DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on September 25, 2020. Claims 1-10 are pending, with claim 1 in independent claim form.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP22209157 filed on 11/23/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Claim 1 recited in line 22, the limitation of “guiding means for guiding”,
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 recited in lines 11-12, the limitation of “each operating unit … configured to move”,
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 1 lines 11-12 and 22, discloses the limitation “each operating unit … configured to move” and “guiding means for guiding” have been interpreted under 112(f) because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to move” and “means” coupled with functional language “for guiding” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that there is equivalent structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): In para: [0031] lines 5-6, recited “guiding means” to be a ”U-shape guide rails” therefore the “guide rails” will be interpreted as the equivalent structure of the generic placeholder (guiding means) to perform the function of guiding and in para: [0034] lines 9-12, recited “operating unit” to be a ”first and second spring-loaded rods” therefore the “spring-loaded rod” will be interpreted as the equivalent structure of the generic placeholder (operating unit) to perform the function of moving.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 9 is 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 9 in line 1, recited the limitations “upon at least partial activation of the main actuator” is indefinite, it is unclear the degree of activation representing the limitation of “partial”. Clarity is needed.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claeys et al. US Publication (2020/0093068) hereinafter Claeys in view of Lorenz et al. DE Publication (9,308,656) hereinafter Lorenz.
Regarding claim 1,
Claeys discloses a harvesting machine (fig.1) comprising:
a main frame (8); a main actuator (39) associated with the main frame (8);
a cutting frame (17) having a crop guiding surface (22, see fig.3) including
a plurality of slots (23) extending in a direction of travel of crop over the crop guiding surface (22) and
a plurality of knives (18) arranged side-by-side and pivotally mounted below the crop guiding surface (22),
wherein each knife of the plurality of knives (18) is aligned with a respective slot of the plurality of slots (23) and is movable between a retracted inoperative position in which the knife is located substantially below the crop guiding surface and an extended operative position in which at least a cutting edge (25) of each knife projects above said crop guiding surface (22, see para.[0045] lines 5-8);
an inner frame (19) having
a plurality of operating units (31), each operating unit being associated with one of the knives (18) and configured to move the associated knife from the retracted inoperative position to the extended operative position (see para.[0052]), and
a selector mechanism (70) configured to selectively engage one or more of the plurality of operating units (31) such that the respective knife can be moved from the retracted inoperative position to the extended operative position (see para.[0050]);
an outer frame (65) that is pivotable around a common pivot axis (axis of element 83, see fig.3) and connected to the main actuator (39),
wherein the main actuator (39) is configured for moving the outer frame (65) with respect to the main frame (8),
wherein the outer frame (65) includes an axis (axis of shaft element 68, see fig.3) and is configured for pivotally holding a plurality of levers (63), each lever being pivotally connected to one of the operating units (31, see fig 4-6, all elements of the harvester are connected); and
guiding means ((rollers, 69) and rails) for guiding lateral movement of the crop guiding surface with the plurality of knives between an operating position and a servicing position (see para.[0060]),
wherein during lateral movement of the crop guiding surface (22) with the plurality of knives (18) between the operating position and the servicing position, the cutting device to slide out (see para.[0060]).
Claeys is silent about wherein during lateral movement of the crop guiding surface with the plurality of knives between the operating position and the servicing position, the operating units and the selector mechanism of the cutting frame remain stationary.
Claeys and Lorenz disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. harvesting machine).
Lorenz, in a similar art, teaches a harvesting machine (fig.1) with a cutting frame (cutting unit) with a lateral movement of the frame with the plurality of knives between the operating position and the servicing position, the operating units (2,10) of the cutting frame remain stationary (see fig, 1-3, based on the rails element 14,16 and 17 in fig.1, in lateral movement, all other components remains stationary, see elements 3, 14,16 and 17 in fig. 1-3)
Lorenz teaches the lateral movement of the cutting frame with the operating units of the cutting frame to remain stationary to facilitate the accessibility of the knives (see para.[0013]), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the cutting frame of Claeys with a lateral movement of the cutting frame with all the operating units of the cutting frame to remain stationary as taught by Lorenz, as it would be beneficiary to Claeys to be able to facilitate the accessibility of the knives and reducing on maintenance time.
Regarding claim 2,
The prior art Claeys as modified by Lorenz discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Claeys further discloses wherein the inner frame (19) comprises an assembly (72) configured to cooperate with the plurality of operating units (31) to bring the operating units either into or out of engagement with the selector mechanism (70) upon activation of the main actuator (39, see fig.4-6).
Regarding claim 3,
The prior art Claeys as modified by Lorenz discloses all limitation of claim 2,
Claeys further discloses wherein the assembly (72) comprises a stop axis (axis of shaft element 49, see fig.3) on the inner frame and a plurality of stop brackets (51) disposed on each of the plurality of operating units (31, see para.[0051]).
Regarding claim 4,
The prior art Claeys as modified by Lorenz discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Claeys further discloses wherein the inner frame (19) is fixedly attached to the main frame (8, see fig.2) and the guiding means ((rollers, 69) and rails) are disposed on the outer frame (65, see fig.4).
Regarding claim 5,
The prior art Claeys as modified by Lorenz discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Claeys further discloses a locking lever (66) configured to lock the inner frame (19) with respect to the outer frame (65) along the movement of the outer frame (65) around the common pivot axis (axis of element 83, see fig.3, the full extension and retraction of the actuator element 39 connected to element 66, is considered locking position).
Regarding claim 6,
The prior art Claeys as modified by Lorenz discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Claeys further discloses wherein the inner frame (19) is pivotally connected to the outer frame (65) around the common pivot axis (axis of element 83, see fig.3) and the guiding means ((rollers, 69) and rails) are disposed on the inner frame (19, see fig.4).
Regarding claim 7,
The prior art Claeys as modified by Lorenz discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Claeys further discloses wherein the main actuator (39) is a hydraulic actuator (see para.[0046]).
Regarding claim 8,
The prior art Claeys as modified by Lorenz discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Claeys further discloses wherein the main actuator (39) is configured to be actuated manually, electrically, electromechanically or hydraulically (see para.[0046]).
Regarding claim 9,
The prior art Claeys as modified by Lorenz discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Claeys further discloses wherein, upon at least partial activation of the main actuator (39), the plurality of levers (63) are configured to release the knives (18) for lateral movement with the crop guiding surface.
Regarding claim 10,
The prior art Claeys as modified by Lorenz discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Claeys further discloses wherein the harvesting machine is a baler or a loading cart (see para.[0043]).
Conclusion
Prior Art Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrP5XyQWzg0 Titled “Knife drawer tips and maintenance New Holland balers “ dated September 17, 2014, is also relevant as it shows a main actuator, an outer frame, a common pivot axis, cutting assembly and brackets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Smith O. BAPTHELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-5976. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Christopher L. Templeton can be reached at (571)270 1477. 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.
February 12, 2026
/BSO/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725