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 .
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 11-13 and 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gette et al. (US 2007/0119140 A1), hereinafter Gette.
Regarding claim 11, Gette discloses a pickup assembly (1, fig. 1-2, [0026]) for an agricultural harvester ("agricultural harvesting machine," fig. 1-2, [0026]), the pickup assembly comprising:
a pickup assembly frame (12, fig. 1-2, [0026]);
a pickup unit (2, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]) carried by the pickup assembly frame (fig. 1-2, [0026]) and configured to pick up crop (6, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]) from a field (5, fig. 1-2, [0026-0027]);
a feeding auger (27, fig. 1-2, [0033]); and
a wind guard assembly comprising (see fig. 1-2 and below):
(i) a wind guard frame (20, fig. 1-2, [0028]) with a top section (between 26 and 12 in fig. 1 and 2) and a front section (between 26 and 3 in fig. 1 and 2), the top section being pivotably coupled to the pickup assembly frame ([0028]), the front section extending downwards from the top section (fig. 1-2),
(ii) a wind guard shield (4, fig. 1-2, [0028-0029 and 0034]) carried by the wind guard frame to cover at least a portion of a top and a front of the pickup assembly (fig. 1-2), and
(iii) a wind guard shield return surface (23, fig. 1-2, [0029 and 0032]) extending downward and rearward from the front section of the wind guard frame (fig. 1-2) and configured to guide crop falling off of the feeding auger back to the pickup unit (fig. 1-2, [0029, 0032, and 0034]).
Regarding claim 12, Gette further discloses wherein the wind guard assembly further comprises a wind guard roller (3, fig. 1-2, [0028]) rotatably mounted to a lower end of the front section of the wind guard frame (fig. 1-2), the wind guard shield return surface (23, fig. 1-2, [0029 and 0032]) being configured to prevent the crop falling off of the feeding auger from falling on top of the wind guard roller ([0029, 0032, and 0034]).
Regarding claim 13, Gette further discloses further comprising a guidance plate (26, fig. 1-2, [0032 and 0034]) associated with the wind guard roller (3, fig. 1-2, [0028]) and comprising a return guide surface that forms an extension of the wind guard shield return surface (fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, Gette further discloses further comprising an actuator (18, fig. 1-2, [0031-0032]) for adjusting an orientation or position of the wind guard shield return surface (23, fig. 1-2, [0031-0032]).
Regarding claim 17, Gette further discloses wherein the wind guard shield return surface comprises a mesh or a plate (23, fig. 1-2, [0032]).
Regarding claim 18, Gette further discloses wherein the wind guard shield return surface is mounted to the wind guard frame (23 is mounted to 20, fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 19, Gette further discloses wherein the wind guard shield return surface is mounted to the wind guard shield (23 is mounted to 4, fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 20, Gette discloses an agricultural harvester ("agricultural harvesting machine," fig. 1-2, [0026]) comprising the pickup assembly as claimed in claim 11 (see claim 11).
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gette et al. (US 2007/0119140 A1), hereinafter Gette in view of Erdmann et al. (US 2006/0277888 A1), hereinafter Erdmann.
Regarding claim 14, Gette further discloses wherein the guidance plate (26, fig. 1-2, [0032 and 0034]) that is coaxial with a rotational axis of the wind guard roller (rotational axis of 3 in fig. 2), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the guidance plate is pivotable about a pivot axis.
Erdmann teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvester with a pickup device wherein the guidance plate (46, fig. 6, [0021-0022 and 0034-0035]) is pivotable about a pivot axis (axis running through 48, fig. 6, [0021-0022 and 0034-0035]).
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 Gette to incorporate the pivoting arrangement of Erdmann in order to allow passage of windrows or different thickness ([0034-0035]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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 15, Gette is considered the closest prior art, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the wind guard shield return surface is arranged such that a distance between the feeding auger and the wind guard shield return surface remains substantially the same when the feeding auger moves to a from the pickup unit. It is not obvious how Gette can be modified to accomplish keeping the substantially the same distance between the feeding auger and the wind guard shield return surface, when taken in view of the other limitations of the claims, without undo hindsight given the structure of the pickup assembly of Gette wherein the windshield is separately movable from the feeding auger.
Conclusion
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