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 Interpretation
Claims 5-7 and 16 use language such as “wherein, in the absence of the controller receiving the input” and/or negative phases excluding the controller function. This is interpreted by the examiner as not removing the controller and its capable function from the independent claims but only ceasing the input to and from the controller. In other words, the controller and its capability is considered to remain present in the dependent claims but may be disabled by the operator.
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, 5-9, 12-14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuchtling (USPN 10412887).
Regarding claim 1, Fuchtling discloses an agricultural system, comprising: a header (2), comprising: a frame (5); a first lateral conveyor (7) coupled to the frame; a second lateral conveyor (8) coupled to the frame, wherein the first and second lateral conveyors are configured to laterally transport crop material towards a central crop- receiving aperture (in-take channel 19) in a first direction; and actuators (47/48) configured to adjust a speed and a direction of the first and second lateral conveyors; and a controller (20) configured to: receive an input from an input device (input device comprises a switch in the cab, column 10 lines 55-58, and lever 43 and switch 54 column 11 35-47) that causes the controller to automatically link the speed and the direction of the first and second lateral conveyors to a vehicle speed and a vehicle direction of an agricultural vehicle that the header is coupled to (column 8 lines 33-37 discloses direct proportional control of a forward speed to a belt speed); and provide, when receiving the input, a control signal to the actuators that alters the speed and the direction of the first and second lateral conveyors in response to changes in the vehicle speed and the vehicle direction (Changes in the vehicle speed are directly related to the speed of the belts. Via the input the direction of the belts may be reversed column 10 and 11 lines 59-57 and 1-11. The operator may reduce speed and reverse the belts upon indication of jamming).
It is noted that the claim language is considered broad, Fuchtling comprises both manual and automatic control which together is capable of meeting the claim limitations. Specific amendment to the control system to clearly claim automated belt speed and direction in relationship to the forward and reverse direction of the harvester would overcome the rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Fuchtling discloses wherein, when receiving the input, the control signal causes the first and second lateral conveyors to stop moving when the agricultural vehicle stops (The system of Fuchtling is considered to stop as the belt speeds are proportional to the forward speed. Column 8 lines 34-37. Therefore, a stopped state would be proportional to a stoppage of the belts. Further, for the sake of argument, an input to the control system to completely shut down would result in stoppage of everything meeting the claim limitations).
Regarding claim 3, Fuchtling discloses wherein, when receiving the input, the control signal causes the first and second lateral conveyors to move in a second direction opposite the first direction when the agricultural vehicle moves in a reverse direction (Column 10 and 11 lines 59-57 and 1-11 discloses reverse operation on input, the operator is capable of moving the harvester in reverse as is known in the art).
Regarding claim 5, Fuchtling discloses wherein, in the absence of the controller receiving the input or when the controller ceases receiving the input, the direction of the first and second lateral conveyors is not linked to changes in the vehicle direction (Column 10 lines 55-58 discloses manual mode of operation).
Regarding claim 6, Fuchtling discloses wherein, in the absence of the controller receiving the input or when the controller ceases receiving the input, the speed of the first and second lateral conveyors is linked to changes in the vehicle speed until the speed of the first and second lateral conveyors reaches a minimum threshold speed (Once imputed by the operator the machine is considered to maintain proportionate belt speed to vehicle speed absent of additional inputs. Therefore the controller ceases to continue to receive input. Column 9 lines 50-65 discloses a minimum speed).
Regarding claim 7, Fuchtling discloses wherein, in the absence of the controller receiving the input or when the controller ceases receiving the input, the speed of the first and second lateral conveyors is maintained at the minimum threshold speed when the agricultural vehicle is stopped (The minimum speed of the belts would be considered constant even at very slow of temporary stops during operation of the machine as the operator may set a minimum belt speed during operation).
Regarding claim 8, Fuchtling discloses wherein, when receiving the input, the speed of the first and second lateral conveyors is not subject to the minimum threshold speed (The operator may input minimum and maximum speeds as desired. The minimum and maximum speeds are optional, therefore when input by the operator the min and max speeds may be negated).
Regarding claim 9, Fuchtling discloses wherein the input device is located within a cabin (21) of the agricultural vehicle (The input devices are considered within the cabin of the combine as indicated in column 11 lines 34-47).
Regarding claim 12, Fuchtling discloses a method for operating lateral conveyors (7/8) on a header (2) of an agricultural vehicle, comprising: receiving an input (controller 20) from an input device (input device comprises a switch in the cab, column 10 lines 55-58, and lever 43 and switch 54 column 11 35-47) that causes a controller to automatically link a speed and a direction of both a first lateral conveyor and a second lateral conveyor to a vehicle speed and a vehicle direction of the agricultural vehicle (column 8 lines 33-37 discloses direct proportional control of a forward speed to a belt speed), wherein the first and second lateral conveyors are coupled to a frame (5) of the header and are configured to laterally transport crop material towards a central crop-receiving aperture (in-take channel 19) in a first direction; and providing, when receiving the input, a control signal to actuators (47/48) coupled to the first and second lateral conveyors that alters the speed and the direction of the first and second lateral conveyors in response to changes in the vehicle speed and the vehicle direction. (Changes in the vehicle speed are directly related to the speed of the belts. Via the input the direction of the belts may be reversed column 10 and 11 lines 59-57 and 1-11. The operator may reduce speed and reverse the belts upon indication of jamming).
It is noted that the claim language is considered broad, Fuchtling comprises both manual and automatic control which together is capable of meeting the claim limitations. Specific amendment to the control system to clearly claim automated belt speed and direction in relationship to the forward and reverse direction of the harvester would overcome the rejection.
Regarding claim 13, Fuchtling discloses wherein providing, when receiving the input, the control signal causes the first and second lateral conveyors to stop moving when the agricultural vehicle stops (The system of Fuchtling is considered to stop as the belt speeds are proportional to the forward speed. Column 8 lines 34-37. Therefore, a stopped state would be proportional to a stoppage of the belts. Further, for the sake of argument, an input to the control system to completely shut down would result in stoppage of everything meeting the claim limitations).
Regarding claim 14, Fuchtling discloses wherein providing, when receiving the input, the control signal alters the direction of the first and second lateral conveyors to a second direction opposite the first direction when the agricultural vehicle moves in a reverse direction (Column 10 and 11 lines 59-57 and 1-11 discloses reverse operation on input, the operator is capable of moving the harvester in reverse as is known in the art).
Regarding claim 16, Fuchtling discloses ceasing the input causes the direction of the first and second lateral conveyors to not be linked to changes in the vehicle direction (Column 10 lines 55-58 discloses manual mode of operation).
Regarding claim 17, Fuchtling discloses non-transitory computer readable medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor (20), are configured to cause the processor to: receive an input from an input device (input device comprises a switch in the cab, column 10 lines 55-58, and lever 43 and switch 54 column 11 35-47) to automatically link a speed and a direction of both a first lateral conveyor (7) and a second lateral conveyor (8) to a vehicle speed and a vehicle direction of an agricultural vehicle (column 8 lines 33-37 discloses direct proportional control of a forward speed to a belt speed), wherein the first and second lateral conveyors are coupled to a frame (5) of a header (2) coupled to the agricultural vehicle and the first and second lateral conveyors are configured to laterally transport crop material towards a central crop-receiving aperture (in-take channel 19) in a first direction; and provide, when receiving the input, a control signal to actuators coupled to the first and second lateral conveyors that alters the speed and the direction of the first and second lateral conveyors in response to changes in the vehicle speed and the vehicle direction. (Changes in the vehicle speed are directly related to the speed of the belts. Via the input the direction of the belts may be reversed column 10 and 11 lines 59-57 and 1-11. The operator may reduce speed and reverse the belts upon indication of jamming).
It is noted that the claim language is considered broad, Fuchtling comprises both manual and automatic control which together is capable of meeting the claim limitations. Specific amendment to the control system to clearly claim automated belt speed and direction in relationship to the forward and reverse direction of the harvester would overcome the rejection.
Regarding claim 18, Fuchtling discloses wherein providing, when receiving the input, the control signal causes the first and second lateral conveyors to stop moving when the agricultural vehicle stops. (The system of Fuchtling is considered to stop as the belt speeds are proportional to the forward speed. Column 8 lines 34-37. Therefore, a stopped state would be proportional to a stoppage of the belts. Further, for the sake of argument, an input to the control system to completely shut down would result in stoppage of everything meeting the claim limitations).
Regarding claim 19, Fuchtling discloses wherein providing, when receiving the input, the control signal alters the direction of the first and second lateral conveyors to a second direction opposite the first direction when the agricultural vehicle moves in a reverse direction (Column 10 and 11 lines 59-57 and 1-11 discloses reverse operation on input, the operator is capable of moving the harvester in reverse as is known in the art).
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(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchtling (USPN 10412887) as applied to claim 9 in further view of Eick (USPN 8186136).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Fuchtling discloses wherein the input device comprises a button (switch element column 10 lines 55-58) while the button is depressed (switched to an on state), the speed and the direction of the first and second lateral conveyors remains automatically linked to the vehicle speed and the vehicle direction of the agricultural vehicle (column 10 lines 55-58).
Fuchtling discloses the use of a lever control (53) however is lacking all its functioning, such as further controlling speed and direction.
Eick discloses a harvester and teaches the use of a multi-function handle (70) that controls the vehicle speed and the vehicle direction (Column 5 lines 4-12). Handle 70 further includes switches 76 for controlling various other functions (Column 5 lines 13-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fuchtling by using a similar handle that controls vehicle speed and direction with multiple function buttons as taught by Eick for a convenient control system with friendly operator controls to ease operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 15, and 20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. MacGregor (USPN 7392124)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BEHRENS whose telephone number is (303)297-4336. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-2pm MST.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. 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.
/ADAM J BEHRENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671