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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the quality of the drawings does not meet the requirement of a black ink lines, see 37 C.F.R. 1.84. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 210, found at the last line of page 9 of the specification. It is believed this is a typographical error. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vande Ryse et al. (US 005916116 A), hereinafter Vande.
Regarding claim 1, Vande discloses a crop intake device (fig. 2-3, col. 2 lines 22-25 and col. 4 line 26 to col. 6 line 16) for an agricultural harvester (10, fig. 1, col. 2 lines 32-43), the crop intake device comprising:
(a) a frame (11, fig. 1-3, col. 2 lines 33-57); and
(b) a crop pickup unit (14, fig. 1-3, col. 2 lines 33-43 and col. 4 line 26 to col. 6 line 9) pivotably mounted to the frame (fig. 1-3, col. 4 lines 34-42, col. 4 line 26 to col. 6 line 9), the crop pickup unit comprising:
(i) a rotatable reel (dashed diamond in fig 1-3 to which 55 is connected) with a plurality of tines (55, fig. 1-3, col. 4 lines 34-42) configured for picking up crop from a field (fig. 1-3, col. 4 lines 34-42);
(ii) at least one support member (21+58, fig. 1-3, col. 2 lines 44-49 and col. 4 lines 34-42) for supporting the crop pickup unit on the field during use (fig. 1-3, col. 4 lines 34-42), the support member being pivotable relative to the reel for setting a minimum height of the tines (fig. 2-3, col. 4 line 62 to col. 6 line 9) by moving the reel between a lowered configuration (fig. 2, col. 4 line 62 to col. 5 line 32) and a raised configuration (fig. 3, col. 5 line 33 to col. 6 line 9);
(iii) a first suspension spring (65, fig. 2-3, col. 4 line 43-61), coupled between the frame and the crop pickup unit (fig. 1-3) such that a perpendicular distance between the first suspension spring and a pivot point (63) of the crop pickup unit on the frame increases when moving the reel towards the raised (63, fig. 2-3, col. 4 line 62 to col. 6 line 9, where a line drawn from the end of 65 nearer the and closer to the ground to the point 63 is longer in in fig. 3 than in fig. 2); and
(iv) a second suspension spring (68, fig. 2-3, col. 5 line 33 to col. 6 line 9), coupled between the frame and the crop pickup unit (fig. 1-3), such that a lifting torque provided by the second suspension spring on the crop pickup unit increases when moving the reel towards the raised configuration (col. 5 lines 45-67).
Regarding claim 2, Vande further discloses wherein the first suspension spring and the second suspension spring are compression springs (65 is a flotation spring which can be a tension spring or a compression spring; 68 is a cushioning spring, col. 4 lines 43-61, which is a type of compression spring).
Regarding claim 4, Vande further discloses wherein one of the first suspension spring and the second suspension spring is a tension spring and the other one of the first suspension spring and the second suspension spring is a compression spring (65 is a flotation spring, col. 4 lines 43-61, which can be a tension spring or a compression spring; 68 is a cushioning spring, col. 4 lines 43-61, which is a type of compression spring).
Regarding claim 5, Vande further discloses wherein the second suspension spring is arranged such that the lifting torque on the crop pickup unit is negative during a portion of a movement of the reel between the lowered configuration and the raised configuration (col. 5 lines 33-44).
Regarding claim 6, Vande further discloses wherein the second suspension spring is arranged such that the lifting torque is only negative during an initial portion of the movement of the reel between the lowered configuration and the raised configuration (col. 5 lines 33-44).
Regarding claim 8, Vande further discloses wherein the pivot point of the crop pickup unit on the frame is at least substantially coaxial with a rotatable stub auger (see 63 and 55 and the reel that 55 is connected to in fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 11, Vande further discloses further comprising an actuator for pivoting the crop pickup unit relative to the frame (72, fig. 1-3, col. 5 lines 33-44).
Regarding claim 12, Vande discloses an agricultural harvester (10, fig. 1, col. 2 lines 32-43) comprising the crop intake device as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Vande further discloses wherein the agricultural harvester is a baler, a forage harvester, or a combine harvester (10, fig. 1, col. 2 lines 32-43).
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vande Ryse et al. (US 005916116 A), hereinafter Vande in view of Boone et al. (US 2016/0286726 A1), hereinafter Boone.
Regarding claim 9, Vande discloses the crop pickup unit (14, fig. 1-3, col. 2 lines 33-43 and col. 4 line 26 to col. 6 line 9) containing the rotatable reel (dashed diamond in fig 1-3 to which 55 is connected) configured to pivot (fig. 2-3, col. 4 line 62 to col. 6 line 9).
Vande teaches the above, but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a windguard, arranged to form an infeed channel between the windguard and the rotatable reel, the windguard being configured to pivot together with the crop pickup unit.
Boone teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvester wherein a windguard (66+70, fig. 2-3, [0023-0024]), arranged to form an infeed channel (area between 64 and 66+70, fig. 2-3, [0012, 0014, 0021, and 0023-0024]) between the windguard and the rotatable reel (0023-0024]), the windguard being configured to pivot together with the crop pickup unit (60, fig. 2-3, [0023-0024]).
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 Vande to incorporate the pivotable windguard of Boone in order to ensure smooth progress of the crop material to further chambers ([0003, 0012, and 0014] of Boone).
Regarding claim 9, Vande in view of Boone teaches wherein the windguard (66+70, fig. 2-3, [0023-0024] of Boone) is pivotably mounted to the frame (62, fig. 2-3, [0023-0024] of Boone) at a location that is different from a location of the pivot point of the crop pickup unit on the frame (fig. 2-3, [0023-0024] of Boone).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vande Ryse et al. (US 005916116 A), hereinafter Vande in view of Wilken et al. (US 2017/0049045 A1), hereinafter Wliken.
Regarding claim 14, Vande discloses claim 1 including the crop intake device (fig. 2 of Vande), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the crop intake device is a header for a forage harvester or for a combine harvester.
Wilken teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein the crop intake device is a header (2, fig. 1, [0029]) for a forage harvester or for a combine harvester (1, fig. 1, [0003, 0029, 0034, and 0036]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the baler agricultural harvester of Vande with a forage harvester or combine harvester of Wilken to yield the predictable result of picking up of crops ([0002-0003] of Wilken).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 7 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:
Regarding claim 2, Vande is considered to be the closest prior art. However, it is not obvious, when taken with the other limitations of the claims, to change the cushioning spring 68 to an extension spring, since it would fundamentally destroy the function of the device.
Regarding claim 7, Vande is considered to be the closest prior art. However, it is not obvious, when taken with the other limitations of the claims, to change the relative positions of the second suspension spring and the pivot point depending on the position of the reel, since the second suspension spring and the pivot point are relatively unilateral. This arrangement was not found and would be using undo hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Anstey et al. (US 6,449,936 B1) - agricultural harvester with only one spring, but the pick-up is pivotable.
Monbaliu et al. (US 2020/0022311 A1) - agricultural harvester with two springs and is pivotable, but the springs and pivotability are related to the tying assembly.
Mortier et al. (US 4085571) – agricultural harvester with two springs and is pivotable, but the raised position is considered to be for transportation.
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
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights