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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 23 and 29-32 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “to move relative the second guide rail” should be changed to “to move relative to the second guide rail”.
Regarding claim 23, the phrase “between the first and a second position, which is a non-cutting position” should be changed to “between the first position and a second position”.
Regarding claim 29, the phrase “each knife” should be changed to “each of the knives”.
Regarding claim 30, the phrase “each positioning device” should be changed to “each of the positioning devices”.
Regarding claim 30, the phrase “each selection element” should be changed to “each of the selection element”.
Regarding claim 30, the phrase “each resilient connection element” should be changed to “each of the resilient connection elements”.
Regarding claim 30, the phrase “each resilient connection element” should be changed to “each of the resilient connection elements”.
Regarding claim 31, the phrase “the cutting and non-cutting positions” should be changed to “the cutting positions and the non-cutting positions”.
Claim 32 should be re-written as following:
The agricultural harvester comprising a crop pick-up device, a crop receiving station and the cutter device of claim 1, wherein the cutter device is configured to transfer crop along the feed path from the crop pick-up device to the crop receiving station.
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 1-34 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 "the position" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, in line 7 the phrase “in which it cooperates” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which element “it” refers to.
Regarding claim 1, in line 8 the phrase “in which it is withdrawn” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which element “it” refers to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the forward moving direction" in lines 23-24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-33 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, in line 2 the phrase “and its opening in the first bottom plate” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which element “it” refers to.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the rearward" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “at least the rearward ⅔rds” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “at least the rearward ⅔rds”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the length" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “sufficiently” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “deeply” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “deeply” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the only means" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the position" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the cutting unit frame" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, in line 2 the phrase “the cutting unit frame” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the cutting unit frame”.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “the cutter device of claim 13, when dependent on claim 4” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is mean by “when dependent on claim 4”.
Regarding claim 14, in line 2 the phrase “its respective support rail” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which element “it” refers to.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the guide elements" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, in line 2 the phrase “a lever arranged to provide a mechanical advantage” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is mean by “a mechanical advantage”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the arrangement" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, in line 2 the phrase “the arrangement” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is mean by “the arrangement”.
The term “sufficiently” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “large” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the roller elements" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, in line 5 the phrase “the roller elements” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is mean by “the roller elements”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the locking position" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, in line 1 the phrase “the locking position” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is mean by “the locking position”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the locking handle" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, in line 1 the phrase “the locking handle” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is mean by “the locking position”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the position" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 23, in lines 4-5 the phrase “between the first and a second position, which is a non-cutting position” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which position is “a non-cutting position”; and it is unclear if “a non-cutting position” is the same as or different from “a non-cutting position” that recited in claim 1 which claim 23 depends from.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the pivot axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 29, in line 1 the phrase “wherein a plurality of knives” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “wherein a plurality of knives”; and it is unclear if “a plurality of knives” is the same as or different from “a knife” that recited in claim 1 which claim 29 depends from.
Regarding claim 29, in line 2 the phrase “a plurality of openings” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a plurality of openings” is the same as or different from “an opening” that recited in claim 1 which claim 29 depends from.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the control element" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 29, in line 4 the phrase “the control element” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is mean by “the control element”.
Regarding claim 29, in lines 4-5 the phrase “the position of each knife” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the position” is the same as or different from the position of the knife” that recited in claim 1 which claim 29 depends from.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the first, second and third position " in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 29, in line 5 the phrase “the first, second and third position” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the first, second and third position”.
Regarding claim 30, in line 1 the phrase “a plurality of positioning devices” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a plurality of positioning devices” is the same as or different from “a positioning device” that recited in claim 1 which claim 30 depends from.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the first selection configuration " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the second selection configuration" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the respective one" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the respective" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the position" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 34, in line 8 the phrase “in which it cooperates” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which element “it” refers to.
Regarding claim 34, in line 9 the phrase “in which it is withdrawn” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which element “it” refers to.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 34, the closet prior art is Coleman (DE102019005926A1), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the claims as recited.
Claims 2-33 are depended from claim 1.
Claims 1 and 34 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725