DETAILD 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 .
Status of the Claims
This FINAL action is in response to Applicant's amendment of July 8, 2025. Claims 1 and 7-13 have been amended. Claims 14-20 are newly added. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the combination of Farley et al., U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 20190082603 (hereinafter "Farley") in view of Kaneko et al., JP Pat. App. Pub. 2015181473, (hereinafter "Kaneko") fails to describe or suggest (explicitly or implicitly) "a harvesting header for attachment to a harvesting machine, the header comprising: at least two sub-assemblies each comprising: a respective crop gathering mechanism; and a respective drive mechanism coupled to the crop gathering mechanism, wherein the drive mechanisms are operable independently of one another, in dependence on a radius of a curved path travelled by the harvesting machine, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Farley is relied upon to disclose the header 100 is coupled to the feeder housing 14 and supported by the chassis 12 of the agricultural vehicle 10.”). The agricultural vehicle disclosed by Farley constitutes a harvesting machine. The header comprising: at least two sub-assemblies each comprising: a respective crop gathering mechanism. ([0019] “The header 100 includes a rotating reel 120 with a plurality of reel sections 121A, 121B, 121C, 121D which are each movably supported by the header frame 102 and include corresponding tines 122A, 122B, 122C, 122D or the like to sweep crop material inwardly toward the flexible cutter(s) 108 for cutting as the reel sections 121A, 121B, 121C, 121D rotate. As shown, the reel 120 includes four independently movable reel sections 121A, 121B, 121C, and 121D, with two reel sections on each side of a center line C extending through the header 100,”). A reel constitutes a crop-gathering mechanism.
Farley does not disclose that the sub-assemblies each comprise a respective drive mechanism coupled to the crop gathering mechanism, wherein the drive mechanisms are operable independently of one another, and wherein the drive mechanisms are operable in dependence on a radius of a curved path travelled by the harvesting machine only when at least one sensor detects the header is turning. Since Farley does not disclose a drive mechanism for the header, it would have been necessary to search for inventions that teach drive mechanisms for a vehicle which uses a rotating reel. As above, Farley discloses that the reel sections are independently movable, so one would have been motivated to seek art that teaches controlling multiple reels separately, such as that of Kaneko. Kaneko’s teachings include the vehicle having two “front lawn mowing mechanisms” each featuring a motor which drives a reel: ([0019] “As shown in FIG. 2, each of the front lawn mowing mechanisms 5A and 5B includes a front roller 14, a rotary blade (reel) 15, a rear roller 16, a motor 17 for rotating the rotary blade 15, a thatching roller 18, a receiving blade 19, and a bucket 20.”). The motors taught be Kaneko constitute drive mechanisms. Kaneko further teaches controlling the speed of these motors based on a measured steering angle: ([0031] “As will be described later, the control device 33 controls the rotation speed (the number of rotations per unit time) of each motor 17 via the motor driver 17A,17B,17C based on the signals of the steering angle sensor 31 and the vehicle speed sensor 32. It appears that applicant is making the argument that a single reference is required to disclose the claimed invention rather than taking the combination of Farley in view of Kaneko to disclose the claimed feature argued.
In response to applicant's argument that Kaneko is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, since Farley does not disclose a drive mechanism for the header, it would have been necessary to search for inventions that teach drive mechanisms for a vehicle which uses a rotating reel. Farley discloses that the reel sections are independently movable, so one would have been motivated to seek art that teaches controlling multiple reels separately, such as that of Kaneko. Kaneko’s teachings include the vehicle having two “front lawn mowing mechanisms” each featuring a motor which drives a reel: ([0019] “As shown in FIG. 2, each of the front lawn mowing mechanisms 5A and 5B includes a front roller 14, a rotary blade (reel) 15, a rear roller 16, a motor 17 for rotating the rotary blade 15, a thatching roller 18, a receiving blade 19, and a bucket 20.”). The motors taught be Kaneko constitute drive mechanisms.
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) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley et al. (US 20190082603 A1) in view of Kaneko et al. (JP 2015181473 A).
Regarding claim 1, Farley discloses:
A harvesting header for attachment to a harvesting machine, [0018] “The header 100 is coupled to the feeder housing 14 and supported by the chassis 12 of the agricultural vehicle 10.”). The agricultural vehicle disclosed by Farley constitutes a harvesting machine.
the header comprising: at least two sub-assemblies each comprising: a respective crop gathering mechanism. ([0019] “The header 100 includes a rotating reel 120 with a plurality of reel sections 121A, 121B, 121C, 121D which are each movably supported by the header frame 102 and include corresponding tines 122A, 122B, 122C, 122D or the like to sweep crop material inwardly toward the flexible cutter(s) 108 for cutting as the reel sections 121A, 121B, 121C, 121D rotate. As shown, the reel 120 includes four independently movable reel sections 121A, 121B, 121C, and 121D, with two reel sections on each side of a center line C extending through the header 100,”). A reel constitutes a crop-gathering mechanism. Here, each side of the center line C constitutes a sub-assembly.
Farley does not disclose that the sub-assemblies each comprise a respective drive mechanism coupled to the crop gathering mechanism, wherein the drive mechanisms are operable independently of one another, and wherein the drive mechanisms are operable in dependence on a radius of a curved path travelled by the harvesting machine only when at least one sensor detects the header is turning.
Kaneko teaches a lawn-mowing vehicle. Since Farley does not disclose a drive mechanism for the header, it would have been necessary to search for inventions that teach drive mechanisms for a vehicle which uses a rotating reel. As above, Farley discloses that the reel sections are independently movable, so one would have been motivated to seek art that teaches controlling multiple reels separately, such as that of Kaneko. Kaneko’s teachings include the vehicle having two “front lawn mowing mechanisms” each featuring a motor which drives a reel: ([0019] “As shown in FIG. 2, each of the front lawn mowing mechanisms 5A and 5B includes a front roller 14, a rotary blade (reel) 15, a rear roller 16, a motor 17 for rotating the rotary blade 15, a thatching roller 18, a receiving blade 19, and a bucket 20.”). The motors taught be Kaneko constitute drive mechanisms. Kaneko further teaches controlling the speed of these motors based on a measured steering angle: ([0031] “As will be described later, the control device 33 controls the rotation speed (the number of rotations per unit time) of each motor 17 via the motor driver 17A,17B,17C based on the signals of the steering angle sensor 31 and the vehicle speed sensor 32. That is, the rotation speed (the number of rotations per unit time) of the rotary blade 15 is controlled.”). Since any given steering angle corresponds to a calculable steering radius, Kaneko’s teaching of controlling cutters based on the steering angle constitutes drive mechanisms [that] are operable independently of one another, and wherein the drive mechanisms are operable in dependence on a radius of a curved path travelled by the harvesting machine only when at least one sensor detects the header is turning.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the invention of Farley with Kaneko’s teaching of respective motors driving the rotary blades. Doing so would ensure that the cutting speeds of the sub-assemblies are made uniform, as taught by Kaneko ([0003]).
Regarding claim 2,
As above, Farley does not disclose wherein each of the drive mechanisms are configured to control an operating speed of the respective sub-assemblies in dependence on the radius of the curved path travelled by the harvesting machine.
Kaneko teaches a lawn-mowing vehicle. Kaneko’s teachings include the vehicle having two “front lawn mowing mechanisms” each featuring a motor which drives a reel: ([0019] “As shown in FIG. 2, each of the front lawn mowing mechanisms 5A and 5B includes a front roller 14, a rotary blade (reel) 15, a rear roller 16, a motor 17 for rotating the rotary blade 15, a thatching roller 18, a receiving blade 19, and a bucket 20.”). The motors taught be Kaneko constitute drive mechanisms. Kaneko further teaches controlling the speed of these motors based on a measured steering angle: ([0031] “As will be described later, the control device 33 controls the rotation speed (the number of rotations per unit time) of each motor 17 via the motor driver 17A,17B,17C based on the signals of the steering angle sensor 31 and the vehicle speed sensor 32. That is, the rotation speed (the number of rotations per unit time) of the rotary blade 15 is controlled.”). Since any given steering angle corresponds to a calculable steering radius, Kaneko’s teaching of controlling cutters based on the steering angle constitutes drive mechanisms [that] are operable independently of one another, in dependence on a radius of a curved path travelled by the harvesting machine.
Since Farley does not disclose a drive mechanism for the header, it would have been necessary to search for inventions that teach drive mechanisms for a reel or similar, such as that of Kaneko. It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the invention of Farley with Kaneko’s teaching of respective motors driving the rotary blades. Doing so would ensure that the cutting speeds of the sub-assemblies are made uniform, as taught by Kaneko ([0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Farley discloses wherein each of the crop gathering mechanisms comprises a respective reel ([0019] “The header 100 includes a rotating reel 120 with a plurality of reel sections 121A, 121B, 121C, 121D which are each movably supported by the header frame 102 and include corresponding tines 122A, 122B, 122C, 122D or the like to sweep crop material inwardly toward the flexible cutter(s) 108 for cutting as the reel sections 121A, 121B, 121C, 121D rotate. As shown, the reel 120 includes four independently movable reel sections 121A, 121B, 121C, and 121D,”). An “independently movable reel section” constitutes a respective reel.
Regarding claim 4, Farley discloses wherein each of the crop gathering mechanisms comprises a respective draper belt. ([0018] “In one exemplary embodiment, the header 100 can include one or more lateral, flexible draper belts 140 that are positioned rearwardly of the cutter bar(s) 108 and travel, i.e. rotate, in opposing directions of travel, denoted by each arrow “T”, in order to convey the crop material inwardly to the center feed belt 112 and thereby the feeder housing 14.”).
Farley’s disclosure includes grouping the four sections as two: ([0019] “…with two reel sections on each side of a center line C extending through the header 100, but it should be appreciated that the reel 120 may include any number of desired reel sections so long as the number of reel sections is greater than one... In some exemplary embodiments, the reel section 121A may be connected to the reel section 121B and the reel section 121C may be connected to the reel section 121D,”). Here, the connected reel sections on each side of the center line each constitute a crop gathering mechanism, with the corresponding draper belt.
PNG
media_image1.png
391
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Farley Fig. 1
Regarding claim 5, Farley discloses wherein each of the crop gathering mechanisms comprises a respective auger ([0018] “In some exemplary embodiments, the header 100 may include a pair of counter-rotating cross augers, rather than the draper belts 140, to convey crop material laterally inward toward the center feed belt 112.”). As with claim 4, a pair of connected reel sections on each side of the center line each constitute a crop gathering mechanism, each with the corresponding cross auger.
Regarding claim 6, Farley discloses that the reel is divided into four (or any plurality) of sections: ([0019] “As shown, the reel 120 includes four independently movable reel sections 121A, 121B, 121C, and 121D,”). The header including four independently movable sections constitutes comprising at least four sub-assemblies.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley et al. (US 20190082603 A1) in view of Kaneko et al. (JP 2015181473 A) as applied to claims 1-6 above, further in view of Füchtling.
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, Farley discloses a harvesting machine with the header of claim 1 attached ([0018]).
Farley does not disclose how the harvesting machine [is] configured to provide a respective source of motive power to each of the sub- assembly. Though Farley does teach components that move and necessarily are driven, as above Farley does not specify the drive mechanisms or how power is delivered.
Füchtling teaches a harvester with a header including belts, a reel, etc., as with that of Farley. Füchtling teaches the means by which the sub-assemblies may be driven by the harvesting machine: ([0034] “Alternatively, the actuators can also be designed as electric motors or as mechanical couplings to an internal combustion engine, e.g. by means of gearings or drive belts.”). Füchtling’s teaching of mechanical couplings to an internal combustion engine constitutes the harvesting machine providing motive power to each of the sub-assembly.
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the invention of Farley with Füchtling’s teaching of providing mechanical power to each of the sub-assembly. Doing so would allow the header taught by Farley to be powered by a harvester using mechanical power.
Regarding claim 8, Farley does not disclose a turn-detection apparatus coupled with the control unit arranged to detect when the harvesting machine is travelling on a curved path, wherein the control unit is configured to vary the operating speeds of the respective crop gathering mechanisms in dependence on the radius of the curved path being travelled.
Kaneko teaches a steering angle sensor: ([0029] “The lawn mowing vehicle 1 includes a steering angle sensor 31 for detecting the steering angle of the rear wheel 4, …”). The steering angle sensor constitutes a turn-detection apparatus, and is coupled with the control device: ([0044] “And a control device 33 for controlling the rotation speed of the rotary blade 15 for each of the front side lawn mowing mechanism 5A, the front side lawn mowing mechanism 5B and the rear side lawn mowing mechanism 6 based on the steering angle θ detected by the steering angle sensor 31.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the invention of Farley with Kaneko’s teaching of a steering angle sensor coupled with a control unit. Doing so would allow the control system to detect when the harvester is turning and vary the rotation speed of the reels accordingly, as taught by Kaneko.
Regarding claim 9, Farley does not disclose wherein the turn-detection apparatus comprises at least one sensor to detect a turn angle in a steering apparatus of the harvesting machine.
As with claim 8, Kaneko teaches a steering angle sensor used to detect the turn angle: ([0029] “The lawn mowing vehicle 1 includes a steering angle sensor 31 for detecting the steering angle of the rear wheel 4, …”). Kaneko teaches that the steering angle sensor works by detecting the angle of a turning wheel: ([0030] “As the steering angle sensor 31, for example, a rotary position sensor can be used. That is, the electric resistance value associated with the rotation of the rotor that rotates in accordance with the steering angle of the rear wheel 4 is measured, and the steering angle of the rear wheel 4 can be detected based on the measurement result.”). Detecting the angle of the rear (turning) wheel constitutes detecting a turn angle in a steering apparatus.
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the invention of Farley with Kaneko’s teaching of using a sensor to detect the steering angle. Doing so would allow the control system to detect when, or how much, the harvester is turning and vary the rotation speed of the reels accordingly, as taught by Kaneko.
Regarding claim 12, Farley does not disclose wherein the control unit is configured to determine a path being traversed by the header during a harvesting operation; detect when the path is a curved path; and vary an operating speed of the respective crop gathering mechanisms in dependence on a radius of the curved path being travelled only after when the path is detected as curved.
Kaneko teaches using sensors: ([0029] “The lawn mowing vehicle 1 includes a steering angle sensor 31 for detecting the steering angle of the rear wheel 4, and a vehicle speed sensor 32 for detecting the vehicle speed of the lawn mowing vehicle 1.”). Detecting the steering angle and/or vehicle speed constitutes determining a path of the vehicle and detecting when the path is a curved path. As above, Kaneko further teaches varying an operating speed of the respective [cutting] mechanisms based on the steering angle: ([0031] “…the control device 33 controls the rotation speed (the number of rotations per unit time) of each motor 17 via the motor driver 17A,17B,17C based on the signals of the steering angle sensor 31 and the vehicle speed sensor 32.”).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the invention of Farley with Kaneko’s teaching of detecting when the vehicle is on a curved path and varying the operating speeds accordingly. Doing so would ensure that the cutting speeds of the sub-assemblies are made uniform, as taught by Kaneko ([0003]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley et al. (US 20190082603 A1) in view of Kaneko et al. (JP 2015181473 A), further in view of Füchtling as applied to claims 7-9, 12 above, further in view of Depreitere et al. (US 20170112055 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Farley does not disclose wherein the turn-detection apparatus comprises a satellite-based position determination system.
Depreitere teaches an agricultural harvester including a control system which uses a satellite-based position determination system to determine the heading of the harvester: ([0026] “The heading section 78 is preferably a GNSS system (Global Navigation Satellite System) which provides an accurate heading of the agricultural harvester 20. This is key to enabling the control system to accurately, and in real time, control the deflection of the residue from the spreader devices 42 in response to heading changes of the agricultural harvester.”). Depreitere’s GNSS constitutes a satellite-based position determination system.
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the invention of Farley with Depreitere’s teaching of using a satellite to determine the harvester’s heading or direction. Doing so would allow a control system to determine and respond to the harvester changing direction accurately and in real time, as taught by Depreitere.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley et al. (US 20190082603 A1) in view of Kaneko et al. (JP 2015181473 A), further in view of Füchtling as applied to claims 7-9, 12 above, further in view of Laugen et al. (US 20190364733 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Farley does not disclose at least one respective sensor associated with each sub-assembly, coupled with the control unit, and configured to detect at least one characteristics of a crop in a path ahead of the sub-assembly, wherein the control unit is configured to vary the operating speeds to the respective crop gathering mechanisms in dependence on variations between the detected crop characteristics.
Laugen teaches an agricultural harvesting machine: ([0016] “In one example, sensor(s) 105 can include an image capture sensor, among a variety of other sensor(s), that capture an image of an area forward of header 102. The captured image can be used to identify a distribution of crop across header 102, and, based on the distribution, draper belt control system 117 can generate control signal(s) to modify the speed of the one or more draper belts so the crop does not overshoot the center section of the machine where it is transported into the machine for further processing.”). Detecting crop distribution constitutes detecting at least one characteristic of a crop.
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the invention of Farley with Laugen’s teaching of detecting crop distribution ahead of the harvester and varying belt speed accordingly. Doing so would allow the system to prevent crops from overshooting the center section of the machine where it is transported into the machine for further processing, as taught by Laugen.
Regarding claim 13, Farley does not disclose wherein the control unit is configured to detect at least one characteristics of a crop in the path ahead of each sub-assembly; and vary the operating speeds of the respective crop gathering mechanisms in dependence on variations between detected crop characteristics.
As above, Laugen teaches an agricultural harvesting machine: ([0016] “In one example, sensor(s) 105 can include an image capture sensor, among a variety of other sensor(s), that capture an image of an area forward of header 102. The captured image can be used to identify a distribution of crop across header 102, and, based on the distribution, draper belt control system 117 can generate control signal(s) to modify the speed of the one or more draper belts so the crop does not overshoot the center section of the machine where it is transported into the machine for further processing.”). Detecting crop distribution constitutes detecting at least one characteristic of a crop.
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the invention of Farley with Laugen’s teaching of detecting crop distribution ahead of the harvester and varying belt speed accordingly. Doing so would allow the system to prevent crops from overshooting the center section of the machine where it is transported into the machine for further processing, as taught by Laugen.
Regarding Claims 14-20, the claims are commensurate in scope with claims 1-13 above and are rejected under the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Treffer et al. (US 20170280627 A1) teaches farming machine that includes a header having a crop cutting and a crop conditioning mechanism. The machine has a crop merger attachment with a conveyor configured to receive crop material from the crop conditioning mechanism and direct the crop material to a side of the farming machine. The crop merger attachment is mounted for adjusting movement between an operational, lowered position in which the crop material is directed onto the conveyor and a non-operational, raised position in which the stream of crop material is directed away from the crop merger apparatus. The farming machine has a position sensor configured to detect movement of the crop merger attachment between the lowered and raised positions of the crop merger attachment. In some embodiments, other sensor input may include the detected angular position of the wheels (e.g., detecting whether a turn for approaching a subsequent pass of the field is occurring to automatically lower (or raise) the merger attachment 26), or positioning and/or heading information (e.g., via global navigation satellite systems (GNSS), radar, laser, video, etc.) signal input to detect when the windrower 10 has reached an end of field pass to enable the raising or lowering of the merger attachment 26.
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 FARIS ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (313)446-4821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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.
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.
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667