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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kile (US 9924637 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kile discloses a device for a grain harvesting and processing machine (50), the device comprising reinforcements (120) for helical portions (80/81) of a feeding, a distributor or a track cylinder (55).
Regarding claim 2, Kile discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the reinforcements are manufactured by casting (col. 11 lines 30-34).
Regarding claim 3, Kile discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the reinforcements are fixed to the helical portions by screws and nuts (140).
Regarding claim 4, Kile discloses the device of claim 3, wherein heads screws (140) are installed adjacent to edges of holes (144, 145) where they are installed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertino (US 10667453 B2) in view of Rick (US 3209527 A).
Regarding claim 5, Bertino discloses a device for a grain harvesting and processing machines, the device comprising beater fingers (angled edges 181) applied to a helical portion (180) of a track cylinder (see fig. 39-41).
Bertino does not disclose wherein at least one beater finger has a flat lengthwise band including height markings.
Rick discloses agricultural fingers (64) having a flat lengthwise band where height markings (68) are located to aid in placing the tines uniformly (col. 4 lines 52-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the fingers of Bertino with a flat band having height markings, as disclosed by Rick, so that the beater fingers are positioned to all extend the same uniform length from the helical portion of the track cylinder.
Regarding claim 6, the resultant combination discloses the device of claim 5.
The combination does not disclose wherein the beater fingers are triangular.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the beater fingers with a triangular shape, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 7, the resultant combination discloses the device of claim 5.
The combination does not disclose wherein the beater fingers are quadrangular.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the beater fingers with a quadrangular shape, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 8, the resultant combination discloses the device of claim 5.
The combination does not disclose wherein the beater fingers are pentagonal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the beater fingers with a pentagonal shape, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 9, the resultant combination discloses the device of claim 5.
The combination does not disclose wherein the beater fingers are hexagonal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the beater fingers with a hexagonal shape, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10, Bertino, of the resultant combination, discloses the device of claim 5, wherein the beater fingers (181) are multifaceted.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertino (US 10667453 B2) in view of Rick (US 3209527 A), and further in view of Kile (US 9924637 B1).
Regarding claim 11, the resultant combination discloses the device of claim 5.
The combination does not disclose wherein the beater fingers are manufactured by casting.
In the same field of endeavor, Kile discloses a threshing component that may be formed via casting (col. 3 lines 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have manufactured the beater finger of the resultant combination by casting, as disclosed by Kile, to provide a component with the hardness and strength necessary to withstand the mechanical action of threshing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, applicant argues that the wear plate 120 of Kile (US 9924637 B1) is attached to a leading end of a helical auger flight, and the leading end is not the same as the helical portions (h) referred to in the present application. However, the claims contain no detail or structural limitations regarding the helical portion of the feeding/distributor/track cylinder that preclude the helical flights 80 (and 81) of Kile, including their leading ends, from being interpreted as helical portions of a cylinder. The examiner maintains the rejection wherein claim 1 is anticipated by Kile, see the rejection above for more details.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant argues that elements 181 of Bertino (US 10667453 B2) are not beater fingers. The claims lack any structural limitation of the beater fingers that preclude the examiner from interpreting elements 181 of Bertino as beater fingers, and the examiner maintains the rejection. In response to applicant's argument based upon the age of the references (Rick, US 3209527 A, published in 1965), contentions that the reference patents are old are not impressive absent a showing that the art tried and failed to solve the same problem notwithstanding its presumed knowledge of the references. See In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977). Applicant argues that Rick does not disclose a flat, lengthwise band including height markings as required by claim 5. However, Rick discloses a flat, lengthwise band (shown clearly in at least fig. 15 and 19) having height markings 66/68. Again, applicant has not pointed out a structural limitation in the claim that precludes this interpretation of Rick. Applicant further argues that the purpose of the height markings in Rick is different than that of the beater fingers in the present application. Examiner disagrees, as Rick states that height markings 66/68 aid with placing multiple tines uniformly. A skilled artisan will recognize that the beater fingers of Bertino must be placed on the track cylinder during the manufacturing process. One of ordinary skill would recognize the beater fingers must also be placed uniformly, and it would be obvious to combine the markings of Rick to the fingers of Bertino.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MADELINE RUNCO whose telephone number is (469)295-9123. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 M-F.
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.
/MADELINE I RUNCO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights