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
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) 1,3-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020176953 to Berry in view of Wolters 6554701.
Referring to claim 1, Berry discloses an agricultural harvester comprising: an oscillating cleaning shoe (see page 15, lines 35-37, system to oscillates sieve) to which one or more sieves (18) are connected; a seed mill (30) including an inlet ( funnel at top) for receiving a stream of chaff material, the seed mill also including an outlet through which the stream of chaff material is expelled. Berry does not disclose a panof chaff material into the inlet of a device. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the harvester disclosed by Berry to have a pan
Referring to claim 3,Wolter teaches at least one sleeve mounted to the cleaning shoe (see col. 3, lines 43-49).
Referring to claim 4, Berry, as modified, discloses a seal ( baffle 34) mounted at an elevation above the pan, wherein the seal is movable between (i) a raised position for directing the stream of chaff material onto the pan ( see fig. 1, position at 34a), and (ii) a lowered position for directing the stream of chaff material over the pan (position at 34b).
Referring to claim 5, Berry discloses the seal (34) is pivotably mounted to either the seed mill or the pan ( see fig. 1, baffle is pivotally connected to sloped section A over mill 30) .
Referring to claim 9, Berry discloses a straw spreader ( see page 10, lines 32-34) positioned downstream of the seed mill, wherein in the raised position of the seal ( at 34a), the seal blocks the stream of chaff material from reaching the straw spreader, and, in the lowered position of the seal ( at 34b), the seal does not block the stream of chaff material from reaching the straw spreader.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020176953 to Berry in view of Wolters 6554701, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Isaac 20090253474 and Hall 20210282329 .
Referring to claim 2, Berry discloses a spreader (see page 10, lines 32-34) positioned downstream of the seed mill as viewed in a direction of the stream of chaff material. Berry does not specifically disclose the spreader is configured to be rotated at a speed that is less than a rotational speed of the seed mill. Hall teaches having a seed mill rotate at a higher speed up to 3000 rpms in order to ensure the seed are devitalized (see paragraph 0007). Isaac teaches rotating a spreader at a low speeds from 300-800 rpm (see claim 2 and Table 1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the harvester disclosed by Berry, as modified by Wolters, to have the spreader is configured to be rotated at a speed that is less than a rotational speed of the seed mill in view of the teachings of Isaac and Hall with a reasonable expectation of success as it is known to operate spreaders at a lower speed and mills are operated at higher speed to ensure seeds are devitalized.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020176953 to Berry in view of Wolters 6554701, as applied to claim 4, and further in view of EP 3172959 to Ballegeer et al.
Referring to claim 8, Berry discloses a straw chopper (22) but does not disclose a shroud at least partially surrounding the straw chopper, and a second seal that is movably mounted to the shroud, wherein the second seal is moveable between a deployed position where the second seal is positioned either adjacent or in contact with the seal, and a retracted position where the second seal is not positioned adjacent the seal. Ballegeer teaches a straw chopper (22) with a shroud at least partially surrounding the straw chopper, and a second seal (292) that is movably mounted to the shroud, wherein the second seal is moveable between a deployed position and a retracted position (see fig. 11-12). The seal allows the chopper to be bypassed and straw sent straight to spreader. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the harvester disclosed by Berry, as modified by Wolters, to have a shroud at least partially surrounding the straw chopper, and a second seal that is movably mounted to the shroud, wherein the second seal is moveable between a deployed position where the second seal is positioned either adjacent or in contact with the seal, and a retracted position where the second seal is not positioned adjacent the seal in view of the teachings of Ballegeer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the ability to bypass the chopper and seed straw to spreader if desired.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020176953 to Berry in view of Wolters 6554701, as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Mayerle 20230141301.
Referring to claim 10, Berry does not disclose a gasket mount above at least a portion of the seal. Mayerle teaches it is known to use sealing mounting to prevent the seeds for going to undesirable areas (see paragraph 0066). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the harvester disclosed by Berry, as modified by Wolters, to have a gasket mount above at least a portion of the seal in view of the teachings of Mayerle with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent the seeds from going to undesirable areas when the seal or baffle is lowered.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020176953 to Berry in view of Wolters 6554701, as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Hall 20210282329 .
Referring to claim 12, Berry does not disclose the seed mill comprises a rotor and stator. Hall teaches it is well known in the art for a seed mill to have a rotor and stator, and the rotor is configured to rotate with respect to the stator for damaging weed seeds passing between the rotor and stator (see paragraph 0007). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the harvester disclosed by Berry, as modified by Wolter, for the seed mill to have a rotor and stator, and the rotor is configured to rotate with respect to the stator for damaging weed seeds passing between the rotor and stator in view of the teachings of Hall with a reasonable expectation of success as this is a well known type of seed mill.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 11 are 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:
Referring to claim 6, Berry as modified, by Wolters does not teach or suggest the pan includes an opening on said surface that is positioned above the inlet of the seed mill, and, in the lowered position of the seal, the seal covers the opening in combination with the other limitations of the claim nor would it be obvious to modify Berry or Wolters to include this limitation.
Referring to claim 7, Berry does not teach or suggest foldable covers mounted to opposing sides of the seal, wherein, in the raised position of the seal, the seal and the foldable covers together form a three-walled structure for directing the stream of chaff material onto the surface of the pan, and in the lowered position of the seal, the foldable covers are folded either beneath or beside the seal in combination with the other limitations of the claim nor would it be obvious to modify Berry to have such a limitation.
Referring to claim 11, Berry does not disclose a straw hood, a second seed mill, and a drive mechanism positioned within an interior region of the straw hood for powering the seed mills, wherein the seal is divided into a first seal portion that is positioned on one side of the drive mechanism and a second seal portion that is positioned on an opposite side of the drive mechanism in combination with the other limitations of the claim nor would it be obvious to modify Berry to have such a limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1,3-5 and 9 under 102a1 in view of WO 2020176953 to Berry have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 103 rejection of WO 2020176953 to Berry in view of Wolters 6554701.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Isaacs et al. 20150111627 discloses an oscillating chaff pan.
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 GIOVANNA WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7027. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am- 5 pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/Giovanna Wright/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights