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 § 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) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dallman (US 5438819 A) in view of Preti (BR 202013031434 U2).
Regarding claim 1, Dallman teaches a rotatable cutter ([24], see Fig. 2) adapted for rotatable installation on a harvester [10], the rotatable cutter including a blade [42] with an upper surface (opposite of bottom surface shown in Fig. 2) and a longitudinal axis (see below), wherein:
the upper surface extends upwardly to a leading edge ([46]; forward facing edge, therefore is the leading edge, see Col. 6, lines 31-34) of the blade that is located above the longitudinal axis (leading edge is above the longitudinal axis due to the angle of the edge, see below) and is further up a rotational axis (see below; further up the axis from the upwards angle of the leading edge) of the rotatable cutter than a trailing edge ([54]; rearward facing edge, therefore is the trailing edge, see Col. 6, lines 24-25) of the blade at any radial location on the blade relative to the rotational axis of the rotating cutter; and
the trailing edge of the blade is lower than the blade's longitudinal axis (trailing edge is below the longitudinal axis due to the angle of the edge, see below) whereby to be closer than the leading edge to a substrate (closer to the vegetation than the leading edge due to the downwards angle in relation to the rotational axis, see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
707
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Dallman fails to disclose the blade is self-sharpening.
Preti discloses a similar blade (see Fig. 1) for a harvester (see paragraph [0001], lines 2- 5) in which abrasion wear sharpens the blade’s edges due to the angle imposed on the edges (see para. [0005], lines 8-17).
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 angles of the edges of Dallman to the angle as taught by Preti in order for the blade to be sharpened from the abrasion wear during the harvesting process, improving the blade's material and reducing the edge's machining costs (see Preti paragraph [0005], lines 8-15).
Claim(s) 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dallman (US 5438819 A) and Preti (BR 202013031434 U2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barnett (CA 2531189 A).
Regarding claim 2, the above combination discloses the rotatable cutter as applied, but fails to disclose wherein the blade is adapted to be rotated about its longitudinal axis to be oriented at an angle relative to a horizontal plane of the rotatable cutter.
Barnett discloses a similar rotatable cutter [26] wherein the blade [27] is adapted to be rotated (see page 12, line 3-4) about its longitudinal axis (see below) to be orientated at an angle relative to a horizontal plane (see below and Fig. 5) of the rotatable cutter.
PNG
media_image2.png
362
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 blade of Dallman and Preti to be orientated at an angle relative to a horizontal plane of the rotatable cutter as taught by Barnett in order for any crop material gathered by the blade to have a less tendency of slipping off the end of the blade and into an area that has not yet been cut (see Barnett page 7, lines 16-22).
Regarding claim 3, Dallman discloses the rotatable cutter as applied above, as well as, the blade [42] being removably attached (through [94], see Col. 6, lines 63-68) to the rotatable cutter [24], but fails to disclose the rotatable cutter being a first one of a multiple of rotatable cutters.
Barnett discloses a similar rotatable cutter [26] wherein the rotatable cutter is a first one (see Fig. 2; all of the cutters are identical, see page 10, lines 8-12) of a multiple of rotatable cutters (see Fig. 1) and wherein the blade [27] on the rotatable cutter is removably attached (through [27A]).
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 blade on the rotatable cutter of Barnett with the blade on the rotatable cutter of Dallman since both are removable blades used for cutting vegetation; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Regarding claim 4, Barnett, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the multiple rotatable cutters (see Fig. 1) include a pair of rotatable cutters (see Fig. 2) including the first rotatable cutter [26] and a second rotatable cutter (see below), the pair of rotatable cutters including multiple blades (see Fig. 2) including the blade, the multiple blades adapted to rotate on paths that overlap as viewed from above (see page 11, lines 11-15).
PNG
media_image3.png
326
571
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Barnett, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the second rotatable cutter (see above) is adapted to rotate in an opposite direction (see Fig. 2; see page 11, lines 17-21) to the first rotatable cutter [26].
Regarding claim 6, Dallman, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein each of the multiple blades is a double edge blade (edges [46] and 54]) and a trailing edge [54] of each of the multiple blades is closer than a leading edge [46] to a substrate (closer to the vegetation than the leading edge due to the downward angle of the edge in relation to the rotational axis, see Fig. 2) when in operation.
But Dallman fails to explicitly disclose the blades are self-sharpening.
However, Preti discloses a similar blade (see Fig. 1) for a harvester (see paragraph [0001], lines 2- 5) in which abrasion wear sharpens the blade’s edges due to the angle imposed on the edges (see para. [0005], lines 8-17).
It can be seen then that when the angle of the blade’s edges of Preti is provided to the edges of the blade of Dallman that the blade self-sharpens during abrasion wear while harvesting as disclosed by Preti (see paragraph [0005], lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 7, Dallman, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the multiple blades [42] are adapted to be reversable or flipped (can be both reversed and flipped, allowing for the switching of the leading and trailing edges, as well as to utilize the other edges on the opposite side of the blade, see Col. 2, lines 56-61) such that the leading edge [46] becomes the trailing edge [54] and the trailing edge becomes the leading edge.
Regarding claim 8, Dallman discloses the rotatable cutter as applied above, but fails to disclose wherein the blade is orientated at a fan blade like angle between 1 and 10 degrees.
Barnett discloses a similar rotatable cutter [26] wherein the blade [27] is orientated at a fan blade like angle (see angle of Fig. 5).
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 blade of Dallman to be orientated at an angle as taught by Barnett in order for any crop material gathered by the blade to have less tendency of slipping off the end of the blade and into an area that has not yet been cut (see Barnett page 7, lines 16-22).
But Barnett fails to explicitly disclose the angle is between 1 and 10 degrees.
However, Barnett teaches the orientation of the blade to a fan blade like angle allows for more crop material to be gathered by the blade with less tendency of slipping off, as well as to allow more crop flow over the rotatable cutters rather than in-between them to deliver more consistent mats of material to the conditioner (see page 7, lines 16-22); therefore, it can be the seen the fan blade like angle is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the fan blade like angle be between 1 and 10 degrees in order to gather more crop material with the blade for delivering more consistent mats of material to the conditioner. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Barnett, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the multiple blades are adapted to create a downdraft (due to the orientation of the fan blade like angle, blades are angled about the longitudinal axis, see Fig. 5; therefore, creating a downdraft from the configuration) in operation.
Regarding claim 10, Dallman discloses the rotatable cutter as applied above, as well as, the rotatable cutter [24] being adapted to rotate and to receive the blade ([42]; through holes [34 and 38], see Col. 5, lines 42-45), but fails to disclose wherein the rotatable cutter includes a disc.
Barnett discloses a similar rotatable cutter [26] wherein the rotatable cutter includes a disc ([26] is a disc, see Fig. 2) adapted to rotate and to receive the blade ([27]; see page 10, lines 14-19).
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 blade on the rotatable cutter of Barnett with the blade on the rotatable cutter of Dallman since both are removable blades used for cutting vegetation; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Regarding claim 11, Dallman discloses a rotatable cutter [24] for a harvester [10], the rotatable cutter including a blade [42] extending in a direction substantially radially outward (see Fig. 2) from a rotational axis (see below) of the rotatable cutter, the rotatable cutter adapted to rotate in a first direction (direction of leading edge, see Col. 6, lines 31-34), the blade position adapted to substantially lie in a plane (see below) extending radially and perpendicular to the rotational axis, wherein:
a leading edge ([46]; forward facing edge, therefore is the leading edge, see Col. 6, lines 31-34) of the blade facing the first direction is located above the plane (leading edge is above the plane due to the angle of the edge, see below); and
a trailing edge ([54]; rearward facing edge, therefore is the trailing edge, see Col. 6, lines 24-25) of the blade facing away from the first direction is located below the plane (trailing edge is below the plane due to the angle of the edge, see below).
PNG
media_image4.png
707
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
But Dallman fails to disclose the blade is tilted so that a part of the blade intermediate its width is intersected by the plane, and whereby the rotatable cutter is adapted to self-sharpen the leading edge and/or the trailing edge against produce as it wears.
Barnett discloses a similar rotatable cutter [26] wherein the blade [27] is tilted so that a part of the blade intermediate its width is intersected by the plane (see below and Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
259
684
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 blade of Dallman to be tilted at an angle as taught by Barnett in order for any crop material gathered by the blade to have less tendency of slipping off the end of the blade and into an area that has not yet been cut (see Barnett page 7, lines 16-22).
But Barnett fails to disclose whereby the rotatable cutter is adapted to self-sharpen the leading edge and/or the trailing edge against produce as it wears.
Preti discloses a similar blade (see Fig. 1) for a harvester (see paragraph [0001], lines 2- 5) in which abrasion wear sharpens the blade’s edges due to the angle imposed on the edges (see para. [0005], lines 8-17).
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 angles of the edges of Dallman and Barnett to the angle as taught by Preti in order for the blade to be sharpened from the abrasion wear during the harvesting process, improving the blade's material and reducing the edge's machining costs (see Preti paragraph [0005], lines 8-15); thereby self-sharpening the trailing edge of Dallman against produce during use due to being lower than the plane.
Regarding claim 12, Dallman, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein, as a consequence of an angle of the blade [42] having a negative rake (see angle of leading edge [46] in Fig. 2) and the forward motion of the harvester [10], but fails to explicitly disclose the rotation of the cutter sharpens the trailing edge of the blade.
Preti discloses a similar blade (see Fig. 1) for a harvester (see paragraph [0001], lines 2- 5) in which abrasion wear sharpens the blade’s edges due to the angle imposed on the edges (see para. [0005], lines 8-17).
It can be seen then that when the angle of the blade’s edges of Preti is provided to the edges of the blade of Dallman that the blade self-sharpens during abrasion wear while harvesting as disclosed by Preti (see paragraph [0005], lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 13, Dallman discloses the rotatable cutter as applied above, but fails to disclose wherein the blade is angled between 1 and 10 degrees from a horizontal plane in the rotational direction around a rotational axis of the blade.
Barnett discloses a similar rotatable cutter [26] wherein the blade [27] is angled from a horizontal plane (see below) in the rotational direction around a rotational axis (see below) of the blade.
PNG
media_image6.png
293
448
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 blade of Dallman to be orientated at an angle as taught by Barnett in order for any crop material gathered by the blade to have less tendency of slipping off the end of the blade and into an area that has not yet been cut (see Barnett page 7, lines 16-22).
But Barnett fails to explicitly disclose the angle is between 1 and 10 degrees.
However, Barnett teaches the orientation of the blade at an angle from the horizontal plane allows for more crop material to be gathered by the blade with less tendency of slipping off, as well as to allow more crop flow over the rotatable cutters rather than in-between them to deliver more consistent mats of material to the conditioner (see page 7, lines 16-22); therefore, it can be the seen the angle from the horizontal plane is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the angle from the horizontal plane be between 1 and 10 degrees in order to gather more crop material with the blade for delivering more consistent mats of material to the conditioner. It is noted that such a modification would merely constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Dallman, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the blade [42] is a double-edged blade (through edges [46 and 54]) that is adapted to be installed to cut with a first side (top side, opposite of side shown in Fig. 2, through leading edge [46]) of the blade and then reinstalled during maintenance in a reverse position (can switch the leading and trailing edges, see Col. 2, lines 56-61) to cut with a second side (bottom side, see Fig. 2, through trailing edge [54] when reversed) of the blade.
Regarding claim 15, Barnett, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the blade [27] is mounted in a reverse aerofoil-type arrangement (blade is angled relative to the horizontal axis of the rotatable cutter, see Fig. 5; therefore, is mounted in a reverse aerofoil-type arrangement) that is adapted to create a down draft (due to the orientation of the tilted blade, see Fig. 5; therefore, creating a downdraft from the configuration) to reduce substrate (any material that is not the standing crop; see page 7, lines 1-4) getting drawn into the harvester and mixing with the produce (see page 14, lines 7-15).
Regarding claim 16, Dallman, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the leading edge [46] of the blade [42] is located further up the rotational axis (see above; further up the axis due to the upwards angle of the leading edge) of the rotatable cutter [24] than the trailing edge ([54]; rearward facing edge, therefore is the trailing edge, see Col. 6, lines 24-25) at any radial location on a cutting portion of the blade relative to the rotational axis of the rotatable cutter.
Regarding claim 17, Dallman discloses the rotatable cutter as applied above, as well as, the blade [42] being removably attached (through [94], see Col. 6, lines 63-68) to the rotatable cutter [24], but fails to disclose wherein the rotatable cutter is a first rotatable cutter of two rotatable cutters comprising two corresponding rotating discs adapted to rotate in opposite directions.
Barnett discloses a similar rotatable cutter [26] wherein the rotatable cutter is a first rotatable cutter (see Fig. 2; all of the cutters are identical, see page 10, lines 8-12) of two rotatable cutters comprising two corresponding rotating discs (see Fig. 2) adapted to rotate in opposite directions (see Fig. 2 and page 11, lines 17-21), and wherein the blade [46] on the rotatable cutter is removably attached (through [27A]).
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 blade on the rotatable cutter of Barnett with the blade on the rotatable cutter of Dallman since both are removable blades used for chopping vegetation; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Regarding claim 18, Dallman, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein each rotatable cutter [24] is adapted to receive blades [42] that are double-edged in that they have sharp edges (both are sharpened in order to utilize both sides as cutting edges, see Col. 2, lines 56-61) on both the leading [46] and trailing edges [54].
Regarding claim 19, Dallman, of the above resultant combination, further discloses a lower surface (surface shown in Fig. 2) of the blade’s underside being adapted to be exposed to abrading product (exposed due to being below the rotatable cutter, see Fig. 4a), but fails to explicitly disclose the blade is tilted about a longitudinal axis of the blade, so that the trailing edge is adapted to drag and the abrading product wears the underside surface and so sharpens the sharp edge of the trailing edge.
Barnett discloses a similar rotatable cutter [26] wherein the blade [27] is tilted about a longitudinal axis (see below and Fig. 5) of the blade.
PNG
media_image7.png
322
509
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It can be seen then that when the blade tilt of Barnett is provided to the blade of Dallman that the blade is tilted about the longitudinal axis as disclosed by Barnett (see above); therefore, due to the tilt about the longitudinal axis, the trailing edge of Dallman is adapted to drag.
But Barnett fails to disclose the abrading product wears the underside surface and so sharpens the sharp edge of the trailing edge.
However, Preti discloses a similar blade (see Fig. 1) for a harvester (see paragraph [0001], lines 2- 5) in which abrasion wear sharpens the blade’s edges due to the angle imposed on the edges (see para. [0005], lines 8-17).
It can be seen then that when the angle of the blade’s edges of Preti is provided as the angle for the edges of the blade of Dallman and Barnett that the blade self-sharpens the edges through abrasion wear (see Preti para. [0005], lines 8-17); therefore, the trailing edge of Dallman, due to the tilt about the longitudinal axis and the angle of the edge, self-sharpens through harvesting the abrading product.
Regarding claim 20, Dallman, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein a main body (see body of blade in Fig. 2) of the blade [42] includes a series of apertures [64, 66, 80, and 82] extending along or parallel to the longitudinal axis (see above) that allow the blade to be mounted closer or further away (which edge is utilized depends on which apertures are utilized, mounting the blade closer or farther from the rotational axis, see Col. 6, lines 63-68 and Col. 7, lines 1-8) from the rotational axis (see above) of the rotatable cutter [24].
Response to Arguments
Please see updated art rejections above in response to applicant’s claim amendments, now including Dallman (US 5438819 A).
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 US 3243944 A discloses a similar blade with a tilt about the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 5).
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
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights