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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on May 11, 2026. Claims 1, and 9 have been amended. Claim 8 has been canceled. Claims 14 and 15 have been added. Claims 1-7, and 9-15 are pending and examined below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed April 2, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claim 1, Applicant argues the cited art of record fails to explicitly disclose all of the features of claim 1, as presently amended to include subject matter previously presented in now-canceled claim 8, specifically, first, second, and third derivatives as claimed. Applicant argues the cited art fails to explicitly disclose a series of derivatives including a third order derivative.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to argue a more narrow interpretation of the claims than what is actually claimed, notably, the claims do not require a series of derivatives but rather three different derivatives all based on the same change in header position. There is no serial interdependence of each derivative in the claims as argued.
Additionally, the combination of prior art references renders obvious the claimed invention of claim 1 because, in relevant part, the primary reference, Garbald explicitly discloses using first and second order derivatives (velocity, and acceleration) to identify the movement of a work machine implement, and Weidenbach teaches it is well-known and routine in the work machine implement control arts to determine rates of change for various characteristics indicative of work machine implement movement. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily and unquestionably recognize that derivatives are simply rates of change like the velocity and acceleration values derived in Garbald. Rates of change can be performed an infinite number of times, i.e., first order, second order, etc. Weidenbach is simply relied upon to teach it is well-known and routine in the work machine implement control arts to consider rates of change for movement values, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily and unquestionably recognize can include any number of orders, including third orders.
Examiner notes the same arguments apply to independent claim 9.
For at least the above reasons, independent claims 1 and 9 are obvious in view of the cited art of record.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garbald et al., US 20200077585 A1, in view of Weidenbach et al., US 20200029484 A1, hereinafter referred to as Garbald, and Weidenbach, respectively.
As to claim 1, Garbald discloses a method of operating a header float control system of an agricultural vehicle having a header movably mounted to a chassis by an actuator, the method comprising:
setting a desired ground reaction force between the header and a ground surface located below the header, wherein the headers is in contact with the ground surface (Predetermined lifting force - Abstract);
detecting a change in a position of the header relative to the chassis caused by a change in a contour of the ground surface in contact with the header (Position sensor – See at least Abstract);
calculating a velocity, an acceleration, and a change in the acceleration for the change in the position of the header relative to the chassis (Indication of movement and/or acceleration – See at least Abstract; Velocity and acceleration – See at least ¶17; Examiners notes as the sensor continuously operates it necessarily detects changes in acceleration.); and
adjusting a lift pressure of the actuator in response to the change in the acceleration being greater or less than zero, wherein the lift pressure of the actuator is adjusted in proportion to the change in the acceleration for the change in the position of the header relative to the chassis to maintain the desired ground reaction force (Assembly engaged using hydraulic pressure – See at least ¶20; Vary lifting force in response to changes in sensor signal indicative of movement/acceleration – See at least Abstract and ¶17; PID controller – See at least ¶114 and Fig. 5; Examiner notes PID control necessarily includes a proportion.)
wherein,
the velocity is calculated as a first derivative of the change in the position of the header relative to the chassis (Derive velocity from position sensor – See at least ¶85; Examiner notes velocity is fundamentally a derivative of position.), and
the acceleration is calculated as a second derivative of the change in the position of the header relative to the chassis (Derive acceleration from position sensor – See at least ¶85; Examiner notes acceleration is fundamentally a derivative of velocity.).
Garbald fails to explicitly disclose the change in the acceleration is calculated as a third derivative of the change in the position of the header relative to the chassis. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Garbald and include the feature of the change in the acceleration is calculated as a third derivative of the change in the position of the header relative to the chassis, as taught by Weidenbach, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Weidenbach teaches it is well-known and routine in the work machine implement control arts to determine rates of change for various characteristics indicative of work machine implement movement (See at least ¶82 of Weidenbach). A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily and unquestionably recognize that derivatives are simply rates of change like the velocity and acceleration values derived in Garbald. Rates of change can be performed an infinite number of times, i.e., first order, second order, etc. Weidenbach teaches it is well-known and routine in the work machine implement control arts to consider rates of change for movement values, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily and unquestionably recognize can include any number of orders, including third orders.
Independent claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because they claims recite nearly identical subject matter but for minor differences due to the claims being directed to different statutory classed of invention.
As to claim 2, Garbald discloses setting the desired ground reaction force includes receiving a selection of an adjustable value for the desired ground reaction force (Operator input as necessary to control system – See at least ¶86).
As to claim 3, Garbald discloses detecting the change in the position of the header relative to the chassis includes detecting a change in the position of the actuator (Indication of movement and/or acceleration – See at least Abstract).
As to claim 4, Garbald discloses the actuator comprises a hydraulic actuator, and the adjusting the lift pressure of the actuator includes adjusting an operating pressure of the hydraulic actuator (Hydraulics – See at least Abstract; Pressure – See at least ¶20).
As to claims 5, and 12, Garbald discloses changing an output pressure of a pressure reducing valve operatively connected to the hydraulic actuator (Pressure reducing valve – See at least ¶40).
As to claims 6, and 11, Garbald discloses the operating pressure of the hydraulic actuator is increased to maintain the desired ground reaction force in response to the change in the acceleration being greater than zero (Apply hydraulic pressure based on upward or downward acceleration – See at least ¶87-89).
As to claim 7, Garbald discloses the operating pressure of the hydraulic actuator is decreased to maintain the desired ground reaction force in response to the change in the acceleration being less than zero (Apply hydraulic pressure based on upward or downward acceleration – See at least ¶87-89).
As to claim 10, Garbald discloses a user interface configured to receive a selection of an adjustable value for the desired ground reaction force (Operator input as necessary to control system – See at least ¶86).
As to claim 13, Garbald discloses each support member of the one or more support members comprises a skid shoe pivotally mounted to the header (Skid plate – See at least ¶73 and Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights