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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on July 3, 2025. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, and 10 have been amended. Claims 4 and 9 have been cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Accordingly, Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed on July 3, 2025, with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of claim objection has been made as seen further below.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed on July 3, 2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed on July 3, 2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the applicant’s amended claims, a new ground(s) of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in view of additional art US Publication Number 20050193705 A1 (Wubbels) has been made as seen further below.
For clarity of record, the previous 35 U.S.C 112 (f) claim interpretation has been updated with respect to the amended limitations regarding the “means of a manual input”, which has required new ground(s) of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) to be made (due to MPEP 2181(III and IV)) as seen further below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following:
Claims 1 and 7 recite “the calculated speed value”. While it is understood that the phrase is referring to the second speed recited earlier, in order to have proper antecedent basis, the phrase should read as “the second speed…”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are:
Control unit (“determines…”)
means of a manual input (see 112 rejection further below)
Because this claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Support for the limitation(s) are as follows:
Paragraph 0043: The above-described method takes place fully automatically and is preferably carried out fully automatically by an electronic control unit of the agricultural harvester.
Examiner is interpreting the claim limitation as followed:
Control unit: Electronic Control Unit, ECU or the like.
If the applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
The claim limitation “means of a manual input” (recited in independent claims 1 and 7) invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the instant specification, in particular Paragraph 0043 (corresponding to Page 6, Lines 22-27 of the specification filed on November 1, 2022), recites a manual input “…to provide for manual fine adjustment of the second speed n2, at which the discharge conveyor 8 of the attachment 2 is operated. In this case, the driver has the option of correcting the calculated speed value upwardly or downwardly via manual input”, the disclosure does not provide structure that performs the function in the claims (e.g. manual fine adjustment). Therefore, the claims are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description and may not be sufficiently enabled to support the full scope of the claim. The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right to exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits.
Accordingly, an inadequate disclosure may give rise to both an indefiniteness rejection for a means-plus-function limitation and a failure to satisfy the written description of section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as independent claims 1 and 7 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The subject matter “by means of a manual input” (recited in independent claims 1 and 7) is not sufficiently described in the instant specification. While Paragraph 0043 (corresponding to Page 6, Lines 22-27 of the specification filed on November 1, 2022) recites a manual input “… provide for manual fine adjustment of the second speed n2, at which the discharge conveyor 8 of the attachment 2 is operated. In this case, the driver has the option of correcting the calculated speed value upwardly or downwardly via manual input”, the disclosure does not satisfactorily indicate what structure the “means of a manual input” may be referring to.
Examiner recommends incorporating the language from the specification (“via manual input”) instead of “by means of a manual input” to overcome the 112(f) invocation and thus the 112(a/b) rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clauss et al. (U.S. Publication Number 20050279073 A1; hereinafter Clauss) in view of Wubbels (US Publication Number 20050193705 A1; hereinafter Wubbels).
Regarding Claim 1 (independent), Clauss discloses a method for operating an agricultural harvester (1) (Paragraph 0011, The present invention provides a harvesting machine and crop picking head combination…that allows an adjustment of the speed of the discharge conveyer relative to the speed of the pickup element of the crop picking head) comprising:
wherein the agricultural harvester (1) has an attachment (2) (Paragraph 0029, Referring to the Figures, FIG. 1, shows a harvesting machine 10 in the form of a self-driving field chopper. The harvesting machine 10 comprises a frame 12 which is supported by driven front wheels 14 and steerable rear wheels 16. The harvesting machine 10 is operated from an operator's cabin 18 from which a crop picking head 20 can be seen),
wherein the attachment (2) has a receiving conveyor (7) which is driven at a defined first speed (Paragraph 0031, The crop picking head 20 includes a discharge conveyer 36 in the form of a conveyer screw which transports the received harvested crop from the sides of the crop picking head 20 to a centrally located discharge opening (not shown). A feed-in conveyor 42 is positioned downstream of the discharge opening. Like the discharge conveyer 36, the crop picking head 20 includes a rotary driven pickup conveyer 34 which is disposed underneath the discharge conveyer 36 and lifts the harvested crop up off the ground with conveyer prongs and transfers the harvested crop to the discharge conveyer 36; Paragraph 0013, The first speed at which the pickup conveyer picks up the harvested crop…)
wherein the attachment (2) has a discharge conveyor (8) which is driven at a defined second speed (Paragraph 0031, The crop picking head 20 includes a discharge conveyer 36 in the form of a conveyer screw which transports the received harvested crop from the sides of the crop picking head 20 to a centrally located discharge opening (not shown). A feed-in conveyor 42 is positioned downstream of the discharge opening. Like the discharge conveyer 36, the crop picking head 20 includes a rotary driven pickup conveyer 34 which is disposed underneath the discharge conveyer 36 and lifts the harvested crop up off the ground with conveyer prongs and transfers the harvested crop to the discharge conveyer 36. Also attached to the frame 32 is a holding-down device 40 in the form of a metal sheet that is disposed above the pickup conveyer 34; Paragraph 0013, The second speed at which the discharge conveyer of the crop picking head transports the harvested crop…)
wherein the harvester (1) has an infeed unit (4) with infeed rollers (5, 6) which are driven at a defined third speed (Paragraph 0031, The crop picking head 20 includes a discharge conveyer 36 in the form of a conveyer screw which transports the received harvested crop from the sides of the crop picking head 20 to a centrally located discharge opening (not shown). A feed-in conveyor 42 is positioned downstream of the discharge opening. Like the discharge conveyer 36, the crop picking head 20 includes a rotary driven pickup conveyer 34 which is disposed underneath the discharge conveyer 36 and lifts the harvested crop up off the ground with conveyer prongs and transfers the harvested crop to the discharge conveyer 36. Also attached to the frame 32 is a holding-down device 40 in the form of a metal sheet that is disposed above the pickup conveyer 34; Paragraph 0013, The third speed at which the feed-in conveyer transports the harvested crop…), and
the second speed, at which the discharge conveyor (8) is driven, is determined depending on the third speed, at which the infeed rollers (5, 6) are driven (Paragraph 0013, It is proposed that the second speed at which the discharge conveyer of the crop picking head transports the harvested crop be automatically controlled as a function of the first speed and the third speed… The first speed can depend on an operating condition of the harvesting machine, such as its forward speed; Examiner notes that the first speed is dependent on forward speed of the harvesting machine, therefore the second speed is dependent on the forward speed of the harvesting machine).
While Clauss discloses features that allow the second speed (speed of the discharge conveyor) to be adjusted (Paragraph 0013), Clauss does not explicitly disclose: characterized in that a manual fine adjustment of the second speed is provided in that the calculated speed value is optionally corrected upwards or downwards by a driver of the harvester (1) by means of a manual input.
Nevertheless, Wubbels teaches an agricultural harvester with variable speed control (Figure 1; Abstract) comprising:
characterized in that a manual fine adjustment of the second speed is provided in that the calculated speed value is optionally corrected upwards or downwards by a driver of the harvester (1) by means of a manual input (Paragraphs 0024-0026 describe features for a driver of a harvester to manually adjust the speed of a discharge conveyor (“An actuator 96, that can be remotely controlled electrically or hydraulically by an operator in the operator's cab 18, permits a change in the speed transmission of the shift gearbox 90. In a possible embodiment, a two-step gearbox 90 permits a variation in the rotational speed of the discharge conveyors 52 by approximately 10%”); Examiner notes that a “variation” in the speed reasonably indicates that the speed value can be adjusted upwards or downwards).
Wubbels is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of manually adjusting the rotational speed of a discharge conveyor for a harvester. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Clauss invention to incorporate the teachings of Wubbels by including features that allow the second speed (speed of the discharge conveyor) to be manually adjusted for the benefit of expanding operator control in order to allow for intuitive adjustments of the agricultural operation.
Regarding Claim 2, Clauss as currently modified teaches claim 1. Clauss further discloses:
the greater the third speed, at which the infeed rollers (5, 6) are driven, the greater the second speed, at which the discharge conveyor (8) is driven (Paragraph 0042, The discharge conveyer 36 is driven by the pickup conveyer gear unit 104 at a speed which depends on the speed of feed-in conveyer 42 and the speed of the pickup conveyer 34. During normal harvesting operations, the sun wheel 152 of the third planetary gear unit rotates in the direction opposite to that of the ring wheel 150. The speed of the planetary wheel carrier 154 and thus of shaft 146 that drives the discharge conveyer 36, therefore increases as the rotating speed of feed-in conveyer 42 increases and as the rotating speed of the pickup conveyer 34 increases), and
the greater the speed of travel of the agricultural harvester (1), the greater the second speed, at which the discharge conveyor (8) is driven (Paragraph 0042, The discharge conveyer 36 is driven by the pickup conveyer gear unit 104 at a speed which depends on the speed of feed-in conveyer 42 and the speed of the pickup conveyer 34. During normal harvesting operations, the sun wheel 152 of the third planetary gear unit rotates in the direction opposite to that of the ring wheel 150. The speed of the planetary wheel carrier 154 and thus of shaft 146 that drives the discharge conveyer 36, therefore increases as the rotating speed of feed-in conveyer 42 increases and as the rotating speed of the pickup conveyer 34 increases; Paragraph 0014, The first speed can depend on an operating condition of the harvesting machine, such as its forward speed; Examiner notes that the first speed is dependent on the forward speed of the harvesting machine, therefore the second speed increases as the forward speed of the harvesting machine increases).
Claims 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clauss in view of Wubbels and further in view of Füchtling et al. (US Publication Number 20180054964 A1; hereinafter Füchtling).
Regarding Claim 3, Clauss as currently modified teaches claim 1. Clauss further discloses:
the second speed, at which the discharge conveyor (8) is driven, is determined via a function or characteristic (13) dependent on the third speed (Paragraph 0013, It is proposed that the second speed at which the discharge conveyer of the crop picking head transports the harvested crop be automatically controlled as a function of the first speed and the third speed; Paragraph 0053, The relationship between the first and third speeds as input parameters and the second speed as an output parameter is stored in the control mechanism in the form of tables or functional relationships).
However, Clauss does not explicitly disclose: wherein an offset value is overlaid on the function or characteristic (13) depending on the speed of travel of the agricultural harvester (1) (Examiner notes that “wherein an offset value is overlaid on a function or characteristic (13)” is being interpreted as adjusting the second speed based on the forward speed of the agricultural harvester, while the second speed is maintain a fixed relationship to the third speed (e.g. maintaining a fixed speed ratio between the second speed and the third speed), which is consistent with the instant specification, see at least Figure 2 and Paragraph 0035).
Nevertheless, Füchtling teaches an agricultural harvester with variable speed control (Abstract, The combine harvester and/or belt cutting unit has a control unit configured to automatically control the belt speeds) comprising:
wherein an offset value is overlaid on the function or characteristic (13) depending on the speed of travel of the agricultural harvester (1) (Figure 2A and Paragraph 0051, The rotational rate nLS of the header auger 15 as a function of the forward travel speed VF, such that the rotational rates nEW, nLS of the intake roller 13 and/or the header auger 15 are adjusted to the forward travel speed VF; See interpretation of the limitation above; Examiner notes that the rotational rate of header auger 15 can be continuously adjusted based on the travel speed of the harvester while maintaining a fixed relationship with the rotational rate of intake roller 13).
Füchtling is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of adjusting the rotational speed of a conveyor based on the travel speed of the harvester. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Clauss invention to incorporate the teachings of Füchtling by including features that allow the second speed (speed of the discharge conveyor) to be adjusted based on the travel speed of the harvester while maintaining a fixed relationship with the third speed (speed of the feed-in rollers). Doing so would help ensure a more robust automatic speed control for the harvester (Paragraph 0026, A rotational rate of the intake roller and/or a rotational rate of the header auger as a function of the forward travel speed, the harvest may be transferred with less disruption to the grain conveyor of the combine harvester).
Regarding Claim 5, Clauss as currently modified teaches claim 1. Clauss does not explicitly disclose: a stepless offset value is overlaid on the function or characteristic (13) (Examiner notes that the limitation is being interpreted as continuously adjusting the second speed based on the forward speed of the agricultural harvester, while the second speed is maintaining a fixed relationship to the third speed (e.g. maintaining a fixed speed ratio between the second speed and the third speed), which is consistent with the instant specification, see at least Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0035 and 0038).
Nevertheless, Füchtling further teaches:
a stepless offset value is overlaid on the function or characteristic (13) (Figure 2A and Paragraph 0051, The rotational rate nLS of the header auger 15 as a function of the forward travel speed VF, such that the rotational rates nEW, nLS of the intake roller 13 and/or the header auger 15 are adjusted to the forward travel speed VF; See interpretation of the limitation above; Examiner notes that the rotational speed of header auger 15 can be continuously adjusted based on the travel speed of the harvester while maintaining a fixed relationship with the rotational rate of intake roller 13, which is reasonably equivalent to a stepless offset value being overlaid on a fixed speed ratio based on the travel speed of the harvester).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Clauss invention to incorporate the teachings of Füchtling by including features that allow the second speed (speed of the discharge conveyor) to be continuously adjusted based on the travel speed of the harvester while maintaining a fixed relationship with the third speed (speed of the feed-in rollers). Doing so would help ensure a more robust automatic speed control for the harvester (Paragraph 0026, A rotational rate of the intake roller and/or a rotational rate of the header auger as a function of the forward travel speed, the harvest may be transferred with less disruption to the grain conveyor of the combine harvester).
Regarding Claim 7 (independent), Clauss discloses an agricultural harvester (1) (Paragraph 0011, The present invention provides a harvesting machine and crop picking head combination…that allows an adjustment of the speed of the discharge conveyer relative to the speed of the pickup element of the crop picking head) comprising:
wherein the agricultural harvester (1) has an attachment (2) (Paragraph 0029, Referring to the Figures, FIG. 1, shows a harvesting machine 10 in the form of a self-driving field chopper. The harvesting machine 10 comprises a frame 12 which is supported by driven front wheels 14 and steerable rear wheels 16. The harvesting machine 10 is operated from an operator's cabin 18 from which a crop picking head 20 can be seen),
wherein the attachment (2) has a receiving conveyor (7) which is driven at a defined first speed (Paragraph 0031, The crop picking head 20 includes a discharge conveyer 36 in the form of a conveyer screw which transports the received harvested crop from the sides of the crop picking head 20 to a centrally located discharge opening (not shown). A feed-in conveyor 42 is positioned downstream of the discharge opening. Like the discharge conveyer 36, the crop picking head 20 includes a rotary driven pickup conveyer 34 which is disposed underneath the discharge conveyer 36 and lifts the harvested crop up off the ground with conveyer prongs and transfers the harvested crop to the discharge conveyer 36; Paragraph 0013, The first speed at which the pickup conveyer picks up the harvested crop…)
wherein the attachment (2) has a discharge conveyor (8) which is driven at a defined second speed (Paragraph 0031, The crop picking head 20 includes a discharge conveyer 36 in the form of a conveyer screw which transports the received harvested crop from the sides of the crop picking head 20 to a centrally located discharge opening (not shown). A feed-in conveyor 42 is positioned downstream of the discharge opening. Like the discharge conveyer 36, the crop picking head 20 includes a rotary driven pickup conveyer 34 which is disposed underneath the discharge conveyer 36 and lifts the harvested crop up off the ground with conveyer prongs and transfers the harvested crop to the discharge conveyer 36. Also attached to the frame 32 is a holding-down device 40 in the form of a metal sheet that is disposed above the pickup conveyer 34; Paragraph 0013, The second speed at which the discharge conveyer of the crop picking head transports the harvested crop…)
wherein the harvester (1) has an infeed unit (4) with infeed rollers (5, 6) which are driven at a defined third speed (Paragraph 0031, The crop picking head 20 includes a discharge conveyer 36 in the form of a conveyer screw which transports the received harvested crop from the sides of the crop picking head 20 to a centrally located discharge opening (not shown). A feed-in conveyor 42 is positioned downstream of the discharge opening. Like the discharge conveyer 36, the crop picking head 20 includes a rotary driven pickup conveyer 34 which is disposed underneath the discharge conveyer 36 and lifts the harvested crop up off the ground with conveyer prongs and transfers the harvested crop to the discharge conveyer 36. Also attached to the frame 32 is a holding-down device 40 in the form of a metal sheet that is disposed above the pickup conveyer 34; Paragraph 0013, The third speed at which the feed-in conveyer transports the harvested crop…) and
determines the second speed, at which the discharge conveyor (8) is driven, depending on the third speed, at which the infeed rollers (5, 6) are driven, and also depending on the speed of travel of the agricultural harvester (1) (Paragraph 0013, It is proposed that the second speed at which the discharge conveyer of the crop picking head transports the harvested crop be automatically controlled as a function of the first speed and the third speed… The first speed can depend on an operating condition of the harvesting machine, such as its forward speed; Examiner notes that the first speed is dependent on forward speed, therefore the second speed is dependent on the forward speed).
While Clauss discloses features that allow the second speed (speed of the discharge conveyor) to be adjusted (Paragraph 0013), Clauss does not explicitly disclose: characterized in that a manual fine adjustment of the second speed is provided in that the calculated speed value is optionally corrected upwards or downwards by a driver of the harvester (1) by means of a manual input.
Nevertheless, Wubbels teaches an agricultural harvester with variable speed control (Figure 1; Abstract) comprising:
characterized in that a manual fine adjustment of the second speed is provided in that the calculated speed value can optionally be corrected upwards or downwards by an operator of the harvester (1) by means of a manual input (Paragraphs 0024-0026 describe features for an operator of a harvester to manually adjust the speed of a discharge conveyor (“An actuator 96, that can be remotely controlled electrically or hydraulically by an operator in the operator's cab 18, permits a change in the speed transmission of the shift gearbox 90. In a possible embodiment, a two-step gearbox 90 permits a variation in the rotational speed of the discharge conveyors 52 by approximately 10%”); Examiner notes that a “variation” in the speed reasonably indicates that the speed value can be adjusted upwards or downwards).
Wubbels is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of manually adjusting the rotational speed of a discharge conveyor for a harvester. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Clauss invention to incorporate the teachings of Wubbels by including features that allow the second speed (speed of the discharge conveyor) to be manually adjusted for the benefit of expanding operator control in order to allow for intuitive adjustments of the agricultural operation.
While Clauss further discloses electronic control features (Paragraph 0039, The positions of the swash plates of the hydraulic motors 128, 144 and thus their rotating speeds can be varied by the operator in the operator's cabin 18 or are automatically preset by an electronic control), Clauss does not explicitly disclose: a control unit for determining speeds.
Nevertheless, Füchtling teaches an agricultural harvester with variable speed control (Abstract, The combine harvester and/or belt cutting unit has a control unit configured to automatically control the belt speeds) comprising:
a control unit (Paragraph 0026, The control unit is configured to control a rotational rate of the intake roller and/or a rotational rate of the header auger as a function of the forward travel speed, the harvest may be transferred with less disruption to the grain conveyor of the combine harvester; Paragraph 0031, In addition or alternatively, the control unit 20 (or a subpart thereof) may include memory hardware that comprises instructions executable with a processor or processor circuitry to implement one or more of the features of the module).
Füchtling is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of using a control unit to set the rotational speed of various components in a harvester. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Clauss invention to incorporate the teachings of Füchtling by including a control unit for performing speed adjustments of various components in the harvester. Doing so would help expand the functionality of the harvester by allowing for automatic speed control to be based on electrical signals (Paragraph 0036, The control unit 20 receives measurement signals 60 comprising data regarding the current forward travel speed vF, e.g. from a vehicle speed sensor).
Regarding Claim 8, Clauss as currently modified teaches claim 7. Clauss does not explicitly disclose: the control unit is designed to carry out the method according to Claim 1 automatically.
Nevertheless, Füchtling further teaches:
the control unit is designed to carry out the method according to one of claims 1 to 6 automatically (Paragraph 0026, The control unit is configured to control a rotational rate of the intake roller and/or a rotational rate of the header auger as a function of the forward travel speed, the harvest may be transferred with less disruption to the grain conveyor of the combine harvester. The rotational rates can be automatically adjusted to the harvest quantities in a simple manner, by means of which the harvest output is increased and/or homogenized; Paragraph 0031, In addition or alternatively, the control unit 20 (or a subpart thereof) may include memory hardware that comprises instructions executable with a processor or processor circuitry to implement one or more of the features of the module).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Clauss invention to incorporate the teachings of Füchtling by including a control unit to automatically perform speed adjustments for various components in the harvester. Doing so would help expand the functionality of the harvester by allowing for automatic speed control to be based on electrical signals (Paragraph 0036, The control unit 20 receives measurement signals 60 comprising data regarding the current forward travel speed vF, e.g. from a vehicle speed sensor).
Regarding Claim 10, Clauss as currently modified teaches claim 7. Clauss further discloses:
the agricultural harvester (1) according to claim 7, wherein the attachment (2) is in the form of a maize header, of a pickup or of a mower or direct cutting unit and the agricultural harvester (1) is in the form of a forage harvester. (Paragraph 0029, Referring to the Figures, FIG. 1, shows a harvesting machine 10 in the form of a self-driving field chopper. The harvesting machine 10 comprises a frame 12 which is supported by driven front wheels 14 and steerable rear wheels 16. The harvesting machine 10 is operated from an operator's cabin 18 from which a crop picking head 20 can be seen; Examiner notes that a field chopper is reasonably analogous to a forage harvester).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clauss in view Wubbels and further in view of Rico et al. (US Publication Number 20200187419 A1; hereinafter Rico).
Regarding Claim 6, Clauss as currently modified teaches claim 1. While Clauss further discloses:
the second speed, at which the discharge conveyor (8) is driven (Paragraph 0013, The second speed at which the discharge conveyer of the crop picking head transports the harvested crop…).
Clauss does not explicitly disclose that the second speed can be: limited by a maximum value.
Nevertheless, Rico teaches a conveying process for an agricultural harvester (Abstract, A process for conveying a flow of harvested crop) comprising:
[a conveyor speed can be] limited by a maximum value (Paragraph 0042, In particular, the conveyor speed S can vary between a minimum speed Smin and a maximum speed Smax speed).
Rico is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of setting a maximum value for a conveyor speed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Clauss invention to incorporate the teachings of Rico by including a maximum speed for the second speed (speed of the discharge conveyor). Doing so would help reduce the risk of the agricultural harvester malfunctioning due to extreme conveyor speeds.
Conclusion
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 EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703) 756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. 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.
/EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights