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 “unit is pivotally mounted” 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 Objections
Claims 4, 5, 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4: “define” should be – defined -- ;
in claims 5, 6: “135a” perhaps should be – (135a) or removed.
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 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, 3-4, 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berry (2021/0022289).
[AltContent: textbox (Axis of rotation)]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Outer housing of the rotary mill)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Chambers radially outwardly from the cylindrical outer housing)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
178
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (At least 2 stacks of hammers)][AltContent: textbox (Internal rotor & hub, the upper part rotor at the inlet, the lower part at the outlet)]
1. A weed prevention unit for a combine harvester, comprising:
a rotary mill for receiving material from a grain cleaning system of the combine harvester, and distributing the material (marked up),
wherein the rotary mill comprises an outer housing and an internal rotor with an axis of rotation (marked up; housing / screen arrangement 20a),
wherein the outer housing comprises an inlet at one end of the internal rotor along the axis of rotation, the inlet flow being generally along the direction of the axis of rotation, and an outlet at an opposite end of the internal rotor along the axis of rotation, the outlet flow being generally radially outwardly from the axis of rotation (marked up),
wherein the internal rotor comprises a central hub along the axis of rotation and at least two stacks of hammers extending radially outwardly from the central hub, each stack aligned in the direction of the axis of rotation (marked up; stacks of hammers / pitched fan blades 46 / 146),
wherein the outer housing comprises one or more chambers extending radially outwardly from an otherwise cylindrical general form (marked up).
3. The unit of claim 1, wherein the outer housing forms a continuous cylinder at the one end, with the inlet extending parallel to the axis of rotation, and the outer housing forms a cylinder with an opening around its circumference at the other end, the opening defining the outlet (material & air exit or opening 24, par. 151).
4. The unit of claim 1, wherein chamber or chambers have a sloped entrance surface defined by an inlet side for guiding material into the chamber and a step to an exit surface defined by an outlet side for impacting the material when it exits the chamber (angled plates 28p).
7. The unit of claim 1 comprising four chambers (as best shown/taught in fig 6, two are shown on one half, similarly another two inherent on the on the other half of the housing).
8. The unit of claim 1 comprising four stacks of hammers (at least four shown in fig 6).
9. The unit of claim 1, wherein the top hammer of each stack comprises a sloped upper face, sloping with a component in the direction of the rotation axis (as best shown in fig 5a, the top hammer includes a sloped upper face).
10. The unit of claim 1, wherein the unit is pivotally mounted to a combine harvester chassis (similarly, to applicant’s disclosure without a pivot being shown, the unit is inherently pivotally mounted).
“(9) FIG. 7a is a schematic representation of a residue processing system which includes two of residue processing devices that have two counter rotating components in a side-by-side juxtaposition;”
11. A weed prevention system comprising first and second weed prevention units, each as claimed in claim 1 (taught above).
12. The weed prevention system of claim 11, wherein the units are side by side, with opposing directions of rotation of their rotors (taught above).
“The arrangement can be neatly integrated into the harvester. The arrangement however has limited capacity and cannot process the entire chaff residue fraction exiting the harvesters sieve. Therefore, the Zani system relied on sieving to concentrate the collect weed seeds for processing.”
13. A combine harvester comprising: a crop cutting head; a threshing and separating system; a grain cleaning system for receiving the cut and threshed crop material; and the weed prevention system of claim 11 downstream of the grain cleaning system (inherent feature of a combine harvester taught above).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (2021/0022289), in view of Dwyer et al (5885155).
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.
Berry teaches the claimed invention, except:
2. The unit of claim 1, wherein the outer housing comprises inwardly facing guide vanes, each having a shape of a section of a spiral (not shown) extending between the inlet and outlet.
Dwyer teaches that the material processing housing would include a helical / spiral shape vanes:
“As this occurs, in the case of corn, the rasp bars 26 agitate and force the grain from the cob. The large clearance will allow the cobs to roll in the space between the vanes 32. Due to the greater height of the rasp bars 26 towards the rear of the assembly 18, the cobs continue being threshed even though the diameter of the cobs is reduced with the removal of the grain.”
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 housing of Berry with the teachings of Dwyer, with a reasonable expectation of success since it would provide further agitation / comminution to the material.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (2021/0022289).
In re cl. 10 (see above), the feature of the unit is pivotally mounted to the combine harvester is an obvious capability, in order to provide reorientation due to wind factor.
In re claims 5, 6:
5. The unit of claim 4, wherein the ratio of the length of the inlet side to the length of the outlet side is within the range 2:1 to 6:1.
6. The unit of claim 4, wherein the ratio of the length of the inlet side to the length of the outlet side is 3:1.
It would have been obvious to pick and choose from any of the well known to discover the optimum ratio of the length such as the length of the outlet side is 3:1, or the inlet side is within the range 2:1 to 6:1. In either case, the constructions of the device as claimed would have been obvious logical steps or to achieve the above function would have clearly been within this range.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Wieneke (EP 0331784) teaches that chambers or pockets (70) are known to intensify the disintegration:
“According to a further inventive embodiment, it is provided that the trough-shaped housing is provided with pocket-shaped depressions. These pockets (70) fill up with straw during operation, so that the shredding tools work with compressed straw surfaces, which then represent practically flat abutments made of straw, which intensify the shredding as elastic counter-surfaces.”
PNG
media_image2.png
246
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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