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 .
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 .
Introduction
Claims 1-6 are currently pending in this application and are subject to examination herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
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 “plurality of hooking fittings” (claim 4 at lines 1-2) 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 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 1-6 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 “such a type” (line 1), “the type” (line 2), and “such” several times in the body of the claim. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined because it is not clear what these limitations mean and it is unclear whether the claim is restricted to a certain “type” of head. The Examiner suggests that Applicant may wish to remove “of such a type” from line 1, “of the type in which” from line 5 and replace the instances of “such” with “the” or “said” which will indicate that element has antecedent basis earlier in the claim and indicates the same element is being indicated again.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites “a reel” in line 13. However, “a reel” is introduced in claim 1 originally at line 3. The metes and bounds cannot be determined because it is unclear whether the reel recited in line 13 is the same reel originally recited in line 3 or a different reel. If Applicant intends the reel in line 13 to be the same reel first recited in line 3, the Examiner suggests that Applicant may wish to recite “the reel” in line 13 rather than “a reel”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “a reel” in line 13 to be the same reel first recited in line 3.
Moreover, claim 3 recites the limitation "the platform" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-6 each depend directly from independent claim 1 and are, therefore, likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Claims 5 and 6 are further held to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they appear to be replacing the hydraulic actuation recited in claim 1 with electric or manual actuation. The Specification would seem to support such an interpretation (see Spec. at Col. 6, lines 20-21). However, claim 1 does not generically recite actuation, but instead requires hydraulic actuation. Because of that limitation, it is unclear whether the invention requires hydraulic actuation in addition to electric actuation or manual actuation or if electrical or manual actuation replaces the hydraulic actuation of claim 1. The Examiner suggests that if Applicant wishes to have one or more of hydraulic, electrical or manual (mechanical) actuation, that claim 1 should generically recite actuation and each of the alternatives be included in dependent claims depending from 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.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Pat. Pub. No. DE 4320979-A1 to Allwoerden (cited by Applicant in IDS filed on 09/27/2023) in view of Canadian Pat. Pub. No. CA 3 040 217 A1 to Vandeven et al. (hereinafter Vandeven).
Regarding claim 1, Allwoerden discloses a multicrop harvesting head (first unit 1) (Figs. 1-6; P. 1, lines 15-28; p. 2, line 46 to p. 3, line 28) of such a type that comprises
a chassis (chassis of first unit 1) (Figs. 1-6; P. 1, lines 15-28; p. 2, line 45 to p. 3, line 28) attachable to a cutter bar (mowing element 11, 14) (Figs. 1-2; P. 3, lines 1-4, p. 3, lines 13-15) or a stripper (header stripper 19) (Fig. 6; P. 3, lines 21-23); of the type in which the cutter bar (mowing element 11, 14) (Figs. 1-2; P. 3, lines 1-4, p. 3, lines 13-15) can be linked to a gearbox that triggers an alternating movement (P. 3, lines 13-15),
a reel (reel 6) (Figs. 1-6; P. 2, lines 46-48) that leads the cut material towards a conveying unit (conveyor channel 8) (Fig. 1; P. 1, lines 1-21), which in turn carries such material to the harvesting machine (P. 1, lines 1-21); of the type in which the stripper (header stripper 19) (Fig. 6; P. 3, lines 21-23) includes a command tire (drive 4) (Figs. 1-6; P. 2, lines 45-47) supplemented by a rotor (see Annotated Fig. 6 of Allwoerden infra), stripping combs (see Annotated Fig. 6 of Allwoerden infra), a deflector (see Annotated Fig. 6 of Allwoerden infra) and a cover (Fig. 6);
characterized in that the chassis provides a drive (drive 4) (Figs. 1-6; P. 2, lines 45-47) that can be linked to a module (e.g., cutter bar module or stripper module) (see Figs. 1-2, 6) selected from a cutter bar module (see Figs. 1-2) and a stripper module (see Figs. 1, 6) and that drives both the rotor (see Annotated Fig. 6 of Allwoerden infra) embedded in such cutter bar module (see Figs. 1-2) and the command tire embedded in such stripper module (see Figs. 1, 6), such drive (drive 4) (Figs. 1-6; P. 2, lines 45-47) being powered by the harvester feeder;
whose cutter bar (see Figs. 1-2) and stripper modules (see Figs. 1, 6) are fixed to the sides of the chassis using the same plurality of pins (pins 17) (Figs. 2-6; P. 2, line 45 to p. 3, line 8) inserted in holes (grooves 18) (Figs. 2-6; P. 2, line 45 to p. 3, line 8) shared by both modules (e.g., cutter bar module or stripper module) (see Figs. 1-2, 6);
whose cutter bar module (Figs. 1-2, 5-6) includes a reel (reel 6) (Figs. 1-6; P. 2, lines 46-48) mounted through a set of brackets (see Annotated Fig. 6 of Allwoerden infra) placed at the top of the chassis (chassis of first unit 1) (see Figs. 5-6);
whose set of brackets (see Annotated Fig. 6 of Allwoerden infra) fixed to the chassis (chassis of first unit 1) (Figs. 1-6; P. 1, lines 15-28; p. 2, line 46 to p. 3, line 28) holds the deflector of the stripper module (see Figs. 1, 6) in place (see Figs. 5-6); and
where the brackets (see Annotated Fig. 6 of Allwoerden infra), fed by the machine hydraulic system, can make forward, backward, upward and downward movements (moving the brackets would move reel 6 upward or downward and that would cause forward and/or backward movement due to the way the brackets pivot) (see Figs. 1-6).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cover)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Brackets)][AltContent: textbox (Deflector)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Stripping Combs)][AltContent: textbox (Rotor)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
787
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 of Allwoerden.
However, Allwoerden does not expressly disclose a copying system or the drive system being a kinematic chain. Nevertheless, Vandeven teaches a copying system (flexible cutter bar for ground following during crop cutting) (Figs. 1, 12-13; Paras. [0001]-[0003], [0043], [0046], [0064]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the multi-crop header disclosed in Allwoerden with the copying system taught in Vandeven with a reasonable expectation of success in order to follow level or even depressed portions of ground while the header has other portions that encounter an upward irregularity to allow a wide header to closely follow the contour of the ground and for improved cutting/harvesting. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the multi-crop header disclosed in Allwoerden with the copying system taught in Vandeven with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Furthermore, while it is not explicitly clear whether drive 4 of Allwoerden is on each end of the chassis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Allwoerden to include a drive at each end with a reasonable expectation of success in order to distribute the driving energy between two drives. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Allwoerden to include a drive at each end with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Moreover, while Allwoerden discloses a common set of pins 17 and grooves 18 to secure each header to the chassis, it would have been obvious to use bolts mounted into threaded holes in place of pins with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Allwoerden in view of Vandeven teaches the harvesting head according to Claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, the combination of Allwoerden and Vandeven teaches that the cutter bar module (a) (Allwoerden at Figs. 1-2, 5-6) is linked to a flexible cutter bar (flexible cutter bar for ground following during crop cutting) (Vandeven at Figs. 1, 12-13; Paras. [0001]-[0003], [0043], [0046], [0064]) that copies uneven ground and puts blades into position, facing plant stalks (flexible cutter bar for ground following during crop cutting) (Vandeven at Figs. 1, 12-13; Paras. [0001]-[0003], [0043], [0046], [0064]).
Regarding claim 3, Allwoerden in view of Vandeven teaches the harvesting head according to Claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, the Allwoerden discloses that the stripper module (header stripper 19) (Fig. 6; P. 3, lines 21-23) comprises a rotor (see Annotated Fig. 6 of Allwoerden supra) including stripping combs (see Annotated Fig. 6 of Allwoerden supra) and a deflector (see Annotated Fig. 6 of Allwoerden supra) attached to the upper part of the rotor (see Annotated Fig. 6 of Allwoerden supra) and along the platform, and a cover (see Annotated Fig. 6 of Allwoerden supra).
Regarding claim 4, Allwoerden in view of Vandeven teaches the harvesting head according to Claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, the combination of Allwoerden and Vandeven teaches a plurality of hooking fittings and a cover (see Fig. 6) are mounted on the deflector (see Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allwoerden in view of Vandeven as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0235626 to Fackler et al. (hereinafter Fackler).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Allwoerden in view of Vandeven teaches the harvesting head according to Claim 1 (see above). However, neither Allwoerden nor Vandeven teaches the movement of the brackets is electrically driven or manually driven. Nevertheless, Fackler teaches a harvesting head where movement of brackets is electrically driven (e.g., by electrical control system) (Abstract; Figs. 3, 3a; Para. [0014], [0065]) or manually driven (by turning manual control valve 66 to apply more weight (hydraulic pressure) to the light side of the header) (Fig. 3; Para. [0067]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the harvesting head taught by the combination of Allwoerden in view of Vandeven with the electrical and/or manual actuation of the header taught by Fackler in order to provide multiple and varied ways to adjust the hydraulic system and the height and balance of the head.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. European Pat. Pub. No. EP 0 432 318 A1 to Naaktgeboren et al. relates to a universal combine harvester crop gathering attachment. U.S. Pat. No. 10,321,628 to Borry et al. relates to a dual header for an agricultural harvester. U.S. Pat. Pub. Nos. 2011/0000178 to Giusti relates to a multi-crop feeder and crop conditioner for stripper headers. U.S. Pat. No. 8,220,236 to Benner et al. relates to a harvester for selectively harvesting and cutting portions of crop materials at different heights. U.S. Pat. No. 10,477,763 to Jonckheere et al. relates to a dual cut header assembly. Int’l. Pat. Pub. No. WO 91/03928 to Hale et al. relates to a crop harvesting stripper apparatus and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAUDE J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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 M. 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.
/CLAUDE J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671