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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-2 and 4-10) in the reply filed on January 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 drawing of “a fixed, substantially solid base wall is provided with one or more bale chain drives with one or more engagement teeth extending upwardly from the chain drive within the feeder with an elongate opening for each of the bale chain drives so that the engagement teeth extend above a level of the base wall over a working length during rotation of the chain drive so that the engagement teeth of the chain drive engage bale material and drive the bale material toward the exit end (claim 5)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The abstract should avoid using the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,”. Therefore, the phrases, “comprising (lines 1-2)” in the abstract should be changed to “including”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 19, line 12, “i59 s” should be changed to -- 59 is --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, after “received”, a comma should be added for clarity.
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 4-7 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.
Regarding claim 4, line 1, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation, “the base wall” in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, line 2, the limitation, “an endless belt conveyor” lacks clear antecedent basis because it is unclear whether this conveyor is referring to a conveyor as claim in claim 1 or to a different conveyor. It is noted that there is only one conveyor is disclosed in the specification.
Regarding claim 5, line 2, the term "substantially solid” is relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially solid" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As “substantially” is a broad term, it is unclear of the metes and bounds of “solid” in the claim and whether “substantially solid” is intended to be further limiting than "substantially."
Regarding claim 7, line 2, there is no antecedent basis for each of the limitations, “the floor” and “the chamber” in the claim.
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 and 4-9 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 feeder comprising an open-topped box frame (fig. 1) into which material (11) is placed, a conveyor (12) within the box frame operative to urge the material in a longitudinal direction (see A in fig. 6) towards an exit end (see left side of fig. 6).
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 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), with an open exit end (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the feeder as claimed in claim 1, Hughes discloses wherein a base of the feeder is substantially defined by the conveyor (see “conveyor belt 12” on page 12, last line of the specification).
Regarding claim 5, the feeder as claimed in claim 1, Hughes discloses wherein a fixed, substantially solid base wall (figs. 13-14) is provided with one or more bale chain drives (31) with one or more engagement teeth (32) extending upwardly from the chain drive within the feeder (fig. 13) with an elongate opening for each of the bale chain drives so that the engagement teeth (fig. 13) extend above a level of the base wall over a working length during rotation of the chain drive so that the engagement teeth of the chain drive engage bale material and drive the bale material toward the exit end (fig. 13 and page 13 of the specification).
Regarding claim 6, the feeder as claimed in claim 5, Hughes discloses wherein each of the bale chain drives and/or the conveyor can be driven in a forward and a reverse direction, as chosen by an operator (see claim 23 and page 7, lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the feeder as claimed in claim 1, Hughes discloses wherein an exit end of a floor (25) of a chamber (i.e. a chamber of a spreader head 13 in fig. 1, 3-4 that has rotors (14) positioned therein) is mounted for pivotal movement up and down (see figs. 3-4, which show the spreader head 13 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 onto 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 re-bale 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, as applied to claim 1 above, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show:
US 2018/0139904A1, US 2016/0050848A1, US 2006/0086849 A1, US 5,573,190 disclose bale processors having a conveyor to urge material toward an exit end.
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