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 Objections
Claims 12, 13, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 1 recites “a consequence of the angle”, should read – a consequence of an angle – from lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 13, lines 1-2 recite “the blade is angled at between”, should read – the blade is angled between –.
Claim 13, line 3 recites “the blade’s rotational axis”, should read – a blade’s rotational axis – from lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 19, line 3 recites “the lower surface of the blade’s underside”, should read – a lower surface of the blade’s underside – from lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 20, line 3 recites “allow the blade to mounted closer”, should read – allow the blade to be mounted closer—.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12, lines 1-2 sets forth “as a consequence of the angle of the rotating cutter having a negative rake”, however the specification in page 3, lines 12-14 states the blade has a negative rake angle, not the rotating cutter. There is no mention of the angle of the rotating cutter having a negative rake within the specification or shown in the drawings; therefore, the claim contains subject matter that was not described in such a way to convey the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to read “as a consequence of the angle of the blade having a negative rake”.
Claim 15, lines 1-2 sets forth “the rotatable cutter is mounted in a reverse aerofoil-type arrangement”, however the specification in page 4, lines 14-19 states the blade is angled related to the horizontal in a reverse aerofoil-type arrangement, not the rotating cutter. There is no mention of the rotating cutter mounted in a reverse aerofoil-type arrangement within the specification or shown in the drawings; therefore, the claim contains subject matter that was not described in such a way to convey the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to read “the blade is mounted in a reverse aerofoil-type arrangement”.
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 2, 16 and 20 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 2 recites the limitation "rotated about its longitudinal axis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “longitudinal axis” in the claim.
Claim 2 in line 2 sets forth “rotated about its longitudinal axis relative to horizonal”. However, it is unclear what applicant means by the limitation “horizontal”. Specifically, it is unclear if the limitation “horizontal” relates to a horizontal axis of the rotatable cutter, a horizontal axis of the blade, or another limitation altogether; therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to read “rotated about its longitudinal axis relative to the rotatable cutter’s horizontal axis.”.
Claim 16, lines 2 and 3 both recite “the rotational axis”, however it is unclear if this rotational axis relates to the blade or the rotatable cutter. Specifically, it is unclear if the blade is located further up the rotational axis of the blade or the rotational axis of the rotatable cutter; therefor the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to read “the rotational axis of the rotatable cutter”.
Claim 20, lines 3-4 set forth “the blade to be mounted closer or further away from the rotational axis”, however it is unclear if this rotational axis relates to the blade or the rotatable cutter. Specifically, it is unclear if the blade is mounted closer or further away from the rotational axis of the blade or the rotational axis of the rotatable cutter; therefor the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to read “the blade to be mounted closer or further away from the rotational axis of the rotatable cutter”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barnett (CA 2531189 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Barnett teaches a rotatable cutter [26] for a harvester (see page 9, lines 7-9, but can be used on any harvester cutting a standing crop, see page 7, lines 1-4), the rotatable cutter including a blade [27], wherein a leading edge ([31] when mounted in reverse orientation; see page 6, lines 8-9 and page 12, line 3-4) of the blade is located further up a rotational axis (see below; located further up from twist in blade, see Figs. 4-5) of the rotatable cutter than a trailing edge ([30] when mounted in reverse orientation; see page 6, lines 8-9 and page 12, line 3-4) of the blade at any radial location (entire leading edge is higher, see Fig. 4) on the blade relative to the rotational axis of the rotating cutter.
(Examiner’s Note: It is observed that broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims does not require the cutter to actually be mounted to a harvester – rather the claims are drafted so as to merely require a “rotatable cutter for a harvester.” In this regard, the terms “trailing edge” and “leading edge” amount to mere nomenclature and would be dependent on the direction of rotation of Barnett’s cutter 1. Further this cutter can reasonably be rotated in any direction as the claims do not limit it to a specific direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
345
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Barnett teaches wherein the blade [27] is adapted to be rotated (see page 12, line 3-4) about its longitudinal axis (see below) relative to the rotatable cutter’s [26] horizontal axis (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
357
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Barnett teaches the rotatable cutter [26] being 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).
Regarding claim 4, Barnett teaches 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 [27], the multiple blades adapted to rotate on paths that overlap as viewed from above (see page 11, lines 11-15).
PNG
media_image3.png
367
593
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Barnett teaches 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 [27].
Regarding claim 7, Barnett teaches wherein the multiple blades (see Fig. 2) are adapted to be reversable (see page 6, lines 8-9) or flipped such that the leading edge ([31] when mounted in reverse orientation; see page 6, lines 8-9 and page 12, line 3-4) becomes the trailing edge ([30] when mounted in reverse orientation; see page 6, lines 8-9 and page 12, line 3-4) and the trailing edge becomes the leading edge.
Regarding claim 9, Barnett teaches wherein the multiple blades (see Fig. 2) are adapted to create a downdraft (blades are angled to the horizontal about the longitudinal axis, see Fig. 5; therefore, creating a downdraft from the configuration) in operation.
Regarding claim 10, Barnett teaches wherein the rotatable cutter [26] 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).
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) 6, 8, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett (CA 2531189 A1) in view of Preti (BR 202013031434 U2).
Regarding claim 6, Barnett discloses wherein each of the multiple blades (see Fig. 2) is a double edge blade (both edges are sharpened, see page 6, lines 8-9) and a trailing edge ([30] when mounted in reverse orientation; see page 6, lines 8-9 and page 12, line 3-4) of each of the multiple blades is closer than a leading edge ([31] when mounted in reverse orientation; see page 6, lines 8-9 and page 12, line 3-4) to a substrate (any material that is not the standing crop; see page 7, lines 1-4) when in operation (blade is tilted, see Fig. 5, causing [30] to be lower than [31]; therefore, the trailing edge is closer to the substrate).
But Barnett doesn’t explicitly disclose the multiple blades are self sharpening.
Preti discloses a similar blade (see Fig. 1) for a harvester (see paragraph [0001], lines 2-5) that is self sharpening due to the angle (see paragraph [0005], lines 4-8 and [0013], lines 16-18) of the blade as it hits material (hits sugarcane to sharpen blade, but could hit any material to sharpen from the abrasion at the angle; see paragraph [0005], lines 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the trailing edge of the blade of Barnett at the angle of Preti in order for the blade to be sharpened from the abrasion of hitting material during the harvesting process, improving the blade’s material and reducing the edge’s machining costs (see Preti paragraph [0005], lines 8-15).
Regarding claim 8, Barnett further discloses wherein the multiple blades (see Fig. 2) are orientated at a fan blade like angle (see angle of Fig. 5), but fails to disclose the angle is between 1 and 10 degrees.
However, Preti discloses a similar blade (see Fig. 1) with an angle between 1 and 10 degrees (has an angle range of 5 to 20 degrees, therefore can utilize an angle within the range of 1 and 10 degrees; see paragraph [0013], lines 3-6).
It can be seen then that when the angle of Preti is applied as the angle of the edge of the blade of Barnett that the edge is orientated at an angle between 1 and 10 degrees as disclosed by Preti (see paragraph [0013], lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 11, Barnett teaches a rotatable cutter [26] for a harvester (see page 9, lines 7-9, but can be used on any harvester cutting a standing crop, see page 7, lines 1-4), the rotatable cutter including a blade [27] 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 (see page 12, lines 3-7), the blade position adapted to substantially lie in a plane (see below) extending radially and perpendicular to the rotational axis, wherein:
the blade is tilted (see Fig. 5) so that a part of the blade intermediate its width is intersected by the plane (see below);
a leading edge ([31] when mounted in reverse orientation; see page 6, lines 8-9 and page 12, line 3-4) of the blade facing the first direction is located above the plane (see below);
and a trailing edge ([30] when mounted in reverse orientation; see page 6, lines 8-9 and page 12, line 3-4) of the blade facing away from the first direction is located below the plane (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
345
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
216
443
media_image4.png
Greyscale
But Barnett fails to explicitly 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) adapted to self-sharpen the leading edge and/or the trailing edge (see paragraph [0005], lines 4-8 and [0013], lines 16-18) against produce as it wears (hits sugarcane to sharpen blade, but could hit any material to sharpen from the abrasion at the angle; see paragraph [0005], lines 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the trailing edge of the blade of Barnett at the angle of Preti in order for the blade to be sharpened from the abrasion of hitting material during the harvesting process, improving the blade’s material and reducing the edge’s machining costs (see Preti paragraph [0005], lines 8-15).
(Examiner’s Note: It is observed that broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims does not require the cutter to actually be mounted to a harvester – rather the claims are drafted so as to merely require a “rotatable cutter for a harvester.” In this regard, the terms “trailing edge” and “leading edge” amount to mere nomenclature and would be dependent on the direction of rotation of Barnett’s cutter 2. Further this cutter can reasonably be rotated in any direction as the claims do not limit it to a specific direction).
Regarding claim 12, Barnett discloses the angle (see angle of Fig. 5) of the blade [27] having a negative rake (when blade is reversed [31] is the leading edge, the rake angle is negative, see Fig. 5) and the forward motion of the harvester (see page 9, lines 7-9, but can be used on any harvester cutting a standing crop, see page 7, lines 1-4), but fails to disclose the rotation of the cutter sharpens the trailing edge of the blade (please see 112(a) rejection above).
However, Preti discloses a similar blade (see Fig. 1) wherein rotation sharpens an edge (see paragraph [0005], lines 4-8 and [0013], lines 16-18) of the blade from making contact with material (hits sugarcane to sharpen blade, but could hit any material to sharpen from the abrasion at the angle; see paragraph [0005], lines 7-10).
It can be seen then that when the angle of Preti is applied as the angle of the trailing edge of the blade of Barnett that the trailing edge is sharpened when making contact with material as disclosed by Preti (see paragraph [0005], lines 4-8 and [0013], lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 13, Barnett further discloses wherein the blade [27] is angled from a horizontal plane (see below) in the rotational direction (see arrow in Fig. 2) around the blade's rotational axis (see below), but fails to explicitly disclose it is angled at between 1 and 10 degrees.
PNG
media_image5.png
351
441
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Preti discloses a similar blade (see Fig. 1) with an angle between 1 and 10 degrees (has an angle range of 5 to 20 degrees, therefore can utilize an angle within the range of 1 and 10 degrees; see paragraph [0013], lines 3-6).
It can be seen then that when the angle of Preti is applied as the angle of the edge of the blade of Barnett that the edge is orientated at an angle between 1 and 10 degrees as disclosed by Preti (see paragraph [0013], lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 14, Barnett, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the blade [27] is a double-edged blade (see page 6, lines 8-9) that is adapted to be installed to cut with a first side (see below; see page 12, lines 3-7) of the blade and then re-installed during maintenance in a reverse position (see page 6, lines 8-9) to cut with a second side ([38]; see page 12, lines 13-16) of the blade.
PNG
media_image6.png
279
607
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 (creates a downdraft from the blades being mounted in a reverse aerofoil-type arrangement) 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) (please see 112(a) rejection above).
Regarding claim 16, Barnett, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the leading edge ([31] when mounted in reverse orientation; see page 6, lines 8-9 and page 12, line 3-4) of the blade [27] is located further up the rotational axis of the rotatable cutter (see above; located further up from twist in blade, see Figs. 4-5) than the trailing edge ([30] when mounted in reverse orientation; see page 6, lines 8-9 and page 12, line 3-4) at any radial location on a cutting portion (see below; see page 12, lines 3-7) of the blade relative to the rotational axis of the rotatable cutter (please see 112(b) rejection above).
PNG
media_image7.png
279
607
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Barnett, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the rotatable cutter [26] 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).
Regarding claim 18, Barnett, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein each rotatable cutter [26] is adapted to receive blades (see page 10, lines 14-16) that are double-edged (see page 6, lines 8-9) in that they have sharp edges on both the leading ([31] when mounted in reverse orientation; see page 6, lines 8-9 and page 12, line 3-4) and trailing edges ([30] when mounted in reverse orientation; see page 6, lines 8-9 and page 12, line 3-4).
Regarding claim 19, Barnett, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the blade [27] is tilted about a longitudinal axis (see below; extends through blade) of the blade, so that the trailing edge ([30] when mounted in reverse orientation; see page 6, lines 8-9 and page 12, line 3-4) is adapted to drag (drags due to tilt, see Fig. 5) and the lower surface of the blade's underside (see below) is adapted to be exposed to abrading product (adapted to be exposed to abrasion from being the lower surface) whereby to wear the underside surface.
PNG
media_image8.png
173
380
media_image8.png
Greyscale
But Barnett fails to explicitly disclose being exposed to abrading product sharpens the sharp edge of the trailing edge.
However, Preti discloses a similar blade (see Fig. 1) wherein rotation sharpens an edge (see paragraph [0005], lines 4-8 and [0013], lines 16-18) of the blade from making contact with material (hits sugarcane to sharpen blade, but could hit any material to sharpen from the abrasion at the angle; see paragraph [0005], lines 7-10).
It can be seen then that when the angle of Preti is applied as the angle of the trailing edge of the blade of Barnett that the trailing edge is sharpened when making contact with material as disclosed by Preti (see paragraph [0005], lines 4-8 and [0013], lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 20, Barnett further discloses the blade [27] mounted away from the rotational axis (see above) of the rotatable cutter [26], but fails to disclose wherein a main body of the blade includes a series of apertures extending along or parallel to the longitudinal axis that allow the blade to mounted closer or further away from the rotational axis.
Preti discloses a similar blade (see Fig. 1) wherein a main body (see below) of the blade includes a series of apertures ([2]; see below) extending along or parallel to the longitudinal axis (see below).
PNG
media_image9.png
266
374
media_image9.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 provide the series of apertures of Preti on the blade of Barnett in order to provide the blade with a plurality of central holes (see Preti paragraph [0013], lines 9-11); allowing for the blade to be mounted closer or further away from the rotational axis.
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 3945177 A discloses a similar rotatable cutter (see Fig. 6) for a harvester [10] with a leading edge [90] and a trailing edge [91].
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
1 The Board in a similar context has addressed that directions e.g. top, bottom, side amount to mere nomenclature, much as the present leading and trailing edges amount to mere terms of nomenclature here. Ex Parte Bruce H Hanson, Appeal No. 2009-2665, Application, No. 10/836,193 (BPAI May 21, 2009) (Non-Precedential).
2 The Board in a similar context has addressed that directions e.g. top, bottom, side amount to mere nomenclature, much as the present leading and trailing edges amount to mere terms of nomenclature here. Ex Parte Bruce H Hanson, Appeal No. 2009-2665, Application, No. 10/836,193 (BPAI May 21, 2009) (Non-Precedential).