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 because there are two figures named Fig. 2A. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the return elements in claim 4 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1 recites “structural assembly for harvesters”, should read – structural assembly for a harvester –.
Claim 1, line 6 recites “the side wall of the chassis”, should read – a side wall of a chassis –.
Claim 6, line 1 recites “the assembly”, should read – the conveyor roller structural assembly – for clarity.
Claim 7, line 3 recites “the assembly”, should read – the conveyor roller structural assembly – for clarity.
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.
Claims 1-9 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 "whose bearings are mounted on support bases" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “bearings” and “support bases” in the claim.
Further, the limitations “bearings” and “support bases” are indefinite due to the plurality of the terms. It is unclear how many bearings or support bases are being claimed; therefore, the claim is rejected. For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean a plurality of bearings mounted on a plurality of support bases.
Due to dependency on claim 1, claims 2-7 are rejected as well.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "connecting tabs" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, the limitation "connecting tabs" is indefinite due to the plurality of “tabs”. It is unclear how many connecting tabs are being claimed; therefore, the claim is rejected. For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean a plurality of connecting tabs.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "return elements" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, the limitation “return elements” is indefinite due to the plurality of “elements”. It is unclear how many return elements are being claimed; therefore, the claim is rejected. For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean one return element.
Due to dependency on claim 4, claim 5 is rejected as well.
Claim 8 in lines 3-5 sets forth “a conveyor roller structural assembly”. However, it is unclear how this conveyor roller structural assembly is related to the conveyor roller assembly set forth in line 2. Specifically, it is unclear if these two portions are one and the same or two different portions altogether. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Due to dependency on claim 8, claim 9 is rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burch et al. (US 10701864 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Burch et al. teaches a conveyor roller structural assembly (see Fig. 2) for harvesters [20] which is formed of a conveyor roller [76B] whose bearings ([110 and 126], see Col. 4, lines 35-38 and 54-55) are mounted (mounted to support bases through supports [106 and 120] located on either side of the roller, see Col. 6, lines 42-51) on support bases ([194]; one base on either side of the roller, see Fig. 5), and these support bases are anchored on a pivoting bar ([198]; allows pivoting through connection to connecter element [196], see Col. 6, lines 50-64) which is rotatable about its axis (see below), wherein the conveyor roller structural assembly further comprises at least one closing tab ([190 and 192], one on each side of roller, see Fig. 5) which is mounted in an articulated manner (articulates about the base through the connector element and pivots with the roller, see Col. 6, lines 55-57 and Fig. 2) to the support base through a connector element [196], and it is configured to close a displacement opening ([200]; opening is closed when roller is at the top, see below) provided in the side wall [70 and 72] of the chassis [40] of the harvester (please see 112(b) rejection above).
PNG
media_image1.png
435
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
550
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Burch et al. teaches wherein said connector element [196] is a hinge (connector element allows for the roller to swing about the support base [194], see Col. 6, lines 61-67 and Col. 7, lines 1-3; therefore, acting as a hinge).
Regarding claim 3, Burch et al. teaches wherein said connector element [196] is formed by a pin (connecting element is a pin, see Col. 6, lines 51-53) mounted on said support base [194], and onto which the connecting tabs (part of closing tab connected to the connector element, see below, one on each side of the roller) of said closing tab [190 and 192] are mounted in an articulated manner (connecting tabs are a part of the closing tab; therefore, is mounted to articulate with the roller, see Col. 6, lines 55-57 and Fig. 2) (please see 112(b) rejection above).
PNG
media_image3.png
435
722
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Burch et al. teaches wherein the assembly (see Fig. 2) comprises two closing tabs ([190 and 192], one on each side of roller, see Fig. 5) arranged on both bearings (arranged on bearings [110 and 126] through supports [106 and 120]; one bearing on each side of the roller, therefore, the closing tabs are arranged on both bearings) of said conveyor roller [76B].
Regarding claim 8, Burch et al. teaches a harvester [20] of the type of harvesting tall and stalky plants (see Col. 3, lines 10-12), said harvester comprising a conveyor rollers assembly (see Fig. 2) mounted on a chassis [40], wherein at least one of said conveyor rollers [76B] is mounted through a conveyor roller structural assembly as defined in claim 1 (see claim 1 above) (please see 112(b) rejection above).
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burch et al. (US 10701864 B2) in view of Beckwith (US 5463856 A).
Regarding claim 4, Burch et al. discloses the conveyor roller structural assembly as applied above, as well as, the connector element [196], but fails to disclose the connector element further comprising a return element.
Beckwith discloses a similar conveyor roller structural assembly (see Fig. 17) for a harvester (see Fig. 1) comprising a return element (spring [155], see Col. 9, line 53-61) (please see 112(b) rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the return elements of Beckwith on the conveyor roller structural assembly of Burch et al. in order to adjust the rollers to be able to move upward according to the quantity of cane (see Beckwith Col. 9, line 53-61); therefore, when the return element of Beckwith is applied to the conveyor roller structural assembly of Burch et al., the connector element is connected to the return element to further allow movement of the roller and closing tab throughout the arcuate path (see Burch et al Col. 6, lines 61-67 and Col. 7, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Beckwith, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein said return elements [155] are springs (see Col. 9, line 53-61), pneumatic, hydraulic, electrical actuators or a combination thereof.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burch et al. (US 10701864 B2) in view of Rao et al. (CN 210671339 U).
Regarding claim 7, Burch et al. discloses the conveyor roller structural assembly as applied above, but fails to disclose wherein the assembly is configured to be applied to a chassis whose side walls have a tapering.
Rao et al. discloses a similar conveyor roller structural assembly (see Figs. 1-2) for a harvester (see paragraph [0001], lines 1-3) wherein the assembly is configured to be applied to a chassis (not shown, but inherently present) whose side walls [6] have a tapering (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the side walls of Burch et al. with the side walls of Rao et al. since both are walls supporting the conveyor roller structural assembly; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Regarding claim 9, Burch et al. discloses the harvester as applied above, as well as, having a chassis [40] comprising sloping side walls ([70 and 72], slopes downwards, see Fig. 2), but fails to disclose said chassis forms a tapering configuration.
Rao et al. discloses a similar harvester (see paragraph [0001], liens 1-3) having a chassis (not shown, but inherently present) forming a tapering configuration (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the side walls of Burch et al. with the side walls of Rao et al. since both are walls supporting the conveyor roller structural assembly; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for the full list of references.
Reference CN 101151955 B discloses a conveyor roller [12] with at least one closing tab [28].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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 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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671