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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4/27/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stelzle.
Regarding claim 28, Stelzle teaches an elongated rotor (as described below) for a device 1 said rotor being provided with a screw profile 13 along a length of the rotor (as shown in Figure 2), having a first longitudinal end 10 which is adapted to be coupled to a drive 16 for rotating the rotor when in operation and being provided with a capturing zone profile portion (region with 12) extending along a portion of the length of the rotor at a second longitudinal end 11, such that a capturing opening (at 11, between adjacent 19b, the “offset” in ¶0033) is formed at said second longitudinal end when two of said elongated rotors are held in parallel next to one another (as shown in Figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stelzle EP3536142 (provided by applicant’s IDS) in view of Hegger DE4201067.
Regarding claim 1, Stelzle teaches a device 1 for separation from a crop ¶0002 of a crop part, the crop part being a stalk (¶0002 “stalky crops” necessarily provide a stalk), flower, fruit, leaf, twig or branch;
the device 1 comprising a carrier 5 provided with a grip 6 for the crop part,
the grip 6 comprising rotatable elements 14 disposed opposite one another, between which a passage opening (space between 14, shown in Figure 3) is delimited for uptaking the crop part to be separated (by intaking the crop between spacing 22),
wherein the rotatable elements 14 comprise a pair of elongated rotors (defined by 12 and rear end 11), having a respective pair of rotation axis 21 being parallel to one another (as shown in Figure 3),
wherein each rotor is provided with a respective screw profile 13 along the length of the rotor, the rotors coupled at a first longitudinal end 10 thereof to a drive 16 (wherein at least one of 16 can be selected to be a drive) for rotating the rotors when in operation, and provided with a capturing opening (space between 14 as shown in Figure 3) in the direction parallel to the rotation axes 21 at a second end thereof 11,
wherein each respective screw profile 13 comprise at least a capturing zone profile portion (region with 12) and a cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15), in which the capturing zone profile portion (region with 12) is adjacent to the capturing opening (near 10) and the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15) is between the capturing zone profile portion (region with 12) and the first longitudinal end 10, and the cutting means are arranged stationary (wherein the cutting means are stationary relative to 13) adjacent to the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15).
Stelzle does not teach the cutter is separate from the rotatable elements of the grip and stationary with respect to the cutting zone profile portion of each respective screw profile, such that the cutter does not rotate during operation of the device.
Hegger teaches a device for separation of a crop part from a crop, with a carrier and a grip having rotatable elements (wherein 5 is a picking roller, and 6 is a counter roller- indicating that both rotate) that are a pair of elongated rotors 5 & 6 with parallel rotation axes (parallel dashed lines shown in Figure 2) disposed opposite one another, between with a passage opening 20 for up taking the crop part. A cutter 21 is separate from the rotatable elements of the grip and stationary (since 21 is a blade) with respect to the cutting zone profile portion (front part of rotating worm 18) of each respective screw profile, such that the cutter does not rotate during operation of the device (since 21 is a flat blade that sits below 5 and 6, as shown in Figure 3), the “inclined cutters (21) which cut the stalks close to the ground” (English translation abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Stelzle’s cutter to include Hegger’s cutter, to cut crop near the ground.
Regarding claim 2, Stelzle teaches that one of the rotors has the screw profile 13 with a right handed rotation, the other of the rotors has the screw profile 13 with a left handed rotation opposite (as seen in Figure 3, wherein coils/screw profiles 13 on left and right sides are opposite of each other) to the right-handed rotation of the screw profile 13 of the one rotor (and wherein the drive 16 is configured for rotating the rotors in opposite rotational direction relative to each other.
Regarding claim 3, Stelzle teaches that the screw profile 13 further comprises a gripping zone profile portion between the capturing zone profile portion (region with 12) and the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15) of the respective rotor;
and/or a releasing zone profile portion between the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15) and the first longitudinal end 10 for releasing the cut crop part at a second side of the passage opening (space between 14) opposite the first side, and/or wherein the rotor in the releasing profile zone portion is at least partly free from screw profile 13 (wherein 13 does not extend along the entire length of 14, and ends adjacent 15) and comprises teeth (15 are teeth shaped) extending substantially along the length of said zone.
Regarding claim 4, Stelzle’s embodiment of Figure 4 teaches that the minor diameter of the rotor is relatively larger (¶0036, wherein the outer diameter increases along the length behind transition region 23) in the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15) than in the capturing zone profile portion (region with 12). It is noted that the embodiment of Figure 4 has similar features as that of Figure 2-3 in terms of the rotor, cutter, and grip.
Regarding claim 7, Stelzle teaches the gripping zone profile portion comprises teeth 15 (in which 15 are each tooth shaped) in between the screw profiles 13 and/or wherein the teeth are extending substantially along the length (15 extends from the end of 13 until the rear end 11) of the rotor between adjacent screw profiles 13.
Regarding claim 9, Stelzle teaches that the minor diameter (the outer diameter as described in ¶0036) of the rotor is relatively larger in the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15) than in the capturing zone profile portion (region with 12).
Regarding claim 11, Stelzle teaches that the rotor is made from one or more materials selected from rubber, plastic, composite or metal (¶0016 recites steel or cast iron, both of which are metal).
Regarding claim 13, Stelzle teaches that the rotors are detachably mounted on a pair of parallel axles 17.
Regarding claim 14, Stelzle teaches the rotors are detachably mounted ¶0016 and ¶0030 (in which the driver elements can be replaced. Since 12 are also mounted on axles 17 and driven by driver elemnt 16, the rotors are necessarily also detachably mounted) on a pair of axles 17.
Regarding claim 20, Stelze does not teach a housing enveloping the rotors with first and second longitudinal openings, and does not teach a second cutting blade arranged in the second longitudinal opening opposite the first side.
Hegger teaches a housing 25 (Figure 4) enveloping the rotors with first 25 and second (straight segment housing 22a, as shown in Figure 4) longitudinal openings along the passage opening, wherein the cutter further comprises a second cutting blade (two blades 22 are shown in Figure 4) arranged in the second longitudinal opening at a second side (either left or right sides can be chosen as the second side) of the passage opening, opposite the first side, with a cutting edge of the second cutting blade positioned closer to the first longitudinal end than the cutting edge of the first cutting blade (wherein 22 are angled relative to the first longitudinal end, thus the end closest to the first longitudinal end can be selected for the second cutting blade, and the end further away from the first longitudinal end can be selected for the first cutting blade).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Stelze to include Hegger’s housing to provide debris protection, and include the first and second cutters of Hegger, to provide desired cutting near the ground.
Regarding claim 22, Stelzle teaches a device 1 for separation from a crop of a crop part, the crop part being a stalk, flower, fruit, leaf, twig or branch (as described above);
the device 1 comprising a carrier 5 provided with grip 6 for the crop part, the grip comprising rotatable elements 14 disposed opposite one another, between which a passage opening (space between 14) is delimited for uptaking the crop part to be separated, wherein the rotatable elements 14 comprise a pair of elongated rotors 14, with a rotation axis 21 of the rotors parallel to one another, the rotors coupled at a first longitudinal end 10 thereof to a drive 16 for rotating the rotors when in operation, and provided with a passage opening (space between 14) between the two rotors, in which:
the grip further comprises a spiral grabber 13,;
the spiral grabber and rotors being arranged in triangular arrangement (the cone shape as shown in Figure 2) such that the spiral grabber is at one side of the passage opening (space between 14), and the cutting blade positioned at a base (rear end 11) of the spiral grabber at a side facing away from the passage opening (space between 14), wherein the spiral grabber has a rotation axis 21 parallel to the rotation axes of the rotors (the spiral grabber rotates with the rotors), and the rotors are configured for counter-rotation relative to each other (“driving in opposite directions” described in column 6: 37-39) such that in use a crop part (the above described stalkly crop) is captured (crop acceptance described in ¶0010: 3-4) between the rotors and enters the passage opening (space between 14), the spiral grabber is configured for rotation to receive the crop part from the passage opening (space between 14) and transport ( ¶0029: 4-6 “drawing in the stalky crop” is the claimed transport) the crop part along the rotation axis of the grabber towards the cutting blade (by engaging the crop).
Stelzle does not teach a cutter is separate from the rotatable elements of the grip and stationary with respect to the cutting zone profile portion of each respective screw profile, such that the cutter does not rotate during operation of the device.
Hegger teaches a device for separation of a crop part from a crop, with a carrier and a grip having rotatable elements (wherein 5 is a picking roller, and 6 is a counter roller- indicating that both rotate) that are a pair of elongated rotors 5 & 6 with parallel rotation axes (parallel dashed lines shown in Figure 2) disposed opposite one another, between with a passage opening 20 for up taking the crop part. A cutter 21 is separate from the rotatable elements of the grip and stationary (since 21 is a blade) with respect to the cutting zone profile portion (front part of rotating worm 18) of each respective screw profile, such that the cutter does not rotate during operation of the device (since 21 is a flat blade that sits below 5 and 6, as shown in Figure 3), the “inclined cutters (21) which cut the stalks close to the ground” (English translation abstract). The cutter 21 comprises a cutting blade (as shown in Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Stelzle’s cutter to include Hegger’s cutter, to cut crop near the ground.
Regarding claim 23, Stelzle teaches a method for separation from a crop a crop part, the crop part being a stalk, flower, fruit, leaf twig or branch, by using a device 1 according to claim 1, comprising:
capturing the crop part (at front end 10) in the capturing zone profile portion (region with 12) through the capturing opening, rotating the rotors to transport the crop part in inward direction (¶0029: 6-8 “a coil which serves for receiving and introducing the crop between the picking rollers 6”, wherein “introducing” is the same as transport inward) from the capturing opening towards the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15).
The modification teaches while in the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15) the rotors are moving the crop part along the cutter (of Hegger) such that the crop part is cut from the crop by a cutting blade (as described above) of Hegger’s blade 21.
Regarding claim 24, Stelzle teaches that the pair of rotors are configured to carry out in operation a compensating movement (wherein movement of 4 on vehicle 2 as shown in Figure 1 is considered to be the compensating movement, since the movement is in the same direction as the axes 21. It is noted that there is no further claimed limitation to define what a compensating movement is required to be) relative to the crop part, the compensating movement running in a same direction as the longitudinal axes of the parallel rotors (in the left and right direction shown in Figure 1).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stelzle in view of Hegger, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Blank US2178013.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach the pitch of the screw profile 13 diminishes along either a length of the rotor or at least a length of capturing zone profile portion (region with 12)
Blank teaches the pitch of the screw profile 13 diminishes (turns negative at point 8) along either a length of the rotor (from left to right of Figure 1) or at least a length of capturing zone profile portion, to prevent jamming at reversely spiraled portions 9’ (page 1, right column: 44-53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pitch of the screw profile of Stelzle to change as in Blank with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent crop jamming in the rollers.
Claim(s) 15-17, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stelzle in view of Hegger as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Flora US2525481.
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the cutter is arranged for tilting relative to a transport plane defined by the area set up by the pair of rotational axes of the rotors and the passage opening (space between 14), in which the first cutting blade can be tilted relative to the transport plane.
Stelzle, however, does teach a transport plane established initially defined by the area set up by the rotational axes 21 and the passage opening (the space between 14) as shown in Figure 3, prior to moving the picking device 1.
Flora teaches tilting the frame by pivoting about point 15 to accommodate different characters of terrain column 2: 6-colum 3: 4.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination’s Stelzle’s frame to pivot, and thus pivot the cutter relative to a transport plane, in view of Flora’s pivot point 15 with a reasonable expectation of success in accommodating different characteristics of terrain.
Regarding claim 16, Flora of the combination teaches that the frame/picking device 12 (and thus the combination including the first cutting blade) can be tilted around an axis 15 perpendicular (wherein pivot point 15 is perpendicular to a plane between rollers 8) to the transport plane (wherein transport plane is initially established by angle of rollers 8 shown in Figure 2) and extending between the pair of rotors 8.
Regarding claim 17, Flora of the combination teaches that the frame/picking device 12 (and thus the first cutting blade of the combination) can be tilted around an axis 15 defined by the perpendicular connecting line between the rotation axes (longitudinal axes) of the pair of rotors 8.
Regarding claim 25, the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the drive 16 is additionally configured for reversely rotating the rotors to transport the crop part in an outward direction opposite to the inward direction to allow release of the captured crop part from the capturing zone profile portion.
Flora teaches that it is known in the art to reverse rotate the rotors 8 to move the crop part outward opposite the inward direction to release the captured crop part column 1: 26-30 "provide a means whereby the drive of the snapper rolls may be reversed to enable the snapper rolls to be run in a reverse or in a discharge direction.", wherein the “discharge direction” is the same as the claimed “outward direction” and “to allow release”, since discharge indicates crop release from a capturing zone profile portion. Reversing roller rotation enables operator to adjust the speed to various crop conditions Column 2:5-8.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stelzle’s drive to be configured for reversely rotating the rotors in view of Flora’s reverse rotating rotors with a reasonable expectation of success in enabling an operator to adjust the rollers to various crop conditions, and provide a discharge direction. This discharge direction is necessarily in the outward direction, which is an opposite direction as the inward direction, due to rotational direction for the rollers and the screw pitch.
Regarding claim 26, the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach the method provides tilting the cutting blade relative to the orientation of the crop while in the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15), such that the blade cuts the crop part relatively close to the central stem of the crop.
Flora teaches tilting the frame by pivoting about point 15 to accommodate different characters of terrain column 2: 6-colum 3: 4.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stelzle’s frame to pivot in view of Flora’s pivot point 15 with a reasonable expectation of success in accommodating different characteristics of terrain. Doing so would also necessarily provide tilting Stelzle’s cutting blade relative to the orientation of the crop while in the cutting zone profile portion, such that the blade cuts the crop part relatively close to the central stem of the crop by changing the angle of the frame (and thus the cutter that is carried on the frame) relative to the terrain.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stelzle in view of Hegger as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Baker US3069832.
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach a housing enveloping the rotors with first and second longitudinal openings along the passage and a nib at the level of the capturing opening.
Baker teaches that a housing 16 is known for rotors 30 with first and second longitudinal openings (top and bottom 19) along the passage (the gap between 30) with nib 31 at the level of the capturing opening (the opening between 20 and 21). Nib 31 support the rollers on the frame of the machine Column 2: 65-68.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stelzle to include the housing and nib of Baker with a reasonable expectation of success in supporting the rollers on the frame of Stelzle’s machine.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stelzle in view of Hegger as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Walker, et al. US2018/0139902.
Regarding claim 27, the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach a controller coupled to a device 1 according to claim 1.
Stelzle does teach a method comprising: Capturing the crop part in the capturing zone profile portion (region with 12) through the capturing opening;
Rotating the rotors (as described above) to transport the crop part in inward direction from the capturing opening towards the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15), and
To further transport the crop part (via rotor rotation) along the cutter 19b such that the crop part is cut from the crop by a cutting blade of the cutter 19b.
Walker, et al. teaches that it is known in the art to use a controller 112 to cause rollers 310a and 310b to adjust between positions and speeds ¶0070 based on the type of crop being harvested.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stelzle’s method and device to use a controller as taught by Walker, et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in enabling computer based control for the rollers based on the type of crop being harvested.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stelzle in view of Matkin US2020/0149229
Regarding claim 29, Stelzle teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach a method for manufacturing an elongated rotor comprising a step of forming at least a part of said elongated rotor through three-dimensional printing.
Matkin teaches that it is known in the art to use 3d printing as a means for providing a material handling system as suitable method for making the system 10 ¶0062, wherein the system 10 includes material transfer device 20, etc. and can be made out of suitable material including metal, plastics, etc. ¶0061 for an agricultural vehicle (e.g. agricultural tractor ¶0032).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stelzle’s elongated rotor to made by 3d printing as taught by Matkin with a reasonable expectation of success of providing a suitable method for manufacturing for an agricultural tool such as the rotors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 19 includes a wedge between the rotors and the cutter 19b, said wedge having an upper, narrow end close to or abutting the cutting blade edge and a lower, wide end at a base of the cutter 19b, adapted for directing the crop part away from the cutter 19b after passing the cutting blade edge. It would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed wedge at the narrow end close to the cutting blade, since the cutting blades rotate and are closely arranged with each other. There would be no room to place the wedge as claimed, nor would the wedge provide the claimed required direction of the crop part away from the cutter, since the blades rotate relative to each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 4/27/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejections of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13-20, 22-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 4/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13-20, 22-27 under Stelzle have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hegger.
It is noted that claim 28 has been amended to be independent, and does not require the separate and stationary cutter of claim 1 as argued by applicant. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection for claim 28 has been upheld.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM EST.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 6/8/2026
Prosecution Insights