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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 29 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/30/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10, 12, 13, 18 to 20, 22, 24, 25, and 27 in the reply filed on 06/30/2026 is acknowledged.
The Applicant argued that “In response to the election of species requirement, but without conceding the propriety thereof, Applicant elects Group I, claims 1 to 10, 12, 13, 18-20, 22, 24, 25 and 27, without traverse, and without prejudice to the presentation of the claim of Group II, claim 29 in a later application”.
In response to this argument, claim 8 included in species of a bale spreading apparatus having a horizontally mounted rotatable shaft (see the Applicant’s specification page 19);
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive; therefore claims 8 and 29 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a conveyor on which a bale rests” should be changed to “a conveyor on which the bale rests”.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase “The bale spreading apparatus as claimed in 21 claim 19” should be changed to “The bale spreading apparatus as claimed in claim 19”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 25 and 27 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 claim 2, the phrase “wherein a single shaft is provided with all of the blades mounted relative to a single shaft” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “wherein a single shaft is provided with all of the blades mounted relative to a single shaft”; and
it is unclear if “wherein a single shaft is provided with all of the blades mounted relative to a single shaft” is the same as or different from “a vertically mounted rotatable shaft” that recited in claim 1 which claim 2 depends from.
As best understood and for the propose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “wherein a single shaft is provided with all of the blades mounted relative to a single shaft” as “wherein the shaft is a single shaft, and wherein all of the blades mounted relative to the single shaft”.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the exit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 is rejected because it depends from claim 25.
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, 4, 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michael (WO2013108005A1).
Regarding claim 1, Michael discloses a bale spreading apparatus (pages 1-4) comprising:
a box frame (fig.1: (12)) which retains a bale of material,
a conveyor (fig.1: (14)) on which a bale rests, the conveyor being operative to urge the bale in a longitudinal direction towards a spreader head (fig.1: (16)) which ejects bale material from the apparatus,
wherein the spreader head comprises one or more rotors (figs.1 and 4: (70)), each of the one or more rotors rotor comprising a vertically mounted rotatable shaft (fig.4: (72)) and a series of blades (fig.1: (82)) being mounted on at least one of said shafts.
Regarding claim 4, Michael discloses wherein a pair of blades are provided as respective opposite tips of an elongate member extending around and from opposite sides of the shaft (fig.5).
Regarding claim 9, Michael discloses wherein the spreader head is fixed, and one or more bales are loaded from an end (fig.1: (14)) opposite to the spreader head.
Regarding claim 10, Michael discloses wherein the series of blades are mounted on each shaft in opposed pairs via a rotor arm mounted to the shaft and the blades mounted on opposed ends of the rotor arm (fig.1).
Regarding claim 13, Michael discloses at least one choking deflector located adjacent to the rotor (page 4 paragraph 25).
Claims 1-2, 5-7 and 12-13, 19-20, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henri (FR3028713A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Henri discloses a bale spreading apparatus (pages 1-9) comprising:
a box frame (fig.1: (12)) which retains a bale of material,
a conveyor (fig.1: (40)) on which a bale rests, the conveyor being operative to urge the bale in a longitudinal direction towards a spreader head (fig.1: (30)) which ejects bale material from the apparatus,
wherein the spreader head comprises one or more rotors (fig.1: (31)), each of the one or more rotors rotor comprising a vertically mounted rotatable shaft (fig.1: (35)) and a series of blades (fig.1: the blades of element (39)) being mounted on at least one of said shafts.
Regarding claim 2, Henri discloses wherein a single shaft is provided with all of the blades mounted relative to a single shaft (fig.1).
Regarding claim 5, Henri discloses wherein the single shaft is mounted substantially centrally of the apparatus relative of the bale (fig.1).
Regarding claim 6, Henri discloses comprising a rotor motor (fig.3: (32)) coupled to drive the single shaft in both directions (page 8: lines 14-22).
Regarding claim 7, Henri discloses wherein each blade is rectangular with a V-shaped notch in a free end thereof (fig.1: the blades of element (39)).
Regarding claim 12, Henri discloses wherein a floor around the shaft within a span of the blades is planar (fig.2: see the floor).
Regarding claim 13, Henri discloses at least one choking deflector located adjacent to the rotor (fig.1: (60)).
Regarding claim 19, Henri discloses substantially vertically extending exit cowling (fig.1: (60)) located at least partially in front of the rotor relative to a feed direction of the bale (page 9)
Regarding claim 20, Henri discloses wherein the exit cowling (fig.1: (60)) is moveable to facilitate left-hand side and right-hand side discharge of bale material from the spreader.
Regarding claim 22, Henri discloses wherein the exit cowling (fig.1: (60)) includes a straight portion at either end and an arcuate portion therebetween.
Regarding claim 24, Henri discloses wherein movement of the exit cowling (fig.1: (60)) causes a corresponding reversal of the rotor direction or vice versa.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ross (GB2390043A).
Regarding claim 1, Ross discloses a bale spreading apparatus (pages 1-11) comprising:
a box frame (fig.1: (2)) which retains a bale of material,
a conveyor (fig.1: (14)) on which a bale rests, the conveyor being operative to urge the bale in a longitudinal direction towards a spreader head (fig.1: (4)) which ejects bale material from the apparatus,
wherein the spreader head comprises one or more rotors (fig.1: (15)), each of the one or more rotors rotor comprising a vertically mounted rotatable shaft (fig.5: (42)) and a series of blades (figs.1 and 5: (40)) being mounted on at least one of said shafts.
Regarding claim 9, Ross discloses wherein the spreader head is fixed, and one or more bales are loaded from an end (fig.1: (14)) opposite to the spreader head.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael (WO2013108005A1).
Regarding claims 2-4, Michael does not disclose wherein a single shaft is provided with all of the blades mounted relative to a single shaft; and wherein no more than two blades are radially aligned about the shaft;
However, the Applicant disclose wherein the spreader head comprises one or more vertically mounted rotatable shafts; or optionally of the blades are mounted relative to a single shaft; and wherein a pair of blades are provided as respective opposite tips of an elongate member extending around and from opposite sides of the shaft; and optionally no more than two blades are provided in any line of circumference on the shaft; our blades are provided (Applicant’s specification: page 2);
So, it appears having “wherein a single shaft is provided with all of the blades mounted relative to a single shaft; and wherein no more than two blades are radially aligned about the shaft” is not critical;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the numbers of the shaft and the blades as desired, including wherein a single shaft is provided with all of the blades mounted relative to a single shaft; and wherein no more than two blades are radially aligned about the shaft, as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 18, Michael does not disclose an opposed pair of choking deflectors, one on either lateral side of the rotor;
However, Michael discloses at least one choking deflector located adjacent to the rotor (page 4 paragraph 25);
Further, the Applicant disclose at least one choking deflector forwardly and lateral about a forward side of the rotor to guide material to one side of the apparatus; in one form, the side throw apparatus may further comprise at least one and preferably a pair of opposed choking deflectors (Applicant’s specification: pages 13-14);
So, it appears having “an opposed pair of choking deflectors, one on either lateral side of the rotor” is not critical;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Michael to add choking deflector as many as desired in order to cause the ejected material to be directed in a particular direction (Michael: page 4 paragraph 25), since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). (MPEP 2144.04 VI, B)
Claims 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael (WO2013108005A1) in view of Willems (US20240000024A1).
Regarding claims 25 and 27, Michael does not disclose a pneumatic conveying device provided adjacent to the exit from the spreader to assist with conveying material away from the spreader; and wherein the pneumatic conveying device is oriented laterally to direct airflow laterally.
Willems teaches a pneumatic conveying device (fig.4: (5)) provided adjacent to an exit to assist with conveying material away from a processing device; and wherein the pneumatic conveying device is oriented laterally to direct airflow laterally (paragraph 0034-0036).
Both of the prior arts of Michael and Willems are related to agricultural device;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Michael to have the configuration of a pneumatic conveying device as taught by Willems , since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having a pneumatic conveying device provided adjacent to the exit from the spreader to assist with conveying material away from the spreader; and wherein the pneumatic conveying device is oriented laterally to direct airflow laterally.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights