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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “61 (fig. 3)”.
The drawings are objected to because the lead lines of the reference numbers 52a, 52b, 54a, and 54b in figure 4 do not point to a mounting hole.
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 drawing of “a front wall and a rear wall (claims 2 and 12) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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, 4-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klemm et al. (hereinafter “Klemm”) (US 3,099,203).
Regarding claim 1, Klemm discloses an agricultural baler (fig. 1), comprising:
a bale chamber (11) having a discharge outlet (see an area to the right of a blade (40) as shown in fig. 2 or the drawing #1 below); and
a bale splitting system (40) including:
a cutting mechanism (41) downstream of the discharge outlet (fig. 2), the cutting mechanism being configured to split a bale or crop material discharged from the discharge outlet in half and output two smaller bales or two smaller stacks of crop material (fig. 1),
wherein the cutting mechanism (41) is angled forwardly or rearwardly (see a blade 41 is angled rearwardly (fig. 2)) relative to a top wall (see col. 2, line 19) or a bottom wall (22 and col. 2, lines 20-21) of the bale chamber.
Drawing #1 :
PNG
media_image1.png
375
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the agricultural baler of claim 1, wherein the cutting mechanism comprises a knife having a knife blade (41) with a sharpened angled edge (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, the agricultural baler of claim 4, wherein the sharpened angled edge (41) is arranged to face the discharge outlet proximal to a tying assembly (13) (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, the agricultural baler of claim 4, wherein the knife blade (41) extends at an angle along a height of the bale chamber (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, the agricultural baler of claim 4, wherein the sharpened angled edge (41) is configured to slice the bale at least in half by the sharpened angled edge passing at least through a height of the bale (fig. 2) and (col.3, lines 37-47, and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the agricultural baler of claim 4, wherein the cutting mechanism (40 and 41) is positioned to split the bale after the bale is bound with twine (see “the bale are to be divided after they are formed and tied” in col. 3, lines 44-45) and wherein the sharpened angled edge (41) is configured to slice the bale in half without cutting the twine (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, the agricultural baler of claim 4, wherein the cutting mechanism (40 and 41) is positioned to split the bale before the bale is bound with twine (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, the agricultural baler of claim 4, wherein the knife (41) is mounted to a mount arranged at an upper side of the agricultural baler and/or at a lower side of the agricultural baler (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Klemm discloses an agricultural baler (fig. 1), comprising:
a bale chamber (11) having a discharge outlet (see the drawing above); and
a bale splitting system including: two cutting mechanisms [a combination #1 of a blade 40, 41 and a blade 46 when the blade 46 is in a position as shown in figure 5 OR a combination #2 of a blade 40, 41 and a blade 27 as shown in figure 3] that face the discharge outlet (see the drawing # 2 below for the combination #2 and figure 5 for the combination #1), each of the two cutting mechanisms being angled in an opposite direction relative to the bottom wall or the top wall of the bale chamber (see fig. 2, which shows the blade 41 and 46 are angled in opposite directions for the combination #1, and fig. 3. shows the blade 41 and the blade 27 are angled in opposite directions for the combination #2 as set for above).
Drawing #2:
PNG
media_image2.png
403
711
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the agricultural baler of claim 11, wherein each of the two cutting mechanisms (41 and 46) or (41 and 27) comprises a knife having a knife blade with a sharpened angled edge (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 14, the agricultural baler of claim 13, wherein each sharpened angled edge (41 and 27) is arranged to face the discharge outlet (see the drawing #2 above) of the bale chamber proximal to a tying assembly (13 and 36) (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, the agricultural baler of claim 13, wherein each knife blade (41, 46, and 27) extends along a height of the bale chamber at a different angle relative to the bottom wall or the top wall of the bale chamber (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, the agricultural baler of claim 13, wherein each sharpened angled edge (41 and 46) is configured to slice the bale at least in half by each sharpened angled edge passing at least through a respective half portion of a height of the bale (figure 5).
Regarding claim 17, the agricultural baler of claim 13, wherein the two cutting mechanisms (40-41 and 45-46) are positioned to split the bale after the bale is bound with twine (see “the bale are to be divided after they are formed and tied” in col. 3, lines 44-45) and wherein each sharpened angled edge is configured to slice the bale in half without cutting the twine (figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 18, the agricultural baler of claim 13, wherein the two cutting mechanisms (41 and 46) are “positioned to” split the bale before the bale is bound with twine (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, the agricultural baler of claim 1, wherein the bale splitting system is a separate structure configured to be added into the agricultural baler (Klemm discloses the blade 40-41 is mounted in the bale chamber (col. 3, lines 61-62) and the blade 45-46 is mounted on the plunger (col. 4, lines 3-4); therefore, Klemm discloses both of the blades are separate structures before they are added to the bale chamber and the plunger of the baler).
Regarding claim 20, the agricultural baler of claim 1, wherein the bale splitting system is built into the agricultural baler (fig. 2).
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 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemm in view of Glady (US 2022/0248608 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the agricultural baler of claim 1, Klemm discloses the cutting mechanism (40 and 41) as set forth above. Flemm does not expressly disclose a position of the cutting mechanism relative to a front wall and a rear wall of the bale chamber is adjustable.
Glady discloses an agriculture baler (fig. 2) having a cutting mechanism (64) (fig. 5A), wherein the cutting mechanism having a plurality of vertically spaced lines of mounting holes 75a, 75b, and 75c (fig. 10B) for adjusting the cutting mechanism (64) vertically relative to a front side wall and a rear side wall depending upon the size of the bales to be produced (see para. 29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the cutting mechanism of Klemm adjustable as taught by Glady, in order to adjust the cutting mechanism when there is a need to produce a different size of bale.
Regarding claim 12, the agricultural baler of claim 11, Klemm discloses the two cutting mechanisms as set forth above. Flemm does not expressly disclose a respective position of the cutting mechanism relative to a front wall and a rear wall of the bale chamber is adjustable.
Glady discloses an agriculture baler (fig. 2) having a cutting mechanism (64) (fig. 5A), wherein the cutting mechanism having a plurality of vertically spaced lines of mounting holes 75a, 75b, and 75c (fig. 10B) for adjusting the cutting mechanism (64) vertically relative to a front side wall and a rear side wall depending upon the size of the bales to be produced (see para. 29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the cutting mechanisms of Klemm adjustable as taught by Glady, in order to adjust the cutting mechanisms when there is a need to produce a different size of bale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 3, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “an angle between the cutting mechanism and the bottom wall or the top wall of the bale chamber is adjustable”, in combination with 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.
US 2020/0000041A1, US 8,904,926, US 7,895,944B2, US 2,067,083, and US 2,105,215 disclose balers, each having a bale splitting system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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 L 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights