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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive in part.
The argument relating to perpendicularly vs parallel axes is persuasive as indicated in the interview. However, the rejection has been altered to relate to the amendment of the current claims and reads on them as noted below.
The argument and amendment relating to wherein “the manifold includes a longitudinal manifold axis located generally parallel to the chopper axis.” and the limitations of “a manifold axis” and “a chopper axis”, even in view of the addition of “longitudinal” to the term manifold, are broad enough to allow for placement of the 2 axes to meet the parallel requirement as noted below. This is illustrated more fully below in the claim rejections over the prior art with the annotated figure.
The previous 112 rejections and claim objections are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 14-15, and 18-19 recites the limitation "manifold" after having referred to the element as a “longitudinal manifold.” 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 1-2, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sechinato (US 2019/0082605 A1), hereinafter Sechinato.
Regarding claim 1, Sechinato discloses a sugarcane harvester (10, fig. 1-2, [0016-0017]) for harvesting a sugarcane crop (sugar cane stalks, fig. 1, [0018]) comprising:
a chopper (50, fig. 1-2, [0022]) defining a chopper axis (see line running through chopper 50 in annotated fig. 2), the chopper configured to cut a mat of sugarcane crop (severed stalks of sugar cane, fig. 1-2, [0021]) into a chopped mat (51+53, fig. 1-2, [0022]) including sugarcane billets (51, fig. 1-2, [0022]) and crop residue (53, fig. 1-2, [0022]) and to discharge the chopped mat along a flow path (fig. 2, [0022]);
a primary separator (78, fig. 1, [0025]) including a cleaning chamber (body of 78, fig. 1, [0025]) and a fan (80, fig. 1, [0025]) to induce a primary flow of air within the cleaning chamber (fig. 1, [0025]), wherein the primary flow of air separates crop residue from the sugarcane billets of the chopped mat (fig. 1, [0025]); and
a supplemental air system (54/100 and area below 54/100 and above 50, fig. 1-5, [0023] and [0027-0028]) located between the chopper and the primary separator (fig. 1), the supplemental air system including a longitudinal manifold (102, annotated fig. 2 and fig. 3, [0029]) having a tapered cross-section (area below 54/100 and above 50) along a length of the manifold (fig. 2-3), wherein the manifold includes a longitudinal manifold axis located generally parallel to the chopper axis (see manifold axis in annotated fig. 2), wherein the manifold is configured to provide a manifold air flow directed toward the flow path of the chopped mat (fig. 1-2, [0030]), wherein the manifold air flow supplements the primary flow of air within the cleaning chamber to separate the crop residue from the sugarcane billets (fig. 1, [0027]).
PNG
media_image1.png
792
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Sechinato discloses wherein the supplemental air system (54/100 and area below 54/100 and above 50, fig. 1-5, [0023] and [0027-0028]) includes a blower (120/ 140, fig. 2-5, [0030 and 0035]) coupled to the manifold (144, fig. 3-4, [0035]) to deliver pressurized air to the manifold to provide the manifold air flow ([0030 and 0035]), wherein the manifold directs the pressurized air delivered by the blower to the cleaning chamber (fig. 2-4, [0023 and 0027], wherein air is moved towards the cleaning chamber).
Regarding claim 14, Sechinato discloses a blower nozzle system (120/ 140, fig. 2-5, [0030 and 0035]) for a sugarcane harvester (10, fig. 1-2, [0016-0017]) including a cleaning chamber to clean chopped sugarcane (inside of 54/100, fig. 1-2, [0029-0030]) and a chopper (50, fig. 1-2, [0022]), defining a chopper axis (see line running through chopper 50 in annotated fig. 2), configured to discharge a chopped sugarcane mat (51+53, fig. 1-2, [0022]) along a flow path to the cleaning chamber (fig. 2, [0022]), the blower nozzle system comprising:
a longitudinal manifold (102, annotated fig. 2 and fig. 3, [0029]) having a tapered cross-section along a length of the manifold (fig. 1-2, [0030]), defining a longitudinal manifold axis (see manifold axis in annotated fig. 2), wherein the manifold axis is generally parallel to the chopper axis (see annotated fig. 2), wherein the manifold is configured to provide a manifold air flow directed toward the flow path of the chopped sugarcane mat (fig. 2-4, [0023 and 0027]) and the manifold air flow supplements a primary air flow in the cleaning chamber to separate the crop residue from the sugarcane billets (fig. 1, [0027]).
Regarding claim 15, Sechinato discloses wherein the manifold (102, fig. 2-5, [0029]) comprises a plenum having a first plenum (152+area inside of 152, fig. 3-5, [0029 and 0036]) coupled to a second plenum (wall of area below 154+ area inside of wall of area below 154), wherein the second plenum includes the tapered cross section (wall of area below 154+ area inside of wall of area below 154, wherein the walls slant towards 152, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Sechinato discloses wherein the first plenum (152+area inside of 152, fig. 3-5, [0029 and 0036]) includes a plurality of nozzles (142/170, fig. 3-5, [0035 and 0042]).
Regarding claim 17, Sechinato discloses wherein the first plenum and the second plenum define a shared interior space free of obstructing features (area inside of 152+ area inside of wall of area below 154, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Sechinato discloses further comprising a blower (120/ 140, fig. 2-5, [0030 and 0035]) coupled to the manifold (144, fig. 3-4, [0035]) to deliver pressurized air to the manifold to provide the manifold air flow ([0030 and 0035]), wherein the manifold directs the pressurized air delivered by the blower to the cleaning chamber (fig. 2-4, [0023 and 0027], wherein air is moved towards the cleaning chamber).
Regarding claim 20, Sechinato discloses a method for separating crop residue (53, fig. 1-2, [0022]) from sugarcane billets (51, fig. 1-2, [0022]) in a cleaning chamber (inside 112, fig. 3, [0029-0030]) of a sugarcane harvester (10, fig. 1-2, [0016-0017]) comprising:
chopping a mat of harvested sugarcane into a chopped mat including the sugarcane billets and the crop residue (fig. 1-2, [0022]) with a chopper having a chopper axis (see line running through chopper 50 in annotated fig. 2), wherein the chopped mat moves along a flow path toward the cleaning chamber (fig. 2, [0022]);
directing a supplemental flow of air (flow from blower 140 in bottom left of fig. 3, [0029-0030 and 0035-0036]) toward the flow path of the chopped mat (fig. 1-2, [0030]) with a longitudinal manifold (102, annotated fig. 2 and fig. 3, [0029]) extending parallel to the chopper axis (see annotated fig. 2) and having a tapered cross-section (fig. 2-3); and
separating sugarcane billets from crop residue in the cleaning chamber ([0029-0030]) with the supplemental flow of air (flow from blower 140 in bottom left of fig. 3, [0029-0030 and 0035-0036]) and with a primary flow of air (flow from blower 140 in top right of fig. 3, [0029-0030 and 0035-0036]) provided by a fan (blower 140 corresponding to the primary and supplemental flow, fig. 3, [0029-0030 and 0035-0036]) located adjacent to the cleaning chamber (fig. 3).
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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sechinato (US 2019/0082605 A1), hereinafter Sechinato in view of Craig et al. (US 20220232772 A1), hereinafter Craig.
Regarding claim 3, Sechinato discloses the chopper (50, fig. 1-2, [0022]) and a chopper axis (see line running through chopper 50 in annotated fig. 2).
However, Sechinato fails to explicitly disclose wherein the chopper includes counter rotating drums defining the chopper axis.
Craig teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein the chopper includes counter rotating drums defining the chopper axis (fig. 3, [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 simply substituted the generic chopper of Sechinato to include the counter rotating drums of Craig to yield the predictable result of cutting the crop ([0016]).
Regarding claim 4, Sechinato in view of Craig teaches wherein the manifold (102, fig. 2-5, [0029]) comprises a plenum including a first plenum (152+area inside of 152, fig. 3-5, [0029 and 0036]) coupled to a second plenum (wall of area below 154+ area inside of wall of area below 154), wherein the second plenum includes the tapered cross section (wall of area below 154+ area inside of wall of area below 154, wherein the walls slant towards 152, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Sechinato in view of Craig teaches wherein the first plenum (152+area inside of 152, fig. 3-5, [0029 and 0036]) includes a plurality of nozzles (142/170, fig. 3-5, [0035 and 0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Sechinato in view of Craig teaches wherein the first plenum and the second plenum define a shared interior space free of obstructing features (area inside of 152+ area inside of wall of area below 154, fig. 2).
Double Patenting
Claims 1-3 and 20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 20 respectively of copending Application No. 18/611,893 in view of Puvak (US 2018/0352747).
18/611,893 discloses a manifold having a constant cross-section, but fails to disclose a tapered cross-section.
US 2018/0352747 teaches that both an air-chaff outlet with a tapered cross-section (152A, fig. 4-5, [0014 and 0016]) and a constant cross-section (170, fig. 4-5, [0014 and 0016]) are known cross-section designs for an air-flow manifold.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of 18/611,893 to have changed the shape from a constant cross-selection to the claimed tapered cross-section of the current case of US 2018/0352747, since this is a known design choice.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Sechinato is regarded as the closest prior art, but fails to teach “wherein the second plenum includes a first end coupled to the outlet of the blower which is larger than a second end of the second plenum.” It would not be obvious to modify Sechinato to have a first end of the second plenum that is coupled to an outlet of the blower that is also bigger than a second end of the second plenum since claim 4 also requires a tapered cross-section for the second plenum. This does not work with Sechinato because the blower is coupled to the first plenum. It would fundamentally change the invention to move the blower or change the shapes of the Plenums given the way the air flow functions.
Claims 8-13 would be allowable for depending on claims 9 and 18 respectively.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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