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 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 1-8 and 17-20 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 1 recites the limitation "row unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "row unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "row unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "row unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2-3, 6-8, and 18-20 are rejected for depending on a rejected indefinite claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fabian et al. (US 6000475 A), hereinafter Fabian.
Regarding claim 1, Fabian discloses a stalk cutting assembly (10+11 working together, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62) for a row unit (44+45, fig. 2, col. 4 lines 39-40) of an agricultural harvester (wherein the preamble sets forth an intended use and does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art and thus does not limit the claim (see MPEP 2111.02(II)), comprising:
a shaft (16A, fig. 1, col. 4 lines 7-33) configured to extend generally along a vertical axis of the row unit (fig. 1-2); and
a plurality of discs (disc stack 10, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62) distributed along the shaft (fig. 1 and 3), wherein each disc (12A-C and cutter blade 50, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62and col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 46) of the plurality of discs is non-rotatably coupled to the shaft (col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 4), and the shaft is configured to rotate to drive the plurality of discs to rotate (col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 46);
wherein the plurality of discs is configured to engage a plant stalk to cut the plant stalk into a plurality of sections (col. 5 lines 9-34).
Regarding claim 2, Fabian further discloses wherein at least one disc of the plurality of discs is notched (see the triangular indent of the discs in fig. 3-4, col. 5 lines 5-22).
Regarding claim 3, Fabian further discloses comprising a motor (23, fig. 1-2, col. 4 lines 28-33) configured to drive the shaft to rotate (fig. 1-2, col. 4 lines 28-33).
Regarding claim 4, Fabian further discloses comprising a stalk cutting assembly gear (21. Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 28-33) non-rotatably coupled to the shaft (col. 4 lines 28-33), wherein the stalk cutting assembly gear is configured to engage a corresponding gear coupled to a rotor shaft of a rotor of the row unit to enable rotation of the rotor to drive rotation of the shaft of the stalk cutting assembly (col. 4 lines 28-37).
Regarding claim 5, Fabian further discloses comprising:
a second shaft (16B, fig. 1, col. 4 lines 7-33) configured to extend generally along the vertical axis of the row unit (fig. 1-2); and
a second plurality of discs (disc stack 11, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62) distributed along the second shaft (fig. 1 and 3), wherein each disc (13A-C and cutter blade 50, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62and col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 46) of the second plurality of discs is non-rotatably coupled to the second shaft (col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 4), and the second shaft is configured to rotate to drive the second plurality of discs to rotate ((col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 46);
wherein the second plurality of discs is configured to engage the plant stalk to cut the plant stalk into the plurality of sections (col. 5 lines 9-34).
Regarding claim 6, Fabian further discloses wherein each disc of the plurality of discs is positioned proximate to a respective disc of the second plurality of discs to establish a sheer cutting force on the plant stalk (fig. 3, col. 5 lines 9-34).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Fabian further discloses wherein at least one disc of the plurality of discs is notched (see the triangular indent of the discs 50 of group 12 in fig. 3-4, col. 5 lines 5-22), at least one disc of the second plurality of discs is notched (see the triangular indent of the discs 50 of group 13 in fig. 3-4, col. 5 lines 5-22), or a combination thereof (fig. 3 and 4, col. 5 lines 5-22).
Regarding claim 17, Fabian discloses a stalk cutting assembly (10+11 working together, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62) for a row unit (44+45, fig. 2, col. 4 lines 39-40) of an agricultural harvester (wherein the preamble sets forth an intended use and does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art and thus does not limit the claim (see MPEP 2111.02(II)), comprising:
a first shaft (16A, fig. 1, col. 4 lines 7-33) configured to extend generally along a vertical axis of the row unit (fig. 1-2);
a first plurality of discs (disc stack 10, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62) distributed along the first shaft (fig. 1 and 3), wherein each disc (12A-C and cutter blade 50, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62and col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 46) of the first plurality of discs is non-rotatably coupled to the first shaft (col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 4), and the first shaft is configured to rotate in a first rotational direction to drive the first plurality of discs to rotate (col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 46) in the first rotational direction (fig. 3, col. 5 lines 6-34, wherein the stacks of discs rotate in opposite directions);
a second shaft (16B, fig. 1, col. 4 lines 7-33) configured to extend generally along the vertical axis of the row unit (fig. 1-2);
a second plurality of discs (disc stack 11, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62) distributed along the second shaft (fig. 1 and 3), wherein each disc (13A-C and cutter blade 50, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62and col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 46) of the second plurality of discs is non-rotatably coupled to the second shaft (col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 4), and the second shaft is configured to rotate in a second rotational direction, opposite the first rotational direction, to drive the second plurality of discs to rotate in the second rotational direction (fig. 3, col. 5 lines 6-46, wherein the stacks of discs rotate in opposite directions);
wherein the first plurality of discs and the second plurality of discs are configured to engage a plant stalk (fig. 3, col. 5 lines 5-22), and each disc of the first plurality of discs is positioned proximate to a respective disc of the second plurality of discs to establish a sheer cutting force on the plant stalk to cut the plant stalk (fig. 3, col. 5 lines 23-34).
Regarding claim 18, Fabian further discloses comprising:
a first gear (21, Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 28-33) non-rotatably coupled to the first shaft (col. 4 lines 28-33); and
a second gear (22, Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 28-33) non-rotatably coupled to the second shaft (col. 4 lines 28-33);
wherein the first and second gears are engaged with one another (fig. 1, col. 4 lines 28-37, wherein the gears transfer mechanical energy).
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.
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) 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabian et al. (US 6000475 A), hereinafter Fabian in view of Pick (US 5161356 A), hereinafter Pick.
Regarding claim 7, Fabian discloses wherein there is a disc (12A-C and cutter blade 50, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62 and col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 46) of the plurality of discs (disc stack 10, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62) but is silent to the shape of discs on sides.
Pick teaches a similar device in the same field of harvesters wherein each disc (7, fig. 3, col. 2 lines 10-33) of the plurality of discs (fig. 3, col. 2 lines 10-33) has a flat side and a tapered side (fig. 3, see area that 9a is pointing), each disc of the second plurality of discs (7, fig. 3, col. 2 lines 10-33) has a flat side and a tapered side (fig. 3, see area that 9b is pointing), and the flat side of each disc of the plurality of discs faces the flat side of the respective disc of the second plurality of discs (9a and 9b meeting in fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the generic sides of the discs of Fabian with the tapered and flat sides combination of Peck to yield the predictable result of providing cutting of the plant (col. 2 lines 10-33 of Peck).
Regarding claim 19, Fabian discloses wherein there is a disc (12A-C and cutter blade 50, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62 and col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 46) of the plurality of discs (disc stack 10, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62) but is silent to the shape of discs on sides.
Pick teaches a similar device in the same field of harvesters wherein each disc (7, fig. 3, col. 2 lines 10-33) of the first plurality of discs (fig. 3, col. 2 lines 10-33) has a flat side and a tapered side (fig. 3, see area that 9a is pointing), each disc of the second plurality of discs (7, fig. 3, col. 2 lines 10-33) has a flat side and a tapered side (fig. 3, see area that 9b is pointing), and the flat side of each disc of the first plurality of discs faces the flat side of the respective disc of the second plurality of discs (9a and 9b meeting in fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the generic sides of the discs of Fabian with the tapered and flat sides combination of Peck to yield the predictable result of providing cutting of the plant (col. 2 lines 10-33 of Peck).
Claim(s) 9-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (2,795,097), hereinafter Davidson in view of Fabian et al. (US 6000475 A), hereinafter Fabian in view of Meltzing (DE 3918362 A1), hereinafter Meltzing.
Regarding claim 9, Davidson discloses a row unit (21 and 26, fig. 1, 3, and 5, col. 1 line 61 to col. 2 line 6) of an agricultural harvester (cotton picker, col. 1 lines 15-20, col. 1 line 61 to col. 2 line 6), comprising:
a rotor (29 and 30, fig. 1, 3, and 5, col. 2 lines 7-28) having a plurality of spindles (32 and 34, fig. 1, 3, and 5, col. 2 lines 7-28), wherein the rotor is configured to rotate to drive the plurality of spindles to remove agricultural product from a plant stalk of the crop (fig. 1-3 and 5, col. 2 lines 7-28);
a doffer (36+37, col. 2 lies 29-43, fig. 3 and 5) configured to remove the agricultural product from the plurality of spindles (col. 2 lies 29-43, fig. 3 and 5).
Davidson teaches the above, but fails to explicitly disclose a stalk cutting assembly.
Fabian teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural vehicles wherein a stalk cutting assembly (10+11 working together, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62) for a row unit (44+45, fig. 2, col. 4 lines 39-40), wherein the stalk cutting assembly, comprises:
a shaft (16A, fig. 1, col. 4 lines 7-33); and
a plurality of discs (disc stack 10, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62) distributed along the shaft (fig. 1 and 3), wherein each disc (12A-C and cutter blade 50, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62and col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 46) of the plurality of discs is non-rotatably coupled to the shaft (col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 4), and the shaft is configured to rotate to drive the plurality of discs to rotate (col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 46);
wherein the plurality of discs is configured to engage the plant stalk to cut the plant stalk into a plurality of sections (col. 5 lines 9-34).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the harvester of Davidson to incorporate the stalk cutting assembly of Fabian because both devices are known in the art and are performing the same function as occurs separately (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). The combination of a harvester device of Davidson and a stalk cutting assembly of Fabian into one device is taught in Meltzing ([0009] of Meltzing).
With this combination the stalk cutting assembly would be placed downstream of the harvester ([0009 of Maltzing]) and would be axially aligned in parallel to the rotor and doffer in order for the stalk cutting assembly to function efficiently in the device.
Regarding claim 10, Davidson in view of Fabian and Meltzing further teaches wherein at least one disc of the plurality of discs is notched (see the triangular indent of the discs in fig. 3-4, col. 5 lines 5-22 of Fabian).
Regarding claim 11, Davidson in view of Fabian and Meltzing further teaches wherein the rotational axis of the shaft of the stalk cutting assembly is parallel to the rotational axis of the rotor shaft of the rotor (obvious alignment of the harvester device and the stalk cutting assembly that came in with the modification of claim 9).
Regarding claim 12, Davidson in view of Fabian and Meltzing further teaches wherein the stalk cutting assembly comprises a stalk cutting assembly gear (21. Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 28-33 of Fabian) non-rotatably coupled to the shaft (col. 4 lines 28-33 of Fabian), and the stalk cutting assembly gear is configured to engage a corresponding gear coupled to the rotor shaft of the rotor to enable rotation of the rotor to drive rotation of the shaft of the stalk cutting assembly (col. 4 lines 28-37 of Fabian).
Regarding claim 13, Davidson in view of Fabian and Meltzing further teaches wherein the stalk cutting assembly comprises:
a second shaft (16B, fig. 1, col. 4 lines 7-33 of Fabian) configured to extend generally along the vertical axis of the row unit (fig. 1-2 of Fabian); and
a second plurality of discs (disc stack 11, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62 of Fabian) distributed along the second shaft (fig. 1 and 3 of Fabian), wherein each disc (13A-C and cutter blade 50, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62 and col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 46 of Fabian) of the second plurality of discs is non-rotatably coupled to the second shaft (col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 4 of Fabian), and the second shaft is configured to rotate to drive the second plurality of discs to rotate (col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 46 of Fabian);
wherein the second plurality of discs is configured to engage the plant stalk to cut the plant stalk into the plurality of sections (col. 5 lines 9-34 of Fabian).
Regarding claim 14, Davidson in view of Fabian and Meltzing further teaches wherein each disc of the plurality of discs is positioned proximate to a respective disc of the second plurality of discs to establish a sheer cutting force on the plant stalk (fig. 3, col. 5 lines 9-34 of Fabian).
Regarding claim 16, Davidson in view of Fabian and Meltzing further teaches wherein at least one disc of the plurality of discs is notched (see the triangular indent of the discs 50 of group 12 in fig. 3-4, col. 5 lines 5-22 of Fabian), at least one disc of the second plurality of discs is notched (see the triangular indent of the discs 50 of group 13 in fig. 3-4, col. 5 lines 5-22 of Fabian), or a combination thereof (fig. 3 and 4, col. 5 lines 5-22 of Fabian).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (2,795,097), hereinafter Davidson in view of Fabian et al. (US 6000475 A), hereinafter Fabian in view of Meltzing (DE 3918362 A1), hereinafter Meltzing in view of Pick (US 5161356 A), hereinafter Pick.
Regarding claim 15, Davidson in view of Fabian and Meltzing teaches wherein there is a disc (12A-C and cutter blade 50, fig. 1, col. 3 lines 44-62and col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 46 of Fabian) but is silent to the shape of discs on sides.
Pick teaches a similar device in the same field of harvesters wherein each disc (7, fig. 3, col. 2 lines 10-33) of the plurality of discs (fig. 3, col. 2 lines 10-33) has a flat side and a tapered side (fig. 3, see area that 9a is pointing), each disc of the second plurality of discs (7, fig. 3, col. 2 lines 10-33) has a flat side and a tapered side (fig. 3, see area that 9b is pointing), and the flat side of each disc of the plurality of discs faces the flat side of the respective disc of the second plurality of discs (9a and 9b meeting in fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the generic sides of the discs of Fabian with the tapered and flat sides combination of Peck to yield the predictable result of providing cutting of the plant (col. 2 lines 10-33 of Peck).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Toole (2,663,136) - cotton picker
Hinds (US 2012/0240544 A1) - notched cutter disc blades
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Railey whose telephone number is (571)270-7353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-4).
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/JENNIFER A RAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
