FINAL REJECTION
Applicants arguments filed 6/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons as detailed below.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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) s 1-2, 4-6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siebenga (US6997663) in view of Bootsma (US7721984).
Referring to claim 1. Siebenga discloses a “Hay Bale Stacker”. See Figs. 1-10 an respective portions of the specification. Siebenga further discloses an apparatus comprising: a frame configured for placement on a bed of a motor vehicle (See at least Col. 6 L. 35-48); a sliding assembly to move a bale of feed product placed within or on the frame (See at least Col. 3 L. 45 – 60, Fig. 3); a motor (76) to cause a sprocket (78, 82) to turn (See at least Col. 8 L. 38-50); a chain to attach the sprocket to the sliding assembly, the chain to transfer force supplied by the motor from the sprocket to the sliding assembly to move the bale towards a rear of the frame to dispense a portion of the bale (See at least Col. 3 L. 45-60, Col. 6 L. – Col. 7 L. 20, Col. 8 L. 38-50, Figs. 3-5). Siebenga further discloses a power slider mechanism moves whole, intact bales rearward for stacking against forks or a prior bale row (See Col. 7 L. 8-14). Siebenga does not disclose wherein the chain, in moving the bale toward the rear of the frame, separates a portion of the bale from the bale and drops the portion of the bale from the bale and drops the portion of the bale from the frame. Bootsma discloses a “Hay Bale Flake-Separating and Flake-Dispensing System and Device”. See Figs. 1-10 and respective portions of the specification. Bootsma further discloses a hay bale flaking device comprising a chain-driven push arm that advances a hay bale along a bed toward an edge region, where the bale passes through an opening between a pair of counter-rotating wheels, each wheel carries plural arcuately spaced blades that “knife” into the advancing bale to separate successive flakes (portions) from the bale remainder (See Sect. 0033-0034, Claim 1). Bootsma further discloses that the push arm advancing the bale is itself selectively operable by a motor, one or more sprockets, and a chain drive (See Col. 4 L. 35 – Col. 5 L. 55, Claim 8), and that the separated flakes are dispensed by dropping from the device (See Col. 2 L. 15-40). Thus, Bootsma teaches that a motor/sprocket/chain-driven mechanism advancing a bale toward an edge of a bed can itself cause a portion of the bale to separate from the bale remainder and drop from the device. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Siebenga’s chain-driven sliding assembly to incorporate a portion separation structure at the rear discharge region of the frame, as taught by Bootsma, in order to enable Siebenga’s device to dispense a portion of bale for feeding purposes rather than only relocate bales for stacking.
Referring to claim 2. Siebenga discloses wherein the chain is further to transfer force supplied by the motor from the sprocket to the sliding assembly to move the sliding assembly toward a front of the frame (See at least Col. 8 L. 35-50 & Fig. 2).
Referring to claim 4. Siebenga discloses a controller to provide control signals to the motor to move the sliding assembly in a forward direction and in a rearward direction (See at least Col. 4 L. 1-45).
Referring to claims 5-6. Siebenga discloses a second sprocket to attach to the chain, and wherein the second sprocket is to attach to the frame proximate a front of the frame (See at least Col. 3 L. 60-65, Col. 8 L. 20-50).
Referring to claim 12. Siebenga discloses wherein the sliding assembly comprises a base with a generally flat top base (See Figs. 2-4).
Claim(s) 3, 7-11, 13-15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siebenga (US-6997663) in view of Bootsma (US7721984) and in further view of Liu (CN-107295861).
Referring to claim 3. Siebenga in view of Bootsma disclose the combination as set forth above as applied to claim 1. Siebenga doesn’t disclose wherein the chain is secured to the sliding assembly at least in part by a bolt placed through a link of the chain. Liu discloses a “A traction-type square grass bundle pick-up and stacking machine”. See Figs. 1-6 and respective portions of the specification. Siebenga further discloses a frame (1), guide rail (3), push device (4), chains, and slide rail (29) and slide rail seat, and further wherein the slide rail seat and slide rail block are connected and installed with a bolt (See at least Description & at least Figs. 3). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure the chain using a bolt as taught by Liu because bolted fastening is an efficient way to attach mechanical components while enabling serviceability at minimal cost.
Referring to claims 7-8. Siebenga in view of Bootsma disclose the combination as set forth above as applied to claim 1. Siebenga doesn’t disclose wherein the frame comprises a plurality of frame members that extend from proximate a rear of the frame to proximate a front of the frame, or wherein the plurality of frame members are placed on and are generally orthogonal to a plurality of cross members that extend from proximate a first side of the frame to proximate a second side of the frame. Liu discloses a frame (See Figs. 1, 3) that comprises bottom beams and cross beams to form a chassis. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu and provide longitudinal and transverse frame members to the frame structure of Siebenga for improved load-bearing support. Likewise, it should be noted that providing longitudinal and transverse frame member is considered routine structural engineering for load-bearing machinery.
Referring to claims 9-11. Siebenga in view of Bootsma disclose the combination as set forth above as applied to claim 1. Siebenga doesn’t disclose wherein the frame comprises angle members, wherein the sliding assembly is to rest on angel members that slide along the angle members, wherein the angle members each comprise a first portion and a second portion both extending in a first direction, wherein the first portions of the angel members are to support the sliding assembly and wherein the second portions of the angle members are generally orthogonal to the first portions of the angle members. Siebenga further doesn’t disclose wherein the frame members are adjacent to an angle member of the plurality of angle members and has a top surface configured to support the sliding assembly or wherein the sliding assembly comprises a pair of sections that extend underneath the first portions of the angel members. It should be noted as disclosed above, that Siebenga discloses a sliding bale mechanism (26) supported on structural components. Liu discloses a sliding device composed of a square steel body, a slide rail seat and a slide rail block, wherein the slide rail block is mounted on the guide rail. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the guide rails as angle members because angle members are known structural profile capable of providing both horizontal load support and a perpendicular guiding surface, and would have provided improved stability and better constrained the sliding assembly. Further, once rails are provided, arranging frame members adjacent rails and extending portions of the sliding base beneath the rails constitutes routine mechanical layout to improve load support and alignment.
Referring to claims 13-14. Siebenga in view of Bootsma disclose the combination as set forth above as applied to claim 1. Siebenga doesn’t disclose wherein the sliding assembly comprises a plurality of members extending upwards from the top surface of the base or comprises a section that is attached to the plurality of members and to the top surface of the base at an angle to the top surface of the base. Liu discloses a loading platform is a rectangular steel plate and that the device includes push rods and structural members mounted on the platform for bale handling. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide upward members or angled structural sections as a means of reinforcing and improving stabilization of transported bales.
Referring to claim 15. Siebenga in view of Bootsma disclose the combination as set forth above as applied to claim 1. Siebenga doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the chain is to transfer force supplied by the motor from the sprocket to the sliding assembly to move the portion of the bale past a rear of the frame. Bootsma discloses that the separated flakes continue past the point of separation and falls from the device toward the ground (See Col. 3 L. 5-30). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Siebenga’s chain-driven sliding assembly to incorporate a portion separation structure at the rear discharge region of the frame, as taught by Bootsma, in order to enable Siebenga’s device to dispense a portion of bale for feeding purposes rather than only relocate bales for stacking.
Referring to claims 18. Siebenga in view of Bootsma disclose the combination as set forth above as applied to claim 1. Siebenga further discloses that the frame disclosed is mounted on an offset wheeled trailer towed by a tractor or truck. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Siebenga’s frame for placement on a pickup or flatbed truck bed, as it provides a well-know vehicle type suited to carrying bale-handling apparatuses that can be inexpensively and easily retrofitted and maneuverable.
Referring to claim 19. Siebenga in view of Bootsma disclose the combination as set forth above as applied to claim 1. Siebenga doesn’t explicitly disclose a second sliding assembly to move a second bale of feed product within or on the frame, wherein the second sliding assembly is to move the second bale towards the rear of the frame to separate a portion of the second bale from the second bale and drop the portion of the second bale from the frame. However, Siebenga’s apparatus loads and processes two bales concurrently via duplicated mechanisms (bale 14, bale 28) using paired alignment arms. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second sliding assembly to independently process a second bale in the same manner as the first as a mere duplication of working parts for the purposes of increasing throughput.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TERRELL HOWARD MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-5929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571)272-7805. 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.
/TERRELL H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights