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 are objected to because the line quality is insufficient (see MPEP 608.02). 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “at least” is repeated at the end of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a comma after 30% for no obvious reason. 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 3 and 16-17 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation " the frame actuator pivot axis " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the guide actuator pivot axis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16 and 17 recites the limitation " the third plane" in line 2 and line 3-4 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hermes et al. (DE 102019003769 A1), hereinafter Hermes.
Regarding claim 1, Hermes discloses an agricultural bale press (1, fig. 1, [0012]) comprising:
a press frame (14, fig. 2, [0013]);
a container device (6, fig. 1-4, [0012-0013]);
a transfer device (11, fig. 1-4, [0013]), which is configured for transferring the container device relative to the press frame (fig. 1-4) from an operating position (fig. 2) into a filling position (fig. 4);
at least an actuator (17, fig. 2-5, [0014 and 0017]); and
at least a first guide element (10, fig. 2-4, [0013, and 0016-0017]) which is arranged at one end pivotably about a first frame guide pivot axis (24, fig. 2-4, [0016]) on the press frame (fig. 2-4) and at the other end pivotably about a first container guide pivot axis (13, fig. 2-4, [0013]), wherein 10 is indirectly attached to the container 6) on the container device (fig. 2-4), and
has a guide arrangement (9+15+22 and pivots/ joining areas there between, fig. 2-4) which is arranged pivotably about a second container guide pivot axis (where 15 and 22 meet at the bottom end in figures 2-4) on the container device (fig. 2-4) and includes at least a second guide element (9, fig. 2-4, [0013, and 0016-0017]) which is arranged pivotably at one end about a second frame guide pivot axis (23, fig. 2-4, [0016]) on the press frame (fig. 2-4),
wherein the guide arrangement comprises at least an intermediate guide element (15, fig. 2-4) and at least a third guide element (22, fig. 2-4, [0014-0015]), the second guide element (9) is arranged at the other end pivotably about a first intermediate guide pivot axis (where 15 and 22 meet at the bottom of 22 in fig. 2-4, [0012]) on the intermediate guide element (fig. 2-4),
the intermediate guide element (15) is arranged pivotably about a second intermediate guide pivot axis on the first guide element (12, fig. 2-4), and the third guide element (22, fig. 2-4) is arranged at one end pivotably about a third intermediate guide pivot axis on the intermediate guide element (where 15 and 22 meet through 20 at the top end of 22 in figures 2-4) and at the other end pivotably about the second container pivot axis on the container device (where 22 connects with the container 6, fig. 2-4).
Regarding claim 2, Hermes discloses wherein the actuator (17, fig. 2-5) is arranged pivotably about a frame actuator pivot axis on the press frame (18, fig. 2-5).
Regarding claim 3, Hermes discloses the guide arrangement (9+15+22 and pivots/ joining areas there between, fig. 2-4) includes the frame actuator pivot axis (18, fig. 2-5) arranged coaxially (fig. 2-4) with the second frame guide pivot axis (23, fig. 2-4, [0016]).
Regarding claim 7, Hermes discloses wherein the actuator (17, fig. 2-5) is arranged pivotably about a guide actuator pivot axis on the first guide element (19, fig. 2-4, wherein 19 connects to 10 through 15).
Regarding claim 8, Hermes discloses wherein the guide arrangement (9+15+22 and pivots/ joining areas there between, fig. 2-4) includes the guide actuator pivot axis (19) arranged coaxially with the second intermediate guide pivot axis (19 and 12, fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 9, Hermes discloses wherein the guide arrangement (9+15+22 and pivots/ joining areas there between, fig. 2-4) includes a distance (A1, see annotated fig. 3) between the second intermediate guide pivot axis (12, fig. 2-4) and the first frame guide pivot axis (24, fig. 2-4, [0016]) is greater (see annotated fig. 3) than a distance (A2, see annotated fig. 3) between the second intermediate guide pivot axis (12, fig. 2-4) and the first container guide pivot axis (13, fig. 2-4, [0013]).
PNG
media_image1.png
958
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Hermes discloses wherein the intermediate guide element (15) such that the second intermediate guide pivot axis (12, fig. 2-4), at least in a position of the container device (6, fig. 1-4, [0012-0013]), is arranged offset relative (see annotated fig. 2) to a second plane (E2, see annotated fig. 2) containing the first intermediate guide pivot axis (where 15 and 22 meet through 20 at the top end of 22 in figures 2-4) and the third intermediate guide pivot axis (where 22 connects with the container 6, fig. 2-4), in a first direction (R1) in which also the second frame guide pivot axis (23, fig. 2-4, [0016]) is arranged offset to the second plane (see annotated fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
962
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 13-15, Hermes discloses wherein the first guide element has a length that corresponds to at least 80%/ 90%/ 100% of a height of the container device in its operating position (wherein the length of 10 is more than the height of 6 in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Hermes discloses wherein the guide arrangement (9+15+22 and pivots/ joining areas there between, fig. 2-4) includes the operating position (fig. 2) of the container device (6), the first frame guide pivot axis (24, fig. 2-4, [0016]) and/or the second intermediate guide pivot axis (12, fig. 2-4) is/are arranged in the third plane (wherein the 12 or 24 are in a plane E3 since a plane is made up of 3 points so a plane can be drawn between either set of 3 points).
Regarding claims 18-20, Hermes discloses wherein the guide arrangement (9+15+22 and pivots/ joining areas there between, fig. 2-4) includes a distance (see annotated fig. 4) between the first container guide pivot axis (13, fig. 2-4, [0013]) and the second container guide pivot axis (where 15 and 22 meet at the bottom end in figures 2-4) amounts at most to 50%/40%/30& (see annotated fig. 4) of a distance (see annotated fig. 4) between the first container guide pivot axis (13, fig. 2-4, [0013]) and the first frame guide pivot axis (24, fig. 2-4, [0016]).
PNG
media_image3.png
1068
940
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Hermes discloses wherein the actuator (17), the second guide element (9), the intermediate guide element (15) and/or the third guide element (22) are arranged at least partly between the first guide elements (10) in the operating position (fig. 2, where parts of 17+9+15+22 are between 10 and 6) of the container device (6).
Regarding claim 22, Hermes discloses wherein the second guide element (9) and/or the third guide element (22) has/have a further actuator (21, fig. 4, [0014]).
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermes in view of Hermes.
Regarding claims 4-6, Hermes discloses wherein the guide arrangement (9+15+22 and pivots/ joining areas there between, fig. 2-4) includes a first plane (fig. 2-4) containing the first frame guide pivot axis (24, fig. 2-4, [0016]) and the second frame guide pivot axis (23, fig. 2-4, [0016]) is angled relative to a support surface plane (the ground surface, fig. 1).
However, Hermes fails to explicitly disclose an angle between the first plane and the support surface plane. Hermes though does disclose that different angles are achieved (fig. 2-4, [0016])
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hermes to incorporate the angles of 45° / 55° / 65° in order to achieve a advantageously closeness of the frame and the transfer device, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are 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.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 10, Hermes is considered the closest prior art, but fails to disclose a recess that the intermediate guide element protrudes. There is no obvious reason for this modification without undo hindsight.
Regarding claim 11, Hermes is considered the closest prior art, but fails to disclose wherein A3 is smaller than A4. There is no obvious reason for this modification without undo hindsight and given the arrangements and mechanics of the device.
Regarding claim 16, Hermes is considered the closest prior art, but fails to disclose wherein E3 is at perpendicular to AE, in fact these lines appear to be approximately parallel. There is no obvious reason for this modification without undo hindsight and given the arrangements and mechanics of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Railey whose telephone number is (571)270-7353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-4).
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/JENNIFER A RAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights