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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-14 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,221,300. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
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) 1-3,5-10, 12-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meester U.S. Patent No. 7,921,628.
Claim 1, Meester teaches a cleanup conveyor system Fig. 2 comprising: an end dump conveyor 19 that receives crop items T and non-crop debris V from an end dump unit 15 and that directly conveys at least a portion of the crop items T and the non-crop debris V to a main incline conveyor 19 of a crop piler 26; and a cleanup conveyor positioned below the end dump conveyor 19, wherein the cleanup conveyor 21 receives at least a portion of the non-crop debris V that falls from the end dump conveyor 19 during conveyance of the portion of crop items T and non-crop debris V and wherein the cleanup conveyor 21 directly conveys the portion of the non-crop debris V that falls from the end dump conveyor 19 to the main incline conveyor 25 of the crop piler 26 Fig. 4 C6 L30-60.
Claim 2, Meester teaches the cleanup conveyor 21 is attached to the end dump conveyor 19 via 10 Fig. 2.
Claim 3, Meester teaches the end dump conveyor 19 and the cleanup conveyor 21 are positioned at a same angle for conveyance to the main incline conveyor 19 Fig. 4 C9 L64-67; C10 L1-10.
Claims 5 and 12, Meester teaches a first motor drives the end dump conveyor 19 and wherein a second motor drives the cleanup conveyor 21 C6 L30-60.
Claims 6 and 13, Meester teaches the cleanup conveyor 21 is distally spaced from the end dump conveyor 19 by less than one foot Fig. 4. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claims 7 and 14, Meester teaches the cleanup conveyor 21 is distally spaced from the end dump conveyor 19 by less than six inches Fig. 4. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claims 8 and 15, Meester teaches a length of the cleanup conveyor 21 is less than a length of the end dump conveyor 19 Fig. 4.
Claims 9 and 16, Meester teaches a length of the cleanup conveyor 21 is less than two-thirds of a length of the end dump conveyor 19 Fig. 4.
Claim 10, Meester teaches a cleanup conveyor system Fig. 2 comprising: a cleanup conveyor 21; and a cleanup conveyor frame of 21 having a plurality of connecting members that extend upwardly from a first side and a second side of the cleanup conveyor 21 (as known to have frame members and structural components as a part of a conveyor assembly); wherein the plurality of connecting members are attached to a frame of an end dump conveyor 19 (as known to have frame members and structural components as a part of a conveyor assembly) to position the cleanup conveyor 21 below the end dump conveyor 19 and to position the cleanup conveyor 21 in parallel with the end dump conveyor 19 Fig. 4; wherein the cleanup conveyor 21 receives at least a portion of a non-crop debris V that falls from the end dump conveyor 19 while the end dump conveyor 19 directly conveys at least a portion of crop items T and non-crop debris V received from an end dump unit 15 to a main incline conveyor 22 of a crop piler 26; and wherein the cleanup conveyor 21 directly conveys the portion of the non-crop debris V that falls from the end dump conveyor 19 to the main incline conveyor 22 of the crop piler 26 C6 L10-65.
Claim 17, Meester teaches the cleanup conveyor 21 further comprises an inner roller of 21 Fig 4 near an inner end of the cleanup conveyor 21, an outer roller of 21 Fig. 4 near an outer end of the cleanup conveyor 21, and an endless conveyor belt positioned around the inner roller and the outer roller Fig. 4 (conveyor with belt and rollers).
Claim 20, Meester teaches a cleanup conveyor system Fig. 2 comprising: a cleanup conveyor 21; and a cleanup conveyor frame of 21 having a plurality of connecting members (frame members as known in conveyor systems) that extend upwardly from a first side and a second side of the cleanup conveyor 21; wherein the plurality of connecting members (frame members of 21 as known in conveyor systems) are attached to a frame (frame members of 19 as known in conveyor systems) of an end dump conveyor 19 to position the cleanup conveyor 21 below the end dump conveyor 19 and to position the cleanup conveyor 21 in parallel with the end dump conveyor 19 Fig. 4; wherein the cleanup conveyor 21 receives at least a portion of a non-crop debris V that falls from the end dump conveyor 19 while the end dump conveyor 19 directly conveys at least a portion of crop items T and non-crop debris V received from an end dump unit 15 to a main incline conveyor 22 of a crop piler 26; wherein the cleanup conveyor 21 directly conveys the portion of the non-crop debris V that falls from the end dump conveyor 19 to the main incline conveyor 22 of the crop piler 26; wherein the cleanup conveyor 21 has a length that is less than a length of the end dump conveyor 19 and wherein the plurality of connecting members (frame members of 21 as known in conveyor systems) attached to the frame (frame members of 19 as known in conveyor systems) of the end dump conveyor position 19 a first end of the cleanup conveyor 21 inwardly from a first end of the end dump conveyor 19 and position a second end of the cleanup conveyor 21 inwardly from a second end of the end dump conveyor 19 Fig. 4 C6 L10-65.
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) 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meester U.S. Patent No. 7,921,628 in view of Kelly U.S. Patent No. 6,655,893.
Claims 4 and 11, Meester does not teach as Kelly teaches a single motor drives both the end dump conveyor 212 and the cleanup conveyor 216 C10 L50-67; C11 L1-5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Meester with the motor configuration taught in Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meester U.S. Patent No. 7,921,628 in view of Zuzga U.S. Patent No. 11,375,738.
Claim 18, Meester does not teach as Zuzga teaches the cleanup conveyor 405 further comprises a plurality of rib members 433 connected to the endless conveyor belt 431 in a crosswise manner C7 L15-25. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Meester with the rib configuration on the belt taught in Zuzga with a reasonable expectation of success because
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-14 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,221,300. This is a statutory double patenting rejection, but the prior art does not teach “a first chain connected to the inner roller and the outer roller and a second chain connected to the inner roller and the outer roller, wherein the plurality of rib members are each connected between the first chain and the second chain” in combination with any intervening claim language. It would be alloable subject matter is the double patent rejection was overcome with additional structural claim language to differentiate from U.S. Patent No. 12,221,300 claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/KAVEL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
KS
Prosecution Insights