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 .
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: PICK-UP ATTACHMENT AND SLIDE PLATE HAVING LINEAR GUIDE TRACK FOR ADAPTING TO GROUND CONTOUR.
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.
Claims 1-17 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.
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, 9, 12-13, and 17, the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, limitations following “preferably” have been interpreted as optional claim limitations.
Regarding claims 1-2, 6, 8, 11, 13, and 17, the phrase "particularly" and/or “in particular” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, limitations following "particularly" and/or “in particular” have been interpreted as required claim limitations.
By virtue of their dependence on claim 1, these bases of rejection also apply to dependent claims 2-17.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the roller guide" in lines 2-3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note “a roller guide” is set forth in claim 7 line 4.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first guide means and the second guide means" in lines 4-5 and 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Note “a first guide means” and “a second guide means” is positively set forth in claim 2 lines 2 and 4, respectively.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the guide carriage" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note “a guide carriage” is positively set forth in claim 2 line 6.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the guide " in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note “a guide motion link” is positively set forth in claim 2 lines 3-4.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the direction of travel" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the track rollers" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note “track rollers” are positively set forth in claim 8 line 6.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "in the vertical and/or the horizontal direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the distance of the track rollers (30) from one another…is selected to be as great as technically possible”. The term “as great as technically possible” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite as it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim, specifically for the vertical and/or horizontal distance between the track rollers, is unclear.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the lower track rollers" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note lower track rollers are set forth in claim 9.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the contact point" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the distance of the lower track rollers (30c, 30d) from the contact point…is selected to be as low as technically possible in the vertical direction”. The term “as low as technically possible” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite as it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim, specifically for the distance of the lower track rollers from the contact point in the vertical direction, is unclear.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the vertical direction" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the guide motion link and/or the guide carriage" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Note “a guide motion link” and “a guide carriage” are positively set forth in claim 2 lines 3-4 and 6, respectively.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the guide track or running track" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note “a guide track or running track” is positively set forth in claim 8 line 7.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the stops" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note “one or more stops” are positively set forth in claim 12 line 4.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the stops" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note “one or more stops” are positively set forth in claim 12 line 4.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the stops" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note “one or more stops” are positively set forth in claim 12 line 4.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the " in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note “a first guide means” and “a second guide means” is positively set forth in claim 2 lines 2 and 4, respectively.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "each linear guidance system" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note “a linear guidance system” is positively set forth in claim 3 lines 2-3.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "its guide track or running track" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note “a guide track or running track” is positively set forth in claim 8 line 7.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 line 3 “a guide element” should be –the at least one guide element—to make clear that it is referring to the same guide element(s) set forth in claim 1 line 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7, 12, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brielmaier (DE 102015114516 A1), provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 11-19-2024.
It is noted that all citations to Brielmaier (DE 102015114516 A1) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding claim 1, Brielmaier discloses a pick-up attachment for a self-propelled field chopper (Fig. 1, para. [0005] pick-up is capable of attachment to a self-propelled field chopper), comprising:
a pick-up rotor (1) having pick-up tools (4) for picking crop up from the ground,
at least one guide element (8) that rests on the ground, which element takes on the guidance of the pick-up rotor and guides it relative to the ground, and
a machine frame (6) that is connected to the pick-up rotor,
wherein the pick-up rotor is composed of multiple segments (1.1, 1.2, 1.3) connected to one another at least partially in an articulated manner, for adaptation to the contours of the ground (Fig. 1, para. [0012]), and
wherein at least one guidance system (7) is provided for a movable connection of a segment of the pick-up rotor to the machine frame of the pick-up attachment (para. [0015]).
Regarding claim 2, Brielmaier discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the guidance system (7) has a first guide means (section in which “the elongated hole” is formed), preferably a guide motion link or a guide rail, connected to the machine frame (6) in a locally fixed manner, and a second guide means (“an end piece of the shaft…spring-mounted in the elongated hole”), preferably a guide carriage or a guide wagon, connected to a segment (1.1, 1.3) of the pick-up rotor in a locally fixed manner, wherein the first and the second guide means are connected to one another and can be moved up and down relative to one another along a guide track (para. [0015] moves up and down along a guide track defined by the elongated hole, see up-down double arrows in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Brielmaier discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the guidance system (7) is a linear guidance system (see up-down double arrows in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Brielmaier discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein multiple guidance systems (7) are provided, spaced apart from one another over the working width of the pick-up rotor (1) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Brielmaier discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the number of guidance systems (7) corresponds to the number of guide elements (8) provided (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 6, Brielmaier discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein each guidance system (7) is centrally assigned to the at least one guide element (8) (guidance systems are disposed toward a center of guide elements 8), each guide element comprising a slide plate (para. [0026] guide elements 8 are skid plates).
Regarding claim 7, Brielmaier discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the guidance system (7) is configured as a slide guide (para. [0015] connection at an end piece of the shaft slides back and forth in the elongated hole) having at least one slide bearing element (“spring bearings” in slotted hole, para. [0024]), or
Regarding claim 12, Brielmaier discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 2, wherein the guidance system, preferably the guide motion link and/or the guide carriage (i.e. section in which “the elongated hole” is formed), has one or more stops (i.e. upper and lower ends of the elongated slot) for limiting the movement between the guide means, wherein preferably at least one upper stop and at least one lower stop limit the guide track or running track (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Brielmaier discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 12, wherein the stops are structured as
Regarding claim 16, Brielmaier discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 2, wherein each guidance system is a linear guidance system which can be adjusted (i.e. by movement along uneven ground surface) in such a manner that its guide track or running track (defined by the elongated hole) is arranged to be perpendicular to the ground and/or in a direction that deviates from this or at an angle that deviates from this (as seen from Fig. 1, movement along the ground surface automatically changes an orientation of the elongated slot).
Regarding claim 17, Brielmaier discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein a central guide motion link (section in which “the elongated hole” is formed) comprising a continuous pressure plate or contact surface is connected to or integrated into the machine frame (6), in a locally fixed manner and preferably in one piece (Fig. 1, para. [0015]).
Claims 1-12, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scholtissek et al. (US 4464890 A), provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 11-19-2024.
Regarding claim 1, Scholtissek discloses a pick-up attachment (“reel-type intake”, col. 3 line 35) for a self-propelled field chopper (capable of attachment to self-propelled field chopper), comprising
a pick-up rotor (5) having pick-up tools (21) for picking crop up from the ground,
at least one guide element (7) that rests on the ground (G), which element takes on the guidance of the pick-up rotor and guides it relative to the ground, and
a machine frame (1) that is connected to the pick-up rotor, wherein the pick-up rotor is composed of multiple segments (24, 24’) connected to one another at least partially in an articulated manner (Fig. 1 and 7, see swivel joint 32), for adaptation to the contours of the ground (col. 4 line 68 – col. 5 line 3), and
wherein at least one guidance system (8 + 9 + 10) is provided for a movable connection of a segment of the pick-up rotor to the machine frame of the pick-up attachment (col. 4 lines 28-43 “skids 7…each have an upright leg or post 8 supported on plates 9 of the frame by rollers 10 so that these skids 7 can move up and down relative to the frame 1, following the contours of the ground G…Thus the plates 19 and the outer ends of the reel 5 carried by them will be constrained to move up and down with the respective skids 7”).
Regarding claim 2, Scholtissek discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the guidance system (8 + 9 + 10) has a first guide means (9), preferably a guide motion link or a guide rail, connected to the machine frame (1) in a locally fixed manner (col. 4 line 30), and a second guide means (8), preferably a guide carriage or a guide wagon, connected to a segment of the pick-up rotor, in a locally fixed manner (Fig. 3, col. 4 lines 40-43), wherein the first and the second guide means are connected to one another and can be moved up and down relative to one another along a guide track or running track (Fig. 3, moves up and down along guide track defined between vertical supports 9, see up-down double arrows in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Scholtissek discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the guidance system (8 + 9 + 10) is a linear guidance system (see up-down double arrows in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Scholtissek discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein multiple guidance systems (8 + 9 + 10) are provided, spaced apart from one another over the working width of the pick-up rotor (5) (as seen in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Scholtissek discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the number of guidance systems (8 + 9 + 10) corresponds to the number of guide elements (7) provided preferably within the working width of the pick-up rotor (Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 6, Scholtissek discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein each guidance system (8 + 9 + 10) is centrally assigned to the at least one guide element (7) (guidance systems are disposed toward a center of each skid 7 in a top view, as seen in Fig. 3), each guide element comprising a slide plate (skids 7).
Regarding claim 7, Scholtissek discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the guidance system (8 + 9 + 10) is configured
Regarding claim 8, Scholtissek discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the roller guide is a profile motion link guide or profile rail guide, in which rolling bodies comprising balls or rollers (10) roll between the first guide means (9) and the second guide means (8) on a guide track or running track (Figs. 3-4), or that wherein the roller guide is a track roller guide in which track rollers (10) mounted on rolling bodies roll between the first guide means (9) and the second guide means (8) on a guide track or running track (Figs. 3-4, moves up and down along guide track defined between vertical supports 9).
Regarding claim 9, Scholtissek discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein one or more track rollers (10), an upper and a lower track roller (Fig. 4), in each instance, seen in or counter to the direction of travel of the pick-up attachment, being supported in a
Regarding claim 10, Scholtissek discloses the pick-up attachment according claim 1, wherein the distance of the track rollers (10) from one another, in a vertical
Regarding claim 11, Scholtissek discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the distance of the lower track rollers (lower rollers 10) from a contact point (i.e. contact point between skids 7 and ground G) of the guide element (7) is selected to be as low as technically possible in the vertical direction (Fig. 4), the guide element comprising a slide plate (skids 7).
Regarding claim 12, Scholtissek discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the guidance system (8 + 9 + 10), preferably the guide motion link (9)
Regarding claim 14, Scholtissek discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein the stops are structured as
Regarding claim 17, Scholtissek discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 1, wherein a central guide motion link (9) comprising a continuous pressure plate or contact surface is connected to or integrated into the machine frame (1), in a locally fixed manner and preferably in one piece (Fig. 4, col. 4 line 30).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brielmaier or Scholtissek as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Cook (US 20210274706 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Brielmaier or Scholtissek discloses the pick-up attachment according to claim 12, but fails to teach wherein the stops are configured to be interchangeable, differently configured and/or differently adjustable, preferably attachable at different positions of the guidance system so as to be screwed on.
Cook discloses upper and lower stops (302, 307) which work in concert to create adjustable stop points create adjustable stop points in order to adjust the range of vertical travel of a ground-following device (216) (para. [0048,0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize adjustable stops as taught by Cook for the pick-up attachment of Brielmaier or Scholtissek, in order to selectively set the maximum and minimum limits of vertical travel of the pick-up and therefore allow pivoting to a lesser or greater degree as desired (Cook at para. [0053]). Furthermore, it has been held that the provision of adjustability involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Anderson (US 20160100523 A1) discloses a contour following mowing module. Bohner (US 4142585 A) discloses a vertical track member and guide rollers for a harvester. Winget (US 3070938 A) discloses a contour-following mower module comprising vertically movable slide rods. Martin et al. (US 2982080 A) discloses a contour mower comprising vertically spaced rollers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights