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 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.
Claims 1, 9-11, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinders (hereinafter “Meinders”)(US 20070289454), in view of Phillips et al. (hereinafter “Phillips”)(US 3895573 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
594
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Meinders discloses an agricultural baler (100)(fig. 10 above), comprising: a housing (411)(modified fig. 10 below) having a stationary surface; (The surface of the housing is stationary.) and an arm assembly (fig. 10) that 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 including
first engagement surface (841)(modified fig. 10 above)
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)
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)
Meinders fails to disclose a second engagement surface forming part of the stationary surface of the baler that the first engagement surface interacts with, wherein, upon contacting the first engagement surface with the second engagement surface, the second engagement surface causes motion of the secondary arm from the first secondary arm position to the second secondary arm position.
Phillips teaches a similar agricultural baler (Figure 2 of Phillips) wherein a second engagement surface (146)(Figure 2 of Phillips) forming part of a stationary surface of a baler is configured to interact with first engagement surface (142)(Figure 2 of Phillips) on an arm (126)(Figure 2 of Phillips) wherein, upon contacting the first engagement surface with the second engagement surface, the second engagement surface causes motion of the arm from the first arm position to the second arm position. [col. 4, lines 1-5] (The second engagement surface accommodates arcuate movement of the arm assembly, therefore guides and causes motion from the first arm position to the second arm position.)
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 second engagement surface (146)(Figure 2 of Phillips) forming a part of the stationary surface of a baler as taught by Phillips to the stationary surface of the baler of Meinders wherein the second engagement surface is configured to contact the first engagement surface of Meinders in order to accommodate movement of an arm assembly. [col. 4, lines 2-5 of Phillips]
After modification, Meinders in view of Phillips teaches a second engagement surface forming part of the stationary surface of the baler that the first engagement surface interacts with, wherein, upon contacting the first engagement surface with the second engagement surface, the second engagement surface causes motion of the secondary arm from the first secondary arm position to the second secondary arm position. (figs. 8-10 of Meinders) (Fig. 8 shows an “empty” position of the baler wherein the secondary arm is in the first secondary arm position. Fig. 9 shows a “partially full” position of the baler wherein the secondary arm is still in the first secondary arm position since the rollers above the arm are positioned in such a way that the secondary arm must reach a critical position before movement of the secondary arm occurs from the first secondary arm position to the second secondary arm position. After the second engagement surface is added from Phillips to Meinders, upon contacting the first engagement surface with the second engagement surface, the second engagement surface guides and causes motion of the secondary arm from the first secondary arm position to the second secondary arm position by moving the secondary arm to a position between the first secondary arm position and the second secondary arm position in the position depicted in fig. 9 whereas if the second engagement surface was not added from Phillips to Meinders, the secondary arm would not move from the first to the second secondary arm position until a position depicted between fig. 9 and fig. 10.)
PNG
media_image2.png
512
769
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
275
336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further zoomed and modified fig. 10 appears above.
Regarding claim 9, Meinders in view of Phillips teaches: The agricultural baler of claim 1, wherein the primary arm includes a third rotatable roll, (320b) (modified fig. 10 above) and wherein an axis or an imaginary line extends between the first rotatable roll and the third rotatable roll. (A) (further zoomed and modified fig. 10 above) (The axis A extends between the first and third rotatable roll and the axis is defined by the first and third rotatable rolls as displayed above.)
PNG
media_image4.png
297
519
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Further zoomed and modified fig. 8 appears above.
Regarding claim 10, Meinders in view of Phillips teaches: The agricultural baler of claim 9, wherein in the first position of the arm assembly, (fig. 8) the second rotatable roll is positioned further from the axis (further zoomed and modified figs. 8 and 10 above, respectively) as compared with the second position of the arm assembly. (fig. 10)
Regarding claim 11, Meinders in view of Phillips teaches: The agricultural baler of claim 10, wherein in the second position of the arm assembly, (fig. 10) the second rotatable roll is aligned with the axis, (further zoomed and modified fig. 10 above) and, in the first position of the arm assembly, the second rotatable roll is mis-aligned with the axis. (further zoomed and modified fig. 8 above)
Regarding claim 13, Meinders in view of Phillips teaches: The agricultural baler of claim 1, wherein the secondary arm is pivotably mounted to the primary arm by a pin (850) (Figure 8).
Regarding claim 16, Meinders in view of Phillips teaches: The agricultural baler of claim 1, wherein the second engagement surface is a curved surface. (fig. 2 of Phillips)
Regarding claim 17, Meinders in view of Phillips teaches: The agricultural baler of claim 16, wherein the curved surface forms a slot or track with which the first engagement surface engages. (fig. 2 of Phillips)
Regarding claim 18, Meinders in view of Phillips teaches: The agricultural baler of claim 17, wherein the first engagement surface is a tab extending from the secondary arm. (841) (modified fig. 10 of Meinders) (The first engagement surface is a tab extending in a direction into and out of the page from the secondary arm.)
Regarding claim 19, Meinders in view of Phillips teaches: The agricultural baler of claim 1, wherein, upon contacting the first engagement surface with the second engagement surface, the second engagement surface causes rotation of the secondary arm from the first secondary arm position to the second secondary arm position. (See claim 1 rejection) (Since the second engagement surface causes movement of the secondary arm from the first secondary arm position to the second secondary arm position, and the secondary arm moves in a circular manner when travelling from the first secondary arm position to the second secondary arm position, the second engagement surface causes rotation of the secondary arm from the first secondary arm position to the second secondary arm position.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinders and Phillips as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Simmons et al. (hereinafter “Simmons”)(US 20130298787 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Meinders in view of Phillips teaches: the agricultural baler 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinders and Phillips as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feraboli et al. (hereinafter “Feraboli”)(US 6079324 A)
Regarding claim 14, Meinders in view of Phillips teaches: the agricultural baler of claim 1, Meinders fails to disclose the agricultural baler of claim 1, 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 1, further comprising a spring that biases the secondary arm to the first secondary arm position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the agricultural baler comprising “wherein in the first arm assembly, the first rotatable roll is positioned at a higher elevation within the bale chamber than the second rotatable roll.”, inter alia, in combination with the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 is indicated allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-15 under Viaud, Meinders, Meinders in view of Feraboli, Meinders in view of Simmons, and Cyrille have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Meinders in view of Phillips, and either in further view of Feraboli or Simmons.
Specification: The objections to the specification have been withdrawn. Applicants’ arguments to the specification objections have been considered convincing.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the elements of amended independent claim 1 are neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references. The elements of amended claim 1 are disclosed in the cited references. See rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that the slot (second engagement surface) 146 does not guide or cause rotation of the arm 126. The examiner disagrees. The pin (first engagement surface) 142 is guided within the slot 146. The slot causes the pin to move in the direction of the slot when moving within the slot.
Applicant argues that there would have been no reason to modify Meinders to arrive at the invention that is recited in claim 1. The examiner disagrees. The arcuate slots of Phillips accommodate arcuate movement and would therefore justify modifying Meinders to arrive at the invention that is recited in claim 1. [col. 4, lines 1-5 of Phillips]
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 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