DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 08/23/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, which was filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted 08/23/2023 and 04/17/2024 are in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the tine rotation mechanism is configured to drive tines of the reel assembly to rotate relative to a rotating structure of the reel assembly” (claim 1)
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (¶ 16: “A tine rotation mechanism (e.g., a cam and follower assembly or a parallel state assembly) is configured to drive the bat tubes to rotate in response to rotation of the rotating structure.”) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Honeyman et al. (US 2021/0243954 A1), hereinafter referred to as Honeyman.
Regarding claim 1:
Honeyman discloses the following limitations:
“A monitoring system for a reel assembly of an agricultural harvester, comprising: a load sensor configured to couple to a non-rotating element of a tine rotation mechanism of the reel assembly.” (Honeyman ¶ 29 disclose a header 28 with a reel 30, where “As is known, the reel 30 comprises plural transverse rows of tines 32 that, upon rotation of the reel 30, pull crop toward an underlying, transverse crop cutting assembly 34 (see, e.g., FIG. 2A) for performing severing actions on the crop.” Further, Honeyman ¶ 36: “second sensor 68 is configured to measure (directly or indirectly) drive pressure, and may be embodied as a torque sensor (e.g., coupled to the driveline 58), a load cell (e.g., coupled to the motor 38), or a pressure sensor (e.g., pressure transducer) that is coupled between the hydraulic subsystem 52 (or 62 in some embodiments) and the motor 38.” Honeyman FIG. 2A shown below illustrates that the “motor 38” is part of “a non-rotating element of a tine rotation mechanism of the reel assembly.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
750
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“wherein the tine rotation mechanism is configured to drive tines of the reel assembly to rotate relative to a rotating structure of the reel assembly.” (Honeyman ¶ 29: “As is known, the reel 30 comprises plural transverse rows of tines 32 that, upon rotation of the reel 30, pull crop toward an underlying, transverse crop cutting assembly 34 (see, e.g., FIG. 2A) for performing severing actions on the crop.”)
“and the load sensor is configured to output a sensor signal indicative of a mechanism load applied by the tines to the non-rotating element of the tine rotation mechanism.” (Honeyman ¶ 36: “second sensor 68 is configured to measure (directly or indirectly) drive pressure, and may be embodied as a torque sensor (e.g., coupled to the driveline 58), a load cell (e.g., coupled to the motor 38), or a pressure sensor (e.g., pressure transducer) that is coupled between the hydraulic subsystem 52 (or 62 in some embodiments) and the motor 38.” Additionally, Honeyman ¶ 40: “While the windrower 10 is traversing the field, assume crop conditions change, leading to a pressure increase (from P2 to P3) corresponding to an increase in the load (from L2 to L3). The computing system 26 senses this change from input received via the sensors 66, 68 and in turn signals the reel lift system 50.”)
“and a controller communicatively coupled to the load sensor, wherein the controller comprises a memory and a processor.” (Honeyman ¶ 36: “The computing system 26 is communicatively coupled to the sensors 66, 68 via a wired or wireless connection (not shown).” Also, Honeyman ¶ 42: “the computing system 26 comprises one or more processors, such as processor 72, input/output (I/O) interface(s) 74, and memory 76, all coupled to one or more data busses, such as data bus 78.”)
“and the controller is configured to: receive the sensor signal from the load sensor; and determine a crop load of crops acting on the tines based on the mechanism load.” (Honeyman ¶ 37: “the control system 46 is configured to receive input (e.g., operator input) corresponding to a reel setting for movement (e.g., reel height adjustment), measure speed and drive pressure (e.g., opposition force placed on the reel 30) from the sensors 66, 68, respectively, in operations at the reel setting, and determine a corresponding target load … changes in crop conditions result in changes in load requiring changes in pressure to meet the load while maintaining the rotational speed of the reel 30.”)
Regarding claim 7:
Honeyman discloses “The monitoring system of claim 1,” and Honeyman also discloses the following limitations:
“comprising a user interface communicatively coupled to the controller.” (Honeyman ¶ 56 and FIG. 5 disclose a “user interface 88” that is connected to the computing system 26.)
“wherein the controller is configured to output an output signal indicative of the crop load to the user interface, and the user interface is configured to present an indication of the crop load in response to receiving the output signal.” (Honeyman ¶ 42: “the reel height adjustment software 82 may comprise additional components or modules, including graphical user interface (GUI) software that presents feedback of current reel height, measures of pressure, speed, and/or load, and/or measures of sensed and/or derived crop features (e.g., crop height, crop-top contour, moisture, nutrients, etc.).”)
Regarding claim 8:
Honeyman discloses “The monitoring system of claim 1,” and Honeyman also discloses “wherein the controller is configured to control at least one parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the crop load.” (Honeyman ¶ 37: “computing system 26 continually receives feedback from the sensors 66, 68 and adjusts the reel height via signaling to the reel lift system 50 based on the speed and pressure measurements to maintain operations at or around the target load and/or within the window.”)
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honeyman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jasper (US 2017/0059027 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Honeyman discloses “The monitoring system of claim 1,” but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the tine rotation mechanism comprises a cam and follower assembly, and the non-rotating element comprises a section of a cam track of the cam and follower assembly,” However, Jasper does teach this limitation. (Jasper ¶¶ 2-3: “The present invention generally relates to cam follower designs for harvester pick-up reels, and more specifically relates to a cam follower design wherein a cam track is disposed between flanged roller bearing followers which ride on the edge surfaces of the cam track. A conventional harvester includes a pick-up reel that includes a reel tube, bat tubes parallel to the reel tube, and tines on the bat tubes for moving crop into the harvester. This is standard in the industry. Many pick-up reels in the industry also include a cam at one or both ends of the pick-up reel, and cam followers which are linked to the bat tubes.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Honeyman by using a tine rotation mechanism that comprises a cam and follower assembly as is taught by Jasper with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Jasper ¶ 3 teaches that this is a conventional design for a harvester, and that with this design, “the cam effectively controls and dictates the radial positions of the bat tubes as the pick-up reel rotates and moves crop into the harvester.”
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honeyman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (the article “Effects of Stem Cutting in Rice Harvesting by Combine Harvester Front Header Vibration”), hereinafter referred to as Tang.
Regarding claim 5:
Honeyman discloses “The monitoring system of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein the tine rotation mechanism comprises a parallel state assembly, and the non-rotating element comprises an alignment member of the parallel state assembly configured to establish a circumferential position of a rotational axis of an adjustment wheel of the parallel state assembly about a rotational axis of the rotating structure.” However, Tang does teach this limitation. (Tang p. 2 § 2 and FIG. 1 reproduced below disclose a pentagonal reel assembly that reads on the claimed parallel state assembly, where “The pentagon reel could adjust the movement direction of stem while the combine harvester was going forward. The pentagon reel performed circular motion under rotating condition.” Tang FIG. 1 illustrates a handle on the pentagonal reel assembly that reads on the claimed “alignment member.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
620
1369
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Honeyman by using a parallel state assembly with an alignment member for adjusting rotation as taught by Tang, because this is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the parallel state assembly of Tang) for another (i.e., the tine rotation assembly of Honeyman) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could have replaced the tine rotation assembly with the parallel state assembly of Tang to achieve the predictable result of providing a reel assembly that could be easily adjusted to rotate in different ways.
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Honeyman and Tang teaches “The monitoring system of claim 5,” and Tang also teaches “wherein the alignment member comprises a handle configured to adjust the circumferential position of the rotational axis of the adjustment wheel about the rotational axis of the rotating structure.” (Tang p. 2 § 2.1.1: “The pentagon reel could adjust the movement direction of stem while the combine harvester was going forward. The pentagon reel performed circular motion under rotating condition.” Tang FIG. 1 illustrates a handle on the pentagonal reel assembly.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Honeyman by including a handle for adjusting the rotation of the assembly as is taught by Tang with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because a handle provides a simple but effective way for the user to adjust operation of the harvester and change the crop load on the assembly.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honeyman et al. (US 2021/0243954 A1), hereinafter referred to as Honeyman, in view of Tang et al. (the article “Effects of Stem Cutting in Rice Harvesting by Combine Harvester Front Header Vibration”), hereinafter referred to as Tang, and further in view of Thompson et al. (US 2020/0404837 A1), hereinafter referred to as Thompson.
Regarding claim 15:
Honeyman discloses the following limitations:
“A reel assembly of an agricultural harvester, comprising … a monitoring system, comprising: a load sensor.” (Honeyman ¶ 29 disclose a header 28 with a reel 30, where “As is known, the reel 30 comprises plural transverse rows of tines 32 that, upon rotation of the reel 30, pull crop toward an underlying, transverse crop cutting assembly 34 (see, e.g., FIG. 2A) for performing severing actions on the crop.” Further, Honeyman ¶ 36: “second sensor 68 is configured to measure (directly or indirectly) drive pressure, and may be embodied as a torque sensor (e.g., coupled to the driveline 58), a load cell (e.g., coupled to the motor 38), or a pressure sensor (e.g., pressure transducer) that is coupled between the hydraulic subsystem 52 (or 62 in some embodiments) and the motor 38.”)
“wherein the load sensor is configured to output a sensor signal indicative of a mechanism load applied by the plurality of tines.” (Honeyman ¶ 36: “second sensor 68 is configured to measure (directly or indirectly) drive pressure, and may be embodied as a torque sensor (e.g., coupled to the driveline 58), a load cell (e.g., coupled to the motor 38), or a pressure sensor (e.g., pressure transducer) that is coupled between the hydraulic subsystem 52 (or 62 in some embodiments) and the motor 38.” Additionally, Honeyman ¶ 40: “While the windrower 10 is traversing the field, assume crop conditions change, leading to a pressure increase (from P2 to P3) corresponding to an increase in the load (from L2 to L3). The computing system 26 senses this change from input received via the sensors 66, 68 and in turn signals the reel lift system 50.”)
“and a controller communicatively coupled to the load sensor, wherein the controller comprises a memory and a processor.” (Honeyman ¶ 36: “The computing system 26 is communicatively coupled to the sensors 66, 68 via a wired or wireless connection (not shown).” Also, Honeyman ¶ 42: “the computing system 26 comprises one or more processors, such as processor 72, input/output (I/O) interface(s) 74, and memory 76, all coupled to one or more data busses, such as data bus 78.”)
“and the controller is configured to: receive the sensor signal from the load sensor; and determine a crop load of crops acting on the plurality of tines based on the mechanism load.” (Honeyman ¶ 37: “the control system 46 is configured to receive input (e.g., operator input) corresponding to a reel setting for movement (e.g., reel height adjustment), measure speed and drive pressure (e.g., opposition force placed on the reel 30) from the sensors 66, 68, respectively, in operations at the reel setting, and determine a corresponding target load … changes in crop conditions result in changes in load requiring changes in pressure to meet the load while maintaining the rotational speed of the reel 30.”)
Honeyman does not specifically disclose that the reel assembly comprises “a rotating structure configured to be driven in rotation; a plurality of bat tubes rotatably coupled to the rotating structure; a plurality of tines coupled to the plurality of bat tubes; a parallel state assembly comprising an adjustment wheel configured to drive the plurality of bat tubes to rotate relative to the rotating structure, an alignment member configured to establish a circumferential position of a rotational axis of the adjustment wheel about a rotational axis of the rotating structure, and an engagement assembly configured to couple to the alignment member.” However, Tang does teach these limitations. (Tang p. 2 § 2.1 and FIG. 1 disclose a harvester with a front header that includes a “header platform, cutting bar, combine auger, pentagon reel, and conveying house.” Tang FIGS. 1-2 illustrate that the assembly includes bat tubes coupled to tines and an apparatus with a handle for adjusting rotation of the reel.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Honeyman by using a parallel state assembly with an alignment member for adjusting rotation as taught by Tang, because this is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the parallel state assembly of Tang) for another (i.e., the tine rotation assembly of Honeyman) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could have replaced the tine rotation assembly with the parallel state assembly of Tang to achieve the predictable result of providing a reel assembly that could be easily adjusted to rotate in different ways.
The combination of Honeyman and Tang does not specifically teach that the load sensor is “coupled to the alignment member or to the engagement assembly” and “wherein the load sensor is configured to output a sensor signal indicative of a mechanism load applied by the plurality of tines to the alignment member or to the engagement assembly.” However, these limitations are taught by Thompson. (Thompson ¶ 25: “the depth adjustment assembly 56 includes a depth adjustment handle 58 and depth gauge notches 60,” where the handle and notches read on the “alignment member” and “engagement assembly,” respectively. Further, Thompson ¶ 30: “the downforce monitoring system includes a torque sensor 98 (e.g., first sensor) mounted to the depth adjustment handle 58 and configured to be communicatively coupled to the controller.” Also, Thompson ¶ 17: “while the agricultural implement 10 includes one type of row unit in the illustrated embodiment, in other embodiments, the agricultural implement may include multiple types of row units and/or other suitable agricultural tools (e.g., spray nozzle(s), finishing reel(s), tillage shank(s), etc.).”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Honeyman and Tang by positioning the load sensor on the alignment member as taught by Thompson, because this is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., using the alignment member as the sensor location as taught by Thompson) for another (i.e., using the motor as the sensor location as taught by Honeyman) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could have moved the load sensor from the motor to the alignment handle as taught by Thompson to achieve the predictable result of measuring the load that is placed on a different part of the harvester assembly.
Regarding claims 16-17:
Claims 16-17 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 7-8 above, respectively.
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of Honeyman, Tang, and Thompson teaches “The reel assembly of claim 15,” and Honeyman also teaches “wherein the controller is configured to determine a maximum crop load based on the crop load over a rotation of the rotating structure.” (Honeyman ¶ 39: “the target (derived) load is determined, and centered (50%) in a window of reel height setpoint values (which correspond to minimum and maximum loads from the data structure 70), the window providing a range of values within which the computing system 26 attempts to adjust the reel height to approximate the target load when changes to the load occur (e.g., from a change in density or height of crop).”)
Regarding claim 19:
The combination of Honeyman, Tang, and Thompson teaches “The reel assembly of claim 15,” and Honeyman also teaches “wherein the load sensor comprises a load cell.” (Honeyman ¶ 36: “The second sensor 68 is configured to measure (directly or indirectly) drive pressure, and may be embodied as … a load cell.”)
Regarding claim 20:
The combination of Honeyman, Tang, and Thompson teaches “The reel assembly of claim 15,” and Tang also teaches “wherein the alignment member comprises a handle configured to adjust the circumferential position of the rotational axis of the adjustment wheel about the rotational axis of the rotating structure, and the engagement assembly is configured to secure the handle in a plurality of positions.” (Tang p. 2 § 2.1.1 discloses that “The pentagon reel could adjust the movement direction of stem while the combine harvester was going forward. The pentagon reel performed circular motion under rotating condition.” Tang FIG. 1 illustrates a handle on the pentagonal reel assembly and notches for securing the handle in a plurality of positions.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Honeyman and Thompson by including a handle for adjusting the rotation of the assembly and notches for securing the handle in a plurality of positions as is taught by Tang with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because a handle that can be secured in different positions provides a simple but effective way for the user to adjust operation of the harvester and change the crop load on the assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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.
Claims 9-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Honeyman et al. (US 2021/0243954 A1), hereinafter referred to as Honeyman, in view of Jasper (US 2017/0059027 A1), and further in view of Mackin et al. (US 2016/0120127 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mackin.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Honeyman and Jasper teaches “The monitoring system of claim 2,” and Honeyman also discloses the following limitations:
“comprising a second load sensor.” (Honeyman ¶¶ 35-36: “The control system 46 incudes the computing system 26 and plural sensors, including at least a first sensor 66 and a second sensor 68. … The second sensor 68 is configured to measure (directly or indirectly) drive pressure, and may be embodied as a torque sensor (e.g., coupled to the driveline 58), a load cell (e.g., coupled to the motor 38), or a pressure sensor (e.g., pressure transducer) that is coupled between the hydraulic subsystem 52 (or 62 in some embodiments) and the motor 38.”)
“wherein the second load sensor is configured to output a second sensor signal indicative of a second mechanism load applied by the tines.” (Honeyman ¶ 36: “second sensor 68 is configured to measure (directly or indirectly) drive pressure, and may be embodied as a torque sensor (e.g., coupled to the driveline 58), a load cell (e.g., coupled to the motor 38), or a pressure sensor (e.g., pressure transducer) that is coupled between the hydraulic subsystem 52 (or 62 in some embodiments) and the motor 38.” Additionally, Honeyman ¶ 40: “While the windrower 10 is traversing the field, assume crop conditions change, leading to a pressure increase (from P2 to P3) corresponding to an increase in the load (from L2 to L3). The computing system 26 senses this change from input received via the sensors 66, 68 and in turn signals the reel lift system 50.”)
“the controller is configured to receive the second sensor signal from the second load sensor, and the controller is configured to determine a second crop load of the crops acting on the tines based on the second mechanism load.” (Honeyman ¶ 37: “the control system 46 is configured to receive input (e.g., operator input) corresponding to a reel setting for movement (e.g., reel height adjustment), measure speed and drive pressure (e.g., opposition force placed on the reel 30) from the sensors 66, 68, respectively, in operations at the reel setting, and determine a corresponding target load … changes in crop conditions result in changes in load requiring changes in pressure to meet the load while maintaining the rotational speed of the reel 30.”)
None of the references of the prior art of record, whether they are taken individually or in combination with each other, disclose “a second load sensor configured to couple to a second section of the cam track of the cam and follower assembly” and “wherein the second load sensor is configured to output a second sensor signal indicative of a second mechanism load applied by the tines to the second section of the cam track.” While Mackin ¶ 38 discloses an agricultural harvester with a force sensor that can be disposed on a hydraulic fluid actuator, on a hinge pin, or coupled to a bearing supporting the driveshaft of a rotor, Mackin ¶ 38 additionally makes note that “Given the almost infinite number of ways in which the force applied to the cut crop material, an exhaustive list of potential locations, configurations and arrangements cannot be provided herein.” While the load/force sensor could conceivably be placed anywhere on the reel assembly, it cannot be shown that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose to place it on a second section of the cam track of the cam and follower assembly given the infinite number of potential sensor placement locations.
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 has allowable subject matter because of its dependency upon claim 3.
Regarding claim 9:
Honeyman discloses the following limitations:
“A reel assembly of an agricultural harvester, comprising: … a monitoring system, comprising: a load sensor.” (Honeyman ¶ 29 disclose a header 28 with a reel 30, where “As is known, the reel 30 comprises plural transverse rows of tines 32 that, upon rotation of the reel 30, pull crop toward an underlying, transverse crop cutting assembly 34 (see, e.g., FIG. 2A) for performing severing actions on the crop.” Further, Honeyman ¶ 36: “second sensor 68 is configured to measure (directly or indirectly) drive pressure, and may be embodied as a torque sensor (e.g., coupled to the driveline 58), a load cell (e.g., coupled to the motor 38), or a pressure sensor (e.g., pressure transducer) that is coupled between the hydraulic subsystem 52 (or 62 in some embodiments) and the motor 38.”)
“wherein the load sensor is configured to output a sensor signal indicative of a mechanism load applied by the plurality of tines.” (Honeyman ¶ 36: “second sensor 68 is configured to measure (directly or indirectly) drive pressure, and may be embodied as a torque sensor (e.g., coupled to the driveline 58), a load cell (e.g., coupled to the motor 38), or a pressure sensor (e.g., pressure transducer) that is coupled between the hydraulic subsystem 52 (or 62 in some embodiments) and the motor 38.” Additionally, Honeyman ¶ 40: “While the windrower 10 is traversing the field, assume crop conditions change, leading to a pressure increase (from P2 to P3) corresponding to an increase in the load (from L2 to L3). The computing system 26 senses this change from input received via the sensors 66, 68 and in turn signals the reel lift system 50.”)
“and a controller communicatively coupled to the load sensor, wherein the controller comprises a memory and a processor.” (Honeyman ¶ 36: “The computing system 26 is communicatively coupled to the sensors 66, 68 via a wired or wireless connection (not shown).” Also, Honeyman ¶ 42: “the computing system 26 comprises one or more processors, such as processor 72, input/output (I/O) interface(s) 74, and memory 76, all coupled to one or more data busses, such as data bus 78.”)
“and the controller is configured to: receive the sensor signal from the load sensor; and determine a crop load of crops acting on the plurality of tines based on the mechanism load.” (Honeyman ¶ 37: “the control system 46 is configured to receive input (e.g., operator input) corresponding to a reel setting for movement (e.g., reel height adjustment), measure speed and drive pressure (e.g., opposition force placed on the reel 30) from the sensors 66, 68, respectively, in operations at the reel setting, and determine a corresponding target load … changes in crop conditions result in changes in load requiring changes in pressure to meet the load while maintaining the rotational speed of the reel 30.”)
Honeyman does not specifically disclose the reel assembly comprising “a rotating structure configured to be driven in rotation; a bat tube rotatably coupled to the rotating structure; a plurality of tines coupled to the bat tube; a cam and follower assembly configured to drive the bat tube to rotate relative to the rotating structure in response to rotation of the rotating structure.” However, Jasper does teach these limitations. (Jasper ¶¶ 2-3: “The present invention generally relates to cam follower designs for harvester pick-up reels, and more specifically relates to a cam follower design wherein a cam track is disposed between flanged roller bearing followers which ride on the edge surfaces of the cam track. A conventional harvester includes a pick-up reel that includes a reel tube, bat tubes parallel to the reel tube, and tines on the bat tubes for moving crop into the harvester. This is standard in the industry. Many pick-up reels in the industry also include a cam at one or both ends of the pick-up reel, and cam followers which are linked to the bat tubes.”)
None of the references of the prior art of record, whether they are taken individually or in combination with each other, disclose “a load sensor coupled to a section of a cam track of the cam and follower assembly” and “wherein the load sensor is configured to output a sensor signal indicative of a mechanism load applied by the plurality of tines to the section of the cam track.” While Mackin ¶ 38 discloses an agricultural harvester with a force sensor that can be disposed on a hydraulic fluid actuator, on a hinge pin, or coupled to a bearing supporting the driveshaft of a rotor, Mackin ¶ 38 further notes that “Given the almost infinite number of ways in which the force applied to the cut crop material, an exhaustive list of potential locations, configurations and arrangements cannot be provided herein.” While the load/force sensor could conceivably be placed anywhere on the reel assembly, it cannot be shown that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose to place it on a section of the cam track of the cam and follower assembly given the infinite number of potential sensor placement locations.
Regarding claims 10-14:
Claims 10-14 are allowed because of their dependency upon allowed claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662