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 .
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Todd (US 4078571 A).
Regarding claim 1, Todd discloses a crop processing assembly comprising:
a tube-shaped cage structure having an inlet section (20) and an outlet section (21), and comprising a cover (57, 62, see fig. 2) that forms an upper portion of the cage structure and one or more gratings (56) which form a lower portion of the cage structure,
a crop processing rotor (24/25) that is rotatable about a central rotation axis (28/30), and that is mounted inside the cage structure, the rotor having a cylindrical outer surface, with threshing and separation elements (60, 61) mounted on said cylindrical surface, and with a gap between the outer surface of the rotor and an inner surface of the cover (see fig. 3),
wherein the cage structure and the rotor are configured so that the rotation of the rotor actuates the transfer of crops along a helicoidal path through said gap, from the inlet section to the outlet section (col. 7 lines 34-41),
wherein the cover comprises a step (86, see fig. 2, 7-8) between an upstream portion of the cover (57) and a downstream portion of the cover (62), the step extending between a lower rim lying on the upstream portion and an upper rim lying on the downstream portion of the cover, so that at least in an upper part of the cover, said gap is larger in the downstream portion than in the upstream portion (see fig. 2-3), and
wherein in a parallel projection view of the cover, projected in a direction of a line that is perpendicular to the rotation axis of the rotor and passing through a central point of the upper rim of the step, the step is oriented at an oblique inclination angle (a) relative to a plane through said line and perpendicular to the rotation axis of the rotor (see fig. 7), the inclination angle and a direction of inclination being configured so that the step is arranged to guide the crops passing from the upstream section of the cover to the downstream section (col. 7 lines 34-49, col. 8 lines 40-42).
Regarding claim 2, Todd discloses the crop processing assembly according to claim 1, wherein the rotor comprises an upstream threshing part provided with threshing elements (60) and a downstream separation part provided with separation elements (61), and wherein the step (86) defines the boundary between said parts (see fig. 2-3, col. 8 line 66-col. 9 line 2).
Regarding claim 3, Todd discloses the crop processing assembly according to claim 1, wherein the cover is provided with inclined guide vanes (58) mounted on the inner surface of the cover, and wherein the step is inclined in the same direction as the guide vanes (see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Todd discloses the crop processing assembly according to claim 1, wherein said oblique inclination angle (a) is between 5 degrees and 45 degrees (see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Todd discloses the crop processing assembly according to claim 1, further comprising a pair of rotors (24, 25) arranged mutually parallel to each other and each arranged in separate cage structures, wherein the inclined steps of both covers are arranged symmetrically with respect to a center line between the two rotors (see fig. 2-3, parallel rotors 24/25 are shown to rotate in opposite directions).
Regarding claim 12, Todd discloses an agricultural harvester (10) comprising the crop processing assembly according to claim 1.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd (US 4078571 A) in view of Glaser (US RE31257 E).
Regarding claim 4, Todd discloses the crop processing assembly according to claim 3.
Todd does not disclose wherein an inclination angle of the guide vanes is adjustable within a range of inclination angles and wherein the inclination angle of the step lies at or near the middle of said range.
In the same field of endeavor, Glaser discloses guide vanes (40) having an adjustable angle of inclination to vary the rate of axial progression of crop material through the separator so as to control the efficiency of threshing and separating (col. 1 lines 43-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the guide vanes of Todd adjustable, as disclosed by Glaser, so as to control the efficiency of the threshing and separating performed by the rotor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-10 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. US 9788491 B2 discloses threshing rotors having adjustable guide vane angles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE RUNCO whose telephone number is (469)295-9123. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 M-F.
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 5712728971. 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.
/MADELINE I RUNCO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671