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 .
This office action was made in response to an amendment filed 7/14/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevarez, Sr. al (US 6,050,073) in view of Speckamp et al (US 8,341,926). Nevarez discloses:
With regard to claim 1 - A harvesting machine for harvesting fruits from the ground, the machine comprising a cart comprising a first frame 20;
a front axle comprising at least one front-wheel 44;
and
a rear axle comprising at least one rear-wheel 46 coupled to the first frame 20;
the machine furthermore comprising a fruit harvesting device, in turn, comprising a second frame 60, a movable member 50 for picking up the fruits from the ground and coupled to said second frame 60, and at least one support wheel 68 configured to keep said movable member at a predefined height from the ground;
wherein said first 20 and second frames 60 are firmly connected to one another to move in unison toward and away from the ground during movement of the harvesting machine. Navarez fails to explicitly disclose a front suspension for coupling the front- wheel to the frame and comprising a front actuator, wherein said front suspension is a suspension adjustable in height and said front actuator is configured to move said first frame from and towards said front-wheel and wherein it comprises a command and control unit for said front actuator the command and control unit comprising pressure detection means for detecting the pressure in at least one chamber of said front actuator and command and control means configured to command said front actuator according to said detected pressure and to rotate said first frame around an instantaneous rotation axis transverse to said advancing direction and to adjust the load on said front-wheel.
Speckamp teaches a harvesting machine for picking up fruits from the ground, the machine comprising a cart comprising a first frame 2;
a front axle 5 comprising at least one front-wheel;
a front suspension 11 for coupling the front-wheel to the frame and comprising a front actuator 12; and
a rear axle 10 comprising at least one rear-wheel coupled to the first frame 2;
the machine furthermore comprising a fruit harvesting device, in turn, comprising a second frame 3, and a movable member for picking up the fruits from the ground and coupled to said second frame 3;
wherein said front suspension 11 is a suspension adjustable in height and said front actuator 12 is configured to move said first frame from 2 and towards said front-wheel and in that the harvesting machine comprises a command and control unit 8 for said front actuator 12;
the command and control unit 8 comprising pressure detection means for detecting the pressure in at least one chamber of said front actuator and command and control unit is configured to command said front actuator according to said detected pressure and to rotate said first frame around an instantaneous rotation axis transverse to said advancing direction and to adjust the load on said support wheel and on said front-wheel (“In FIG. 2, the crawler track assembly 7 is depicted in a final outer position. This final position is reached by raising the spring travel (AB3) of the hydraulic suspension cylinders of both crawler track assemblies 7. Hereto, the hydraulic pressure acting on the hydraulic cylinders 12 applied by pump 15 was increased. The adjustment is reached by controlling the pressurization of the hydropneumatic dampening system 11 by operating device 8. To do so, operating device 8 is connected to each of the valves 14 by a signal wire 16 to adjust the pressure in the hydropneumatic dampening system 11. Each valve 14 may be driven independently by the operating device 8. A sensor 20 for detecting the inclination of the harvesting machine, for example, a clinonmeter may be used to adjust the spring travel (AB3) of the hydropneumatic dampening system 11. Sensor 20 may be connected to the operating device 8 or the regulating and control device 9, cooperating therewith.” – column 4, lines 25-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the harvesting machine of Nevarez with the teaching of Speckamp so as to include Speckamp’s front suspension and control ability to adjust the height of said suspension and thus pivot the first and second frame around a pivot point, with a reasonable expectation of success, so as to easily compensate for ground irregularities, thereby ensuring that the harvesting machine remains in the most suitable operating position in various operating states.
With regard to claim 2, Speckamp teaches wherein said front axle comprises two front-wheels and, for each said front-wheel, a respective suspension adjustable in height and having its own front actuator; said command and control unit 8 being configured to control both said front actuator according to the pressure in said chamber (“A hydropneumatic dampening system 11 is coupled to each crawler track assembly 7, which are positioned on each side of front axle. 5. The hydropneumatic dampening system 11 comprises hydraulic suspension cylinders 12, which are connected with a hydraulic accumulator 13 and an adjustment valve 14, respectively, and a common pump 15 to pressurize the hydropneumatic dampening system 11.” – column 3, lines 37-44).
With regard to claim 3, Speckamp teaches wherein said instantaneous rotation axis is parallel to a rotation axis of one of said axles (“In that case, crawler track assembly 2 is swiveled about a rotational point formed by rear axle 10, thereby adding additional distance H between lifting device 3 and the ground, which is added to first vertical distance AB1 or maximum vertical distance AB2.” – column 4, lines 17-21).
With regard to claim 4, Speckamp teaches wherein said instantaneous rotation axis coincides with the rotation axis of one of said wheels 46 (see the rejection to claim 3, above).
With regard to claim 5, Speckamp teaches further comprising a rear wheel 46 and wherein said instantaneous rotation axis coincides with the rotation axis of said rear- wheel 46 (see the rejection to claim 3, above).
With regard to claim 9, Navarez discloses a method for controlling a harvesting machine 10 for picking up fruits from the ground, as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising advancing the cart 10 in a fruit harvesting direction; and
harvesting the fruits by means of the movable member 50. Speckamp teaches
detecting the pressure in at least one chamber of the front actuator 12; and
commanding the front actuator 12 so as to rotate the first frame around an instantaneous rotation axis 10 transverse to said advancing direction and adjust the load on the wheel 28 of the picking member and on the front-wheel 44.
With regard to claim 10, Speckamp teaches wherein the rotation of the first frame around the instantaneous rotation axis 10 is carried out by rotating the first frame around a rotation axis 10 parallel to the rotation axis of one of the axles 10.
With regard to claim 11, Speckamp teaches wherein the rotation of the first frame around the instantaneous rotation axis 10 is carried out by adjusting the position in height of the first frame relative to the front-wheel and keeping the height of the first frame fixed relative to the rear-wheel (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Claim(s) 6-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarez and Speckamp, as applied to claims 1-5 and 9-11 above, and further in view of Kos et al (US 2017/0368900).
Navarez and Speckamp fail to explicitly disclose a rear suspension adjustable in height for adjusting the position of the first cart relative to said rear-wheel, the rear suspension having a rear actuator and in that said command and control unit comprises further command and control means configured to command said rear actuator simultaneously or independently of the front actuator, wherein said further command and control means are configured to lock said rear actuator in a reference position during the command of said front actuator. With regard to claims 6 and 7, Kos teaches a hydraulic suspension for a vehicle and control thereof including a first frame, a rear axle 18, 19, 20, and a rear suspension comprising at least one actuator 22, 24, and a command and control unit for the rear suspension, wherein the command and control unit is configured to lock said rear actuator 22, 24 during certain operations of the vehicle, especially with regard to the longitudinal attitude of the vehicle (“While the hydraulic cylinders (22, 24) may provide suspension dampening functionality, in one embodiment, at least the rearmost axle (20), and preferably each rear axle (18, 19, 20), can be individually locked so as to maintain a minimum ride height at that axle.” - ¶[0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the harvesting machine of Navarez and Speckamp with the teaching of Kos, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that said suspension includes a rear suspension and said command and control means are configured to lock said rear actuator in a reference position independent of the front suspension to allow for the rear of the vehicle to be sprung and the actuators to lock out at times when a solid axle is preferable, such as when the vehicle’s load is heavy or at very low speeds (¶[0006]).
With regard to claim 8, Kos teaches wherein said further command and control means are configured to vary the height of said first frame relative to said rear- wheel independently of the adjustment in height of said first frame relative to said front-wheel (see citation above and Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 12, as seen in Fig. 6, Kos teaches wherein the rotation of the first frame around the instantaneous rotation axis is carried out by adjusting the position in height of the first frame relative to the front-wheel and the height of the first frame relative to the rear-wheel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that the machine of Nevarez is not a fruit harvester, harvesting fruit is the intended purpose of Applicant’s invention and as such is not limiting in its scope to only fruit harvesters when evaluating from an allowability standpoint. The harvester of the prior art need only disclose the claimed structure of the invention while being capable of performing the implied function, even if it is not explicitly stated within the reference. Nevarez’s harvester includes structure capable of “harvesting leafy vegetables, lettuce and the like which are very delicate” (Abstract). As such, it is capable of performing the intended function of the claimed invention.
Nevarez discloses a vehicle but is primarily focused on the harvester attachment to said vehicle. It thus does not go into detail about how the ground traversing elements of the vehicle are coupled to and support the body of the vehicle. Speckamp shows that it is well-known to suspend a harvester body from the ground traversing elements of the vehicle in the manner that is claimed by Applicant. Adding a suspension to a vehicle does not require impermissible hindsight as it is rare to find a modern vehicle that does not include some form of suspension. As such, the combination of references is maintained as proper.
Similarly, Kos teaches a suspension for a bed truck. Nevarez discloses a harvester including a bed 16 supported by rear ground traversing elements. Thus, Kos is considered to be analogous. It would not be beyond the realm of obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bed of Nevarez to include a suspension connecting the rear ground traversing elements to the vehicle bed via a suspension.
In summary, a machine such as a harvester is used to traverse uneven ground. While Nevarez discloses the general harvester structure, Speckamp teaches that it is old and well-known in the art to suspend said machine using a suspension system to accommodate for the uneven terrain. Most machines that traverse the ground include means to suspend the vehicle body from the wheels for just such a cause. Therefore, it would not require any impermissible hindsight nor reconstruction based on Applicant’s invention to modify the primary reference with the teaching references above and thus the rejections are maintained.
If Applicant would like to discuss possible additional claim language for proposed amendments in the interest of expedited prosecution, Examiner is open to an interview.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY WILHELM whose telephone number is (571)272-6980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30.
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, Paul Dickson can be reached at 571-272-7742. 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.
/TIMOTHY WILHELM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614 October 8, 2025