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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, 12-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mello (US 2016/0150730) in view of Barretto (US 2023/0276730).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Mello discloses a sugarcane harvester (Figure 1 shows the structure of a well-known sugarcane harvester) for harvesting sugarcane stalks from sugarcane plants, the sugarcane harvester comprising: an intake and cutting assembly for cutting the sugarcane stalks from the sugarcane plants as the sugarcane harvester moves through the sugarcane plants, the intake and cutting assembly including: basecutters (Figure 2 element 4) for cutting bases of the sugarcane plants, and a stalk-supporting mechanism (Figures 7 and 8 show stalk supporting rollers 6) for supporting the stalks of the sugarcane plants as they are being cut by the basecutters; a chopping section for receiving the sugarcane stalks from the intake and cutting assembly and chopping the sugarcane stalks into billets; and a discharge assembly for receiving the billets from the chopping section and discharging the billets to a wagon or other storage vehicle or mechanism and one or more extractor fans or blowers that separate leaves, stems, and other crop residue from the billets and discharge the debris back into the sugarcane field (Figure 1 shows the known components of a modern sugarcane harvester).
Mello figure 1 is considered to show the known components of a modern sugar cane harvester however the specification of Mello does not specifically disclose the chopping section, blower section, and the discharge assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
659
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Barretto discloses a similar sugarcane harvester and teaches the known components of a chopping section (choppers 110), blower section (cleaning fan blowers 112/116 ), and the discharge assembly (discharge elevator 114).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the harvester of Mello to comprise the known components of a chopper, blower and discharge assembly as taught by Barretto for the purpose of chopping, cleaning and loading billet material.
Regarding claim 14, Mello discloses a sugarcane harvester (Figure 1 shows the structure of a well-known sugarcane harvester) for harvesting sugarcane stalks from sugarcane plants, the sugarcane harvester comprising: an intake and cutting assembly for cutting the sugarcane stalks from the sugarcane plants as the sugarcane harvester moves through the sugarcane plants, the intake and cutting assembly including: basecutters which include rotary blades, (Figure 2 element 4 shows rotary blades) for cutting bases of the sugarcane plants, and a stalk-supporting mechanism (Figures 7 and 8 show stalk supporting rollers 6) for supporting the stalks of the sugarcane plants as they are being cut by the basecutters;
the stalk-supporting mechanism comprising a pair of spaced apart, rotating conveyors that present an intake gap between them (Figures 7 and 8 show left and right conveyors made up of rollers 6 with a space between them),
wherein the conveyors grip the sugarcane stalks as they enter the intake and cutting assembly (via finned cylinders 6b), guide the stalks toward the intake gap (abstract), and support the stalks in a generally upright orientation as they are cut by the basecutters to relieve stress on the plants (¶0017 the distance decreases between the conveyors to apply pressure on the cane mass and to covey the mass to the basecutter. The conveyors are considered to meet the functional limitations of the claim as the claimed structural limitations have been meet),
a chopping section for receiving the sugarcane stalks from the intake and cutting assembly and chopping the sugarcane stalks into billets; and a discharge assembly for receiving the billets from the chopping section and discharging the billets to a wagon or other storage vehicle or mechanism and one or more extractor fans or blowers that separate leaves, stems, and other crop residue from the billets and discharge the debris back into the sugarcane field (Figure 1 shows the known components of a modern sugarcane harvester).
Mello figure 1 is considered to show the known components of a modern sugar cane harvester however the specification of Mello does not specifically disclose the chopping section, blower section, and the discharge assembly.
Barretto discloses a similar sugarcane harvester and teaches the known components of a chopping section (choppers 110), blower section (cleaning fan blowers 112/116 ), and the discharge assembly (discharge elevator 114).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the harvester of Mello to comprise the known components of a chopper, blower and discharge assembly as taught by Barretto for the purpose of chopping, cleaning and loading billet material.
Regarding claim 2, Mello discloses wherein the stalk-supporting mechanism comprises a pair of spaced apart, rotating conveyors that present an intake gap between them (Figures 7 and 8 show left and right conveyors made up of rollers 6 with a space between them).
Regarding claim 3, Mello discloses wherein the conveyors grip the sugarcane stalks as they enter the intake and cutting assembly (via finned cylinders 6b), guide the stalks toward the intake gap (abstract), and support the stalks in a generally upright orientation as they are cut by the basecutters to relieve stress on the plants (¶0017 the distance decreases between the conveyors to apply pressure on the cane mass and to covey the mass to the basecutter. The conveyors are considered to meet the functional limitations of the claim as the claimed structural limitations have been meet).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Mello discloses wherein the conveyors rotate in opposite directions at a speed to pull the stalks toward the basecutters and to support the stalks as they are being cut (The conveyors 6 of Mello are powered by hydraulic motors 6. They are understood to rotate in opposite direction to function as disclosed to guide the stalk into the harvester).
Mello is lacking a speed at which the rollers operate.
The purpose of Mello is to guide cane into the mouth of the harvester. Rotation faster or slower than the travel speed of the harvester would hinder the purpose of the conveyors operation. Therefore, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to match the conveyor speed to the ground speed of the harvester so the stalks remain standing and are not bend by the conveyor due to a slower or faster speed.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Mello appears to meet the spacing of the claim of 1-4 feet as seen in figures 7 and 8. However, Mello does not specifically disclose the gap size.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the gap 1-4 feet wide since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As noted above Mello discloses the same general conditions with a clear spacing of the conveyors.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mello (US 2016/0150730) in view of Serivner (US 2015/0362904).
Regarding claims 12, Mello discloses basecutters with rotary blades (4) but is lacking how they are driven.
Serivner discloses a sugarcane harvester with rotary blade base cutters and teaches wherein the basecutter are driven by a hydraulic system of the vehicle with hydraulic motors (¶0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the basecutters of Mello to be hydraulically driven by motors as taught by Serivner as an art recognized well known means to power basecutters.
Regarding claim 17, Mello discloses wherein each conveyor includes an angled side that is angled inwardly toward the intake gap, wherein the angled sides initially contact and grip the sugarcane plants and gently urge the sugarcane plants toward the intake gap (Figures 7 and 8 show that the conveyors on each side angle inwards).
Regarding claim 18, Mello discloses wherein each conveyor further includes a short side positioned above the basecutter blades that extends generally parallel to a path of travel of the harvester, wherein the short sides hold the stalks of the plants as the plants are being cut by the basecutters (See annotated figure 8. The short sides meet the structural limitation and therefore are considered to meet the functional limitations).
PNG
media_image2.png
454
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira de Camargo (US2023/0284559) in view of Bressiani (IP 0706022-0A).
Regarding claims 1 and 12-14, Pereira is presented an relied upon for the purpose of presenting a modern sugarcane harvester with art recognized known components, however it is understood that the combinations could be used with other known sugarcane harvesters, Pereira discloses a sugarcane harvester (1) for harvesting sugarcane stalks from sugarcane plants, the sugarcane harvester comprising: an intake and cutting assembly for cutting the sugarcane stalks from the sugarcane plants as the sugarcane harvester moves through the sugarcane plants (header portion A of figure 1), the intake and cutting assembly including - basecutters (104) for cutting bases of the sugarcane plants, wherein the basecutters include rotary blades (rotate on axes 103 ¶0048) and a hydraulic motor for rotating the blades (¶0036), one or more extractor fans (56) or blowers that separate leaves, stems, and other crop residue from the billets and discharge the debris back into the sugarcane field (¶0040), a chopping section (50) for receiving the sugarcane stalks from the intake and cutting assembly and chopping the sugarcane stalks into billets; and a discharge assembly (52) for receiving the billets from the chopping section and discharging the billets to a wagon or other storage vehicle or mechanism (¶0039).
Pereira Figure 3 shows a stalk-supporting section comprising lollipops (32) and pads (34) for directing crops towards the basecutters. Pereira is lacking further use of conveyors.
Bressiani discloses an improvement for an intake assembly (As seen in figures 7 and 8) that can be used during harvesting (3rd page, ¶5 of provided written translation portion). Bressiani teaches the use of a stalk-supporting mechanism (Figure 4), the stalk-supporting mechanism comprising a pair of spaced apart, rotating conveyors (belts 1) that present an intake gap (gap between the belts through which crop passes) between them, wherein the conveyors grip (via ribs 2) the sugarcane stalks as they enter the intake and cutting assembly, guide the stalks toward the intake gap (via mouth 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pereira to further use the stalk supporting belts as taught by Bressiani to further hold and guide sugarcane stalks as they are cut and enter the harvester for further processing.
The combination would be considered to support the stalk in a generally upright position as they are being cut by the basecutters to relieve stress on subterranean buds of the plants.
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses wherein the stalk-supporting mechanism comprises a pair of spaced apart, rotating conveyors (Bressiani conveyors 1 are spaced more at the front and less at the back) that present an intake gap between them (the back portion comprise an intake gap where the sugarcane is sandwiched within).
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses wherein the conveyors grip the sugarcane stalks as they enter the intake and cutting assembly (Bressiani conveyors 1 clearly grip the sugarcane), guide the stalks toward the intake gap, and support the stalks in a generally upright orientation as they are cut by the basecutters to relieve stress on the plants (The combination is considered to meet the functional limitations).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, the combination discloses wherein the conveyors rotate in opposite directions (page 2 ¶4 of provided translation of Bressiani) at a speed (via transmission).
The purpose of the combination would be to guide cane into the mouth of the harvester. Rotation faster or slower than the travel speed of the harvester would hinder the purpose of the conveyors operation. Therefore, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to match the conveyor speed to the ground speed of the harvester so the stalks remain standing and are not bent by the conveyor due to a slower or faster speed.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, the combination discloses wherein each conveyor includes three rollers (Bressiani , 8-10) and a belt (1) or chain trained over the rollers in a triangle shape (Figure 3).
The combination is lacking the use of four roller and a trapezoidal shape.
It would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to merely add an additional roller and for the belt to comprise a trapezoidal shape, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and mere change in shape of the system would not affect the performance of the system.
Claims 5 and 16 present a duplication of known parts in the form of rollers and a difference in shape without claiming further inventive structure relationships or an inventive functioning or purpose due to the claimed additional roller or shape that distinguishes it in view of the combination. Amending to provide further inventive structural relationship between components and /or inventive functioning due to the specific shape and structure would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 17, the combination discloses wherein each conveyor includes an angled side that is angled inwardly toward the intake gap (Bressiani figure 2, mouth 6), wherein the angled sides initially contact and grip the sugarcane plants and gently urge the sugarcane plants toward the intake gap (ribs 2 of the belts would perform this function).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 18, the combination discloses wherein each conveyor further includes a short side positioned above the basecutter blades that extends generally parallel to a path of travel of the harvester, wherein the short sides hold the stalks of the plants as the plants are being cut by the basecutters (Bressiani figure 3, shows short sides 3a which would be considered in view of the combination to pass at least over a portion of the basecutter before feeding into the harvester).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, It is noted by the examiner that the belts of Bressiani as shown I figure 7 appear to be significantly greater than 24 inches. It is further noted that sizes and configurations of components would obviously have to be change to accommodate the combinations teaching to make a functional reasonable combination.
With respect to the above notes the combination is still lacking a specific width of the belts.
It would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the belts width within the range of 2-24 inches to fit within the system of Pereira and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 11 and 20 present claim limitations that merely state a size of a component without claiming further inventive structure relationships or an inventive functioning or purpose due to the claimed specific size that distinguishes it in view of the combination. Amending to provide further inventive structural relationship between components and /or inventive functioning due to the specific size and structure would overcome this rejection.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira de Camargo (US2023/0284559) in view of Bressiani (IP 0706022-0A) as applied to claims 1-2 and 14, in further view of Scranton (1726043).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, the combination comprises a smaller gap outside of the claimed range of 1-4 feet.
First, the combination would be considered to handle a known flow of material entering the intake of the harvester; however, in view of the problem of a larger quantity of sugarcane stalks entering the intake of the combination it would have been considered an obvious matter of design choice to merely space the conveyors apart at any distance suitable to handle a larger quantity of sugarcane stalks, to include 1-4 feet without departing from the combinations functional purpose.
Second, Scranton teaches a sugar cane harvester with intake conveyors (66) and teaches a spacing between the conveyors that appears to be between 1-4 feet at an intake portion (at indicators 69).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to place a larger space between the belts as taught by Scranton for the purpose of handling more crop flow. With respect to the range of 1-4 feet wide it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, placing the gap of the combination between 1-4 feet would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schexnayder (USPN 3871162).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BEHRENS whose telephone number is (303)297-4336. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-2pm MST.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. 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.
/ADAM J BEHRENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671