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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc.
In this case the “present invention …” and implied merits (such as, “efficient/reliable/improved/efficiency”) should be removed.
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.
Claim 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation "the plurality of belts" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farley et al (EP 2708110, cited by applicant, “X” reference).
“As illustrated, the chains or belts 52 are connected to one another with slats 60.”
“FIG. 3 is a partial side view of an embodiment of a feeder system with a self-adjusting object deflector assembly 40. As illustrated, the chain 88 includes links 90. The links 90 engage teeth 92 on the sprocket 54. When the sprocket 54 rotates with the shaft 42, the teeth 92 engage the links 90 in the chain 88, thereby pulling the chain around the sprocket 54 in a clockwise direction 58.”
1. A feeder housing for a harvesting machine, the housing comprising: a drive shaft (42) positioned at an exit of the housing and having a plurality of drive sprockets (54);
a plurality of conveyance devices wrapped around the drive shaft (belts or chain, see quote);
a plurality of cross bars attached between the plurality of belts (slats 60); and
the plurality of drive sprockets have a plurality of teeth (92) to engage and synchronize the plurality of conveyance devices (intended capability is taught above).
2. The housing of claim 1, the drive shaft transfers power to the plurality of conveyance devices by the drive sprockets (intended function is shown fig 2).
3. The housing of claim 1, the plurality of conveyance devices comprising elastomeric belts (as taught above, it can be chosen to be chains or belts; see non-criticality of the choice, in re 4).
4. The housing of claim 1, the plurality of conveyance devices comprising chains (already addressed in cl. 3, the choice is non-critical, however both are taught).
5. The housing of claim 1, further comprising a second shaft (44) positioned at an entrance of the housing (fig 4).
6. The housing of claim 5, the second shaft having a plurality of second sprockets (56) to engage the plurality of conveyance devices (fig 4).
9. The housing of claim 1, the crossbars each attach to at least two of the conveyance devices (fig 2).
[AltContent: textbox (Cylindrical teeth of the sprockets/gears)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (At the region 94, to mitigate wrapping around the shaft)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
356
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“Thus, the deflector arm 98 is in a position to deflect agricultural material away from the region 94 regardless of the material flow rate.”
10. The housing of claim 1, the shaft further comprising shielding (deflector 98) to mitigate material wrapping around the shaft (intended use is shown / marked up).
12. The housing of claim 1, the teeth comprising cylinders to engage the conveyance devices (marked up).
Claims 1-7, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VAN OVERSCHELDE et al (EP 3213625, cited by applicant, “X” reference).
Prima Facie Case: The patent office has the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of invalidity. A prima facie case is adequately articulated by notifying the applicant of the reasons for its rejections so long as the explanation is not "so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection." Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990). This requirement comes straight from Section 132 of the Patent Act. 35 U.S.C. §132(a).
There has never been a requirement for an examiner to make an on-the-record claim construction of every term in every rejected claim and to explain every possible difference between the prior art and the claimed invention in order to make out a prima facie rejection. This court declines to create such a burdensome and unnecessary requirement. "[Section 132] does not mandate that in order to establish prima facie anticipation, the PTO must explicitly preempt every possible response to a section 102 rejection. Section 132 merely ensures that an applicant at least be informed of the broad statutory basis for the rejection of his claims, so that he may determine what the issues are on which he can or should produce evidence." Chester, 906 F.2d at 1578
VAN OVERSCHELDE teaches the claimed invention:
“The feeder typically comprises a set of chains or belts guided by sprocket wheels mounted at the front and back of a feeder housing, and with transversal slats attached to the chains or belts.”
[AltContent: textbox (Drive shaft with plurality of drive sprockets, which is similar on the entrance shaft )]
[AltContent: textbox (Cross bars with teeth attach to at least two conveyance devices)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Elastomeric belts)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Conveyance device wrapped around the drive shaft and the shaft at the entrance of the feeder housing)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
490
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Shielding to mitigate material wrapping around the shaft)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cylindrical shape to engage the conveyance device (cl. 12))][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
366
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
8. The housing of claim 1, the drive shaft having a circular cross section (shown at shaft 26 above).
11. The housing of claim 1, the crossbars having teeth to facilitate conveying material (marked up).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley et al (EP 2708110) or VAN OVERSCHELDE et al (EP 3213625), in view of Tan et al (WO 2019208469).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Farley or VAN OVERSCHELDE teaches the claimed invention above, except the design choice of the drive shaft:
7. The housing of claim 1, the drive shaft having a hexagonal cross section.
Tan teaches that that it has been known to design a shaft with a hexagonal cross section:
[AltContent: textbox (hexagonal cross section of the shaft)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
430
504
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide of Farley or VAN OVERSCHELDE with the teachings of Tan, with a reasonable expectation of success since picking and choosing well known type of cross sections would be within the skill of one skilled in the art, and in view of claim 7, the design choice is not critical; also, the non-circular design provides a reasonable expectation of success of easier assembly and maintenance.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley et al (EP 2708110) or VAN OVERSCHELDE et al (EP 3213625), in view of Baltz et al (EP 3777515).
Farley or VAN OVERSCHELDE teaches the claimed invention above, except as noted:
13. A harvesting machine comprising: a feeder housing having a plurality of feeder conveyance devices at a first end to feed crop material into the harvesting machine and convey the crop material; a collecting tank (such as the bin of the combine of Farley or Van Overschelde); a draper belt (not shown) to convey the crop material from the feeder to the collecting tank; and a plurality of sprockets to engage and synchronize the feeder conveyance devices.
Baltz teaches the header can be chosen to deliver crop to the feeder either by augers or draper belts:
“A rotatable reel 112 feeds the crop into the header 110, and augers 113 or draper belts feed the severed crop laterally inwardly from each side toward the feeder assembly 120.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide of Farley or VAN OVERSCHELDE with the teachings of Baltz, with a reasonable expectation of success since the draper belts are well recognized alternative to the crop conveying devices, and provide greater flexibility.
14. The harvesting machine of claim 13, further comprising a second plurality of sprockets to engage and synchronize the draper belt.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use multiple sprockets, in order to provide greater stability to the conveyance device (belts or chains), and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. 193 USPQ 8.
Multiple sprockets is an obvious duplication of parts is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
15. The harvesting machine of claim 13, the feeder conveyance devices comprising a plurality of belts (already addressed in cl. 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Faulkner et al (EP 3381268) teaches a cylindrical teeth shape of a shaft (fig 9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6990. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th.
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, Joseph 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 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.
/ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671