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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-7) in the reply filed on February 6, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract is objected to because it uses the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,”. Therefore, the phrases “means (lines 2 and 6)” should be correct.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 26, line 4 of the specification, “side walls 38” should be changed to “side walls 56 “. See “side walls 56” in the last line of paragraph 24.
Appropriate correction is required
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.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, line 1, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation, “the at least one machine parameter” 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Derscheid (US 10,289,696).
Regarding claim 1, Derscheid discloses a round baler (100) comprising:
a frame (102), which is supported on the ground via a chassis (fig. 1);
a housing (fig. 1) supporting a baling belt (118) that defines a baling chamber (122) having a variable diameter for forming a bale (B) having a substantially cylindrical shape (see fig. 1);
a first sensor device (140) operable to determine a weight of the bale (col. 4, lines 50-56); and
a baler controller (180) operable to receive an input (see “input” in col. 3, lines 45-50) specifying a desired diameter and a desired weight of a finished bale (see “desired results” in col. 8, line 4 -col. 9, line 8 based upon commination between the controller (180) and the weight sensor (140) and a bale size sensor (146, col. 5, lines 12-20).
Regarding claim 2, the round baler set forth in claim 1, wherein the baler controller is operable to control at least one machine parameter (i.e. a weight of the bale) depending on an output of the first sensor device (weight sensor 140).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the round baler set forth in claim 1, wherein at least one machine parameter includes a baling pressure (by a potentiometer 134) exerted by the baling belt (118) (see fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 23-32) against the bale during formation of the bale.
Regarding claim 4, the round baler set forth in claim 2, wherein the at least one machine parameter (i.e. the weight of the bale) controls a density of the bale (see col. 6, lines 3-11, which discloses an average density of a bale is determined by an equation that includes a mass (i.e. weight) of the bale).
Regarding claim 5, the round baler set forth in claim 1, wherein the first sensor device (140, 140A, 140B) is disposed on the chassis (see fig. 1) and is operable to determine a weight of the housing with the bale (B) located therein (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, the round baler set forth in claim 1, wherein the first sensor device (140) includes a strain gauge (see “load cell” in col. 4, line 48, which inherently includes a strain gauge internally to measure force).
Regarding claim 7, the round baler set forth in claim 1, further comprising a second sensor device (146) operable to determine a diameter (see “size” in col. 5, line 9) of the bale (B) located in the baling chamber (122) (fig. 1), wherein the second sensor device (146) transmits an output value representing the diameter to the baler controller (180) (see col. 5, lines 1-20).
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 2016/0165803 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a round baler (10) comprising:
a frame (fig. 1), which is supported on the ground via a chassis (fig. 1);
a housing (fig. 1) supporting a baling belt (16) that defines a baling chamber (20) having a variable diameter for forming a bale (B) having a substantially cylindrical shape (see para. 59);
a first sensor device (230) operable to determine a weight of the bale (fig. 2); and
a baler controller (210) operable to receive an input specifying a desired diameter and a desired weight of a finished bale (see “The operator inputs a series of desired parameters in step 310, including, but not limited to, a bale diameter value and a bale weight value” in para. 62).
Regarding claim 2, the round baler set forth in claim 1, wherein the baler controller is operable to control at least one machine parameter (i.e. weight) depending on an output of the first sensor device (weight sensor 230).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the round baler set forth in claim 1, wherein at least one machine parameter includes a baling pressure (i.e. pressure exerted by tension actuators 270a and 270b) exerted by the baling belt (118) against the bale (see para. 61) during formation of the bale.
Regarding claim 4, the round baler set forth in claim 2, wherein the at least one machine parameter (i.e. the weight of the bale) controls a density of the bale (see para. 15).
Regarding claim 5, the round baler set forth in claim 1, wherein the first sensor device (bale weight sensor 230) is disposed on the chassis (see col. 60) and is operable to determine a weight of the housing with the bale located therein (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, the round baler set forth in claim 1, further comprising a second sensor device (a bale diameter sensor 240) operable to determine a diameter (para. 63) of the bale located in the baling chamber, wherein the second sensor device (240) transmits an output value representing the diameter to the baler controller (para. 63, lines 1-2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show various round balers having sensors for determine a diameter or a weight of a bale.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725