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 .
Status of Claims
This final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amended filing of 11/20/2025.
Claims 1-13, 16-17, and 19-20 are currently pending and have been rejected. Applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 5, 16-17, and 19; and cancelled claims 14-15 and 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims 1-2 and 14-17 objected to for minor informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection against claims 1-2 and 14-17 has been withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against Kormann (US 20050072135 A1), the Applicant argues that Kormann is not reasonable to combine with Biziorek because Kormann’s knives are a single set implemented on a rotating drum, and therefore do not teach an engaged and disengaged set of knives as recited in the claims. While the Examiner acknowledges the distinction in how the knives are employed in Kormann, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that it cannot be applied to the claim limitations of first and second sets of knives because Kormann is used to suggest detecting the sharpness of the knives and irrespective of how many knife sets are employed or the machine they operate within. Kormann is reasonable to combine with other art of record then because they are all directed to crop balers equipped with sets of cutting knives to chop and form crop bales, and would allow the baler to observe and adjust blades so that a set is sharpened and ready to cut crops while the other might be sharpened in preparation to substitute the other set while it is sharpened.
Applicant’s arguments against Derscheid et al. (US 20160219789 A1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites “…the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to determine the current sharpness of the first set of knives, and to determine the current sharpness of the second set of knives.” This does not further limit presently amended claim 1, which recites “…determine one a … current sharpness of the first set of knives; determine one of a … current sharpness of the second set of knives;…”
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biziorek et al. (US 20180125011 A1; family reference provided by IDS filed 11/26/2024) in view of Kormann (US 20050072135 A1; reference provided by IDS filed 11/26/2024) and Haycocks (US 20130316770 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Biziorek discloses a pre-cutter assembly for a baler implement (see at least ¶ [0021-0022] and Figs. 2-3 disclosing a large square baler with a cutter unit), the pre-cutter assembly comprising:
a support structure (see at least Fig. 3 depicting structure for holding the cutter unit to the large square baler);
a plurality of knives including a first set of knives and a second set of knives (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the cutting unit has a first and another set of knives), wherein the first set of knives and the second set of knives are each moveable independent of each other relative to the support structure between a retracted position and a deployed position (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them);
a first actuator coupled to the first set of knives and operable to move the first set of knives between its respective retracted position and its respective deployed position (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them);
a second actuator coupled to the second set of knives and operable to move the second set of knives between its respective retracted position and its respective deployed position (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them);
a controller operatively coupled to the first actuator and the second actuator, wherein the controller includes a processor and a memory having a knife control algorithm stored therein (see at least ¶ [0010] and [0024] disclosing an electronic control unit directing the cutter unit to actuate the first or another set of knives using stored algorithms), wherein the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to:
determine a current baler operating parameter (see at least ¶ [0023-0024] disclosing the electronic control unit receiving sensor information describing bale parameters);
and communicate a control signal to the first actuator and the second actuator to control the first actuator to position the first set of knives in the desired position setting for the first set of knives and to control the second actuator to position the second set of knives in the desired position setting for the second set of knives (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them).
Biziorek does not explicitly disclose determining one of a cumulative usage of the first set of knives over time or a current sharpness of the first set of knives;
and determining one of a cumulative usage of the second set of knives over time or a current sharpness of the second set of knives.
However, Kormann suggests determining one of a cumulative usage of the set of knives over time or a current sharpness of the set of knives (see at least abstract and ¶ [0023] and [0026] disclosing a monitoring device that detects the sharpness of edges of cutting blades to determine if they need to be positioned near a sharpening device).
While Kormann is not directed toward detecting the sharpness of multiple sets of knives, the means of detecting sharpness is capable of being implemented and repeated across multiple sets of knives without undue experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the sharpness monitoring of Kormann into the cutting unit controls of Biziorek with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed to crop balers equipped with sets of cutting knives to chop and form crop bales. This would allow the baler to observe and adjust blades so that a set is sharpened and ready to cut crops while the other might be sharpened in preparation to substitute the other set while it is sharpened.
While Biziorek discloses defining a desired positional setting for the first and second set of knives to include one of the retracted position of the first and second set of knives and the deployed position of the first and second set of knives, based on the current baler operating parameter (see at least ¶ [0022-0024] disclosing the electronic control unit receiving sensor information describing bale parameters and adjusting the first and another set of knives accordingly), and the respective status of each of the first and second set of knives to themselves (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them), Biziorek does not explicitly disclose defining a desired positional setting for the first and second set of knives to include one of the retracted position of the first and second set of knives and the deployed position of the first and second set of knives, wherein the first and second set is based on one of the cumulative usage of the first set of knives and the cumulative usage of the second set of knives, or the current sharpness of the first set of knives and the current sharpness of the second set of knives.
However, Haycocks suggests defining a desired positional setting for the first and second set of knives to include one of the retracted position of the first and second set of knives and the deployed position of the first and second set of knives, wherein the first and second set is based on one of the cumulative usage of the first set of knives and the cumulative usage of the second set of knives, or the current sharpness of the first set of knives and the current sharpness of the second set of knives (see at least abstract and ¶ [0024], [0040], [0046], and [0050] disclosing a baler’s knife beds swinging between a cutting configuration to a sharpening/travel position where a knife-sharpening assembly sharpens the blades).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the cutting configuration and sharpening/travel position of Haycocks into the combination of Biziorek and Kormann with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed to crop balers equipped with sets of cutting knives to chop and form crop bales. In conjunction with Kormann’s disclosure for detecting the sharpness of blades to situate them against a sharpening device, this would allow the sets of knives to maintain a desired sharpness for continued baling operations and be shuttled between a cutting configuration and a sharpening position.
Regarding claim 2, Biziorek discloses the processor is operable execute the knife control algorithm to determine the current baler operating parameter by determining one of: a current crop type, a current crop flow rate, a desired bale density, and a current bale density (see at least ¶ [0004] disclosing the operations are directed toward retaining, compressing, and tying a square bale into a desired density).
Regarding claim 5, Biziorek does not explicitly disclose the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to determine current sharpness of the first set of knives, and to determine the current sharpness of the second set of knives.
However, Kormann suggests determining one of a cumulative usage of the set of knives over time or a current sharpness of the set of knives (see at least abstract and ¶ [0023] and [0026] disclosing a monitoring device that detects the sharpness of edges of cutting blades to determine if they need to be positioned near a sharpening device).
While Kormann is not directed toward detecting the sharpness of multiple sets of knives, the means of detecting sharpness is capable of being implemented and repeated across multiple sets of knives without undue experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the sharpness monitoring of Kormann into the cutting unit controls of Biziorek with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed to crop balers equipped with sets of cutting knives to chop and form crop bales. This would allow the baler to observe and adjust blades so that a set is sharpened and ready to cut crops while the other might be sharpened in preparation to substitute the other set while it is sharpened.
Regarding claim 6, Biziorek does not explicitly disclose the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to define the desired positional setting for the first set of knives and the desired positional setting for the second set of knives based on which one of the current sharpness of the first set of knives and the current sharpness of the second set of knives is greater.
However, Kormann suggests the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to define the desired positional setting for the first set of knives and the desired positional setting for the second set of knives based on which one of the current sharpness of the first set of knives and the current sharpness of the second set of knives is greater (see at least abstract and ¶ [0023] and [0026] disclosing a monitoring device that detects the sharpness of edges of cutting blades to determine if they need to be positioned near a sharpening device).
While Kormann is not directed toward detecting the sharpness of multiple sets of knives, the means of detecting sharpness is capable of being implemented and repeated across multiple sets of knives without undue experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the sharpness monitoring of Kormann into the cutting unit controls of Biziorek with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed to crop balers equipped with sets of cutting knives to chop and form crop bales. This would allow the baler to observe and adjust blades so that a set is sharpened and ready to cut crops while the other might be sharpened in preparation to substitute the other set while it is sharpened.
Regarding claim 8, Biziorek discloses the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to determine the status of the first set of knives by determining a current position of the first set of knives to be one of the retracted position of the first set of knives or the deployed position of the first set of knives (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them), and determine the status of the second set of knives by determining a current position of the second set of knives to be one of the retracted position of the second set of knives or the deployed position of the second set of knives (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them).
Regarding claim 10, Biziorek discloses the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to receive data related to at least one of a current weight of a bale, a current size of a bale, a current crop type of a bale, and a desired density of the bale (see at least abstract and ¶ [0004] and [0023-0024] disclosing the operations are directed toward retaining, compressing, and tying a square bale into a desired density and predetermined length measurements).
Regarding claim 19, Biziorek discloses a baler implement (see at least abstract) comprising:
a frame having a ground engagement device coupled thereto for traversing across a ground surface (see at least ¶ [0020-0021] disclosing a large square baler attached to a vehicle, with a pickup unit for picking up crop material and a pre-compression chamber for bale forming);
a bale formation system attached to the frame and including a compression chamber operable to form crop material into a bale, wherein the compression chamber includes an inlet for receiving the crop material therethrough (see at least ¶ [0020-0021] disclosing a large square baler attached to a vehicle, with a pickup unit for picking up crop material and a pre-compression chamber for bale forming);
a pick-up attached to the frame and positioned forward of the bale formation system relative to a direction of travel during operation and operable to gather the crop material and convey the crop material through the inlet and into the compression chamber (see at least ¶ [0020-0021] disclosing a large square baler attached to a vehicle, with a pickup unit for picking up crop material and a pre-compression chamber for bale forming);
a pre-cutter assembly attached to the frame and positioned between the pick-up and the inlet of the compression chamber, wherein the pre-cutter assembly is operable to cut the crop material into segments prior to passing through the inlet into the compression chamber (see at least ¶ [0021-0022] and Figs. 2-3 disclosing a large square baler with a cutter unit), wherein the pre-cutter assembly includes:
a support structure attached to the frame (see at least Fig. 3 depicting structure for holding the cutter unit to the large square baler);
a plurality of knives including a first set of knives and a second set of knives (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the cutting unit has a first and another set of knives), wherein the first set of knives and the second set of knives are each moveable independent of each other relative to the support structure between a retracted position and a deployed position (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them);
a first actuator coupled to the first set of knives and operable to move the first set of knives between its respective retracted position and its respective deployed position (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them);
a second actuator coupled to the second set of knives and operable to move the second set of knives between its respective retracted position and its respective deployed position (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them);
a controller operatively coupled to the first actuator and the second actuator, wherein the controller includes a processor and a memory having a knife control algorithm stored therein (see at least ¶ [0010] and [0024] disclosing an electronic control unit directing the cutter unit to actuate the first or another set of knives using stored algorithms), wherein the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to:
determine a current baler operating parameter (see at least ¶ [0023-0024] disclosing the electronic control unit receiving sensor information describing bale parameters);
determine a status of the first set of knives and a status of the second set of knives (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them);
and communicate a control signal to the first actuator and the second actuator to control the first actuator to position the first set of knives in the desired position setting for the first set of knives and to control the second actuator to position the second set of knives in the desired position setting for the second set of knives (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them).
Biziorek does not explicitly disclose the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to determine the status of the first set of knives by determining a current sharpness of the first set of knives, and to determine the status of the second set of knives by determining a current sharpness of the second set of knives, and wherein the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to define the desired positional setting for the first set of knives and the desired positional setting for the second set of knives based on which one of the current sharpness of the first set of knives and the current sharpness of the second set of knives is greater.
However, Kormann suggests the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to determine the status of the first set of knives by determining a current sharpness of the first set of knives, and to determine the status of the second set of knives by determining a current sharpness of the second set of knives, and wherein the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to define the desired positional setting for the first set of knives and the desired positional setting for the second set of knives based on which one of the current sharpness of the first set of knives and the current sharpness of the second set of knives is greater (see at least abstract and ¶ [0023] and [0026] disclosing a monitoring device that detects the sharpness of edges of cutting blades to determine if they need to be positioned near a sharpening device).
While Kormann is not directed toward detecting the sharpness of multiple sets of knives, the means of detecting sharpness is capable of being implemented and repeated across multiple sets of knives without undue experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the sharpness monitoring of Kormann into the cutting unit of Biziorek with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed to crop balers equipped with sets of cutting knives to chop and form crop bales. This would allow the baler to observe and adjust blades so that a set is sharpened and ready to cut crops while the other might be sharpened in preparation to substitute the other set while it is sharpened.
While Biziorek discloses defining a desired positional setting for the first and second set of knives to include one of the retracted position of the first and second set of knives and the deployed position of the first and second set of knives, based on the current baler operating parameter (see at least ¶ [0022-0024] disclosing the electronic control unit receiving sensor information describing bale parameters and adjusting the first and another set of knives accordingly), and the respective status of each of the first and second set of knives to themselves (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them), Biziorek does not explicitly disclose defining a desired positional setting for the first and second set of knives to include one of the retracted position of the first and second set of knives and the deployed position of the first and second set of knives, wherein the first and second set is based on one of the cumulative usage of the first set of knives and the cumulative usage of the second set of knives, or the current sharpness of the first set of knives and the current sharpness of the second set of knives.
However, Haycocks suggests defining a desired positional setting for the first and second set of knives to include one of the retracted position of the first and second set of knives and the deployed position of the first and second set of knives, wherein the first and second set is based on one of the cumulative usage of the first set of knives and the cumulative usage of the second set of knives, or the current sharpness of the first set of knives and the current sharpness of the second set of knives (see at least abstract and ¶ [0024], [0040], [0046], and [0050] disclosing a baler’s knife beds swinging between a cutting configuration to a sharpening/travel position where a knife-sharpening assembly sharpens the blades).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the cutting configuration and sharpening/travel position of Haycocks into the combination of Biziorek and Kormann with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed to crop balers equipped with sets of cutting knives to chop and form crop bales. In conjunction with Kormann’s disclosure for detecting the sharpness of blades to situate them against a sharpening device, this would allow the sets of knives to maintain a desired sharpness for continued baling operations and be shuttled between a cutting configuration and a sharpening position.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biziorek et al. in view of Kormann and Haycocks, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Posselius et al. (WO 2015136026 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Biziorek, Kormann, and Haycocks does not explicitly disclose the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to determine the cumulative usage of the first set of knives over time, and to determine the cumulative usage of the second set of knives over a period of time.
However, Posselius suggests the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to determine the cumulative usage of the set of knives over time (see at least page 1, lines 24-33; and pages 6-7, lines 8-35 and 1-12 disclosing a knife usage determining module that calculates the knife usage of a baler according to the amount of crop material the knife cuts over moments of time).
While Posselius is not directed toward detecting the knife usage of multiple sets of knives, the means of detecting knife usage is capable of being implemented and repeated across multiple sets of knives without undue experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the knife usage determining module of Posselius into the combination of Biziorek, Kormann, and Haycocks with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed to crop balers equipped with sets of cutting knives to chop and form crop bales. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to engage or disengage one set of knives based on the wear or need of service of the other set of knives.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Biziorek, Kormann, and Haycocks does not explicitly disclose the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to define the desired positional setting for the first set of knives and the desired positional setting for the second set of knives based on which one of the cumulative usage of the first set of knives and the cumulative usage of the second set of knives is less.
However, Posselius suggests the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to define the desired positional setting for the first set of knives and the desired positional setting for the second set of knives based on which one of the cumulative usage of the first set of knives and the cumulative usage of the second set of knives is less (see at least page 1, lines 24-33; and pages 6-7, lines 8-35 and 1-12 disclosing a knife usage determining module that calculates the knife usage of a baler according to the amount of crop material the knife cuts over moments of time).
While Posselius is not directed toward detecting the knife usage of multiple sets of knives, the means of detecting knife usage is capable of being implemented and repeated across multiple sets of knives without undue experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the knife usage determining module of Posselius into the combination of Biziorek, Kormann, and Haycocks with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed to crop balers equipped with sets of cutting knives to chop and form crop bales. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to engage or disengage one set of knives based on the wear or need of service of the other set of knives.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biziorek et al. (US 20180125011 A1; family reference provided by IDS filed 11/26/2024) in view of Posselius et al. (WO 2015136026 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Biziorek discloses a baler implement (see at least abstract) comprising:
a frame having a ground engagement device coupled thereto for traversing across a ground surface (see at least ¶ [0020-0021] disclosing a large square baler attached to a vehicle, with a pickup unit for picking up crop material and a pre-compression chamber for bale forming);
a bale formation system attached to the frame and including a compression chamber operable to form crop material into a bale, wherein the compression chamber includes an inlet for receiving the crop material therethrough (see at least ¶ [0020-0021] disclosing a large square baler attached to a vehicle, with a pickup unit for picking up crop material and a pre-compression chamber for bale forming);
a pick-up attached to the frame and positioned forward of the bale formation system relative to a direction of travel during operation and operable to gather the crop material and convey the crop material through the inlet and into the compression chamber (see at least ¶ [0020-0021] disclosing a large square baler attached to a vehicle, with a pickup unit for picking up crop material and a pre-compression chamber for bale forming);
a pre-cutter assembly attached to the frame and positioned between the pick-up and the inlet of the compression chamber, wherein the pre-cutter assembly is operable to cut the crop material into segments prior to passing through the inlet into the compression chamber (see at least ¶ [0021-0022] and Figs. 2-3 disclosing a large square baler with a cutter unit), wherein the pre-cutter assembly includes:
a support structure attached to the frame (see at least Fig. 3 depicting structure for holding the cutter unit to the large square baler);
a plurality of knives including a first set of knives and a second set of knives (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the cutting unit has a first and another set of knives), wherein the first set of knives and the second set of knives are each moveable independent of each other relative to the support structure between a retracted position and a deployed position (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them);
a first actuator coupled to the first set of knives and operable to move the first set of knives between its respective retracted position and its respective deployed position (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them);
a second actuator coupled to the second set of knives and operable to move the second set of knives between its respective retracted position and its respective deployed position (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them);
a controller operatively coupled to the first actuator and the second actuator, wherein the controller includes a processor and a memory having a knife control algorithm stored therein (see at least ¶ [0010] and [0024] disclosing an electronic control unit directing the cutter unit to actuate the first or another set of knives using stored algorithms), wherein the processor is operable execute the knife control algorithm to:
determine a current baler operating parameter (see at least ¶ [0023-0024] disclosing the electronic control unit receiving sensor information describing bale parameters);
determine a status of the first set of knives and a status of the second set of knives (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them);
and communicate a control signal to the first actuator and the second actuator to control the first actuator to position the first set of knives in the desired position setting for the first set of knives and to control the second actuator to position the second set of knives in the desired position setting for the second set of knives (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them).
While Biziorek discloses defining a desired positional setting for the first and second set of knives to include one of the retracted position of the first and second set of knives and the deployed position of the first and second set of knives, based on the current baler operating parameter (see at least ¶ [0022-0024] disclosing the electronic control unit receiving sensor information describing bale parameters and adjusting the first and another set of knives accordingly), and the respective status of each of the first and second set of knives to themselves (see at least ¶ [0022] and Fig. 3 disclosing the first and another set of knives engaging with a pivot unit through actuators to interchangeably engage them), Biziorek does not explicitly disclose defining a desired positional setting for the first and second set of knives to include one of the retracted position of the first and second set of knives and the deployed position of the first and second set of knives, wherein the first set is based on the status of the second set of knives and the second set is based on the status of the first set of knives,
wherein the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to determine the status of the first set of knives by tracking a cumulative usage of the first set of knives over time, and to determine the status of the second set of knives by tracking a cumulative usage of the second set of knives over a period of time,
and wherein the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to define the desired positional setting for the first set of knives and the desired positional setting for the second set of knives based on which one of the cumulative usage of the first set of knives and the cumulative usage of the second set of knives is less.
However, Posselius suggests defining a desired positional setting for the set of knives to include one of the retracted position of the set of knives and the deployed position of the set of knives, wherein the set is based on the status of the set of knives (see at least pages 7-8, lines 14-36 and 1-12 disclosing a knife usage determining module that measures the position of a knife through a series of sensors, where the position of the knife is adjusted by the crop flow rate that defines its usage),
wherein the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to determine the status of the set of knives by tracking a cumulative usage of the set of knives over time (see at least page 1, lines 24-33; and pages 6-7, lines 8-35 and 1-12 disclosing a knife usage determining module that calculates the knife usage of a baler according to the amount of crop material the knife cuts over moments of time),
and wherein the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to define the desired positional setting for the set of knives based on which one of the cumulative usage of the set of is less (see at least pages 7-8, lines 14-36 and 1-12 disclosing a knife usage determining module that measures the position of a knife through a series of sensors, where the position of the knife is adjusted by the crop flow rate that defines its usage).
While Posselius is not directed toward detecting the knife usage of multiple sets of knives, the means of detecting knife usage is capable of being implemented and repeated across multiple sets of knives without undue experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the knife usage determining module of Posselius into the combination of Biziorek, Kormann, and Haycocks with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed to crop balers equipped with sets of cutting knives to chop and form crop bales. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to engage or disengage one set of knives based on the wear or need of service of the other set of knives.
Regarding claim 17, Biziorek discloses the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to determine the current baler operating parameter by determining one of: a current crop type, a current crop flow rate, a desired bale density, a current bale density and actuation of an overload protection system (see at least ¶ [0004] disclosing the operations are directed toward retaining, compressing, and tying a square bale into a desired density).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biziorek et al. in view of Kormann and Haycocks, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and in further view of McClure (US 20210267129 A1; reference provided by IDS filed 11/26/2024).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Biziorek, Kormann, and Haycocks does not explicitly disclose the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to communicate a signal to a user interface to communicate the status of the first set of knives and the status of the second set of knives.
However, McClure suggests the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to communicate a signal to a user interface to communicate the status of the first set of knives and the status of the second set of knives (see at least ¶ [0024] disclosing a baler with a user interface used to communicate knife trays are in need of cleaning and to cycle cleaning of knife trays).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the interface communication of McClure into the combination of Biziorek, Kormann, and Haycocks with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed to crop balers equipped with sets of cutting knives to chop and form crop bales. This would allow the baler operator to be aware of information about the sets of knives, such as their wear or cleanliness during baling operations, and control them to interchange between sets accordingly.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Biziorek, Kormann, and Haycocks does not explicitly disclose the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to communicate a position signal to a user interface to communicate the current position of the first set of knives and the current position of the second set of knives.
However, McClure suggests the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to communicate a position signal to a user interface to communicate the current position of the first set of knives and the current position of the second set of knives (see at least ¶ [0024] disclosing a baler with a user interface used to communicate knife trays are in need of cleaning and to cycle cleaning of knife trays).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the interface communication of McClure into the combination of Biziorek, Kormann, and Haycocks with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed to crop balers equipped with sets of cutting knives to chop and form crop bales. This would allow the baler operator to be aware of information about the sets of knives, such as their wear or cleanliness during baling operations, and control them to interchange between sets accordingly.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biziorek et al. in view of Kormann and Haycocks, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hood (WO 0156363 A1; reference provided by IDS filed 11/26/2024).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Biziorek, Kormann, and Haycocks does not explicitly disclose a position sensor disposed in communication with the controller and positioned to sense data related to a current position of the first set of knives and a current position of the second set of knives.
However, Hood suggests a position sensor disposed in communication with the controller and positioned to sense data related to a current position of the first set of knives and a current position of the second set of knives (see at least page 8, lines 2-9 disclosing a knife position sensor used to detect if knives are in a cutting or retracted position).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the position sensor of Hood into the combination of Biziorek, Kormann, and Haycocks with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed to crop balers equipped with sets of cutting knives to chop and form crop bales. This would help the electronic control unit detect and control the sets of knives by knowing their position.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biziorek et al. in view of Kormann and Haycocks, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tewes-Kampelmann (US 20190246564 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Biziorek, Kormann, and Haycocks does not explicitly disclose the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to detect actuation of an overload protection system of one of the first set of knives and the second set of knives.
However, Tewes-Kampelmann suggests the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to detect actuation of an overload protection system of one of the first set of knives and the second set of knives (see at least abstract and ¶ [0085], [0091], and [0097] disclosing a cutting blade overload protection device that reacts to force on the cutting blade when in operating position).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the overload protection device of Tewes-Kampelmann into the combination of Biziorek, Kormann, and Haycocks with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed to crop balers equipped with sets of cutting knives to chop and form crop bales. This would help prevent the knives from sustaining damage due to unexpected forces from colliding with objects.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Biziorek, Kormann, and Haycocks does not explicitly disclose the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to automatically re-set one of the first set of knives and the second set of knives in response to actuation of the overload protection system.
However, Tewes-Kampelmann suggests the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to automatically re-set one of the first set of knives and the second set of knives in response to actuation of the overload protection system (see at least abstract and ¶ [0085], [0091], and [0097] disclosing a cutting blade overload protection device that reacts to force on the cutting blade when in operating position).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the overload protection device of Tewes-Kampelmann into the combination of Biziorek, Kormann, and Haycocks with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed to crop balers equipped with sets of cutting knives to chop and form crop bales. This would help prevent the knives from sustaining damage due to unexpected forces from colliding with objects.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biziorek et al. in view of Posselius et al., as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of McClure (US 20210267129 A1; reference provided by IDS filed 11/26/2024).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Biziorek and Posselius does not explicitly disclose the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to communicate a signal to a user interface to communicate the status of the first set of knives and the status of the second set of knives.
However, McClure suggests the processor is operable to execute the knife control algorithm to communicate a signal to a user interface to communicate the status of the first set of knives and the status of the second set of knives (see at least ¶ [0024] disclosing a baler with a user interface used to communicate knife trays are in need of cleaning and to cycle cleaning of knife trays).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the interface communication of McClure into the combination of Biziorek and Posselius with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed to crop balers equipped with multiple sets of cutting knives to chop and form crop bales. This would allow the baler operator to be aware of information about the sets of knives, such as their wear or cleanliness during baling operations, and control them to interchange between sets accordingly.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/J.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669