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 .
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0020, line 1, “The baler of FIGs. 4 and 5” should be changed to -- The baler of FIGs. 2 and 3 --.
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: actuator in claim 3.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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 1, It is unclear if “which arm assembly” refers to a second arm assembly.
“Which arm assembly” should be changed to --wherein the arm assembly--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, claim limitation “actuator mounted either directly or indirectly to the primary arm for moving” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the other of the cam and the cam follower" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is unclear if “the other of the cam and the cam follower” is being positively claimed.
Regarding claim 8, It is unclear if the agricultural baler is being positively claimed or not. In claim 1, the baler is claimed as intended use. For examination purposes, the baler is not positively claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “stationary cam” in claim 15 is used by the claim to mean “a cam that does not move,” while the accepted meaning of a cam is “a cam which moves.” (Beardmore of RoyMech, lines 1-2) The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purposes of examination, the term “stationary cam” is interpreted to be “a cam which moves.”
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)(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, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Cyrille et al. (hereinafter “Cyrille”) (DE 102016117867 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
321
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Cyrille discloses an arm assembly (Figure 3 above) for an agricultural baler, which arm assembly is moveable between a first position corresponding to an empty bale chamber of the baler and a second position corresponding to an at least partially filled bale chamber of the baler (Figures 1 and 4), said arm assembly comprising:
a primary arm (30)
having a first rotatable roll (20a) (Figure 3, illustrated above) mounted thereto,
wherein a belt (18) can be wrapped around the first rotatable roll (Figure 1),
and a secondary arm (28)
having a second rotatable roll (20b) (Figure 3, illustrated above) mounted thereto,
wherein the belt or another belt can be wrapped around the second rotatable roll (Figure 3),
the secondary arm being moveably connected to the primary arm (Figure 3), or vice versa,
such that in the first position of the arm assembly, the second rotatable roll is positioned a first distance away from the first rotatable roll, (According to the trajectory of the first rotatable roll and the second rotatable roll of Figure 1 (which corresponds to a full bale chamber position), and of Figure 4 (which corresponds to a partially full bale chamber position), when the bale chamber is empty, there is a first distance that the second rotatable roll is positioned away from the first rotatable roll.)
and in the second position (Figure 1) of the arm assembly, the second rotatable roll is positioned a second distance away from the first rotatable roll that is less than the first distance. (According to the trajectory of the first rotatable roll and the second rotatable roll of Figure 1 (which corresponds to a full bale chamber position), and of Figure 4 (which corresponds to a partially full bale chamber position), when the bale chamber is empty, there is a first distance that the second rotatable roll is positioned away from the first rotatable roll, wherein the second distance is less than the first distance.)
(According to Figures 1 and 4, the distance between the first rotatable roll and second rotatable roll is further when empty rather than full as the rollers get closer together as the bale chamber size increases.)
Regarding claim 4, Cyrille discloses the arm assembly of claim 1, wherein in the first position of the arm assembly, the first rotatable roll is positioned at a higher elevation within the bale chamber than the second rotatable roll. (According to the trajectory of the rolls as observed in Figures 1 and 4, when the arm assembly corresponds to the first position, the first rotatable roll is position at a higher elevation within the bale chamber than the second rotatable roll.)
Claims 1, 3, 5, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Meinders et al. (hereinafter “Meinders”) (US 20070289454 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
594
879
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Meinders discloses an arm assembly (Figure 10 above) for an agricultural baler, which arm assembly is moveable between a first position corresponding to an empty bale chamber of the baler and a second position corresponding to an at least partially filled bale chamber of the baler (Figures 8 and 10), said arm assembly comprising:
a primary arm (820)
having a first rotatable roll (320a) (Figure 10 above) mounted thereto,
wherein a belt (120) can be wrapped around the first rotatable roll, (Figure 10)
and a secondary arm (840)
having a second rotatable roll (830) mounted thereto,
wherein the belt or another belt can be wrapped around the second rotatable roll, (Figure 10)
the secondary arm being moveably connected to the primary arm (Figure 10), or vice versa,
such that in the first position (Figure 8) of the arm assembly,
the second rotatable roll is positioned a first distance away from the first rotatable roll,(Figure 8)
and in the second position (Figure 10) of the arm assembly,
the second rotatable roll is positioned a second distance away from the first rotatable roll that is less than the first distance. (Figures 8 and 10)
Regarding claim 3, The arm assembly of claim 1, further comprising an actuator ([0031] lines 6-8, describe an actuator articulating on a pivot axis (230) on the primary arm in Figure 8) mounted either directly or indirectly to the primary arm for moving the arm assembly between the first and second positions.
Regarding claim 5, The arm assembly of claim 1, wherein the secondary arm is pivotably mounted to the primary arm by a pin (850)(Figure 8), and wherein the secondary arm is movable between (i) a first secondary arm position corresponding to the first position of the arm assembly and (ii) a second secondary arm position corresponding to the second position of the arm assembly (Figures 8, 9, 10).
Regarding claim 12, An agricultural baler comprising the arm assembly of claim 1. (Figure 10)
Regarding claim 13, The agricultural baler of claim 12, wherein the secondary arm is pivotably mounted to the primary arm by a pin (850) (Figure 8),
and wherein the secondary arm is movable between (i) a first secondary arm position corresponding to the first position of the arm assembly (Figure 8)
and (ii) a second secondary arm position corresponding to the second position of the arm assembly. (Figure 10)
Claims 1, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Viaud et al. (hereinafter “Viaud”) (US 20050241499 A1).
PNG
media_image3.png
656
1137
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
671
1145
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Viaud discloses an arm assembly (14, 16) (Figure 4) for an agricultural baler, which arm assembly is moveable between a first position (Figure 4) corresponding to an empty bale chamber of the baler and a second position (a position between Figures 4 and 5) corresponding to an at least partially filled bale chamber of the baler, said arm assembly comprising:
a primary arm (14)
having a first rotatable roll (a) mounted thereto,
wherein a belt can be wrapped around the first rotatable roll, (Figure 4)
and a secondary arm (16)
having a second rotatable roll (e) mounted thereto,
wherein the belt or another belt can be wrapped around the second rotatable roll, (Figure 4)
the secondary arm being moveably connected to the primary arm, or vice versa, (Figures 4 and 5)
such that in the first position of the arm assembly, the second rotatable roll is positioned a first distance away from the first rotatable roll, (Figure 4)
and in the second position of the arm assembly, the second rotatable roll is positioned a second distance away from the first rotatable roll that is less than the first distance. (the distance between (a) and (e) in the second position (a position of the assembly occurring between positions illustrated by Figures 4 and 5) is less than the distance of the first position (Figure 4) between (a) and (e).)
Regarding claim 9, the arm assembly of claim 1, wherein the primary arm includes a third rotatable roll (b), and wherein an axis or an imaginary line extends between the first rotatable roll and the third rotatable roll. (Figures 4 and 5 above)
Regarding claim 10, The arm assembly of claim 9, wherein, in the first position of the arm assembly, the second rotatable roll is positioned further from the axis as compared with the second position of the arm assembly. (The second position of the arm assembly is the position in which rolls (a), (b), and (e) align with the imaginary axis occurring somewhere between Figures 4 and 5. According to Figure 4 (corresponding to an empty bale chamber position) and Figure 5 (corresponding to a full bale chamber position), the distance between the second rotatable roll and the imaginary axis decreases as the bale chamber fullness increases.)
Regarding claim 11, the arm assembly of claim 10, wherein, in the second position of the arm assembly (described above), the second rotatable roll is aligned with the axis (The bale chamber increases in size to accommodate a larger bale as shown in Figures 4 and 5. When the distance between the second rotatable roll and the axis (indicated by the left dotted line) becomes zero at some point during the bale chamber size increasing, the second rotatable roll aligns with the axis), and, in the first position of the arm assembly, the second rotatable roll is mis-aligned with the axis. (Figures 4 and 5)
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinders, in view of Simmons et al. (hereinafter “Simmons”)(US 20130298787 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Meinders discloses the arm assembly of claim 1. Meinders fails to disclose the arm assembly of claim 1, further comprising a spring mounted either directly or indirectly to the primary arm for biasing the arm assembly toward the first position.
Simmons teaches a similar arm assembly for an agricultural baler comprising a spring (60)(Figure 2) mounted either directly or indirectly to the primary arm (55) for biasing the arm assembly toward the first position. (Figure 2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the spring mounted directly to the primary arm as taught by Simmons to the primary arm of Meinders to assist in providing a biasing force on the arm. ([0004] lines 10-14 of Simmons)
After modification, Meinders in view of Simmons teaches: The arm assembly of claim 1, further comprising a spring mounted either directly or indirectly to the primary arm for biasing the arm assembly toward the first position.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinders, in view of Feraboli et al. (hereinafter “Feraboli”)(US 6079324 A).
Regarding claim 6, Meinders discloses the arm assembly of claim 5. Meinders fails to disclose the arm assembly of claim 5, further comprising a spring that biases the secondary arm to the first secondary arm position.
Feraboli teaches a similar arm assembly for an agricultural baler, further comprising a spring (31) that biases the secondary arm (16) to the first secondary arm position. (Figure 4a)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the spring that biases the secondary arm as taught by Feraboli to the secondary arm of Meinders to vary the density of the bale. (column 1, lines 40-42 of Feraboli)
After modification, Meinders in view of Feraboli teaches the arm assembly of claim 5, further comprising a spring that biases the secondary arm to the first secondary arm position.
Regarding claim 14, Meinders discloses the agricultural baler of claim 13, Meinders fails to disclose the agricultural baler of claim 13, further comprising a spring that biases the secondary arm to the first secondary arm position.
Feraboli teaches a similar agricultural baler, further comprising a spring (31) that biases the secondary arm (16) to the first secondary arm position. (Figure 4a)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the spring that biases the secondary arm as taught by Feraboli to the secondary arm of Meinders to vary the density of the bale. (column 1, lines 40-42 of Feraboli)
After modification, Meinders in view of Feraboli teaches the agricultural baler of claim 13, further comprising a spring that biases the secondary arm to the first secondary arm position.
Claims 7, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinders, in view of Phillips et al. (hereinafter “Phillips”)(US 3895573 A).
PNG
media_image2.png
594
879
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Meinders discloses the arm assembly of claim 5, wherein the secondary arm includes one of a cam and a cam follower (841)(Figure 10 above of Meinders). Meinders fails to disclose one of a cam and a cam follower that is configured to interact with the other of the cam and the cam follower to cause motion of the secondary arm from the first secondary arm position to the second secondary arm position.
Phillips teaches a similar arm assembly (122)(Figure 2 of Phillips) for an agricultural baler wherein the cam (146)(Figure 2 of Phillips) is disposed on a stationary surface of a baler and is configured to interact with a cam (142)(Figure 2 of Phillips) on an arm (126)(Figure 2 of Phillips).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the cam (146)(Figure 2 of Phillips) disposed on a stationary surface of a baler as taught by Phillips to the baler of Meinders wherein the cam follower is configured to interact with the cam of Meinders to accommodate movement of an arm assembly. (col. 4, lines 2-5 of Phillips)
After modification, Meinders in view of Phillips teaches the arm assembly of claim 5, wherein the secondary arm includes one of a cam and a cam follower (841)(Figure 10 above of Meinders) that is configured to interact with the other of the cam (146)(Figure 2 of Phillips) and the cam follower to cause motion of the secondary arm from the first secondary arm position to the second secondary arm position. (Figures 8 and 10 of Meinders).
Modified Meinders also teaches the arm assembly of claim 7, wherein either the cam or the cam follower is disposed on a stationary surface of the baler. (The cam (146) added from Phillips is disposed on a stationary surface of the baler of Meinders.)
Regarding claim 15, modified Meinders teaches the agricultural baler of claim 13, wherein the secondary arm includes a cam follower that is configured to interact with a stationary cam disposed on a stationary surface of the baler to cause motion of the secondary arm from the first secondary arm position to the second secondary arm position. (See the rejection of claims 7 and 8 above)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-4581879-A teaches a baler with rollers on an arm assembly.
US-4979442-A teaches a baler with an arm assembly.
US-8051771-B2 teaches a baler with an arm assembly.
US-11419271-B2 teaches a baler with independent tensioning arms.
US-20220408654-A1 teaches a baler with rollers on an arm assembly.
EP-3847885-A1 teaches a baler with tensioning arms.
EP-4108069-A1 teaches a baler with rollers on an arm assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUEVARA SAOOD ISSA whose telephone number is (571)482-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5pm and every other Friday 9:00am-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 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.
/J.S.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights