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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21, line 3 “with respect to the curved spout when the hatch door is closed and a variable length actuator” is grammatically awkward. It appears that a few comma punctuation marks are missing. Appropriate correction is required. It is assumed, for purposes of examination, that applicant intended that this line be “with respect to the curved spout, when the hatch door is closed, and a variable length actuator”
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) 13, 16-18, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Smedt, et al. US2020/0214205 in view of Dueckinghaus, et al. US2006/0254235.
Regarding claim 13, De Smedt, et al. teaches a harvester 10 comprising:
a header 22 mounted at a front of the harvester 10;
an accelerator 32;
a tower (adjacent 24) for receiving a crop flow 12 from the accelerator 32;
a curved spout 24 having an inlet section (bottom of 24) and an outlet section (right side of 24), the inlet section coupled to the tower (adjacent 24) to receive the crop flow 12 and guide it (assuming this was intended to be the crop flow) towards the outlet section (right side of 24) from which the crop flow 12 is then ejected via a deflector 52;
at least one sensor 50 configured to detect whether speed of the crop flow 12 within the curved spout 24 is below a predefined threshold (Figure 6 left side shows the velocity signal VS falling below the dashed line), said threshold indicating that a blockage (Figure 6 block “Fast variable speed, speed drops under minimum [Wingdings font/0xE0] blockage”) of the received crops is occurring in the curved spout 24; and
a control unit 40 coupled to the at least one sensor 50 and to the feed roll assembly. Figure 7 shows the control unit 40 analyzes crop velocity VS at step 204, and decreasing speed at 214 to prevent blockage ¶0050 (“When the modulation is relatively low, as discussed above relative to FIG. 6, which is detected at step 212, where the modulation of the velocity signal VS is below another predetermined value Y, then the safety margin is reduced, and the rotational speed of the crop accelerator 32 is reduced at step 214, in order to save energy, but still provide the needed crop velocity to put the crop stream CS in the desired location, and to prevent a blockage in the harvester 10.”)
De Smedt, et al. does not teach a feed roll assembly comprising feed rolls, the feed roll assembly configured to receive crops collected by the header, and to move the received crops by active rotation of the feed rolls towards a cutter drum; and the controller is configured to automatically stop said active rotation of the feed rolls when the crop flow speed is lower than the predefined threshold.
Dueckinghaus, et al. teaches that it is known in the art for a self-propelled forager harvester 2 to have a feed roll assembly 10 comprising feed rolls 20 (a pair are shown in Figure 2), the feed roll assembly configured to receive crops collected by header 9, and to move the received crops by active rotation of the feed rolls (¶0033 “Intake and pre-compression rollers 10 are retained, in pairs, in a feeder housing 11. In a manner known per se, the pairs of intake and pre-compression rollers 10 are driven actively in the direction of arrow 12 using a drive 13 to be described below in greater detail. In the rear region of feeder housing 11 located above a shear bar 14, compressed crop-material strand 6 enters the working region of cutter blade 15 of an actively driven, rotating chopper drum 16”) towards a cutter drum 16, to move chopped crop-material at a high speed towards discharge chute 17 (¶0033 “Chopped crop-material strand 6 subsequently exits the rear region of chopper drum at a high rate of speed and enters a rising lower discharge chute 17, in which crop-material strand 6 is conveyed, using a "post-accelerator" 18 in some cases, out of forage harvester 2 to a forage vehicle”).
Dueckinghaus, et al. further teaches a controller 22 that is configured to automatically stop (quick stop signal Y, as described in ¶0033) said active rotation of the feed rolls when a blockage is detected (such as a foreign object 19 described in ¶0033 “If foreign object 19 located in crop-material strand 6 is conveyed into the vicinity of foreign-object detection device 21, it generates a position-detection signal X, which is supplied to an evaluation and control unit 22 and, in this, generates a "quick stop" signal Y that switches off drive 13 (to be described below in greater detail) of intake and pre-compression rollers 10”), such that the blockage can be removed (¶0033 “ Detected foreign object 19 can be conveyed out of the vicinity of intake and pre-compression rollers 10 and can eventually be removed from crop-material strand 6 by operator 23.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify De Smedt, et al.’s controller in view of Dueckinghaus, et al.’s controller configured to automatically stop the active rotation of the feed rolls when a blockage is detected with a reasonable expectation of success in stopping feed rolls when a blockage is detected by detecting when the crop flow speed is lower than the predefined threshold. This allows for the blockage to be removed, and damage to equipment can be avoided (Dueckinghaus, et al. ¶0003 “foreign objects, such as metallic pieces or stones, which can cause serious damage to the chopper drum as it rotates at a high rate of speed, a "quick stop" function is assigned to the intake conveyor mechanisms”).
Regarding claim 16 , De Smedt, et al. in view of Dueckinghaus, et al. teaches the harvester 10 according to claim 13, but does not teach the at least one sensor 50 comprises a plurality of sensors, each sensor arranged at a different location along the curved spout 24.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to duplicate the number of sensors and place those sensors a different locations along the curved spout to enable measurement and detection of potential blockages at different locations in the spout, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In the case above, it was found that while the addition of multiple plies to the concept of the Poppe had undoubtedly made it stronger, it is not the type of innovation for which a patent monopoly is to be granted.
Regarding claim 17, De Smedt, et al. of the combination teaches the harvester 10 according to claim 13, wherein the harvester 10 is configured such that the cutter drum and the accelerator 32 are not automatically stopped when the rotation of the feed rolls is stopped following the detection that the crop flow 12 speed within the curved spout 24 is below the predefined threshold (wherein De Smedt, et al.’ s Figure 7 describes step 214 to decrease accelerator speed, but does not recite stopping accelerator, therefore, teaches not automatically stopping the accelerator).
Further, Dueckinghaus, et al. of the combination provides drive 25 (attached to motor 26) for chopper drum 16 and accelerator 18, which is separate from drive 13 that operates the feed rolls 20. Therefore, stopping the drive 13 would not stop drive 25 that operates the chopper drum or the accelerator.
Regarding claim 18, De Smedt, et al. of the combination teaches the harvester 10 according to claim 17, wherein the harvester 10 is configured such that the harvester 10 itself is not automatically brought to a standstill (as shown in Figure 7, there is no step for stopping the harvester itself, thus De Smedt, et al. is interpreted to teach the negative limitation of not automatically bringing the harvester to a standstill) when the rotation of the feed rolls (as from the combination) is stopped following the detection that the crop flow 12 speed within the curved spout 24 is below the predefined threshold.
Regarding claim 24, De Smedt, et al. of the combination teaches a kit of parts for use (the kit part is capable of being used with the following harvester) with a harvester comprising a cutter drum 16, a tower (adjacent 24) for receiving a crop flow 12 from the accelerator 32;
a curved spout 24 having an inlet section (bottom of 24) and an outlet section (right side of 24), the inlet section coupled to the tower (adjacent 24) to receive the crop flow 12 and guide it (assuming this was intended to be the crop flow) towards the outlet section (right side of 24) from which the crop flow 12 is then ejected via a deflector 52, a control unit (as recited above), the kit of parts comprising:
one or more sensors 50 that couples to the control unit (as recited above) and detects speed of the crop flow in the curved spout (as recited above), auxiliary parts (any of the additional parts shown in Figure 3), and instructions (since the parts are taught, and the harvester of claim 13 is taught and are arranged in the same manner as claimed, instructions are implicit regarding their assembly and programming of the control unit to receive and process the sensor signals as described above when a blockage occurs within the prior art) for mounting the one or more sensors 50 on a curved spout 24 of a forage harvester 10 to thereby transform said forage harvester 10 into the harvester 10.
Deuckinghaus, et al. of the combination teaches the harvester having a feed roll assembly 10 configured to receive crops collected by a header mounted at a front of the harvester and to move the received crops by active rotation of the feed rolls towards (as recited above).
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Smedt, et al. in view of Deuckinghaus, et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kooima, et al. US9198350.
Regarding claim 14 , De Smedt, et al. teaches the harvester 10 according to claim 13, wherein the curved spout 24 has as cross section (as shown in Figure 2), and wherein a portion of a bottom of the curved spout 24 is open between a location upstream of the outlet section (right side of 24) and the outlet section (right side of 24) itself, and wherein the at least one sensor 50 comprises:
a contactless sensor 50 configured to measure the crop flow 12 speed without physically contacting the crop flow 12;
wherein the contactless sensor 50 (¶0044:1-2 describes contactless sensing “The crop velocity sensor 50 does not contact the crop material as the crop stream CS moves through the spout 24.”) is attached to the curved spout 24 and is configured to measure the crop flow 12 speed (crop velocity is the same as crop speed) at a start of said open portion of the bottom of the curved spout 24.
De Smedt, et al. does not teach that the curved spout has a rectangular cross-section, the sensor is disposed at the bottom of the curved spout.
Kooima teaches a curved spout 10 with a rectangular cross section (Figure 5), to provide transmission for crop (Column 4: 66-Column 5: 12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify De Smedt, et al.’s cross section in view of Kooima’s rectangular cross section with a reasonable expectation of success to enable transportation of the crop thru the curved spout.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to reverse the location of De Smedt, et al.’s sensor 50 and window 70 to be disposed on the bottom of the curved spout, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Note that it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. See also, MPEP § 2144.04, which states: In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious expedient.).
Regarding claim 20, De Smedt, et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach the curved spout 24 includes a hatch door mechanism comprising at least one hatch door arranged on an underside of the curved spout 24 to enable removal of blocked crops by opening one or more of the at least one hatch door and letting the blocked crops drop through an opening in a bottom of the curved spout 24 created by opening the one or more of the at least one hatch door.
Kooima teaches the curved spout 10 with a deflector 34, which includes a hatch door mechanism (Figure 2) comprising at least one hatch door 36 arranged on an underside of the curved spout (arranged on lateral extent 82 which is under the top extent 80, and thus is considered an underside) to enable removal of blocked crops by opening one or more of the at least one hatch door (opening by pivoting away from 34) and letting the blocked crops drop through an opening 54 in a bottom of the curved spout created by opening the one or more of the at least one hatch door. Column 4: 47-50 “In some implementations, an extended spout actuator assembly 40 that is configured to move a part or parts of the movable section 36 of the spout tip portion to direct the crop materials dispensed from the discharge spout.” This describes using the movable hatch door/ section 36 to direct dispensed crop materials as desired.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the arched spout of De Smedt, et al. in view of the arched spout of Kooima including the hatch door with a reasonable expectation of success in directing dispensed crop materials as desired.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Smedt, et al. in view of Deuckinghaus, et al. and Kooima, et al. as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of NPL “John Deere High Arch Chopper Spout”, Big Iron Auctions https://www.bigiron.com/Lots/JohnDeereHighArchChopperSpout, July 19, 2017 (“Big Iron Auctions”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the harvester according to claim 14, as described above, but does not teach the bottom of the curved spout changes from a closed bottom to an open bottom through a V-shaped transition zone, and wherein the contactless sensor is attached to the underside of the curved spout so as to measure the crop flow speed at a location within the V-shaped transition zone.
Big Iron Auctions teaches that a curved spout has a v-shaped transition zone (see Figure A below, annotated from image 1/12, showing the underside of the spout).
PNG
media_image1.png
240
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: annotated from image 1/12, Big Iron Auctions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to reverse the location of De Smedt, et al.’s sensor 50 to be disposed on the bottom of the curved spout, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify De Smedt, et al.’s curved spout’s open-ended outlet in view of Big Iron Auctions’ curved spout with v-shaped transition zone with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce overall weight of the spout, by removing material from the underside of the spout, and to enable an undermounted sensor to take measurements at the bottom of the spout since a notch of the spout’s bottom is removed to form the v-shape.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Smedt, et al. in view of Deuckinghaus, et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of William Knutson US2004/0004544.
Regarding claim 19, De Smedt, et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and teaches a tractor 16 moving together with the harvester and towing a trailer 14 for collecting the crop flow 12 (as shown in Figure 1) issuing from the spout 24, moving together with the harvester through a field during a harvesting run as shown in Figure 1. De Smedt, et al. further teaches transmitting a signal ¶0052 to the drivers cabin 26 when the crop flow has reduced below the predefined threshold.
De Smedt, et al. does not teach the harvester 10 is configured to transmit a signal to the tractor, when the rotation of the feed rolls is stopped, following the detection that the crop flow 12 speed within the curved spout 24 is below the predefined threshold.
William Knutson teaches transmitting a signal using a communication device between harvesting vehicle and truck/tractor to communicate between the two ¶0006.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify De Smedt, et al.’s controller in view of William Knutson’s controller that transmits a signal between harvesting vehicle and tractor with a reasonable expectation of success to enable communication of status between the two, for improved vehicle control and coordination between two separately powered vehicles.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Smedt, et al. in view of Deuckinghaus, et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kormann, et al. 2005/0195406.
Regarding claim 21, the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach the curved spout includes a hatch door mechanism comprising a pivotable hatch door supported by and fixed to two pivotable brackets arranged laterally with respect to the curved spout when the hatch door is closed, and wherein the two pivotable brackets are pivotable about a first pivot point and a second pivot point, respectively, which define a pivot axis that is oriented in a longitudinal direction of the curved spout.
Kormann, et al. teaches a curved spout 26 (Figure 1 shows 26 as a curved spout attached to harvester 10) includes a hatch door mechanism (Figure 2) comprising a pivotable hatch door 60 supported by and fixed to two pivotable brackets (left and right sides of 56) arranged laterally (56 extends left to right along the lateral axis of 26) with respect to the curved spout 26 when the hatch door is closed (as shown in Figure 3), and wherein the two pivotable brackets are pivotable about a first pivot point (left sidewall of 56) and a second pivot point (right sidewall of 56), respectively, which define a pivot axis (the axis that left and right sidewalls of 56 rotate) that is oriented in a longitudinal direction (as shown in Figure 3, where the axis of rotation, when compared with Figure 2, is arranged from left to right, aligned with the longitudinal direction of 26 that lies left to right in figure 2) of the curved spout 26. This provides more protection ¶0008 for the measuring device/sensor 68.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the arched spout of De Smedt, et al. of the combination in view of the arched spout of Kormann, et al. including the hatch door with a reasonable expectation of success in providing additional protection for sensors on the spout.
Regarding claim 22, the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach the curved spout 24 has a rectangular cross-section, and wherein the first and second pivot points are located in close proximity to an upper corner of said rectangular cross-section.
Kormann, et al. teaches that a rectangular cross-section (figure 2) for the spout 26 is known, where the first and second pivot points are located in close proximity to an upper corner (the rear corner of 26 shown in Figure 2) of said rectangular cross-section, to provide desired pivotal mounting onto plate 50, for aligning sensor 68 with a pane 66, as described in ¶0026 “A sensor surface 68 is arranged on the measuring device 46 in such a way that it is arranged centrally to the pane 66 when the cover arrangement 56 is pivoted into a closed position (first position in the following)”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify De Smedt, et al.’s arched spout in view of Kormann, et al.’s rectangular cross section such that the first and second pivot points are located in close proximity with the upper corner of the rectangular cross-section with a reasonable expectation of success to enable alignment for the sensor to the window for taking measurements inside the chute.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 1/7/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments that Deuckinghaus, et al. does not teach how it intends to implement the foreign object detection device are not on point. Deuckinghaus, et al. was not relied upon to teach the foreign object detection. Instead, Deuckinghaus, et al. was relied upon to teach that it is known in the art to automatically stop a forager harvester if a blockage is detected. De Smedt, et al.'s control unit is modified in view of Deuckinghaus to be configured to automatically stop if a blockage is detected. Modifiation would have been obvious, since De Smedt, et al. already suggests decreasing speed at 214 to prevent blockage ¶0050. Stopping is the lowest limit for decreasing speed. Further, De Smedt, et al. teaches monitoring crop velocity, which is the same as crop speed. There is no limitation in claim 13 that defines the "predefined threshold". Therefore, De Smedt, et al.'s velocity VS in Figure 6 falling below the dashed line is equivalent to the predefined threshold.
Therefore, applicant's arguments regarding dependent claims are similarly refuted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is allowed.
Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach two pivotable brackets, in combination with the harvester as claimed, where at least one of the brackets is a beam or plate-shaped element oriented perpendicular to the curved spout’s longitudinal direction, wherein the curved spout is positively required in this claim, when the hatch door is closed, and where the variable length actuator is coupled to the beam/plate-shaped element such that extension of the variable length actuator closes the hatch door, and retraction opens the hatch door.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ameye, et al. US5558282 teaches a door 119 on spout 100, with two brackets (between 122 and 119 shown in Figure 6) at least one of the brackets is a beam or plate-shaped element (the rectangle between 122 and 118 us beam shaped) oriented perpendicular (as shown in Figure 6) to the curved spout’s longitudinal direction (left and right of 100 in Figure 6), when the hatch door is closed (solid line in Figure 6), and where the variable length actuator 124 (piston 124 is variable length as shown in the dashed lines) is coupled to the beam/plate-shaped element such that extension of the variable length actuator opens the hatch door (as shown in the dashed lines in Figure 6), and retraction closes the hatch door (as shown in solid lines in Figure 6). The extension and retraction motion for the variable length actuator is opposite of what is claimed.
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 3/11/2026