CTNF 18/644,173 CTNF 97726 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Craig et al. (US 20180116114 A1), hereinafter Craig . Regarding claim 1, Craig discloses a sugarcane harvester (10, fig. 1, [0016]) comprising: a support structure (14+16+18+20, fig. 1, [0016]); a first ring (54, fig. 3, [0020-0021]) and a second ring (50, fig. 3, [0020-0021]) rotatably coupled to each other (fig. 3, [0020-0021], wherein 54 is at least rotatable relative to 50; it is further noted that the claim does not require that the first and second rings are rotatable around each other, or that both rings rotate relative to a third element) for rotation about a central axis of rotation (42, fig. 3, [0021]), wherein the second ring is attached to the support structure (fig. 1-3, wherein 50 is at least attached to the 14+16+18+20 through extractor frame 32 and the elevator 22); an elevator (22, fig. 1-2, [0016]) configured for lifting sugarcane billets (billets, fig. 2, [0016]) from a lower receiving elevation (height at the bottom of 22, fig. 1, [0016]) to an upper discharge elevation (height at the top of 22, fig. 1, [0016]); and wherein the elevator is coupled to the first ring (fig. 2 wherein 50 connects to 22 through 34). Regarding claim 2, Craig discloses wherein the support structure includes a primary extractor frame configured for supporting a primary extractor assembly, with the second ring attached to the primary extractor frame. Regarding claim 3, Craig discloses wherein the elevator (22, fig. 1-2, [0016]) includes a lower receiving portion (where 20 meets 22, fig. 1, [0016]) disposed at the lower receiving elevation (height at the bottom of 22, fig. 1, [0016]) and arranged generally horizontally relative to a ground surface for receiving the sugarcane billets (fig. 1, [0016]), with the first ring and the second ring disposed vertically above the lower receiving portion of the elevator (50 and 54 are located within 24 which is above 22, fig. 1) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig et al. (US 20180116114 A1), hereinafter Craig in view of Da Costa Maestro et al. (US 20250380639 A1), hereinafter Maestro . Regarding claim 4, Craig further discloses further comprising an actuator (60, fig. 3, [0020-0021]) attached to the support structure (fig. 1-3, wherein 60 is at least attached to the 14+16+18+20 through extractor frame 32 and the elevator 22) and operatively engaged with the first ring (54) for rotating the first ring about the central axis of rotation (fig. 2-3, [0020-0021]). Craig additionally discloses that the primary extractor assembly (20, fig. 1, [0016]) can include the hood 40 and the arrangement of the secondary extractor assembly 24 ([0032]). However, Craig fails to explicitly disclose rotating the elevator about the central axis of rotation. Maestro teaches a similar device in the same field of sugarcane harvesters wherein the actuator is configured for rotating the elevator about the central axis of rotation by means of a slewring bearing ([0024 and 0026]). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Craig to incorporate the additional ring to create a slewring bearing of Maestro in order to facilitate expelling debris at different locations ([0024 and 0026]). Regarding claim 5, Craig in view of Maestro further teaches further comprising a torque transmitting system (fig. 3, [0021] of Craig) interconnecting the actuator (60, fig. 3, [0021] of Craig) and the first ring (54, fig. 3, [0021] of Craig). Regarding claim 6, Craig in view of Maestro further teaches wherein the torque transmitting system (fig. 3, [0021] of Craig) includes a pinion gear (62, fig. 3, [0021] of Craig) mounted to an output of the actuator (fig. 3) and a driven gear surface coupled to the first ring (teeth of rotator ring 54, [0021] of Craig). Regarding claim 7, Craig in view of Maestro further teaches wherein the pinion gear (62, fig. 3, [0021] of Craig) and the driven gear surface (teeth of rotator ring 54, [0021] of Craig) are disposed in direct meshing engagement (fig. 3 of Craig). Regarding claim 8, Craig in view of Maestro further teaches wherein the torque transmitting system (fig. 3, [0021] of Craig) includes a flexible drive connector coupled to each of the pinion gear and the driven gear surface (64, fig. 3, [0021] of Craig). Regarding claim 9, Craig in view of Maestro further teaches wherein the flexible drive connector includes one of a chain or a belt (64, fig. 3, [0021] of Craig). Regarding claim 10, Craig in view of Maestro further teaches wherein the actuator includes one of a hydraulically driven motor or an electrically driven motor ([0021] of Craig). Claims 11-13 and 15 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig et al. (US 20180116114 A1), hereinafter Craig in view De Camargo et al. (US 11,844,312 B2), hereinafter Camargo. Regarding claim 11, Craig further discloses the first ring (54, fig. 3, [0020-0021]) and the elevator (22, fig. 1-2, [0016]), but fails to explicitly disclose a support bracket interconnecting the first ring and the elevator. Camargo teaches a similar device in the same field of cane harvesters wherein a support bracket (83a+83b+100, fig. 2-5, col. 6 lines 42 to col. 7 lines 20) interconnecting the first ring (ring of 54, fig. 2-5, col. 5 lines 32-33 of Camargo) and the elevator (52, fig. 2-5, col. 5 lines 32-33 of Camargo). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Craig to incorporate the support bracket of Camargo in order to provide stable support for the elevator (col. 7 lines 18-20 of Camargo) and rotation (col. 6 lines 46-49 of Camargo). Regarding claim 12, Craig in view of Camargo teaches wherein the support bracket includes a ring connection portion fixedly attached to the first ring (connection point where 83a and 83b connect to the ring of 54 in fig. 2B of Camargo). Regarding claim 13, Craig in view of Camargo teaches wherein the support bracket ( 83a+83b+100, fig. 2-5, col. 6 lines 42 to col. 7 lines 20 of Camargo) includes a leg portion ( 83a+83b, fig. 2-5, col. 6 lines 42 to col. 7 lines 20 of Camargo) extending from the ring connection portion to a distal end (fig 2-5 of Camargo ), with the elevator fixedly attached to the leg portion proximate the distal end thereof to define a first elevator support connection (100, fig. 2-5, col. 6 lines 42 to col. 7 lines 20 of Camargo ). Regarding claim 15, Craig in view of Camargo teaches wherein the leg portion (83a+83b, fig. 2-5, col. 6 lines 42 to col. 7 lines 20 of Camargo) of the support bracket (83a+83b+100, fig. 2-5, col. 6 lines 42 to col. 7 lines 20 of Camargo) extends in generally vertical downward direction from the ring connection portion (100 is attached at some point to 58 with the ring connection portion, col. 6 lines 42-49) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig et al. (US 20180116114 A1), hereinafter Craig in view of Hansen et al. (US 20200137955 A1), hereinafter Hansen in view of Da Costa Maestro et al. (US 20250380639 A1), hereinafter Maestro . Regarding claim 16, Craig discloses a sugarcane harvester (10, fig. 1, [0016]) comprising: a support structure (14+16+18+20, fig. 1, [0016]); a basecutter assembly (14, fig. 1, [0016]) having a cutting disk configured for severing stalks of sugarcane adjacent a ground surface (fig. 1, [0016]); a chopper (18, fig. 1, [0016]) configured for cutting the stalks of sugarcane into billets (billets, fig. 2, [0016]); an extractor (20, fig. 1, [0016]) configured for separating leaf material from the sugarcane billets ([0016]); an elevator (22, fig. 1-2, [0016]) having a lower receiving portion arranged for receiving the sugarcane billets from the chopper (where 20 meets 22, fig. 1, [0016]), and a lift portion extending vertically upward from the lower receiving portion for lifting the sugarcane billets (fig. 1, [0016]). Craig discloses the above, but fails to explicitly disclose a chopper having a drum. Hansen teaches a similar device in the same field of sugarcane harvester wherein the chopper has a drum ([0025]). 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 Craig with the specific chopper including a drum of Hansen to yield the predictable result of chopping the stalk into billets ([0025 of Hansen]). Further regarding claim 16, Craig in view of Hansen teaches the above but fails to explicitly teach a slewing bearing interconnecting the support structure and the elevator. Maestro teaches a similar device in the same field of cane harvesters wherein a slewing bearing ([0024 and 0026] interconnecting a support structure (12+18+22+50+54, fig. 1, [0017-0018 and 0022-0023]) and the elevator (52, fig. 1, [0022-0023]). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Craig in view of Hansen to incorporate slewing bearing interconnecting the support structure and the elevator of Maestro in order to in order to facilitate expelling debris at different locations ([0024 and 0026] of Maestro). With this modification an additional ring will be brought in to create the slewing bearing. Regarding claim 17, Craig in view of Hansen and Maestro teaches wherein the slewing bearing includes a first ring (the ring needing to create a slewing bearing, [0024 and 0026] of Maestro) and a second ring rotatably ([0020-0021] of Craig), coupled to each other for rotation about a central axis of rotation ([0024 and 0026] of Maestro; fig. 3, [0020-0021] of Craig), wherein the second ring is attached to the support structure (fig. 1-3, [0020-0021 and 0032] of Craig, wherein the primary extractor 20 can have the same arrangement as the secondary extractor 24 of Craig), and wherein the first ring is attached to the elevator ([0024 and 0026] of Maestro). Regarding claim 19, Craig in view of Hansen and Maestro teaches further comprising an actuator (60, fig. 3, [0021] of Craig) attached to the support structure (fig. 1-3 of Craig) and operatively engaged with the slewing bearing for rotating the elevator about a central axis of rotation of the slewing bearing ([0024 and 0026] of Maestro). Regarding claim 20, Craig in view of Hansen and Maestro teaches wherein the slewing bearing attaching the elevator to the support structure is positioned vertically above the lower receiving portion of the elevator relative to the ground surface (fig. 1-3 of Craig) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 14 and 18 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 14, Craig in view of Camargo teaches one set of elevator support connections, but fails to teach a “link interconnecting one of the ring connection portion or the leg portion with the elevator to define a second elevator support connection” when taken in conjunction with the other limitations from the claims 1, 11, 12, and 13. While it may be obvious to include a second support connection to provide for more stability of the elevator, no prior art was found that teaches this arrangement of a second support connection. Regarding claim 18, Craig in view of Hansen and Maestro teaches claim 17. However, Craig in view of Hansen and Maestro fails to explicitly teach “a support bracket interconnecting the first ring and the elevator, wherein the support bracket includes a ring connection portion fixedly attached to the first ring and a leg portion extending from the ring connection portion to a distal end, with the elevator fixedly attached to the leg portion proximate the distal end thereof” when taken in conjunction with the limitations of claims 16 and 17 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mateousek et al. (US 20190059220 A1) - off-loading auger assembly 22 is rotated by slew bearing 98 (fig. 8, [0037]) 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 /TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/644,173 Page 2 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/644,173 Page 3 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/644,173 Page 4 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/644,173 Page 5 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/644,173 Page 6 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/644,173 Page 7 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/644,173 Page 8 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/644,173 Page 9 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/644,173 Page 10 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/644,173 Page 11 Art Unit: 3676
Prosecution Insights