DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21, lines 2-3 “the electronic control device, to set up road operation, is configured to control the gearbox that” is grammatically awkward. It is suggested that this be changed to “the electronic control device, to set up road operation, is configured to control the gearbox to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21, line 5 “…a limit length, the support arm is shifted to the retracted sliding position” is grammatically awkward. It is assumed, for purposes of examination, that applicant intended that this be “…a limit length, and the support arm is shifting to the retracted sliding position”.
Claim 21, line 9 recites “…than a limit angle, the support arm is pivoted into the erect folding position” is grammatically awkward. It is assumed, for purposes of examination, that applicant intended that this be “than a limit angle, and the support arm is pivoted into the erect folding position”.
Claim 21, line 10 “shifts from the home position to the shift position, whereas the support arm starting from the flat position, is pivoted into the erect folding position” is grammatically awkward. It is suggested that this be changed to “shifts from the home position to the shift position, where the support arm starting from the flat position, is pivoted into the erect folding position”.
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 16-28 are 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 16, line 6 recites “a gearbox configured for connection to a power take-off shaft of the towing vehicle”. It cannot be determined if the power take-off shaft is positively required in the claims. It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that the gear box be able to be connected to a power take-off shaft, and the power take-off shaft itself is not required.
Claim 16 recites “an electronic control device (8) is provided which is configured such that, when the aggregate (3) is transferred from the field configuration (F) to the transport configuration (T), the telescoping and/or pivoting of the support arm (4) and/or the adjustment of the gearbox (5) from the home position (G1) into the shift position (G2) takes place in different sequences as a function of the current positions (Al, A2, A3, Z1, Z2, Z3) of the support arm (4) and/or one current position (G1, G2) of the gearbox (5).” It cannot be determined what the controller is configured to do. It is assumed, for purposes of examination, that applicant intended that the electronic control device is configured to control the operation for the telescoping and/or pivoting of the support arm and/or the adjustment of the gearbox from the hope position to the shift position take place in different sequences as a function of the current positions of the support arm and/or one current position of the gearbox.
Claims 17-28 depend from claim 16, thus are similarly rejected.
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) 16-20, and 22-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold, et al. US2013/0000268 in view of Farley, et al. US2021/0127575.
Regarding claim 16, Arnold, et al. teaches an agricultural work implement 1, in
particular mowing unit, for attachment to a towing vehicle 100, comprising an
attachment frame 2, on which a telescopic support arm 4a, 6a, 27a (wherein arm 4a can
change the distance it axially extends outward from 2) is pivotably and/or shiftably
arranged;
at least one aggregate (rake 7a, which is considered an aggregate since it
engages the ground) hinged (rake is shown to hinge when comparing Figures 1, Figure
4, and Figures 5a-5c) to the support arm;
a gearbox 50 which can be connected to a power take-off shaft 51 of the towing
vehicle in a power- receiving manner (wherein the gearbox being connected to the shaft
51 is considered to be in the claimed power-receiving manner); and
a variable-length output shaft 52 (wherein shaft 52 is telescopic, thus is
considered “variable length”), which is arranged in a power-transmitting manner (the
shaft 52 is connected to transmit from the gearboxes, thus is considered “power-transmitting manner”) between the gearbox and the aggregate, wherein the aggregate
is positionally changeable by pivoting and/or shifting the support arm (Figure 5a-5c
shows pivoting and shifting), and is reversibly adjustable from a field configuration
(Figure 5a) provided for field operation, in which the support arm is pivoted into a flat
position (as shown in Figure 5a, and Figure 1) that is approximately parallel to the
ground (as shown in Figure 1), and reversibly telescopic from a retracted sliding position
(Figure 4) into an extended sliding position, into a transport configuration provided for
road operation (Figure 5c, ¶0014), in which the support arm is pivoted into a folding
position that is erect with respect to the flat position (Figure 4 shows a vertical position
with 27a in an erect position), and is shifted into the retracted sliding position (as shown
in Figure 4, slid to be radially retracted), wherein the gearbox is adjustable from a home
position (figure 2), in which it is drive-connectable or drive-connected to the aggregate
(to drive rotation of the aggregate), into a shift position (Figure 5c) for setting up road
operation (as described above), when the aggregate is transferred from the field configuration to the transport configuration, the telescoping and/or pivoting
of the support arm and/or the adjustment of the gearbox from the home position into the shift position takes place in different sequences (as best understood by examiner- this includes separate sequencing of pivoting and retraction) as a function of the current positions of the support arm and/or one current position of the gearbox (wherein the pivoting and sliding necessarily require some function of a current position to transition the elements from or to a road or field configuration). It is noted that the “when the aggregate is transferred from the field configuration to the transport configuration” limitation is limited to only when the aggregate is transferred from the field configuration to the transport configuration, and does not require any limitations for other transferring such as between the transport configuration to the field configuration.
Arnold, et al. does not teach an electronic control device is provided which is configured such that, when the aggregate is transferred from the field configuration to the transport configuration, the telescoping and/or pivoting of the support arm and/or the adjustment of the gearbox from the home position into the shift position takes place in different sequences as a function of the current positions of the support arm and/or one current position of the gearbox.
Farley, et al. teaches that it is known in the art have an electronic controller 502
(Figure 5) adapted to electrically control adjustment of support arms 128, to perform
calculations and logic operations to execute operations ¶0042 as part of a control
system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify Arnold, et al.’s agricultural work implement in view of
Farley, et al.’s electronic control device with a reasonable expectation of success to
enable performing calculations and logic operation as part of a control system.
Regarding claim 17, Arnold, et al. teaches the invention substantially as
claimed, as described above, but does not teach an electronic control device adapted to
mechanically and/or electrically control the adjustment of the support arm and/or the
gearbox.
Farley, et al. teaches that it is known in the art have an electronic controller 502
(Figure 5) adapted to electrically control adjustment of support arms 128, to perform
calculations and logic operations to execute operations ¶0042 as part of a control
system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify Arnold, et al.’s agricultural work implement in view of
Farley, et al.’s electronic control device with a reasonable expectation of success to
enable performing calculations and logic operation as part of a control system.
Regarding claim 18, Farley, et al. teaches that the electronic control device
includes at least one measuring device 506 (position sensors ¶0042) that is configured
to sense the current position of the support arm and/or the current position of the
gearbox, and the combination is configured to carry out the adjustment of the aggregate
from the field configuration to the transport configuration (by commanding actuation for
128) and/or of the gearbox from the home position to the shift position as a function of
the recorded positions and/or home/shift position (based on measured positions).
Regarding claim 19, Arnold, et al. teaches that the support arm can only be folded into the erect folding position where retracting actuation piston 27), and/or can only be retracted into the retracted sliding position when the folding position is predominantly erect, when the gearbox is shifted into the shift position.
Regarding claim 20, Arnold, et al. teaches that the telescoping and/or pivoting of the support arm and/or the adjustment of the gearbox is carried out at least partially in succession and/or at least partially simultaneously to set up a road operation (wherein the pivoting happens simultaneously to set up a road operation by moving 7a upwards, and the claim language covers either in succession or simultaneously, which covers every type of mode of operation).
Regarding claim 22, the combination teaches: the gearbox (as taught by Arnold,
et al.) is configured to move from an in-service mode to an out-of-service mode (as
described above in Arnold, et al.). Farley, et al. teaches an electronic control device (as
described above). The modification would thus obviously include the step of the
electronic control device configured to switch the gearbox of Arnold, et al. from an in-
service mode to an out-of-service mode when the support arm is folded into an
intermediate position (such as the transition positions of Arnold, et al. as shown in
Figure 4).
Regarding claim 23 and 24, Farley, et al. teaches that the electronic control
device is configured to carry out the setting up of the road operation only in an out-of-
service mode (wherein Figure 4 of Farley, et al. shows 128 in the raised positions, and
wherein Arnold, et al. shows raised positions for 7a as the transport position, as
described above. Thus, Arnold, et al.’s raised position is considered an “out-of-service
mode”, since 7a is not engaging with the ground).
Regarding claim 25, Arnold, et al. teaches that the attachment frame includes a guide means 66 for reversibly shifting the gearbox (provides guide rail for gearbox 50 to shift along direction E, described in ¶0050), which extends in shift direction, in particular in a direction of travel (E).
Regarding claim 26, Arnold, et al. teaches that an actuator 41/43 for telescoping and/or pivoting the support arm and/or for adjusting the gearbox, wherein the actuator can:
either be actuated independently of one another (each actuator/piston does not depend on other pistons/actuators, thus is considered independent);
or at least partially be interconnected for simultaneous actuation.
Regarding claim 27, Arnold, et al. teaches a telescoping input shaft 51, which is
arranged between the gearbox and the power take-off shaft of the towing vehicles and
is connected by means of a universal joint and/or a disconnect coupling 51a (wherein the sliding position is predominantly retracted (by 51a is considered a disconnect coupling since it provides coupling with the gearbox) with the gearbox.
Regarding claim 28, Farley, et al. teaches that the work implement comprises
two aggregates (left and right sides of 128), and in that the electronic control device is
configured to change the position of both aggregates simultaneously (step 610 “activate
actuators”).
Regarding claim 29, Arnold, et al. teaches a method for setting up a road
operation (as described above) of an agricultural work implement (as described above),
which comprises:
adjusting by pivoting and/or shifting of a telescopic support arm 4a, 6a, 27a
(wherein arm 4a can change the distance it axially extends outward from 2) to adjust a
position of an aggregate 7a that is hinged to the work implement via the telescopic
support arm (see Figure 1 versus Figure 4 showing hinged movement), wherein the
aggregate reversibly pivots from a field configuration (Figure 1) provided for field
operation, in which the support arm is pivoted into a flat position (as shown in Figure 1)
that is approximately parallel to the ground, and is reversibly telescopic from a retracted
sliding position (Figure 4, and 5c) into an extended sliding position (Figure 1), into a
transport configuration (the above-described road configuration) provided for road
operation where the support arm is pivoted into a folding position (Figure 5c) which is
erect (as described above) with respect to the flat position and is transferred into the
retracted sliding position; and
transferring of the aggregate from the field configuration (Figure 1) into the transport
configuration (Figure 5c), the telescoping and/or pivoting of the support arm and/or the
shifting of the gearbox takes place in different sequences (as described above) as a
function of current positions of the support arm and/or current positions of the gearbox.
Arnold, et al. does not teach the agricultural work implement includes an
electronic control device.
Farley, et al. teaches that it is known in the art have an electronic controller 502
(Figure 5) adapted to electrically control adjustment of support arms 128, to perform
calculations and logic operations to execute operations ¶0042 as part of a control
system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify Arnold, et al.’s agricultural work implement in view of
Farley, et al.’s electronic control device with a reasonable expectation of success to
enable performing calculations and logic operation as part of a control system.
Regarding claim 30, Arnold, et al. teaches the steps of:
shifting the gearbox from a home position (as described above), in which it is drive-
connectable to the aggregate, to a shift position.
Arnold, et al. does not teach the steps of detecting a current position of the
aggregate and a current position of the gearbox, wherein the adjustment of the
aggregate from the field configuration into the transport configuration, and/or of the
gearbox from the home position into the shift position is carried out as a function of the
detected positions and/or positions with a control device of the work implement.
Farley, et al. teaches that position sensors 506 ¶0042 are known in the art to
provide sensed data to electronic controller 502 to provide actuator control 610
connected to controller 502 (shown in Figure 5) that controls actuators 148, 156, 158.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify Arnold, et al.’s method in view of Farley, et al.’s method
step of detecting a current position and allowing adjustments to be made by the control
device with a reasonable expectation of success of actuating and controlling operation
of the aggregate’s position based on its sensed position.
Regarding claim 31 and 32, Arnold, et al. teaches folding the support arm
(portion 27a) into the erect folding position (wherein 27a can be moved to the erect
position as shown in figure 4) when the sliding position is predominantly retracted
(Figure 4 shows the other parts of the support arm slid towards direction A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments that the claimed invention is about a different chronological order for the sequence are not persuasive. The opposite sequence for retraction to transport position is considered a different sequence, since it is rotation and retraction that occur, rather than extension and rotation. However, the cited specification sections ¶0084-0097 does not appear to support applicant's arguments of different chronological order. Further the term "different sequences" can be interpreted in multiple ways. Further ¶0039 recites that the sequence "in particular one after the other and/or at least partially simultaneously", thus indicating that applicant did not intend for different chronological order. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation for “different sequences” is given to the term- which includes an opposite sequence to a deployment sequence. There is no further limitations in the claims that define what “different sequences” are required.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims are similarly refuted.
It is further noted that electronic controllers for controlling folding movement for arms or wings is notoriously well-known in the art- as demonstrated by the below cited relevant prior art. These prior art citations are not a conclusive or comprehensive representation of such electronic control systems, and are merely a small selection of such control systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. It is noted that claim 22 was previously erroneously listed as allowable if rewritten in the office action mailed 9/3/2025. This was a typographical error, and should have properly listed claim 21 instead (as designated in the current office action).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The combination does not teach the electronic control device, in combination with the claimed agricultural work implement, configured to control the gearbox to first shift from the home position to the shift position when a length of the support arm is less than or equal to a limit length, and the support arm is shifted to the retracted position; or first shifts from the home position to the shift position, fi the length of the support arm is greater than the limit length and a pivot angle of the support arm is greater than a limit angle, and the support arm is pivoted into the erect folding position; or shifts from the home position to the shift position when the support arm, starting from the flat position, is pivoted into the erect folding position if the length of the support arm is greater than the limit length and the pivot angle is smaller than or equal to the limit angle.
While Farley, et al. teaches an electronic control system, Farley, et al. does not provide the comparison and gearbox actuation as claimed. While, in general, folding arm control is known, the specific claimed gearbox actuation is not considered obvious to modify without using impermissible hindsight reasoning to re-create the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Prickel, et al. US2015/0245556 teaches that it is known in the art to control agricultural folding boom 17 using angle sensors 33 to detect angular or other position changes ¶0023. Figure 4 shows a flow chart with comparing wing angle sensor 105 and determining if the angle is less than an angle threshold 107 to actuate a controller 109. Additionally, the status of the device is determined at step 95.
Kezer, et al. US3740534 teaches angle and extension sensors feed data to a control system.
Caldwell US3473302 teaches gearbox 21 with telescopic drive shaft 34 to fold a support arm to the transportation/road configuration (Figure 4).
Heiniger, et al. US5348226 teaches wing fold sensors 281.
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
2/17/2026