotation through the left and right hand side elements 102 of the base frame 52 (Fig. 7, par. 0029),
parallel levers 126 eccentrically mounted on the left and right hand sides of the drive shaft 124, a distal end of each lever 126 being retained within respective left and right hand side elements 96 of the secondary frame 50 so that rotation of the drive shaft 124 about its axis results in movement of the secondary frame 50 with respect to the base frame 52 and the distance between the first and second rollers 40 and 38 to be varied (Fig. 7), the drive arrangement 68 further comprising an actuator 118 to control rotation of the drive shaft 124 (par. 0029).
Gross discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 with the exception of bearings provided in left and ride hand side elements 102 of the base frame 52. As shown in Fig. 7, the drive shaft 124 extends through side elements 102 (par. 0029, “a shaft 124 extending transversely between the side walls 102”), but it is not clear if the aperture through which the shaft extends constitutes a bearing.
Rotole discloses that a shaft 4 can be supported by a bearing (par. 0049). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dispose a bearing between the side elements of the base frame and the drive shaft with a reasonable expectation of success so that the drive shaft can freely rotate.
In reference to claim 2, Gross discloses that the biasing element 66 comprises parallel spring elements mounted on the base frame 52 (Fig. 2).
In reference to claim 3, Gross discloses that the spring elements 66 act to pull the secondary frame 50 towards the base frame 52 (par. 0022).
In reference to claim 4, Gross discloses that the spring elements 66 are mounted adjacent the first cracker roller 40 (Fig. 2).
In reference to claim 5, Gross discloses that that the spring elements 66 act to push the secondary frame 50 towards the base frame 52 (Fig. 2, par. 0022, “upper end of the spring arrangement 66 bears against the side of the flange 76 remote from the ring 80” to push secondary frame 50 towards base frame 52).
In reference to claim 6, Gross discloses that the spring elements 66 are mounted adjacent the second cracker roller 38 (Fig. 2).
In reference to claim 8, Gross discloses that each of the left and right hand side elements 96 of the secondary frame 50 are provided with recessed portions 134 to receive the distal end of each lever 126 (Fig. 7).
In reference to claim 9, Gross discloses that the distal end of each lever 126 is provided with a pin (Fig. 7, the portion extending through portions 134 constitutes a pin) to be received within the recessed portions 134 of each of the left and right hand side elements 96 of the secondary frame 50.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to claim 1, Applicant argues that the rejection should be withdrawn as Gross fails to disclose a drive arrangement with a drive shaft supported for rotation in bearings provided in the left and right hand side elements of the base frame, parallel levers mounted on the left and right hand sides of the drive shaft, a distal end of each lever being retained within respective left and right hand side elements of the secondary frame so that rotation of the drive shaft about its axis results in movement of the secondary frame with respect to the base frame and the distance between the first and second cracker rollers to be varied, with an actuator to control rotation of the drive shaft.
The examiner finds this unpersuasive as Gross discloses a drive arrangement 68 with a drive shaft 124 supported for rotation in the left and right hand side elements 102 of the base frame 52 (Fig. 7), parallel levers 126 mounted on the left and right hand sides of the drive shaft 124 (Fig. 6), a distal end of each lever 126 being retained within respective left and right hand side elements 96 of the secondary frame 50 (Fig. 6) so that rotation of the drive shaft 124 about its axis results in movement of the secondary frame 50 with respect to the base frame 52 and the distance between the first and second cracker rollers 40 and 38 to be varied, with an actuator 118 to control rotation of the drive shaft 124 (par. 0029). In combination with, Rotole, this would result in the above structure with bearings (par. 0049).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRAD HARCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-7303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 6pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571)272-4137. 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.
/BRAD HARCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
1/28/26