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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 line 5 “60*” should be --60°--. Note this typo was not present in the previous claim set filed 02/23/2026 which had correctly recited 60°.
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.
Claims 16 and 18-30 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 16 was amended to recite the limitation "the ranges of movements (C, D) of the transfer prongs and the pickup prongs (12)" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the range of movement (C) in the claim. It is noted that only a range of movement (D) is positively set forth in claim 16 lines 18-19. Note this rejection is repeated from claim 17 of the previous office action. Applicant on page 8 of Applicant’s remarks states “Claim 17 has been amended to remove the "the", which is believed to address the antecedent issue”, however, claim 17 has been canceled, and no corresponding correction has been to the limitation incorporated in the amendment to claim 16.
By virtue of their dependence on claim 16, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent claims 18-30.
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 16, 18-25, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiter (DE 102010010862 A1) in view of Innes (US 1896626 A) and Dow (US 9386749 B1).
It is noted that all citations to Reiter (DE 102010010862 A1) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding independent claim 16, Reiter discloses a windrower (1, Fig. 1) comprising of:
at least one pickup device (3,6), which has a pickup rotor (4) and a transfer rotor (7), which can be driven in the same direction (clockwise, from Fig. 2 view) about axes of rotation (5 and 17a respectively) which extend at least predominantly along a transverse axis,
wherein the pickup rotor is configured to pick up agricultural crop material from the ground by means of pickup prongs (see “rake tines” of roller 4, Fig. 2), to lift it in relation to a vertical axis and to transfer it to the transfer rotor (para. [0054]), which is arranged at least in part higher than the pickup rotor (Fig. 2) and is configured to take over the crop material by means of transfer prongs (8), to lift it at least initially in relation to the vertical axis and to transfer it to a downstream transverse conveyor (12), which is arranged at least in part behind (i.e. relative to crop flow direction) the pickup device in relation to a longitudinal axis and is configured to receive the crop material transferred by the transfer rotor on a conveying surface (13), to convey it along the transverse axis by means of a conveying element (14) and to deposit it in windrows on the ground (para. [0051]),
wherein the transfer rotor is configured to discharge at least some of the crop material above the conveying surface in relation to the vertical axis and to throw it onto the said surface (para. [0045]).
Reiter fails to disclose wherein a normal straight line, which runs perpendicular to the conveying surface and through a forwardmost point on the conveying element in relation to the longitudinal axis, at least touches a range of movement of the transfer prongs.
In the same area, Innes discloses a similar pickup device (see Fig. 1,6) comprising a pickup rotor (20 + 24) and a transfer rotor (4) configured to carry crop up and over for discharge onto a transverse conveyor (1) (page 2 lines 104-113), wherein a normal straight line which runs through a forwardmost point of the transverse conveyor at least touches a range of movement the transfer rotor (4) (see annotated image of Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
499
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 6 of Innes
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the transfer rotor of Reiter such that a range of movement of the transfer rotor at least touches or vertically overlaps a forward end of the transverse conveyor, as taught by Innes, in order to minimize any risk of material falling through a transfer gap and potentially clogging the conveyor system.
Reiter further teaches wherein the ranges of movement of the transfer prongs (8) and the pickup prongs (“rake tines” of pick-up rotor 4) overlap when viewed along the transverse axis (see Reiter para. [0042,0048] teaches an inlet of the transfer rotor 7 is adjacent to or overlaps with outlet area of pick-up rotor).
Reiter does not explicitly detail wherein the transfer prongs (8) engage between the pickup prongs during the overlap.
In the same area, Dow discloses a similar pick-up device wherein the prongs (11) of the roller (8) engage between prongs (56) of the roller (10) and/or between prongs (11) of the roller (6) (Fig. 2-3, col. 10 lines 55-58 plurality of discs 56 spaced axially so as to intermesh with picking fingers 11 and col. 12 lines 15-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the transfers prongs of Reiter to engage between pickup prongs during overlap, as taught by Dow, in order to ensure that all crop material is stripped off the pickup rotor and prevented from wrapping/clogging of the areas therebetween (see Dow at col. 10 lines 65-67 and col. 12 lines 19-24).
Regarding claim 18, Reiter in view of Innes and Dow discloses the windrower according to Claim 16.
Reiter further discloses wherein the pickup device (3,6) has a stripping device with:
pickup-prong stripper sections (22) and pickup-prong gaps (“slots between the scraper elements 22”, para. [0038]), which are formed therebetween in relation to the transverse axis and through which the pickup prongs (i.e. “rake tines” of roller 4) at least partially project (see Fig. 2); and
transfer-prong stripper sections (11) and transfer-prong gaps (“slots” of scraper 11) formed therebetween, through which the transfer prongs (8) at least partially project (Fig. 2), wherein the transfer-prong stripper sections are designed in such a way that, as the transfer rotor (7) rotates, the transfer prongs enter between them (para. [0046] “scraper 11 is designed in the form of a slotted base plate or comb, in whose slots the drivers 8 of the conveying rotor 7 run”).
Regarding claim 19, Reiter in view of Innes and Dow discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, wherein an entry region (“A” designated below), in which the transfer prongs (8) enter completely between the transfer-prong stripper sections (11), is arranged vertically above the conveying surface (13) in at least one working position of the windrower (from combination w/ Innes, transfer rotor 7, and therefore entry region “A”, is modified to at least partially overlap transverse conveyor surface 13 in the vertical direction).
PNG
media_image2.png
374
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 2 of Reiter
Regarding claim 20, Reiter in view of Innes and Dow discloses the windrower according to Claim 19, wherein the entry region (“A” designated above) is offset in relation to the axis of rotation (7a) of the transfer rotor (7) by about 70° with respect to an uppermost point (“B”, designated above) of the range of movement of the transfer prongs (8) (see angle between “A” and “B” above is approx. 70 degrees), but does not explicitly disclose over 70°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the angle claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Refer to MPEP § 2144.05, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges either overlap or are merely close with the prior art.
Regarding claim 21, Reiter in view of Innes and Dow discloses the windrower according Claim 16, wherein at least one working position of the windrower, a tangent (“C” designated below) to the range of movement of the transfer prongs, which runs through a point of the conveying element which is furthest forwards in relation to the longitudinal axis, encloses a first angle with a horizontal plane (“D” designated below) which is at least 60°, when measured in the direction of rotation of the transfer rotor, starting from the horizontal plane (from combination w/ Innes, as seen below, tangent forms an angle of approx.. 90 degrees w/ horizontal).
PNG
media_image3.png
587
726
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 6 of Innes
Regarding claim 22, Reiter in view of Innes and Dow discloses a method for operating a windrower according to claim 1 having at least one windrower unit having the pickup device and the transverse conveyor. Reiter further teaches wherein at least one operating parameter (i.e. conveying speed of transfer rotor 7 and/or transverse conveyor 12, para. [0014], and/or height and angle of channel wall 10, para. [0022-0024]) of the windrower unit is adapted to influence a distribution of the crop material on the conveying surface (13) (speed of transfer rotor 7 is adapted to influence a crop pressure downstream of transfer rotor 7, e.g. to spread harvested material out better, para. [0013-0014], angle of channel wall 10 is movable to facilitate even conveyance, para. [0024]).
Regarding claim 23, Reiter in view of Innes and Dow discloses the method according to Claim 22. Reiter further teaches wherein the distribution of the crop material is detected by at least one sensor (para. [0013] “at least one crop, soil and/or machine operating parameter…is detected by a suitably designed detection device…in the form of a sensor), and the at least one operating parameter is adapted in accordance with the detected distribution (i.e. conveying speed of transfer rotor 7 and/or transverse conveyor 12, and angle of channel wall 10 is adapted based on detected values para. [0014,0022]).
Regarding claim 24, Reiter in view of Innes and Dow discloses the method according to Claim 22. Reiter further teaches wherein the at least one parameter is adapted in order to ensure that at least some of the crop material is deposited in a region of the conveying surface (13) that is central in relation to the longitudinal axis (para. [0014] speed of transfer rotor 7 is adjustable to improve spread of material over transfer conveyor surface 13, para. [0024] angle of channel wall 10 adjusts the pressure of harvested crop on the conveyor floor to facilitate even conveyance, note even spread/conveyance onto conveyor surface inherently includes deposition on a center portion thereof).
Regarding claim 25, Reiter in view of Innes and Dow discloses the method according to Claim 22. Reiter further teaches wherein a rotational speed of the transfer rotor (7) is adapted in order to influence the distribution (para. [0014]).
Regarding claim 27, Reiter in view of Innes and Dow discloses the method according to Claim 22. Reiter further teaches wherein the windrower unit has a hold-down device (10), wherein at least one position of the hold-down device relative to the rotors (4,7) is adapted in order to influence the distribution (para. [0022-0024] angle of channel wall 10 adjusts downward pressure on the conveyor floor to facilitate even conveyance).
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiter in view of Innes and Dow as applied to claim 22 and 27 above, and further in view of Erdmann et al. (US 20060277888 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Reiter in view of Innes and Dow discloses the method according to Claim 27. Reiter further teaches wherein the hold-down device comprises a guide cover (10) arranged behind the pick-up rotor (4) in relation to a direction of crop flow along the longitudinal axis and defines a conveying duct (9) for crop material between itself and at least one of the rotors (7), wherein a position of the guide cover is adapted, and the geometry of the conveying duct is thereby changed in order to influence the distribution (para. [0049] angle of channel wall 10 adjusts effective cross-section of conveying channel 9 to facilitate even conveyance, para. [0022-0024]).
Reiter fails to disclose the hold-down device further comprising a rotatable hold-down roller arranged in front of the pickup rotor in relation to the longitudinal axis.
Erdmann in the same area discloses a similar crop-pickup for lifting a windrow, wherein the hold-down device (42) comprises a hold-down roller (48) and a guide cover (132), the hold-down roller being arranged in front of pick-up rotor (18) and guide cover (Fig. 1, para. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the hold-down device of Reiter to further include a hold-down roller configured to engage with and roll along the top of the windrow in front of the pick-up rotor, as taught by Erdmann, in order to aid the feeding of crop by preventing it from being thrown forward by the action of the pick-up tines (Erdmann at para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 29, Reiter in view of Innes and Dow and Erdmann discloses the method according to Claim 28. Reiter further teaches wherein a vertical position of the guide cover (10) is adapted in order to influence the distribution (para. [0049] guide cover 10 pivots up and down about horizontal transverse axis 25 to adjust effective cross-section of conveying channel 9 and facilitate even conveyance).
Regarding claim 30, Reiter in view of Innes and Dow discloses the method according to Claim 22, wherein the windrower unit has a guide cover (10), which extends along the longitudinal axis and guides the crop material discharged by the transfer rotor (7) in the direction of the transverse conveyor (12), wherein an inclination of the guide cover relative to the longitudinal axis is adapted in the direction of the transverse axis and/or an inclination of the guide cover relative to the longitudinal axis is adapted in the direction of the vertical axis in order to influence the distribution (para. [0049] angle of channel wall 10 is adjusted up or down to change effective cross-section of conveying channel 9 and facilitate even conveyance, para. [0022-0024]).
Reiter fails to disclose wherein the guide cover comprises a plurality of guide prongs.
Erdmann in the same area discloses a similar crop-pickup for lifting a windrow comprising a guide cover (132) extending along a longitudinal axis for guiding crop material discharged by transfer rotor (20) (Fig. 1), wherein the guide cover can comprise a solid compressor sheet or a plurality of compressor rods (Fig. 6, bottom of para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the solid guide cover of Reiter with a plurality of guide prongs, as taught by Erdmann, since this is a mere simple substitution of one guide means for keeping crop engaged with the transfer rotor for another to yield predictable results.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiter in view of Innes and Dow as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Finlay (US 5177944 A).
Regarding claim 26, Reiter in view of Innes and Dow discloses the method according to Claim 24, but fails to disclose wherein a second angle, by which at least the central region of the conveying surface is tilted relative to the horizontal plane towards the pickup device, is adapted in order to influence the distribution.
In the same area, Finlay discloses a similar windrower comprising a transverse belt conveyor (11), wherein an angle of the conveyor belt surface (38) relative to a horizontal plane is adjusted (via hydraulic cylinder 31) towards a pick-up rotor (12) in order to influence a crop distribution (see Figs. 2-3, col. 5 lines 28-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the transverse conveyor belt of Reiter to be adjustable relative to a horizontal plane, as taught by Finlay, in order to provide a further means for reducing crop bunching and thus providing a more even spread of material (Finlay at col. 6 lines 23-28).
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 16 and 18-30, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Regarding the combination of Reiter and Innes
“In the action, it is simply proposed to move the transfer rotor 7 of Reiter to a different position, which would put a portion of the rotor partially overlapping the conveyor. However, to do so (and without any indication that other components would be moved) would cause separation between the pickup rotor 4 and the transfer rotor 7. This separation would create a gap in which material has a greater chance of falling from the machine….which would indicate that the proposed modification would make the machine of Reiter unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, as it would create a stronger likelihood of material not ending up on the conveyor (i.e., the material being transferred from the spiked roller 4 would not readily pass to the intermediate conveyor 6).” (See Applicant’s remarks pages 9-10).
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is not persuasive because it improperly assumes that the spatial relationships of the components in Reiter are fixed, i.e. that the pickup roller 4 must remain in its original position when repositioning the transfer roller 7. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the pickup roller and transfer roller form an associated material transfer assembly, i.e. they cooperate to transfer material therebetween, and accordingly, their relative positioning may be adjusted as necessary to maintain the desired material-transfer path.
Specifically, upon positioning the transfer roller to overlap the transverse conveyor, a POSITA would have reasonably repositioned the pickup roller as necessary to retain the appropriate effective relationship between the pickup roller and transfer roller, therefore any resulting adjustment to the position of the pickup roller would merely serve to preserve the existing function of material transfer from the pickup roller to the transfer roller.
Further, such positioning would have been a routine matter of mechanical design involving the adjustment of the relative positions of known cooperating components, rather than requiring undue experimentation or a change in the principle operation of the windrower, and Applicant has not identified any technical reason as to why the pickup roller must remain fixed in its original position, nor has Applicant shown that repositioning of the pickup assembly to maintain the desired roller-to-roller relationship would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant further argues:
Regarding the combination of Reiter and Dow
“Dow discloses three separate rotating members (roller 6, transfer roller 8, and lofting roller 10). The pickup roller 6 and the transfer roller 8 appear to have some overlap, and the transfer roller 8 and the lofting roller 10 have some overlap, but there is no overlap between the pickup roller 6 and the lofting roller 10. It appears that the lofting roller is the last roller before the material is deposited on the conveyor. However, Dow discloses three separate rollers, which would not be the equivalent to the two-roller system of the claimed invention. Still further, even assuming the pickup roller 6 and the transfer roller 8 overlap, this does still not meet the element of the location of the transfer roller.” (See Applicant’s remarks pages 10-11).
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive as it focuses on an insignificant structural difference in the number of rollers (i.e. two vs three) in the Reiter reference compared to the Dow reference, when the relevant teaching of Dow is not dependent on the presence of three rollers, but rather, upon the disclosed spatial relationship between adjacent rollers. In particular, Dow teaches that intermeshing of the tines/discs of adjacent rollers helps prevent wrapping of harvested crop by ensuring that all material is stripped off and prevented from continuing in the areas of interface between adjacent rollers (see Dow at col. 10 lines 65-67 and col. 12 lines 19-24).
Therefore, Dow demonstrates that the disclosed overlapping relationship is employed between adjacent crop-handling rollers regardless of whether the overall system includes two rollers, three rollers, or more. As such, the overlapping tine arrangement is directly applicable to Reiter’s adjacent rollers for the functional advantages mentioned (i.e. facilitating stripping of crop material and reducing the likelihood of crop material remaining between the rollers and causing clogging) and therefore provides a reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the overlapping relationship at the pickup/transfer interface of Reiter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Christopher Sebesta, can be reached on (571) 272-0547. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights