DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/25/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 14, 15, 17, 26, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peters US2014/0047810.
Regarding claims 1 and 29, Peters teaches a processing machine (Figure 1) for processing to process fiber plants (such as the corn or cereal crops described in ¶0029), the processing machine comprising;
a self-propelling vehicle 10 comprising an elongate chassis (12 and the portion supporting 30 and 34, wherein 12 is considered elongate due to 12 being three dimensional, thus providing length) comprising a first end (left side of Figure 1) and a second (right side of Figure 1), opposite end, a pick-up system 20 which is mounted on the first end of the chassis (front) and is configured to pick up fiber plants (such as the corn crops, wherein the pick-up system is configured to pick up harvested fiber plants since it is able to pick up harvested crops) during travel of the vehicle, a transport system 30 configured to transport the picked-up fiber plants from the first end of the chassis to the second, opposite end of the chassis, and a delivery system 36 configured to deliver the picked-up and transported fiber plants at the second end (towards the rear of Figure 1), wherein the chassis comprises:
a first chassis part (front part to the left of 56) to mount the pick-up unit 20 and at least a part of the transport system means (30 and 34), also the first chassis part being provided with a front suspension (the support for wheels 76) for two mutually adjacent front wheels 76 (wherein front wheels 76 are considered mutually adjacent since they are along the same lateral position, and held on 28 on the same vertical line shown in Figure 1) are a second chassis part 12 to mount the delivery system and at least a part of the transport system means (the conveying element 36), the second chassis part being provided with at least a rear suspension (support for wheels 16) for two rear wheels 16;
a pivot element 56 mounted between the first and second chassis part (as shown in Figures 1 and 2) to allow the first and second chassis parts pivotable to pivot relative to each other about an upright pivot axis (the pivot axis shown in Figure 1 versus Figure 2),
a first steering system configured 54 to control a pivot position of all of the front wheels (wherein 76 are shown straight in Figure 1, and pivoted in Figure 2-3, and wherein 54 includes both 54, thus are considered to be controlling both wheels 76) provided on the first chassis part,
and a second steering system (the actuators described in ¶0030) configured to control a pivot position of all of the rear wheels (Figure 2-3 show wheels 16 pivoted, wherein the actuators are considered the system, which necessarily provide pivoting for all of the rear wheels 16) provided on the second chassis part.
Peters teaches the following:
Regarding claim 2. The processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the second chassis part is configured to pivot between a first pivot position (Figure 1) in which the first and second chassis parts extend mutually in line and a second pivot position (Figure 2) in which the second chassis part extends obliquely relative to the first chassis part.
Regarding claim 3. The processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the chassis is configured to allow the second chassis part to pivot between a first pivot position (Figure 1) in which the axial direction of the first chassis part is parallel to the axial direction of the second chassis part (the first and second chassis parts are both parallel and axially aligned in Figure 1) and a second pivot position (Figure 2) in which the axial direction of the second chassis part lies obliquely relative to the axial direction of the first chassis part.
Regarding claim 5. The processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the pivot element is positioned centrally in the lateral direction (pivot 56 is shown generally in the laterally center part of 10).
Regarding claim 6. The processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the pivot element is also configured to allow the first and second chassis part to pivot relative to each other about a lying axis in the axial direction of the first chassis part or the second chassis part, substantially transversely of the upright axis.
Regarding claim 7. The processing machine according to claim 1, wherein both a suspension of the front wheels and a suspension of the rear wheels are configured to enable a change in a position (angled positioning of the wheels as shown in Figure 2-3) of respectively the respective front and rear wheels relative to the axial directions of respectively the respective first and second chassis parts (wherein the axial directions are taken to be the longitudinal centerline of each of the first and second chassis parts).
Regarding claim 8. The processing machine according to claim 1, wherein suspension of the front wheels and rear wheels is configured to pivot each of the front wheels and rear wheels independently of each other (Wherein the front wheels have actuators 54, thus configuring the front wheels to pivot independently of the rear wheels).
Regarding claim 9. The processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the second steering unit system is configured to adjust the pivot position of the rear wheels to the pivot position of the second chassis part (as described above, and in which the wheels 16 pivoting are shown in Figure 2 as compared with Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10. The processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the transport system comprises a first endless conveyor 28 (described as conveyors ¶0026, which are considered the same as the claimed “endless conveyor”) mounted on the first chassis part and a second endless conveyor 36 mounted on the second chassis part 12.
Regarding claim 14. The processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the pick-up system 20 is an interchangeable pick-up system (¶0029 “ In place of the shown crop attachment 20 which is suitable for corn crops, it would also be possible to use a crop attachment which is suitable for cereal crops, is rigid or flexible per se and is provided with reels, cutter bars and conveyors in the form of screws or conveyor belts”, which is interpreted to indicate that the pick-up system is interchangeable) which is coupled in releasable manner (given the broadest reasonable interpretation of releasable to include interchanging to different crop attachments) to the first chassis part.
Regarding claim 15. The processing machine according to claim 1, further comprising a drive system (motors 78, described in ¶0032) configured to drive each of the front wheels and rear wheels independently (wherein the front and rear wheels are driven with different motors as shown in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 17. The processing machine according to claim 1, further comprising a drive system 78 (electric or hydraulic motors are described in ¶0030, thus providing the claimed variation of torque transmitted) which is configured to substantially continuously vary the torque transmitted to the front and rear wheels by drives units independently of each other (wherein the front wheels have separate motors attached to them, thus are considered independent of the rear wheels).
Regarding claim 26. A method for processing fiber plants (as described above), including the above described self-propelling vehicle including the chassis with first and second chassis parts (as recited above), the method comprising:
pivoting the second chassis part relative to the first chassis part (as shown in Figure 2) by controlling a pivot position of all rear wheels 16 with the above described steering system;
driving the self-propelling vehicle over the ground in a pivoted state (¶0030 “FIG. 2 when turning the harvesting machine 10 in the headland, the steering control device 62 drives the rear wheels 16 and the crop attachment ground contacting means 52 usually in opposite directions such that the crop attachment 20 and the harvesting machine 10 move along a common path and the Ackermann law is met”) to pick up the fiber plants along a first row (the receiving harvested crop ¶0026, wherein a row is given its broadest reasonable interpretation to include crop to be harvested or picked) with the pick-up unit system on the first chassis part (as described above);
transporting the picked-up fiber plants from the pick-up system to the delivery system (using belts 30/28, and 34, to 36) of the second chassis part; and
delivering the picked-up and transported fiber plants along a second row (by transporting out 40) with the delivering means delivery system, wherein the second row lies lying at a position offset in a lateral direction transverse to the axial direction (since 40 is held perpendicular to 10).
Regarding claim 30, a processing machine (as recited above) for processing fiber plants, the processing machine comprising: a self-propelling vehicle (as recited above) comprising an elongate chassis (as recited above) comprising a first end and a second, opposite end (as recited above), a pick-up system (as recited above) which is mounted on the first end of the elongate chassis and is configured to pick up fiber plants during travel of the vehicle, a transport system (as recited above) configured to transport the picked-up fiber plants from the first end of the elongate chassis to the second, opposite end of the chassis, and a delivering system (as recited above) configured to deliver the picked-up and transported fiber plants at the second end, wherein the elongate chassis comprises:
As described above, and the second steering system (as recited above) configured to control the pivot position of the first and second rear wheels 16 (as recited above) provided on the second chassis part; and a drive system (as recited above) configured to drive each of the first front wheel, the second front wheel, the first rear wheel and the second read wheel independently (from each other, wherein the front wheels each have actuators as described above, wherein the front and rear wheels are driven with different motors as shown in Figure 1), the drive system comprising a first drive coupled to the first front wheel and configured to drive the first front wheel, a second drive (the associated motor 78) coupled to the second front wheel (as shown in Figure 1) and configured to drive the second front wheel, a third drive (one of the actuators described in ¶0030) coupled to the first rear wheel and configured to drive the first rear wheel, and a fourth drive (another of the actuators described in ¶0030) coupled to the second rear wheel and configured to drive the second rear wheel.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters alone.
Regarding claim 4, Peters teaches the chassis is configured such that the second chassis part can is configured to pivot relative to the first chassis part between a first pivot position in which the angle between the axial directions of respectively the first and second chassis part amounts to a maximum of 4 degrees (the axial directions of the first and second chassis parts are parallel and aligned with each other, with is 0 degrees. This is within the claimed maximum of 4 degrees).
Peters does not teach a second pivot position in which said angle amounts to is between 5 and 30 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the second pivot position ranges to be between 5 and 30 degrees limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 21, Peters teaches the second chassis part has at least one rear left wheel (lower 16) of the two rear wheels on a left- hand side of the second chassis part and at least one rear right wheel (upper 16) of the two rear wheels on a right-hand side of the second chassis part, and wherein the second steering unit system comprises: a first actuator (¶0030 describes “actuators for steering the rear wheels 16”, which indicates at least two actuators) mounted on the second chassis part and the at least one rear left wheel, and a second actuator (at least one of the other of the above described actuators in ¶0030) mounted on the second chassis part and the at least one rear right wheel.
Peters does not teach the first and second actuators for the rear wheels each comprise a hydraulic extending cylinder.
Peters does, however, teach actuators comprising a hydraulic extending cylinder ¶0030 “power-operated actuator 54 which can be realized as a hydraulic cylinder”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Peter’s rear wheel actuators in view of Peter’s front wheel actuators being hydraulic extending cylinders with a reasonable expectation of success in providing desired pivoting and steering for the rear wheels.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of McElhinney, et al. US2526960.
Regarding claim 11, Peters teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach the pick-up unit system is a gripper configured to pick fiber plants from the ground.
McElhinney, et al. teaches that it is known for a crop processing machine’s pickup system to have a gripper (wherein fingers 35 are considered grippers since they are used to grab the cut material) configured to pick up fiber plants (such as grain and hemp Column 1: 1-3) from the ground to pick up cut material between weeds and second growth material Column 2: 14-15
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pick-up system of Peters in view of the gripper of McElhinney, et al. with a reasonable expectation of success to enable picking up material between weeds and second growth material.
Regarding claim 12, McElhinney, et al. teaches that the gripper is one or more of a hemp gripping unit grippers (column 1: 1-2) configured to grip hemp plants (wherein the above described fingers are configured to grip hemp plants for the pickup).
Regarding claim 13, Peters teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach the pick-up system is configured to pick up fiber plants previously gripped and placed down on the ground surface.
McElhinney, et al. teaches the above described grippers, which are configured to pick up fiber plants previously gripped and placed down on the ground surface (the aging described in Column 2: 4-6 “cut material has laid on the ground of a time period sufficient to permit a second growth of material or weeds to grow up therebetween”. The claimed “previously gripped” is considered a product by-process).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Peters’ pick up system in view of McElhinney, et al.’s pick up system with a configuration to pick up previously gripped and placed down on the ground surface fiber plants with a reasonable expectation of success to enable cut fiber/crop aging and subsequent pick-up.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Behra, et al. US2015/0289437.
Regarding claim 20, Peters teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach comprising respective transmission mechanisms for each of the front wheels and each of the rear wheels, wherein the transmission mechanisms being coupled to respective hydraulic drive motors for the purpose of transmitting the to transmit rotation of the respective drive motor to the relevant respective front wheel or rear wheel with at least a selected transmission ratio, wherein each of the transmission mechanisms preferably comprises a planetary transmission.
Behra, et al. teaches that planetary ¶0025 transmissions ¶0017 are known in the art to provide desired variation of driving force to wheels 18, to provide different drive torques to the drive units ¶0017.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Peters’ coupling between respective hydraulic drive motors and front or rear wheels in view of Behra, et al.’s planetary transmission with a reasonable expectation of success to provide desired different drive torques from Peters’ motors to the front and rear wheels.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters alone as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Platt US RE00590.
Regarding claim 24, Peters teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach the at least one rear left wheel and the at least one rear right wheel are combined into a single rear wheel positioned centrally in the lateral direction.
Platt teaches that it is notoriously well-known in the art to have a single rear wheel A (Page 1, left column 3rd paragraph line 4-6 “Under the rear end of this beam is a guide-wheel, A) for a harvester/processing machine (Page 1, left column: 7-8: “Improvements in machines for cutting and raking grain or grass”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the rear wheels of Peters in view of Platt’s single wheel with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a pivotable guide wheel for the processing machine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 16, 18, 19, and 22-23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments that the actuators do not control the pivot position of all of the front wheels are not persuasive. The wheels that actuators 54 control the pivot position are considered all of the claimed front wheels. The wheels that the actuators 54 do not control are not considered front wheels.
Applicant's arguments that Peters' front wheels are not mutually adjacent are refuted. The front wheels 76 of Peters are shown adjacent since they are each attached to 22 at the same axial position along the body of the chassis, thus are considered to be mutually adjacent. The claims do not have further structural limitations to define "mutually adjacent".
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 2/25/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 2/25/2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 5/5/2026
Prosecution Insights