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 § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 9-13, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boehm, et al. US4218022.
Regarding claim 1, Boehm, et al. teaches a straw chopper 10/12 for a combine harvester Column 1: 10-11, comprising:
an outer drum portion 22 having an inlet end (end near 20 shown in Figure 1) and an outlet end (side near 54) and a curved shape (lower right side is curved) formed about a central axis (thru 32), the inlet end configured to receive straw to be chopped by the straw chopper (wherein the title is “straw chopper”);
a central hub 30 within the outer drum portion 22, the central hub 30 having a length (shown in Figure 1, along 30’s vertical axis), and a rotation axis 32 along the length direction; and
a set of blades 36 extending outwardly from the central hub 30, wherein a feeding channel (between 36 and 22) is defined between the outermost ends of the blades 36 and the outer drum portion 22, wherein the feeding channel comprises an inlet (top of 20) along substantially the full length of an inlet end of the outer drum portion 22 and an outlet (between 26 and 28) along the substantially the full length of an outlet end (Figure 2, left side of 22) of the outer drum portion 22, the inlet and outlet being angularly offset around the rotation axis 32 by less than 180 degrees, wherein the outer drum portion 22 comprises inwardly facing guide vanes (short blades 44, shown in Figure 1 as the shorter lines versus the longer lines 44) positioned on the outer drum portion between the inlet end and a longitudinal position (the position shown in Figure 2) of the central and rotational axes such that the guide vanes are forward (to the right of 32 in Figure 2) of the central and rotational axes, wherein the guide vanes 44 comprise a first set (bottom grouping of 44 in Figure 1. See Figure A, annotated from Figure 1, below) to one lateral side of the outer drum portion 22 and a second set (top grouping of 44 in Figure 1. See Figure A, annotated from Figure 1, below) to the other lateral side of the outer drum portion 22, each of the first set of vanes having a single common first non-perpendicular angle (the two angles forming the periphery of 44 to form the trapezoid shape shown in figure 2, which is non-perpendicular to the surface of 22) to the length direction and each of the second set of vanes having a second single common non-perpendicular angle to the length direction (both first and second sets of blades 44, respectively, are shown parallel to each respective blade in each respective set, and thus are considered to each have common angles),
such that the guide vanes cause the straw to shift laterally along a direction parallel to the rotation axis (due to vanes 44 impinging upon the straw in the annulus between 22 and 32) as the straw moves rearward (towards the left) from the inlet end in a region (to the right of 32) forward of the rotation axis so that the set of blades makes new cuts in the straw as the straw is moved laterally (due to 44 impinging on straw in that annulus between 22 and 32).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 5, Boehm, et al. teaches that the set of blades 36 comprises multiple blades 36 along the length (as shown in Figure 1) of the central hub 30 and multiple blades 36 around (four are shown in cross section in Figure 2) the central hub 30.
Regarding claim 6, Boehm, et al. teaches static blades (the long blades 44 (Figure 1 shows multiple such long blades 44, as compared with the short blades 44) attached to the outer hub portion (as shown in Figure 2, as best understood by examiner, the claimed outer hub should be the outer drum).
Regarding claim 9, Boehm, et al. teaches that the first set of guide vanes 44 to one lateral side of the outer drum portion 22 steer straw towards the center (by virtue of these vanes 44 impinging on the movement of straw from the right to the left of Figure 2, and thus splitting and steering at least some of the straw towards the center) and the second set of guide vanes 44 to the other lateral side of the outer drum portion 22 steer straw towards the center (by virtue of these vanes 44 impinging on the movement of straw from the right to the left of Figure 2, and thus splitting and steering at least some of the straw towards the center).
Regarding claim 10, Boehm, et al. teaches that the guide vanes 44 can be selectively engaged and disengaged (via the selective adjustment of adjustment bars 72/74 to swing the guide plates as described in Column 2: 57-Column 3: 2 “A pin 68 extends downwardly from each guide plate 44 and passes through an aperture 70 in the channel member 52. All of the pins 68 on one side of the straw chopper and spreader attachment are connected to an adjustment bar 72 positioned in the channel portion of the channel member 52. All of the pins 68 on the other side of the straw chopper and spreader attachment are connected to an adjustment bar 74 positioned in the channel portion of the channel members 52. The adjustment bars 72, 74 are moved parallel to the drum 30 to swing the guide plates 44 about their vertical axes 64. The adjustment bars 72, 74 are locked in any desired position relative to the channel member 52 to hold the guide plates 44 in the desired position”. In this case, the claimed term “engaged” is interpreted to be a specific desired angle, and the term “disengaged” is interpreted to be any angle not at this specific desired angle).
Regarding claim 11, Boehm, et al. teaches that the guide vanes 44 are removable (wherein guide plates 44 are attached via bolt 46. Column 2: 23-24 “ The U-shaped blade members 42 are each secured in place by a bolt 46”) from the remainder of the outer drum portion 22.
Regarding claim 12, Boehm, et al. teaches a feed panel 24 (wherein 24 is thin, thus considered a panel, and is inclined towards the inlet) leading to the inlet end of the outer drum portion 22 and a delivery panel 76 (wherein 76 is thin, as shown in Figure 2, thus is considered a panel) leading from the outlet end (as shown in Figure 2) of the outer drum portion 22.
Regarding claim 13, Boehm, et al. teaches that the outer drum portion 22 extends around the rotation axis 32 by an angle between 30 and 120 degrees (Figure 2 shows 22 extending a little over 45 degrees about 30, which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 15, Boehm, et al. teaches a straw chopper 10/12 for a combine harvester Column 1: 10-11, comprising:
an outer drum portion 22;
a central hub 30 within the outer drum portion 22, the central hub 30 having a length (as recited above), and a rotation axis 32 along the length direction; and
a set of blades 36 extending outwardly from the central hub 30, wherein the outer drum portion 22 comprises inwardly facing guide vanes 44 for guiding the flow of straw through the straw chopper 10/12 in a region forward of the rotation axis (as recited above), wherein the guide vanes 44 are removable (by undoing the bolts 46) so that the straw chopper 10/12 has at least two different operating modes (such as an operating mode with all of blades 44 installed as shown in Figure 1, and a second mode with less than all of the shown 44 being installed) with different straw chopping characteristics (due to changes in the width or spacing of 44 when some of 44 are removed).
Regarding claim 16, Boehm, et al. teaches that the guide vanes 44 are for guiding a movement of straw along the length direction (Figure 1 shows the guide vanes disposed along the length of 30) of the central hub 30.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Behm, et al. teaches the guide vanes are entirely forward (to the right) of the rotation axis (as shown in Figure 2).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehm, et al. alone.
Regarding claim 2, Boehm, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach the guide vanes 44 extend along a fraction of the circumferential extent of the outer drum portion 22 over an angle of between 10 and 90 degrees. Regarding claim 3, Boehm, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach that the guide vanes 44 extend along a fraction of the circumferential extent of the outer drum portion 22 over an angle between 20 and 70 degrees. Regarding claim 4, Boehm, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach the guide vanes 44 extend along a fraction of the circumferential extent of the outer drum portion 22 over an angle of around 45 degrees
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the guide vane extension angle limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Boehm, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach that the guide vanes 44 are angled from the perpendicular by an angle in the range 5 to 25 degrees. Regarding claim 8, Boehm, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach that the guide vanes 44 are angled from the perpendicular by an angle in the range 10 to 20 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the guide vane angle range limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehm, et al. in view of Bonetti US2020/0015419.
Regarding claim 14, Boehm, et al. teaches a combine harvester Column 1: 10-11 comprising:
the straw chopper 10/12 of claim 1 for cutting MOG received from the threshing and separating system; and
a straw spreader 48 receiving a straw flow from the straw chopper 10/12 and distributing the straw (via limiting straw movement upwards).
Boehm, et al. does not teach the combine harvester comprises a crop cutting head and a threshing and separating system.
Bonetti teaches that it is notoriously well-known for a combine harvester 10 with a chopper 20 to include a crop cutting head (¶0029 “At the front of the machine a feederhouse 14 has, in operation, mounted thereto a cutting header (not shown), the feederhouse collecting cut crop and conveying”) and a threshing and separating system 15, to harvest (the above described collecting cut crop) and process crop (¶0030 “Grain and husks separated during the threshing and separating process”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Boehm, et al.’s combine harvester to include Bonetti’s crop cutting head to cut and collect crop and Bonetti’s threshing and separating system to provide desired crop processing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/6/2026, that blades 60 do not meet the amended claim limitations are correct. However, as described above, blades 44 are interpreted to meet the amended claim limitations.
Therefore, the rejections over Boehm, et al. are maintained.
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.
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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
9/30/2026
Prosecution Insights