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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is longer than 150 words, and recites “Fig. 1” at the end of the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 12-13 recite “on which body a respective bracket is”, should read – on which a respective bracket is –.
Claim 1, line 13 recites “wherein the position of the at least one eccentric body”, should read – wherein a position of the at least one eccentric body – to fix antecedent basis issue.
Claim 2, lines 3-4 sets forth “in which recess a respective eccentric body”, should read – in which a respective eccentric body –.
Claim 3, line recites “a respective eccentric body”, should read – the respective eccentric body – due to dependent claim 2, lines 3-4 setting forth “a respective eccentric body”.
Claim 6, line recites “a respective eccentric body”, should read – the respective eccentric body – due to dependent claim 2, lines 3-4 setting forth “a respective eccentric body”.
Claim 8, line recites “a respective eccentric body”, should read – the respective eccentric body – due to dependent claim 7, line 3 setting forth “a respective eccentric body”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-8 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.
Claim 6, line 3 recites “cheeks are formed on the main frame” and in lines 5-6 further recites “a respective recess for receiving the projection of a respective eccentric body is formed on the cheeks”. However, it is unclear how many cheeks are being claimed. Specifically, the claim sets forth that a respective recess of a respective eccentric body is formed on a plurality of cheeks, and not on a respective cheek; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean a respective recess of a respective eccentric body is formed on a respective cheek.
Due to dependency on claim 6, claims 7-8 are rejected as well.
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) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gernert (EP 1653112 A1) in view of Leposa (DE 2902500 A).
Regarding claim 1, Gernert discloses a pick-up [2] for an agricultural harvester [1],
with a main frame [7 and 11] designed to connect the pick-up apparatus to the agricultural harvester (see Fig. 2),
with a crop collector [6] attached to the main frame (through [21]), the crop collector being designed to pick up crops from a ground surface (see para. [0016], lines 1-4), and
with a crop conveyor [13], which is attached to the main frame via brackets ([14]; one on either end of the conveyor) in such a way that the crop conveyor is mounted rotatably on the brackets (rotatably mounted through [16]) and is pivotable together with the brackets in relation to the main frame (through pivot bearings [15], see para. [0021], lines 1-6),
characterized in that at least one eccentric body [19] is attached to the main frame, on which body a respective bracket [14] is directly (conveyor and respective bracket are directly supported by the eccentric body, see para. [0020], lines 5-7 and Figs. 2 and 5) or indirectly supported, wherein the position (position of eccentric body in Figs. 2 and 5) of the at least one eccentric body on the main frame determines the distance between the crop conveyor and the crop collector (when the eccentric body is in the position showed in Figs. 2 and 5, it provides a spacing between the crop conveyor and collector, see Fig. 2 and para. [0020], lines 5-7).
But Gernert fails to explicitly disclose wherein the crop conveyor is designed, in conjunction with a floor plate, to convey the crops picked up by the crop collector, and wherein the eccentric body determines the distance between the crop conveyor and the floor plate.
Leposa discloses a similar pick-up [1] for an agricultural harvester (see para. [0001], line 1) wherein the crop conveyor [3] is designed, in conjunction with a floor plate [19], to convey the crops picked up by the crop collector ([2]; see para. [0049], lines 7-11).
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 floor plate of Leposa on the pick-up of Gernert in order to provide a conveying surface between the crop conveyor and the crop collector for inserting the crop material into the agricultural harvester (see Leposa para. [0049], lines 7-11). It can be seen then that, when the floor plate of Leposa is applied to the pick-up of Gernert, the eccentric body of Gernert determines the distance between the crop conveyor and the floor plate through the crop conveyor resting directly on the eccentric body (see Gernert’s Fig. 5 and para. [0020], lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 2, Gernert, of the above resultant combination, further discloses at least one recess (see below; aperture formed within cheek on the main frame and used for holding the eccentric body in position while allowing it to roll with the crop conveyor, see para. [0020], lines 5-7 and Fig. 5) is formed on the main frame [7 and 11], in which recess a respective eccentric body [19] engages positively with a projection (see below; protrusion of the eccentric body engaged with the recess for holding the eccentric body in position while allowing it to roll with the crop conveyor, see para. [0020], lines 5-7 and Fig. 5) in one of several possible positions (position in which the protrusion is engaged with the recess, allowing for the crop conveyor to rest on the eccentric body, and position where protrusion is removed from engagement with the recess, removing the eccentric body from the pick-up), wherein the position in which the projection of the respective eccentric body engages in the respective recess determines the distance between the crop conveyor [13] and the floor plate (when the eccentric body is in the position showed in Figs. 2 and 5, it determines a distance between the crop conveyor and the rest of the pick-up, see para. [0020], lines 5-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
441
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Gernert, of the above resultant combination, further discloses a respective eccentric body [19] with the projection (see above) engages positively in the respective recess (see above) in one of two possible positions (position shown in Figs. 2 and 5, and position where eccentric body is flipped 180 degrees; both positions allow for the projection to be inserted into the recess).
Regarding claim 4, Gernert, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the respective eccentric body [19] has a base body (see below; portion of eccentric roller [19] in which the projection is attached, allows for the projection to be inserted into the recess while the roller body rolls with the crop conveyor, see para. [0020], lines 5-7) having the projection (see above), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the projection lies eccentrically on the base body.
PNG
media_image2.png
282
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the projection to lie eccentrically on the base body, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, rearranging the projection to lie eccentrically on the base body would still allow the projection to be inserted into the recess, and therefore would not prevent the eccentric body from determining a distance between the crop conveyor and the floor plate (see Gernert para. [0020], lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 5, Gernert, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the respective eccentric body [19] has a roller body (see below; portion of eccentric roller [19] that doesn’t have the projection attached and therefore rolls with the crop conveyor, see para. [0020], lines 5-7) which is rotatable relative to the base body (see above) and which radially surrounds the outside of the base body (see below; radially surrounds the outside of the base body to provide a surface for the crop conveyor [13] to rest on, see para. [0020], lines 5-7 and Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
330
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Gernert, of the above resultant combination, further discloses cheeks (see below) are formed on the main frame [7 and 11], below the brackets [14] pivotably mounted on the main frame, and a respective recess (see above) for receiving the projection (see above) of a respective eccentric body [19] is formed on a respective cheek (please see 112(b) rejection above).
PNG
media_image4.png
370
414
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gernert (EP 1653112 A1) and Leposa (DE 2902500 A) as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Weichel (US 3696598 A).
Regarding claim 7, Gernert, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the respective eccentric body [19], when its projection (see above) engages in the respective recess (see above), is fastened to the respective cheek (see above) of the main frame [7 and 11], but fails to explicitly disclose the respective eccentric body is fastened to the respective cheek of the main frame via a screw.
Weichel discloses a similar pick-up apparatus (see Figs. 3-4) for an agricultural harvester (see Col. 3, lines 40-45) comprising a respective eccentric body ([21]; determines the distance between the crop collector [1] and the ground, see Figs. 3-4) fastened to the respective cheek (arm [20]) of the main frame [5’ and 6] via a fastener (eccentric body [21] is adjustably attached to cheek [20] and thereby utilizes a fastener for removable attachment, see Col. 5, lines 14-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fasten the eccentric body of Gernert to the check of the main frame using a fastener as taught by Weichel in order to secure the eccentric body to the cheek while still allowing for the eccentric body to be removably adjusted for determining different heights between the crop collector and the ground (see Weichel Col. 5, lines 14-22 and Figs. 3-4).
But Weichel fails to explicitly disclose the fastener is a screw.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a screw as the fastener of Weichel since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of a screw and a fastener for their use in fixing a structure securely together and the selection of any of these known equivalents are within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Gernert, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the projection (see above) of a respective eccentric body [19] extends into the recess (see above) of the respective cheek (see above) from a first side of the latter (see below) and a second side (see below) of the respective cheek, but fails to disclose a threaded shaft of a respective screw extends into the projection of the respective eccentric body from a second side of the respective cheek and is supported on the respective cheek with a screw head.
PNG
media_image5.png
299
520
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Weichel discloses a similar pick-up apparatus (see Figs. 3-4) for an agricultural harvester (see Col. 3, lines 40-45) comprising a respective eccentric body ([21]; determines the distance between the crop collector [1] and the ground, see Figs. 3-4), wherein a respective fastener (eccentric body [21] is adjustably attached to cheek [20] and thereby utilizes a fastener for removable attachment, see Col. 5, lines 14-22) extends into the respective eccentric body from a second side (see below) of the respective cheek (arm [20]) and is supported on the respective cheek (supported by holding eccentric body in place on respective cheek, see Figs. 3-4).
PNG
media_image6.png
318
648
media_image6.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 fasten the eccentric body of Gernert to the cheek of the main frame using a fastener as taught by Weichel in order to secure the eccentric body to the cheek while still allowing for the eccentric body to be removably adjusted for determining different heights between the crop collector and the ground (see Weichel Col. 5, lines 14-22 and Figs. 3-4).
But Weichel fails to explicitly disclose the fastener is a screw.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a screw as the fastener of Weichel since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of a screw and a fastener for their use in fixing a structure securely together and the selection of any of these known equivalents are within the level of ordinary skill in the art. It can be seen then that, when the fastener of Weichel is a screw, the threaded shaft of the screw extends into the projection of Gernert through the second side as taught by Weichel while the screw head supports the screw on the respective cheek on the second side, allowing for removal by the user (see Weichel Col. 5, lines 14-22).
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 GB 2195873 A discloses a similar pick-up apparatus (see Fig. 1) comprising of an eccentric body [14] determining the distance between the crop conveyor [5] and the floor plate [12].
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
