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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze Selting et al. (US 20180368320 A1) in view of Schmidt et al. (US 20070193243 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schulze Selting teaches a multi-segment header (2) for an agricultural harvester ("combine harvester" See Schulze Selting [0001]) comprising:
a multi-segment chassis ("three-part frame" See Schulze Selting [0031]) having a longitudinal support beam (4, 6).
an auger (16, 18) extending widthwise across the multi-segment chassis and adjacent the longitudinal support beam (4, 6); and
However, Schulze Selting fails to disclose a backsheet extension mounted to a posterior end of the longitudinal support beam.
Schmidt teaches a backsheet extension (12) mounted to a posterior end of the longitudinal support beam (14).
Schmidt states, "A number of upright channels 16 interconnect beam assemblies 12, 14 across the backside of header 10 at spaced locations thereacross." (Schmidt [0026])
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the multi-segment header as taught by Schulze Selting with the beam assemblies as disclosed by Schmidt so as to capture grain or seed material striking a rearward boundary of the header, thereby reducing loss of crop material and improving harvesting efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Schulze Selting teaches the multi-segment header of claim 1 and the multi-segment chassis ("three-part frame" See Schulze Selting [0031]).
However, Schulze Selting fails to disclose wherein the backsheet extension is directly mounted to a rear surface of the longitudinal support beam of the multi-segment chassis.
Schmidt teaches wherein the backsheet extension (12) is directly mounted to a rear surface of the longitudinal support beam (14) of the chassis ("frame" See Schmidt [0026]). (See Schmidt annotated Fig. 7 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
655
915
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the multi-segment header as taught by Schulze Selting with the beam assemblies as disclosed by Schmidt so as to order to provide a rigid and compact mounting arrangement to facilitate redirection of crop material toward the interior of the header.
Regarding claim 3, Schulze Selting teaches the multi-segment header of claim 1 and the multi-segment chassis ("three-part frame" See Schulze Selting [0031]).
However, Schulze Selting fails to disclose further comprising a mounting bracket mounting each backsheet extension to the longitudinal support beam of the multi-segment chassis.
Schmidt teaches further comprising a mounting bracket (16) mounting each backsheet extension (14) to the longitudinal support beam (14) of the chassis ("frame" See Schmidt [0026]).
Schmidt states, "A number of upright channels 16 interconnect beam assemblies 12, 14 across the backside of header 10 at spaced locations thereacross." (Schmidt [0026])
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the multi-segment header as taught by Schulze Selting with the beam assemblies and upright channels as disclosed by Schmidt so as to order to provide a rigid and compact mounting arrangement to facilitate redirection of crop material toward the interior of the header.
Regarding claim 4, Schulze Selting teaches the multi-segment header of claim 3.
However, Schulze Selting fails to disclose wherein the mounting bracket is positioned rearwardly of a rear surface of the longitudinal support beam.
Schmidt teaches wherein the mounting bracket (16) is positioned rearwardly of a rear surface of the longitudinal support beam (14). (See Schmidt annotated Fig. 7 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
655
915
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the multi-segment header as taught by Schulze Selting with the beam assemblies and upright channels as disclosed by Schmidt so as to order to provide a rigid and compact mounting arrangement to facilitate redirection of crop material toward the interior of the header.
Regarding claim 5, Schulze Selting teaches the multi-segment header of claim 1.
However, Schulze Selting fails to disclose wherein the backsheet extension is plate-shaped
Schmidt teaches wherein the backsheet extension (12) is plate-shaped. (See Schmidt annotated Fig. 7 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
655
915
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the multi-segment header as taught by Schulze Selting with the beam assembly as disclosed by Schmidt so as to order to capture grain or seed material striking a rearward boundary of the header, thereby reducing loss of crop material and improving harvesting efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, Schulze Selting teaches the multi-segment header of claim 1 and the multi-segment chassis ("three-part frame" See Schulze Selting [0031]).
However, Schulze Selting fails to disclose wherein the backsheet extension includes a plurality of back sheet extension segments collectively extending substantially in end to end relation with the multi-segment chassis.
Schmidt teaches wherein the backsheet extension (12) includes a plurality of back sheet extension segments collectively extending substantially in end to end relation with the chassis ("frame" See Schmidt [0026]). (See Schmidt annotated Fig. 1 below)
PNG
media_image3.png
749
924
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the multi-segment header as taught by Schulze Selting with the beam assembly as disclosed by Schmidt so as to order to capture grain or seed material striking a rearward boundary of the header, thereby reducing loss of crop material and improving harvesting efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Schulze Selting teaches the multi-segment header of claim 1 and the multi-segment chassis ("three-part frame" See Schulze Selting [0031]).
However, Schulze Selting fails to disclose wherein the backsheet extension includes a plurality of back sheet extension segments extending substantially in end to end relation with each segment of the multi-segment chassis.
Schmidt teaches wherein the backsheet extension (12) includes a plurality of back sheet extension segments extending substantially in end to end relation with each segment of the chassis ("frame" See Schmidt [0026]). (See Schmidt annotated Fig. 1 below)
PNG
media_image4.png
749
924
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the multi-segment header as taught by Schulze Selting with the beam assembly as disclosed by Schmidt so as to order to capture grain or seed material striking a rearward boundary of the header, thereby reducing loss of crop material and improving harvesting efficiency.
Regarding claim 8, Schulze Selting teaches the multi-segment header of claim 1.
However, Schulze Selting fails to disclose wherein the backsheet extension extends from the longitudinal support beam at an angle relative to a horizontal plane of the multi-segment header.
Schmidt teaches wherein the backsheet extension (12) extends from the longitudinal support beam (14) at an angle relative to a horizontal plane of the header (10). (See Schmidt annotated Fig. 7 below)
PNG
media_image5.png
652
916
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the multi-segment header as taught by Schulze Selting with the beam assembly as disclosed by Schmidt so as to order to capture grain or seed material striking a rearward boundary of the header, thereby reducing loss of crop material and improving harvesting efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Schulze Selting as part of the combination Schulze Selting in view of Schmidt teaches a multi-segment header of claim 1 and the backsheet extension (12).
However, Schulze Selting fails to disclose wherein the backsheet extension has an overall width of about 5 to 15 inches.
Although Schulze Selting does not expressly disclose that the backsheet extension has an overall width of about 5 to 15 inches, selecting a particular auger diameter represents routine optimization of a result-effective variable, as auger diameter is known to affect crop capacity, feeding rate, and material flow within the header.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the multi-segment auger of Schulze Selting to have the backsheet extension has an overall width of about 5 to 15 inches, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Note that those of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a modification such as a mere change in size of a component would be obvious. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See also, MPEP § 2144.04 which states: In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 10, Schulze Selting teaches the multi-segment header of claim 1.
However, Schulze Selting fails to disclose wherein the longitudinal support beam (14) has a rear surface that is sloped relative to a horizontal plane of the multi-segment header.
Schmidt teaches wherein the longitudinal support beam (14) has a rear surface that is sloped relative to a horizontal plane of the header (10). (See Schmidt annotated Fig. 7 below)
PNG
media_image6.png
652
916
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the multi-segment header as taught by Schulze Selting with the beam assembly as disclosed by Schmidt so as to order to facilitate crop material and reduce material on the rearward beam assembly of the header during operation.
Regarding claim 11, Schulze Selting teaches an agricultural harvester ("combine harvester" See Schulze Selting [0001]) comprising the multi-segment header (2) of claim 1.
Claims 12-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze Selting et al. (US 20180368320 A1) in view of Blakeslee et al. (US 7621113 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Schulze Selting teaches a multi-segment header (2) for an agricultural harvester ("combine harvester" See Schulze Selting [0001]) comprising:
a multi-segment chassis ("three-part frame" See Schulze Selting [0031]) having a longitudinal support beam (4, 6).
a multi-segment auger (16, 18) supported by the chassis ("three-part frame" See Schulze Selting [0031]).
PNG
media_image7.png
718
870
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Schulze Selting fails to disclose a center auger segment having first flights defining a first overall diameter, and a lateral auger segment having second flights defining a second overall diameter greater than the first overall diameter.
Blakeslee teaches a center auger segment (67) having first flights (63, 65) defining a first overall diameter ("six inches" See Blakeslee Col 5, lines 24-27), and a lateral auger segment (62, 64) having second flights (54a, 54b) defining a second overall diameter ("twenty inches" See Blakeslee Col 5, lines 24-27) greater than the first overall diameter ("six inches" See Blakeslee Col 5, lines 24-27). (See Blakeslee annotated Fig. 3 below)
PNG
media_image8.png
669
920
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the multi-segment header as taught by Schulze Selting with the auger segments and flight diameters as disclosed by Blakeslee so as to increase crop engagement and conveyance at outboard regions while moderating crop intake at the center to promote controlled infeeding and reduce bunching or interference.
Regarding claim 13, Schulze Selting teaches a multi-segment header of claim 12.
However, Schulze Selting fails to disclose wherein the first overall diameter is about 10 to 14 inches.
Blakeslee teaches a first overall diameter ("six inches" See Blakeslee Col 5, lines 24-27).
Although Blakeslee does not expressly disclose that the first overall diameter is about 10 to 14 inches, selecting a particular auger diameter represents routine optimization of a result-effective variable, as auger diameter is known to affect crop capacity, feeding rate, and material flow within the header.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the multi-segment auger of Schulze Selting, as taught by Blakeslee, to have a first overall diameter of about 10 to 14 inches, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Note that those of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a modification such as a mere change in size of a component would be obvious. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See also, MPEP § 2144.04 which states: In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 14, Schulze Selting teaches a multi-segment header of claim 12.
However, Schulze Selting fails to disclose wherein the second overall diameter is about 14 to 18 inches.
Blakeslee teaches a second overall diameter ("twenty inches" See Blakeslee Col 5, lines 24-27).
Although Blakeslee does not expressly disclose that the first overall diameter is about 14 to 18 inches, selecting a particular auger diameter represents routine optimization of a result-effective variable, as auger diameter is known to affect crop capacity, feeding rate, and material flow within the header.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the multi-segment auger of Schulze Selting, as taught by Blakeslee, to have a first overall diameter of about 14 to 18 inches, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Note that those of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a modification such as a mere change in size of a component would be obvious. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See also, MPEP § 2144.04 which states: In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 15, Schulze Selting teaches the multi-segment header of claim 12, wherein the first flights of the center auger segment (18) are offset about 180 degrees relative to the second flights of the lateral auger segment (16). (See Schulze Selting annotated Fig. 2 below)
PNG
media_image9.png
718
870
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Schulze Selting teaches the multi-segment header of claim 12, further comprising a drive (28) substantially centrally located with respect to the center auger segment (18) for rotatably driving the multi-segment auger (16, 18). (See Schulze Selting [0037])
Regarding claim 20, Schulze Selting in view of Blakeslee, teaches a multi-segment header as recited in claim 12. Claim 20 further recited an agricultural harvester of claim 12, which is taught by Schulze Selting, as the disclosed multi-segment header is configured for use with and forms part of an agricultural harvester. Accordingly, claim 20 is unpatentable for the same reasons as claim 12.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze Selting et al. (US 20180368320 A1) in view of Blakeslee et al. (US 7621113 B2) as applied to claim 12-16, and 20 above, and further in view of Farley et al. (US 6640527 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Schulze Selting in view of Blakeslee teaches the multi-segment header of claim 12 and the multi-segment auger (16, 18).
However, Schulze Selting in view of Blakeslee fails to disclose wherein a centerline of the multi-segment auger is spaced from a centerline of the infeed auger about 18 to 22 inches.
Farley teaches wherein the infeed auger (17) is adjustable.
Farley states, "The outer shaft plate 35 has an outer shaft clamp 37 for clamping onto the center crank splines 40a. The outer shaft plate 35 also has a series of radially placed adjustment holes 36. There is also an arc 38. The arc 38 and radially placed adjustment holes 36 clamp the outer shaft plate 35 to the center shaft plate 41. The adjustment holes are equidistant from the axis 40a of the center crank 40. By loosening a bolt in the arc, it is possible to adjust the outer shaft plate 35 relative to the center shaft plate 41. By inserting another bolt into one of the adjustment holes 36, the center shaft plate, and consequently the center finger shaft 17, may be re-adjusted and fixed in a new position." (Farley Col. 4, lines 47-78)
Although Farley does not expressly disclose that the centerline of the multi-segment auger is spaced from a centerline of an infeed auger about 18 to 22 inches, selecting a particular spacing distance between auger centerlines represents a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable, as auger spacing is known to affect crop feeding performance and compatibility with feederhouse dimensions.
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the multi-segment header as taught by Schulze Selting in view of Blakeslee with the center finger shaft as disclosed by Farley so as to control and improve crop flow into the feederhouse and accommodate varying crop conditions during harvesting operations.
The discovery of an optimum value of a result-effective variable is not inventive. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); see also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claim 18, Schulze Selting in view of Blakeslee teaches the multi-segment header of claim 12 and the multi-segment auger (16, 18).
However, Schulze Selting in view of Blakeslee fails to disclose wherein the infeed auger is movable relative to the multi-segment auger
Farley teaches wherein the infeed auger (17) is movable relative to the auger (9).
Farley states, "The outer shaft plate 35 has an outer shaft clamp 37 for clamping onto the center crank splines 40a. The outer shaft plate 35 also has a series of radially placed adjustment holes 36. There is also an arc 38. The arc 38 and radially placed adjustment holes 36 clamp the outer shaft plate 35 to the center shaft plate 41. The adjustment holes are equidistant from the axis 40a of the center crank 40. By loosening a bolt in the arc, it is possible to adjust the outer shaft plate 35 relative to the center shaft plate 41. By inserting another bolt into one of the adjustment holes 36, the center shaft plate, and consequently the center finger shaft 17, may be re-adjusted and fixed in a new position." (Farley Col. 4, lines 47-78)
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the multi-segment header as taught by Schulze Selting in view of Blakeslee with the center finger shaft as disclosed by Farley so as to control and improve crop flow into the feederhouse and accommodate varying crop conditions during harvesting operations.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze Selting et al. (US 20180368320 A1) in view of Blakeslee et al. (US 7621113 B2) as applied to claim 12-16, and 20 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al. (US 20070193243 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Schulze Selting in view of Blakeslee teaches the multi-segment header of claim 12 and the multi-segment chassis ("three-part frame" See Schulze Selting [0031]).
However, Schulze Selting in view of Blakeslee fails to disclose further comprising a backsheet extension mounted to a posterior end of a longitudinal support beam of the multi-segment chassis.
Schmidt teaches further comprising a backsheet extension (12) mounted to a posterior end of a longitudinal support beam (14) of the chassis ("frame" See Schmidt [0026]). (See Schmidt annotated Fig. 7 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
655
915
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the multi-segment header as taught by Schulze Selting in view of Blakeslee with the beam assemblies as disclosed by Schmidt so as to order to provide a rigid and compact mounting arrangement to facilitate redirection of crop material toward the interior of the header.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE ANTONIO MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5896. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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.
JOSE ANTONIO. MARTINEZ
Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671