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
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 3 and 4 recite “is upstream the first pair” and “upstream the second pair”. This is grammatically awkward. It is assumed this was intended to be “is upstream from the first pair” and “upstream from the second pair”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “the first and second pairs of linear actuators comprise first and second pairs of electromechanical linear actuators”. It cannot be determined if applicant intended that each first and second pairs of linear actuators include first and second pairs of electro mechanical linear actuators, in which case each pair would have a pair within that pairing, or if the first and second pairs of linear actuators are electromechanical linear actuators. It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended the first and second pairs of linear actuators are electromechanical linear actuators.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the electromechanical linear actuators " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 depends from claim 11, which does not provide antecedent basis for this term, therefore, it cannot be determined if applicant intended to introduce the electromechanical linear actuators in addition to the actuators in claim 11. It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended for claim 13 to depend from claim 12.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt, et al. US2019/0003495 in view of Strivers, et al. US6138447.
Regarding claim 1, Hunt, et al. teaches a header 30 for an agricultural harvester 600 comprising:
a first reel 737a including first and second reel ends (left and right sides);
a reel arm assembly 802 (Figure 11) operatively connected to the first reel, the reel arm assembly including:
a first reel arm (extension of 802 that extends to 737a) connected to the first reel end (on the left side of 737a), the first reel arm including a first hydraulic cylinder 44a, a first control valve 54a (shown in Figure 6 controlling piston 44a), and a first swapping valve 66 (wherein 66 is considered a swapping valve since it has a cross over component shown in the crossed arrows, thus provide at least some amount of fluid swapping) for operatively controlling the first reel arm;
a second reel arm (the other side of 737a to symmetrically support the reel) connected to the second reel end, the second reel arm including a second hydraulic cylinder 44b, a second control valve 54b; and
a hydraulic circuit (lines 48, 50, and 52, including hydraulic supply 42) operatively connected to the first and second hydraulic cylinders (as shown at least in Figure 6); and
a controller 560 operatively connected to each of the first and second reel arms (connection shown with lines from 560) for independently controlling a position of each of the first and second reel arms relative to the ground (providing synchronizing of position system 540 ¶0058).
Hunt, et al. does not teach the first reel arm has a first pair of hydraulic cylinders; the second reel arm has a second pair of hydraulic cylinders; the hydraulic circuit operatively connected to the first pair of hydraulic cylinders and the second pair of hydraulic cylinders, wherein the first pair of hydraulic cylinders and the second pair of hydraulic cylinders are arranged in a parallel circuit; and a second swapping valve for operatively controlling the second reel arm.
Hunt, et al., however, does teach in Figure 9 positioning systems 641 and 642. ¶0087 “Systems 641A and 641C move or adjust a vertical positioning of their respective segments 637C and 637B, which results in vertical adjustment of the opposite ends of segment 637B. Systems 642A and 642B move or adjust a fore-aft (frontward-rearward) positioning of the respective segments 637C and 6376, which results in fore-aft adjustment of the opposite ends of segments 637B. Each of positioning systems 641 is similar to positioning system 590A described above. Each of positioning systems 642 is similar to positioning system 540A described above. Controller 660 controls the rephasing of each positioning system 641, 642 as described above”. In this case, positioning system 590 includes pistons 76, and positioning system 540 includes pistons 44. Each system 590 and 540 is attached to reel 536. However, the configuration for at least pistons 76 are not shown relative to the arms. Strivers, et al. teaches a reel 24 with first and second sides (left and right side) with first and second reel arms (respective ones of 26 to provide symmetric support for reel 24). First reel arm has a first pair of hydraulic cylinders 36 and 40 (as shown in Figure 1). Second reel arm has a second pair of hydraulic cylinders 42 and 36 (wherein Column 2: 50-53 “Hydraulic cylinders 36, only one of which is shown, are used to move the reel mounting brackets 32, 34 longitudinally along the axis 38 of the reel support arms”, indicating that 36 is on both sides). Cylinders 36 provide movement for the reel along the longitudinal axis of the arms and cylinders 40 and 42 provide reel lifting Column 2: 54-56 “Hydraulic lift cylinders 40, 42 are provided between the platform frame 12 and the reel support arms 26, 28, respectively, to lift the reel by rotation of the arms about the pins 30.”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hunt, et al.’s first and second hydraulic cylinder to be a pair of hydraulic cylinders in view of Striver, et al.’s pair of cylinders connected with respective arms with a reasonable expectation of success in providing both lifting and longitudinal movement for the reels to customize reel positioning.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to duplicate Hunt, et al.’s swapping valve 66 to have a second swapping valve, 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. Doing so would provide additional hydraulic fluid control capabilities for a pair of hydraulic cylinders to control the reel’s position on both the first and second arm. 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.
At the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the combination to select the first and second pair of hydraulic cylinders to be arranged in a parallel circuit, as obvious to try from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success in controlling the first and second pairs of cylinders. In this case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions is parallel, series, or branched circuits.
Regarding claim 2, Hunt, et al. teaches that the first swapping valve 66 is upstream (closer to fluid source 42) the first pair of hydraulic cylinders (cylinder 44a). therefore, it would be obvious that the second swapping valve is upstream the second pair of hydraulic cylinders in a similar manner.
Regarding claim 4, Hunt, et al. teaches that the first control valve 54a is upstream the first swapping valve 66 and the second control valve is upstream the second swapping valve.
Regarding claim 5, Strivers, et al. teaches that the first pair of hydraulic cylinders includes a primary hydraulic cylinder 40/42 to raise or lower the first reel arm (cylinders 40 and 42 are lift cylinders Column 2: 54-57 “Hydraulic lift cylinders 40, 42 are provided between the platform frame 12 and the reel support arms 26, 28, respectively, to lift the reel by rotation of the arms about the pins 30”), and a secondary hydraulic cylinder 36 to move the first reel fore or aft (Column 2: 50-52 “Hydraulic cylinders 36, only one of which is shown, are used to move the reel mounting brackets 32, 34 longitudinally along the axis 38 of the reel support arms”. The longitudinal movement is the same as the claimed fore or aft movement since the arms are directed in the fore and aft direction for the header).
Regarding claim 6, Hunt, et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the first swapping valve 66 is operatively connected to each of the primary and secondary hydraulic cylinders.
Hunt, et al., however, does teach that the first swapping valve 66 is operatively connected the hydraulic cylinders 44a and 44b that provide lift.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the swapping valve of Hunt, et al. of the combination to connect to the primary and secondary cylinders of the combination to provide desired hydraulic control for these cylinders, 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 7, Hunt, et al. of the combination teaches that the controller 560 is operatively connected to the swapping valves 66.
Regarding claim 8, Hunt, et al. teaches a sensor 282 in communication with the controller for sensing at least one working condition of the header (¶0046 “second sensor or a second sensing element 282 that outputs signals indicating the position of piston 72 and/or rod 74 of a second one of cylinders 44. In such an implementation, controller 60 may utilize such signals to determine the positioning of the piston 72 and/or rod 74 of each of cylinders 44 and to compare the determined positions to identify a degree to which pistons 72 of the different hydraulic cylinders 44 are out of phase with respect to one another”, wherein determining the positioning of the piston or rod provides a position of the header, which is a working condition of the header).
Regarding claim 9, Hunt, et al. teaches an agricultural harvester 600 comprising the header of claim 1 (as shown in Figure 8, and discussed above).
Regarding claim 10, Hunt, et al. teaches a control unit 660 in communication with the controller 560 (¶0086 “ The rephasing of the fore-aft positioning system 642A and 642B may be synchronized by controller 660 to maintain the forward or rearward positioning of segment 637B in alignment with that of segments 637A and 637C”, wherein 642 is similar to 540 as described above, which includes controller 560. Therefore, control unit 660 is in communication with controller 560 to provide the described rephasing).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt, et al. in view of Strivers and Rath US3456437.
Regarding claim 11, Hunt, et al. teaches a header 30 for an agricultural harvester 600 comprising:
a first reel 737a including first and second reel ends (left and right sides);
a reel arm assembly 802 operatively connected to the first reel (as described above), the reel arm assembly including:
a first reel arm (extension of 802 that extends to 737a) connected to the first reel end, the first reel arm including a first linear actuator 44a for operatively controlling the first reel arm (as described above);
a second reel arm connected to the second reel end, the second reel arm including a second linear actuator 44b for operatively controlling the second reel arm; and
a controller 560 operatively connected to each of the first and second reel arms for independently controlling a position of each of the first and second reel arms relative to the ground (as described above).
Hunt, et al. does not teach the first reel arm including a first pair of linear actuators, the second reel arm including a second pair of linear actuators; the first pair and second pair of linear actuators are arranged in a parallel circuit; an electrical circuit operatively connected to the first pair of linear actuators and the second pair of linear actuators, wherein the first pair of linear actuators and the second pair of linear actuators are arranged in a parallel circuit.
Hunt, et al. suggests using pairs of actuators, as described above relative to the hydraulic cylinders, but does not provide specifics on how the actuators should be attached, also as described above.
Strivers, et al. teaches a reel 24 with first and second sides (left and right side) with first and second reel arms (respective ones of 26 to provide symmetric support for reel 24). First reel arm has a first pair of hydraulic cylinders 36 and 40 (as shown in Figure 1). Second reel arm has a second pair of hydraulic cylinders 42 and 36 (wherein Column 2: 50-53 “Hydraulic cylinders 36, only one of which is shown, are used to move the reel mounting brackets 32, 34 longitudinally along the axis 38 of the reel support arms”, indicating that 36 is on both sides). Cylinders 36 provide movement for the reel along the longitudinal axis of the arms and cylinders 40 and 42 provide reel lifting Column 2: 54-56 “Hydraulic lift cylinders 40, 42 are provided between the platform frame 12 and the reel support arms 26, 28, respectively, to lift the reel by rotation of the arms about the pins 30”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hunt, et al.’s first and second hydraulic cylinder to be a pair of hydraulic cylinders in view of Striver, et al.’s pair of cylinders acting on respective arms with a reasonable expectation of success in providing both lifting and longitudinal movement for the reels to customize reel positioning.
Rath teaches that it is known in the art that a solenoid-actuated jack can be used as a known alternative to a hydraulic jack/actuator (Column 2: 58-60 “ The linear actuator may be a hydraulic jack, a pneumatic jack or a solenoid-actuated Jack”). A solenoid-actuated jack is interpreted to be a electro-mechanical type of actuator. Figure 3 show an electric circuit to control the actuators 58 and 65.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hunt, et al.’s hydraulic cylinders and controller to be the electromechanical actuator and to be an electric control circuit to control the electromechanical actuator to provide a known alternative equivalent actuation control that relies on electrical control and actuation, instead of hydraulic control.
At the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the combination to select the first and second pair of actuators to be arranged in a parallel circuit, as obvious to try from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success in controlling the first and second pairs of actuators. In this case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions is parallel, series, or branched circuits.
Regarding claim 12, Rath, et al. teaches that the first and second pairs of linear actuators comprise first and second pairs of electromechanical linear actuators (the above descried solenoid-actuated jacks. The solenoid-actuated jacks necessarily rely on electrical signals to actuate, and provide mechanical linear movement, thus are considered electrotechnical linear actuators).
Regarding claim 13, Rath, et al. teaches that the electromechanical linear actuators are screw jacks (wherein solenoid actuated jacks are considered screw jacks because they provide linear movement using electromechanical motion).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Killen, et al. US201000293914 teaches a pair of pistons 134 and 138 acting on arm 116. ¶0033 teaches cylinders 134 & 138 mechanically coupled to cylinder 126 such that they are retracted when cylinder 126 extends and lifts arm 116.
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 2/13/2026