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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11, 16-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO's eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 11, 16-20, and 22 are directed to a method (process). As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites abstract limitations, including:
"monitoring, with a computing system, a bearing-related parameter associated with a shaft assembly of the disk gang assembly at both a first sensor location and a second sensor location as the agricultural implement is being moved through a field during the performance of an agricultural operation, ...
calculating a parameter differential between a first parameter value for the bearing-related parameter determined based on data associated with the first sensor location and a second parameter value for the bearing-related parameter determined based on data associated with the second sensor location;
comparing the parameter differential to a predetermined differential threshold; and
identifying, with the computing system, that one of the first bearing or the second bearing of the shaft assembly is experiencing a bearing failure condition based at least in part on the parameter differential; and
identifying, with the computing system, which of the first bearing or the second bearing is experiencing the bearing failure condition based on a magnitude of at least one of the first parameter value or the second parameter value."
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. Other than reciting "with a computing system," nothing in the claim precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 11 recites an additional limitation of "performing an agricultural operation within a field using the disc gang assembly of the agricultural implement;" in lines 3-4. This step is recited at a high level of generality, and, as applied, is an implement used in its ordinary capacity. As such, it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in an agricultural operation.
Claim 11 also recites additional elements of: a disk gang assembly, an agricultural implement, a computing system, a shaft assembly, first and second sensors, and first and second bearings. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea.
The computing system in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing generic computer functions of receiving and processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computing system and an agricultural implement (including a disk gang assembly, a shaft assembly, and at least one bearing). Although the additional elements limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (agricultural disk implements) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The "performing" step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity since such activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as noted in para. 0002 of the specification, and as discussed above, the additional elements of the agricultural implement, the disk gang assembly, the shaft assembly, the first and second bearings, and the computing system amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 19, 20, and 22, the limitations therein merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 11, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 16-18, the limitations therein setting forth initiating a control action amount to insignificant extra solution activity, and are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application. Initiating such control actions has been shown as well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 7-10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sensor" in line 16 and line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claims 7-10 and 21 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the sensor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the sensor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 7-9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adee (US 4,173,262) in view of Gattermann et al. (US 2014/0216159) and further in view of Harmon et al. (US 2020/0226851)
Regarding claim 1, Adee discloses an agricultural implement comprising a disk gang assembly, the disk gang assembly comprising:
a shaft assembly including a shaft (including 20) and a first bearing (including first 36) and a second bearing (including second 36) positioned at spaced-apart locations relative to the shaft assembly (see Fig. 1), the first and second bearings rotatably supporting the shaft for rotation about a rotational axis; and
a plurality of disks (including 30) supported on the shaft for rotation therewith about the rotational axis (see col. 2, lines 11-18).
Adee does not explicitly disclose sensors configured to generate data indicative of a bearing-related parameter and a computing system configured to monitor the bearing-related parameter and identify that the first or second bearing is experiencing a bearing failure condition. However, Gattermann teaches a system for detecting bearing failures, the system comprising:
a first sensor (including 11) provided in operative association with a shaft assembly (including 32), the first sensor positioned closer to a first bearing (including 1) than to a second bearing (including 1''; see Fig. 2) and being configured to generate data indicative of a bearing-related parameter (including "shock pulses" as set forth in paras. 0039 and 0048) associated with the shaft assembly (associated as shown in Figs. 1 and 2);
a second sensor (including 11') provided in operative association with the shaft assembly, the second sensor positioned closer to the second bearing (including 1'') than to the first bearing (including 1; see Fig. 2) and being configured to generate data indicative of the bearing-related parameter associated with the shaft assembly (see paras. 0039, 0048, and 0063); and
a computing system (including 12 and 13) communicatively coupled to the first and second sensors, the computing system being configured to:
monitor the bearing-related parameter associated with the shaft assembly based at least in part on the data received from the first and second sensors (see paras. 0041-0045 and 0048-0053, wherein the shock pulses are counted, analyzed, averaged, and/or displayed);
identify that at least one bearing is experiencing a bearing failure condition based at least in part on an evaluation of the monitored bearing-related parameter (see paras. 0053-0060, wherein bearing damage is signified, determined, and/or alerted); and
identify which of the first bearing or the second bearing is experiencing the bearing failure condition based on a magnitude of at least one a first parameter value for the bearing-related parameter determined based on the data received from the first sensor and a second parameter value for the bearing-related parameter determined based on the data received from the second sensor (see paras. 0064-0065).
In the above combination, neither Adee nor Gattermann explicitly discloses the computing system being configured to calculate and use a parameter differential as claimed. However, Harmon teaches a computing system (including 110) configured to:
calculate a parameter differential (see paras. 0039, 0041, and 0052 and step 206) between a first parameter value for a bearing-related parameter determined based on data received from a first sensor (104 described as generating data indicative of a bearing-related parameter in paras. 0028 and 0037) and a second parameter value for the bearing-related parameter determined based on data received from a second sensor (106 described as generating data indicative of a bearing-related parameter in paras. 0028 and 0037); and
identify that one of a first bearing or a second bearing (components which the data generated by the sensors are indicative of, as described in paras. 0028 and 0037) is experiencing a bearing failure condition (being worn or damaged) based at least in part on the parameter differential (see paras. 0039, 0041, and 0052 and step 206).
Harmon is analogous because Harmon discloses a system for detecting bearing failures of an agricultural implement based on data received from first and second sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the parameter differential as taught by Harmon in order to improve the sensitivity and/or accuracy of detection. Additionally, it is noted that calculating parameter differentials of this kind are known to be used in general detection of bearings so that the degree of interference from the environment is relatively low, leading to much higher sensitivity of detection, as taught by Lee et al. (US 2022/0178739) Further, providing the above combination with the calculating of Harmon is a use of a known technique (i.e., calculating and using a parameter differential as taught by Harmon) to improve a similar device (i.e., the device of Adee and Gattermann) in the same way. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 7, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 1, Gattermann teaches the bearing-related parameter being vibrations transmitted through at least a portion of the shaft assembly (see paras. 0013-0014).
Regarding claim 8, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 1, Gattermann teaches the bearing-related parameter being strain applied through at least a portion of the shaft assembly (see paras. 0013-0014, wherein bearing vibration and/or bearing noise is indicative of strain therethrough).
Regarding claim 9, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 1, Gattermann teaches the first sensor (including 11) being installed on the shaft of the shaft assembly (see para. 0040, where the portion of the bearing on or in which the sensor is installed is on the shaft assembly).
Regarding claim 21, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 1, Harmon teaches the computing system (including 110) being configured to identify that one of the first bearing or the second bearing (components which the data generated by the sensors are indicative of, as described in paras. 0028 and 0037) is experiencing the bearing failure condition (being worn or damaged) when the parameter differential exceeds (differs by and thus exceeds) a predetermined differential threshold ("a predetermined amount" as set forth in paras. 0039-0045 and 0052 and in step 206).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adee in view of Gattermann in view of Harmon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DeGarmo (US 10,765,052).
Regarding claim 10, Adee discloses the shaft assembly further includes a plurality of spindles (including 34) spaced apart along the shaft (see Fig. 1), and Gattermann teaches a sensor can be mounted in the vicinity of the bearing by means of a good mechanical coupling (see para. 0040), but neither Adee, Gattermann, nor Harmon explicitly discloses the first or second sensor being installed within one of a plurality of spindles. However, DeGarmo teaches installing a sensor (including 52) within one of a plurality of spindles (including 42; see col. 4, lines 43-60), which is in the vicinity of a bearing (40).
DeGarmo is analogous because DeGarmo discloses a system for detection of a disk gang assembly, the system comprising a shaft assembly, a plurality of disks, a sensor, and a computing system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the sensor placement (and thus, with corresponding wireless capabilities) as taught by DeGarmo in order to prevent wires from being exposed and possibly damaged during operation. (See DeGarmo, col. 4, lines 61-67.) Additionally, providing the above combination with the sensor placement of DeGarmo is a combination of prior art elements (including those of Adee, Gattermann, and Harmon) according to known methods (including installation as taught by DeGarmo) to yield predictable results and a use of a known technique (i.e., installation as taught by DeGarmo) to improve a similar device (i.e., the device of Adee, Gattermann, and Harmon) in the same way. See MPEP §§ 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(C).
Claims 11, 16-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gattermann in view of Adee in view of Harmon.
Regarding claim 11, Gattermann discloses a method for detecting bearing failures, the method comprising:
monitoring, with a computing system (including 12 and 13), a bearing-related parameter (including "shock pulses" as set forth in paras. 0039 and 0048) associated with a shaft assembly (including 1 and 32) at both a first sensor location (of 11) and a second sensor location (of 11') during operation (see paras. 0039-0045 and 0048-0050, wherein the shock pulses are counted and/or displayed), wherein:
the first sensor location (of 11) is positioned closer to a first bearing (including 1) than to a second bearing (including 1'') along the shaft assembly and the second sensor location (of 11') is positioned closer to the second bearing than to the first bearing along the shaft assembly (see Fig. 2); and
the first bearing and the second bearing are positioned at spaced-apart locations relative to the shaft assembly (see para. 0063);
identifying, with the computing system, that at least one bearing of the shaft assembly is experiencing a bearing failure condition based at least in part on the evaluation of the monitored bearing-related parameter relative to the predetermined threshold (see paras. 0046-0047 and 0051-0060, wherein bearing damage is signified, determined, and/or alerted); and
identifying, with the computing system, which of the first bearing or the second bearing is experiencing the bearing failure condition based on a magnitude of at least one of the first parameter value or the second parameter value (see paras. 0064-0065).
Gattermann does not explicitly disclose the bearing failures or shaft assembly being of a disk gang assembly of an agricultural implement. Additionally, Gattermann does not explicitly disclose performing an agricultural operation within a field using the disc gang assembly of the agricultural implement. However, Adee teaches a disk gang assembly of an agricultural implement, the disk gang assembly (see Fig. 1) comprising a shaft assembly including at least one bearing (including 36) similar to that of Gattermann. Further, Adee performing an agricultural operation within a field using the disc gang assembly of the agricultural implement by moving the agricultural implement through a field (as described in col. 3, lines 15-20).
Adee is analogous because Adee discloses a disk gang assembly comprising a shaft assembly including at least one bearing which experiences failure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method of Gattermann with the step and structure as taught by Adee in order to prevent damage to similar bearings in a context where bearing failure is a common occurrence. (See Adee, col. 1, labeled lines 8-9.) Additionally, performing the method of Gattermann with the structure of Adee is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the shaft assembly of Adee) for another (i.e., the shaft assembly of Gattermann) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Neither Gattermann nor Adee explicitly discloses calculating and using a parameter differential as claimed. However, Harmon teaches calculating a parameter differential (see paras. 0039, 0041, and 0052 and step 206) between a first parameter value for a bearing-related parameter determined based on data received associated with a first sensor location (at 104, which is described as positioned adjacent a bearing and as generating data indicative of a bearing-related parameter in paras. 0028 and 0037) and a second parameter value for the bearing-related parameter determined based on data received associated with a second sensor location (at 106, which is described as positioned adjacent a bearing and as generating data indicative of a bearing-related parameter in paras. 0028 and 0037). Harmon also teaches comparing the parameter differential to a predetermined differential threshold ("a predetermined amount" as set forth in paras. 0039-0045 and 0052 and in step 206), and identifying that one of a first bearing or a second bearing (components which the data generated by the sensors are indicative of, as described in paras. 0028 and 0037) is experiencing a bearing failure condition (being worn or damaged) based at least in part on the parameter differential (see paras. 0039, 0041, 0042, and 0052 and step 206).
Harmon is analogous because Harmon discloses detecting bearing failures of an agricultural implement based on data received from first and second sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the calculating and use of a parameter differential as taught by Harmon in order to improve the sensitivity and/or accuracy of detection. Additionally, it is again noted that calculating parameter differentials of this kind are known to be used in general detection of bearings so that the degree of interference from the environment is relatively low, leading to much higher sensitivity of detection, as taught by Lee et al. (US 2022/0178739) Further, providing the above combination with the calculating of Harmon is a use of a known technique (i.e., calculating and using a parameter differential as taught by Harmon) to improve a similar method (i.e., the method taught by Gattermann and Adee) in the same way. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 16, Gattermann discloses initiating a control action when it is determined that the at least one bearing is experiencing the bearing failure condition (outputting an alarm as described in paras. 0046-0047, 0051, and 0060, and/or displaying output that signifies damage as described in paras. 0053-0054).
Regarding claim 17, Gattermann discloses initiating the control action comprising generating an operator notification (outputting an alarm, which notifies an operator, as described in paras. 0046-0047, 0051, and 0060, and/or displaying output that signifies damage, and thus notifies an operator of damage, as described in paras. 0053-0054).
Regarding claim 18, neither Gattermann nor Adee explicitly discloses automatically controlling an operation of the agricultural implement. However, Harmon teaches initiating a control action when it is determined that at least one bearing (of components which the data generated by sensors 104 and 106 are indicative of, as described in paras. 0028 and 0037) is experiencing a bearing failure condition (being worn or damaged), wherein initiating the control action comprises automatically controlling an operation of an agricultural implement (see paras. 0046-0048 and 0053 and step 208).
Harmon is analogous because Harmon discloses detecting bearing failures of an agricultural implement based on data received from sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the control action as taught by Harmon in order in order to reduces further wear/damage. (See Harmon, para. 0017.)
Regarding claim 22, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 11, Harmon teaches identifying one of the first bearing or the second bearing (components which the data generated by the sensors are indicative of, as described in paras. 0028 and 0037) of the shaft assembly is experiencing the bearing failure condition (being worn or damaged) when the parameter differential exceeds (differs by and thus exceeds) the predetermined differential threshold ("a predetermined amount" as set forth in paras. 0039-0045 and 0052 and in step 206).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gattermann in view of Adee in view of Harmon as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Monahan et al. (US 5,677,488)
Regarding claim 19, neither Gattermann, Adee, nor Harmon explicitly discloses directly monitoring vibrations transmitted through at least a portion of the shaft assembly. However, Monahan teaches a method for detecting bearing failures comprising monitoring a bearing-related parameter (as shown in Fig. 9) by monitoring vibrations (with "a vibration sensor" as depicted in Figs. 1, 3, 7, and 8; see col. 2, line 45 - col. 3, line 7) transmitted through at least a portion of a shaft assembly (including 31 and/or 35).
Monahan is analogous because Monahan discloses detecting bearing failures comprising monitoring a bearing-related parameter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with vibration monitoring as taught by Monahan in order to sense physical change caused by traveling pressure wave. (See Monahan, col. 4, lines 5-19.)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gattermann in view of Adee in view of Harmon as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Yamashita et al. (US 10,697,854)
Regarding claim 20, neither Gattermann, Adee, nor Harmon explicitly discloses directly monitoring strain applied through at least a portion of the shaft assembly. However, Yamashita teaches a method for detecting bearing failures comprising monitoring a bearing-related parameter by monitoring strain (with 8a-8h) applied through at least a portion of a shaft assembly (including 3).
Yamashita is analogous because Yamashita discloses a method for detecting bearing failures of a rotating shaft assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with strain monitoring as taught by Yamashita for improved prediction accuracy. (See Yamashita; col. 2, line 35 - col. 3, line 15.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see labeled pp. 7-8, filed 3/3/2026, with respect to the claim objection and § 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection and previous § 112 rejections have been withdrawn. However, amendments to the claims have raised new § 112 issues, which are set forth in the rejection above.
Applicant's other arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the § 101 rejection, Applicant argues: "Without acquiescing to the appropriateness of such rejections, Applicant has amended independent claim 11, thereby rendering such rejections moot. Independent claim 11 has been amended to expressly recite 'performing an agricultural operation within a field using the disc gang assembly of the agricultural implement.' By incorporating this new recitation along with the amendments pertaining to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, Applicant believes that such claim amendments should address the present Section 101 rejections of independent claim 11." (See Remarks of 3/3/2026, labeled p. 7.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because the amended limitation fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception and because the amended limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as explained in the rejection above. Accordingly, the § 101 rejection is maintained as detailed above.
Regarding the § 103 rejections, Applicant argues: "However, neither Gattermann, Harmon, nor any of the other cited references teach or suggest the recitations of the amended independent claims. That is, none of the cited references teach how to identify which bearing is experiencing the bearing failure condition after identifying that one of the first or second bearings is experiencing the bearing failure condition based on a parameter differential. Thus, none of the cited references render the recitations of claim 1 or 11 obvious." (See Remarks of 3/3/2026, labeled p. 9.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because Gattermann teaches identifying (and how to identify) which bearing is experiencing the bearing failure condition (see Gattermann, paras. 0064-0065). Additionally, as set forth with respect to previous claims 6 and 15, Harmon teaches identifying that one of the first or second bearings (components which the data generated by the sensors are indicative of, as described in paras. 0028 and 0037) is experiencing the bearing failure condition (being worn or damaged) based on a parameter differential (see paras. 0039, 0041, and 0052 and step 206).
Further regarding the § 103 rejections, Applicant argues: "Applicant respectfully asserts that for at least the reasons indicated above relating to independent claims 1 and 11, the pending dependent claims patentably define over the references cited. However, the patentability of the dependent claims certainly does not hinge on the patentability of the independent claims. In particular, it is believed that some or all of these claims may possess features that are independently patentable, regardless of the patentability of the independent claims." (See Remarks of 3/3/2026, labeled p. 9.)
First, Applicant's argument that the dependent claims are allowable due to the reasoning argued for claims 1 and 11 is unpersuasive because claims 1 and 11 are not allowable, as explained above. Second, Applicant's argument that some or all of the dependent claims possess features that are independently patentable, regardless of the patentability of the independent claims, does not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because the argument does not clearly point out the patentable novelty which Applicant thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited.
Conclusion
As previously noted in the Non-Final Rejection of 12/4/2025, Lee et al. (US 2022/0178739) also teaches calculating a parameter differential. Sporrer et al. (US 10,754,353) teaches identification of bearing failure conditions of an agricultural implement (see col. 6, lines 6-42), and Dublin et al. (US 5,806,988) and Rall (US 4,063,786) teach systems for detecting bearing failures.
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 Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/JFM/6/10/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights