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 .
Introduction
Claims 19-36 are currently pending in this application and are subject to examination herein.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the German Patent Office on 11/09/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
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 19-36 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.
Claims 19 and 36 each recite the phrase “. . . are designed in such a way that . . .” (claim 19 at line 17, claim 36 at line 16). The metes and bounds of this phrase cannot be determined, which makes claim 19 unclear, because it is not certain how the phrase “designed in such a way” limits the transfer-prong stripper sections (24). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claims without the phrase “designed in such a way” therein. The Examiner suggests that Applicant may wish to remove the phrase “designed in such a way” from claims 19 and 36.
Claims 20-35 each depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim 19 and are, therefore, likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Furthermore, Claim 25 recites “a pickup-prong gap” (Claim 25 at line 2). It is unclear whether this is the same “at least one pickup-prong gap” recited in Claim 24 at lines 1-2 and “pickup-prong gaps” recited in Claim 19 at line 12.
Moreover, Claim 25 recites “preferably between 20° and 70°.“ The metes and bounds of Claim 25 cannot be determined because it is not clear whether the angle of inclination is required to be between 20° and 70° or if that is merely an optional preference. The Examiner suggests that Applicant may wish to amend Claim 25 to remove the term “preferably” therefrom.
Furthermore, Claim 30 recites “it” (claim 30 at line 4) and “itself” in line 5. “It” appears to refer back to previously recited pickup rotor (11), but “itself” is ambiguous as to whether it refers back to the pickup rotor (11) or the guide cover (46). As such, the metes and claims of Claim 30 cannot be determined. The Examiner suggests that Applicant may wish to amend Claim 25 to remove the term “preferably” therefrom.
Moreover, Claim 31 recites “preferably suspended in such a way.“ The metes and bounds of Claim 31 cannot be determined because it is not clear whether hold-down device (40) is required to be suspended or if that is merely an optional preference.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 19 and 36 also recite the pronoun “it” therein. It appears that the term is used consistently to reference the agricultural crop material and that is the way the Examiner will interpret same.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Applicants have used the phrase “and/or” in Claim 32. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has held that use of the phrase "and/or” within a claim is not indefinite per se. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811 (Jan. 2014). Nevertheless, “[d]uring patent examination, the pending claims must be ‘given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’” MPEP § 2111; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Based upon this guidance from the MPEP and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the Examiner interprets the phrase "and/or" under its broadest reasonable interpretation of "or" for purposes of examination of the instant Application.
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.
Claim(s) 19-21, 24, 27 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0304612 to Roberge (cited by Applicant in IDS filed on 07/16/2024).
Regarding claim 19, Roberge discloses a field cultivating machine (baler 10) (Abstract; Figs. 1-5; Paras. [0020]-[0021]) comprising of:
at least one pickup device (pickup assembly 20) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Paras. [0020]-[0021], [0023], [0025]), which has
a pickup rotor (rotating tine reel 22) (Fig. 3; Paras. [0021], [0024]-[0026]) and
a transfer rotor (rotary feeder 50) (Fig. 3; Para. [0025]),
which can be driven in the same direction (see Fig. 3; Para. [0025]) about axes of rotation (tine reel axis 102, rotary feeder rotational axis 104) (Figs. 1-5; Paras. [0023], [0025]-[0026]) which extend at least predominantly along a transverse axis (Y) (see Figs. 1-5; Para. [0025]-[0026]),
wherein the pickup rotor (rotating tine reel 22) (Fig. 3; Paras. [0021], [0024]-[0026]) is configured to pick up agricultural crop material from the ground by means of pickup prongs (pickup tines 24) (Figs. 2-4; Para. [0021], [0026]), to lift it in relation to a vertical axis (Z) and to transfer it to the transfer rotor (rotary feeder 50) (Fig. 3; Para. [0025]),
which is configured to take over the crop material by means of transfer prongs (feed fingers 52) (Figs. 2-5; Paras. [0025]-[0028]) and to transfer it to a downstream device (floor roll 42, starter roll 44, second crop stripping apparatus 70 and/or baling chamber 90 (Figs. 1-4; Paras. [0020], [0022], [0027]),
which is arranged at least in part behind the pickup device (pickup assembly 20) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Paras. [0020]-[0021], [0023], [0025]) in relation to a longitudinal axis (X) (see Figs. 1-5),
wherein the transfer prongs (feed fingers 52) (Figs. 2-5; Paras. [0025]-[0028]) engage between the pickup prongs (pickup tines 24) (Figs. 2-4; Para. [0021], [0026]) in such a way that ranges of movement of the transfer prongs (feed fingers 52) (Figs. 2-5; Paras. [0025]-[0028]) and the pickup prongs (pickup tines 24) (Figs. 2-4; Para. [0021], [0026]) overlap when viewed along the transverse axis (Y) (see Fig. 3; Paras. [0016], [0026]),
wherein the pickup device (pickup assembly 20) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Paras. [0020]-[0021], [0023], [0025]) has a stripping device (tine guards 26) (Fig. 2; Para. [0021]) with pickup-prong stripper sections (see Fig. 2) and pickup-prong gaps (portion of opening(s) 25 conveying pickup tines 24) (Fig. 2; Para. [0021]), which are formed therebetween in relation to the transverse axis (Y) (see Fig. 2) and through which the pickup prongs (pickup tines 24) (Figs. 2-4; Para. [0021], [0026]) at least partially project (see Figs. 2-3),
wherein the stripping device (tine guards 26) (Fig. 2; Para. [0021]) has transfer-prong stripper sections (see Fig. 2) and transfer-prong gaps (see Fig. 2) formed therebetween, through which the transfer prongs (feed fingers 52) (Figs. 2-5; Paras. [0025]-[0028]) at least partially project,
wherein the transfer-prong stripper sections (see Fig. 2) are designed in such a way that, as the transfer rotor (rotary feeder 50) (Fig. 3; Para. [0025]) rotates, the transfer prongs (feed fingers 52) (Figs. 2-5; Paras. [0025]-[0028]) enter between them.
Regarding claim 20, Roberge discloses the field cultivating machine according to Claim 19 (see above). Furthermore, Roberge discloses a field cultivating machine (baler 10) (Abstract; Figs. 1-5; Paras. [0020]-[0021]) wherein the transfer rotor (rotary feeder 50) (Fig. 3; Para. [0025]) is arranged at least in part higher than the pickup rotor (rotating tine reel 22) (Fig. 3; Paras. [0021], [0024]-[0026]) and is configured to lift the crop material taken over from the pickup rotor (rotating tine reel 22) (Fig. 3; Paras. [0021], [0024]-[0026]) at least initially in relation to the vertical axis (Z) (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 21, Roberge discloses the field cultivating machine according to Claim 19 (see above). Furthermore, Roberge discloses a field cultivating machine (baler 10) (Abstract; Figs. 1-5; Paras. [0020]-[0021]) wherein the transfer prongs (feed fingers 52) (Figs. 2-5; Paras. [0025]-[0028]) have a transfer conveying profile (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Roberge infra) which is arranged at the front in the direction of rotation and slopes rearwards (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Roberge infra), such that it recedes tangentially in a radially outward direction (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Roberge infra), and the pickup prongs (pickup tines 24) (Figs. 2-4; Para. [0021], [0026]) have a pickup conveying profile (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Roberge infra) which is arranged at the front in the direction of rotation (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Roberge infra) and slopes forwards to a greater extent, at least in some region or regions, than the transfer conveying profile (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Roberge infra).
[AltContent: textbox (Transfer
Conveying
Profile)][AltContent: textbox (Pickup
Conveying
Profile)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
433
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Roberge.
Regarding claim 24, Roberge discloses the field cultivating machine according to Claim 19 (see above). Furthermore, Roberge discloses a field cultivating machine (baler 10) (Abstract; Figs. 1-5; Paras. [0020]-[0021]) wherein the at least one pickup-prong gap (portion of opening(s) 25 conveying pickup tines 24) (Fig. 2; Para. [0021]) merges into a transfer-prong gap (portion of opening(s) 25 conveying feed fingers 52) (Fig. 2; Para. [0021]) in a transitional region (portion of opening(s) 25 conveying both pickup tines 24 and feed fingers 24) (Fig. 2; Para. [0021]).
Regarding claim 27, Roberge discloses the field cultivating machine according to Claim 19 (see above). Furthermore, Roberge discloses a field cultivating machine (baler 10) (Abstract; Figs. 1-5; Paras. [0020]-[0021]) wherein the transfer rotor (rotary feeder 50) (Fig. 3; Para. [0025]) is configured to discharge at least some of the crop material above the conveying surface (surface of tine guards 26) (Fig. 3; Para. [0021]) in relation to the vertical axis (Z) and to throw it onto the said surface (surface of tine guards 26) (Fig. 3; Para. [0021]).
Regarding claim 36, Roberge discloses a pickup device (pickup assembly 20) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Paras. [0020]-[0021], [0023], [0025]) for a field cultivating machine (baler 10) (Abstract; Figs. 1-5; Paras. [0020]-[0021]) comprising:
a pickup rotor (rotating tine reel 22) (Fig. 3; Paras. [0021], [0024]-[0026]) and
a transfer rotor (rotary feeder 50) (Fig. 3; Para. [0025]),
which can be driven in the same direction (see Fig. 3; Para. [0025]) about axes of rotation (tine reel axis 102, rotary feeder rotational axis 104) (Figs. 1-5; Para. [0023], [0025]-[0026]) which extend at least predominantly along a transverse axis (Y) (see Figs. 1-5; Para. [0025]-[0026]),
wherein the pickup rotor (rotating tine reel 22) (Fig. 3; Paras. [0021], [0024]-[0026]) is configured to pick up agricultural crop material from the ground by means of pickup prongs (pickup tines 24) (Figs. 2-4; Paras. [0021], [0026]), to lift it in relation to a vertical axis (Z) and to transfer it to the transfer rotor (rotary feeder 50) (Fig. 3; Para. [0025]),
which is configured to take over the crop material by means of transfer prongs (feed fingers 52) (Figs. 2-5; Paras. [0025]-[0028]) and to transfer it to a downstream device (floor roll 42, starter roll 44, second crop stripping apparatus 70 and/or baling chamber 90 (Figs. 1-4; Paras. [0020], [0022], [0027]),
which is arranged at least in part behind the pickup device (pickup assembly 20) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Paras. [0020]-[0021], [0023], [0025]) in relation to a longitudinal axis (X) (see Figs. 1-5),
wherein the transfer prongs (feed fingers 52) (Figs. 2-5; Paras. [0025]-[0028]) engage between the pickup prongs (pickup tines 24) (Figs. 2-4; Para. [0021], [0026]) in such a way that ranges of movement of the transfer prongs (feed fingers 52) (Figs. 2-5; Paras. [0025]-[0028]) and the pickup prongs (pickup tines 24) (Figs. 2-4; Para. [0021], [0026]) overlap when viewed along the transverse axis (Y) (see Fig. 3; Paras. [0016], [0026]),
wherein the pickup device (pickup assembly 20) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Paras. [0020]-[0021], [0023], [0025]) has a stripping device (tine guards 26) (Fig. 2; Para. [0021]) with pickup-prong stripper sections (see Fig. 2) and pickup-prong gaps (openings 25) (Fig. 2; Para. [0021]), which are formed therebetween in relation to the transverse axis (Y) (see Fig. 2) and through which the pickup prongs (pickup tines 24) (Figs. 2-4; Paras. [0021], [0026]) at least partially project (see Figs. 2-3),
wherein the stripping device (tine guards 26) (Fig. 2; Para. [0021]) has transfer-prong stripper sections (see Fig. 2) and transfer-prong gaps (see Fig. 2) formed therebetween, through which the transfer prongs (feed fingers 52) (Figs. 2-5; Paras. [0025]-[0028]) at least partially project, wherein the transfer-prong stripper sections (see Fig. 2) are designed in such a way that, as the transfer rotor (rotary feeder 50) (Fig. 3; Para. [0025]) rotates, the transfer prongs (feed fingers 52) (Figs. 2-5; Paras. [0025]-[0028]) enter between them.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 26 and 29 (is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0132420 to Nafziger et al. (hereinafter Nafziger).
Regarding claim 26, Roberge discloses the field cultivating machine according to Claim 19 (see above). However, Roberge does not expressly disclose that the machine is designed as a windrower, having at least one windrower unit, which has a pickup device and, as a downstream device, a transverse conveyor, which is configured to receive the crop material transferred by the transfer rotor on a conveying surface, to convey it along the transverse axis and to deposit it in windrows on the ground. Nevertheless, Nafziger teaches a machine is designed as a windrower (Abstract; Figs. 1-7; Paras. [0007], [0018]), having at least one windrower unit (windrow forming shields 22) (Fig. 1; Para. [0018]), which has a pickup device (header 14) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0018], [0020]) and, as a downstream device, a transverse conveyor (conveyor 30) (Figs. 1-3, 6-7; Paras. [0020]-[0021], [0028]), which is configured to receive the crop material transferred by the transfer rotor (14) on a conveying surface (surface of conveyor 30) (Figs. 1-3, 6-7; Paras. [0020]-[0021], [0028]), to convey it along the transverse axis (Y) (see Figs. 1-7) and to deposit it in windrows on the ground (Abstract; Paras. [0003], [0007], [0019]; Claim 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the field cultivating machine disclosed in Roberge into the windrower taught in Nafziger with a reasonable expectation of success, , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 29, Roberge in view of Nafziger teaches the field cultivating machine according to Claim 26 (see above). Furthermore, Nafziger teaches a windrower wherein the transverse conveyor (conveyor 30) (Figs. 1-3, 6-7; Paras. [0020]-[0021], [0028]) can at least be arranged in such a way that the conveying surface (surface of conveyor 30) (Figs. 1-3, 6-7; Paras. [0020]-[0021], [0028]) is tilted relative to the horizontal plane (see Figs. 1-2, 4-5) towards the pickup device (header 14) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0018], [0020]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23, 25, 28 and 30-35 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. Pub. Nos. 2016/0366826 to Cox et al.; and 2013/0219847 to Miller et al. relate to pick-up rollers for forage implements. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0309655 to Treffer et al.; and Int’l. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/094270 to Figger et al. relate to windrowers with transverse conveyors. U.S. Pat. No. 4,524,575 to Nilsen relates to a windrow aerator. German Pat. Pub. No. DE 10 2014 226 267 A1 to Broschart and DE 20 2020 104 789 U1 to Strautmann & Sohne GmbH relate to feed rotors for an agricultural harvester. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0191628 to Graham et al. relate to threshing/separating devices having tined accelerator and/or axial rotor arrangement. European Pat. Pub. No. EP 3 987 915 A1 to Dresselhaus et al. relates to a rotor assembly for an agricultural working machine, in particular a loading vehicle. European Pat. Pub. No. EP 4 059 339 A1 to Gadermayr et al. relates to a pick up device for a harvesting machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAUDE J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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 M. 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.
/CLAUDE J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671