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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ‘vertical axis’ in claims 2-3, ‘horizontal axis’ in claim 3; ‘two motors’ in claim 5; ‘battery or a generator set’ in claim 6; ‘operating unit’ in claim 7; ‘sensors’ in claim 8; ‘hydraulic conduit’ and ‘hydraulic couplings’ in claim 9 and ‘parking brake’ in claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 3-13 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 2 recites the limitation “the coupler is arranged for coupling the device to the implement in such a manner that mutual rotation around at least a vertical axis between the mover device and the implement is substantially not possible”. (emphasis added.) Claim 3, dependent from claim 2, then states “the coupler is arranged for coupling the device to the implement in such a manner that mutual rotation around the vertical axis is possible”. (emphasis added.) It is unclear how mutual rotation around a vertical axis can be not possible and possible at the same time.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031,2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “the weight of the mover device is less than 2000 kg”, and the claim also recites “preferably less than 1500 kg" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
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 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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potier et al. (US 2017/0188505) in view of Jagenstedt et al. (US 2015/0189830) and Bergum et al. (US 2020/0100417).
With respect to claims 1 and 14, Potier et al. discloses a mover device (3) for autonomously moving an agricultural implement (3’) (paragraphs 35, 56, 112, 142-145 “a system capable of managing maneuvers entirely automatically or semiautomatically, especially half-turns, which is independent of the tractor”), wherein the mover device comprises: a frame having a front side, a rear side, and two lateral sides (fig. 1A); at least one motor (paragraph 35); two wheels (fig. 1A); a coupler (4’; fig. 1A) extending at the rear side of the frame which is arranged for coupling the device (3) to the implement (3’); and a three-point hitch attachment device (paragraph 77) extending at the front side of the device (3) for coupling the device (3) to a three-point hitch coupler (fig. 1A); wherein the mover device (3) is coupled to a tractor (2) for transporting the moving device (3) and the moving device is coupled to the agricultural implement (3’) for autonomously driving the agricultural implement (paragraphs 142-145 “(w)ithin the scope of an automatic mode of functioning, it is provided: [0143] that unit 5, 5′, 5″ of one of the machines 3, 3′, 3″ hitched to tractor 2 (for example the seeder), or of a machine semi-carried by the tractor, performs the computations necessary for establishment of the paths to be followed and has an interface 8 for communication with the driver, [0144] that all of the machines 3, 3′, 3″ in question (including tractor 2) have sensors and corresponding elements for transmission of information (via an electronic connection, for example an “ISOBUS” connection, or via a wireless connection) to master unit 5 in charge of management of the half-turn operations, [0145] that unit 5 of one of the machines hitched to the tractor (for example the seeder) or of a machine semi-carried by the tractor steers the tractor during repetitive maneuvers (for example, during half-turn operations). Machine 3 that steers tractor 2 during these maneuvers must therefore take control of the implements”). (Figs. 1A-8C, paragraphs 56-230.) Potier et al. does not explicitly describe a motor driving each wheel or the international standards. Jagenstedt et al. teaches of an autonomous mover device (60; paragraph 30) comprising two coaxial driven wheels (68), wherein each wheel extends at a respective lateral side of the frame and is driven by the motor (66), for moving the device on a surface in a driving direction. (Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 20-47.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motor structure as described in Jagenstedt et al. into the invention of Potier et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to appropriately drive and turn the wheels. (Paragraph 25.) Bergum et al. teaches of using international standards ISO 8759, ISO 730 and ISO1 1001 (paragraph 39) when utilizing three-point hitch attachment device (153) of a tractor (9). (Figs. 1-25, paragraphs 36-65.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the international standard structure as described in Bergum et al. into the invention of Potier et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide quality, sustainability, and innovation.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potier et al., Jagenstedt et al. and Bergum et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Skjonsberg (EP 3 035 786 B1).
With respect to claim 2, Potier et al., as modified, is silent regarding the coupler is arranged for coupling the device to the implement in such a manner that mutual rotation around at least a vertical axis between the mover device and the implement is substantially not possible. Skjonsberg teaches of the coupler is arranged for coupling the device to the implement in such a manner (using a locking device 127) that mutual rotation around at least a vertical axis between the mover device and the implement is substantially not possible (Paragraph 34-38). (Figs. 1-8b, paragraphs 30-52.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the locking structure as described in Skjonsberg into the invention of Potier et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to better follow the carrier during contour ploughing. (Paragraph 38.)
With respect to claim 3, Potier et al., as modified, discloses the coupler is arranged for coupling the device to the implement in such a manner that mutual rotation around the vertical axis is possible (paragraph 80), and that mutual rotation between the mover device (3) and the implement (3’) around a horizontal axis perpendicular to the driving direction is substantially not possible (paragraphs 80 and 98 disclose the circumstance of one degree of freedom with the vertical axis being pivotable, which means other axis such as horizontal would be no pivoting). (Figs. 1A-8C, paragraphs 56-230.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potier et al., Jagenstedt et al., Bergum et al. and Skjonsberg, as applied to claim 1-3 above, and further in view of Disberger et al. (US 2021/0212249).
With respect to claim 4, Potier et al., as modified, is silent regarding the type of coupling at the rear of the mover device. Disberger et al. teaches of the coupler extending at the rear side of the frame is a three-point hitch coupler for coupling the device to a three-point hitch attachment device on the implement (paragraph 50). (Figs. 1-28, paragraphs 39-120.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Disberger et al. into the invention of Potier et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reliably attach the mover device to the implement. (Paragraph 50.) Potier et al. does not explicitly describe the international standards. Bergum et al. teaches of using international standards ISO 8759, ISO 730 and ISO1 1001 (paragraph 39) when utilizing three-point hitch attachment device (153) of a tractor (9). (Figs. 1-25, paragraphs 36-65.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the international standard structure as described in Bergum et al. into the invention of Potier et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide quality, sustainability, and innovation.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potier et al., Jagenstedt et al., Bergum et al., Skjonsberg and Disberger et al., as applied to claim 1-4 above, and further in view of Motus et al. (US 2020/0375093).
With respect to claim 5, Potier et al., as modified, is silent regarding each wheel being driven by a motor. Motus et al. teaches of the mover device comprises two motors (paragraph 60), wherein each wheel (106) is driven by a respective motor (paragraph 60). (Figs. 1-13, paragraphs 58-79.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Motus et al. into the invention of Potier et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to drive the hub directly. (Paragraph 60.)
With respect to claim 6, Potier et al., as modified, is silent regarding the mover device comprises a battery or a generator set for powering the motor and/or other electronic devices of the mover device and/or the agricultural implement. Disberger et al. teaches of the mover device comprises a battery or a generator set for powering the motor and/or other electronic devices of the mover device and/or the agricultural implement (paragraph 46). (Figs. 1-28, paragraphs 39-120.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Disberger et al. into the invention of Potier et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide power to the motor. (Paragraph 50.)
With respect to claim 7, Potier et al., as modified, discloses the mover device comprises an operating unit (5) arranged to autonomously drive and steer the mover device (paragraphs 142-145 “(w)ithin the scope of an automatic mode of functioning, it is provided: [0143] that unit 5, 5′, 5″ of one of the machines 3, 3′, 3″ hitched to tractor 2 (for example the seeder), or of a machine semi-carried by the tractor, performs the computations necessary for establishment of the paths to be followed and has an interface 8 for communication with the driver, [0144] that all of the machines 3, 3′, 3″ in question (including tractor 2) have sensors and corresponding elements for transmission of information (via an electronic connection, for example an “ISOBUS” connection, or via a wireless connection) to master unit 5 in charge of management of the half-turn operations, [0145] that unit 5 of one of the machines hitched to the tractor (for example the seeder) or of a machine semi-carried by the tractor steers the tractor during repetitive maneuvers (for example, during half-turn operations). Machine 3 that steers tractor 2 during these maneuvers must therefore take control of the implements”). (Figs. 1A-8C, paragraphs 56-230.)
With respect to claim 8, Potier et al., as modified, discloses the mover device comprises sensors (11) connected to the operating unit to detect obstacles and/or to determine the location of the mover device (paragraphs 85, 96). (Figs. 1A-8C, paragraphs 56-230.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potier et al., Jagenstedt et al., Bergum et al., Skjonsberg and Disberger et al. and Motus et al., as applied to claim 1-8 above, and further in view of Schumacher et al. (US 5,316,033).
With respect to claim 9, Potier et al., as modified, is silent regarding hydraulic conduits. Disberger et al. teaches of the mover device comprises at least one hydraulic conduit (52) between the front side and the rear side of the frame with front and rear hydraulic couplings (40, 50) arranged to transmit hydraulic power from the tractor (front 12; fig. 16) to the agricultural implement (rear 12; fig. 16) via the conduit (52) (fig. 16, paragraphs 76-78). (Figs. 1-28, paragraphs 39-120.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Disberger et al. into the invention of Potier et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide power to the articulated hitches. (Paragraph 76.) Potier et al. does not explicitly describe the international standards. Schumacher et al. teaches of using international standards ISO 576 (col. 7, lines 1-11) when utilizing hydraulic couplings. (Figs. 1-22, cols. 9-17.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the international standard structure as described in Schumacher et al. into the invention of Potier et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide quality, sustainability, and innovation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potier et al., Jagenstedt et al., Bergum et al., Skjonsberg, Disberger et al., Motus et al. and Schumacher et al., as applied to claim 1-9 above, and further in view of Ashby et al. (US 2015/0045992).
With respect to claim 10, Potier et al., as modified, is silent regarding a footrest and/or seat. Ashby et al. teaches as known in the art to have the mover device comprises a footrest (floor, paragraph 95) and/or a seat at the front side of the mover device (paragraph 95), and a manual control unit (foot pedals, paragraph 95), such that an operator is able to manually drive and steer the mover device ‘manned skid steer loader’; paragraph 95). (Fig. 1, paragraph 95.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Ashby et al. into the invention of Potier et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to manually operate the device. (Paragraph 95.) In addition, Potier et al., as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for the footrest and/or a seat at the front side of the mover device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the footrest and/or a seat at the front side of the mover device, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potier et al., Jagenstedt et al., Bergum et al., Skjonsberg, Disberger et al., Motus et al. and Schumacher et al. and Ashby et al., as applied to claim 1-10 above, and further in view of Laumann (WO 2012/072224 A2; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’).
With respect to claim 11, Potier et al., as modified, is silent regarding a center of gravity. Laumann teaches of the centre of gravity of the mover device is located between the vertical plane through the axis of the wheels and the rear side of the frame. (MTD paragraphs 15-16.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the center of gravity structure as described in Laumann into the invention of Potier et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success so that the weight load in the area of the front drawbar connection does not exceed a level permissible under traffic regulations. (MTD paragraph 16.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potier et al., Jagenstedt et al., Bergum et al., Skjonsberg, Disberger et al., Motus et al. and Schumacher et al., Ashby et al. and Laumann, as applied to claim 1-11 above, and further in view of Siebert et al. (US 2023/0329143).
With respect to claim 12, Potier et al., as modified, is silent regarding a parking brake. Siebert et al. teaches of a parking brake (paragraph 35) with a sensor (134) that detects a condition and if that condition is met, then the parking brake is activated and vice versa (paragraph 35.) (Figs. 1-8, paragraphs 19-47.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the parking brake structure as described in Siebert et al. into the invention of Potier et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the safety of the device. (Paragraph 35.) Further, regarding the limitation of “the operating unit is arranged such that the parking brake is released if the sensor detects that the moving device is coupled to a tractor, and the parking brake is activated if the sensor detects that the moving device is disconnected from a tractor” is functional language. “[Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987.) Potier et al., as modified, discloses the structural limitation of the claim.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potier et al., Jagenstedt et al., Bergum et al., Skjonsberg, Disberger et al., Motus et al. and Schumacher et al., Ashby et al., Laumann and Siebert et al., as applied to claim 1-12 above, and further in view of Van der Lely (US 2003/0229435).
With respect to claim 13, Potier et al., as modified, is silent regarding the weight of the device. Van der Lely teaches of the weight of the autonomous mover device is less than 2000 kg, preferably less than 1500 kg (paragraph 28). (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 21-43.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the weight of the autonomous mover device is less than 2000 kg, preferably less than 1500 kg, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on the PTO-892 form disclose similar features of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Saturday.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on 571-270-5985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614