DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendment to the claims, filed 1/28/2025, have been entered.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the figures have hand-written numbers, and the drawings have uneven lineweight. 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 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 1-10 are 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 1, the phrase "namely" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1, thus are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3, line 4 “cutting tips (4b)” should be “cutting tips (6b)”.
Claim 10 “its” should be positively recited.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)() as being anticipated by Scott US2021/0212255.
Regarding claim 1, Scott teaches a mower (Figure 3) of an agricultural harvester 11, comprising a plurality of mowing members 15, which are positioned next to one another in a row (rows 16 and 17 shown in Figure 2) to form a cutter bar (the extension of 18 within respective 16 and 17) wherein each mowing member has a cutter disk 18, wherein the cutter disks 18 of directly adjacent mowing members 15 are arranged alternately in different planes (as shown in Figure 3), namely, in the working position of the mower (as shown in Figure 3), first cutter disks 18 (selecting left most and right most 18 shown in Figure 3) of first mowing members 15 are arranged in a first, lower plane and second cutter disks 18 (innermost of 18 shown in Figure 3) of second mowing members 15 are arranged in a second, upper plane (each of the first and second disks have their own relative planes), wherein the cutter disks 18 of directly adjacent mowing members 15 overlap in one projection (overlap is horizontal as shown in Figure 3), comprising a housing 12 having a transmission bar 30 (wherein 30 connects to 25 and to drive shaft 32 for rotation, and is shown with a bar-shaped cross section, thus is considered a transmission bar), wherein a transmission 32, which serves to drive the cutter disks 18 , is at least partially arranged (via connection as shown in Figure 3) in the transmission bar 30, wherein the transmission bar 23 is arranged below (where 30 extends below 18) the cutter disks 18 in the working position of the mower, characterized in that at least one first clearing member (selected one of 26, wherein 26 keeps 25 clear of debris ¶0020, thus is considered a clearing member) with a first length (the vertical length of 26) is arranged between each first cutter disk 18 and the transmission bar 30 (arranged vertically between the innermost diameter of 30
And 18) and at least one second clearing member (another of 26) with a second length (vertical length) differing from the first length (figure 3 shows differing vertical lengths of 26) is arranged between each second cutter disk 18 and the transmission bar 30.
Regarding claim 2, Scott teaches that the first length of the first clearing members (selected one of 26) is greater (when selecting left most clearing member 26 in Figure 3 compared with the second to the left or the middle clearing member of Figure 3) than the second length of the second clearing members (another of 26) .
Regarding claim 3, Scott teaches that cutting tips of each first cutter disk 18 lie on a respective first circular path (wherein 18 is rotated, therefore the edges of 18 are considered the tips), cutting tips of each second cutter disk 18 lie on a respective second circular path (in a similar manner to the first circular path), the first circular path and the second circular path of directly adjacent mowing members 15 overlap in the projection (as shown in Figure 3), one end of the respective first clearing member (selected one of 26) extends to the respective first circular path (wherein 26 extend downwardly towards the path defined by 18), one end of the respective second clearing member (another of 26) ends at a radial distance (wherein 26’s radius extends radially concentric with 18’s circular path, since 26 does not radially extend to the edge of 18, the gap defining the claimed radial distance) from the respective second circular path.
Regarding claim 4, Scott teaches that the second length of the respective second clearing member (another of 26) is dimensioned such that the end of the respective second clearing member (another of 26) ends at a distance (the vertical distance from the ends of 18) from the respective first circular path of a respective directly adjacent first cutter disk 18.
Regarding claim 6, Scott teaches that the first clearing members (selected one of 26) and the second clearing members (another of 26) are offset from one another by preferably (as best understood by examiner) 30 to 90 degrees (Figure 2 shows offset from adjacent ones of 15 straddling 14, and where the right most 16 is offset at an angle approximately 45 degrees which is within the claimed range) to provide a phase offset between the first clearing member (selected one of 26) and the second clearing member (another of 26) .
Regarding claim 8, Scott teaches each mowing member has a cutter flange (on top of 15) in addition to the respective cutter disk 18, on which the respective cutter disk 18 is supported, the respective clearing member is attached at least to the respective cutter flange (wherein the top of 15 is integrally part of 15).
Regarding claim 9, Scott teaches the respective clearing member is additionally attached to the respective cutter disk 18 (wherein Figure 3 shows attachment via the outside of 15).
Regarding claim 10, Scott teaches the respective first clearing member (selected one of 26) and/or the respective second clearing member (another of 26) has a stepped or curved or bent contour (wherein 26 is a shoulder that is considered stepped or bent as shown in Figure 4 that leaves towards the corrugated vertical section) adapted to the transmission bar 30 on its side facing the transmission bar 30.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Iwabuchi, et al. US2014/0010689.
Regarding claim 7, Scott teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach the first clearing member (selected one of 26) have a first thickness and the second clearing member (another of 26) have a second thickness, wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness.
Iwabuchi, et al. teaches that it is known in the art to vary thicknesses of bellows type of clearing members, wherein increasing the thickness increases the bellow’s pressure resistance ¶0003 (“increasing the pressure resistance by changing the bellows shape as described above or increasing the bellows' wall thickness.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Scott’s second clearing member’s wall thickness to be thicker than that of the first clearing member’s wall thickness, in view of Iwabuchi, et al.’s teaching that increasing thickness increases it’s pressure resistance, to produce increased pressure resistance in select clearing members.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 5, Scott does not teach, in combination, that the second length of the respective second clearing member (another of 26) is dimensioned such that the end of the respective second clearing member (another of 26) extends beyond the respective first circular path of a respective directly adjacent first cutter disk 18. The lengths of 26 extend vertically, rather than radially or horizontally, and thus do not extend towards the circular paths such that the second length extends beyond that of the first circular path. Since the lengths of 26 are oriented orthogonally relative to the circular paths, it would not have been obvious to modify the lengths to extends as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Roth, et al. US2024/0099188 teaches overlapping cutting swaths, but does not teach the blades exist on separate planes.
Anderson US2016/0100523 teaches layered and overlapping cutters/disks 12 for a cutting bar 102. Anderson does not teach the transmission bar is arranged below cutter disks, and does not teach clearing members.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM EST.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights