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 § 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunt (US 20210185878 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hunt discloses an agricultural implement (200) comprising:
a frame (201) comprising a pin (372), wherein the frame is configured to couple to an agricultural vehicle (100, Fig. 1);
a float arm (302) pivotably coupled to the frame (para. [0030] float arm 302 is configured to pivot about joint 358 thereby rotating relative to the frame 201), and having a lower rotational limit, wherein the pin abuts the float arm to define the lower rotational limit (see Fig. 5, forward-most limit of 372 in translational direction 382 corresponds to lower rotational limit of float arm 302);
a cutterbar (210) coupled to the float arm; and
an adjustable biasing component (352+374) coupled to the float arm and the frame (para. [0035-0036] fluid pressure of 352 is adjustable and rod of actuator 374 is adjustable to adjust degree of torque imparted on arm 302), wherein the adjustable biasing component biases the float arm away from the frame toward the lower rotational limit (Fig. 5, para. [0037] fluid-filled biasing member 352 exerts a force in the downward direction 366 and actuator 374 extends rod 376 biasing the base position of the arm 302 in the lowered direction 362).
Regarding independent claim 11, Hunt discloses a method of operating an agricultural implement (200) that includes a frame (201) comprising a plurality of pins (372), a plurality of float arms (302) pivotably coupled to the frame, a cutterbar (210) coupled to distal ends of the float arms, and adjustable biasing components (352+374 for each arm 302) disposed between the plurality of float arms and the frame (Figs. 5-6, para. [0035-0036] fluid pressure of 352 is adjustable and rod of actuator 374 is adjustable to adjust degree of torque imparted on arm 302);
the method comprising:
distributing a weight of the agricultural implement onto the ground via a plurality of float arms (weight of cutterbar is distributed over and carried by float arms), wherein the float arms have a lower rotational limit, wherein the plurality of pins abuts the float arms to define the lower rotational limit and wherein the float arms are configured to rest at the lower rotational limit (Fig. 5, para. [0037] fluid-filled biasing member 352 exerts a force in the downward direction 366 and actuator 374 extends rod 376 biasing the base position of the arm 302 in the lowered direction 362, when ground no longer contacts the cutter bar assembly, a weight of the cutter bar assembly causes the arms to rest at the base position, para. [0017]);
imparting a separating force that biases the float arms away from the frame toward the lower rotational limit (actuator 374 and fluid-filled biasing member 352 cause arm 302 to be urged downwardly 362, as seen in Fig. 5);
traversing the ground with the agricultural implement; and
adjustably biasing, with the biasing components the float arms away from the frame and towards the ground so that the cutterbar follows a contour of the ground as the agricultural implement is moved along the ground (para. [0026] fluid-filled biasing member 352 and actuator 374 enable the arm 302 to rotate/move vertically relative to the frame 201, thereby allowing the cutter bar assembly 210 to flex in response to variations in the contours of the field).
Regarding independent claim 19, Hunt discloses an agricultural machine (100) moveable along the ground for harvesting crop, the agricultural machine comprising:
an agricultural vehicle (Fig. 1);
an agricultural implement (200) coupled to the agricultural vehicle, the agricultural implement comprising:
a frame (201) comprising a plurality of pins (372) coupled to the agricultural vehicle;
a plurality of float arms (302) pivotably coupled to the frame, at least a portion of the weight of the agricultural implement imparted to the ground via the plurality of float arms (weight of cutterbar is distributed over and carried by float arms), wherein the float arms have a lower rotational limit, wherein the plurality of pins abuts the float arms to define the lower rotational limit (Fig. 5, para. [0037] fluid-filled biasing member 352 exerts a force in the downward direction 366 and actuator 374 extends rod 376 biasing the base position of the arm 302 in the lowered direction 362);
a cutterbar (210) coupled to distal ends of the float arms; and
an adjustable biasing component (352+374) disposed between each of float arms and the frame that biases the float arms away from the frame (Figs. 5-6, para. [0035-0036] fluid pressure of 352 is adjustable and rod of actuator 374 is adjustable to adjust degree of torque imparted on arm 302).
Regarding claim 2 and 20, Hunt discloses the agricultural implement of claim 1 and 19, further comprising an attachment frame coupled between the frame of the agricultural implement and the agricultural vehicle (Fig. 1 shows an attachment frame between frame 201 and vehicle 100).
Regarding claim 3 and 21, Hunt discloses the agricultural implement of claim 1 and 19, further comprising:
a center section (224); and
a wing (225,226) extending laterally from the center section, the wing pivotably coupled to the center section (para. [0025] lateral wing sections 225 and 226 are pivotable relative to the center section 224 to allow the cutter bar assembly to “follow the contour of the field more acutely”).
Regarding claim 4, Hunt discloses the agricultural implement of claim 1, wherein the float arm comprises a plurality of float arms (302, Fig. 3),
wherein the biasing component comprises a plurality of biasing components (352+374 for each arm 302), and
wherein each of the plurality of biasing components is associated with a corresponding float arm of the plurality of float arms and is disposed between the frame (201) and the corresponding float arm (302) (para. [0026] each arm 302 is coupled a fluid-filled biasing member 352 and actuator 374).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Hunt discloses the agricultural implement of claim 1, wherein the biasing component (352+374) comprises a spring (para. [0030] fluid-filled biasing member 352, e.g. an airbag, is a compressible air spring).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 15-16, Hunt discloses the agricultural implement of claim 1 and 11, wherein the biasing component (352+374) comprises a fluidic cylinder, as per claims 7 and 15, and wherein the fluidic cylinder comprises a pneumatic cylinder or a hydraulic cylinder, as per claims 8 and 16 (para. [0036] discloses that actuator 374 is a hydraulic or pneumatic cylinder).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 17-18, Hunt discloses the agricultural implement of claim 1 and 11, wherein a biasing force applied by the biasing component (352+374) is adjustable, as per claims 9 and 17, in response to a user input, as per claims 10 and 18 (para. [0042] the user may adjust the extension of rod 376 and fluid pressure in the container 363 via input into user interface 394).
Regarding claim 12, Hunt discloses the method of claim 11, wherein biasing, with the biasing components (352+374), the float arms (302) away from the frame (201) and towards the ground so that the cutterbar (210) follows a contour of the ground as the agricultural implement is moved along the ground comprises extending one or more of the biasing components at a location along the agricultural implement where the ground forms a recess (Fig. 5, para. [0031] when the actuator 374 is extended, the assembly is biased into a downward position such that when the crop field no longer exerts a force on the cutter bar, a weight of the cutter bar assembly 210 exerts a force in the downward direction 366 at the first end 350 of arm 302 to move the cutter bar assembly toward the crop field, such as to remain in contact with the crop field).
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.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt as applied to claims 5 and 13 above, and further in view of Racchella et al. (US 20220338416 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Hunt discloses the agricultural implement of claim 5, wherein the spring comprises an air spring instead of a coil spring or a torsional spring.
In the same field of endeavor, Racchella discloses a similar rotatable arm (306) for a header (200), wherein the arm is pushed downward against the ground 310 by a biasing member 406 such as a torsion spring, a coil spring, or an air spring (Figs. 3-4, para. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a coil spring or torsional spring in place of the air spring of Hunt, as taught by Rachella, since this is a mere simple substitution of one known spring for biasing the rotatable arm of a header for another to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-21, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“Hunt discloses an arm configured to rotate about a pivot joint and an actuator configured to change torque imparted on the arm but fails to disclose…a pin that abuts a float arm, a lower rotational limit, or biasing a float arm toward a lower rotational limit” [as recited in Applicant’s amended claims] (Applicant’s remarks page 7).
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that a different interpretation of Hunt is provided in this office action as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to read on Applicant’s amended claims.
Hunt’s second support 372 which abuts float arm 302 reads on the limitation “a pin that abuts a float arm” as it acts as a small device joining two parts so as to permit them to move in one plane relative to each other and/or a small device used to fasten, support, or attach things.
Furthermore, Hunt does disclose a lower rotational limit, i.e. (the “base position” of float arm 302 set by adjustable biasing assembly 352+374) such that “when the ground no longer contacts the part of the cutter bar assembly, a weight of the cutter bar assembly may cause the arms to move back to the base position” (see bottom para. [0017]). It can therefore be determined that this “base position” can be drawn to Applicant’s claimed “lower rotational limit” of the float arm.
Lastly, Hunt in Fig. 5, para. [0037] teaches that the float arm 302 is downwardly biased into this lowered “base position” by fluid-filled biasing member 352 and actuator 374.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671