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 .
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claims 1 – 17 are currently pending and considered below.
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 1 – 12 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 1 recites the configuration data compared to a first reference value and if the data is equal to or greater than the first reference value, then operate the header in a restricted condition. Claim 2 recites if the configuration data is equal to or lesser than the second reference value, then then operate the header in a restricted condition. It is not clear how to determine what the range of the configuration data would be. Furthermore, if the configuration of first reference value and second reference value is the same then the machine would operate in restriction mode regardless of the configuration data as the machine will always operate in a restricted condition. Clarification is required.
Claims 3 – 12 depends from the claim 1 and rejected under same rationales.
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.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 12, and 14 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seider Jr. (Hereinafter Seider) (US 2019/0335661 A1).
As per claim 1, Seiders teaches the limitations of:
an agricultural harvester system that includes an agricultural harvester and a header removably connected to the agricultural harvester, the agricultural harvester system (See at least paragraph 2; A harvester is an agricultural machine that is used to harvest and process crops. For instance, a forage harvester may be used to cut and comminute silage crops, such as grass and corn. Similarly, a combine harvester may be used to harvest grain crops, such as wheat, oats, rye, barely, corn, soybeans, and flax or linseed. In general, the objective is to complete several processes, which traditionally were distinct, in one pass of the machine over a particular part of the field. In this regard, most harvesters are equipped with a detachable harvesting implement, such as a header, which cuts and collects the crop from the field and feeds it to the base harvester for further processing.) comprising:
a main frame having a first end and a second end spaced from the first end along a central longitudinal axis of the main frame (See at least figure 1
PNG
media_image1.png
612
963
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
a ground engaging device coupled to the main frame and configured to move the main frame in a direction of travel during an operation (See at least figure 1);
a feederhouse coupled to the main frame and configured for attachment to the header (See at least figure 1);
a header compatibility control system (See at least figure 1)including:
an electronic component positioned on the header and having configuration data of the header (See at least abstract; automatically controlling a height of an implement of an agricultural work vehicle relative to a ground surface. The method may include monitoring the height of the implement and a vehicle speed; determining an implement height error by comparing the height of the implement with a predetermined target height; and calculating a sensitivity factor based on a sensitivity setting. When the monitored vehicle speed is greater than a predetermined speed threshold, the sensitivity factor may equal a first constant sensitivity value that is proportional to the sensitivity setting. The method may include reducing the sensitivity factor to less than the first constant sensitivity value when the monitored vehicle speed becomes less than the predetermined speed threshold and adjusting the height of the implement relative to the ground surface based on the implement height error and the sensitivity factor.); and
a controller having a processor and a memory having a compatibility control algorithm stored therein, wherein the processor is operable to execute the compatibility control algorithm to (See at least paragraph 8; The controller may include a processor and associated memory. The memory may store instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the implement controller to perform operations. The operations may include monitoring each of a vehicle speed of the work vehicle relative to the ground surface and a height of the implement relative to the ground surface based on signals received from the implement height sensor. The method may include determining an implement height error by comparing the height of the implement with a predetermined target height. The method may include calculating a sensitivity factor based on a sensitivity setting.):
receive the signals indicative of the configuration data from the electronic component (See at least paragraph 45; The predetermined speed threshold may be selected based on the dynamic characteristics of the system, such as the weight of the implement, the size of the implement, the maximum safe rate at which the implement height may be adjusted, etc. The predetermined speed threshold may also vary depending on various characteristics of the harvester or implement and/or operating parameters of the agricultural operation. For example, these characteristics and parameters may include the type of agricultural operation being performed, the target implement height, the sensitivity setting that has been selected, the vehicle speed setting associated with the sensitivity setting, and/or any other suitable parameter.);
determine, based on the signals, whether a value of the configuration data is equal to or greater than a first reference value, wherein the first reference value is stored in the memory (See at least paragraph 45).
The Examiner notes, calculate a restricted condition based on the value of the configuration data; and control the agricultural harvester to operate in the restricted condition in response to the value of the configuration data being equal to or greater than the first reference value is dependent on the phrase " if the value of the configuration data is determined to be equal to or greater than the first reference value” This phrase is a conditional limitation. The noted step is not necessarily performed. Accordingly, once the positively recited steps are satisfied, the method as a whole is satisfied -- regardless of whether or not other steps are conditionally invocable under certain other hypothetical scenarios. [See: In re Johnston, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (CA FC 2006); Intel Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 20 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1991); MPEP §2106 II C].
As per claim 3, Seiders teaches the limitations of:
wherein the configuration data includes one of the weight, size, and mass of inertia (See at least paragraph 45).
As per claim 5, Seiders teaches the limitations of:
wherein the configuration data is the weight of the header and the first reference value is a first weight threshold (See at least paragraph 45).
As per claim 6, Seiders teaches the limitations of:
wherein in the restricted condition, the processor is operable to execute the compatibility control algorithm to restrict the agricultural harvester to travel at or below a pre-determined speed (See at least paragraph 44 – 45).
As per claim 7, Seiders teaches the limitations of:
an actuator coupled between the feederhouse and the main frame, wherein the feederhouse is pivotably coupled to the main frame about a pivot axis, and the actuator is configured to lift and lower the feederhouse, and wherein in the restricted condition, the processor is operable to execute the compatibility control algorithm to extend or retract the actuator to lower a height of the header equal to or below a pre-determined height (See at least figure 1 and abstract and paragraph 21).
As per claim 8, Seiders teaches the limitations of:
a hydraulic circuit having an actuator, an accumulator, and a pressure regulating valve disposed upstream the actuator and the accumulator, and wherein, in the restricted condition, the processor is operable to execute the compatibility control algorithm to decrease a hydraulic pressure of the actuator and the accumulator to increase a suspension (See at least paragraph 28).
As per claim 9, Seiders teaches the limitations of:
wherein the actuator is coupled between the feederhouse and the main frame, wherein the feederhouse is pivotably coupled to the main frame, and the actuator is configured to lift and lower the feederhouse (See at least paragraph 28).
As per claim 10, Seiders teaches the limitations of:
wherein the header include an attachment frame and a center frame pivotable relative to the attachment frame, and the actuator is coupled between the center frame and the attachment frame and is configured to provide the suspension between the center frame and the attachment frame (See at least figure 1).
As per claim 11, Seiders teaches the limitations of:
wherein the header include a center frame and a wing frame pivotable relative to the center frame, and the actuator is coupled between the center frame and the wing frame and is configured to provide the suspension between the center frame and the wing frame (See at least figure 1).
As per claim 12, Seiders teaches the limitations of:
wherein the header is pivotable relative to the feederhouse, the actuator is a tilt actuator coupled between the header and the feederhouse and is configured to provide the suspension between the header and the feederhouse (See at least figure 1).
Regarding claims 14 – 16:
Claims 14 – 16 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 2 – 4 and 6 – 12 above, respectively.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seider and Hunt et al. (Hereinafter Hunt)(US 2022/0369557 A1).
As per claim 5, Seiders teaches the limitations of:
the configuration data, but does not explicitly teach that the configuration data is the moment of inertia of the header and the first reference value is a first moment of inertia threshold.
Hunt teaches the limitation of:
the configuration data is the moment of inertia of the header and the first reference value is a first moment of inertia threshold (See at least abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the configuration data is the moment of inertia of the header and the first reference value is a first moment of inertia threshold as taught by Hunt in the system of Seiders, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The other independent claims 13 and 17 recite substantially similar claim limitations as ones in independent claim 1 but have additional elements of twist load which is derived from the mass of inertia. The Examiner notes that combination of Seider and Hunt would have taught the claim limitations of independent claims 13 and 17 based on the teachings cited in the rejections above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cooksey et al. (2020/0163277 A1) discloses system and method for adjusting the orientation of an agricultural harvesting implement based on implement height.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662