DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendling (DE 102016202628 A1) in view of Diekhans (USPN 6791488).
Regarding claim 1, Wendling discloses a system for a work vehicle (10), the system comprising: an arm (78/80, figure 3); and an actuator assembly comprising: a drive component (page 4 paragraph 6 of the provided translation discloses a drive component in the form of a motor or a manual means); and a linkage assembly (pivot bearings 82 and 84) coupled to the arm and the drive component; wherein the drive component is configured to drive the linkage assembly to rotate the arm from a first position in which the arm extends forward of a working component of the work vehicle (Figure 4) to a second position in which the arm is positioned rearward of the working component of the work vehicle (Figure 5).
Wendling discloses an attachment in the form of a header (42) however Wendling is lacking wherein the actuator assembly is configured to be mounted on a rearward facing surface of the attachment.
Diekhans discloses a work vehicle with a header and a sensor system and teaches mounting of the sensor system to the header via a post that is secured to the back of the header (As best seen in figure 1 with the middle sensor system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wendling to have the sensor assembly further comprise a mounting post secured to the back wall of the header as taught by Diekhans for the purpose of providing an alternative well known mounting system for sensor assemblies on headers.
For the sake of argument, if one does not considered the mounting post of Diekhans to be secured to the back wall of the header. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to bolt the mounting post to the back wall so the post does not contact crop material or interfere with the components within the header itself during operation.
Regarding claim 12, Wendling further discloses wherein the work vehicle comprises an agricultural harvester (10), the attachment comprises a header (42) and the working component comprises a cutter bar (54) assembly.
Regarding claim 13, Wendling further discloses wherein the attachment comprises a header (42), configured to be movably coupled to a chassis of the work vehicle (via hooks and feeder house 38) the actuator assembly is configured to be mounted on the rearward-facing surface of a frame of the header (as taught by the combination) the drive component is configured to drive the linkage assembly to rotate the arm relative to a frame of the header (As shown in figures 4 and 5 but instead mounted on the header as taught by the combination).
Regarding claim 14, Wendling further discloses wherein the drive component is configured to drive the linkage assembly to rotate the arm through an arc between approximately 45 to 100 degrees (Figure 4 and 5 show the arm rotates through the claimed range).
Regarding claim 2, Wendling further discloses and embodiment with multiple sensors (68/70) attached to a different embodiment as shown in figure 1. However, Wendling is lacking these addition sensors as shown in the embodiment of figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the embodiment of figure 3 to comprise the additional sensors 70 as taught by Wendling embodiment of figure 1 for the purpose of providing additional sensing of crop stock and obstacles as discussed on page 3 the last paragraph.
Regarding claim 3, Wendling discloses wherein the one or more devices comprise a sensor, a light emitter, or both (sensor 70).
Regarding claim 4, Wendling discloses wherein the one or more devices comprise a sensor configured to detect terrain features, system features, or both (The sensor 70 may determine terrain feature in the form of obstacles. Sensor 62 is a camera attached to a control system to control operating parameters of the header page 2 paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 5, Wendling discloses the ability for manual operation (page 4 6th paragraph).
Wendling does not go into detail of a specific use of a handle to aid in the manual manipulation of the arms.
First, it would have been an instant obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to merely add a handle to aid an operator to manually rotate the arms of the pivoting structure.
Second, for the sake of argument, Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art of manual manipulation of adjustable structures to utilize handles to aid in the manual manipulation of movable structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have added a handle to the linkage of Wendling to aid the operator in the manual folding and unfolding of the arms.
Regarding claim 15, Wendling discloses that the harvester comprises a control system and a display system for an operator (page 2 paragraph 7). A control system is considered to comprise processors. Further the combine is considered to comprise typical controls for an operator to control functions of the combine. Wendling further discloses the optional use of a motor to control the arms folding and unfolding (page 4 6th paragraph). Wendling does not specifically discuss the operators ability to control the motor from the operators station to fold and unfold the arms from the first to second positioning as shown in figures 4 and 5.
It would have been an instant obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to add controls for the operator within the cabin for the operator to control the motor to fold and unfold the arms.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendling (DE 102016202628 A1) in view of Diekhans (USPN 6791488) as applied to claim 1 in further view of Rockwell (USPN 4178998).
Regarding claim 6, Wendling discloses pivotal bearing used to rotate the arms in relation to one another however is lacking detail of the joint.
The problem to be solved by one of ordinary skill in the art lies within the pivotal movement of two structural members in relationship to one another.
Rockwell disclose a system for a work vehicle with arm elements that are pivotally attached to one another (Figure 3 shows arm elements 34 and 41 that are pivotally attached to one another at axis 42for folding and unfolding) and teaches the use of a linear actuator (121) and linkage assembly capable of folding and unfolding the arm elements in relationship to one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wendling to use a similar assembly to rotate the arms in relationship to one another via a use of linear actuator linkage assembly as taught by Rockwell for the purpose of actuating the arm without manual means.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendling (DE 102016202628 A1) in view of Diekhans (USPN 6791488) as applied to claim 1 in further view of Jones (US 2017/0290266).
Regarding claim 7, Wendling discloses pivotal bearing used to rotate the arms in relation to one another however is lacking detail of the joint.
The problem to be solved by one of ordinary skill in the art lies within the pivotal movement of two structural members in relationship to one another.
Jones disclose a system for a work vehicle with arm elements that are pivotally attached to one another (Figure 6 shows arm elements 126 and 130 that are pivotally attached to one another at axis 134 for folding and unfolding) and teaches the use of an over center linkage (122 ¶0045) that may be operated by the operator via a handle (186).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wendling to rotate the arms in relationship to one another via a use of an over center linkage as taught by Jones for the purpose of manipulating the force required for an operator to manually rotate the arms during operation.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diekhans (USPN 6791488) in view of Wendling (DE 102016202628 A1).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Diekhans discloses header (Figure 1) for a work vehicle (20), the header comprising: a frame; an arm coupled to the frame; a sensor supported on the arm (Figure 1 shows a sensor 50 with an arm assembly 43 attached to the rear wall of the header frame);
The arm of Diekhans is cannot pivot rearwardly when attached to the frame. Boyd is lacking the use of an actuator system to move the arm rearwardly.
Wendling discloses a header with a sensor system and teaches the use of a rotatable arm structure (78/80) with an actuators system (manual or motor page 4, 6th paragraph) wherein the actuator system is configured to drive the arm to rotate from a first position in which the arm extends to position the sensor forward of the frame (figure 4) to a second position in which the arm is withdrawn to align the sensor with the frame (figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Diekhans to add a rotational arm with actuation as taught by Wendling for the purpose of adding the ability to rotate the sensor system between an operational positioning to a transport positioning.
The combination would be considered to maintain the arm attachment to the header as shown by Diekhans with the actuator (84) being operationally attached between the arm and the frame of the header to facilitate movement between the two with the sensor position at the arms end.
For the sake of argument, if one does not considered the mounting post of Diekhans to be secured to the back wall of the header. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to bolt the mounting post to the back wall so the post does not contact crop material or interfere with the components within the header itself during operation.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diekhans (USPN 6791488)in view of Wendling (DE 102016202628 A1) as applied to claim 16 in further view of Jones (US 2017/0290266).
Regarding claim 18, the combination discloses pivotal bearing used to rotate the arms in relation to one another however is lacking detail of the joint.
The problem to be solved by one of ordinary skill in the art lies within the pivotal movement of two structural members in relationship to one another.
Jones disclose a system for a work vehicle with arm elements that are pivotally attached to one another (Figure 6 shows arm elements 126 and 130 that are pivotally attached to one another at axis 134 for folding and unfolding) and teaches the use of an over center linkage (122 ¶0045) that may be operated by the operator via a drive component handle (186).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to rotate the arms in relationship to one another via a use of an over center linkage as taught by Jones for the purpose of manipulating the force required for an operator to manually rotate the arms during operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 8-11 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on same combination of the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 ADAM J BEHRENS whose telephone number is (303)297-4336. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-2pm MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM J BEHRENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights