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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is generally awkward and unclear as it appears to be a machine translation. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to purported merits in lines 4-7. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
the circular section with operatively associated helical pitch thread, as recited in line 2 of claim 8, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The alternating straight and inclined knives or blades relative to the geometrical axis recited in lines 5-6 or claim 8, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in lines 5-6, “straight or inclined” should be changed to –straight and inclined— so that it is clear these features, “straight and inclined” knives or blades, are both positively recited and are not claimed in the alternative. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is 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:
Claim 8, in lines 5-6, recites wherein the plurality of knives or blades “alternate between being straight or inclined relative to the geometrical axis”. However, the drawings do not show the geometrical axis (is it a radial plane of the knives/blades?) nor which part of the knives/blades are “straight” or “inclined nor in which direction relative to the geometrical axis the knives/blades are straight or inclined. The specification does not cure these deficiencies. The claim is therefore indefinite.
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) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll 2,426,922 in view of Schwitters 4,691,506.
Independent Claim 5: Carroll discloses an agricultural crop harvesting unit platform roll (30) comprising a fin, knife or blade (39), the fin, knife or blade projecting radially along a longitudinal plane of the platform roll (as seen between Figs. 1-2), wherein the fin, knife or blade comprises a plurality of toothed indentations (seen in Fig. 3) and is configured to conform and affix the fin, knife or blade to the roll (as seen in Figs. 2-3), as per claim 5.
However, Carroll fails to disclose wherein the fin, knife or blade is formed from a raw metal plate, as per claim 5.
Schwitters discloses a similar fin, knife or blade (62) formed from a raw metal plate (col. 6, lns. 11-14, fin/knife/blade is carbon or alloy steel), as per claim 5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use carbon or alloy steel as taught by Schwitters to form the fin/knife/blade of Carroll in order to provide a rigid lifting knife that requires less frequent replacement due to wear.
Dependent Claims 6-7: Carroll further discloses wherein the fin, knife or blade (39) is permanently affixed to the roll (30, 39 is “secured” to roll 30, see col. 2, lns. 46-48), as per claim 6.
However, Carroll fails to disclose wherein the fin, knife or blade is thermally treated to increase surface hardness, as per claim 7.
Schwitters discloses a similar fin/knife/blade (62) that is thermally treated to increase surface hardness (col. 6, lns. 15-19), as per claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to thermally treat the fin/knife/blade of Carroll as taught by Schitters in order to case-harden the fin/knife/blade for better wear protection.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll in view of Ashton 2,755,912.
Independent Claim 8: Carroll discloses an agricultural crop harvesting unit platform rotor (D) comprising an elongated circular section (30) operatively associated to a helical pitch thread (35, 36),
wherein the elongated circular section comprises a plurality of knives or blades (39, 39) which project radially along a geometrical axis of the elongated circular section (as seen between Figs. 1-2),
wherein the plurality of knives or blades alternate between being straight or inclined relative to the geometrical axis of the elongated circular section (seen in Fig. 3, the knives or blades have straight outer edges and inclined side edges), as per claim 8.
However, Carroll fails to specifically disclose wherein the inclined plurality of knives or blades have cutting edges, as per claim 8.
Ashton discloses a similar rotor (18) wherein the inclined plurality of knives or blades (76) have cutting edges (col. 4, lns. 31, 71-col. 5, ln. 4), as per claim 8.
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 cutting edges of Ashton on the knives or blades of Carroll in order to further cut crop material in the zone of congestion prior to entering the elevator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTOL-892. AB. Agri-Broker DE 202020107392 U1 also discloses a similar device to that of the claimed invention with knives 12 that are both straight along a radial direction (see b in Fig. 3) and inclined relative to the radial direction (at c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca, can be reached at (571) 272-8971.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 February 6, 2026