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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 7, 2024 and February 9, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the specification, page 8, paragraph [0039], line 4, immediately after “…at the terminus 402 of” it appears that “the profiled slot 225” should be –the profiled slot 224--.
In the specification, page 9, paragraph [0041], line 5, immediately after “…is altered by” it appears that “the handler cylinder 218” should be –the handler cylinder 220--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-12 and 17-19 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 claim 9, line 3 and claim 18, line 2, immediately after “…the underlaying surface to”, “the top-most portion” appears to lack proper antecedent basis.
In claim 10, line 1, immediately after “…of claim 9, wherein”, “the bottom-most portion” appears to lack proper antecedent basis.
In claims 11 and 19, line 1, immediately after “…of claim 1/13, wherein”, “the baler” appears to lack proper antecedent basis.
Note: There is a prior mention of “a baler assembly”.
In claim 12, line 1, immediately after “…of claim 11, wherein”, “the angle” appears to lack proper antecedent basis.
In claim 17, line 2, immediately after “…to the transport configuration”, “the pin axis” appears to lack proper antecedent basis.
In claim 19, line 2, immediately after “…a shipping configuration where”, “the angle” appears to lack proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-6, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fox et al. (USP 6,941,740).
Regarding claim 1: Fox discloses a baler assembly for a cotton harvester (as seen in figure 1), comprising:
a chassis (as seen in figure 1, at 12);
a front component (as seen in figure 1, at 12) pivotally coupled to the chassis about a front chassis axis (as seen in figure 2, at 70);
a gate component (as seen in figure 1, at 48) pivotally coupled (as seen in figure 1, at coupler 50) directly to the front component about a component axis (as seen in figures 1 and 2, as defined through either bolt of coupler 50);
a handler pivotally (as seen in figure 1, at 40) coupled to the chassis about a handler axis (as seen in figure 2, through fastener at 116) and configured to pivot between a raised orientation (as seen in figure 2) and a lowered orientation (as seen in figures 1 and 3); and,
a cradle (as seen in figures 1 and 2, at 130) defined on the handler and configured to selectively receive a pin of the gate component (as seen in figures 1 and 2, at 132); wherein, the baler assembly transitions from a work configuration (as seen in figure 1) to a transport configuration by positioning the pin in the cradle and transitioning the handler to the lowered orientation while the gate component pivots about the component axis relative to the front component (as seen in figure 3).
Regarding claim 2: Fox discloses the baler assembly of claim 1. Further, Fox discloses wherein the device comprises a gate cylinder (as seen in figure 2, at 76) that selectively pivots the gate component about the component axis relative to the front component (as seen between figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3: Fox discloses the baler assembly of claim 2. Further, Fox discloses wherein the device comprises a handler cylinder (as seen in figure 2, at 118) that selectively pivots the handler about the handler axis (as seen between figures 2 and 3), wherein the handler cylinder and the gate cylinder are repositionable to position the pin of the gate component in the cradle (as seen between figures 1 to 3).
Regarding claim 4: Fox discloses the baler assembly of claim 2. Further, Fox discloses wherein the cradle has a profiled opening (as seen in figure 1, at 136) that allows the pin to transition into, or out of, the cradle when the handler is in a catch (as seen in annotated figure 1 below) configuration and prevents the pin from transitioning out of the cradle when the handler is in the lowered orientation (as seen in figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
210
205
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5 and 6: Fox discloses the baler assembly of claim 1. Further, Fox discloses wherein when the baler assembly transitions from the work configuration to the transport configuration, the front component pivots about the front chassis axis (as seen between figures 2 and 3), the gate component pivots about the component axis and a pin axis defined by the pin, and the handler pivots about the handler axis and wherein the gate component only pivots about the component axis relative to the front component as the baler assembly transitions between the work configuration and the transport configuration (as seen between figures 1 to 3).
Regarding claim 13: Fox discloses a work machine for baling a crop (as seen in figure 1), comprising:
a chassis (as seen in figure 1, at 12) having at least one ground engaging mechanism (as seen in figure 1, at 14 or 16) coupled thereto configured to selectively move the work machine along an underlying surface;
a harvesting assembly (as seen in figure 1, at 20) coupled to the chassis and configured to harvest a crop; and
a baler assembly (as seen in figure 1, generally 30) configured to arrange harvested crop into a bale or module, the baler assembly comprising:
a front component (as seen in figure 1, at 12) pivotally coupled to the chassis about a front chassis axis (as seen in figure 2, at 70);
a locking assembly (as seen in figures 1 and 3 at 72) configured to selectively lock the front component to the chassis to prevent the front component from pivoting about the front chassis axis (as seen in figure 1);
a gate component (as seen in figure 1, at 48) pivotally coupled (as seen in figure 1, at coupler 50) to the front component about a component axis (as seen in figures 1 and 2, as defined through either bolt of coupler 50);
a handler (as seen in figure 1, at 40) pivotally coupled to the chassis about a handler axis (as seen in figure 2, through fastener at 116) and configured to pivot between a raised orientation (as seen in figure 2) and a lowered orientation (as seen in figures 1 and 3);
a cradle (as seen in figures 1 and 2, at 130) defined on the handler and configured to selectively receive a pin of the gate component (as seen in figures 1 and 2, at 132); wherein, the baler assembly transitions from a work configuration (as seen in figure 1) to a transport configuration by releasing the locking assembly (as seen between figures 2 and 3), positioning the pin in the cradle (as seen in figure 2), and rotating the handler about the handler axis; wherein, as the baler assembly transitions from the work configuration to the transport configuration the gate component pivots relative to the front component about the component axis (as seen between figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 14: Fox discloses the work machine of claim 13. Further, Fox discloses wherein the component axis extends through a portion of the front component and a portion of the gate component as the baler assembly transitions between the work configuration and the transport configuration (as seen between figures 1 and 2, area of 50).
Regarding claim 15: Fox discloses the work machine of claim 13. Further, Fox discloses wherein the device comprising a gate cylinder (as seen in figure 2, at 76) that selectively pivots the gate component about the component axis relative to the front component and a handler cylinder (as seen in figure 2, at 118) that selectively pivots the handler about the handler axis, wherein the handler cylinder and the gate cylinder are repositionable to position the pin of the gate component in the cradle (as seen between figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 16: Fox discloses the work machine of claim 15. Further, Fox discloses wherein once the pin is positioned in the cradle, the handler cylinder transitions the gate component and front component into the transport configuration and the gate cylinder is in a neutral state (as seen in figure 2).
Regarding claim 17: Fox discloses the work machine of claim 15. Further, Fox discloses wherein when the baler assembly transitions from the work configuration to the transport configuration, the pin axis and component axis move relative to the chassis and the gate component is confined to movement about the pin axis and the component axis (as seen between figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 20: Fox discloses a cotton-harvesting machine (as seen in figure 1), comprising:
a chassis (as seen in figure 1, at 12) having at least one ground engaging mechanism (as seen in figure 1, at 14 or 16) configured to selectively move the chassis along an underlying surface;
a baler assembly (as seen in figure 1, generally 30) having a front component (as seen in figure 1, at 12) pivotally coupled to a gate component (as seen in figure 1, at 48) about a component axis (as seen in figures 1 and 2, as defined through either bolt of coupler 50);
a handler (as seen in figure 1, at 40) pivotally coupled to the chassis about a handler axis (as seen in figure 2, through fastener at 116); and
a cradle (as seen in figures 1 and 2, at 130) defined on the handler and configured to selectively catch a pin of the gate component (as seen in figures 1 and 2, at 132) and guide the pin into a constrained pivot position (as seen between figures 1 and 2); wherein, the baler assembly transitions from a work configuration (as seen in figure 1) to a transport configuration (as seen in figure 3) by positioning the pin in the cradle and moving the handler to a lowered position; wherein, as the baler assembly transitions to the lowered position, the front component pivots relative to the chassis and the gate component pivots relative to the front component about the component axis (as seen in figures 1-3).
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.
Claims 7-12, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox et al. (USP 6,941,740).
Regarding claims 7-12, 18 and 19: Fox discloses a work machine having a baler assembly substantially as discussed above but fails to show the relative angles between allied components or travel and clearance heights of the device. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the travel height and clearance as well as the relative angle limitations disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deutsch et al. (USP 6,421,996) discloses a harvester having a transport mode capable of reducing overall height.
Goering et al. (USP 9,844,179) discloses a harvester having an expandable chassis assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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.
/ROBERT E PEZZUTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671