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
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) 1, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topmöller et al (EP 4008171).
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.
It should be noted that the recitation "displaceable," "can be” etc. is considered as merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Since it is the language itself of the claims which must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention, without limitations imported from the specification, whether such language is couched in terms of means plus function or consists of a detailed recitation of the inventive matter. Limitations in the specification not included in the claim may not be relied upon to impart patentability to an otherwise unpatentable claim. In re Lundberg, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957).
Topmöller teaches the claimed invention, except as noted:
[AltContent: textbox (frame)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (pair of counter rotating residue spreader wheels or rotors)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
172
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Plurality of deflectors )]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
168
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Actuating means 39 are arranged in the interior of the cover component 18, by means of which the deflection baffles can be pivoted individually and/or in groups about the respective vertical axis. Such a deflector distributor is, for example, from DE10 2018 131 432 A1 known.
“In particular, the distribution device can be designed as a deflector plate distributor.”
1. A crop residue spreader arrangement comprises a frame,
a pair of counter rotating residue spreader wheels carried from the frame (marked up),
the frame element supporting first and second shaped residue deflectors wherein each of the first and second shaped residue deflectors comprises a plurality of vertically displaceable elements (taught above; however, “vertically” is not shown/taught).
In view of KSR vs Teleflex following is the rationale for "obvious to try" - choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions:
(1) There had been a recognized problem or need in the art including a design need or market pressure to solve a problem, specifically, to adjust the distributor/spreader’s deflector elements/blades/vanes etc. to avoid spreading residue into adjacent plots and avoid cross germination;
(2) There had been a finite number of identified predictable potential solutions: either adjust the elements on horizontally (see Topmöller above) or vertically;
(3) One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential options with a reasonable expectations of success, such as providing clearance between deflector elements when recede (i.e. upward) and avoid residue striking and loosing momentum when targeting a distribution area.
The claim would have been obvious because a person of “ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this lead to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
7. A crop residue spreader arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of vertically displaceable elements extend around a 90 degree arc (as shown in fig 3, the deflector elements form a semi-circle, i.e. 90 degree arc).
8. 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 (fig 1).
9. An agricultural harvester according to claim 8, wherein the agricultural harvester further comprises a driver's cab, a user terminal within the driver's cab and a control unit whereby each actuator can be operated from a driver's cab of the agricultural harvester utilising the user terminal (fig 1, 3; as quoted above actuating means / each actuator can be pivoted individually, using the control terminal 14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-6 is/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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Bussmann et al (EP3714675) similarly teaches deflectors (16) can be pivoted about a vertical axis (figs 2, 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