DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the adjustable portion 70 with independently operable left and right hand side portions as in claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Overschelde, et al. US2009/0325659.
Regarding claim 1, Overschelde, et al. teaches a crop residue spreader arrangement (Figure 1) comprising a frame (outside supporting portion of 1), a pair of counter rotating (¶0030 “The spreader 10 comprises two contra-rotating generally horizontal rotor impellers 24 for spreading chopped crop residue”) residue spreader wheels 26 carried from the frame (wherein 26 is carried on 10), a residue chopper 12 comprising an inlet (top of 12), an outlet (leading to 10) and a plurality of chopping blades 14 between the inlet and the outlet, characterised in that the pair of counter rotating residue spreader wheels 26 are arranged at a downwardly inclined angle ¶0030 “FIGS. 1 and 2 illustrate an active spreader 10 according to the present invention mounted directly behind the trajectory of the knives 14 of the chopper 12, and at an acute, downward angle relative to the outlet direction of the chopped residue”) with respect to the outlet of the residue chopper 12 and in that the outlet of the residue chopper 12 comprises an adjustable portion 70 adjustable between a lowered position (Figure 7) and a raised position (Figure 9) to set a feeding point of the crop residue from the residue chopper 12 to the counter rotating residue spreader wheels 26.
Regarding claim 2, Overschelde, et al. teaches the adjustable portion 70 comprises independently operable left- and right-hand side (Figure 3 shows left and right portions 70) portions to set feeding points (via rotation on 76 as described in ¶0040 “The rakes 70 preferably are mounted for angular adjustment about an upright axis, perpendicular to the straw guiding plate 72. A simple, though convenient solution implies the use of a shaft 76 that is welded or otherwise connected to the front of the rake 72 and loaded downwardly by a spring 78. This spring holds the front lower edge of the rake in a notched element 80 above the guiding plate 72”) of the crop residue from the residue chopper 12 to each of the counter rotating residue spreader wheels 26.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Overschelde, et al. in view of Ricketts, et al. US2014/0140171160.
Regarding claim 3, Overschelde, et al. teaches an agricultural harvester (¶0012 “According to a preferred aspect of the present invention there is provided an active crop residue spreader for an agricultural combine harvester, comprising a housing mountable to a rear end of the combine harvester”) comprising a crop residue spreader arrangement (Figure 1) according to claim 1.
Overschelde, et al. does not teach the harvester has a chassis, and the crop residue spreader is carried by said chassis at a rear of the agricultural harvester.
Ricketts, et al. teaches that it is known in the art for a agricultural harvester (Figure 1) to have a chassis 22 that carries the residue spreader 24, as a means to support the residue spreader on the harvester.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Overschelde, et al.’s agricultural harvester to include the chassis of Ricketts, et al. such that the chassis carries the residue spreader with a reasonable expectation of success in providing desired support for the spreader on the back of the harvester.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yde US20130263565 teaches a movable element 18, chopper 12, and spreader 14.
Schwinn, et al. US7473171 teaches Figure 3 has movable element 152 feeding to spreader 120
Dilts, et al. US2014/0066148 teaches movable element 140 directing chaff from chopper 126 to spreader 110.
Rittershofer et al. US2019/0090428 teaches a spreader can be pivoted downard to allow residue to be dumped ¶0017.
Missotten, et al. US2022/0394925 teaches a harvester (Figure 1) with chopper 72, downwardly angled spreader 74 at angle 96 to provide a tangential projection ¶0070.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 12/18/2025