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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc.
In this case the “invention” and “preferred” should be removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OHARA KENJI (JP 2009171851, cited by applicant).
It should be noted that the recitation “for," "configured to” etc. is considered as merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Since it is the language itself of the claims which must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention, without limitations imported from the specification, whether such language is couched in terms of means plus function or consists of a detailed recitation of the inventive matter. Limitations in the specification not included in the claim may not be relied upon to impart patentability to an otherwise unpatentable claim. In re Lundberg, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957).
“1 and 2 show a general-purpose combiner as a combine A provided with a threshing / sorting device according to the present embodiment, and the combine A is provided with a pair of left and right crawler type traveling units 3 at the lower part of the body 1. At the same time, the cutting unit 2 is attached to the front edge of the machine body 1 through a feeder house 4 serving as a transport unit, and the threshing unit 5 is disposed immediately after the feeder house 4.”
“The invention according to claim 2 is provided with load detection means for detecting the load of the electric motor generated at the time of harvesting the cereal, and the vehicle speed of the machine is determined according to the load of the electric motor detected by the load detection means.”
1. An Electrical Drive and Control System for Agricultural Platform (21) configured to drive and control mobile elements of the platform responsible for cutting, collecting and transferring crop to a combine harvester,
wherein the platform comprises:
a generator (alternator/generator 72);
a control module (100);
a speed sensor (teaches above detecting the speed, the speed sensor is also determined from the current flow detector 155-158, step S706); and
a plurality of electric motors (101-104).
“That is, an electric motor is connected to each drive unit of a scraping reel, a cutting blade, a platform auger, and a feeder house conveyor as each drive unit, and each drive unit is individually driven.”
6. The system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of electric motors drive the operation of the mobile elements of the platform responsible for performing the cutting, collection and transfer of the crop to the combine harvester (see quote above).
8. The system according to claim 6, wherein the plurality of electric motors comprises a central conveyor belt motor (at feeder conveyor) installed in the platform and drives the operation of the central conveyor belt (see quote above).
9. The system (1) according to claim 6, wherein the plurality of electric motors comprises an auger motor (see quote above) installed in the platform and drives the operation of the auger (see quote above).
10. The system (1) according to claim 6, wherein the plurality of electric motors comprises cutting system motors (see quote above) installed on the platform and drive the operation of the cutting system (see quote above).
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OHARA KENJI (JP 2009171851, cited by applicant), in view of Flintoft et al (2019/0183048).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
OHARA KENJI teaches the claimed invention, except as noted:
5. The system according to claim 1, wherein the speed sensor is attached to the platform, senses the platform displacement speed during crop harvesting and provides this information to the control module (already addressed above the vehicle speed, i.e. header/platform speed is detected, however the attachment to the platform is not clearly shown).
Flintoft ‘048 teaches a header speed sensor on the header (ref 78; par. 79).
“… receive input from one or more speed sensors associated with the header such that the header drive demand value corresponds to a header speed of the at least one header drive motor.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the speed sensor of OHARA KENJI with the teachings of Flintoft, with a reasonable expectation of success since arrangement of parts, i.e. a dedicated sensor, is within the skill of one in the art, in particular the front part, such as the header, creates a more accurate detection.
3. The system according to claim 1, wherein the control module receives information about a displacement speed of the platform from the speed sensor, controls an operating speed of the plurality of electric motors, electrically powers the plurality of electric motors, is attached to the platform and is electrically powered by the generator (taught in the combination, it is obvious is the reverse control, i.e. the speed sensor acts as a control for the various motors).
“That is, an electric motor is connected to each drive unit of a scraping reel, a cutting blade, a platform auger, and a feeder house conveyor as each drive unit, and each drive unit is individually driven.” (OHARA KENJI)
4. The system according to claim 3, wherein the control module controls each of the plurality of electric motor individually (taught in the combination, see quote).
Claim(s) 2, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OHARA KENJI (JP 2009171851, cited by applicant), in view of Engel (2019/0104685).
OHARA KENJI teaches the claimed invention, except as noted:
2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the generator is connected to a transmission shaft of the combine harvester feed channel (not shown), transforms the mechanical energy provided by the transmission shaft into electrical energy and transmits the electrical energy generated for the control module.
Engel teaches a draper a harvester (par. 15), feederhouse (18) with a backshaft (101) to generate electrical power from the rotation of the backshaft (par. 17).
“[0004] Various implementations described herein provide for increased intelligence, capability, and customizability of a header by providing an electrical power source on the header itself. In particular, an alternator mounted on the header converts mechanical power from the rotating backshaft into electrical power that can be used to power one or more electrical devices positions on the header.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the electric generator of OHARA KENJI with the teachings of Engel, with a reasonable expectation of success since the arrangement is within one skilled in the art and more readily generate electricity where it would used, without extensive wiring.
7. The system according to claim 6, wherein the plurality of electric motors comprises motors of a side conveyor belts are installed in the platform and drive the operation of the side conveyor belts (taught in the combination, see Engel, draper header which obviously include a side conveyor motor).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Roberge (2013/0152535) teaches speed control of the cutter motors in response to sensed conditions (par. 32, 34, 36).
Kraus et al (2022/0232775) teaches an electric generator (182), electric motors (78, 80) for a cutter assembly, speed sensors (198), and an electric control system (180) that controls operations of the electric motors of the cutter assembly (par. 55-60).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6990. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Rocca can be reached on (571) 272-8971. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit 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.
/ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671