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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on April 30, 2026 has been entered and considered and an action on the merits follows.
Drawings
The cancellation of claim 5 sufficiently overcomes the drawing objections noted in the previous Office action.
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 1-2, 4, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hughes (WO 2020/025975 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hughes discloses a re-bale feeder comprising an open-topped box frame (fig. 1) into which material (11) is placed, the open-topped box frame forming a chamber (50), a conveyor (12) within the chamber (fig. 6) operative in use to urge the material (11) in a longitudinal direction (A; see fig. 6) towards an exit end (see fig. 1), the exit end being open during urging of the material (see page 12, the last two lines to page 13, the first two lines, which discloses the bale (11) is then urges towards the spreader head (exit end) by the moving conveyor (12) to force the bale through the spreader head; therefore, the exit end is opened during urging of the material (11).
As to the feeder is a re-bale feeder as recited in the preamble, said recitation is used to describe an intended use of the feeder. Recitations of intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art teaches the structures of the claimed invention, then the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, therefore, the prior art meets the claimed limitation. See In Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2111.02 and 2114(11).
Regarding claim 2, the feeder as claimed in claim 1, Hughes discloses wherein the open topped box frame at least partially defines an internal volume (50) into which separated material and/or one or more large bales (11) are received the internal volume defined by a pair of upstanding side walls (21a, 21c), rear wall (21b), and a base (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, the feeder as claimed in claim 1, Hughes discloses a base wall that is substantially defined by the conveyor in the form of an endless belt conveyor (see "conveyor belt 12" on page 12, last line of the specification and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, the feeder as claimed in claim 1, Hughes discloses wherein an exit end of the chamber (frame 22 forms an exit end of the chamber, it is noted that the claim does not require this exit end is the same exit end as claimed in claim 1) is mounted for pivotal movement up and down (see figs. 3-4, which show the frame 22 pivoted up and down).
Regarding claim 8, the feeder as claimed in claim 1, Hughes discloses further comprising at least one tine assembly (29) extending into the chamber (see figs. 6 and 3, in which fig. 6 shows the right tines extended onto the chamber) to shape the material on the conveyor.
Regarding claim 9, the feeder as claimed in claim 1 further comprising a drive motor (51) provided on the feeder mounted relative to a side wall (21a) (see fig. 1 and 3) of the box frame.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes in view of KR 20190003801 U (hereinafter "KR '801").
Regarding claim 10, Hughes discloses a chassis/frame includes a pair of spaced apart, elongate side rails (15, 16) (fig. 12) and two lateral struts (17b, 17c) positioned at center of the feeder (fig. 12) and extending between the side rails (fig. 12). Hughes does not expressly disclose the lateral struts (17b, 17c) are hollow members to receive tines of lifting apparatus to allow movement of the feeder. KR '801 discloses a container comprising an open-topped box frame (fig. 1) having two lateral struts (120) positioned at center of the frame (fig. 1), wherein the struts are hollow members (fig. 1) configured to receive tines (20) of lifting apparatus (fig. 1) to allow movement of the container (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the struts of Hughes, into hollow members, as taught by KR '801, in order to receive tines of lifting apparatus to ease transporting of the feeder.
Response to Arguments
In Applicant's arguments filed on April 30, 2026, Applicant argued that because the spreader head of Hughes (WO 2020/025975 A1) is moveable between a raised position (i.e. an open position) and a lowered position (i.e. a closed position), an exit end of the feeder is not opened during the urging of the material toward the exit end because the spreader head is in the lowered position. With respect to Applicant’s assertion, this argument is not found persuasive because Hughes discloses when the spreader head is in a lowered position, the bale (11) is then urges towards the spreader head by the moving conveyor (12) to force the bale through the spreader head (page 12, the last three lines to page 13, the first two lines), therefore, the left exit end of the box frame is always opened in both of the raised and lowered positions of the spreader head. If it is not opened, the bale would not be able to go through the exit end. Even if the spreader head is being applied as an exit end, there is still an opening inside the frame (22) of the spreader head when the spreader head is in a lowered position in order to urge the material through the spreader head. Accordingly, Hughes still discloses the subject matter as claimed in the amended claim 1.
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 JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights