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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/19/2025. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1, 3-9, 11, and 15-17 are amended. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1 and 3-21 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/19/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 1-3, 4-5, 8-14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 20210137002 A1, hereinafter “Dunn”, in view of EP 0506722 B1, hereinafter “Bald”.
Regarding claim 1, Dunn, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses An agricultural system (See [0007], the invention is a crop cutting apparatus, i.e. an agricultural system.), comprising:
a cutter bar assembly comprising a first knife section and a second knife section (See [0007]-[0012], the system comprises a subsystem of cutter bars and sickle bars, i.e. a cutter bar assembly. The first and second sickle bars have a plurality of knife blades mounted on them, i.e. there is a first and second knife section.);
a drive system associated with the cutter bar assembly and comprising a first drive assembly that drives movement of the first knife section and a second drive assembly that drives movement of the second knife section (See Fig. 1, [0042], and [0054], the two sickle bars, which comprise the first and second knife sections, are driven by separate drive motors and therefore separate drive assemblies.); and
a controller, wherein the controller: receives signals indicative of a relative phase between the first drive assembly and the second drive assembly (See [0027]-[0030], the phase control system counts sensor signals corresponding to each drive system and compares them. The comparison is used to determine that the number of signals is substantially equal at the selected phase angle difference, i.e. the signals are indicative of a relative phase between the drive assemblies.); and
provides control signals to adjust the relative phase between the first drive assembly and the second drive assembly to maintain the relative phase at a target relative phase (See [0030]-[0031], the system carries out corrective measures if it observes a discrepancy indicating the required phase angle is not being maintained. See [0029], the system comprises a drive connection operable to change the phase angle differences. Examiner asserts that the drive connection necessarily provides a control signal to adjust the relative phase at the target relative phase.).
Dunn does not explicitly disclose receives signals indicative of a respective pressure drop across a first motor of the first drive assembly and a respective pressure drop across a second motor of the second drive assembly or determines a relative phase between the first drive assembly and the second drive assembly based on the respective pressure drop across the first motor and the respective pressure drop across the second motor.
Bald renders obvious receives signals indicative of a respective pressure drop across a first motor of the first drive assembly and a respective pressure drop across a second motor of the second drive assembly (See Abstract and page 1 paragraph 6-page 2 paragraph 1, the invention is directed towards the control of rotation of two masses by motors in order to control the vibration of a body. Rotation is also a form of oscillation. See Fig. 1 and page 3 paragraph 12-15, the relative setting angle β refers to a constant difference in position of two rotating bodies relative to a reference access. The relative setting angle therefore defines a constant phase between the rotation of the two objects. The objects are rotated by two hydraulic motors. See page 7 paragraph 2-5, the relative setting angle and therefore phase between the two rotating bodies is set. A volume flow of pressurized fluid adapted for control of the angle drives the two hydraulic motors to rotate the bodies. See page 5 paragraph 5-7, the control loop of the invention requires a signal corresponding to the quantity used to control the relative adjusting angle β, i.e. the relative setting angle. This also means that the controlled physical quantity is compared to a value necessary for a desired relative setting angle, i.e. phase, meaning that the measurement signal indicates a phase. This also means that the quantity is necessarily measured by appropriate sensors, i.e. pressure sensors. See page 13 paragraph 4 and 7, the relative adjustment angle is determinable by adjusting a corresponding pressure differential between motor input and output, i.e. pressure drop. The apparatus can be operated using adjustment of the pressure differential using a single motor, indicating that the pressure differential can correspond to the input and output of a single motor, i.e. is pressure drop.); and
determines a relative phase between the first drive assembly and the second drive assembly based on the respective pressure drop across the first motor and the respective pressure drop across the second motor (See Abstract and page 1 paragraph 6-page 2 paragraph 1, the invention is directed towards the control of rotation of two masses by motors in order to control the vibration of a body. Rotation is also a form of oscillation. See Fig. 1 and page 3 paragraph 12-15, the relative setting angle β refers to a constant difference in position of two rotating bodies relative to a reference access. The relative setting angle therefore defines a constant phase between the rotation of the two objects. The objects are rotated by two hydraulic motors. See page 7 paragraph 2-5, the relative setting angle and therefore phase between the two rotating bodies is set. A volume flow of pressurized fluid adapted for control of the angle drives the two hydraulic motors to rotate the bodies. See page 5 paragraph 5-7, the control loop of the invention requires a signal corresponding to the quantity used to control the relative adjusting angle β, i.e. the relative setting angle. This also means that the controlled physical quantity is compared to a value necessary for a desired relative setting angle, i.e. phase, meaning that the measurement signal indicates a phase. This also means that the quantity is necessarily measured by appropriate sensors, i.e. pressure sensors. See page 13 paragraph 4 and 7, the relative adjustment angle is determinable by adjusting a corresponding pressure differential between motor input and output, i.e. pressure drop. The apparatus can be operated using adjustment of the pressure differential using a single motor, indicating that the pressure differential can correspond to the input and output of a single motor, i.e. is pressure drop. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, with a reasonable chance of success, to try using both methods of determining the phase difference simultaneously.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for controlling the phases of oscillating knife assemblies on an agricultural vehicle disclosed by Dunn to include the use of hydraulic motors and manipulation of the pressure drop, including measurement of the pressure drop to determine phase between the oscillating objects of Bald. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control vibrations of the agricultural vehicle caused by oscillation of the knife sections, as suggested by Bald at page 1 paragraph 1-4.
Regarding claim 3, Dunn combined with Bald renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Bald further discloses comprising a first pressure sensor positioned upstream of the first motor and a second pressure sensor positioned downstream of the first motor, wherein the signals from the first pressure sensor and the second pressure are indicative of the respective pressure drop across the first motor (See page 5 paragraph 5-7, the control loop of the invention requires a signal corresponding to the quantity used to control the relative adjusting angle β, i.e. the relative setting angle. This also means that the controlled physical quantity is compared to a value necessary for a desired relative setting angle, i.e. phase, meaning that the measurement signal indicates a phase. See page 13 paragraph 4 and 7, the relative adjustment angle is determinable by adjusting a corresponding pressure differential between motor input and output, i.e. pressure drop. The apparatus can be operated using adjustment of the pressure differential using a single motor, indicating that the pressure differential can correspond to the input and output of a single motor, i.e. is pressure drop. Measuring the pressure difference is necessarily achieved by measuring the pressure with first and second sensors upstream and downstream of the motor, respectively.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for controlling the phases of oscillating knife assemblies on an agricultural vehicle disclosed by Dunn to include the use of hydraulic motors and manipulation of the pressure drop, including measurement of the pressure drop to determine phase between the oscillating objects of Bald. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control vibrations of the agricultural vehicle caused by oscillation of the knife sections, as suggested by Bald at page 1 paragraph 1-4.
Regarding claim 4, Dunn combined with Bald renders obvious the limitations of claim 3. Bald further discloses comprising a third pressure sensor positioned upstream of the second motor and a fourth pressure sensor positioned downstream of the second motor, wherein the signals from the third pressure sensor and the fourth pressure are indicative of the respective pressure drop across the second motor (See page 5 paragraph 5-7, the control loop of the invention requires a signal corresponding to the quantity used to control the relative adjusting angle β, i.e. the relative setting angle. This also means that the controlled physical quantity is compared to a value necessary for a desired relative setting angle, i.e. phase, meaning that the measurement signal indicates a phase. See page 13 paragraph 4 and 7, the relative adjustment angle is determinable by adjusting a corresponding pressure differential between motor input and output, i.e. pressure drop. The apparatus can be operated using adjustment of the pressure differential using a single motor, indicating that the pressure differential can correspond to the input and output of a single motor, i.e. is pressure drop. See Fig. 1 and page 3 paragraph 12-15, the relative setting angle β refers to a constant difference in position of two rotating bodies relative to a reference access. The relative setting angle therefore defines a constant phase between the rotation of the two objects. The objects are rotated by two hydraulic motors. Measuring the pressure difference is necessarily achieved by measuring the pressure with third and fourth sensors upstream and downstream of a second motor.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for controlling the phases of oscillating knife assemblies on an agricultural vehicle disclosed by Dunn to include the use of hydraulic motors and manipulation of the pressure drop, including measurement of the pressure drop to determine phase between the oscillating objects and use of two hydraulic motors, of Bald. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control vibrations of the agricultural vehicle caused by oscillation of the knife sections, as suggested by Bald at page 1 paragraph 1-4.
Regarding claim 5, Dunn combined with Bald renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Dunn renders obvious first pulse sensor that detects a single pulse per rotation of the first motor and a second pulse sensor that detects a single pulse per rotation of the second motor, wherein the controller determines the relative phase between the first drive assembly and the second drive assembly based on the respective pressure drop across the first motor, the respective pressure drop across the second motor, the single pulse per rotation of the first motor, and the single pulse per rotation of the second motor (See [0027]-[0028], the system drives two sickle bars with two hydraulic motors. See [0029]-[0035], the system comprises sensors that count pulses corresponding to oscillations of two sickle bars and therefore rotations of the corresponding motors. Markers can be placed on rotating members and counted as they pass a stationary sensor, i.e. a first and second pulse sensor. Individual markers each providing a signal can be mounted on the members, i.e. provide a signal corresponding to a single pulse per oscillation. See [0063], the movement of the sickle bar corresponds to a single rotation of the drive wheel, i.e. the motor. The counted pulses are used to determine whether the desired phase angle, i.e. relative phase, is maintained. See [0027], a plurality of sensor signals can be used to determine the phase angle of the controlled drive system. See [0021]-[0024], sensed load to the drive system is detected by pressure changes in the drive circuit. This detection is used to determine if crop is being cut. Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to use both the pulse counting of Dunn and pressure drops of Bald in determining the phase between sickle bars.).
Regarding claim 8, Dunn combined with Bald renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Dunn further discloses comprising a bypass valve, wherein the controller provides the control signals to adjust the bypass valve from a closed position to an open position slow the first motor of the first drive assembly to adjust the relative phase between the first drive assembly and the second drive assembly to maintain the relative phase at the target relative phase (See [0028], the system comprises valves, i.e. bypass valves, operative to discharge fluid under pressure that can be used to retard, i.e. slow, the motor in order to adjust the phase angle difference. Examiner asserts that this necessarily occurs by adjusting the valve from a closed to open position. The control device, i.e. controller, comprises the assembly. Examiner asserts that signals are necessarily sent to adjust the bypass valves in order to adjust them to reach a targeted phase angle.).
Regarding claim 9, Dunn combined with Bald renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Dunn further discloses wherein the first knife section comprises a first knife bar that supports a plurality of first knives that cuts plants to form cut crops, and the second knife section comprises a second knife bar that supports a plurality of second knives that cuts the plants to form the cut crops (See [0001], the invention is used in a crop cutter. See [0007]-[0012], the system comprises a subsystem of cutter bars and sickle bars, i.e. a cutter bar assembly. The first and second sickle bars have a plurality of knife blades mounted on them. See [0018], the sickle bars are used to cut the crops.).
Regarding claim 10, Dunn combined with Bald renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Dunn further discloses wherein the first knife section and the second knife section extend laterally across a header of the agricultural system (See Abtract, the cutting system is mounted on a header. See [0061], the sickle bars, and therefore the corresponding knife sections they comprise, extend transversely, i.e. laterally.).
Regarding claim 11, Dunn combined with Bald renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Dunn further discloses wherein the controller is maintains the relative phase at the target relative phase without receiving a known, initial relative phase at start-up (See [0037], the system can operate at start-up with an initial position of the sickle bars but without a synchronized relationship, i.e. without a known initial phase.).
Regarding claim 12, Dunn combined with Bald renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Dunn further discloses wherein a first motor of the first drive assembly and a second motor of the second drive assembly are in series (See [0028], the first and second drive systems, i.e. assemblies, comprise respective first and second hydraulic motors connected in series.).
Regarding claim 13, Dunn combined with Bald renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Dunn further discloses wherein the first drive assembly and the second drive assembly are positioned on opposite lateral sides of the cutter bar assembly (See Fig. 2, [0044], and [0062]-[0063], the first and second drive systems 36 and 37 are positioned at opposite lateral sides of the sickle bar synchronization system. See [0053], Fig. 2 shows the blades 23 and sickle bar 24. Examiner asserts that Fig. 2 therefore shows first and second assemblies positioned on opposite lateral sides of the cutter bar assembly.).
Regarding claim 14, Dunn combined with Bald renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Dunn further discloses wherein the controller adjusts the target relative phase based on conditions, operator input, or both (See [0017], the system runs the two knives in different phases, i.e. changes the target relative phase, depending on whether the apparatus is cutting or not cutting. This is a condition.).
Regarding claim 16, Dunn, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses An agricultural system, comprising (See [0007], the invention is a crop cutting apparatus, i.e. an agricultural system.):
a controller (See [0027]-[0030], the phase control system counts sensor signals corresponding to each drive system and compares them, i.e. is a controller.), wherein the controller:
receives signals (See [0027]-[0030], the phase control system counts sensor signals corresponding to each drive system and compares them. The comparison is used to determine that the number of signals is substantially equal at the selected phase angle difference, i.e. the signals are indicative of a relative phase between the drive assemblies.);
monitors a first drive assembly for a first knife section of a cutter bar assembly (See [0027]-[0030], the phase control system counts sensor signals corresponding to each drive system and compares them. This comprises monitoring the first drive assembly for the first knife section of the cutter bar assembly.);
monitors a second motor of a second drive assembly for a second knife section of the cutter bar assembly (See [0027]-[0030], the phase control system counts sensor signals corresponding to each drive system and compares them. This comprises monitoring the second drive assembly for the second knife section of the cutter bar assembly.);
determines a relative phase between the first motor and the second motor (See [0027]-[0030], the phase control system counts sensor signals corresponding to each drive system and compares them. The comparison is used to determine that the number of signals is substantially equal at the selected phase angle difference, i.e. the signals are used to determine a relative phase between the drive assemblies.); and
provides control signals to adjust the relative phase between the first motor and the second motor to maintain the relative phase at a target relative phase (See [0030]-[0031], the system carries out corrective measures if it observes a discrepancy indicating the required phase angle is not being maintained. See [0029], the system comprises a drive connection operable to change the phase angle differences. Examiner asserts that the drive connection necessarily provides a control signal to adjust the relative phase at the target relative phase.).
Dunn does not explicitly disclose a plurality of pressure sensors, a first pressure drop across a first motor, a second pressure drop across a second motor, based on the pressure signals, or based on the first pressure drop and the second pressure drop.
Bald, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious a plurality of pressure sensors (See page 5 paragraph 5-7, the control loop of the invention requires a signal corresponding to the quantity used to control the relative adjusting angle β, i.e. the relative setting angle. See page 13 paragraph 4 and 7, the relative adjustment angle is determinable by adjusting a corresponding pressure differential between motor input and output, i.e. pressure drop. The apparatus can be operated using adjustment of the pressure differential using a single motor, indicating that the pressure differential can correspond to the input and output of a single motor, i.e. is pressure drop. Measuring the pressure difference is necessarily achieved by measuring the pressure with a plurality of sensors.);
a first pressure drop across a first motor (See page 5 paragraph 5-7, the control loop of the invention requires a signal corresponding to the quantity used to control the relative adjusting angle β, i.e. the relative setting angle. See page 13 paragraph 4 and 7, the relative adjustment angle is determinable by adjusting a corresponding pressure differential between motor input and output, i.e. pressure drop. The apparatus can be operated using adjustment of the pressure differential using a single motor, indicating that the pressure differential can correspond to the input and output of a single motor, i.e. is pressure drop.);
a second pressure drop across a second motor, based on the pressure signals (See page 5 paragraph 5-7, the control loop of the invention requires a signal corresponding to the quantity used to control the relative adjusting angle β, i.e. the relative setting angle. See page 13 paragraph 4 and 7, the relative adjustment angle is determinable by adjusting a corresponding pressure differential between motor input and output, i.e. pressure drop. The apparatus can be operated using adjustment of the pressure differential using a single motor, indicating that the pressure differential can correspond to the input and output of a single motor, i.e. is pressure drop.); and
based on the first pressure drop and the second pressure drop (See Abstract and page 1 paragraph 6-page 2 paragraph 1, the invention is directed towards the control of rotation of two masses by motors in order to control the vibration of a body. See Fig. 1 and page 3 paragraph 12-15, the relative setting angle β refers to a constant difference in position of two rotating bodies relative to a reference access. The relative setting angle therefore defines a constant phase between the rotation of the two objects. The objects are rotated by two hydraulic motors. See page 7 paragraph 2-5, the relative setting angle and therefore phase between the two rotating bodies is set. A volume flow of pressurized fluid adapted for control of the angle drives the two hydraulic motors to rotate the bodies. See page 5 paragraph 5-7, the control loop of the invention requires a signal corresponding to the quantity used to control the relative adjusting angle β, i.e. the relative setting angle. This also means that the controlled physical quantity is compared to a value necessary for a desired relative setting angle, i.e. phase, meaning that the measurement signal indicates a phase. See page 13 paragraph 4 and 7, the relative adjustment angle is determinable by adjusting a corresponding pressure differential between motor input and output, i.e. pressure drop. The apparatus can be operated using adjustment of the pressure differential using a single motor, indicating that the pressure differential can correspond to the input and output of a single motor, i.e. is pressure drop at each motor.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for controlling the phases of oscillating knife assemblies on an agricultural vehicle disclosed by Dunn to include the use of hydraulic motors and manipulation of the pressure drop, including measurement of the pressure drop to determine phase between the oscillating objects of Bald. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control vibrations of the agricultural vehicle caused by oscillation of the knife sections, as suggested by Bald at page 1 paragraph 1-4.
Regarding claim 17, Dunn combined with Bald renders obvious the limitations of claim 16. Dunn further discloses receives additional signals from one or more additional sensors (See See [0029]-[0035], the system comprises sensors that count pulses corresponding to oscillations of two sickle bars and the corresponding motors. Individual markers each providing a signal can be mounted on the members. The sensors provide signals.); and
determines the relative phase between the first motor and the second motor based on the additional signals (See [0027]-[0028], the system drives two sickle bars with two hydraulic motors. See [0029]-[0035], the system comprises sensors that count pulses corresponding to oscillations of two sickle bars and therefore the corresponding motors. Markers can be placed on rotating members and counted as they pass a stationary sensor, i.e. a first and second pulse sensor. Individual markers each providing a signal can be mounted on the members. See [0063], each cycle of movement of the sickle bars corresponds to one rotation of the drive wheel, i.e. the motor. The counted pulses are used to determine whether the desired phase angle, i.e. relative phase, is maintained. See [0027], a plurality of sensor signals can be used to determine the phase angle of the controlled drive system. See [0021]-[0024], sensed load to the drive system is detected by pressure changes in the drive circuit. This detection is used to determine if crop is being cut. Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to use both the pulse counting of Dunn and pressure drops of Bald in determining the phase between sickle bars.).
Bald renders obvious determine the relative phase between the first motor and the second motor based on the first pressure drop, the second pressure drop (See Abstract and page 1 paragraph 6-page 2 paragraph 1, the invention is directed towards the control of rotation of two masses by motors in order to control the vibration of a body. See Fig. 1 and page 3 paragraph 12-15, the relative setting angle β refers to a constant difference in position of two rotating bodies relative to a reference access. The relative setting angle therefore defines a constant phase between the rotation of the two objects. The objects are rotated by two hydraulic motors. See page 7 paragraph 2-5, the relative setting angle and therefore phase between the two rotating bodies is set. A volume flow of pressurized fluid adapted for control of the angle drives the two hydraulic motors to rotate the bodies. See page 5 paragraph 5-7, the control loop of the invention requires a signal corresponding to the quantity used to control the relative adjusting angle β, i.e. the relative setting angle. This also means that the controlled physical quantity is compared to a value necessary for a desired relative setting angle, i.e. phase, meaning that the measurement signal indicates a phase. See page 13 paragraph 4 and 7, the relative adjustment angle is determinable by adjusting a corresponding pressure differential between motor input and output, i.e. pressure drop. The apparatus can be operated using adjustment of the pressure differential using a single motor, indicating that the pressure differential can correspond to the input and output of a single motor, i.e. is pressure drop corresponding to each motor.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for controlling the phases of oscillating knife assemblies on an agricultural vehicle disclosed by Dunn to include the use of hydraulic motors and manipulation of the pressure drop, including measurement of the pressure drop to determine phase between the oscillating objects, in combination with the methods of phase measurement already used, as suggested by Bald. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control vibrations of the agricultural vehicle caused by oscillation of the knife sections, as suggested by Bald at page 1 paragraph 1-4.
Regarding claim 18, Dunn combined with Bald renders obvious the limitations of claim 17. Dunn further discloses wherein the additional signals are indicative of occurrences of the first knife section reaching a respective first end stop and the second knife section reaching a respective first end stop (See Fig. 1 and [0049]-[0054], the cutting device comprises a guard bar, itself comprising a plurality of knife guards, i.e. first end stops. The sickle bars are driven to reciprocate, i.e. move, between guard bars. This means that the knife sections have specific points the reciprocating motion ends at, i.e. end stops.).
Regarding claim 20, Dunn, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses A method of operating an agricultural system, the method comprising (See [0007], the invention is a crop cutting apparatus, i.e. an agricultural system.):
receiving, at a controller, signals (See [0027]-[0030], the phase control system counts sensor signals corresponding to each drive system and compares them, i.e. is a controller. The phase control system counts sensor signals corresponding to each drive system and compares them. The comparison is used to determine that the number of signals is substantially equal at the selected phase angle difference, i.e. the signals are indicative of a relative phase between the drive assemblies.);
monitoring a first drive assembly for a first knife section of a cutter bar assembly (See [0027]-[0030], the phase control system counts sensor signals corresponding to each drive system and compares them. This comprises monitoring the first drive assembly for the first knife section of the cutter bar assembly.);
monitoring a second motor of a second drive assembly for a second knife section of the cutter bar assembly (See [0027]-[0030], the phase control system counts sensor signals corresponding to each drive system and compares them. This comprises monitoring the second drive assembly for the second knife section of the cutter bar assembly.);
determining, using the controller, a relative phase between the first motor and the second motor based on the signals (See [0027]-[0030], the phase control system counts sensor signals corresponding to each drive system and compares them. The comparison is used to determine that the number of signals is substantially equal at the selected phase angle difference, i.e. the signals are used to determine a relative phase between the drive assemblies.); and
providing, using the controller, control signals to adjust the relative phase between the first motor and the second motor to maintain the relative phase at a target relative phase (See [0030]-[0031], the system carries out corrective measures if it observes a discrepancy indicating the required phase angle is not being maintained. See [0029], the system comprises a drive connection operable to change the phase angle differences. Examiner asserts that the drive connection necessarily provides a control signal to adjust the relative phase at the target relative phase.).
Dunn does not explicitly disclose signals indicative of a respective pressure drop across a first motor of a first drive assembly for a first knife section of a cutter bar assembly and indicative of a respective pressure drop across a second motor of a second drive assembly for a second knife section of the cutter bar assembly, or based on the respective pressure drop across the first motor and the respective pressure drop across the second motor.
Bald, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious signals indicative of a respective pressure drop across a first motor of a first drive assembly for a first knife section of a cutter bar assembly and indicative of a respective pressure drop across a second motor of a second drive assembly for a second knife section of the cutter bar assembly (See Abstract and page 1 paragraph 6-page 2 paragraph 1, the invention is directed towards the control of rotation of two masses by motors in order to control the vibration of a body. See Fig. 1 and page 3 paragraph 12-15, the relative setting angle β refers to a constant difference in position of two rotating bodies relative to a reference access. The relative setting angle therefore defines a constant phase between the rotation of the two objects. The objects are rotated by two hydraulic motors. See page 7 paragraph 2-5, the relative setting angle and therefore phase between the two rotating bodies is set. A volume flow of pressurized fluid adapted for control of the angle drives the two hydraulic motors to rotate the bodies. See page 5 paragraph 5-7, the control loop of the invention requires a signal corresponding to the quantity used to control the relative adjusting angle β, i.e. the relative setting angle. This also means that the controlled physical quantity is compared to a value necessary for a desired relative setting angle, i.e. phase, meaning that the measurement signal indicates a phase. See page 13 paragraph 4 and 7, the relative adjustment angle is determinable by adjusting a corresponding pressure differential between motor input and output, i.e. pressure drop. The apparatus can be operated using adjustment of the pressure differential using a single motor, indicating that the pressure differential can correspond to the input and output of a single motor, i.e. is pressure drop at each motor.);
based on the respective pressure drop across the first motor and the respective pressure drop across the second motor (See Abstract and page 1 paragraph 6-page 2 paragraph 1, the invention is directed towards the control of rotation of two masses by motors in order to control the vibration of a body. See Fig. 1 and page 3 paragraph 12-15, the relative setting angle β refers to a constant difference in position of two rotating bodies relative to a reference access. The relative setting angle therefore defines a constant phase between the rotation of the two objects. The objects are rotated by two hydraulic motors. See page 7 paragraph 2-5, the relative setting angle and therefore phase between the two rotating bodies is set. A volume flow of pressurized fluid adapted for control of the angle drives the two hydraulic motors to rotate the bodies. See page 5 paragraph 5-7, the control loop of the invention requires a signal corresponding to the quantity used to control the relative adjusting angle β, i.e. the relative setting angle. This also means that the controlled physical quantity is compared to a value necessary for a desired relative setting angle, i.e. phase, meaning that the measurement signal indicates a phase. See page 13 paragraph 4 and 7, the relative adjustment angle is determinable by adjusting a corresponding pressure differential between motor input and output, i.e. pressure drop. The apparatus can be operated using adjustment of the pressure differential using a single motor, indicating that the pressure differential can correspond to the input and output of a single motor, i.e. is pressure drop at each motor.); and
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for controlling the phases of oscillating knife assemblies on an agricultural vehicle disclosed by Dunn to include the use of hydraulic motors and manipulation of the pressure drop, including measurement of the pressure drop to determine phase between the oscillating objects of Bald. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control vibrations of the agricultural vehicle caused by oscillation of the knife sections, as suggested by Bald at page 1 paragraph 1-4.
Regarding claim 21, Dunn combined with Bald renders obvious the limitations of claim 20. receiving, at the controller, a respective indication of a respective single pulse per rotation of the first motor and a respective indication of a respective single pulse per rotation of the second motor (See [0027]-[0028], the system drives two sickle bars with two hydraulic motors. See [0029]-[0035], the system comprises sensors that count pulses corresponding to oscillations of two sickle bars and therefore rotations of the corresponding motors. Markers can be placed on rotating members and counted as they pass a stationary sensor, i.e. a first and second pulse sensor. Individual markers each providing a signal can be mounted on the members, i.e. provide a signal corresponding to a single pulse per oscillation. See [0063], the movement of the sickle bar corresponds to a single rotation of the drive wheel, i.e. the motor. The counted pulses are used to determine whether the desired phase angle, i.e. relative phase, is maintained. See [0027], a plurality of sensor signals can be used to determine the phase angle of the controlled drive system. See [0021]-[0024], sensed load to the drive system is detected by pressure changes in the drive circuit. This detection is used to determine if crop is being cut. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill of the art to try, with a reasonable chance of success, to use both the pulse counting of Dunn and pressure drops of Bald in determining the phase between sickle bars.) ; and
determining, using the controller, the relative phase between the first motor and the second motor based on the respective pressure drop across the first motor, the respective pressure drop across the second motor, the respective single pulse per rotation of the first motor, and the respective single pulse per rotation of the second motor (See [0027]-[0028], the system drives two sickle bars with two hydraulic motors. See [0029]-[0035], the system comprises sensors that count pulses corresponding to oscillations of two sickle bars and therefore rotations of the corresponding motors. Markers can be placed on rotating members and counted as they pass a stationary sensor, i.e. a first and second pulse sensor. Individual markers each providing a signal can be mounted on the members, i.e. provide a signal corresponding to a single pulse per oscillation. See [0063], the movement of the sickle bar corresponds to a single rotation of the drive wheel, i.e. the motor. The counted pulses are used to determine whether the desired phase angle, i.e. relative phase, is maintained. See [0027], a plurality of sensor signals can be used to determine the phase angle of the controlled drive system. See [0021]-[0024], sensed load to the drive system is detected by pressure changes in the drive circuit. This detection is used to determine if crop is being cut. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill of the art to try, with a reasonable chance of success, to use both the pulse counting of Dunn and pressure drops of Bald in determining the phase between sickle bars.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dunn and Bald in view of US 20080295478 A1, hereinafter “Majkrzak”.
Regarding claim 6, Dunn combined with Bald renders obvious the limitations of claim 1.
Dunn further discloses the first knife section reaching a respective first end stop and the second knife section reaching a respective first end stop (See Fig. 1 and [0049]-[0054], the cutting device comprises a guard bar, itself comprising a plurality of knife guards, i.e. first end stops. The sickle bars are driven to reciprocate, i.e. move, between guard bars. This means that the knife sections have specific points the reciprocating motion ends at, i.e. end stops.).
Dunn does not explicitly disclose a first proximity sensor that detects respective occurrences of the first knife section reaching a respective first end stop and a second proximity sensor that detects respective occurrences of the second knife section reaching a respective first end stop, wherein the controller determines the relative phase between the first drive assembly and the second drive assembly based on the respective pressure drop across the first motor, the respective pressure drop across the second motor, the respective occurrences of the first knife section reaching the respective first end stop, and the respective occurrences of the second knife section reaching the respective first end stop.
Majkrzak, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious a first proximity sensor that detects respective occurrences of the first knife section reaching a respective first end stop and a second proximity sensor that detects respective occurrences of the second knife section reaching a respective first end stop, wherein the controller determines the relative phase between the first drive assembly and the second drive assembly based on the respective pressure drop across the first motor, the respective pressure drop across the second motor, the respective occurrences of the first knife section reaching the respective first end stop, and the respective occurrences of the second knife section reaching the respective first end stop (See Abstract, the invention is directed toward synchronizing sickle bar sections driven by two hydraulic motors. See [0002]-[0004], the sickle bars are used to cut crops. Examiner asserts that the sickle bars each comprise knife sections. Synchronization is the maintenance of a specific phase, i.e. one with no difference between the sections. See [0026], proximity sensors are used to identify when targets on rotating discs in the motors pass a proximity sensor. The sensor data can be used to determine the sickle bar section position each time it passes, which can be the far end position of their strokes. Examiner asserts that the proximity sensors are therefore used to determine when the sickle bar sections reach the ends of their strokes. See [0004], the proximity sensors are used to determine the timing and position differences between the sickle bars and adjust motor output to synchronize the bars.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for controlling the phases of oscillating knife assemblies on an agricultural vehicle including use of pressure drop of hydraulic motors for controlling the phases disclosed by Dunn and Bald to include using proximity sensors to determine when sickle bars of the system reach the end of their strokes, i.e. end stops, and using this information to estimate the phase of the knife assemblies along with the pressure drop of their corresponding motors. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to more accurately estimate the phase of the sickle bars so that they can be adjusted to be kept in phase, as suggested by Majkrzak at [0008]-[0009].
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dunn and Bald in view of US 4342187 A, hereinafter “Shupert”.
Regarding claim 7, Dunn combined with Bald renders obvious the limitations of claim 1.
Bald renders obvious wherein the controller is configured to determine the relative phase between the first drive assembly and the second drive assembly based on the respective pressure drop across the first motor and the respective pressure drop across the second motor (See Abstract and page 1 paragraph 6-page 2 paragraph 1, the invention is directed towards the control of rotation of two masses by motors in order to control the vibration of a body. See Fig. 1 and page 3 paragraph 12-15, the relative setting angle β refers to a constant difference in position of two rotating bodies relative to a reference access. The relative setting angle therefore defines a constant phase between the rotation of the two objects. The objects are rotated by two hydraulic motors. See page 7 paragraph 2-5, the relative setting angle and therefore phase between the two rotating bodies is set. A volume flow of pressurized fluid adapted for control of the angle drives the two hydraulic motors to rotate the bodies. See page 5 paragraph 5-7, the control loop of the invention requires a signal corresponding to the quantity used to control the relative adjusting angle β, i.e. the relative setting angle. This also means that the controlled physical quantity is compared to a value necessary for a desired relative setting angle, i.e. phase, meaning that the measurement signal indicates a phase. See page 13 paragraph 4 and 7, the relative adjustment angle is determinable by adjusting a corresponding pressure differential between motor input and output, i.e. pressure drop. The apparatus can be operated using adjustment of the pressure differential using a single motor, indicating that the pressure differential can correspond to the input and output of a single motor, i.e. is pressure drop.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for controlling the phases of oscillating knife assemblies on an agricultural vehicle disclosed by Dunn to include the use of hydraulic motors and manipulation of the pressure drop, including measurement of the pressure drop to determine phase between the oscillating objects of Bald. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control vibrations of the agricultural vehicle caused by oscillation of the knife sections, as suggested by Bald at page 1 paragraph 1-4.
Dunn combined with Bald does not explicitly disclose comprising a first biasing member that contacts the first knife section at a respective first end stop and a second biasing member that contacts the second knife section at a respective first end stop.
Shupert, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious comprising a first biasing member that contacts the first knife section at a respective first end stop and a second biasing member that contacts the second knife section at a respective first end stop (See column 4 paragraph 2, the invention comprises a sickle bar comprising cutting elements, i.e. a knife section. See Fig. 4 and column 3 paragraph 2-column 4 paragraph 1, the end of the sickle bar, which is an end stop of the knife section, is connected to, i.e. contacts, a lever. The lever is connected to a torsion bar which pushes and pulls the sickle bar using stored energy. This means that the lever is a biasing member.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for controlling the phases of oscillating knife assemblies on an agricultural vehicle disclosed by Dunn and Bald to include the use of a biasing member to store and make use of energy of Shupert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce torque required to operate the mechanism, as suggested by Shupert at column 1 paragraph 2.
Regarding claim 19, Dunn combined with Bald renders obvious the limitations of claim 16. Bald renders obvious wherein the pressure signals reflect variations over time (Abstract and page 1 paragraph 6-page 2 paragraph 1, the invention is directed towards the control of rotation of two masses by motors in order to control the vibration of a body. See Fig. 1 and page 3 paragraph 12-15, the relative setting angle β refers to a constant difference in position of two rotating bodies relative to a reference access. The relative setting angle therefore defines a constant phase between the rotation of the two objects. The objects are rotated by two hydraulic motors. See page 7 paragraph 2-5, the relative setting angle and therefore phase between the two rotating bodies is set. A volume flow of pressurized fluid adapted for control of the angle drives the two hydraulic motors to rotate the bodies. See page 5 paragraph 5-7, the control loop of the invention requires a signal corresponding to the quantity used to control the relative adjusting angle β, i.e. the relative setting angle. This also means that the quantity is necessarily measured by appropriate sensors, i.e. pressure sensors. The pressure signals necessary reflect variations in time, otherwise the output of the motors would be constant and the entire control structure would be unnecessary.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for controlling the phases of oscillating knife assemblies on an agricultural vehicle disclosed by Dunn to include the use of hydraulic motors and manipulation of the pressure drop, including measurement of the pressure drop to determine phase between the oscillating objects, with pressures necessarily varying with time, as suggested by Bald. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control vibrations of the agricultural vehicle caused by oscillation of the knife sections, as suggested by Bald at page 1 paragraph 1-4.
Bald does not explicitly disclose due to biasing force applied to the first knife section and the second knife section by biasing members.
Shupert, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious due to biasing force applied to the first knife section and the second knife section by biasing members (See column 4 paragraph 2, the invention comprises a sickle bar comprising cutting elements, i.e. a knife section. See Fig. 4 and column 3 paragraph 2-column 4 paragraph 1, the end of the sickle bar, which is an end stop of the knife section, is connected to, i.e. contacts, a lever. The lever is connected to a torsion bar which pushes and pulls the sickle bar using stored energy. This means that the lever is a biasing member. See column 3 paragraph 4-column 4 paragraph 1, the system maintains cutting, i.e. cycle reciprocation, speed with reduced torque, i.e. force, fluctuations. The torque output of the motors used to maintain a given speed of reciprocation will be changed. In the case of hydraulic motors, this would be reflected in the pressure sensors corresponding to each motor.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for controlling the phases of oscillating knife assemblies on an agricultural vehicle disclosed by Dunn and Bald to include the use of a biasing member to store and make use of energy of Shupert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce torque required to operate the mechanism, as suggested by Shupert at column 1 paragraph 2.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dunn in view of US 20220203978 A1, hereinafter “Creaby”.
Regarding claim 15, Dunn combined with Bald renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Dunn does not explicitly disclose comprising an accelerometer that generates additional signals, wherein the controller compares an amplitude of the additional signals to a threshold as an additional input to determine the relative phase between the first drive assembly and the second drive assembly.
Creaby, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious comprising an accelerometer that generates additional signals, wherein the controller compares an amplitude of the additional signals to a threshold as an additional input to determine the relative phase between the first drive assembly and the second drive assembly (See Abstract, the invention is directed toward use of sensor data to extract oscillation information and control oscillations of an implement of a vehicle. See Fig. 4 and [0055]-[0057], the system uses accelerometer data to determine oscillation information corresponding to the data, which can be frequency and phase of the oscillation. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to try, with a reasonable chance of success, combining the multiple inputs and methods of determining the relative phase.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for controlling the phases of oscillating knife assemblies on an agricultural vehicle disclosed by Dunn and Bald to include the use of accelerometers to determine the frequency and phase of knife assembly osscilations, as suggested by Creaby. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to estimate the position of the knife sections accurately, allowing for better control of the sections, as suggested by Creaby at [0001]-[0004].
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant argues “Objection to the Claims
In the office action, the examiner objected to claims 2, 9, and 15 for minor informalities. See Office Action, p. 2. The applicant thanks the examiner for pointing out these minor informalities. Further, the applicant presently cancels claim 2 and amends claim 9 and 15 to correct the minor informalities. Accordingly, the applicant respectfully requests that the examiner withdraw the objection to the claims.”
As to (A), Examiner agrees that the objections have been overcome by the amendment.
(B) Applicant argues “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102
In the office action, the examiner rejected claims 1 and 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by "Dunn". The applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
Legal Precedent
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 can be found only if a single reference shows exactly what is claimed. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 U.S.P.Q. 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). For a prior art reference to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single reference. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 U.S.P.Q.2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). To maintain a proper rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single reference must teach each and every limitation of the rejected claim. Atlas Powder v. E.I.du Pont, 750 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The prior art reference also must show the identical invention "in as complete detail as contained in the ... claim" to support a primafacie case of anticipation. Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, Applicant needs only point to a single element not found in the cited reference to demonstrate that the cited reference fails to anticipate the claimed subject matter.
Dunn does not disclose all of the recitations of independent claim 1.
Although the applicant does not necessarily agree with the rejection of independent claim 1, the applicant presently amends independent claim 1 to expedite prosecution. As amended, independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, "receives signals indicative of a respective pressure drop across a first motor of the first drive assembly and a respective pressure drop across a second
motor of the second drive assembly," and "determines a relative phase between the first drive assembly and the second drive assembly based on the respective pressure drop across the first motor and the respective pressure drop across the second motor." The applicant respectfully submits that Dunn fails to disclose at least these recitations.
As amended, independent claim 1 includes certain features of original dependent claim 2, which was not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Further, in the rejection of original dependent claim 2, the examiner appeared to rely on Dunn in combination with Bald. In particular, the examiner acknowledged that "Dunn does not explicitly disclose wherein the signals are indicative of a respective pressure drop across a first motor of the first drive assembly and a respective motor drop across a second motor of the second drive assembly." Office Action, pages 7-8. Instead, the examiner appeared to rely on Bald for these features. See id. at page 8.
In particular, in the office action, the examiner referred to page 11, paragraph 10 to page 12, paragraph 1 of Bald and stated "the physical quantity controlled ... is the difference between pressure at the input and output of the motor, i.e., the pressure drop.)." See id. However, as discussed and agreed upon during the interview, this portion of Bald instead merely discloses "the pressure between the output of the motor 632 and the input of the motor 630 is additionally controlled." Bald, page 11, paragraph 10. (Emphasis added). Thus, this portion of Bald instead merely discloses a pressure between two different motors, i.e., the motor 632 and the motor 630 of Bald. Thus, the applicant submits that this portion of Bald cannot be considered to disclose or suggest at least "receives signals indicative of a respective pressure drop across a first motor of the first drive assembly and a respective pressure drop across a second motor of the second drive assembly," and "determines a relative phase between the first drive assembly and the second drive assembly based on the respective pressure drop across the first motor and the respective pressure drop across the second motor," as recited in amended independent claim 1. Further, the applicant submits that, after review of both Dunn and Bald, neither reference appears to disclose or suggest these recitations of amended independent claim 1.
For at least these reasons, among others, the applicant respectfully submits that Dunn fails to disclose all of the recitations of amended independent claim 1. Since Dunn fails to disclose all of the recitations of amended independent claim 1, the applicant respectfully submits that Dunn cannot support aprimafacie case of anticipation with respect to amended independent claim 1. Moreover, based at least on their dependencies from amended independent claim 1, as well as the recitations therein, the applicant respectfully submits that claims 8-14 are also patentable over Dunn. Accordingly, the applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 and 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Further, as noted above, the applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 is patentable over Dunn in view of Bald, and the applicant requests allowance of claims 1 and 8-14.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
In the office action, the examiner rejected claims 2-5, 16-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dunn in view of Bald. The applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
In the office action, the examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dunn in view of Bald and further in view of Majkrzak (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0295478; hereinafter "Majkrzak"). The applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
In the office action, the examiner rejected claims 7 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dunn in view of Bald and further in view of Shupert (U.S. Patent No. 4,342,187; hereinafter "Shupert"). The applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
In the office action, the examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dunn in view of Creaby et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0203978; hereinafter "Creaby"). The applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
Legal Precedent
The burden of establishing aprimafacie case of obviousness falls on the Examiner. Ex parte Wolters and Kuypers, 214 U.S.P.Q. 735 (B.P.A.I. 1979). To establish prima facie obviousness, all the claim elements must be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 180 U.S.P.Q. 580 (C.C.P.A. 1974). Even so, it is not enough to show that all the elements exist
in the prior art since a claimed invention composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). It is important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does. Id.
Dunn and Bald, taken alone or in hypothetical combination, fail to teach or suggest all of the elements of independent claim 16.
Applicant presently amends independent claim 16 to address minor informalities. As amended, independent claim 16 recites, inter alia, "monitors a first pressure drop across a first motor of a first drive assembly for a first knife section of a cutter bar assembly based on the pressure signals,""monitors a second pressure drop across a second motor of a second drive assembly for a second knife section of the cutter bar assembly based on the pressure signals," and "determines a relative phase between the first motor and the second motor based on the first pressure drop and the second pressure drop." The applicant respectfully submits that Dunn and Bald, taken alone or in hypothetical combination, fail to teach or suggest at least these recitations for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to independent claim 1.
Thus, Dunn and Bald cannot support aprimafacie case of obviousness with respect to this claim. Based on their dependencies on independent claim 16, as well as the elements therein, the applicant submits that Dunn and Bald do not teach every element of claims 17 and 18, and thus cannot support aprimafacie case of obviousness with respect to these claims. Accordingly, the applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. §103 and allowance of the same.
Dunn and Bald, taken alone or in hypothetical combination, fail to teach or suggest all of the elements of independent claim 20.
Independent claim 10 recites, inter alia, "receiving, at a controller, signals indicative of a respective pressure drop across a first motor of a first drive assembly for a first knife section of a cutter bar assembly and indicative of a respective pressure drop across a second motor of a
second drive assembly for a second knife section of the cutter bar assembly" and "determining, using the controller, a relative phase between the first motor and the second motor based on the respective pressure drop across the first motor and the respective pressure drop across the second motor." The applicant respectfully submits that Dunn and Bald, taken alone or in hypothetical combination, fail to teach or suggest at least these recitations for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to independent claim 1. Thus, Dunn and Bald cannot support aprimafacie case of obviousness with respect to this claim. Accordingly, the applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 and allowance of the same.
Dependent Claims 6, 7, 15, and 19
Claims 6, 7, and 15 depend from independent claim 1, and claim 19 depends from
independent claim 16. As mentioned above, independent claims 1 and 16 are allowable over Dunn and Bald. The other cited references do not cure the deficiencies of Dunn and Bald. Therefore, aprimafacie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not established as to claims 6, 7, 15, and 19. The applicant thus respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 6, 7, 15, and 19 and allowance of the same.
New claim 21
As noted above, the applicant adds new claim 21, which recites additional features not
disclosed by the cited references. Support for the new claim may be found in at least paragraphs 37-43, as well as FIGS. 3 and 4 and claim 2, of the originally filed application. The applicant notes that no excess claims fees are due for the new claims due to cancellation of claim 2. The applicant respectfully requests allowance of the new claim based at least on its dependency from independent claim 20, as well as the elements therein.”
As to (B), Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Examiner has grouped the 35 USC 102, 35 USC 103, and New claim 21 sections because the arguments all are based on the same point, namely the mapping of pressure drop using Bald in the original Office Action. Examiner agrees that the original mapping was improper. Examiner has applied the same logic for the original rejections using a corrected mapping in Bald, specifically page 13 paragraph 4 and 7. The relative adjustment angle is determinable by adjusting a corresponding pressure differential between motor input and output, i.e. pressure drop. The apparatus can be operated using adjustment of the pressure differential using a single motor, indicating that the pressure differential can correspond to the input and output of a single motor, i.e. is pressure drop.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190090422 A1 which relates to active synchronization of a dual-knife cutting bar.
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 AUSTIN ROBERT CHENNAULT whose telephone number is (571)272-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/AUSTIN ROBERT CHENNAULT/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
3/30/26
Prosecution Insights