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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “70” in Fig. 1 has been used to designate both the primary extractor and a part of the elevator assembly. 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. 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: System and Method of Using Splitter For Removing Debris From Agricultural Harvester.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. [0055], line 8 recites “(e.g., as indicated by arrow 145 in Fig. 6)”, however, there is not an arrow with reference number 145 in Fig. 6 or other Figs.
Para. [0055], lines 13-14 recite “(e.g., as indicated by arrows 176 and 178 in Fig. 5)”, should read – (e.g., as indicated by arrows 176 and 178 in Fig. 6) – due to the reference numbers being in Fig. 6 and not Fig. 5.
Para. [0057], lines 1 recites “As shown in Fig. 14”, however, there are only 7 figures. Should read – As shown in Fig. 7 –.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Roberge et al. (US 12342757 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Roberge et al. teaches a method (method of operating [10]) of operating a harvester [10], the method comprising:
discharging a processed crop material (see Col. 6, lines 48-54) from an outlet [92] of a chopper assembly [50], the processed crop material defining a first portion (debris [53]) in a first region (see below; portion above the outlet comprised majority of debris) relative to the outlet and a second portion (billets [51]) in a second region (see below; portion below the outlet comprises majority of billets) relative to the outlet, the first region positioned above the second region (see below); and
separating a flow of the processed crop material in the first region (see Col. 7, lines 4-9 and Col. 10, lines 63-67) into a first flow of material (see below; flow extends outwards) and a second flow of material (see below; flow extends outwards) into an extraction chamber [93] of an extractor [54] with a splitter [202].
PNG
media_image1.png
641
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
608
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Roberge et al. teaches wherein the processed crop material in the first region (see above) includes a higher concentration of debris than billets (comprised mostly of debris [53] to be extracted, see above), and wherein the processed crop material in the second region (see above) includes a higher concentration of billets than debris (comprised mostly of billets [51] to travel to elevator [60]).
Regarding claim 12, Roberge et al. teaches wherein the first flow of material (see above) flows into a first zone (see below) and the second flow of material (see above) diverges into a second zone (see below) of a downstream extraction chamber ([93]; zones extend into the extraction chamber for splitting of the materials) of an extractor housing [95 and 96], the first zone laterally offset from the second zone (see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
608
756
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Roberge et al. teaches generating a suction force (generates airflow to separate debris [53] from billets [51], see Col. 6, lines 55-59 and Fig. 2) within the extraction chamber [93] of the extractor [54].
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.
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) 1-5, 9, 13, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberge et al. (US 12342757 B2) in view of Adams (US 2708582 A).
Regarding claim 1, Roberge et al. discloses a system [100] for removing debris from an agricultural harvester [10], the system comprising:
a chopper assembly [50] configured to receive and process crop material (see Col. 6, lines 48-54), the chopper assembly defining an outlet [92] through which a stream of processed crop material is discharged from the chopper assembly (see Col. 6, lines 48-59), wherein the outlet defines an outlet vertical height (see below) and a center point of the outlet (see below); and
a splitter [202] positioned downstream of the chopper assembly, the splitter at least partially extending within the stream of processed crop material discharged from the chopper assembly (see Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image4.png
571
770
media_image4.png
Greyscale
But Roberge et al. fails to disclose the splitter is positioned above the center point of the outlet.
Adams discloses a similar agricultural harvester (see Col. 1, lines 15-18) comprising a chopper assembly [20] defining an outlet (see below) and a splitter ([92]; splits the crop flow into different sections) positioned downstream of the chopper assembly (see Fig. 1), wherein the splitter is positioned above the center point (see below) of the outlet.
PNG
media_image5.png
113
666
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the splitter of Roberge et al. to be positioned above the center point of the outlet as taught by Adams in order for the material that impinges against the upper surface of the upper plate to be thinned and distributed laterally (see Adams Col. 4, lines 39-46).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the splitter of Roberge et al. to be smaller and therefore positioned above the center point of the outlet since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a simple matter of design choice well within the skill of one in the art, and the change of shape would still allow the splitter of Roberge et al. to separate the flow of material as claimed (see Roberge et al. Col. 14, lines 23-34).
Regarding claim 2, Roberge et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses an upper plate [130] extending outwardly from the chopper assembly [50] adjacent to a top end portion [122] of the outlet [92].
Regarding claim 3, Roberge et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the splitter [202] is operably coupled with the upper plate ([130]; splitter is mounted to the upper plate, see Col. 11, lines 20-27).
Regarding claim 4, Roberge et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the upper plate [130] includes a first angled wall portion [136] and a second angled wall portion [138] each extending between an upstream end portion [132] of the upper plate and a downstream end portion [134] of the upper plate, and wherein the first angled wall portion is non-parallel to the second angled wall portion (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Roberge et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the splitter ([202]; base of splitter is positioned downstream of outlet and upstream of [134], see below) is positioned downstream of the outlet [92] and upstream of the second angled wall portion [134].
PNG
media_image6.png
433
457
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Roberge et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the splitter [202] is configured to divide at least a portion of processed crop material into two separate flows of material (see Col. 10, lines 56-67 and Col. 11, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Roberge et al. discloses the system as applied above, as well as, a central zone, wherein the central zone (see below) is laterally between the first zone (see below) and the second zone (see below), but fails to disclose wherein a flow of the processed crop material in the second region is directed into a central zone.
PNG
media_image7.png
635
768
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Adams discloses a similar agricultural harvester (see Col. 1, lines 15-18) comprising a chopper assembly [20] defining an outlet (see below) and a splitter ([92]; splits the crop flow into different sections) positioned downstream of the chopper assembly (see Fig. 1), wherein the splitter is positioned above the center point (see below) of the outlet.
PNG
media_image5.png
113
666
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the splitter of Roberge et al. to be positioned above the center point of the outlet as taught by Adams in order for the material that impinges against the upper surface of the upper plate to be thinned and distributed laterally (see Adams Col. 4, lines 39-46); therefore, when the splitter of Roberge et al. is positioned above the center point of the outlet as taught by Adams, a flow of the processed crop material in the second region is directed into the central zone as disclosed by Roberge et al. (see above).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the splitter of Roberge et al. to be smaller and therefore positioned above the center point of the outlet since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a simple matter of design choice well within the skill of one in the art, and the change of shape would still allow the splitter of Roberge et al. to separate the flow of material as claimed (see Roberge et al. Col. 14, lines 23-34).
Regarding claim 15, Roberge et al. discloses the system as applied above, but fails to disclose wherein the splitter is positioned above a center point of the outlet.
Adams discloses a similar agricultural harvester (see Col. 1, lines 15-18) comprising a chopper assembly [20] defining an outlet (see below) and a splitter ([92]; splits the crop flow into different sections) positioned downstream of the chopper assembly (see Fig. 1), wherein the splitter is positioned above the center point (see below) of the outlet.
PNG
media_image5.png
113
666
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the splitter of Roberge et al. to be positioned above the center point of the outlet as taught by Adams in order for the material that impinges against the upper surface of the upper plate to be thinned and distributed laterally (see Adams Col. 4, lines 39-46).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the splitter of Roberge et al. to be smaller and therefore positioned above the center point of the outlet since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a simple matter of design choice well within the skill of one in the art, and the change of shape would still allow the splitter of Roberge et al. to separate the flow of material as claimed (see Roberge et al. Col. 14, lines 23-34).
Regarding claim 16, Roberge et al. discloses an agricultural harvester [10] comprising:
a chopper assembly [50] configured to receive and process crop material (see Col. 6, lines 48-54), the chopper assembly defining an outlet [92] through which a stream of processed crop material is discharged from the chopper assembly (see Col. 6, lines 48-59);
an extractor [54] positioned downstream of the chopper assembly (see Fig. 2), the extractor including a housing [95 and 96] defining an extraction chamber [93], the extraction chamber configured to receive the stream of processed crop material discharged from the chopper assembly (see Col. 6, lines 54-59); and
a splitter [202] at least partially extending within the stream of processed crop material flowing between the chopper assembly and the extraction chamber (see Fig. 8).
But Roberge et al. fails to disclose the splitter is positioned above a center point of the outlet.
Adams discloses a similar agricultural harvester (see Col. 1, lines 15-18) comprising a chopper assembly [20] defining an outlet (see below) and a splitter ([92]; splits the crop flow into different sections) positioned downstream of the chopper assembly (see Fig. 1), wherein the splitter is positioned above the center point (see below) of the outlet.
PNG
media_image5.png
113
666
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the splitter of Roberge et al. to be positioned above the center point of the outlet as taught by Adams in order for the material that impinges against the upper surface of the upper plate to be thinned and distributed laterally (see Adams Col. 4, lines 39-46).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the splitter of Roberge et al. to be smaller and therefore positioned above the center point of the outlet since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a simple matter of design choice well within the skill of one in the art, and the change of shape would still allow the splitter of Roberge et al. to separate the flow of material as claimed (see Roberge et al. Col. 14, lines 23-34).
Claim(s) 6-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberge et al. (US 12342757 B2) and Adams (US 2708582 A) as applied to claims 1-5, 9, 13, 15-16, and 20 above, and further in view of Riberio (US 5069024 A).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Roberge et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the splitter [202] is configured as an oblique structure (structure that is tilted with the apex section away from the base, see below; therefore, is oblique), but fails to disclose it is explicitly an oblique pyramid structure.
PNG
media_image8.png
433
457
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Riberio discloses a similar agricultural harvester (see Col. 2, lines 35-38) comprising of a splitter [36] configured as a pyramid structure (see shape of [36] in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oblique structure of Roberge et al. and Adams to be a pyramid as taught by Riberio in order for the pyramid to dismantle more compact agglomerations of trash and cane billets (see Riberio Col. 3, lines 61-66).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the splitter of Roberge et al. to be a pyramid since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a simple matter of design choice well within the skill of one in the art, and the change of shape would still allow the splitter of Roberge et al. to separate the flow of material as claimed (see Roberge et al. Col. 14, lines 23-34).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Roberge et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the splitter [202] includes an upstream end section [254] and a downstream end section [256], and wherein an apex section (see above; farthest point in relation to the upper plate [130]) of the oblique structure (see above) may be positioned proximate to the downstream end section of the splitter (see Fig. 9).
But Roberge et al. fails to disclose the oblique structure is an oblique pyramid structure.
However, Riberio discloses a splitter [36] configured as a pyramid structure (see shape of [36] in Fig. 1).
It can be seen then that when the shape of the pyramid structure of Riberio is provided as the shape of the splitter of Roberge et al. and Adams that the splitter is an oblique pyramid structure as disclosed by Riberio (see shape of [36] in Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Roberge et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the splitter [202] further comprises:
a base section [250] operably coupled with an upper plate ([130]; see Col. 11, lines 23-27) positioned downstream of the outlet [92];
a lateral edge [260] may be defined between the upstream end section [254] and the apex section (see above);
and first and second lateral sides [262 and 264] positioned on opposing sides of the lateral edge and the base section (see Fig. 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for the full list of references.
Reference US 10485170 B2 discloses a similar agricultural harvester [10] with a debris removal system (see Col. 5, lines 37-53).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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 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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights