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
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “threaded spindles” (cl. 10), “multi segments” (cl. 12), means enabling: “the raking accuracy or the crop contamination” (cl. 13), “sensor band” (cl. 15, 16), “mechanical display” (cl. 17), “sensor system,” “terminal,” “the driver station” (cl. 18), “at least one memory element” (cl. 19), “data,” and means enabling the “upper and/or lower limit” (cl. 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
Following on the heels of Liebel-Flarsheim v. Medrad, this case reaffirms the principle that the full scope of a claim must be enabled. Enablement of a single embodiment is not sufficient. As a matter of law, enablement of the novel aspects of an invention must be enabled by the specification even if implementation would have been within the PHOSITA’s skill level.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re cl. 4, 6, 8-11, 14:
Lack of positive antecedent basis for “the guidance,” “the ground,” “the direction of travel,” “the raking height,” “the distance,” “the contact point,” “the raking point” etc. (cl. 1), “the transfer base” (cl. 4), “the adapter frame” (cl. 6), “the at least one actuator” (cl. 8-10), “multiple guide elements” (cl. 11; NOTE: claim 1 only recites: at least one guide element; also, it is not claimed that “at least one guide element consists of multiple guide elements), “the raking accuracy,” “the crop contamination” (cl. 13), “the general conditions” (cl. 14), “the actuators” (cl. 15), “the at least one detector,” “the at least one sensor band,” “the raking height” (cl. 16), “the current raking height” (cl. 17), “the driver station,” “the actuators” (cl. 18).
In re claim 1, 5-7, 10, 12-14, 17, 19: the phrase “preferably” (claims 1, 5-7, 10, 12, 17) and “in particular” (cl. 5, 19), “or the like” (claim 19), “at least in part” (cl. 12), “for example” (cl. 13), “can be prioritized in different ways, so as to thereby” (cl. 14) are indefinite, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
In re claims 1-2, 6, 8-10, 13-15, 18, 19: the metes and bound of the claim cannot be determined because a functional recitation, i.e. “can be,” “can be tilted toward the ground,” “can be predetermined,” “so as to set the raking height,” “in a such a manner … shifts … changes,” “different control or regulation characteristics” must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Fuller, 1929 C.D. 172; 388 O.G. 279.
Also, "the Supreme Court in 1946 wrote that a “claim which describes the most crucial element in a ‘new’ combination in terms of what it will do, rather than in terms of its own physical characteristics or its arrangement in the new combination, is invalid as a violation of [the indefiniteness requirement].” Halliburton v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1 (1946)."
The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified.
The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
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 1-4, 7-8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waldrop (US 6050075 / EP 0908088, “X” reference in international search report, 10/10/2024).
It should be noted that the recitation “for," "can be," "thereby” etc. is considered as merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Since it is the language itself of the claims which must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention, without limitations imported from the specification, whether such language is couched in terms of means plus function or consists of a detailed recitation of the inventive matter. Limitations in the specification not included in the claim may not be relied upon to impart patentability to an otherwise unpatentable claim. In re Lundberg, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957).
“The main frame of the attachment is pivotally mounted on the intermediate frame for rotation of the reel and conveyor about an axis extending in a generally for and aft direction to permit the position of the reel assembly to change from a home position under conditions where the ground is substantially level to left or right tilt positions in response to the contour of the ground.”
1: A pick-up attachment for a harvesting machine, preferably for a field chopper, comprising
a pick-up rotor having pick-up tools for picking crop up from the ground (reel 12),
wherein the pick-up rotor is connected to at least one guide element that rests on the ground, which element takes on the guidance of the pick-up rotor and guides the pick-up rotor to the ground (ground roller 52),
wherein the pick-up attachment can be tilted toward the ground and away from the ground by an angle that can be predetermined, about an axis of rotation that runs transverse to the direction of travel (capability can be tilted about pivot shaft 53),
so as to set the raking height, in such a manner that the contact point of at least one guide element shifts during tilting, and thereby the position of at least one region of the pick-up rotor and thus the distance of at least one pick-up tool situated in this region or of the raking point from the ground changes (change in height, fig 9, dashed & solid lines show the changes in height).
2: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1,
wherein an adapter frame (intermediate frame assembly 26) is provided, which is connected, on the one hand, to a machine frame of the pick-up attachment (at pickup attachment 9), by way of the axis of rotation, and, on the other hand, has at least pick-up point for pick-up of the pick-up attachment by the harvesting machine (shown/taught in fig 1),
wherein the machine frame of the pick-up attachment can be tilted relative to the adapter frame and thereby relative to the harvesting machine that can be connected to the adapter frame (capability shown by in figs 1, 9, about pivot shaft 53).
3: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the axis of rotation is oriented horizontal to the plane of the ground, in a neutral position of the pick-up attachment (fig 2).
4: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the axis of rotation is arranged at the height of the transfer base of the pick-up attachment (fig 2).
7: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein at least one guide element is arranged at a distance from the pick-up rotor, viewed in the direction of travel, ahead of or preferably behind the center point or the center axis of the pick-up rotor (shown to be behind, fig 2).
8: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the at least one actuator can be changed in length electrically, hydraulically and/or mechanically (leveling spring / actuator is mechanically lengthened).
11: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein multiple guide elements, spaced apart from one another, are arranged behind the pick-up rotor and transverse to the direction of travel (fig 1).
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) 5-6, 9-10, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldrop (US 6050075), in view of Borry et al (2017/0013778).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Waldrop teaches the claimed invention, except:
5: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein at least one, preferably multiple actuators, arranged transverse to the direction of travel and at a distance from one another, in particular hydraulic cylinders, linear motors and/or threaded spindles, are provided above and at a distance from the axis of rotation, in other words on the side of the axis of rotation that faces away from the ground, which actuators couple the adapter frame to a machine frame of the pick-up attachment (cylinders not shown).
Borry teaches that it has been known to use tilt cylinders (fig 3, ref 122).
“The header tilt mechanism includes at least one straight line linkage movably connecting the header to the feeder housing. The feeder housing or header tilt mechanism may be provided with hydraulic cylinders or pressure controlling or limiting arrangements.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pickup attachment of Waldrop with the teachings of Borry, with a reasonable expectation of success since it is well known to one skilled, that spring(s) can be substituted with any known actuators known in the art, in particular cylinders, hydraulic or electric etc., provide better cushioning while tilting when ground changes encountered.
6: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the tilt angle of the pick-up attachment and of a machine frame of the pick-up attachment relative to the adapter frame and thereby relative to the harvesting machine, which angle can be predetermined, can preferably be set by means of the at least one actuator, from a central location, preferably from the driver station of the harvesting machine (taught in the combination, see Borry, abstract, par. 10-11, teaches prior art control sensors & control system).
9: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the at least one actuator can be controlled and/or regulated electrically and/or hydraulically (taught in the combination, see Borry, par. 11).
10: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the at least one actuator can be set mechanically, directly or indirectly, in a decentralized manner, preferably by way of a threaded spindle (taught in the combination, see Borry, see par. 15, active or passive control, which would include mechanical).
12: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the pick-up rotor is composed of multiple segments that are connected to one another in an articulated manner, at least in part, for adaptation to the contours of the ground, and is preferably flexible over the entire working width (it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. 193 USPQ 8. Duplication of part is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
13: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein at least one sensor is provided, which detects a parameter that is relevant for the raking height adjustment, for example the raking accuracy or the crop contamination, and transforms the parameter into an electrical signal that can be used for control or regulation, in particular of the actuators, according to the definition of corresponding general conditions, and thereby the raking height can be controlled or regulated in an automated and permanent manner (taught in the combination, see Borry, par. 11, height control sensors, obvious use of the sensor & control).
14: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the general conditions can be prioritized in different ways, so as to thereby define different control or regulation characteristics (within the obvious capability & use of the combination).
15: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein at least one detector, in particular at least one sensor band, is provided, which detects the raking height and transforms the raking height into an electrical signal that can be used for control or regulation of the actuators, and thereby the raking height is automatically kept at a constantly uniform predetermined value or can be controlled or regulated to a changeable value manner (obvious in view of the combination, see Borry, par. 11, height control sensors, can be regulated as a function of the changing terrain).
16: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the at least one detector, in particular the at least one sensor band, detects the raking height at the height of the raking point (obvious in view of the combination sensor taught in Borry, par. 11, one skilled could use any type of detector/sensor known in the art).
17: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein a preferably mechanical display is arranged on a machine frame of the pick-up attachment, which display shows the current raking height (obvious in view of the combination, see Borry, par. 32, the cab obviously include a terminal / display).
18: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the current raking height can be determined or queried by way of a sensor system on a machine frame of the pick-up attachment, by way of a sensor band or in the actuators, and can be displayed on a terminal in the driver station of the harvesting machine (obvious in view the combination, as w.r.t. claims 16, 17, and par. 11, 38, Borry).
19: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein at least one memory element is provided, in which data regarding the raking height are stored, which data can be called up by way of rapid access, in particular a hotkey or the like, and can be accessed automatically or semi-automatically (obvious in view of the combination, Borry, the control system obviously include a memory / stored data, par. 8).
20: The pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein data regarding the raking height relate to upper and/or lower limit values (obvious in view of the combination, see in re cl. 19, Borry, par. 8, 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Talbot et al (2019/0029175) teaches a multi segmented pick-up rotor / reel (fig 2), hydraulic tilt cylinder (par. 121).
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