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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yanke, et al. US 20200337227.
Regarding claim 1, Yanke, et al. teaches a header assembly (Figure 1) for of an agricultural vehicle (agricultural combine described in ¶0002), the header assembly comprising:
a header 10 having a cutter bar 110 at a forward end (front side) that engages and cuts crops on a ground surface 30 (using teeth 115), the cutter bar 110 having a lower surface (bottom surface of 110) facing the ground surface 30; and
at least one gauge wheel assembly 35 arranged rearward of the cutter bar 110, the at least one gauge wheel assembly 35 comprising:
(i) a gauge wheel 50 having a tire mounted thereto; and
(ii) a coupling mechanism (shown in Figure 6) coupling the gauge wheel 50 to the header 10, the coupling mechanism including:
(a) a hydraulic cylinder 65 configured to that selectively extend extends from
a retracted configuration towards an extended configuration to urge a
lower edge of the gauge wheel 50 below and away from the lower surface (bottom surface of 110)
of the cutter bar 110; and
(b) a biasing element 365 (shown in Figure 6) that biases the hydraulic cylinder 65 to the retracted configuration ((¶0034 “the biasing member 365 biases the gauge wheel 35 out of engagement with the surface 30 when the head unit 10 is in the lowered position”. The biasing the gauge wheel out of engagement with surface 30 pushes the wheel upwards against piston 65).
Regarding claim 2, Yanke, et al. teaches the biasing element 365 biases the hydraulic cylinder 65 to the retracted configuration (¶0034 as described above) in the absence of selective extension (due to the spring action of 365).
Regarding claim 3, Yanke, et al. teaches a hydraulic system (including hoses 70 and 75) configured that selectively provide provides a fixed pressure to the hydraulic cylinder 65 into selectively extending the hydraulic cylinder 65 towards the extended configuration (the hydraulic fluid as described in ¶0018 “A first hydraulic line 70 is coupled to the first hydraulic actuator 65 and operable to introduce hydraulic fluid into the first hydraulic actuator 65 for the gauge wheel assembly 35 to move from a retracted position (FIG. 2) in which the wheel 50 is spaced from the surface 30 into an extended position (FIGS. 3 and 4) in which the wheel 50 is engaged with the surface 30. A second hydraulic line 75 is also coupled to the first hydraulic actuator 65 and is operable to introduce hydraulic fluid into the first hydraulic actuator 65 for the gauge wheel assembly 35 to move from the extended position into the retracted position”).
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) 4-7, 11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yank, et al. in view of Bassett US7673570
Regarding claim 4, Yanke, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach the hydraulic system (including hoses 70 and 75) comprises at least one accumulator that charges to the fixed pressure, such that the at least one accumulator maintains the fixed pressure in the hydraulic cylinder 65.
Bassett teaches that the hydraulic system (Figure 11) comprises at least one accumulator 79 for charging to the fixed pressure, such that the at least one accumulator 79 maintains the fixed pressure in the hydraulic cylinder 72 (as described in Column 3: 57-67 “The accumulator 79 includes a diaphragm that divides the interior of the accumulator into a hydraulic-fluid chamber 79a and a gas-filled chamber 79b, e.g., filled with pressurized nitrogen. FIG. 7 shows the rod 73 in a position where the diaphragm is not deflected in either direction, indicating that the pressures exerted on opposite sides of the diaphragm are substantially equal. In FIG. 8, the hydraulic force has advanced the rod 73 to its most advanced position, which occurs when the resistance offered by the soil to downward movement of the clearing wheels 22, 23 is reduced (e.g., by softer soil or a depression in the soil)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date. to modify Yanke, et al.’s hydraulic system to include the accumulator of Bassett, to provide desired pressurization for the hydraulic cylinder.
Regarding claim 5, Yanke, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach the hydraulic system (including hoses 70 and 75) comprises a two-position valve that selectively isolating isolates the at least one accumulator and the hydraulic cylinder 65 from a remainder of the hydraulic system (including hoses 70 and 75).
Bassett teaches that the hydraulic system (Figure 11) comprises a two- position valve 110 (wherein Figure 11 shows 110 having positions to control fluid through to 107 or to permit fluid to leave through 113, thus is considered a two position valve, as the selective flows through 107 and 113 are considered the two positions for the valve) for selectively isolating the at least one accumulator 79 and the hydraulic cylinder 72 from a remainder of the hydraulic system (Figure 11) (when in the closed position).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date. to modify Yanke, et al.’s hydraulic system to include the two-position valve of Bassett, to provide desired hydraulic control for the hydraulic cylinder.
Regarding claim 6, Yanke, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach the hydraulic system (including hoses 70 and 75) comprises a pressure set-point control valve configured to set a value of the fixed pressure.
Bassett teaches that the hydraulic system (Figure 11) comprises a pressure set-point control valve 101 configured to set a value of the fixed pressure (via permitting hydraulic fluid pressure to be applied to line 105, and thus to valve 110).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date. to modify Yanke, et al.’s hydraulic system to include the pressure set-point control valve of Bassett, to provide desired hydraulic control for the hydraulic cylinder.
Regarding claim 7, Yanke, et al. teaches a controller 90, wherein the controller is configured to:
receive receives a height setting signal (¶0019 “the operator can select a desired height of the head unit 10”); and
outputs a pressure set-point signal (¶0023 “agricultural combine harvester includes a hydraulic system 145 (FIG. 1) in communication with the control processor 90 to move the head unit 10 between the lowered and raised positions”) for a pressure setting
The combination necessarily teaches setting a pressure set-point of the pressure set point control valve based on the height setting signal to provide actuation.
Regarding claim 11, Yanke, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach the header assembly comprises a two-position valve that selectively couples the pressure set-point control valve to the at least one accumulator and the hydraulic cylinder 65, wherein the controller:
controls the two-position valve to couple the pressure set-point control valve to
the at least one accumulator and the hydraulic cylinder 65; and
controls the two-position valve to isolate the pressure set-point control valve from
the at least one accumulator and the hydraulic cylinder 65.
Bassett teaches the header assembly (Figure 1) comprises a two- position valve 110 arranged to selectively couple the pressure set-point control valve 101 to the at least one accumulator 79 and the hydraulic cylinder 72, wherein the controller 112 is configured to: control the two-position valve (via control signal line 111) to couple the pressure set-point control valve 101 to the at least one accumulator 79 and the hydraulic cylinder 72 (via opening both 101 and 110 to connect 102, 105, and 107); and control the two-position valve to isolate the pressure set-point control valve 101 from the at least one accumulator 79 and the hydraulic cylinder 72 (via closing at least one of 110 such that there is no fluid flow from 105 to 107).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date. to modify Yanke, et al.’s hydraulic system to include the accumulator, the two-position valve, and the pressure set-point control valve of Bassett, to provide desired hydraulic control for the hydraulic cylinder.
Regarding claim 14, Yanke, et al. teaches the at least one gauge wheel assembly 35 comprises a first gauge wheel assembly 35 positioned at a first end of the header 10 and a second gauge wheel assembly 35 positioned at a second end of the header 10 that is opposite the first end and wherein the cutter bar 110 extends across a width of the header 10 between the first and second ends of the header 10.
Regarding claim 15, Yanke, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach a first accumulator that maintains a fixed pressure in the hydraulic cylinder 65 of the first gauge wheel assembly 35 and a second accumulator that maintains for maintaining a fixed pressure in the hydraulic cylinder 65 of the second gauge wheel assembly 35.
Bassett teaches a first accumulator 79 (wherein each planting row unit 120 has the same units as shown in Figure 1. Therefore, corresponding accumulator for the first row unit is shown) for maintaining a fixed pressure in the hydraulic cylinder 72 of the first gauge wheel assembly and a second accumulator 79 for maintaining a fixed pressure in the hydraulic cylinder 72 of the second gauge wheel assembly (Since multiple planting row units are shown in Figure 12, the first and second gauge wheel assemblies have accompanied appropriate corresponding accumulators, cylinders, and gauge wheels).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date. to modify Yanke, et al.’s hydraulic system to include the accumulator of Bassett, to provide desired pressurization for the hydraulic cylinder.
Claim(s) 8-10, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanke, et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bollin US2014/0041351.
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach a position sensor for monitoring an extension of the hydraulic cylinder, wherein the height setting signal comprises a height set-point and the controller is configured to: receive a position sensor signal from the position sensor; output the pressure set-point signal to adjust the pressure set-point until the position sensor signal indicates an extension of the hydraulic cylinder corresponding to the height setpoint.
Bollin teaches that it is known for a header height system (Figure 3) to have a position sensor 124 for monitoring an extension of the hydraulic cylinder (the height for the header 104 as described in ¶0021) , wherein the height setting signal comprises a height set-point (the calculate control signal step 168 in Figure 4, in which the height necessarily must be determined to control the position for the header) and the controller 148 is configured to:
receive a position sensor signal (from 124 to the ECU 148) from the position sensor 124;
output the pressure set-point signal (via line 160) to adjust the pressure set-point until the position sensor signal indicates (¶0035 in which the steps in Figure 4 are performed continuously, therefore, sensor signals are provided continuously in step 164) an extension of the hydraulic cylinder corresponding to the height setpoint (¶0033, driving to the desired height is considered the height setpoint, and wherein ¶0037 describes an algorithm if desired height is above or below the predetermined height values to control the height of the header).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination’s hydraulic system and controller to include Bolin’s’ position sensor and have the controller output a set point signal until the position sensor indicates the height has reached the desired height, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing more accurate control of height (Bollins ¶0009).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the height setting signal comprises a height set point and the controller is configured to:
calculate the pressure set-point based on the height set-point and a predetermined relationship between the pressure set point and the height set point; and
output the pressure set-point signal to the pressure set-point control valve 101 based on the calculated pressure set-point.
Bollin teaches it is known in the art for a controller to read sensor outputs 164 to calculate a control signal 168 and apply the control signal 170 for controlling a header height, to drive the header 104 to the desired height ¶0033. The controller sets the pressure for controlling the height by controlling supply of hydraulic fluid ¶0024. This supply is considered to be the pressure-set point as at least some pressure is required to provide desired movement for the header.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yanke, et al’s controller of the combination to include Bollin’s controller that calculates desired pressure set point to provide commands for providing pressure to move the header with a reasonable expectation of success in sensing the height of the wheel during operation to provide accurate control of height over a wide range of height settings (Bollin ¶0009).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach a pressure sensor for monitoring the value of the fixed pressure, wherein the height setting signal comprises a height set point
and the controller is configured to: calculate the value of the fixed pressure based on the height set-point and a predetermined relationship between the value of the fixed pressure and the height set point; receive a pressure sensor signal from the pressure sensor; and output the pressure set-point signal to adjust the pressure set-point until the pressure sensor signal indicates a pressure corresponding to the value of the fixed pressure.
Bollin teaches a pressure sensor 150 (described as a load sensor, described as a pressure sensor in ¶0021) for monitoring the value of the fixed pressure, wherein the height setting signal comprises a height set point (as described above) and the controller (ECU 148) is configured to: calculate the value of the fixed pressure (using signals from 150, as described in step 164 “read sensors” in figure 4) based on the height set-point and a predetermined relationship between the value of the fixed pressure and the height set point (¶0022 describes at least one relationship between height set point and fixed pressure to indicate lifting the header height); receive a pressure sensor signal (¶0031, in which the step 164 reads load sensor 150) from the pressure sensor; and output the pressure set-point signal (by providing signal via 160 to valve 158) to adjust the pressure set-point until the pressure sensor signal indicates a pressure corresponding to the value of the fixed pressure (the above described cyclical steps).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combiantion’s hydraulic system and controller to include a pressure sensor and the controller that compares the pressure with height set points, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a more accurate height control (as described above).
Regarding claim 12, Yanke, et al. of the combination teaches at least one sensor 80, wherein the at least one sensor comprises:
a position sensor 80 (¶0019, wherein the “The gauge sensor 80 also senses when the gauge wheel 50 engages the surface 30 and senses a relative position of the gauge wheel 50”) that senses an extension of the hydraulic cylinder 65
Yanke, et al. does not teach one or more pressure sensors that sense a pressure of the hydraulic system (including hoses 70 and 75).
Bollin teaches a position sensor 124 for detecting header height (and thus extension of hydraulic cylinder to cause header height to raise or lower) and one or more pressure sensors 150 for sensing a pressure of the hydraulic system (as described above).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bassett’s control system to have Bollin’s position sensor and pressure sensor with a reasonable expectation of success to provide more accurate height control, as described above.
Regarding claim 13, Yanke, et al. teaches a controller to that outputs a height indication signal (necessarily provided to generate a signal from the gauge sensor 80 as described above) based on a sensor signal from the at least one sensor 80.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 3/6/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 USC 102 and 103 over Bassett have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yanke, et al.
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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 4/21/2026