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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scholtissek (HU 180757 B).
It is noted that all citations to Scholtissek (HU 180757 B) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding claim 1, Scholtissek discloses a windguard assembly (“swathe hold-down” device, Figs. 1-2) for a baler that is configured to either limit or prevent crop material from being blown away by the wind during feeding of the crop material into a bale chamber of the baler (Note Scholtissek’s hold-down assembly is easily configurable for use with an agricultural baler as per methods well-known in the art, therefore a prior art structure capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. Refer to MPEP 2111.02), said windguard assembly including:
a transversely mounted roller (2) that is configured to rotate about a first axis of rotation, wherein the roller includes a plurality of crop engaging surfaces (intrinsic in “transverse conveyor screw 2”) that are configured to transport the crop material toward the bale chamber; and
a tine assembly that is mounted with respect to the roller, the tine assembly comprising a plurality of tines (7) being axially spaced-apart and extending longitudinally, each tine of the plurality of tines having a base end (proximal portion of longitudinal extension of tines 7 as designated below) extending from and connected to a transversely mounted shaft (5) and a free end (distal portion of longitudinal extension of tines 7 as designated below) opposite the base end,
wherein the base end of one tine of the plurality of tines is independently moveable with respect to the base end of another tine of the plurality of tines (as shown in Fig. 1 and bottom of page 2 - top of page 3, all clamping teeth 7 can move independently of adjacent teeth to accommodate height fluctuations along the width of the crop).
It should be further noted that each tine (7) can be independently moved along/pushed onto transverse shaft (5) during installation and screwed thereto (9).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 1 of Scholtissek
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholtissek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raney et al. (US 2430734 A).
Regarding claim 2, Scholtissek discloses the windguard assembly of claim 1 further comprising a biasing element (Fig. 2, torsion spring 8 wrapped around shaft 5), but does not explicitly detail wherein the springs bias at least one tine of the plurality of tines (7) toward a pick-up roller (3) of the baler.
In the same field of endeavor, Raney discloses a similar pick-up assembly for a baler including a windguard assembly (39) for preventing crop material from blowing upwardly (col. 4 lines 18-19) and comprising a plurality of longitudinally extending pressing surfaces (46) extending from a transversely mounted shaft (36), wherein a torsion spring (44, Fig. 6) coiled around the shaft resiliently urges the pressing surfaces downwardly towards a pick-up roller (15) of the baler (col. 4 lines 1-5 and col. 5 lines 48-50).
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 torsion springs of Scholtissek to be distinct elements acting on surfaces of the tines, as taught by Raney, in order to resiliently urge the tines downward allowing them to more quickly return to their lower position after surges in crop volume (Raney at Fig. 2, col. 1 lines 20-24).
Regarding claim 3, Scholtissek in view of Raney discloses the windguard assembly of claim 2, wherein the biasing element is a torsion spring (Raney Fig. 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 4, Scholtissek in view of Raney discloses the windguard assembly of claim 2. Raney further teaches wherein one portion (43’) of the biasing element (44) bears on the shaft (36) and another portion (45’) of the biasing element bears on an upper surface of the tine assembly to bias said one tine toward the pick-up roller (see Raney at Fig. 6 col. 3 lines 63-68, end 43’ of torsion spring 44 bears on the shaft 36 and end 45’ of torsion spring 44 bears on upper surface of pressing surface 40).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholtissek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Babler et al. (US 20210045292 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Scholtissek discloses the windguard assembly of claim 1, but does not explicitly detail wherein the tine assembly comprises a plurality of tine gangs, wherein each tine gang of the plurality of tine gangs includes a plurality of the tines and a biasing element for independently biasing said tine gang toward a pick-up roller of the baler.
In the same field of endeavor, Babler discloses a wind-guard (310) comprising a plurality of independently movable tine gangs (first set 348 and second set 350), wherein each tine gang includes a plurality of tines (328,330) (para. [0073]) and a respective biasing element (110) for independently biasing said tine gang toward a pick-up roller (302) of the baler (Fig. 4, para. [0078] when actuator 110 is retracted to bias wind guard in the lowered position).
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 tine assembly of Scholtissek to comprise groups of tines controlled by a respective biasing element, as taught by Grant, in order to allow for independent adjustment of each group of tines by the user across a width of the windguard as desired for a more even feed and distribution of crop material (Babler at para. [0084-0085]).
Regarding claim 11, Scholtissek in view of Babler discloses the windguard assembly of claim 10. Babler further teaches wherein the biasing element (110) is configured for biasing one tine gang (348) of the plurality of tine gangs relative to another tine gang (350) of the plurality of tine gangs such that said one tine gang can move independently (Babler at para. [0073]).
Claims 1 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandamme et al. (US 20140250855 A1) in view of Scholtissek (HU 180757 B).
Regarding claim 1, Vandamme discloses a windguard assembly (18,19,24) for a baler (100, Fig. 1) that is configured to either limit or prevent crop material from being blown away by the wind during feeding of the crop material into a bale chamber (106) of the baler (para. [0053]), said windguard assembly including:
a transversely mounted roller (roller 18) that is configured to rotate about a first axis of rotation (para. [0059] central axis of roller 18), wherein the roller includes a plurality of crop engaging surfaces (roller has plurality of transversely mounted bars as shown in Fig. 3) that are configured to transport the crop material toward the bale chamber (direction of crop flow CF, para. [0059]); and
a tine assembly that is mounted with respect to the roller, the tine assembly comprising a plurality of axially spaced-apart and longitudinally extending tines (24, Fig. 2) extending from a transversely mounted shaft (26), wherein the tines are pivotable to accommodate surges in crop material influx (para. [0062]), but does not explicitly detail wherein a base end of one tine of the plurality of tines is independently moveable with respect to a base end of another tine of the plurality of tines.
In the same field of hold-down assemblies, Scholtissek discloses a similar pick-up assembly (1, Figs. 1-2) comprising a plurality of spaced-apart longitudinally extending tines (7) comprising a base end and a free end (designated in annotated image of Fig. 1 of Scholtissek above), wherein the base end of each tine can move independently of the base end of adjacent tines (as shown in Fig. 1 and bottom of page 2 - top of page 3).
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 tines of Vandamme to be independently movable with respect to each other, as taught by Scholtissek, in order to optimize hold-down performance by accommodating height fluctuations in crop material influx along the width of the crop (Scholtissek at bottom of page 2 - top of page 3).
Regarding claim 14, Vandamme in view of Scholtissek discloses an agricultural baler (100) comprising the windguard assembly of claim 1, wherein the transversely mounted roller (18) is configured to compress crop (CF) against a rotatable pick-up roller (12) of the baler (Vandamme Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Vandamme in view of Scholtissek discloses an agricultural vehicle (“tractor”, Vandamme para. [0057]) comprising the agricultural baler (100) of claim 14, wherein the agricultural baler comprises a tongue (102) that is mounted to a hitch on the agricultural vehicle (Vandamme para. [0055] “agricultural baler 100 comprises…a forwardly extending tongue 102 at its front end with hitch means (not shown) for coupling the baler 100 to a towing tractor”).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandamme and Scholtissek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith (US 4015410 A).
Regarding claim 5, Vandamme in view of Scholtissek discloses the windguard assembly of claim 1.
Vandamme further discloses the wherein the tine assembly comprises tine arms (20) that are connected to a shaft of the roller (18) and a frame (16) of the baler (Fig. 2, para. [0060] arms 20 are connected to shaft of roller 18 at one end and frame 16 at the other end), but does not explicitly detail a bushing between the tine arm and the shaft of the roller.
In the same area, Smith discloses a similar hold-down roller (21) for a pick-up baler (Figs. 1-2), wherein a shaft (22) of the roller is connected at each end to mounting arms (25) via journal bearings (24) (Fig. 4) (col. 2 lines 32-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a bushing between the arms and roller shaft of Vandamme, as taught by Smith, in order to reduce friction and wear between the components.
Regarding claim 6, Vandamme in view of Scholtissek and Smith discloses the windguard assembly of claim 5. Vandamme further discloses wherein the shaft (26) of the tine assembly is mounted to the tine arms (20) (Fig. 2, para. [0061]).
Regarding claim 7, Vandamme in view of Scholtissek and Smith discloses the windguard assembly of claim 5. Vandamme further discloses wherein the shaft (26) of the tine assembly is pivotably mounted to the tine arms (20) (para. [0062] shaft 26 is pivotably mounted to the arms 20 such that tines 24 may swivel over a range) to a define a second axis of rotation (tines 24 can rotate about pivot point 26).
Claims 1,5-6,13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egging et al. (US 20090100814 A1) in view of Scholtissek (HU 180757 B).
Regarding claim 1, Egging discloses a windguard assembly (Figs. 7b-9) for a baler (900) that is configured to either limit or prevent crop material from being blown away by the wind during feeding of the crop material into a bale chamber of the baler (para. [0033]), said windguard assembly including:
a transversely mounted roller (14) that is configured to rotate about a first axis of rotation (note pivot axis 25 is considered “an axis of rotation” about which roller 14 rotates, para. [0038]), wherein the roller includes a plurality of crop engaging surfaces (15) that are configured to transport the crop material toward the bale chamber; and
a tine assembly that is mounted with respect to the roller, the tine assembly comprising a plurality of axially spaced-apart and longitudinally extending tines (tines of 26, Fig. 7b) extending from a transversely mounted shaft (shaft of 26, Fig. 8), but does not explicitly detail wherein a base end of one tine of the plurality of tines is independently moveable with respect to a base end of another tine of the plurality of tines.
In the same field of hold-down assemblies, Scholtissek discloses a similar pick-up assembly (1, Figs. 1-2) comprising a plurality of spaced-apart longitudinally extending tines (7) comprising a base end and a free end (designated in annotated image of Fig. 1 of Scholtissek above), wherein the base end of each tine can move independently of the base end of adjacent tines (as shown in Fig. 1 and bottom of page 2 - top of page 3).
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 tines of Vandamme to be independently movable with respect to each other, as taught by Scholtissek, in order to optimize hold-down performance by accommodating height fluctuations in crop material influx along the width of the crop (Scholtissek at bottom of page 2 - top of page 3).
Regarding claim 5, Egging in view of Scholtissek discloses the windguard assembly of claim 1. Egging further discloses wherein the tine assembly further comprises tine arms (16, Fig. 8) that are mounted to a bushing (21) that is connected to a shaft (22) of the roller (14), and wherein the tine arms are further configured to be connected to a frame of the baler (arms 16 connect to shaft of tine windguard 26 which is connected to the baler frame, para. [0046]. Also note all elements are inherently “connected” to the baler frame).
Regarding claim 6, Egging in view of Scholtissek discloses the windguard assembly of claim 5. Egging further discloses wherein the shaft (shaft of 26, Fig. 8) of the tine assembly is mounted to the tine arms (16) (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 13, Egging in view of Scholtissek discloses the windguard assembly of claim 1, wherein the tine assembly (26) is pivotably mounted with respect to the roller (14) about the first axis of rotation (25) (inherent from combination w/ Scholtissek, tines modified to pivot independently about the tine shaft which extends along the axis 25. Also note since roller 14 is pivotable about axis 25 via arms 16 relative to tine assembly 26, the tine assembly is also pivotable relative to the roller).
Regarding claim 14, Egging in view of Scholtissek discloses the agricultural baler (900) comprising the windguard assembly of claim 1, wherein the transversely mounted roller (14) is configured to compress crop (13) against a rotatable pick-up roller (17) of the baler.
Regarding claim 15, Egging in view of Scholtissek discloses an agricultural vehicle comprising the agricultural baler of claim 14 (para. [0006] “baler is towed through a field”, i.e. by a vehicle), wherein the agricultural baler comprises a tongue (Fig. 9) that is mounted to a hitch on the agricultural vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-15, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“None of the cited references disclose tines having base ends that are movable with respect to each other because the tines of the cited references are fixed to a common shaft. The Office Action does not contain any statements to the contrary.” (Applicant’s Remarks page 7).
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The term “base ends” is sufficiently broad enough to encompass a proximal portion of longitudinally-extending tines 7 of Scholtissek which are movable with respect to each other (as seen in the annotated image above and described on the bottom of page 2 - top of page 3, all clamping teeth 7 can move independently of adjacent teeth to accommodate height fluctuations along the width of the crop).
Further, if interpreting “base ends” to further encompass portions (8) of tines (7) which are wrapped around transverse shaft (5), it should be noted that each tine (7) including wrapped portions (8) thereof can be independently moved along/pushed onto transverse shaft (5) during installation of the tines and screwed (9) thereto.
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, Joesph 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 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