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.
Claim(s) 16, 23, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (US 2014/0260156 A1), hereinafter Miller.
Regarding claim 16, Miller discloses a pickup assembly (see below) for an agricultural harvester (20, fig. 1, [0031, 0033, and 0035]) the pickup assembly comprising:
a pickup assembly frame (175, fig. 5);
a pickup unit (10, fig. 1-5, [0031, 0033, 0037, and 0039-0043]) carried by the pickup assembly frame (fig. 5) and configured to pick up crop from a field ([0012 and 0031]);
a feeding auger (80, fig. 2-4, [0034-0035, and 0037]) rotatably coupled to an auger arm (52, fig. 4-6); and
a feeding auger drive (160, [0039-0041], fig. 5-6) for rotating the feeding auger ([0039-0041], fig. 5-6), the feeding auger drive comprising:
(i) an auger pulley (155, fig. 5-6) mounted to the auger arm (fig. 4-6) and defining a rotational axis of the feeding auger ([0039-0041], fig. 5-6),
(ii) a drive pulley (180, fig. 5-6, [0041]) connected to a drive shaft (140, fig. 4-6, [0039-0042]), and
(iii) a drive belt (190, fig. 5-6, [0041-0042]) coupling the auger pulley to the drive pulley (fig. 5-6, [0041-0042]).
Regarding claim 23, Miller discloses wherein the feeding auger drive is housed in a substantially closed housing (enclosure of 160, fig. 1, 5, and 6).
Regarding claim 29, Miller discloses wherein the drive pulley is connectable to a power take-off of the agricultural harvester (fig. 5, [0040]).
Regarding claim 30, Miller discloses an agricultural harvester (20, fig. 1, [0031, 0033, and 0035]) comprising the pickup assembly as claimed in claim 16 (see claim 16).
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 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2014/0260156 A1), hereinafter Miller.
Regarding claim 26, Miller discloses wherein the feeding auger drive further comprises a tensioner sprocket (215, fig. 5, [0041]) mounted to the pickup assembly frame (fig. 5), but fails to explicitly disclose a tensioner sprocket. Miller however does teach a pulley and sprocket can be substitutes for each other ([0041], where 180 is named as a pulley or a sprocket; it is stated that “The drive assemblies 160 may include a plurality of pulleys, sprockets, drives, tensioners and other mechanisms for connecting the flail rotor 70 and the auger 80 to the driveline 140”; similarly a generic “tensioning mechanism 200 is used for rotor 70). 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 tensioner sprocket for a tensioner pulley to yield the predictable result of “for connecting the flail rotor 70 and the auger 80 to the driveline 140”.
Claims 17-18 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2014/0260156 A1), hereinafter Miller in view of McCarty et al. (4,961,303), hereinafter McCarty.
Regarding claim 17, Miller discloses the auger arm (52, fig. 4-6) is connected to the pickup assembly (175, fig. 5), but fails to discloses wherein the auger arm is pivotably connected to the pickup assembly frame at a pivot axle.
McCarty teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein the auger arm (17, Column 3, fig. 1 and 3-4, line 62 through Column 4, line 12) is pivotably connected to the pickup assembly frame (19, Column 3, fig. 1 and 3-4, line 62 through Column 4, line 12) at a pivot axle (where 17 and 19 meet, fig. 1 and 3-4, line 62 through Column 4, line 12).
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 the stationary connection of Miller with pivotable connection of McCarty in order to allow for pivoting of the header (fig. 1 and 3-4, line 62 through Column 4, line 12 of McCarty; [0051] of Miller).
Regarding claim 18, Miller in view of McCart teaches wherein the drive pulley (180, fig. 5-6, [0041] of Miller) is rotatably mounted to the pickup assembly frame and is not coaxial with the pivot axle (fig. 4 and 5 of Miller; fig. 1 and 3-4, line 62 through Column 4, line 12 of McCarty).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2014/0260156 A1), hereinafter Miller in view of McCarty et al. (4,961,303), hereinafter McCarty in view of Keller et al. (5778644), hereinafter Keller.
Regarding claim 19, Miller in view of McCart teaches the feeding auger drive (160, [0039-0041], fig. 5-6 of Miller), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the feeding auger drive further comprises at least two idler pulleys both mounted to the pickup assembly frame.
Keller teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein the feeding auger drive (fig. 5) further comprises at least two idler pulleys (156 and 162, fig. 4-5, col. 4 lines 61 to col. 5 lines 26) both mounted to the pickup assembly frame (fig. 5, col. 4 lines 61 to col. 5 lines 26).
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 the feeding auger drive of Miller to include at least two idler pulleys of Keller in order to control the position of the belt so that proper tension can be maintained (fig. 4-5, col. 4 lines 61 to col. 5 lines 26 of Keller).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2014/0260156 A1), hereinafter Miller in view of Zhang (CN 114208501 A), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 26, Miller discloses the drive belt (190, fig. 5-6, [0041-0042]), but fails to explicitly disclose that the drive belt is a synchronous belt.
Zhang teaches a similar device in the same field of harvester collectors wherein ([0017]).
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 general drive belt of Miller with the synchronous belt of Zhang to yield the predictable result of driving the rollers/ pulleys to rotate ([0017] of Zhang; [0041] of Miller).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2014/0260156 A1), hereinafter Miller in view of Urano et al. (US 20200131822 A1), hereinafter Urano.
Regarding claim 28, Miller discloses the drive belt (190, fig. 5-6, [0041-0042]), but fails to explicitly disclose that the drive belt is reinforced with carbon fibers.
Urano teaches a similar device in the same field of vehicles with pulleys wherein the drive belt is reinforced with carbon fibers ([0099]).
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 Miller to incorporate the carbon fiber reinforcement of the drive belt of Urano in order to prevent stretching ([0099] of Urano).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-22 and 24-25 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 20, Miller in view of McCarty and Keller teaches claim 19 but fails to teach wherein “a first idler pulley of the at least two idler pulleys is mounted downstream of the drive pulley and upstream of the auger pulley, and a second idler pulley of the at least two idler pulleys is mounted downstream of the auger pulley and upstream of the drive pulley.” It would not be obvious to modify Miller in view of McCarty and Keller without undo hindsight for the arrangement of idler pulleys relative to drive pulley and the auger pulley given the other limitations of claim 20 and the claims it depends off of.
Regarding claim 24, Miller teaches claim 16 but fails to teach but fails to teach wherein “wherein a frame portion of the substantially closed housing is arranged inside the pickup assembly frame, the auger pulley is contained inside the auger arm.” It would not be obvious to modify Miller in view of McCarty and Keller for “a frame portion of the substantially closed housing is arranged inside the pickup assembly frame” or for “the auger pulley is contained inside the auger arm” due to the distance between the auger arm and the pickup assembly frame vs the frame portion of the substantially closed housing given the other limitations of claim 24 and the claims it depends off of.
Claims 21-22 and 25 are objected to for depending on allowable claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koch et al. (3,283,485) – an agricultural harvester with a pickup unit, an auger, and a pulley drive system. Miller was used because it appeared to teach or allow for the modification to teach more dependent claims.
Hartman et al. (US 9,003,756 B2) - an agricultural harvester with a pickup unit, an auger, and a pulley drive system. Miller was used because it appeared to teach or allow for the modification to teach more dependent claims.
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
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights