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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 means enabling
“function of a mat height” (or throughput), “function of a pretensioning force” (or drive torque) (claims 7-8; NOTE: no throughput sensor or torque sensor is shown and disclosed)
“control device is designed to displace automatically the rotary shaft of the lower press roller and/or the rotary shaft of the transport roller in its relative position to the rotary shaft of the chopping drum as a function of the operating conditions of the chopping unit” (claims 9-10; NOTE: no throughput sensor or torque sensor is shown and disclosed);
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
Following on the heels of Liebel-Flarsheim v. Medrad, this case reaffirms the principle that the full scope of a claim must be enabled. Enablement of a single embodiment is not sufficient. As a matter of law, enablement of the novel aspects of an invention must be enabled by the specification even if implementation would have been within the PHOSITA’s skill level.
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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “low-er” should be – lower --. 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 8-10 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.
The metes and bound of the claim cannot be determined because a functional recitation, i.e. “function of a mat height,” “function of a pretensioning force,” must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Fuller, 1929 C.D. 172; 388 O.G. 279.
Also, "the Supreme Court in 1946 wrote that a “claim which describes the most crucial element in a ‘new’ combination in terms of what it will do, rather than in terms of its own physical characteristics or its arrangement in the new combination, is invalid as a violation of [the indefiniteness requirement].” Halliburton v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1 (1946)."
The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified.
The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
Patents provide exclusive rights that are defined by a set of claims. The claims spell out the metes-and-bounds of the invention being claimed and are designed to put the world on notice of what is and what is not infringement.
In re claims 9, 10:
According to 112(b) rejection of claim 9 should be revised to further explain that method steps should set be forth using gerund steps (that is the steps should end with “ing” – for example “displaced” should be changed to –displacing-).
Claim which sets forth two statutory classes of invention is invalid under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, since claim which purports to be both machine and process is ambiguous and therefore does not particularly point out and distinctly claim subject matter of the invention. Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548.
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005);< Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). See MPEP 2173.05 (p,II)
The “method for operating a chopping unit according to claim 1” purports to be both a product or machine and a process is ambiguous, it is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention; in other words, it is not being drawn to a single mutually exclusive statutory class of invention.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (3851450), in view of Isfort (DE 19652656).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Nelson (3851450) teaches the claimed invention, except as noted:
“Another important feature of the invention resides in the arrangement of the feed rolls, wherein two pairs of feed rolls are provided, the upper feed roll in the forward pair of feed rolls being shiftable to vary the bite of the feed rolls, while the lower feed roll of the rear pair of feed rolls is shiftable toward and away from the opposite feed roll and the shear bear to accommodate the different thicknesses of the mat of material fed into the cutterhead. Also, the shear bar is positioned closely adjacent to the fixed feed roll of the rear pair of feed rolls so that it also functions as a stripper for said feed roll.”
“As best seen in FIG. 3, the forward side of the shear bar 74 and the backup member 76 are concave concentric with the axis of the feed roll 118 and are disposed proximate to the feed roll periphery, so that the forward edge of the shear bar 74 functions as a stripper for the upper front feed roll as the feed roll rotates in the direction of the arrow in FIG. 3.”
“(11) The annular section 92 includes a solid hub portion 97 and a plurality of generally radially extending knife portions 98 extending radially from the hub portion to the cutterhead periphery.”
[AltContent: textbox (Chopping drum / cutterhead)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (shear bar 74 / stripper)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
434
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Cutting edge 75 / counter-cutting device)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
536
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1. A chopping unit of an agricultural harvesting machine comprising,
a chopping drum (cutterhead, marked up) bearing chopping knives (taught above),
a first roller pair consisting of an upper press roller and a lower press roller positioned upstream of the chopping drum when viewed in the transport direction of the harvested crops (118, 122),
at least one second roller pair consisting of a pre-compression roller and a transport roller positioned upstream of the first roller pair when viewed in the transport direction of the harvested crops (146, 142), and
a counter-cutting device cooperating with the chopping drum and a stripper device cooperating with the lower press roller (marked up),
which are arranged between the lower press roller and the chopping drum (the particular arrangement is not shown),
characterized in that a rotary shaft of the lower press roller and/or a rotary shaft of the transport roller can be displaced in its relative position to a rotary shaft of the chopping drum at least in the vertical direction (intended capability is shown/taught above, the lower press roller is displaced vertically and horizontally, the later displacement capability is recited in later claim(s)).
Isfort teaches that the arrangement of the counter-cutting device & stripper have been known to be between the lower press roller and the chopping drum:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Stripper at the lower roller )][AltContent: textbox (counter-cutting device )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Arrangement of the counter-cutting device & stripper can be between the lower press roller; and the stripper device can be displaced )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
442
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the stripper & counter-cutting device of Nelson with the teachings of Isfort, with a reasonable expectation of success since using sound engineering, it would not be outside of one skilled in the art, to arrange the counter-cutting device & stripper at the lower roller to improve cutting and cleaning efficiency.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (3851450), in view of Isfort (DE 19652656) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sadler et al (US 3643720).
Nelson in view of Isfort does not teach the following:
2. The chopping unit according to claim 1, characterized in that the stripper device can be displaced together with the lower press roller relative to the chopping drum (shown/taught in the combination, using an equalizer linkage between the movable stripper / counter-knives & the movable lower roller of the combination can be displaced).
In re cl. 2-6: Sadler teaches the “can be displaced” capability of various elements:
[AltContent: textbox (stop)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper roller 31, 33 are held in pressure separating relationship with the lower rollers 30, 32)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (One of the rollers & the counter-cutting / shear bar 22 can be displaced together)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
440
530
media_image4.png
Greyscale
3. The chopping unit according to claim 1, characterized in that the counter-cutting device can be displaced together with the lower press roller relative to the chopping drum (already addressed in re cl. 2).
4. The chopping unit according to claim 1, characterized in that a stop for the upper press roller can be displaced together with the lower press roller relative to the chopping drum (same with respect to the stop of the combination & the movable upper press roller can be displaced).
5. The chopping unit according to claim 1, characterized in that a stop for the respective pre-compression roller can be displaced together with the respective transport roller relative to the chopping drum (same with respect to pre-compression roller, see cl. 2-4).
6. The chopping unit according to claim 1, characterized in that the rotary shaft of the lower press roller and/or the rotary shaft of the transport roller can be displaced in its relative position to the rotary shaft of the chopping drum in the vertical direction perpendicular to the transport direction of the harvested crops and in the horizontal direction parallel to the transport direction of the harvested crops (shown/taught in the combination; the horizontal direction is taught in Nelson).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (3851450), in view of Isfort (DE 19652656) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oliva et al (DE 102013004274).
Nelson in view of Isfort does not teach the following:
7. A control device of an agricultural harvesting machine having a chopping unit according to claim 1, characterized in that said control device is designed to displace automatically the rotary shaft of the lower press roller and/or the rotary shaft of the transport roller in its relative position to the rotary shaft of the chopping drum as a function of the operating conditions of the chopping unit (not shown/taught).
In re cl. 7-8: Oliva teaches a drive torque of rollers to control the hydraulic pressure and/or vice versa, to provide a capability in displacing the roller(s).
“The hydraulic pressure is measured so that the hydraulic cylinders 5 exert a force that is greater than a force that the rear feed roller 14 tried to lift off the crop. This force is composed of the supporting force of the drive torque of the feed rollers and a component of the steering force.”
“The hydraulic pressure becomes dependent on the effective piston area of the hydraulic cylinders 5 such that they generate a force which corresponds at least to the sum of the maximum lifting force F .sub.V and the supporting force of the driving torque.”
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 agricultural harvesting machine of Nelson and Isfort with the teachings of Oliva, with a reasonable expectation of success since the capability to displace would provide a constant pressure on the mat.
8. A control device according to claim 7, characterized in that said control device is designed to displace automatically the rotary shaft of the lower press roller and/or the rotary shaft of the transport roller as a function of a mat height of the harvested crops and/or as a function of a pretensioning force of the respective roller pair and/or as a function of a drive torque of the roller pairs.
In re cl. 9-10:
The method steps are obvious in view of the apparatus above:
9. A method for operating a chopping unit according to claim 1, characterized in that the rotary shaft of the lower press roller and/or the rotary shaft of the transport roller is displaced automatically in its relative position to the rotary shaft of the chopping drum at least in the vertical direction as a function of the operating conditions of the chopping unit (such as the drive torque taught in the combination, see Oliva).
10. The method according to claim 9, characterized in that the rotary shaft of the lower press roller and/or of the transport roller is automatically displaced as a function of a mat height of the harvested crops and/or as a function of a pretensioning force of the respective roller pair and/or as a function of a drive torque of the roller pairs (although the drive torque & force are taught above, see Oliva, and/or the mat thickness/height would be also within one skilled in the art).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Dold et al (2007/0113533) teaches another known controller to adjust the rollers vertically & horizontally:
PNG
media_image5.png
486
710
media_image5.png
Greyscale
“The adjustment drive can be designed to generate a constant--i.e., independent of the position of the feedroller--contact pressure of the feedroller, which can be realized, for example, by connecting a hydraulic cylinder acting as an adjustment drive to an accumulator, which provides a hydraulic fluid under a given or variable pressure (controllable by an operator or arbitrary sensors detecting, e.g., the type of crop) for applying pressure to the hydraulic cylinder. In another embodiment, a controller is connected to the adjustment drive and to a crop throughput sensor designed for detecting the crop throughput (e.g., the windrow height), which triggers the adjustment drive to move based on the output of the crop throughput sensor, such that the contact pressure of the feedrolls on the crop remains at least approximately independent of the crop throughput or increases with increasing throughput according to an arbitrary, suitable characteristic line. The throughput gap between the feedrolls is consequently increased with increasing windrow height and decreases with decreasing windrow height.
[0017] The current throughput can be detected by means of a crop throughput sensor designed for detecting the position of a moving feedroll. However, another arbitrary crop throughput sensor suitable for detecting the crop throughput can also be used, which, e.g., detects the load on the chopping device or the blower or the crop header or determines the height of the windrow optically or mechanically.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6990. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th.
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 on (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.
/ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671