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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “axel” should be changed to –axel—. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. 9,863,516 in view of Risius US 2022/0071093 A1 and Sears 3,633,348.
Independent Claim 9: Perez discloses a transmission box for corn headers, comprising:
a central axle (154);
wherein said central axle is provided with a plurality of gears (158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168) configured to transmit the rotational motion to a plurality of axles (106, 108, 114, 116) arranged within the box (100), each of said axles being provided with a respective gear engaged with corresponding gears of the central axle (as seen in Fig. 2), as per claim 9.
However, Perez fails to disclose wherein the transmission box is an electrically driven and controlled transmission box;
an electric motor mounted on a first lateral wall of the transmission box and having a motor shaft projecting inwardly therefrom;
the central axle arranged substantially perpendicular to the motor shaft, wherein the motor shaft and the central axle are respectively provided with a motor shaft gear and a main shaft gear, which mesh with each other to transmit a rotational motion from the electric motor to the central axle, as per claim 9.
Risius discloses an electrically driven and controlled transmission box comprising an electric motor (34), as per claim 9.
Sears discloses a transmission box comprising a motor (72) mounted on a first lateral wall (74) of the transmission box (74, 124, 112, 114) and having a motor shaft (68) projecting inwardly therefrom, as per claim 9.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the electric motor drive of Risius for the drive of Perez’s row units since both references disclose drive means for providing power to a pair of lifting chains and rollers through a single transmission box and such a predictable result would be achieved.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the motor on a lateral wall of the transmission box as disclosed by Sears on the transmission box of Perez and Risius since such an arrangement is old and well-known in the art for providing power to a row unit.
It can be seen that when an electric motor is mounted to a lateral wall of Perez’s transmission box that the motor shaft gear and main shaft gear will mesh with each other to transmit rotational power from the electric motor to the perpendicularly-arranged central axle.
Dependent Claims 10-11: Perez further discloses wherein the plurality of gears (158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168) and the plurality of axles (106, 108, 114, 116) comprise:
a left end gear (164) mounted on the central axle (154);
a right end gear (162) also mounted on the central axle;
wherein the central axle is operatively coupled to a first lifting chain axle (114) and a second lifting chain axle (116);
a first lifting chain axle gear (166) mounted on the first lifting chain axle and engaged with the right end gear; and
a second lifting chain axle gear (168) mounted on the second lifting chain axle and engaged with the left end gear;
wherein said plurality of gears enable the first and second lifting chain axles to rotate in opposite directions (118, 120 in Fig. 1) and transmit motion to respective lifting chains (“gathering chains”, not shown), as per claim 10;
wherein the plurality of gears (158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168) and the plurality of axles (106, 108, 114, 116) comprise:
a first central axle gear (158) mounted on the central axle (154);
a second central axle gear (160) also mounted on the central axle;
wherein the central axle is further operatively coupled to a first roller control axle (106) and a second roller control axle (108);
a first roller axle gear (not shown, col. 3, lns. 23-26) mounted on the first roller control axle and engaged with the first central axle gear; and
a second roller axle gear (not shown, col. 3, lns. 23-26) mounted on the second roller control axle and engaged with the second central axle gear;
wherein said plurality of gears enable the first and second roller control axles to rotate in opposite directions (118, 120 in Fig. 1) and transmit motion to respective rollers (“stalk snapping rollers”, not shown), as per claim 11.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. in view of Risuis and Sears as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ying et al. CN 2888837 Y.
Dependent Claim 12: The transmission box is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose a first central axel gear mounted on the central axle that engages with a lower gear mounted in a cutting blade axle, as per claim 12.
Ying discloses a similar transmission box comprising a first central axel gear (9) mounted on the central axle (8) that engages with a lower gear (18) mounted in a cutting blade axle (19), as per claim 12.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cutting blade drive of Ying on the transmission box of Perez, Risius, and Sears in order to cut straw on the ground during the harvesting operation.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. in view of Risius and Sears as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Goering et al. AU 2017221780 A1.
Dependent Claim 13: The device is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the electric motor comprises an integrated electrical control system configured to adjust the power delivery based on current or voltage parameters, thereby constituting an integrated torque limiting means, as per claim 13.
Goering discloses a similar agricultural row unit wherein the electric motor (320) comprises an integrated electrical control system configured to adjust the power delivery based on current or voltage parameters (see para. [0041], motor torque and speed are influenced by current or voltage), thereby constituting an integrated torque limiting means, as per claim 13.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the torque limiter of Goering on the motor transmission box of Perez, Risius, and Sears in order to prevent damage to the drive parts in the case of plugged or overload conditions.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is noted that the rejection of claim 1, specifically Perez in view of Risius, is a matter of simple substitution, i.e., the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. This rejection shows that the prior art, specifically primary reference Perez, discloses a transmission box for corn headers that differed from the claimed transmission box only in that the drive provided to the box was delivered mechanically and not by an electric motor, as claimed. However, secondary reference Risius shows that electric motor drive of a corn header transmission box is known in the art. One of ordinary skill would have known to substitute an electric motor for the mechanical power delivery of Perez’s transmission box in light of Risius’s teaching. This simple substitution would require no alterations to the arrangement of Perez’s box, as seen below, other than the simple substitution of an electric motor for the mechanical power transmission shaft. No other details of Risius are pertinent to the combination.
PNG
media_image1.png
643
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Sears, the applicant argues that Sears discloses a hydraulic motor, not an electric motor as claimed, and is mounted on the harvester chassis and not a transmission box wall. However, it is Risius who discloses that the use of electric motors to drive corn header transmission boxes is known in the art but only shows this schematically. Therefore, Sears is used to show where and how a motor would mount to a corn header transmission box.
Applicant argues that Sears does not disclose a transmission box. However, Sears’ box, as rejected together forms an enclosure for at least gears 66, 66a, and the gear about which chain 78 is wound. Applicant has failed to claim any structural limitation of their transmission box that would preclude Sears. Further, one of ordinary skill would know, given Sears’ motor location, to simply substitute Perez’s mechanical drive shaft input for the motor input at the location shown in annotated Fig. 2 above.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Perez in view of Risius is non-obvious and lacks rational basis, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, one of ordinary skill would know how to make the simple substitution so Perez’s transmission boxes could be driven by electric motors in light of Risius’ teaching in order to obtain the benefits associated with electric motors such as quieter operation, lower energy costs, and less environmental pollution.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the torque limiting control is inside the motor itself and that the architecture is designed to eliminate mechanical slip clutches or physical shear bolts) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The rejections are therefore maintained.
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 Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca, can be reached at (571) 272-8971.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 August 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights