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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Claims 1-18, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Derscheid (11071255).
“(30) Once each of the recessed portions 304 are formed, a wear resistant material 311 is applied to each of the recessed 304 to provide a reinforced cutting edge having a harder cutting edge than would be provided if the wear resistant material was not applied to the steel body. In one embodiment, the thickness of the material 311 is about one (1) millimeter (mm). Other thicknesses are contemplated, including a range of thicknesses from 0.1 mm to 2 mm.”
“(31) The material 311, in one embodiment, is a tungsten carbide material, which is harder than the steel body. Other types of carbides are contemplated. Other materials harder than the supporting steel body are also contemplated, such as chrome materials, nickel materials, and powder metal alloys. The materials are applied with a number of different application processes including fusing the applied material, hardfacing processes, spraying the material in the recess and then fusing, laser cladding, electrostatic application, or using high velocity oxygen fuel (HVOF) coating. Laser cladding and HVOC materials typically include a thickness toward the lower end of the range. Tungsten carbide is typically in the middle of the range. In other embodiments, a proprietary material of Deere & Company, identified as Gopalite® coating composition, is used and has a thickness toward the higher end of the range.”
[AltContent: textbox (Curved cutting area)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (1st & 2nd corners, so that 2nd corner lies behind line a connecting line of the 1st corner)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Flat base)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
370
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (2nd corner lower than the 1st)][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (1st corner is higher than the 2nd corner)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Imaginary plane (for example, but not limited to line 312) running through the flat base body)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
204
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Similar “connecting line” connects the 2nd corner and the 1st (marked up above) the line is an arc with angle α up to 15 degr. & anything in between)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
504
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
1. A blade for machines for agriculture, comprising:
a substantially flat base body with a curved cutting area (marked up), in which a cut is made when the base body is stationary (shown/taught above),
wherein cutting plates made of a carbide are arranged in the cutting area (see quotes above),
wherein the cutting plates have on a front side cutting edges (taught above),
a first corner and a second corner (marked up),
wherein, in plan view on an upper side of the base body, the cutting plates are arranged in such a way that the second corner of a cutting plate lies behind a connecting line of the first corners of the cutting plates (shown/taught above)
2. The blade according to claim 1, wherein the connecting line of first corners is an arc of a circle (shown/taught above).
3. The blade according to claim 1, wherein the cutting plates are rotated by an angle α of up to 15° relative to the connecting line when viewed in the plan view on the upper side of the base body (angle α shown/taught to be a range of 0° to 10°, 1° to 9°, 2° to 8°, up to 15°).
4. The blade according to claim 3, wherein the angle α is greater than 0° to 10° relative to the connecting line when viewed in the plan view on the upper side of the base body (see cl. 3).
5. The blade according to claim 3, wherein the angle α is 1° to 9° relative to the connecting line when viewed in the plan view on the upper side of the base body (see cl. 3).
6. The blade according to claim 1, wherein the angle α is 2° to 8° relative to the connecting line when viewed in the plan view on the upper side of the base body (see cl. 3).
7. The blade according to claim 1, wherein the cutting plates are arranged in such a way that the first corners are positioned closer to an outer side of the base body and the second corners are positioned closer to an inner side of the base body (fig 6).
8. The blade according to claim 1, wherein, in a frontal view of the cutting edges, the cutting plates are arranged obliquely relative to an imaginary plane running through the flat base body so that the first corner of at least one cutting plate is higher than the second corner of the at least one cutting plate (marked up).
9. The blade according to claim 8, wherein an angle β of an inclined position of the cutting plates arranged obliquely to the imaginary plane running through the flat base body is greater than 0° up to 25° (angle β range shown/taught is greater than 0° up to 25°, up to 17.5°, up to 15°, between 7.5° to 12.5°).
10. The blade according to claim 8, wherein the angle β is up to 17.5° (see cl. 9).
11. The blade according to claim 8, wherein the angle β is up to 15° (see cl. 9).
12. The blade according to claim 8, wherein an angle β is between 7.5° to 12.5° (see cl. 9).
13. The blade according to claim 1, wherein, in a frontal view of the cutting edge, the cutting plates form an at least substantially continuous cutting line (figs 6, 7).
14. The blade according to claim 1, wherein the carbide comprises at least one of tungsten carbide or titanium carbide and a binder metal comprising at least one of cobalt, iron or nickel (choice of material, see quote above).
“(29) FIG. 4 illustrates an edge profile 309 of the knife body 294 including the recessed portions 304 formed in a piece of sheet steel, but prior to preparing the cutting edge 296. As can be seen in FIG. 4, the first side 302 is spaced from a second side 303 of the steel body, such that the first side 302 and the second side 303 are generally parallel. In the illustrated embodiment, each of the recessed portions 304 are formed during a forging process applied to the steel body.”
15. The blade according to claim 1, wherein the base body is formed from a steel (choice of material, see quote above).
“(28) Each of the teeth 298 includes a width “w” generally defined by a recessed portion or valley 304 of the knife body 294. The recessed portions 304 of each of the teeth 298 extends from the spline 300 to the cutting edge 296. Each of the recessed portions 304 includes a surface 305 which is inclined with the centerline 312 of FIG. 6. By inclining this surface 305, the cutting edge of each of the teeth is also inclined to improve the cutting operation.”
16. The blade according to claim 1, wherein the base body is formed with plate seats in which the cutting plates are arranged (taught above, arranged in the recessed portion / seats).
17. The blade according to claim 1, wherein the cutting plates are soldered to the base body (in particular using carbide, in claim 1, the soldering is viewed as a form of cladding, taught above).
“applying a grinding tool to each of the valleys having the wear resistant material, wherein the grinding tool is applied to form a cutting edge at each of the valleys, the cutting edge of each of the valleys being disposed on either side of the centerline.”
“(33) After the bevels 310 are formed, each of the teeth 298 is formed to provide the cutting edge 296. In one embodiment, the cutting edge 296 of each tooth 298 is formed with a machine that grinds each of the valleys to form scallops 314 at alternating locations on either side of the knife body 294. The scallops are lined with the wear resistant material. The scallops 314, on each side of the knife body 294, include a forged first portion 318 and a ground second portion 320, each of which is inclined with respect to one of planar surfaces of the knife body 294. In one embodiment, first portion 318 results from the forging process and the second portion 320 results from the grinding process.”
18. The blade according to claim 1, wherein the cutting plates are ground on an underside (taught above).
22. The blade according to claim 1, wherein the blade is one of a baler blade or loader wagon blade for a harvesting machine (col. 1, ln 11-38).
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) 3-12, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derscheid (11071255).
While Derscheid teaches a particular arrangement of, while shown but not specified, that the angle of the cutting edges or the angle of cutting plates being rotated, however regarding cl. 19-21, the grinding angle, again, is not specified, as such:
19. The blade according to claim 18, wherein a grinding angle γ of the cutting plates is 5° to 25°.
20. The blade according to claim 19, wherein the grinding angle γ is 7.5° to 20°.
21. The blade according to claim 19, wherein a grinding angle γ is 8° to 18°.
It would have been obvious to pick and choose from any of the well known range in arranging / choosing the angle γ to be 5° to 25°, 7.5° to 20°, 8° to 18°, the angle β to be greater than 0° up to 25°, up to 17.5°, up to 15°, between 7.5° to 12.5°, and angle α to be 0° to 10°, 1° to 9°, 2° to 8°, up to 15°. In either case, the constructions of the device as claimed would have been obvious logical steps or to achieve the above arrangement would have clearly been within this range.
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.
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)
Finally, in Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U. S. 273 (1976), the Court derived from the precedents the conclusion that when a patent "simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform" and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. Id., at 282
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Baernthaler et al (2019/0230838) teaches in par. 7, that it has been known to solder the carbide cutting elements onto the base body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6990. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th.
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 Rocca can be reached on (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.
/ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights