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 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) 16-24 and 27-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Erdmann, et al. US2006/0277888.
Regarding claim 16, Erdmann, et al. teaches a pickup assembly (Figure 1) for an agricultural vehicle 10 (wherein 10 is a baler, which is an agricultural vehicle), the pickup assembly (Figure 1) comprising:
a frame 12;
a pickup drum 18 carried by the frame 12 and carrying a plurality of tines (¶0018 rotor teeth are the same as the claimed tines);
a windguard assembly 40 (wherein a hold-down 40 and a windguard are the same thing) carried by the frame 12 and comprising a roller 48 carried in front of the pickup drum 18 and defining a roller axis (rotation axis of 48); and
guidance plate 46 (wherein one of left or right plate 46 is selected to be the guidance plate. 46 is thin and planar, thus is considered a plate) that is pivotable about a pivot axis (aligned with 126) that is coaxial with the roller axis (rotation axis of 48), the guidance plate having a surface facing the tines (see Figure A below, annotated from Figure 3, in which the curved surface of 46 provides a surface that faces the tines);
PNG
media_image1.png
267
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: annotated Figure 3
the guidance plate 46 is coupled to the frame 12;
a plate resistor 82 that is coupled (via 72 and 54) to the guidance plate 46 and configured to resist pivoting ¶0024 (the counterbalancing is equivalent to the claimed “resist pivoting”) of the guidance plate 46 about the pivot axis (aligned with 126);
the plate resistor 82 couples (via 52) the guidance plate 46 to the frame 12.
Regarding claim 20, Erdmann, et al. teaches the plate resistor 82 comprises at least one of a hydraulic cylinder or a spring (82 is a spring).
Regarding claim 21, Erdmann, et al. teaches a pivot pin 126 (¶0026 describes pivoting) extending along the roller axis (rotation axis of 48, as shown at least in Figure 5), the guidance plate 46 being pivotably coupled (comparing Figures 5 and 6) to the pivot pin 126.
Regarding claim 22, Erdmann, et al. teaches an arm (the other of 46, wherein one of 46 is selected to be the guidance plate) coupled to the frame 12 and comprising a pin opening (hole to support 126) in which the pivot pin 126 is partially disposed.
Regarding claim 23, Erdmann, et al. teaches at least one stop 70 (wherein the ends of slot 70 provide axial limits on total movement, as described in ¶0030) configured to stop pivoting of the guidance plate 46 at least one of a minimum pivoting position (one end of the slot 70) or a maximum pivoting position (the other end of slot 70).
Regarding claim 24, Erdmann, et al. teaches a stop actuator (70 moves on 68 by pivoting on 71 relative to frame 12) movably coupling the at least one stop 70 to the frame 12 and configured to move the at least one stop 70 relative to the frame 12 and adjust (by moving the linkages 52 and 54) at least one of the minimum pivoting position or the maximum pivoting position (in which 70 is moved when comparing Figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 27, Erdmann, et al. teaches the guidance plate 46 comprises a roughened surface (wherein guidance plate 46 provides a surface that faces the tines, thus necessarily provides a roughened surface as compared with a smoother surface) facing the tines (¶0018 rotor teeth). It is noted that the claims do not provide additional structural limitation to define the roughened surface or the surface’s intended use.
Regarding claim 28, Erdmann, et al. teaches an agricultural vehicle 10 comprising:
a chassis (the frame portion of 10);
a crop material conveyor 20 carried by the chassis; and
a pickup assembly (Figure 1) carried by the chassis and configured to move crop material (crop flow described in at least ¶0018) from the ground (horizontal line shown in Figure 1) toward the crop material conveyor 20, the pickup assembly (Figure 1) comprising:
a frame 12;
a pickup drum 18 carried by the frame 12 and carrying a plurality of tines (¶0018 rotor teeth);
a windguard assembly 40 carried by the frame 12 and comprising a roller 48 carried in front of the pickup drum 18 and defining a roller axis (rotation axis of 48); and
a guidance plate 46 that is pivotable about a pivot axis (aligned with 126) that is coaxial with the roller axis (rotation axis of 48), the guidance plate 46 having a surface (as recited above) facing the plurality of tines configured to direct the crop material that is picked up by the plurality of tines (¶0018 rotor teeth) towards the crop material conveyor 20; and
a plate resistor 82 that is coupled to the guidance plate 46 and configured to resist pivoting of the guidance plate 46 about the pivot axis (aligned with 126).
Regarding claim 29, Erdmann, et al. teaches the crop material conveyor 20 is an auger (stub augers described in ¶0018).
Regarding claim 30, Erdmann, et al. teaches the agricultural vehicle 10 is a forage harvester, a large square baler, a small square baler, or a round baler (round baler described in Erdmann, et al.’s claim 12 and the abstract).
Regarding claim 32, Erdmann, et al. teaches the pickup assembly (Figure 1) further comprising a pivot pin 126 extending along the roller axis (rotation axis of 48), the guidance plate 46 being pivotably coupled to the pivot pin 126.
Regarding claim 33, Erdmann, et al. teaches an arm (the other of 46, wherein one of 46 is selected to be the guidance plate) coupled to the frame 12 and comprising a pin opening (hole for 126 to fit into) in which the pivot pin 126 is partially disposed.
Regarding claim 34, Erdmann, et al. teaches at least one stop 70 configured to stop 70 pivoting of the guidance plate 46 at least one of a minimum pivoting position or a maximum pivoting position.
Regarding claim 35, Erdmann, et al. teaches a stop 70 actuator ¶0030 movably (wherein the adjusted positions for the actuator causes movement of stop 70, thus changing the pivoting positions by vertically moving 70) coupling the at least one stop 70 to the frame 12 and configured to move the at least one stop 70 relative to the frame 12 and adjust at least one of the minimum pivoting position or the maximum pivoting position.
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) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erdmann, et al. in view of Gette, et al. and Posselius, et al. US2013/0000497.
Regarding claim 25, Erdmann, et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach a controller configured to output a stop adjustment signal causing the stop actuator to move the at least one stop 70.
Posselius, et al. teaches that it is known in the art to use a controller 115 to adjust compression rollers ¶0015 based on pressure sensors 110 and adjust a gap ¶0036 in place of manual control by an operator.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Erdmann, et al.’s actuation for the windguard in view of Posselius, et al.’s controller that outputs a stop adjustment signal/roller actuation signal to move the roller with a reasonable expectation of success in adjusting the roller (and thus the stop) to “vary the pressure based on the type of crop material being crushed” (Posselius, et al. ¶0015).
Regarding claim 26, Posselius, et al. of the combination teaches a pressure sensor 110 associated with the pickup drum 100b, operably coupled to the controller 115 (shown in Figure 1), and configured to output a pressure signal (via the line to 115) corresponding to a pressure on the pickup drum 100b to the controller;
the controller being configured to receive the pressure signal and/or the plate angle signal and output the stop adjustment signal (the varying gap described in ¶0015, and further described in ¶0057) based at least partially on the received pressure signal and/or plate angle signal.
The combination does not teach that the pressure sensor is associated with the pickup drum, operably coupled to the controller, and configured to output a pressure signal corresponding to a pressure on the pickup drum to the controller;
the controller being configured to receive the pressure signal and/or the plate angle signal and output the stop adjustment signal based at least partially on the received pressure signal and/or plate angle signal.
At the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to select the pressure sensor to be associated with Erdmann et al.’s pickup drum, thus outputting a pressure sensor corresponding to a pressure on the pickup drum to the controller. It has been held that it is obvious to try from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) Rationale E, MPEP 2143(I). In this case, there are only two options for detecting pressure- the drum or the roller- to determine crop flow. These solutions are predictable because each provides information of the characteristics of the crop that are being picked up, and provide a reasonable expectation of success in being able to regulate the pick up of these crops by controlling the relative pressure difference between the roller and the drum by controlling the roller position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments that Erdmann does not teach any portion of plates 46 facing the tines of the pickup 18 are not persuasive. As described above, Erdmann provides the curved surface as in Figure 3 that face the tines. Since the plates 46are three dimensional, they necessarily at least provide a nominal surface to define the width of 46 that face the tines.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims, are refuted.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 1/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims over Gette have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims over Gette has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27 and 36 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Erdmann does not teach, in combination, the guidance plate’s surface is a roughened surface that strips crop material from the tines. While Erdmann teaches a surface that faces the tines, these do not have a roughened surface that strips crop material from the tines. Modification would not have been obvious, as Erdmann’s surface is relatively thing, and would not support sufficient roughness to provide the required claimed stripping of crop from the tines. Modification would require impermissible hindsight reasoning.
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 4/1/2026
Prosecution Insights