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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites “means disposed on the body for mounting” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Based on the specification ( see paragraph 0031), the examiner is interpreting the means for mounting to be projection, clip, clamp, fastener, pin, plug, weld, adhesive, bolt, screw, surface (e.g., dovetail), rail, slide.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,6,8-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Dilts 20170099778.
PNG
media_image1.png
419
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure 9
Referring to claim 1, Dilts discloses a knife holder for a knife bank of an agricultural vehicle, said knife holder comprising: a deformable body (160) having opposing legs ( see Examiner annotated Figure 9 at A and B) separated by a passageway, wherein the passageway ( passageway between elements A and B) is shaped and sized for receiving a shaft to which the knife holder is mounted (see paragraph 0045); means disposed on the body for mounting the body to a knife element (172); and an opening (176) for receiving a fastener for mounting the body to the shaft such that fastening the body to the shaft causes the legs to deflect and compressively contact the shaft and thereby either prevent or limit inadvertent movement of the body relative to the shaft in a direction that is normal to a longitudinal axis of the shaft.
Referring to claim 2, Dilts discloses the passageway (space between legs and B) extends to an open side of the body.
Referring to claim 6, Dilts discloses the means for mounting ( projection 172) the body to a knife element comprises a projection that is positionable within an opening formed in the knife element.
Referring to claim 8, Dilts discloses the body (160) is unitary and monolithic.
Referring to claim 9, Dilts discloses (see fig. 7) the knife bank comprising the knife element ( 76) mounted to one side of the body by said means for mounting the body to the knife element, as well as another knife element (77) mounted to an opposing side of the body.
Referring to claim 10, Dilts discloses each knife element (76,77) has multiple sides and sharpened edges on each side (see paragraph 0051).
Referring to claim 11, Dilts discloses a counterknife assembly (see fig. 6) comprising the knife bank of claim 9 and said shaft ( 72).
Referring to claim 14, Dilts discoes wherein the knife bank includes another knife holder that is mounted to said another knife element, wherein each knife holder includes a radiused top surface defined by an axis that is substantially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the shaft (see figs.2 and 6, several knife holders on shaft 72) .
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) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dilts 20170099778 in view of Farley et al. 7510472.
Referring to claim 12-13, Dilts does not disclose the shaft has hexagonal and the passageway of the knife holder is sized to non-rotatably receive the hexagonal shaft such that the shaft is prevented from rotating relative to the knife holder. Farley teaches that it well known for shafts to be hexagonal and holders having a similar cross sections make making the knives easier (see col. 15, lines 5-11). Therefore, it be would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. to modify the harvester disclosed by Dilts to have the shaft be hexagonal and the passageway of the knife holder is sized to non-rotatably receive the hexagonal shaft such that the shaft is prevented from rotating relative to the knife holder in view of the teachings of Farley because it well known for shafts to be hexagonal and holders having a similar cross sections make making the knives easier.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dilts 20170099778 in view of Isaac et al. 20140179383.
Referring to claims 15 -16, Dilts discloses a combine harvester having a threshing section ( paragraph 0038) and a counter knife assembly (see figs. 2 and 6) but does not discloses a rotary chopper element positioned adjacent the counterknife assembly and the chopper assembly is positioned downstream of the threshing section. Isaacs teaches it is well known in the art to place a rotary chopper element positioned adjacent the counterknife assembly and the chopper assembly is positioned downstream of the threshing section to transport material away from the threshing system and to treat the material (see paragraph 0002). Therefore, it be would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. to modify the harvester disclosed by Dilts to have a rotary chopper element positioned adjacent the counterknife assembly and the chopper assembly is positioned downstream of the threshing section in view of the teachings of Isaacs with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well known in the art to place a rotary chopper element positioned adjacent the counterknife assembly and the chopper assembly is positioned downstream of the threshing section to transport material away from the threshing system and to treat the material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 7 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:
Referring to claim 3, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the closest prior art to Dilts to have the passageway extends to a second opening formed in the body through which a fastener is received for mounting together components of the knife bank in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Referring to claim 7, the closes prior art to Dilts does not teach or suggest the body is configured to be elastically deformed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNA WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7027. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am- 5 pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/Giovanna Wright/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672