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 because the drawing appear to be hand drawn and hand numbered, additionally it is done in light ink. 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 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 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “drum- like or chain-like” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the two central mowing and infeed units " in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this is taken to be the most central section of each side of header, that is of each wing.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the two central mowing and infeed units” and “between each of the central mowing and infeed units” which renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if there are two central mowing units or at least two.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the two first turning drums" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this is taken to be “the first turning drum” previously referred to, but with each side/ wing of the header having one “first turning drum” there are “two first turning drums.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the two second turning drums" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this is taken to be “the second turning drum” previously referred to, but with each side/ wing of the header having one “second turning drum” there are “two second turning drums.”
Claims 2-3, 5-7, and 9-13 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rickert et al. (DE 102007058312 A1), hereinafter Rickert.
Regarding claim 1, Rickert discloses a maize header (14, fig. 1, par. 0015) for a forage harvester (10, fig. 1, par. 0015) for harvesting stalk crops (par. 0015),
comprising multiple mowing and infeed units (16, 18, 20, 22, fig. 1, par. 0015) each having multiple drum- like or chain-like mowing and infeed members (fig. 1, par. 0015) which can be rotated about a vertical or approximately vertical axis, can be driven in revolution, and are intended for severing the crop in a substantially horizontal direction from a field that is to be cultivated (fig. 1, par. 0015),
comprising feeding drums (42, fig. 1, par. 0017-0018) and turning drums (38, 40, fig. 1, par. 0017-0018) which are arranged behind the mowing and infeed units as seen in the harvesting direction and can be rotated about a vertical or approximately vertical axis (fig. 1, par. 0017),
wherein, in the working position of the maize header (fig. 1), a respective feeding drum (42) is arranged behind the two central mowing and infeed units as seen in the harvesting direction (16, fig. 1),
wherein, in the working position of the maize header, as seen in the harvesting direction (fig. 1), a respective first turning drum (38, fig. 1, par. 0015-0017 and 0019) is arranged behind a transfer region between each of the central mowing and infeed units (16, fig. 1, par. 0015-0017 and 0019) and a first lateral mowing and infeed unit that is arranged laterally directly next to it (18, fig. 1, par. 0015-0017 and 0019),
wherein, to transfer the maize header between the working position (fig. 1, par. 0012) and a transport position (fig. 3, par. 0014), the mowing and infeed units (16, 18, 20, 22, fig. 1, par. 0015) are pivotable relative to one another about horizontal or approximately horizontal axes (fig. 3) in such a way that each of the first lateral mowing and infeed units (18, fig. 1 and 3) together with one of the first turning drums (38, fig. 1 and 3) is pivotable relative to the respective adjoining central mowing and infeed unit, in such a way that, in the transport position of the maize header, a frustoconical envelope of the respective first turning drum is completely inside a permissible transport width of the maize header in the transport position of the maize header (fig. 3, par. 0023-0026).
Regarding claim 2, Rickert further discloses characterized in that the permissible transport width of the maize header (fig. 3, par. 0023) is delimited by two vertically extending straight lines or planes (44 and 46, fig. 3),
wherein a first one of the first turning drums (38, fig. 1 and 3, par. 0015-0017 and 0019) in the transport position of the maize header (fig. 3) adjoins a first one of the two vertically extending straight lines or planes (44 has incorporates 28 which incorporates 38, fig. 1 and 3) and a second one of the first turning drums (38, fig. 1 and 3, par. 0015-0017 and 0019, on the other wing of the header) in the transport position of the maize header (fig. 3) adjoins a second one of the two vertically extending straight lines or planes (44 has incorporates 28 which incorporates 38, fig. 1 and 3, on the other wing of the header), in such a way that the frustoconical envelope of the respective first turning drum does not intersect the respective vertically extending straight line or plane (fig. 3, when both side are taken together in the transport position).
Regarding claim 3, Rickert further discloses characterized in that a cone angle of the frustoconical envelope of the respective first turning drum is matched to a folding angle of the respective first lateral mowing and infeed unit in such a way that, in the transport position of the maize header, a laterally outer side or a laterally outer edge of the frustoconical envelope extends parallel or approximately parallel to the respective vertically extending straight line or plane (fig. 3, par. 0024 and 0026, wherein the different sides 44 and 46 are parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 7, Rickert further discloses characterized in that, in the working position of the maize header, as seen in the harvesting direction (fig. 1), a second turning drum (40) is arranged behind a transfer region between each of the first lateral mowing and infeed units (18, fig. 1 and 3) and a second lateral mowing and infeed unit (20, fig. 1 and 3) arranged laterally next to it (fig. 1) and is pivotable together with the respective second lateral mowing and infeed unit for transferring the maize header into the transport position (fig. 3, par. 0023-0026).
Regarding claim 8, Rickert further discloses characterized in that the two second turning drums (40, fig. 1 and 3, par. 0020) in the transport position of the maize header are arranged on different sides of a vertically extending center line or center plane which extends centrally between the two straight lines or planes that define the permissible transport width of the maize header (46 incorporates 20 which incorporates 40, fig. 1 and 3),
in the transport position of the maize header (fig. 3), a first one of the second turning drums (40, fig. 1 and 3) adjoins the vertically extending center line or center plane on a first side (fig. 1 and 3) and a second one of the second turning drums adjoins the vertically extending center line or center plane on a second side (40, fig. 1 and 3, on the other wing of the header), in such a way that a frustoconical envelope of the respective second turning drum does not intersect the center straight line or center plane (fig. 3, when both side are taken together in the transport position).
Regarding claim 9, Rickert further discloses characterized in that a cone angle of the frustoconical envelope of the respective second turning drum is matched to a folding angle of the respective second outer mowing and infeed unit in such a way that, in the transport position of the maize header, a laterally inner side or a laterally inner edge of the frustoconical envelope extends parallel or approximately parallel to the respective center line or center plane (fig. 3, par. 0024 and 0026, wherein the different sides 44 and 46 are parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 13, Rickert discloses a forage harvester (10, fig. 1, par. 0015) comprising a maize header (14, fig. 1, par. 0015) according to claim 1 (see claim 1).
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.
Claims 4-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickert et al. (DE 102007058312 A1), hereinafter Rickert in view of Zenter (US 2015/0082760 A1), hereinafter Zenter.
Regarding claim 4, Rickert further discloses characterized in that each of the two first turning drums (38 on both wings, fig. 1 and 3) the stripping member (par. 0015, wherein stalks are processed through the system, including stripping them) and together with the respective first turning drum (38) can be pivoted (fig. 3, par. 0023-0026) relative to the respective adjoining central mowing and infeed unit (16, fig. 1 which would be section 50 of fig. 3), in such a way that, in the transport position, the stripping guides lie completely inside the permissible transport width of the maize header (fig. 3).
However, Rickert fails to explicitly disclose wherein there is a stripping member.
Zenter teaches a similar device in the same field of invention of stalk harvesters wherein a stripping member (3-6, fig. 2, par. 0030), which comprises multiple stripping guides (3-4, fig. 2, par. 0030).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the general stripper member of Rickert with the specific stripping member with a multiple stripping guides to yield the predictable result of stripping the crop from the stalk (par. 0030 of Zenter).
Regarding claim 5, Rickert in view of Zenter teaches characterized in that, in the transport position of the maize header (fig. 3 of Rickert), a section in which edges of the respective stripping member that are situated opposite stripping edges of the stripping guides does not intersect the respective vertically extending straight line or plane (fig. 3 of Rickert, wherein different sections are separated by different angles or space).
Regarding claim 6, Rickert in view of Zenter teaches characterized in that, in the transport position of the maize header (fig. 3 of Rickert), the respective section extends parallel or approximately parallel to the respective vertically extending straight line or plane (fig. 3, par. 0026 of Rickert, wherein different sections are separated by different angles that can be approximately parallel).
Regarding claim 10, Rickert in view of Zenter teaches characterized in that each of the two second turning drums (38 on both wings, fig. 1 and 3) is assigned a stripping member (par. 0015, wherein stalks are processed through the system, including stripping them) and together with the respective second lateral mowing and infeed unit (20, fig. 1 and 3) is pivotable (fig. 3, par. 0023-0026) relative to the respective adjoining first lateral mowing and infeed unit (16, fig. 1 which would be section 50 of fig. 3), in such a way that, in the transport position of the maize header, the stripping member (fig. 3) assigned to the first one of the second turning drums lie on the first side and the stripping guides of the stripping member assigned to the second one of the second turning drums lie on the second side of the center straight line or center plane (40, fig. 3, wherein when both sides are shown in the transport position).
However, Rickert fails to explicitly disclose wherein there is a stripping member.
Zenter teaches a similar device in the same field of invention of stalk harvesters wherein a stripping member (3-6, fig. 2, par. 0030), which comprises multiple stripping guides (3-4, fig. 2, par. 0030).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the general stripper member of Rickert with the specific stripping member with a multiple stripping guides to yield the predictable result of stripping the crop from the stalk (par. 0030 of Zenter).
Regarding claim 11, Rickert in view of Zenter teaches characterized in that, in the transport position of the maize header (fig. 3 of Rickert), a section in which edges of the respective stripping member that are situated opposite stripping edges of the stripping guides does not intersect the respective vertically extending center line or center plane (fig. 1 and 3, par. 0026, wherein when both sides are shown in the transport position of Rikert).
Regarding claim 12, Rickert in view of Zenter teaches characterized in that, in the transport position of the maize header (fig. 3 of Rikert), the respective section extends parallel or approximately parallel to the center line or center plane (fig. 1 and 3, par. 0026, wherein when both sides are shown in the transport position of Rikert).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rauch (US 2004/0182060 A1) – a pivotable stalk header that forms a frustoconical shape when pivoted into a transport shape
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Railey whose telephone number is (571)270-7353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-4).
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/JENNIFER A RAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672