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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The argument is not persuasive because a new mapping of the elongate member to be 49+52 / 49’+52 which is directly connected to the gear 98 / 98’ is presented below. The claims recite a first and second elongate adjusting members. As such, under broadest reasonable interpretation, 49+52 / 49’+52 can be considered such a “member”, because “member” is a broad term that can include multiple parts and does not specify a specific type of part or structure.
The claim objection is withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer (US 2002/0128054 A1), hereinafter Lauer in view of Deprauw et al. (US 2022/0369561 A1), hereinafter Deprauw.
Regarding claim 1, Lauer discloses a progressive sieve assembly (see below) for an agricultural vehicle (10, fig. 1, [0020]), said progressive sieve assembly comprising:
a sieve (42, fig. 3, [0023-0024]) comprising a frame (45, fig. 3, 0024), a first subset of louvers (44, fig. 23, [0024]) that are pivotably connected to the frame (fig. 3-4), and a second subset of louvers (44’, fig. 2, [0024]) that are also pivotably connected to the frame (fig. 3-4);
wherein the first subset of louvers is configured to pivot independently of the second subset of louvers (fig. 3- 4, [0024-0028]), and the second subset of louvers is configured to pivot independently of the first subset of louvers (fig. 3-4, [0024-0028]).
wherein louvers of the first subset of louvers (44, fig. 23, [0024]) are positioned in a first set of slots (slots shown on Figure 4 which mate with elements (51)) formed in a first translatable elongate adjusting member (52+ 49, fig. 3-4, [0028]), and louvers of the second subset of louvers (44’, fig. 2, [0024]) are positioned in a second set of slots (slots shown on analogous sieve (43) Figure 4 which mate with elements (51)) formed in a second translatable elongate adjusting member (52’+ 49, fig. 3-4, [0028]), wherein the first and second elongate adjusting members are independently moveable (52 + 49 and 52’ +49, fig. 3, [0028]), wherein translation of the first and second elongate translatable adjusting member causes movement of the first and second subsets of louvers, respectively (fig. 3, [0028]; see also [0025-0026]),
wherein the sieve further comprises
(i) a first gear set (94+98, fig. 3, [0028]) for carrying out translation of the first translatable elongate adjusting member (52+49, fig. 3, [0028]) relative to the frame (45, fig. 3-4, [0028]), the first gear set including a first driving gear (94, fig. 3, [0028]) attached to the frame (45, fig. 3-4, [0028]) and a first driven gear (98, fig. 3, [0028], wherein 94 drives 98) directly attached to the first translatable elongate adjusting member (98 attaches to 52+49, fig. 3) and
(ii) a second gear set (94’+98’, fig. 3, [0028]) for carrying out translation of the second translatable elongate adjusting member (52’+49, fig. 3, [0028]) relative to the frame (45, fig. 3-4, [0028]), the second gear set including a second driving gear (94’, fig. 3, [0028] ]) attached to the frame (fig. 3) and a second driven gear (98’, fig. 3, [0028]) directly attached to the second translatable elongate adjusting member (98’ attaches to 52’+49, fig. 3).
However, Lauer fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second subset of louvers are positioned downstream of the first subset of louvers as viewed in a direction of travel of grain across the sieve assembly. Lauer does show an adjacent arrangement (see Figure 3), and direction of oscillation (Os on Figure 4) which would implicitly be an upstream and downstream arrangement. However, this is not explicitly disclosed in Lauer. Deprauw teaches a similar device in the same field of sieve for a grain cleaning system wherein the second subset of louvers are positioned downstream of the first subset of louvers as viewed in a direction of travel of grain across the sieve assembly (112b is downstream of 112a as viewed in a direction of travel of the grain, fig. 3 and 5, [0039] of Deprauw). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the subsets of from the adjacent arrangement of Lauer to an explicitly downstream arrangement as taught by Deprauw as this is a known orientation and would yield the predictable result of processing the grains for cleaning (See MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 2, Lauer in view of Deprauw further teaches wherein first openings are disposed between adjacent louvers of the first subset of louvers, the first openings having a uniform first dimension as viewed in a fore-to-aft direction of the agricultural vehicle (openings between 44, fig. 2 and 4, [0024-0028] of Lauer), and wherein second openings are disposed between adjacent louvers of the second subset of louvers (openings between 44, fig. 2 and 4, [0024-0028] of Lauer), the second openings having a uniform second dimension as viewed in the fore-to-aft direction (fig. 2 and 4 of Lauer).
Lauer in view of Deprauw teaches the above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the uniform second dimension differs from the uniform first dimension. Deprauw teaches a similar device in the same field of sieve for a grain cleaning system wherein the uniform second dimension differs from the uniform first dimension (offset spacing “X”, fig. 6, [0039, 0041, and 0047] of Deprauw, wherein the uniform dimensions are adjustable). 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 the louvers of Lauer to have the adjustability of the uniform first and second dimension of Deprauw in order to allow for differences in grain and weight sizes as needed ([0039] of Deprauw).
Regarding claim 3, Lauer in view of Deprauw further teaches wherein the uniform first and second dimensions represent an opening through which grain passes between adjacent louvers (fig. 2-4, [0021 and 0023] of Lauer).
Regarding claim 4, Lauer in view of Deprauw further wherein the uniform second dimension is less than the uniform first dimension (offset spacing “X”, fig. 6, [0039, 0041, and 0047] of Deprauw, wherein the uniform dimensions are adjustable, so the uniform second dimension can be set to be less than the uniform first dimension).
Regarding claim 5, Lauer in view of Deprauw further teaches wherein each louver of the first subset of louvers is uniformly disposed at first rotational angle (individual louvers of 44, fig. 2-4, [0024 and 0026]) and each louver of the second subset of louvers is uniformly disposed at second rotational angle (individual louvers of 44’, fig. 2-4, [0024 and 0026]) that differs from the first rotational angle ([0025 and 0028], wherein each subset of Louvers 44 and 44’ corresponds with 43 and 43’, and has its own adjusting drive 74 and 74’ of Lauer).
Regarding claim 6, Lauer in view of Deprauw further teaches wherein the second rotational angle is less than the first rotational angle (fig. 2- 4, [0024-0028] of Lauer, wherein each subset of Louvers 44 and 44’ corresponds with 43 and 43’, and has its own adjusting drive 74 and 74’, so that if desired a lesser second rotational angle can be chosen).
Regarding claim 8, Lauer in view of Deprauw teaches further comprising a first means (90, fig. 3, [0028] of lauer) for rotating the first driving gear that moves (94, fig. 3, [0028], wherein 94 drives 98 by “cooperation” and 98 is said to rotate, therefore 94 rotates) the first translatable elongate adjusting member (52+49, fig. 3, [0028] of lauer), and a second means (90’, fig. 3, [0028] of lauer) for rotating the second driving gear that moves 94’, fig. 3, [0028], wherein 94’ drives 98’ by “cooperation” and 98’ is said to rotate, therefore 94’ rotates) the second translatable elongate adjusting member (52’+49, fig. 3, [0028]).
Regarding claim 9, Lauer in view of Deprauw further teaches wherein the first and second means are independently controlled motors (90 and 90’, fig. 3, [0028] of lauer).
Regarding claim 10, Lauer in view of Deprauw further teaches wherein, an output shaft (92 and 92’, fig. 3, [0028]) of each motor (90 and 90’, fig. 3, [0028]) is connected to one of the first and second driving gears (94 and 94’, fig. 3, [0028]) such that rotation of the output shaft causes translation of one of the translatable elongate adjusting members (fig. 3, [0028]).
Regarding claim 11, Lauer in view of Deprauw teaches claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the progressive sieve assembly constitutes an upper sieve of the agricultural vehicle. Deprauw teaches a similar device in the same field of sieve for a grain cleaning system wherein the progressive sieve assembly constitutes an upper sieve of the agricultural vehicle (48, fig. 1, [0035]). 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 Lauer in view of Deprauw to incorporate the arrangement of the sieve as the upper sleeve of Deprauw in order to facilitate cleaned grain, at least of a certain size or weight, to a lower sieve ([0035 and 0039]).
Regarding claim 12, Lauer in view of Deprauw teaches further comprising a first means for moving the first subset of louvers (74, fig. 3, [0024 and 0028] of lauer), and a second means for moving the second set of louvers (74’, fig. 3, [0024 and 0028] of lauer).
Regarding claim 13, Lauer in view of Deprauw teaches further comprising a first sensor for sensing grain passing between louvers of the first subset of louvers (104, fig. 3, [0029] of lauer), and a second sensor for sensing grain passing between louvers of the second subset of louvers (104’, fig. 3, [0029 and 0031] of lauer), wherein the first and second sensors communicate with a controller (100, fig. 1, [0029-0031] of lauer), and the controller is configured to independently activate the first and second means based upon readings of the first and second sensors, respectively ([0031] of lauer).
Regarding claim 15, Lauer in view of Deprauw further teaches an agricultural harvester (10, fig. 1, [0020] of lauer) comprising the progressive sieve assembly of claim 1 (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Lauer in view of Deprauw further teaches
wherein the first subset of louvers (44, fig. 23, [0024] of Lauer) is directly attached to the first translatable elongate adjusting member (52+49, fig. 3-4, [0028] of Lauer), and the second subset of louvers (44’, fig. 23, [0024] of Lauer) is directly attached to the second elongate translatable adjusting member (52’+49, fig. 3-4, [0028] of Lauer).
Regarding claim 18, Lauer in view of Deprauw further teaches wherein each driven gear (98 / 98’, fig. 3, [0028] of Lauer) and each driving gear (94 / 94’, fig. 3, [0028] of lauer) is a cylindrical-shaped gear having external teeth (fig. 3, [0028] of Lauer wherein 94/ 94’ drives 98 / 98’ by “cooperation” and 98/ 98’ is said to rotate, therefore 94/ 94’ rotates; this means that 94, 94’, 98, and 98’ must all be cylindrical-shaped gear with external teeth in order to transmit the driving motion through these gears in a rotational fashion).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer (US 2002/0128054 A1), hereinafter Lauer in view of Deprauw et al. (US 2022/0369561 A1), hereinafter Deprauw in view of Ricketts et al. (US 2010/0113113 A1), hereinafter Ricketts further in view of Hermann (US 20230247940 A1), hereinafter Hermann.
Regarding claim 16, Lauer in view of Deprauw further teaches the first driven gear (98, fig. 3, [0028] of Lauer) and two adjacent slots of the first set of slots (74, fig. 2-3 and 5-7, [0037-0039] of Ricketts) formed in the first translatable elongate adjusting member (52+49, fig. 3, [0028]), and the second driven gear (98’, fig. 3, [0028] of Lauer) and two adjacent slots of the second set of slots (as mapped above in Lauer) formed in the second translatable elongate adjusting member (98’ attaches to 52’+49, fig. 3 of Lauer).
Lauer in view of Deprauw teaches the above but fails to explicitly teach where first driven gear / second driven gear is positioned relative to two adjacent slots of the first set of slots / second set of slots. ]). 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 Lauer in view of Deprauw to place the first driven gear / second driven gear between two adjacent slots of the first set of slots/ second set of slots to have chosen this arrangement since the finite options are between the fingers of the slots or in between the set of slots (MPEP 2143, KSR type E).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer (US 2002/0128054 A1), hereinafter Lauer in view of Deprauw et al. (US 2022/0369561 A1), hereinafter Deprauw further in view of Hermann (US 20230247940 A1), hereinafter Hermann.
Regarding claim 14, Lauer in view of Deprauw further teaches an agricultural harvester (10, fig. 1, [0020]) comprising the progressive sieve assembly of claim 13 (see claim 13), wherein the agricultural harvester further comprises a cleaning fan positioned to distribute a stream of air across the progressive sieve assembly ([0002] of Lauer) and a controller ([0029-0031] of Lauer).
However, Lauer in view of Deprauw fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to control a speed of the cleaning fan based upon the readings of the first and second sensors. Hermann teaches a similar device in the same field of sieve for a grain cleaning system wherein the controller is further configured to control a speed of the cleaning fan based upon the readings of the first and second sensors (fig. 7, abstract, [0006, 0048, 0051, 0056, 0064, and 0073-0076]). 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 Lauer in view of Deprauw to incorporate the fan speed determined by sensor information sent to the controller of Hermann in order to effectively and efficiently clean the grain (abstract, [0006, 0048, 0051, 0056, 0064, and 0073-0076] of Hermann).
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 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
Prosecution Insights