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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in figure 32A, there is an unlabeled arrow; maybe it is meant to show, with the arrow above it that is labeled θ, an angle; if applicant confirms that this is the case – the two arrows show the angle θ - then this objection will be withdrawn. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Lehman (US 10433482) in view of Kemmerer et al. (US 2022/0000022 hereinafter Kemmerer).
With respect to claim 13, Lehman discloses an agricultural header for use with an agricultural harvester, comprising:
a header frame comprising a first frame assembly and a second frame assembly, the second frame assembly pivotally coupled to the first frame assembly about a fold axis (in figure 15, Lehman discloses a header frame that has a central portion 128 that reads on a first frame assembly and right wing frame section 130R, which reads on a second frame assembly; as shown in figure 7, they can be folded with respect to each other; see also lines 46-54 of column 4);
a first row unit coupled to the first frame assembly (in figure 8, Lehman discloses row units that are attached to the center frame and tucked under the row separators 150 that straddle two row units);
a second row unit coupled to the second frame assembly (in figure 8, Lehman discloses row units that have been turned upside down when the wings were folded up and are now towards the top of folded wing frame 124R);
a point assembly aligned along the fold axis and pivotally coupled to the first frame assembly about a first pivot axis (in figure 8, Lehman discloses row separator cover 158 which is shown as angled along a pivot axis in this figure).
Lehman does not disclose:
a mount body coupled to the first row unit;
a crossbar member comprising a first portion and a second portion, the first portion pivotally coupled to the mount body to pivot about a second pivot axis;
wherein the crossbar member is pivotable about the second pivot axis to pivot between a first position and a second position, where in the first position the second portion of the crossbar member is in contact with the second row unit.
However, Kemmerer et al. disclose an agricultural vehicle with:
a mount body coupled to the first row unit (in figure 6, Kemmerer discloses a pivot hinge on bar 244 that connects to lateral support 218; this hinge assembly reads on a mount body because something can be mounted to it; the successive arms 216, shown in figure 3 correspond to a row unit in that they define different sections of an agricultural header);
a crossbar member comprising a first portion and a second portion, the first portion pivotally coupled to the mount body to pivot about a second pivot axis (in figure 8, Kemmerer discloses lateral support 218, which is attached to the hinge assembly and can thus pivot about an axis);
wherein the crossbar member is pivotable about the second pivot axis to pivot between a first position and a second position, where in the first position the second portion of the crossbar member is in contact with the second row unit (in figure 3 and paragraph 24, Kemmerer discloses that the lateral support is attached to adjacent arms 216; as such, in all positions, the lateral support is in contact with the second row unit).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the header of Lehman with the lateral supports of Kemmerer between row units because each element merely performs the same function that it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be a sturdier row header (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Note that the lateral supports of Kemmerer are described as “configured to support the respective lateral belt, while enabling the arms to rotate about the respective pivot axes relative to the frame” (Kemmerer, paragraph 24). The belts of Kemmerer are superstructure, comparable to the row dividers of Lehman.
With respect to claim 15, Lehman in view of Kemmerer discloses the limitations of claim 13. Lehman in view of Kemmerer does not disclose a biasing member including a first end and a second end, the first end coupled to the first row unit and the second end coupled to the crossbar member.
However, in figures 10 and 11, Lehman discloses a biasing member including a first end and a second end (in figure 10, rod 204 reads on a biasing member), the first end coupled to the first row unit (in figure 10, Lehman discloses one end of rod 204 going into cylinder 204; as can be seen in figure 11, this assembly is connected to the first row unit, at least through its position on the central frame) and the second end coupled to the crossbar member (in the combination of Lehman in view of Kemmerer, a lateral support/crossbar member runs between row units, and the biasing member being added by Lehman discloses supporting parts of the system in the folded position – the lateral support of Kemmerer supports different parts of the header while allowing the different parts to rotate relative to the lateral support).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the biasing member of Lehman with the lateral supports of Kemmerer between row units because each element merely performs the same function that it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be another actuator to support the raising of the wing frames (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
With respect to claim 16, Lehman in view of Kemmerer discloses the limitations of claim 15. Lehman in view of Kemmerer further discloses the biasing member is configured to bias the crossbar member to pivot about the second pivot axis towards the second position (the combination of Lehman and Kemmerer discloses a lateral support that is connected to adjacent row units; when combined with the biasing unit as in the treatment of claim 15, the combination of references discloses the biasing unit pushing or pulling the lateral support into the second position when the wing frame is folded up, as shown in figure 11 of Lehman).
With respect to claim 17, Lehman in view of Kemmerer discloses the limitations of claim 13. Lehman in view of Kemmerer further discloses as the point assembly pivots about the first pivot axis from a work position to a transport position, the crossbar member is biased to pivot about the second pivot axis from the first position to the second position (the combination of Lehman in view of Kemmerer discloses the point assembly 158 pivoting in a partial barrel roll, as shown best in figure 8 of Lehman – this reads on a point assembly pivoting about a pivot axis from a work to a transport position; in the combination, Kemmerer teaches a lateral support that extends from one row assembly to the next – in the context of the positioning of figure 8 in Lehman, this lateral support will have pivoted from a first working position to a second transport position).
With respect to claim 18, Lehman in view of Kemmerer discloses the limitations of claim 17. Lehman in view of Kemmerer further discloses as the point assembly pivots about the first pivot axis from the transport position to the work position, the crossbar member is engaged by the point assembly to pivot about the second pivot axis from the second position to the first position (in the combination of references, the lateral support is disclosed as being attached to two row units; if the snout 158 or point assembly rotates, the connections in the combination system will engage the lateral support and rotate it - this physical linkage reads on the point assembly engaging the lateral support/crossbar member, even if it is not through direct contact).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12, 19, and 20 are allowed.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art neither shows nor renders obvious that a crossbar that is attached to a first row unit will sometimes be in contact with a second row unit and other times not in contact with that second row unit.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schroeder et al. (US 10820509) discloses a corn head with foldable wings in figure 8. Hunt et al. (US 2020/0359562) discloses an articulating header with a latch 402 that can be detached from one of the frame portions in some situations, as shown in figure 4; note that the latch is attached to part of the frame 206 or 202 and not to a row unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS JAMES MEISLAHN whose telephone number is (703)756-1925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 EST M-Th, M-F.
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 at (571) 272-8971. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS J MEISLAHN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671