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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the lower gear of claim 12 which is mounted to the central axle (17) and engaged with the cutting blade axle gear (24) 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.
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 Risius 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 lower gear mounted on the central axle and engaged with a cutting blade axle gear mounted on a cutting blade axle, wherein the central axle is further operatively coupled to the cutting blade axle through the lower gear and the cutting blade axle gear;
wherein rotational motion of the central axle is transmitted to the cutting blade axle to actuate a cutting blade, as per claim 12.
Ying discloses a similar transmission box comprising a lower gear (9) mounted on the central axle (8) and engaged with a cutting blade axle gear (18) mounted on a cutting blade axle (19), wherein the central axle is further operatively coupled to the cutting blade axle through the lower gear and the cutting blade axle gear;
wherein rotational motion of the central axle to the cutting blade axle is transmitted to actuate a cutting blade (21), 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 and 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
Please see the updated art rejection above now including Sears who shows the specific motor and motor shaft projecting inwardly into a first lateral wall of a row unit transmission box as claimed.
As for applicant’s argument that Cabezas, now Perez, in view of Risius does not teach nor suggest the integrated, perpendicular, motor-driven gearbox architecture presently claimed, primary reference Perez discloses a conventional mechanical drive via drive shaft (102). And applicant is correct that secondary reference Risius expressly states that electric motors may replace conventional mechanical drives, like that of Perez, without modifying the internal mechanical structure of existing gearboxes like that of Perez. Therefore, the combination of Perez and Risius results in the simple substitution of Perez’s drive shaft with a series of electric motors at each row unit as shown in Risuis’ Fig. 1B. Now, Sears specifically shows where and how the motor and motor shaft of Risius would be arranged relative to Perez’s gearbox.
As disclosed by Risius, and pointed out by the applicant, this substitution is a simple retrofit which does not require any modification to Perez’s gearboxes and so this simple substitution further in view of Sears results in the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 April 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights