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 .
Drawings
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: reference character 72 in Fig. 2. The Examiner believes para. [0045] of the specification which recites “grain collecting auger 70 which resides in a transverse trough 70” should be --grain collecting auger 70 which resides in a transverse trough 72--.
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cascade pan of claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 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.
The following title is suggested: Grain Processing Apparatus of a Combine Harvester and Controllable Release Passage therefor.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. [0048] lines 2-3 “gran cleaning system” should be --grain cleaning system--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 line 5 “the grain cleaning apparatus” should be –the grain cleaning system—consistent with “a grain cleaning system” set forth in claim 9 line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12 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 12 recites the limitation "the stratification pan" and “the sieve arrangement” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is noted that “a stratification pan" and “a sieve arrangement” are positively set forth in claim 9. The Examiner has therefore interpreted claim 12 as dependent from claim 9 for purposes of examination.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Visagie et al. (US 20020037758 A1), hereinafter Visagie ‘758.
Regarding claim 1, Visagie ‘758 discloses a grain processing apparatus (Figs. 1-5) for a combine harvester (10), comprising:
a threshing system (20);
a separating system (24) downstream of the threshing system (Fig. 1); and
a return pan (36, para. [0036]) for receiving harvested crop material from the separating system and for delivering the harvested crop material to a grain cleaning system (26),
wherein the return pan comprises a release passage (34 + 42) for releasing the harvested crop material before it reaches the grain cleaning system (Fig. 1, para. [0024] harvested material exits through conduit 42 such that “fractions of the chaff and the broken straw will not hinder the cleaning action of the cleaning apparatus 26”), and
a controllable closure (40 + 62) for opening and closing the release passage (note Visagie’s blower unit 40 and extension plate 62 meet the BRI a “controllable closure”, i.e. they are capable of suspending or stopping the operations of the release passage, para. [0028] controlling speed of blower unit 40 and adjusting length of walls 60 using extension plates 62 determines speed of air flow stream, when speed falls below certain level, chaff and straw are not able to be drawn upward and outward through release passage).
Regarding claim 3, Visagie ‘758 discloses the grain processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the threshing system comprises at least one tangential flow rotor (20) and associated concave (22) (Fig. 1, threshing rotor 20 has an axis of rotation in the side-to-side direction of the combine harvester).
Regarding claim 4, Visagie ‘758 discloses the grain processing apparatus of claim 3, wherein the separating system (24) comprises an axial flow rotor (27) (Fig. 1, separation rotor 27 has an axis of rotation in the longitudinal direction of the combine harvester).
Regarding claim 9, Visagie ‘758 discloses the grain processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the grain cleaning system (26) comprising:
a stratification pan (90 + 92) for receiving the harvested crop material from a front end of the return pan (36) and from the threshing system (20) (Fig. 5, para. [0037]);
a sieve arrangement (30) for receiving the harvested crop material from a rear end of the stratification pan (para. [0037] grain kernels drop from the pan 92 onto the sieve mechanism 30); and
a fan (28) for providing an air flow to an area between a rear end of the stratification pan and the sieve arrangement (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Visagie ‘758 discloses a combine harvester (10) comprising:
a crop cutting head (para. [0019] “header” not shown by which “Harvested material is cut or picked up”); and
the grain processing apparatus of claim 1 for receiving the cut crop material (para. [0019]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visagie ‘758 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Visagie (US 20010002366 A1), hereinafter referred to as Visagie ‘366.
Regarding claim 5, Visagie ‘758 discloses the grain processing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an actuator for controlling one of the controllable closures (40) (para. [0026] speed of airflow generated by blower unit 40 can be varier by operating variator discs on a pulley drive), but does not explicitly detail an actuator for controlling closure (i.e. adjustable extension plates 62).
In the same field of endeavor, Visagie ‘366 discloses similar extension plates 242 for adjusting the length of section walls 234,236 extending between return pan 220 and a lower end 214 of separation system 210 (para. [0059]), wherein the extension plates are extended and retracted via an actuator (implicit from automated adjustment described in para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the adjustable extension plates of Visagie ‘758 to be controllable by an actuator, as taught by Visagie ‘366, in order to reduce operator work and enable automatic real-time adjustments based on sensor feedback.
Regarding claim 6, Visagie ‘758 in view of Visagie ‘366 discloses the grain processing apparatus of claim 5. Visagie ‘366 further discloses a controller (246) for driving the actuator (para. [0060] ECU 246 controls extension and retraction of extension plates 242 and fan “speed changing device”).
Regarding claim 7, Visagie ‘758 in view of Visagie ‘366 discloses the grain processing apparatus of claim 6. Visagie ‘366 further teaches a sensor arrangement (244) for sensing a separation effectiveness, wherein the controller (246) is configured to control the actuator in dependence on the separation effectiveness (para. [0060] controller performs adjustments based on detected value by grain loss sensor 244, i.e. a measure of the effectiveness of the airstream at separating MOG from grain).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visagie ‘758, or the combination of Visagie ‘758 and ‘366, as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, respectively, and further in view of Biggerstaff et al. (US 20130157731 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Visagie ‘758 discloses the grain processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the separating system (24) comprise an axial flow system (Fig. 1, separation rotor 27 has an axis of rotation in the longitudinal direction of the combine harvester), but does not explicitly detail the threshing system as an axial flow system.
However, it is old and well-known in the art of combine harvesters to use an axial flow threshing systems instead of a tangential flow threshing system. In the same field of endeavor, Biggerstaff discloses a threshing and separating mechanism (20) comprising an axial threshing system (21) and an axial separating system (27) downstream the threshing system (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the threshing system of Visagie ‘758 to be an axial flow threshing system, as taught by Biggerstaff, as a mere simple substitution of one know threshing system in a combine for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Visagie ‘758 in view of Visagie ‘366 discloses the grain processing apparatus of claim 6. Visagie ‘366 further teaches a sensor arrangement (244) for sensing a parameter in a grain cleaning system, wherein the controller (246) is configured to control the actuator (and thus airstream speed) in dependence on the parameter (para [0060]), but does not explicitly detail wherein the parameter is indicative of a level of MOG presence in the grain cleaning system.
Biggerstaff discloses a method for measuring air efficiency in a combine harvester, wherein an airstream speed is adjusted based on an MOG value detected several points (P0,P1,P2) along the cleaning system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the actuators and thus airstream speed of the combination of Visagie based on a level of MOG presence, as taught by Biggerstaff, in order to maximize effectiveness and efficiency of the threshing and separating process (para. [0020,0023]).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visagie ‘758 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Blide (US 20170332554 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Visagie ‘758 discloses the grain processing apparatus of claim 9. Visagie ‘758 further teaches wherein the sieve arrangement (30) comprises an upper and lower sieve for conveying harvested crop material in a generally rearward direction (Fig. 1-2, para. [0031]), but does not explicitly detail wherein the upper sieve is a chaffer sieve and wherein a clean grain chute is below the lower sieve.
In the same field of endeavor, Blide discloses a similar crop processing apparatus wherein the upper sieve (30) is a chaffer sieve (para. [0083]), and wherein there is a clean grain chute (46) located below the lower sieve (38) (para. [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the upper sieve of Visagie ‘758 to be a chaffier sieve, as taught by Blide, in order to allow heavier and smaller grain to pass through the louvres while facilitating transport of lighter larger material toward the rear of the machine (Blide at para. [0083]). It would have been further obvious to include a clean grain chute beneath the lower sieve, as taught by Blide, in order to facilitate transportation of clean grain to a grain tank (Blide at para. [0084]).
Regarding claim 11, Visagie ‘758 in view of Blide discloses the grain processing apparatus of claim 10. Blide further teaches wherein the grain cleaning system further comprises a second chute (42) for directing tailings to a tailings collection trough (44) (para. [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a second chute in the grain cleaning system of Visagie ‘758 for directing tailings to a tailings collection trough, as taught by Blide, in order to permit re-threshing of un-threshed tailings.
Regarding claim 12, Visagie ‘758 discloses the grain processing apparatus of claim 9, but doe the grain cleaning system further comprises a cascade pan between the stratification pan (90 + 92) and the sieve arrangement (30).
In the same field of endeavor, Blide discloses a cascade pan (628) disposed between a stratification pan (626) and sieve arrangement (30,38) (Figs. 20-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a cascade pan between the stratification pan and sieve arrangement of Visagie ‘758, as taught by Blide, in order to provide a means for facilitating conveyance of material therebetween and rearwardly to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ricketts (US 20200137959 A1) discloses a cleaning system for a combine. Blide (US 20190059233 A1) discloses a combine harvester grain cleaning system. Stahl (US 9986688 B2) disclose an air deflector for a return pan. During et al. (US 20180110184 A1) discloses a material conveyance system for a combine. Visagie (US 20010029199 A1) discloses guiding elements in a rotary threshing and separation unit. Visagie (US 20010002367 A1) discloses flap openings in a threshing and separation unit. Stroburg et al. (US 3603063 A) discloses a combine having an opening provided in a lower pan for providing an airflow.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671