DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendment to the claims, filed 12/27/2023, have been entered.
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 .
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 four-sided cone with angles of repose, as in claim 9, 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: square main box 421, grain discharge ports 422, angles α 1, α 2, and α 3. 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. 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
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1, line 6 and claim 10 line 6 each recite “cone” which should be “corn”. 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.
Claims 1- 10 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.
Claim 1, lines 7-8 recite “the soybean cutting table 21 is connected with a soybean conveying device through a soybean conveying device”. It cannot be determined if a new soybean conveying device was intended, or how a soybean conveying device can be connected to itself, or whether this was intended for the soybean cutting table 21 is connected with a soybean grain tank through a soybean conveying device (as is similarly presented for the corn picking table 23).
It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that the soybean cutting table 21 is connected with a soybean grain tank through a soybean conveying device.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1, and thus are similarly rejected.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the corn bugger device" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It cannot be determined where a corn buffer device should be placed, nor how the corn buffer device can further comprise elements if the corn buffer device was intended to be introduced in claim 7 and if claim 7 was intended to depend from claim 5 as presented. It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that claim 7 depend from claim 6, which does provide proper antecedent basis for “the corn buffer device”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the seat plate" in line 2-3; “the corn buffer device” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The location of the seat plate relative to the corn grain tank and the corn buffer device to support the driving mechanism cannot be determined if claim 8 was intended to depend from claim 1 as presented, and if it was intended to introduce these elements in claim 8. It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that claim 8 depend from claim 7, which does provide proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites “angles of repose”. It cannot be determined what applicant intended by this. Crowley US2430669 defines the angle of repose as "the angle of repose of a material is that steepest angle which the side of a pile of the material will attain" col 4:75-col 5:2.
Conversely, Richards defines the angle of repose as the angle n, Fig. 4, of the weight 12 above a horizontal line 26, through the axis 98, must, in order to be effective, be greater than the angle which is commonly known to mechanics as "the angle of repose." Page 2: 130-134.
If angle of repose is interpreted to be the angle that the sides of the cone are disposed, it cannot be determined whether applicant intended the angle to be measured from a horizontal plane or a vertical plane. As discussed above, the figures do not show the claimed angle of repose.
It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that the angle of repose is referring to the angle that the sides of the cone are disposed relative to a horizontal plane.
Claim 10, lines 7-9 recite “the soybean cutting table 21 is connected with a soybean conveying device through a soybean conveying device”. It cannot be determined if a new soybean conveying device was intended, or how a soybean conveying device can be connected to itself, or whether this was intended for the soybean cutting table 21 is connected with a soybean grain tank through a soybean conveying device (as is similarly presented for the corn picking table 23).
It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that the soybean cutting table 21 is connected with a soybean grain tank through a soybean conveying device.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1- 4, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beougher, et al. US4409780 in view of Borry, et al. US10321628.
Regarding claim 1, Beougher, et al. teaches a dual-channel combine harvester 10 suitable for (wherein “suitable for” is a functional limitation, for which harvester 10 is capable of harvesting soybeans and corn since it has a cutting harvest table 17) strip-like compound planted soybeans and corns, comprising a mobile harvester body 12 and a combine cutting table portion 11 installed on the mobile harvester body 12;
wherein the combine cutting table portion 11 comprises a main bracket 20 (wherein support members are elongated and thus are considered bracket shaped);
the main bracket 20 is provided with a soybean cutting table 21 (wherein reels 30 30 are capable of soybean cutting during rotation, thus are considered to be a soybean cutting table) and a corn picking table 23 (wherein cutters 25 provide picking capable of at least marginally picking corn, thus 23 is considered the claimed corn picking table), the corn picking table is connected with a tank 15 (wherein a housing for receiving grain is considered the same as a grain tank, since both receive grain and are enclosures) through a corn conveying device 54 (section 46, wherein the auger flights necessarily provide conveying motion) and the soybean cutting table 21 is connected with the tank (as best understood by examiner) through a soybean conveying device 51 (of section 45, wherein the auger flights necessarily provide conveying motion);
the main bracket 20 is rotatably installed (via the hinges shown at top of 20 in Figure 1, annotated in Figure A below) on the mobile harvester body 12, and a first angle adjusting mechanism (one of 110, as seen in Figure 1 versus Figures 10, 13, and 14, thus is considered an angle adjusting mechanism) is installed between (in the front-to-back direction0 the main bracket 20 and the mobile harvester body 12;
wherein:
the soybean cutting table 21 is provided with a first bracket 33 fixed with respect to the main bracket 20; and
the corn picking table 23 comprises a second bracket 105 (wherein the frame member 105 is considered a bracket since it is solid and elongated, as shown in Figure 10);
the second bracket 105 is rotatably installed (via the rotation on hinges 75 and 76) with respect to the main bracket 20, and a second angle adjusting mechanism 110 (the corresponding other 110) is arranged between (in the radial direction from the centerline of the main bracket) the second bracket 105 and the main bracket 20.
PNG
media_image1.png
475
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: annotated from Figure 1
Beougher, et al. does not teach the soybean cutting table 21 is connected with a soybean grain tank and does not teach the corn picking table is connected with a corn grain tank.
Borry, et al. teaches that it is known in the art for a dual header in a harvester to have a first grain storage tank 28 and second grain storage tank 29 for different crops that are gathered at the same time, such that the different crops can be stored separately from each other so that optimized harvesting for each crop type can be achieved Column 6:29-32. Conveying augers 6 and 8 (Column 5: 20-23 “Behind the cutting edge 5 a first lateral crop transporting mechanism 6 is provided. As described above, lateral crop transporting mechanisms can be formed by augers, as in auger type headers” and Column 5: 32-34 “Behind the cutting edge 5 a first lateral crop transporting mechanism 6 is provided. As described above, lateral crop transporting mechanisms can be formed by augers, as in auger type headers”) lead to respective tanks 15 and 14 (see arrows 7, 9, 11, and 10 in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Beougher, et al.’s harvester to have the corn picking table connected with a corn grain tank and the soybean cutting table connected with a soybean grain tank as taught in Borry, et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in providing separate storage tanks for differing crops so that optimized harvesting for each crop type can be achieved. Doing so would necessarily have the corn picking table connected to the corn grain tank through the corn conveying device, and the soybean cutting table connected to the soybean grain tank through the soybean conveying device (assuming applicant intended the claims to require that the soybean conveying device connects the soybean cutting table to the soybean grain tank, and not itself).
Regarding claim 2, Beougher, et al. teaches that the corn picking table 23 is configured to be disposed backwardly (Figure 3-4) and upwardly (Figure 5, wherein 18 is pivoted behind and above 17) with respect to the soybean cutting table 21.
Regarding claim 3, Borry, et al. teaches that the corn grain tank and the soybean grain tank (respective ones of 15 and 14) are arranged from left to right (as shown in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Beougher, et al. teaches that the soybean cutting table 21 comprises reels 30 (wherein at least 3 reels are shown in Figure 1) and a transverse soybean conveying auger (auger 46 on left side of Figure 1), and the soybean conveying auger is connected with the soybean conveying device (when the wings are aligned with 17 as shown in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 10, Beougher, et al. teaches a harvesting method for a dual-channel combine harvester 10 method suitable for soybean and corn strip compound planting (wherein the “suitable for soybean and corn strip compound planting” is considered to be functional limitations. Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, this phrase does not actually require planting itself, but requires that the harvesting method be usable with the compound planting, based on the harvesting method presented in the instant written description), wherein the dual-channel combine harvester 10 comprises a mobile harvester body 12 and a combine cutting table portion 11 installed on the mobile harvester body 12;
wherein the combine cutting table portion 11 comprises a main bracket 20:
the main bracket 20 is provided with a soybean cutting table 21 and a corn picking table 23;
the corn picking table 23 is connected with a grain tank 15 through a corn conveying device 54 (section 46), and the soybean cutting table 21 is connected with a grain tank (as described above) through a soybean conveying device (as described above);
the main bracket 20 is rotatably installed on the mobile harvester body 12, and a first angle adjusting mechanism (one of 120) is installed between the main bracket 20 and the mobile harvester body 12:
wherein the soybean cutting table 21 is provided with a first bracket 33 fixed with respect to the main bracket 20:
and the corn picking table 23 comprises a second bracket 105:
the second bracket 105 is rotatably installed with respect to the main bracket 20, and a second angle adjusting mechanism 110 is arranged between the second bracket 105 and the main bracket 20:
and wherein harvesting method comprises comprising operating the dual-channel combine harvester 10 to carry out a plurality of rounds of cyclic harvesting operations on a current operation area (such as the field work described in Column 6:39-42, which necessarily requires a plurality of rounds of cyclic harvesting operations to enable harvesting an entire field since a field is larger than the harvesting vehicle), wherein in each of the plurality of rounds of harvesting operations, the dual-channel combine harvester 10 firstly harvests soybean and corn crop combination at one end of remaining crops in the current operation area (by performing field operations, wherein the harvester location at one end of the crop/field is considered the current operation area), and harvests soybean and corn crop combination at another end of the remaining crops (during field operations and driving for the harvester, such as when the harvester is propelled forward);
harvesting the remaining crops by using a corresponding cutting table (wherein the use of the other cutting tables are not excluded, therefore, the use of the cutting tables as presented in Beougher, et al. necessarily provides this function by providing the above described cutting tables, one of which can be selected to be a corresponding cutting table) in the combine cutting table portion 11 according to types of crops.
Beougher, et al. does not teach when the remaining crops are incapable of forming a complete soybean and corn crop combination (given the broadest reasonable interpretation for the limitation, this is interpreted to include partial soybean and corn crop rows where only part of the row comprises soybean and corn, or can include rows only with soybean or only corn).
At the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to select the method wherein the remaining crops are incapable of forming a complete soybean and corn crop combination, as obvious to try a method step of harvesting any remaining crops that are incapable for forming a complete soybean and corn crop combination, from a finite, limited number of predictable solutions (the limited number is 1. A complete soybean and corn crop combination and 2. An incomplete soybean and corn crop combination), to achieve the predictable results of maximizing crop yield in a field by harvesting the entire field.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beougher, et al. in view of Borry, et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lohrentz, et al. US2012/0042621.
Regarding claim 5, Beougher, et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the corn picking table 23 comprises two picking devices;
each picking devices comprises two roller bodies one of which is an auxiliary feeding roller and the other is a stalk pulling roller, the two roller bodies are rotatably installed on the second bracket 105 and arranged in parallel with each other, and a channel into which corn stalks enter is formed between the two roller bodies;
pulling wheels are installed at a front end of the channel, a corn ear conveying auger transversely arranged is installed below a 12 rear side of the channel; and
a straw chopping roller is further installed below the picking device; and
the two roller bodies comprised in each picking device are connected with a same transmission box which drives the two roller bodies to rotate reversely at a constant speed and is driven to rotate by a hydraulic motor.
Beougher, et al. does teach that it is known to use a hydraulic motor to power the cutting reels (Column 4: 63-64).
Lohrentz, et al. teaches a corn picking table (Figure 1) comprises two picking devices (100 shows multiple pairs between 120);
each picking devices comprises two roller bodies 310 (wherein header 100 can include the snap rolls 310 shown in Figures 7-10 ¶0039) one of which is an auxiliary feeding roller and the other is a stalk pulling roller (selecting one side of each to perform auxiliary and stalk pulling functions), the two roller bodies are rotatably installed on the second bracket (support bracket shown in Figure 1 behind 110) and arranged in parallel with each other (as shown in Figure 1), and a channel (inside 150 as shown in Figure 2) into which corn stalks enter is formed between the two roller bodies;
pulling wheels (362, wherein the helical portion provides at least some pulling due to rotation of the flights) are installed at a front end of the channel, a corn ear conveying auger 110 transversely arranged is installed next to a rear side of the channel (back portion of the space between adjacent 120 and 124); and
a straw chopping roller (back snap rollers 320 shown in Figure 7, which chops crop stalks ¶0039) is further installed below the picking device (wherein back snap rollers 320 extend to the bottom and thus are considered to be installed below the picking device since they are installed below housing 140 that is part of the picking device); and
the two roller bodies comprised in each picking device are connected with a same transmission box (sprocket 180 as shown in Figure 4 are considered the transmission box, since this sprocket provide transmission from motor 178, to drive shaft 186 across the length of the header 100 ¶0028) which drives the two roller bodies to rotate reversely (Figures 9 and 10 show oppositely directed rotational arrows for rollers 310) at a constant speed (by rotation of the sprocket 180 from the motor, ¶0029 “the harvester and the snap rolls are maintained at a constant speed”) and is driven to rotate by a hydraulic motor 178 ¶0028 (wherein a hydraulic drive motor is the same as a hydraulic motor).
Lohrentz, et al. does not teach the conveying auger is arranged below a rear side of the channel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to reverse the location of the conveying auger to be below a rear side of the channel to catch crop after the crop has been pulled in and cut, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Note that it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. See also, MPEP § 2144.04, which states: In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious expedient.).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beougher, et al. in view of Borry, et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of de Coene, et al. US3669124.
Regarding claim 6, Beougher, et al. teaches that a corn buffer device is installed in the corn grain tank and comprises a base plate; a buffer plate is installed on the base plate, and buffer springs are installed between the buffer plate and the base plate.
De Coene, et al. teaches that a buffer device installed in a grain tank (wherein 13 is held in the body of the combine harvester, thus is considered to be installed in a grain tank since grain has been harvested and entered the body of the combine harvester via 1) is known in the art to reduce dust (“anti-dust” described in Column 1: 69-72) in a combine/harvester (Figure 1)s. It comprises (as shown in Figure 7-8) a base plate 13; a buffer plate 19 is installed on the base plate (via connection on 18 and 36), and buffer springs 28 (wherein two are shown in Figure 7 inside 29, Column 3:60-63) are installed between the buffer plate and the base plate.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the grain tank of Beougher, et al. in view of Borry, et al. further in view of de Coene, et al. to include de Coene, et al.’s buffer device with a reasonable expectation of success in providing anti-dust features.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beougher, et al. in view of Borry, et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cooley, et al. US0434702.
Regarding claim 9, Beougher, et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the soybean grain tank comprises a square main box and grain discharge ports located below the square main box;
each grain discharge port is a four-sided cone, angles of repose of left and right sides of the grain discharge port are α1, and angles of repose of front and rear sides of the grain discharge port are α2 and α 3, respectively;
α 1=135°, α 2=135°, and α3=72°.
Beougher, et al., however, does teach a rectangular-shaped main box 15.
Cooley, et al. teaches a main box (Figure 4) with each grain discharge port N is a four-sided cone (Figure 4 shows two of the fours sides), angles of repose (as best understood by examiner) of left and right sides of the grain discharge port are α1, and angles of repose of front and rear sides of the grain discharge port are α2 and α 3, respectively; α 3 is a different angle (Figure 4 shows 32 at a different angle from 30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the main box of the soybean grain tank of Beugher, et al. in view of Borry, et al. further in view of Cooley, et al. to have grain discharge ports that have the claimed four sided conical shape with one of the sides having a different angle than the other sides, with a reasonable expectation of success to provide desired emptying of the accumulated grain in the tank, wherein changes in slope or angle of the sides will change the emptying characteristics of the grain through the ports.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the angles for the angles of repose limitations disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05. Such changes would change the emptying capabilities of such a port. For example, a steeper angle would result in a faster emptying compared with a shallower angle due to gravitational forces.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to select the grain tank’s main box to be square instead of rectangle, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. Doing so would accommodate different shaped harvester vehicle platforms. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Note that those of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a modification such as a mere change in shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to comprise a plurality of the above claimed ports, as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Doing so would result in increased emptying rate for the grain tank.
See also, MPEP § 2144.05 which states: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 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, assuming claim 7 was intended to depend from claim 6 and claim 8 was intended to depend from claim 7, as described above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, Beougher, et al. in combination with Borry, et al. and de Coene, et al. does not teach the corn buffer device further comprises a seat plate, a first hinged seat installed on the seat plate, and a second hinged seat installed on the base plate, a pneumatic telescopic rod is connected between the first hinged seat and the second hinged seat; and the base plate is rotatably installed with respect to the seat plate. De Coene, et al. does not teach the two hinged seats, and does not teach a pneumatic telescopic rod. Modification would not have been obvious as this would have required impermissible hindsight reasoning, and additionally would not have provided sufficient space for the claimed pneumatic telescopic rod with the hinged seats.
Regarding claim 8, Beougher, et al. Borry, et al. and de Coene, et al. does not teach that the seat plate is capable of lifting and sliding with respect to the corn grain tank, and a slide guide device is arranged between the seat plate and the corn grain tank; and
a driving mechanism is further arranged between the corn buffer device and the corn grain tank and comprises a gear, a rack, a gear shaft and a one-way clutch;
the gear and the rack are meshed with each other and are rotatably installed with respect to the seat plate and the base plate, respectively;
the one-way clutch is installed between the gear and the gear shaft;
the driving mechanism further comprises a lead screw installed in the corn grain tank and a lead screw nut rotatably installed on the seat plate; and
a transmission relationship is established between the gear shaft and the lead screw nut through a bevel gear set.
Modification would not have been obvious as this would have required impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Van Der lely US3468107 teaches a harvester with a folding head (Figure 1) with piston 32 that folds section 19 relative to section 6.
Van der Lely does not teach the corn and soybean grain tanks, and does not teach the corn buffer as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM EST.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 1/28/2026