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 .
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 reservoir in the transfer plate in claims 1-4;
the recess in the transfer plate in claims 2-3
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
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2 recites “the concave”, should read – a concave –.
Claim 1, line 5 recites “the thrashing system”, should read – a thrashing system –
Claim 2, line 2 recites “a reservoir”, should read – the reservoir –.
Claims 3-4, line 7 recites “the thrashing system”, should read – a thrashing system –.
Independent claim 4 is the same as independent claim 3 and therefore is redundant.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, line 4 recites “means for creating a reservoir”, however the reservoir is not described within the specification or detailed in the drawings to convey how the reservoir is created; therefore, the claim contains subject matter that was not described in such a way as to convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession at the time of filling.
Claim 2 is rejected for being dependent on rejected claim 1.
Claim 3, lines 3-6 recites “a recessed, structurally sound material, flat, 2" or greater minimum width, 6" or less maximum width transfer plate, for creating a reservoir”, however the reservoir is not described within the specification or detailed in the drawings to convey how the recessed material creates the reservoir. Specifically, it is unclear how the recessed material creates the reservoir because the reservoir is not described within the specification; therefore, the claim contains subject matter that was not described in such a way as to convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession at the time of filling.
Claim 4 is rejected for the same reason as claim 3.
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 1-4 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 2, lines 3-5 recites “a recessed transfer plate”, but it is unclear what part of the transfer plate is the recessed part. Applicant’s specification, page 14, line 10, recites “a recessed pocket”, however, it is unclear if the recessed pocket is the transfer plate between the bigger side members of the concave or the downwards slope of the transfer plate, creating a small pocket before the grate of (12) and (14) starts; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected for the same issue.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting the limitation “a recessed transfer plate” to mean the transfer plate has an indentation within the plate (please see attached Merriam-Webster NPL for definition of ‘recess’).
Claim limitation “means for creating a reservoir” in claim 1, line 4 and claim 2, line 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The reservoir is not described within the specification or the drawings (please see 112(a) rejection above); therefore, no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. The claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kile (US 9723791 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kile teaches a concave transfer plate [68] for spreading out and evening of material flow through the concave [50] for the purpose of increasing harvest speed, quality and reducing energy requirements (Kile’s transfer plate has the same structure; therefore, obtains these purposes), comprising:
means for creating a reservoir (see below; area between the start of the plate and the recess, creating an area where material can accumulate) for excess crop material to even the flow through the thrashing system (see Col. 6, lines 36-43).
PNG
media_image1.png
469
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kile (US 9723791 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Kile discloses wherein said means for creating a reservoir (see above; area between the start of the plate and the recess, creating an area where material can accumulate) for excess crop material to even the flow through the thrashing system (see Col. 6, lines 36-43) comprises a recessed (see below) structurally sound material (thin, elongated plate with welds; see Col. 7, lines 51-56), flat (see Fig. 1) transfer plate.
PNG
media_image2.png
469
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
But Kile fails to explicitly disclose that the width of the transfer plate is 2" or greater minimum width, 6" or less maximum width.
However, Kile discloses the concave transfer plate extends between the two ends of the curved members of the concave and is joined to the ends via welding (see Col. 7, lines 51-56); therefore, the width of the transfer plate depends on the width of the concave and is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the width of the transfer plate be 2" or greater minimum width, 6" or less maximum width in order for the transfer plate to support the concave at the top of the curved members. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Specifically, it would have been understood to optimize the widths so as to achieve a balance between the width, capacity, and concave size.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Kile discloses a concave transfer plate [68] for spreading out and evening of material flow through the concave [50] for the purpose of increasing harvest speed, quality and reducing energy requirements (Kile’s transfer plate has the same structure; therefore, obtains these purposes), comprising:
a recessed (see below), structurally sound material (thin, elongated plate with welds; see Col. 7, lines 51-56), flat (see Fig. 1) transfer plate for creating a reservoir (see below; area between the start of the plate and the recess, creating an area where material can accumulate) for excess crop material to even the flow through the thrashing system (see Col. 6, lines 36-43).
PNG
media_image3.png
469
726
media_image3.png
Greyscale
But Kile fails to explicitly disclose that the width of the transfer plate is 2" or greater minimum width, 6" or less maximum width.
However, Kile discloses the concave transfer plate extends between the two ends of the curved members of the concave and is joined to the ends via welding (see Col. 7, lines 51-56); therefore, the width of the transfer plate depends on the width of the concave and is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the width of the transfer plate be 2" or greater minimum width, 6" or less maximum width in order for the transfer plate to support the concave at the top of the curved members. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Specifically, it would have been understood to optimize the widths so as to achieve a balance between the width, capacity, and concave size.
Conclusion
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for the full list of references.
Reference CN 107136748 A discloses a similar concave [1] with a concave transfer plate [3].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671