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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is greater than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract may be replaced with: — A processing machine for processing fibre plants. The processing machine comprises a self-propelling vehicle comprising a vehicle chassis and a processing unit mounted on the vehicle chassis. The processing unit has a transport installation for transporting the fibre plants to the self- propelling vehicle, wherein the transport installation comprises a number of guide rollers mounted on the support frame, at least one pair of endless conveyor belts guided along the rollers and at least one drive for driving at least a part of the guide rollers. The guide rollers comprise a group of at least two pressing rollers which are configured to press against a first side of a conveyor belt at two or more positions. The transport installation further comprises a support member on which the pressing rollers are arranged rotatably and wherein the support member is mounted on the support frame rotatably relative to an imaginary rotation point. —
Claim Objections
Claims 25 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25, line 3: “the pivot shaft” should read: “a pivot shaft”.
Claim 27 in the last two lines: “the at least one delivering system being the disposed on the vehicle chassis.” Should read: “the at least one delivering system being disposed on the vehicle chassis.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Depoortere (FR 3097717 A1) in view of Dehondt (EP 3272202 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Depoortere discloses a processing system (Figure 1) in a processing machine, the processing system comprising: a support frame (chassis ¶0045 of provided translation) mounted or mountable on a vehicle chassis of a self- propelling vehicle (The support frame is understood to be attached to a vehicle); a transport installation mounted on the support frame and configured to transport fiber plants to the self-propelling vehicle, the transport installation comprising: a plurality of guide rollers mounted on the support frame (Seen in figure 1), at least one drive configured to drive at least a part of the guide rollers (¶0060), at least one pair of endless conveyor belts (40/40’) guided along the guide rollers, the guide rollers and the at least one pair of endless conveyor belts being configured to grip the fiber plants therebetween and transport the fiber plants in a gripped state to the self-propelling vehicle, the guide rollers comprising: at least one group of at least two pressing rollers (32/34 of figure 2) which are configured to press against a first side of one of the endless conveyor belts at two or more positions (¶0058), and at least one support roller (26/28) which is configured to press against a second, opposite side of the conveyor belt (¶0059), and at least one support member (30 of figure 2) on which the at least one group of at least two pressing rollers (32/34) is rotatably disposed, the at least one support member being mounted on the support frame rotatably relative to a rotation point (Axis Y, ¶0050).
The disclosure of Depoortere focuses on the processing system and is lacking mention as to whether the support frame is pivotable in relationship to the processing machine.
Dehondt discloses a similar processing system and teaches wherein the frame of the processing system is pivotally attached (For example figure 4 shows actuator 105 that raises or lowers the processing system about axis 103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Depoortere to make the processing system rotatable in relationship to the self-propelled vehicle as taught by Dehondt for the purpose of the operator being capable to raise and lower the height of the processing system relative to the ground.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-33 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Van Puyvelde (USPN 12408591).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BEHRENS whose telephone number is (303)297-4336. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-2pm MST.
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.
/ADAM J BEHRENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671