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 Objections
Claims 3, 12, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 2 recites “across air inlet screen”, should read – across the air inlet screen –.
Claim 12, line 4 recites “the frame”, should read – the main frame – due to claim 1, line setting forth the main frame.
Claim 15, line 2 recites “tubular manifold surround extending around”, should read – tubular manifold extending around –.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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(s) 1-7, 11-14, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’hondt (US 7981175 B2) in view of Means, Jr. (US 5143529 A).
Regarding claim 1, D’hondt discloses a sugarcane harvester (see Col. 2, lines 61-64) comprising:
a main frame [10];
a power source [20] supported on the main frame and operable to generate torque (power source is an engine and therefore generates torque, see Col. 3, lines 7-10);
a primary cooling system [12] including a heat exchanger ([18, 22, and 24], see Col. 3, lines 4-15), wherein the primary cooling system is operable to circulate a coolant through the power source for absorbing heat from the power source (through use of the radiator, see Col. 3, lines 8-10), and circulate the coolant through the heat exchanger for transferring heat from the coolant to a flow of cooling air (from fan [26], see Col. 3, lines 16-23) moving across the heat exchanger (through use of the radiator, see Col. 3, lines 8-10) from an inlet region [14] to a discharge region [32];
an inlet debris removal system [38] having an air pump (see Col. 3, lines 59-63) and a pressurized outlet ([48], see Col. 4, lines 14-18), wherein the air pump is operable to generate a flow of cleaning air (see Col. 3, lines 59-63), and wherein the outlet is configured to receive the flow of cleaning air from the air pump and direct the flow of cleaning air across the inlet region of the heat exchanger for cleaning debris from the inlet region to maintain the flow of cooling air across the heat exchanger (outlet directs the air across the screen surface [34] of inlet [14] to remove debris, see Col. 4, lines 14-18 and Fig. 5).
But D’hondt fails to disclose the inlet debris removal system having a nozzle.
Means, Jr. discloses a similar inlet debris removal system ([76], see Col. 3, lines 44-47) having an air pump (see Col. 4, lines 43-45) and a nozzle [104 or 105].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the pressurized outlet of D’hondt with the nozzle of Means, Jr. since both are ways to output a stream of air from an air pump or source; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Regarding claim 2, D’hondt, of the above resultant combination, further discloses a main housing (see below, housing covering both the power source and the heat exchanger, connecting the two) defining an engine bay (engine bay is main housing, see below; compartment that houses power source and supporting cooling system) and covering the power source [20] and including an air inlet screen [34] defining the inlet region ([14], see Col. 3, lines 24-26) of the heat exchanger ([18, 22, and 24], see Col. 3, lines 4-15).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, D’hondt discloses the sugarcane harvester as applied above, as well as, wherein the pressurized outlet ([48], see Col. 4, lines 14-18) is positioned to direct the flow of cleaning air across air inlet screen (outlet directs the air across the screen surface [34] of inlet [14] to remove debris, see Col. 4, lines 14-18 and Fig. 5), but fails to disclose the nozzle.
However, Means, Jr. discloses the nozzle [104 or 105].
It can be seen then that when the pressurized outlet of D’hondt is substituted with the nozzle of Means, Jr. that the nozzle directs the flow of cleaning air across the air inlet screen as disclosed by D’Hondt (see Col. 4, lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 4, D’hondt, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the main housing (see above) includes a platform (bottom of the housing of [12], see below; raised level surface supporting the cooling system) disposed proximate the air inlet screen [34] in the inlet region ([14], see Col. 3, lines 24-26) of the heat exchanger ([18, 22, and 24], see Col. 3, lines 4-15).
PNG
media_image2.png
575
699
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, D’hondt, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the pressurized outlet ([48], see Col. 4, lines 14-18) is positioned to direct the flow of cleaning air across (directs it upwardly and therefore across the width of the platform, ensuring the area around the platform is free of debris, see Col. 4, lines 14-18) the platform (see above), but fails to disclose the nozzle.
However, Means, Jr. discloses the nozzle [104 or 105].
It can be seen then that when the pressurized outlet of D’hondt is substituted with the nozzle of Means, Jr. that the nozzle directs the flow of cleaning air across the platform as disclosed by D’Hondt (see above and Col. 4, lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 6, D’hondt, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the heat exchanger ([18, 22, and 24], see Col. 3, lines 4-15) is disposed within the engine bay (see above; disposed within the engine bay due to being a part of the cooling system), and wherein the pressurized outlet ([48], see Col. 4, lines 14-18) is disposed proximate an exterior (see Fig. 2, disposed on the exterior in order to blow debris away, see Col. 4, lines 14-18) of the engine bay.
However, Means, Jr. discloses the nozzle [104 or 105].
It can be seen then that when the pressurized outlet of D’hondt is substituted with the nozzle of Means, Jr. that the nozzle is disposed proximate the exterior of the engine bay as disclosed by D’Hondt (see Fig. 2 and Col. 4, lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 7, D’hondt, of the above resultant combination, further discloses a chopper having a drum configured for cutting stalks of sugarcane into billets (chopper and drum are not shown but inherently present due to being generic parts of a sugarcane harvester, see Col. 2, lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 11, D’hondt, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the inlet debris removal system [38] includes a duct [40] connecting the air pump (see Col. 3, lines 59-63) and a pressurized outlet ([48], see Col. 4, lines 14-18), but fails to disclose a nozzle.
However, Means, Jr. discloses the nozzle [104 or 105].
It can be seen then that when the pressurized outlet of D’hondt is substituted with the nozzle of Means, Jr. that the nozzle is connected to the duct as disclosed by D’Hondt (see Col. 3, lines 59-63).
Regarding claim 12, D’hondt, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the pressurized outlet ([48], see Col. 4, lines 14-18) wherein the flow of cleaning air is directed across the inlet region [12] of the heat exchanger ([18, 22, and 24], see Col. 3, lines 4-15) relative to a central longitudinal axis (see below) of the frame [10], but fails to disclose wherein the nozzle includes a tubular manifold extending substantially vertically and a plurality of air jets arranged to direct the flow of cleaning air laterally across the inlet region of the heat exchanger relative to a central longitudinal axis of the frame.
PNG
media_image3.png
575
699
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Means, Jr. discloses a similar inlet debris removal system [76] wherein the nozzle [104 or 105] includes a tubular manifold [78] extending substantially vertically (see Fig. 4 and Col. 3, lines 52-61) and a plurality of air jets (air jet from nozzle [104] and air jet from nozzle [105]) arranged to direct the flow of cleaning air laterally (see Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tubular manifold of Means, Jr. on the pressurized outlet of D’hondt in order to extend the manifold vertically, allowing the nozzles to come into contact with the inlet surface, directly applying the pressurized air for cleaning the surface without damage (see Means, Jr. Col. 4, lines 24-38 and Col. 5, lines 34-60). It can be seen then that when the tubular manifold is applied to the pressurized outlet of D’hondt, the nozzles of Means, Jr. direct the cleaning air across the inlet region of the heat exchanger relative to a central longitudinal axis of the frame as disclosed by D’hondt (see above).
Regarding claim 13, D’hondt, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the pressurized outlet ([48], see Col. 4, lines 14-18) is positioned at an approximate lateral midsection (see Fig. 1) of the heat exchanger ([18, 22, and 24], see Col. 3, lines 4-15), but fails to disclose wherein the tubular manifold is positioned at an approximate lateral midsection of the heat exchanger.
However, Means, Jr. discloses the tubular manifold [78].
It can be seen then that when the tubular manifold of Means, Jr. is provided to the pressurized outlet of D’hondt that the tubular manifold is positioned at an approximate lateral midsection of the heat exchanger as disclosed by D’hondt (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Means, Jr., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the plurality of air jets (air jet from nozzle [104] and air jet from nozzle [105]) includes a first group of jets (air jet from nozzle [104]) directing the flow of cleaning air toward a first lateral side (see below) of the main frame, and a second group of jets (air jet from nozzle [105]) directing the flow of cleaning air toward a second lateral side (see below) of the main frame.
PNG
media_image4.png
406
508
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, D’hondt, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the duct [40] and wherein the pressurized outlet ([48], see Col. 4, lines 14-18) extends laterally (see below) across a width (see below; extends across a portion of the width of the heat exchanger) of the heat exchanger ([18, 22, and 24], see Col. 3, lines 4-15), and including an air jet (air discharged through pressurized outlet [48]) arranged to direct the flow of cleaning air vertically upward (see Col. 4, lines 14-18) across the inlet region [14] of the heat exchanger, but fails to disclose the nozzle including a tubular manifold and a plurality of air jets.
PNG
media_image5.png
545
699
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Means, Jr. discloses a similar inlet debris removal system [76] wherein the nozzle [104 or 105] includes a tubular manifold [78] and a plurality of air jets (air jet from nozzle [104] and air jet from nozzle [105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the pressurized outlet and duct of D’hondt with the nozzle and tubular manifold of Means, Jr. since both are a way to receive a stream of air from an air pump and source at one location and output the pressurized air at another location, yielding the same predictable result. Therefore, when the nozzle and tubular manifold of Means, Jr. are applied as the pressurized outlet and duct of D’hondt, the tubular manifold is located at the bottom of the heat exchanger as disclosed by D’hondt (see Figs. 1-2) while the plurality of air jets direct the airflow upwards as disclosed by D’hondt (see Col. 4, lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 17, D’hondt, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the pressurized outlet ([48], see Col. 4, lines 14-18) is disposed at an elevation vertically below a lower edge (see Fig. 2) of the heat exchanger ([18, 22, and 24], see Col. 3, lines 4-15), but fails to disclose the tubular manifold is disposed at an elevation vertically below a lower edge of the heat exchanger.
However, Means, Jr. discloses the tubular manifold [78].
It can be seen then that when the tubular manifold of Means, Jr. is provided at the pressurized outlet of D’hondt that the tubular manifold is placed or disposed at an elevation vertically below a lower edge of the heat exchanger as disclosed by the location of the pressurized outlet of D’hondt (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, D’hondt, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the air pump (see Col. 3, lines 59-63) is positioned within an engine bay (see below, compartment enclosing the cleaning system and the power source; air pump is enclosed within the engine bay by being a part of the cleaning system) enclosing the power source [20].
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’hondt (US 7981175 B2) and Means, Jr. (US 5143529 A) as applied to claims 1-7, 11- 14, 16-17, and 19 above, and further in view of Vergote (US 9119346 B2).
Regarding claim 8, the above combination discloses the sugarcane harvester as applied, but fails to explicitly disclose an extractor having a fan assembly for separating leaf material from the billets, wherein the extractor includes a hood moveable relative to the main frame, and wherein the hood includes an exhaust outlet that is selectively positionable relative to the main frame for discharging the leaf material from the extractor in a desired direction.
Vergote discloses a similar sugarcane harvester [20] comprising an extractor [54] having a fan assembly [56] for separating leaf material from the billets (see Col. 4, lines 48-54), wherein the extractor includes a hood [68] moveable relative to the main frame (chassis of harvester, see Fig. 1), and wherein the hood includes an exhaust outlet ([62], see Col. 5, lines 15-19) that is selectively positionable relative to the main frame for discharging the leaf material from the extractor in a desired direction (see Col. 5, lines 15-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the extractor and selectively positionable hood of Vergote to the sugarcane harvester or D’hondt and Means, Jr. in order to direct the air flow of residue out of the harvester and in a direction set by the user (see Vergote Col. 5, lines 15-19).
Regarding claim 9, D’hondt, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the heat exchanger ([18, 22, and 24], see Col. 3, lines 4-15) is positioned on one side of the power source [20] located at the front of the harvester (see Fig. 1), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the heat exchanger is positioned between the power source and the extractor.
However, Vergote discloses the extractor [54] located at the end of the sugarcane harvester ([20]; see Fig. 1).
It can be seen then that when the extractor of Vergote is provided to the sugarcane harvester of D’hondt and Means, Jr. that the heat exchanger is located between the power source and the extractor due to the power source being located at the front of the harvester and the extractor located at the rear as disclosed by Vergote (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, D’hondt, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the pressurized outlet ([48], see Col. 4, lines 14-18) is positioned between (pressurized outlet is located in the middle of the heat exchanger, see Fig. 1, and therefore is located in the space between the heat exchanger and the extractor) the heat exchanger ([18, 22, and 24], see Col. 3, lines 4-15) and the extractor (located at the rear of the harvester), but fails to disclose wherein the nozzle is positioned between the heat exchanger and the extractor.
However, Means, Jr. discloses the nozzle [104 or 105].
It can be seen then that when the pressurized outlet of D’hondt is substituted with the nozzle of Means, Jr. that the nozzle is positioned between the heat exchanger and the extractor as disclosed by D’Hondt (see Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’hondt (US 7981175 B2) and Means, Jr. (US 5143529 A) as applied to claims 1-7, 11- 14, 16-17, and 19 above, and further in view of Horvat (US 5827338 A).
Regarding claim 15, D’hondt, of the above resultant combination, further discloses a circumference (see below) of the air inlet region [14] of the heat exchanger ([18, 22, and 24], see Col. 3, lines 4-15), but fails to disclose wherein the nozzle includes a tubular manifold surround extending around a circumference of the air inlet region of the heat exchanger.
PNG
media_image6.png
556
744
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Horvat discloses a similar inlet debris removal system [10] wherein the nozzle [200] includes a tubular manifold [110, 122, and 123] extending around (surrounds the entire air inlet region, see Fig. 1) the air inlet region (see below).
PNG
media_image7.png
581
634
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tubular manifold of Horvat on the nozzle of D’hondt and Means, Jr. in order to provide cleaning air flow across the entire air inlet region, collecting all of the debris that may accumulate (see Horvat Col. 3, lines 53-65). Further, it can be seen then that when the tubular manifold of Horvat is applied to the nozzle of D’hondt and Means, Jr. that the tubular manifold surrounds the circumference of the air inlet region of D’hondt as taught by Horvat (see Horvat Fig. 1 and Col. 3, lines 53-65).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’hondt (US 7981175 B2) and Means, Jr. (US 5143529 A) as applied to claims 1-7, 11- 14, 16-17, and 19 above, and further in view of Weber et al. (US 12502453 B2).
Regarding claim 18, the above combination discloses the sugarcane harvester as applied, but fails to disclose wherein the air pump includes a first air pump and a second air pump.
Weber et al. discloses a similar inlet debris removal system ([10]; air filter that removes debris from the air) wherein the air pump ([4], see Col. 5, lines 10-11) includes a first air pump [40] and a second air pump [42].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second air pump to the inlet debris removal system of D’hondt and Means, Jr. as taught by Weber et al. in order for the two air pumps to operate in parallel to increase the overall airflow (see Weber et al. Col. 5, lines 9-17). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize two air pumps, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co.v. Bernis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for the full list of references.
Reference WO 2022029533 A1 discloses a similar inlet debris removal system (see Fig. 4) comprising of an air pump [40] and a nozzle [56].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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 Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights