DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 11/17/2023 has been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in GB on 12/14/2022.
Objection to the Drawings
It appears that many of the drawings are (Gray Scaled) For example, Figures 1-10 appear light gray ink or Xeroxed copies of handwritten drawings (Made without the aid of drafting tools), where the gray shading is not necessary for some figures and extremely light and unclear in others. Color photographs and color drawings (Gray is not black or white rather a color) are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via EFS-Web or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via EFS-Web, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Title Objections
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.
Status of Application
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claim 1 is the independent claim.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “each residue deflector being associated with an adjacent residue spreader wheel” and metes and bounds of this claim are unclear thus indefinite. First, are these “adjacent residue spreader wheels” the same as the “pair of counter rotating spreader wheels” introduced previously? As currently presented it is unclear thus indefinite. When the Office looks into the specification, it appears these are the same spreader wheels thus will be interpreted accordingly. The Office suggests amending the claims to capture that these are in fact the same by using the same variable name instead of adding new terms and leaving off others. Further, this limitation states “residue deflector” and it appears these are the same as “the first and second shaped residue deflectors” and again for clarity, the Office suggests using the same variable name throughout the claims for clarity. The Office will interpret this as “each of the first and second residue deflector being associated with an the adjacent counter rotating residue spreader wheel”. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 6 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1, for “the adjacent residue spreader wheel”.
Claim 7 states “is generally triangular in shape” and the metes and bounds of the claim limitation are unclear thus indefinite. The term “generally” is extremely relative and where the metes and bounds for what is and what is not “generally” a triangle are unclear, thus indefinite. The Office, after looking into the specification, will interpret this shape as “having a relatively broader portion at a first end tapering to a relatively narrower portion at a second end”. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 2-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Deruyter et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0139286).
With respect to Claim 1: Deruyter discloses “A crop residue spreader arrangement comprising a frame” [Deruyter, ¶ 0032, 0047-0053 with Figures 2 and 10-11];
“a pair of counter rotating residue spreader wheels carried from the frame” [Deruyter, ¶ 0032, 0047-0053 with Figures 2 and 10-11 (each of the counter rotating spreader rotors 42, 44)];
“a common frame element” [Deruyter, ¶ 0032, 0047-0053 with Figures 2 and 10-11];
“the common frame element being pivotally connected to the frame” [Deruyter, ¶ 0032, 0047-0053 with Figures 2 and 10-11 (100)];
“the common frame element supporting first and second shaped residue deflectors” [Deruyter, ¶ 0032, 0047-0053 with Figures 10-11 (two adjustable deflector blades 29a and 29b)];
“each residue deflector being associated with an adjacent residue spreader wheel” [Deruyter, ¶ 0032, 0047-0053 with Figures 10-11];
“and each of the first and second shaped residue deflectors being pivotally mounted to the common frame element about coincident horizontal axes” [Deruyter, ¶ 0032, 0047-0053 with Figures 10-11 (each pivotably coupled to the support element 25, being pivotable about respective horizontal axes 31a and 31b oriented parallel to the direction tangential to the spreader rotors in which the crop is ejected)].
With respect to Claim 2: Deruyter discloses “A crop residue spreader arrangement according to claim 1, wherein that the common frame element is pivotally connected to the frame about a horizontal axis” [Deruyter, ¶ 0032, 0047-0053 with Figures 10-11 (the assembly comprises a frame 100 that is fixed to a horizontal axle 8)].
With respect to Claim 3: Deruyter discloses “A crop residue spreader arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the common frame element can be pivoted about the horizontal axis by a crank, hydraulic or pneumatic actuation or by linear actuation” [Deruyter, ¶ 0032, 0047-0053 with Figures 10-11 and 12a (the deflector 1 is attached to a horizontal axle 8 that is coupled to an actuator (not shown) for driving the oscillation) and (by a pair of variable length actuators 33a and 33b)].
With respect to Claim 4: Deruyter discloses “A crop residue spreader arrangement according to any of claim 1, wherein a cam arrangement is provided between each shaped residue deflector and the common frame element.” [Deruyter, ¶ 0032, 0047-0053 with Figures 10-11 and 12a (by a pair of variable length actuators 33a and 33b)].
With respect to Claim 5: Deruyter discloses “A crop residue spreader arrangement according to any of claim 1, wherein each shaped residue deflector comprises a carrying arm and a material deflector” [Deruyter, ¶ 0032, 0047-0053 with Figures 10-11 and 12a (The angular position of the blades 29a and 29b relative to the support element 25, as seen in an orthogonal projection on the plane of the front view shown in FIG. 10, is adjustable. In the embodiment shown, this is realized by a pair of variable length actuators 33a and 33b. The base portions of the actuators are attached via respective support mounts 35a and 35b to the frame 100, in this case the support mounts 35a and 35b are respectively fixed to the support brackets 27a and 27b. The extendable portions of the actuators 33a and 33b are rotatably attached to the adjustable deflector blades 29a and 29b in respective pivot points 37a and 37b)].
With respect to Claim 6: Deruyter discloses “A crop residue spreader arrangement according to claim 5, wherein the material deflector is curved about an outer circular profile of the adjacent residue spreader wheel” [Deruyter, ¶ 0032, 0047-0053 with Figures 10-11 and 12a (The assembly further comprises two adjustable deflector blades 29a and 29b extending between inner and outer extremities 39 and 41, which are not fixed to each other, but which are each pivotably coupled to the support element 25, being pivotable about respective horizontal axes 31a and 31b oriented parallel to the direction tangential to the spreader rotors in which the crop is ejected)].
With respect to Claim 7: Deruyter discloses “A crop residue spreader arrangement according to claim 5, wherein the material deflector is generally triangular in shape” [Deruyter, ¶ 0032, 0047-0053 with Figures 10-11 and 12a (The assembly further comprises two adjustable deflector blades 29a and 29b)].
With respect to Claim 8: Deruyter discloses “A crop residue spreader arrangement according to any of claim 5, wherein the material deflector comprises a sheet material having an upper linear edge having first and second ends” [Deruyter, ¶ 0032, 0047-0053 with Figures 10-11 and 12a (29a and 29b];
“a first longer edge depending from the first end of the upper edge, a second shorter edge depending from the second end of the upper edge and a fourth edge connecting the distal ends of the first and second edges” [Deruyter, ¶ 0032, 0047-0053 with Figures 10-11 and 12a (29a and 29b)].
With respect to Claim 9: Deruyter discloses “An agricultural harvester comprising a chassis and a crop residue spreader arrangement according to claim 1 carried by said chassis at a rear of the agricultural harvester” [Deruyter, ¶ 0032, 0047-0053 with Figures 10-11 and 12a (the spreading pattern behind the harvester)].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c