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 § 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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt at al. (USPGPub 2020/0390035) in view of Hunt et al. (USPGPub 2021/0185917).
Regarding claims 1 and 4: Hunt ‘035 discloses a harvester (as seen in figures 2 and 3, generally 200) comprising:
a frame (as seen in figure 2, area of 202);
a header (as seen in figure 2, area of 220) coupled to the frame, the header including a center segment (as seen in figure 4, area of 218),
a wing having first and second wing members (as seen in figure 4, area of 220R and 220L) coupled to the center segment, and
an actuator having first and second actuation members (as seen in figure 3, at 232) between the wing and the center segment, wherein the wing includes a ground-engaging component (as seen in figure 3, area of 236) configured to bear a first variable portion of the weight of the wing, and
a wing sensor having first and second sensor members coupled to the wing (as seen in figure 4, at 304R and 304L; also, page 4-5, paragraph [0042]), wherein the actuators are capable of transferring a second variable portion of the weight of the wing to the frame, and
wherein a controller (as seen in figure 10A via 300 and 306) is configured to receive a signal from the wing sensors and to send a signal to the actuators to vary a ratio of the first variable portion of the weight of the wing members to the second variable portion of the weight of the wing members (page 5, paragraphs [0044] and [0045], adjusting the wing members based on sensed readings would inherently “vary” the ratio of weight on the wing and can be done independently; also, paragraph [0060]).
Further, Hunt ‘035 discloses wherein the wing sensor can be any of various known sensors configured to measure any of various conditions applied thereto by a support surface over which the harvester travels (pages 4-5, paragraph [0042]) but fails to specifically mention a pressure sensor. However, Hunt ‘917 specially discloses (page 4, paragraph [0027], lines 21-23) that it is well known within the harvesting art to employee pressure sensors, as well as a variety of other types of sensors to gather the necessary information as needed as the tool passes over worked ground. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed device to provide the device of Hunt ‘035 with the teachings of Hunt ‘917 since it would be a simple matter of substituting one known sensing means for another, absent any showing to the contrary.
Regarding claim 5: Hunt ‘035 as modified by Hunt ‘917 discloses the harvester of claim 4. Further, Hunt ‘035 discloses wherein the controller is configured such that a nonzero ratio associated with the first wing is not equal to a nonzero ratio associated with the second wing (as seen in figures 4 and 5; also, page 6, paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 6: Hunt ‘035 as modified by Hunt ‘917 discloses the harvester of claim 1. Further, Hunt ‘035 discloses wherein the wing sensor is coupled to the ground-engaging component (as seen in figure 3, via wing frame 220R).
Regarding claim 7: Hunt ‘035 as modified by Hunt ‘917 discloses the harvester of claim 1. Further, Hunt ‘035 discloses wherein the wing sensor is one of a plurality of wing sensors (as seen in figure 3, at 304R and 304L) and in the form of a position sensor configured to measure a distance between the wing and a support surface over which the harvester travels, and wherein another wing sensor of the plurality of wing sensors can be in the form of one of a force sensor, a pressure sensor, or an inertial sensor, and wherein the controller is configured to receive a signal from the another wing sensor and to send the signal to the actuator based on the signal from the wing sensor and the signal from the another wing sensor to vary a ratio of the first variable portion of the weight of the wing to the second variable portion of the weight of the wing (pages 4-5, paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 14: Hunt ‘035 discloses a control system (figures 9-10c) for a harvester (as seen in figures 2 and 3, generally 200), the control system comprising:
a position sensor configured to measure a distance between a portion of a harvester header and a support surface over which the harvester travels and to send a signal based thereon (as seen in figure 4, at 304R and 304L; also, page 4-5, paragraph [0042]); and
a controller (as seen in figure 10A via 300 and 306) configured to receive the signal, determine whether the measurement signal is within a selected range, and selectively actuate an actuator (as seen in figure 3, at 232) in response, the actuator operational to adjust a load support distribution of the portion of the harvester header (pages 6-7, paragraphs [0055], [0057] and [0058]).
Further, Hunt ‘035 discloses a second sensor which could include one of a force sensor, a pressure sensor, or an inertial sensor, and wherein the controller is configured to receive a signal from the one of a force sensor, a pressure sensor, or an inertial sensor and to selectively actuate the actuator based on the signal from the position sensor and the signal from the one of a force sensor, a pressure sensor, or an inertial sensor (pages 4-5, paragraph [0042]) but fails to specifically mention a pressure sensor. However, Hunt ‘917 specially discloses (page 4, paragraph [0027], lines 21-23) that it is well known within the harvesting art to employee pressure sensors, as well as a variety of other types of sensors to gather the necessary information as needed as the tool passes over worked ground. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed device to provide the device of Hunt ‘035 with the teachings of Hunt ‘917 since it would be a simple matter of substituting one known sensing means for another, absent any showing to the contrary..
Regarding claim 16: Hunt ‘035 as modified by Hunt ‘917 discloses the harvester of claim 14. Further, Hunt ‘035 discloses wherein the actuator is operational to vary an angle of the portion of the harvester header relative to a support surface over which the harvester travels (as seen in figures 4 and 6).
Claims 8, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ritter et al. (USP 9,668,412).
Regarding claim 8: Ritter discloses a header assembly (as seen in figure 2, area of 104) comprising:
a harvester header including a lateral wing section (as seen in figure 2, at 144 or 148),
hydraulic assembly including:
a reservoir configured to contain hydraulic fluid (as seen in figure 3, at 174),
a pump (as seen in figure 3, at 172) configured to pressurize hydraulic fluid and in fluid communication with the reservoir, and
an actuator (as seen in figure 2, at 158) in fluid communication with the pump and configured to at least partially support the lateral wing section;
a first wing sensor (as seen in figure 3, at 145), the first wing sensor being a position sensor (column 6, lines 3-13); and,
a second wing sensor (as seen in figure 3, at 149).
Further, Ritter discloses a controller (as seen in figure 3, at 164) configured to receive a first measurement signal from the wing first sensor (as seen in figure 3, at 145) and a second measurement signal from the second wing sensor (as seen in figure 3, at 149) and to selectively actuate the actuator based on the first signal and the second signal (as seen in figures 5 and 6; also, column 12, line 2 to column 13, line 44) but fails to show the second wing sensor being an inertial sensor. However, Ritter does disclose a non-exhaustive list of other possible sensors including: ”They may be noncontact range sensors, such as laser sensors, radar sensors, or ultrasonic sensors.” (column 6, lines 17-20). Therefore, it is the examiners position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Ritter by employing inertial sensors as an obvious selection of one of many sensing means, since applicant has not disclosed that the specific use of inertial sensors solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that any of a plurality of different types of sensors would perform equally well in measuring the desired parameters.
Regarding claim 9: Ritter discloses the header assembly of claim 8. Further, Ritter discloses wherein the first measurement signal is representative of a distance from the sensor to a support surface over which the header assembly operates (column 6, lines 13-22).
Regarding claim 13: Ritter discloses the header assembly of claim 8. Further, Ritter discloses wherein the controller (as seen in figure 4, at 164 and via valve 170) is configured to selectively adjust hydraulic fluid flow to the actuator to change an angle of the lateral wing section relative to a support surface over which the header assembly operates.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter et al. (USP 9,668,412) in view of Hunt et al. (USPGPub 2020/0390035).
Regarding claims 10-12: Ritter discloses the claimed device substantially as discussed above but fails to show the use of a plurality of sensors on the wing or a ground engaging component. However, Hunt teaches that it is well known to employ both a plurality of sensors and a ground engaging component in concert with a header control assembly. Hunt discloses a header assembly having wing sections wherein the wing sections includes a ground-engaging component (as seen in figure 3, area of 236) configured to bear a first variable portion of the weight of the respective wing. Further, Hunt discloses each wing section having a plurality of sensors (as seen in figure 4, at 304R and 304L; also, page 4-5, paragraph [0042]), wherein the controller is configured to receive a measurement signal from each wing sensor of the plurality of wing sensors, and wherein each measurement signal is representative of a distance from the associated sensor to a support surface over which the header assembly operates (as seen in figures 5 and 6; also, column 12, line 2 to column 13, line 44); and,
wherein the controller is configured to receive a measurement signal from each wing sensor of the plurality of wing sensors, and wherein one measurement signal is representative of a distance from the associated sensor to a support surface over which the header assembly travels and one measurement signal is representative of a force or pressure applied to a portion of the lateral wing section by the support surface (column 6, lines 13-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Ritter with the teachings of Hunt since it would be a simple matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of a header control system having greater operational effectiveness and use in operation, absent any showing to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-14 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at 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 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.
/ROBERT E PEZZUTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3671