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
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 .
Introduction
Claims 1-11 are currently pending in this application and are subject to examination herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 250 (Para. [0065]). 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 282 (Fig. 2). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: material deflector 235 appears to have been misnumbered as element “257” (Paras. [0065] (two separate instances), [0066] (one instance)).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0270613 to Isaac et al. (hereinafter Isaac) in view of European Pat. Pub. No. EP 2 036 422 A2 to Niermann et al. (hereinafter Niermann) (cited by Applicant in IDS filed on 11/21/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Isaac discloses a crop residue spreader arrangement comprising
a frame (frame 70) (Figs. 2, 6, 10; Para. [0054]),
a pair of counter rotating residue spreader wheels (first and second spreader disks 42, 44) (Figs. 1-4, 6-8, 10-12; Para. [0036]) carried from the frame (frame 70) (Figs. 2, 6, 10; Para. [0054]),
first and second shaped residue deflectors (flow guides 96, 98) (Figs. 4-5, 8-9, 12-13; Para. [0049]), each residue deflector (flow guide 96, 98) (Figs. 4-5, 8-9, 12-13; Para. [0049]) being associated with an adjacent residue spreader wheel (first and second spreader disks 42, 44) (Figs. 1-4, 6-8, 10-12; Para. [0036]).
However, Isaac does not disclose that the residue deflectors comprise an arm pivotable about a pivot point and a material deflector surface at an end of the arm remote from the pivot wherein the material deflector surface of each of the first and second shaped residue deflectors is provided with a curvature extending around an axis of the pivot point.
Nevertheless, Niermann teaches a residue deflectors comprise an arm (see Annotated Fig. 11 of Niermann infra) pivotable about a pivot point (see Annotated Fig. 11 of Niermann infra) and a material deflector surface (see Annotated Fig. 11 of Niermann infra) at an end of the arm (see Annotated Fig. 11 of Niermann infra) remote from the pivot (see Annotated Fig. 11 of Niermann infra) wherein the material deflector surface (see Annotated Fig. 11 of Niermann infra) of each of the first and second shaped residue deflectors (see Annotated Fig. 11 of Niermann infra) is provided with a curvature extending around an axis (see Annotated Fig. 11 of Niermann infra) of the pivot point (see Annotated Fig. 11 of Niermann infra). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the crop residue spreader arrangement disclosed in Isaac with the arm pivotable about a pivot point and a material deflector surface at an end of the arm remote from the pivot wherein the material deflector surface of each of the first and second shaped residue deflectors is provided with a curvature extending around an axis of the pivot point taught in Niermann with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a discharge device which allows a uniform distribution of residue on a field strip of large width with a simple structure, as taught in Niermann (P. 2, lines 22-23). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the crop residue spreader arrangement disclosed in Isaac with the arm pivotable about a pivot point and a material deflector surface at an end of the arm remote from the pivot wherein the material deflector surface of each of the first and second shaped residue deflectors is provided with a curvature extending around an axis of the pivot point taught in Niermann with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Common Frame Element)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pivot Point)][AltContent: textbox (Pivot Arm)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Curved
Deflector Surface)][AltContent: textbox (First Curved
Deflector
Surface)][AltContent: textbox (Pivot Arm)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pivot Axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pivot Point)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
262
345
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 11 of Niermann.
Regarding claim 2, Isaac in view of Niermann teaches the crop residue spreader arrangement according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Niermann teaches that each material deflector surface extends along an arc centred on the axis of the pivot point (see Annotated Fig. 11 of Niermann supra).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Isaac in view of Niermann teaches the crop residue spreader arrangement according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Niermann teaches a common frame element (cross bar 85) (see Annotated Fig. 11 of Niermann supra), the common frame element being pivotally connected to the frame (indirectly) and supporting the first and second shaped residue deflectors (see Annotated Fig. 11 of Niermann supra).
Regarding claim 9, Isaac in view of Niermann teaches the crop residue spreader arrangement according to claim 1 (see above). However, neither Isaac nor Niermann discloses or teaches that the material deflector is generally triangular in shape. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen shape or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen shape is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A); MPEP 2144.05(III)(B). As such, the claimed shape appears to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 10, Isaac in view of Niermann teaches the crop residue spreader arrangement according to claim 1 (see above). However, neither Isaac nor Niermann discloses or teaches that the material deflector comprises a sheet material having an upper linear edge having first and second ends, 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. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Isaac in view of Niermann teaches the crop residue spreader arrangement according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, the combination of Isaac and Niermann teaches an agricultural harvester comprising the chassis and a crop residue spreader arrangement carried by said chassis at a rear of the agricultural harvester.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 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. U.S. Pat. Pub. Nos. 2011/01301831 to Roberge et al.; 2017/0112055 to Depreitere et al.; 2011/0237316 to Isaac et al.; 2014/0302897 to Isaac et al.; 2010/0311481 to Ritter; 2016/0316623 to Reinecke et al.; 2014/0066148 to Dilts et al.; 2014/0302897 to Isaac et al.; 2007/0037620 to Anderson et al.; and European Pat. Pub. Nos. EP 4 173 466 to Deruyter et al.; and EP 2 382 853 B1 to Knapp and EP 3 219 192 A1 to Montenguise et al. relate to agricultural residue spreaders. European Pat. Pub. Nos. EP 3 108 738 A1 to Gutknecht et al. and EP 1 690 447 A1 to Benes relate to an agricultural spreader with vertically pivoting spread deflector. Int’l. Pat. Pub. No. WO 2018/0162680 A1 to Reinout et al. relates to a spreader system for an agricultural harvester with an oscillating deflector. European Pat. Pub. No. EP 2 008 505 A1 to Isaac et al. relates to a combine harvester with adjustable convergence panels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAUDE J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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 M. Rocca can be reached at (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.
/CLAUDE J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671