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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: AGRICULTURAL BALER WITH WINDGUARD ASSEMBLY HAVING INDEPENDENTLY MOVABLE TINES.
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 8-9 and 15 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 8 recites the limitation "wherein each arm has" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “each arm” in the claim. It is noted that “arms” are positively set forth in claim 5 line 1. The Examiner has therefore interpreted claim 8 as depending from claim 5 instead of claim 4 for purposes of examination.
By virtue of its dependence on claim 8, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the bushing" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that “a bushing” is positively set forth in claim 5.
Claim 15 line 1 recites "the agricultural baler of claim 1". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note “An agricultural baler” is not positively set forth until claim 14. The Examiner has therefore interpreted this portion of claim 15 as reading --the agricultural baler of claim 14-- for purposes of examination.
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 an 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 axially spaced-apart and longitudinally extending tines (7) extending from a transversely mounted shaft (5), wherein one of the tines of the plurality of tines is independently moveable with respect to 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).
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 the 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 of the tines 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 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 an 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 one of the tines of the plurality of tines is independently moveable with respect to 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), wherein each tine can move independently 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 5-9 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 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 arm and the shaft of the roller.
In the same field of endeavor, 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 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 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 point of rotation for the tines (24) (tines 24 can rotate about a first pivot point 22 or second pivot point 26).
Regarding claim 8, Vandamme in view of Scholtissek and Smith discloses the windguard assembly of claim 5. Vandamme further discloses wherein each arm (20) has a first end (22) that is pivotably mounted to the frame (16) of the baler and a second end, opposite the first end, that is mounted to the roller (18) (Fig. 2), and wherein the windguard assembly is pivotable with respect to the frame about an axis (22) that passes through the first ends of the arms (para. [0060]).
Regarding claim 9, Vandamme in view of Scholtissek and Smith discloses the windguard assembly of claim 8, wherein the second end (i.e. end of arm 20 mounted to roller 18, Vandamme Fig. 2) is also mounted to the bushing such that the roller can rotate with respect to the arms (from combination with Smith, bushing 24 is mounted at the second end of the arms for rotation of the roller relative to the arm).
Claims 1,5-6,8-9,13-15 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 an 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 one of the tines of the plurality of tines is independently moveable with respect to 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), wherein each tine can move independently 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 Egging 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 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 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 arms (16) (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Egging in view of Scholtissek discloses the windguard assembly of claim 5. Egging further teaches wherein each arm (16) has a first end (at 25) that is pivotably mounted to the frame of the baler (Fig. 8 , pivotably mounted to tine shaft 26 which is connected to baler frame, para. [0046]) and a second end (at 28), opposite the first end, that is mounted to the roller, and wherein the windguard assembly is pivotable with respect to the frame about an axis (25) that passes through the first ends of the arms (at least a portion of the windguard can lift to accommodate large influxes of crop material, para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Egging in view of Scholtissek discloses the windguard assembly of claim 8. Egging further teaches wherein the second end (at 28) is also mounted to the bushing (21) such that the roller (14) can rotate with respect to the arms (16) (para. [0034]).
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 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 1 (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
Claim 12 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Palmer (US 0391484 A) discloses independent pivots and springs for tine members. Martin (US 2364303 A) discloses a spring tooth and clip assembly. Joseph et al. (US 2691266 A) discloses a wind guard attachment for a pick-up. Nelson (US 2862347 A) discloses a baler structure. Nolt (US 2872772 A) discloses an adjustable and downwardly biased windguard. McRobert (US 3828534 A) discloses independently pivotable hold-down fingers. McClure (US 20030182921 A1) discloses replaceable windguard tines. Erdmann et al. (US 20060277888 A1) discloses a hold-down assembly. McClure et al. (US 20140260167 A1) discloses a cam action windguard. Smith et al. (US 6877304 B1) discloses a dual windguard assembly. Derscheid et al. (US 10111387 B1) discloses a hold-down baffle float system. Childs (US 20210360859 A1) discloses a blockage removal windguard. Afting et al. (US 20240147909 A1) discloses a hold-down with dual tines.
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
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights