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
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 “wherein for each pair of feeding blades of the first group, the fins are offset by a second predetermined angle from the corresponding fins of a corresponding pair of feeding blades of the second group, the second predetermined angle being smaller than the first predetermined angle” (cl. 3; see marked up drawing below) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
[AltContent: textbox (offset or 2nd angle is/are not shown; i.e. corresponding fins in 1st & 2nd groups are substantially arranged similarly)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
394
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“the second predetermined angle is half the first predetermined angle” (cl. 3);
“six fins” (cl. 6);
“a hollow pipe; a power input shaft, provided at a first end of the hollow pipe, the power input shaft being connectable to an external power to rotate the rotor apparatus; and a power output shaft, provided at a second end of the hollow pipe” (cl. 7);
“the wheels” (cl. 10);
“that one single pair of feeding blades at the time is active on the hay” (cl. 16; NOTE: as shown in fig 1, the 1st group blade pair and corresponding 2nd group blade pair would be active at the same time).
No new matter should be entered.
Following on the heels of Liebel-Flarsheim v. Medrad, this case reaffirms the principle that the full scope of a claim must be enabled. Enablement of a single embodiment is not sufficient. As a matter of law, enablement of the novel aspects of an invention must be enabled by the specification even if implementation would have been within the PHOSITA’s skill level.
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.
Claim 10 is/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.
In re cl. 10:
Lack of positive antecedent basis for “the wheels”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-11, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ravaglia (10537068).
It should be noted that the recitation “for," "adapted," "so that” etc. is considered as merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Since it is the language itself of the claims which must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention, without limitations imported from the specification, whether such language is couched in terms of means plus function or consists of a detailed recitation of the inventive matter. Limitations in the specification not included in the claim may not be relied upon to impart patentability to an otherwise unpatentable claim. In re Lundberg, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957).
“In the agricultural sector round balers are now widespread, i.e. agricultural machines capable of making cylindrical bales that are made up of a predetermined agricultural product that is preventively cut (grass, grain, maize, hay, forage etc.). Such machines are thus first of all provided with a pick-up drum, which is constituted by a first rotating shaft that is provided with teeth and is capable of retrieving the agricultural product, which, after having first been cut, has also been piled on the ground along prearranged rows (also called “windrows”).
While the baler moves, following the path defined by the windrows, the pick-up drum lifts the product that it progressively encounters and pushes it toward a compression chamber which is arranged at the rear and is provided with elements (rollers, belts or catenaries), which are arranged along the perimeter of the inner space of the (substantially cylindrical) chamber, and which entrain the product itself and make the formation of the bale possible.”
[AltContent: textbox (Pairs of blades & fins)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
540
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1. A rotor (2) apparatus for an agricultural machine including a pick-up apparatus for picking up hay from the ground, the agricultural machine being a loader wagon or a baler, the baler further including a compression chamber for compressing the hay to form a bale (see teaching above),
wherein the rotor apparatus is configured to feed the hay picked-up from the ground to the compression chamber and comprises:
a rotary shaft (15), extending along a longitudinal axis between a first end and a second end;
a plurality of feeding blades, each having a plurality of fins distributed on an outer perimeter of the respective blade, the plurality of feeding blades being coupled to the rotary shaft between the first and the second end thereof, the plurality of feeding blades including pairs of feeding blades facing each other and having a space therebetween (marked up; pusher teeth 16),
wherein, for each pair of feeding blades, corresponding fins are longitudinally aligned, wherein, for each pair of feeding blades, the fins are offset from the corresponding fins of an adjacent pair of feeding blades, so that, for each pair of feeding blades of the plurality of feeding blades, each fin is misaligned with any other fin of the other pairs of feeding blades (offset & misaligned arrangement shown/taught above).
6. The rotor apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each feeding blade of the pairs of feeding blades includes between two and six fins (as shown, two fins).
[AltContent: textbox (Margin portions)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Hollow pipe)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Power input shaft at 1st end)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
472
818
media_image3.png
Greyscale
7. The rotor apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rotary shaft, includes: a hollow pipe; a power input shaft, provided at a first end of the hollow pipe (marked up),
the power input shaft being connectable to an external power to rotate the rotor apparatus; and a power output shaft, provided at a second end of the hollow pipe (intended capability is given, the function of the rotor shaft is to rotate, crop transmission, par. 36), and
wherein the plurality of blades is arranged on the hollow pipe (fig 5).
8. The rotor apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the rotary shaft includes a pair of margin portions placed at the first and the second end of the hollow pipe, and wherein the plurality of blades is arranged between said pair of margin portions (marked up).
17. The rotor apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the pairs of feeding blades are arranged along a length of the rotary shaft with a distance therebetween, the distance between the pairs of the feeding blades being greater than the space between the fins of each pair of feeding blades pairs (shown/taught above).
18. The rotor apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the feeding blades of each pair of feeding blades have the same size and shape (shown/taught above).
19. The rotor apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rotor apparatus has a convergent profile (fig 8).
The following are already addressed above, unless otherwise noted:
9. A baler for forming bales, comprising:
a hay pick-up apparatus; a rotor apparatus; a plurality of cutters operatively interposed between the pair of feeding blades to cut the picked-up hay; a hay compressing apparatus; wherein, the baler is configured such that hay is picked up from the ground by the hay pick-up apparatus, the picked-up hay is fed to a region of a hay compressing apparatus by the rotor apparatus wherein the rotor apparatus is configured to feed the hay picked-up from the ground to a compression chamber of the baler (see quoted text above) and comprises:
a rotary shaft, extending along a longitudinal axis between a first end and a second end: a plurality of feeding blades, each having a plurality of fins distributed on an outer perimeter of the respective blade, the plurality of feeding blades being coupled to the rotary shaft between the first and the second end thereof, the plurality of feeding blades including pairs of feeding blades facing each other and having a space therebetween, wherein, for each pair of feeding blades, corresponding fins are longitudinally aligned, wherein, for each pair of feeding blades, the fins are offset from the corresponding fins of an adjacent pair of feeding blades, so that, for each pair of feeding blades of the plurality of feeding blades, each fin is misaligned with any other fin of the other pairs of feeding blades (cl. 1).
“(3) While the baler moves, following the path defined by the windrows, the pick-up drum lifts the product that it progressively encounters and pushes it toward a compression chamber which is arranged at the rear and is provided with elements (rollers, belts or catenaries), which are arranged along the perimeter of the inner space of the (substantially cylindrical) chamber, and which entrain the product itself and make the formation of the bale possible.”
10. The baler according to claim 9, wherein the hay pick-up apparatus rotates in a direction opposite to the rotation direction of the wheels of the baler when the baler advances along a direction of travel and wherein the rotor rotates in an opposite direction with respect to the rotation direction of the pick-up apparatus (inherent from the above, as the baler moves, inherent wheels, the opposite rotation of the rotor is inherent as to perform the function disclosed / taught above, i.e. not to defeat its disclosed use).
The following method steps are already met in view the apparatus above, unless otherwise noted:
11. A method for feeding hay picked-up from the ground to a chamber of an agricultural machine, the agricultural machine being a loader wagon or a baler provided with a compression chamber, the method comprising the following steps: providing a rotary shaft, extending along a longitudinal axis between a first end and a second end; providing a plurality of feeding blades, including pairs of feeding blades facing each other and having a space therebetween and each pair of feeding blades having a plurality of fins distributed on an outer perimeter of the respective blade, coupling the plurality of feeding blades to the rotary shaft between the first and the second end thereof, such that, for each pair of feeding blades, corresponding fins are longitudinally aligned; arranging the pairs of feeding blades on the rotary shaft, so that, for each pair of feeding blades, each fin is offset from the corresponding fin of the adjacent pairs of feeding blades, so that, for each pair of feeding blades of the plurality of feeding blades, each fin is misaligned with any other fin of the other pairs of feeding blades (cl. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 12-16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravaglia (10537068).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Ravaglia teaches the claimed invention, except:
[AltContent: textbox (Mid-point divides group 1 & 2)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (1st angle, 2nd group)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (1st angle, 1st group)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image4.png
542
790
media_image4.png
Greyscale
2. The rotor apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of feeding blades includes a first group of feeding blades pairs, located between the first end of the rotary shaft and a mid-point of the rotary shaft, and a second group of feeding blades pairs, located between the second end of the rotary shaft and the mid-point of the rotary shaft (groups from the either ends to the center as shown/taught above),
wherein for each pair of feeding blades of the first group, the fins are offset by a first predetermined angle from the corresponding fins of the adjacent pair of feeding blades, wherein for each pair of feeding blades of the second group, the fins are offset by the first predetermined angle from the corresponding fins of the adjacent pair of feeding blades (marked up), and
wherein for each pair of feeding blades of the first group, the fins are offset by a second predetermined angle from the corresponding fins of a corresponding pair of feeding blades of the second group, the second predetermined angle being smaller than the first predetermined angle (see Drawings Objection above; not shown).
Ravaglia discloses the claimed invention except for the smaller / half second angle. Although, the corresponding fins in group 1 and group 2 are identically positioned around the shaft as disclosed, in Applicant’s Fig. 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in the V-shaped distribution the fins of the pairs of blades, it would not be outside of one skilled in the art to arbitrarily arrange the fins of the pairs of blades in order to avoid overloading the drive, or to reduce the risks of jamming.
3. The rotor apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the second predetermined angle is half the first predetermined angle (already addressed above).
4. The rotor apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the first and the second group of feeding blades pairs include the same number of feeding blades pairs, distributed from a first feeding blades pair, proximal to the first or second end of the rotary shaft, respectively, and a last feeding blades pair, proximal to the mid-point of the rotary shaft, and wherein the first feeding blades pair of the first group corresponds to the first feeding blades pair of the second group, and likewise for the other feeding blades couples of each group (shown/taught above, fig 8).
5. The rotor apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the pairs of feeding blades of the first group are offset from each other in a clockwise direction with respect to the longitudinal axis, from the first end to the mid-point of the rotary shaft, and the pairs of feeding blades of the second group are offset from each other in a counterclockwise direction with respect to the longitudinal axis, from the mid-point to the second end of the rotary shaft (shown/taught above; as already discussed V-shaped configuration is shown/taught).
20. The rotor apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the feeding blades pairs of the first and the second group are distributed in a way that, the feeding blades pairs form a V shape on the rotary shaft (as already addressed, see cl. 5).
The following method steps are already met in view the apparatus above, unless otherwise noted:
12. The method according to claim 11, further comprising the following steps: providing a first group of feeding blades pairs, located between the first end of the rotary shaft and a mid-point of the rotary shaft, and a second group of feeding blades pairs, located between the second end of the rotary shaft and the mid-point of the rotary shaft, arranging the feeding blades in a way that for each pair of feeding blades of the first and the second group, the fins are offset by a first predetermined angle from the corresponding fins of the adjacent pair of feeding blades, and for each pair of feeding blades of the first group, the fins are offset by a second predetermined angle from the corresponding fins of a corresponding pair of feeding blades of the second group, the second predetermined angle being smaller than the first predetermined angle (cl. 2).
13. The method according to claim 12, wherein each pair of feeding blades of the first group is arranged in a way that the fins of feeding blades of the first group are offset from the corresponding fins of a corresponding pair of feeding blades of the second group by an angle which is half of the first predetermined angle (cl. 3).
14. The method according to claim 12, including a step of providing the first and the second group of feeding blades pairs with the same number of feeding blades pairs, and distributing the feeding blades pairs from a first feeding blades pair, proximal to the first or second end of the rotary shaft, respectively, and a last feeding blades pair, proximal to the mid-point of the rotary shaft, such that the first feeding blades pair of the first group corresponds to the first feeding blades pair of the second group, and likewise for the other feeding blades couples of each group (shown/taught above; cl. 4).
15. The method according to claim 14, wherein the plurality of the feeding blades pairs is distributed on the rotary shaft, in a way that the pairs of feeding blades of the first group are offset from each other in a clockwise direction with respect to the longitudinal axis, from the first end to the mid-point of the rotary shaft, and the pairs of feeding blades of the second group are offset from each other in a counterclockwise direction with respect to the longitudinal axis, from the mid-point to the second end of the rotary shaft (cl. 5).
16. The method according to claim 12, comprising a step of rotating the rotary shaft, so that one single pair of feeding blades at the time is active on the hay (when considering either the 1st group or the 2nd group).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Chaney et al (9144200) teaches a V-shaped rotor fin blade arrangement (fig 6).
Seo (2018/0220585) also teaches a V-shaped arrangement claimed:
PNG
media_image5.png
390
552
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6990. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th.
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 on (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.
/ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671