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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Long et al. (US 2018/0070531 A1), hereinafter Long.
Regarding claim 1, Long discloses a harvester implement (20, fig. 1, [0028]) comprising:
a traction unit (32+50+52+54, fig. 1, [0028 and 0031-0032]) having a frame (36, fig. 1, [0030]), wherein the traction unit is configured for movement across a ground surface (28, fig. 1, [0028]);
a first motion sensor (48, fig. 1, [0007 and 0031-0033]; alternatively, 148, fig. 8-12, [0042]) mounted on the traction unit (fig. 1, [0031]) at a location defining a traction unit elevation datum ([0033]]), wherein the first motion sensor is configured for detecting data related to movement of the traction unit ([0031-0033]);
an implement linkage system (34, fig. 1, [0030]) coupled to the frame (fig. 1, [0030]) and configured for movement relative to the frame (fig. 1, [0030]);
an implement head (24, fig. 1, [0028]) attached to and supported by the implement linkage system (fig. 1, [0030]), wherein the implement linkage system is operable to move the implement head relative to the frame to change an elevation of the implement head relative to the ground surface ([0030]);
a second motion sensor (42, fig. 1, [0031]) mounted on the implement head at a location defining a head elevation datum (fig. 1, [0031]), wherein the second motion sensor is configured for detecting data related to movement of the implement head ([0032]);
wherein the implement head defines a head spacing between the head elevation datum and a ground contact surface of the implement head (fig. 1, [0031]);
an implement controller (38, fig. 1, [0030-0031; alternatively, 138, fig. 8-12, [0042]]) including a processor and a memory ([0030]) having a head height determination algorithm stored thereon, wherein the processor is operable to execute the head height determination algorithm to: determine an offset distance between the traction unit elevation datum and the head elevation datum based on data from the first motion sensor related to movement of the traction unit and data from the second motion sensor related to movement of the implement head ([0035-0036, 0039, and 0041]);
calculate a head height between the ground surface and the ground contact surface of the implement head by subtracting the offset distance and the head spacing from the traction unit elevation datum ([0035]; alternatively [0042-0044]); and
control the implement linkage system based on the implement head elevation ([0036, 0039, and 0041]; alternatively, [0044]).
Regarding claim 4, Long further discloses wherein the processor is operable to execute the head height determination algorithm to determine a pitch angle (αT, fig. 5, [0039]) between the implement head and the frame based on data from the first motion sensor related to movement of the traction unit and data from the second motion sensor related to movement of the implement head ([0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Long further discloses wherein the processor is operable to execute the head height determination algorithm to adjust the implement head height based on the pitch angle ([0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Long further discloses wherein the processor is operable to execute the head height determination algorithm to determine a roll angle (αC, fig. 8, [0044]) of the implement head relative to the frame based on data from the first motion sensor related to movement of the traction unit and data from the second motion sensor related to movement of the implement head ([0044]).
Regarding claim 7, Long further discloses wherein the processor is operable to execute the head height determination algorithm to adjust the implement head height based on the roll angle ([0044]).
Regarding claim 11, Long further discloses wherein the implement head (24, fig. 1, [0028]) includes a mower mounted to a forward end of the frame (fig. 1, [0028]), with a blade defining the ground contact surface of the implement head (40, fig. 1, [0028]).
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.
Claims 2-3, 8-10, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Long et al. (US 2018/0070531 A1), hereinafter Long in view of Deneault et al. (US 2013/0091819 A1), hereinafter Deneault.
Regarding claim 2, Long discloses a first motion sensor (48, fig. 1, [0031] of Long), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first motion sensor includes an accelerometer operable to measure acceleration. Deneault teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein the first motion sensor includes an accelerometer operable to measure acceleration (108, [0012, 0033]; see also [0038-0043] of Deneault). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor of Long to incorporate an accelerometer of Deneault in order to better measure and determine the position and any desired change to the location of the header to better harvest the crops ([0004-0005] and [0038-0043] of Deneault).
Regarding claim 3, Long discloses a second motion sensor (42, fig. 1, [0031] of Long), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second motion sensor includes an accelerometer operable to measure acceleration. Deneault teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein the second motion sensor includes an accelerometer operable to measure acceleration (108, [0012, 0033]; see also [0038-0043] of Deneault). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor of Long to incorporate an accelerometer of Deneault in order to better measure and determine the position and any desired change to the location of the header to better harvest the crops ([0004-0005] and [0038-0043] of Deneault).
Regarding claim 8, Long discloses the traction unit (32+50+52+54, fig. 1, [0028 and 0031-0032]) that includes a wheel (32+50, fig. 1, [0028, 0031]) that supports the frame relative to the ground surface (fig. 1), and the wheel is monitored for over compression (0043). However, Long fails to explicitly disclose wherein the tire is an inflatable tire and the sensor monitors the tire pressure. Deneault teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein the tire is an inflatable tire and the sensor monitors the tire pressure (0010, 0012-0014, 0023, and 0031 of Deneault). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the generic wheel of Long with the inflatable tire of Deneault to yield the predictable result of allowing travel over the ground surface wherein the load is distributed evenly ([0005-0007 of Deneault]), and with the modification it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also modify the sensor of Long to include a tire pressure sensor to monitor the tire compression in order to monitor the height of the header to the ground ([0013 and 0031 of Deneault])
Regarding claim 9, Long in view of Deneault teaches wherein the processor is operable to execute the head height determination algorithm to identify a change in the tire pressure of the inflatable tire based on data sensed by the tire pressure sensor ([0013, 0015, and 0030-0033] of Deneault).
Regarding claim 10, Long in view of Deneault teaches wherein the processor is operable to execute the head height determination algorithm to adjust the traction unit elevation datum based on the change in the tire pressure ([0038-0043] of Deneault).
Regarding claim 14, Long discloses a mower implement (see below) comprising:
a traction unit (32+50+52+54, fig. 1, [0028 and 0031-0032]) having a frame (36, fig. 1, [0030]), wherein the traction unit is configured for movement across a ground surface (28, fig. 1, [0028]);
a first motion sensor (48, fig. 1, [0007 and 0031-0033]; alternatively, 148, fig. 8-12, [0042]) mounted on the traction unit (fig. 1, [0031]) at a location defining a traction unit elevation datum ([0033]]), wherein the first motion sensor is configured for detecting data related to movement of the traction unit;
an implement linkage system (34, fig. 1, [0030]) coupled to the frame (fig. 1, [0030]) adjacent a forward end of the frame (fig. 1), wherein the implement linkage system is configured for movement relative to the frame ([0030]);
a mower head (24, fig. 1, [0028]) attached to and supported by the implement linkage system (fig. 1, [0030]), wherein the implement linkage system is operable to move the mower head relative to the frame to change an elevation of the mower head relative to the ground surface ([0030]);
a second motion sensor (42, fig. 1, [0031]) mounted on the implement head at a location defining a head elevation datum (fig. 1, [0031]), wherein the second motion sensor is configured for detecting data related to movement of the implement head ([0032]);
wherein the implement head defines a head spacing between the head elevation datum and a ground contact surface of the implement head (fig. 1, [0031]);
an implement controller (38, fig. 1, [0030-0031; alternatively, 138, fig. 8-12, [0042]]) including a processor and a memory ([0030]) having a head height determination algorithm stored thereon, wherein the processor is operable to execute the head height determination algorithm to: determine an offset distance between the traction unit elevation datum and the head elevation datum based on data from the first accelerometer related to movement of the traction unit and data from the second accelerometer related to movement of the implement head ([0035-0036, 0039, and 0041]); and
calculate a head height between the ground surface and the ground contact surface of the implement head by subtracting the offset distance and the head spacing from the traction unit elevation datum ([0035]; alternatively [0042-0044]).
Long discloses the above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a first and second accelerometer. Deneault teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein the second motion sensor includes an accelerometer operable to measure acceleration (108, [0012, 0033]; see also [0038-0043] of Deneault). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor of Long to incorporate an accelerometer of Deneault in order to better measure and determine the position and any desired change to the location of the header to better harvest the crops ([0004-0005] and [0038-0043] of Deneault).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Strosser (US 7,707,811 B1), hereinafter Strosser.
Regarding claim 12, Long discloses wherein the implement linkage system (34, fig. 1, [0030]) includes a hydraulic cylinder ([0030]) selectively controllable between a float operating condition in which the implement linkage system is allowed to move vertically relative to the frame to track the ground surface as the harvester implement moves across the ground surface ([0037 and 0039]; see also [0045]).
However, Long fails to explicitly disclose a height control operating condition wherein a length of the hydraulic cylinder is actively controlled to raise the implement head relative to the frame.
Strosser teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein a height control operating condition wherein a length of the hydraulic cylinder is actively controlled to raise the implement head relative to the frame (24+26, col. 3 lines 31-34, col. 5 lines 16-23, and col. 6 lines 46-54 of Strosser).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Long to incorporate the hydraulic cylinder is actively controlled to raise the implement head relative to the frame of Strosser in order to control the height of the header independent of the frame (col. 1 lines 34-38 col. 5 lines 16-23, and col. 6 lines 46-54 of Strosser).
Regarding claim 13, Long in view of Strosser teaches claim 12, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is operable to execute the head height determination algorithm to control the implement linkage system between one of a float operating condition and a height control operating condition based on the implement head elevation. Strosser teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein the processor is operable to execute the head height determination algorithm to control the implement linkage system between one of a float operating condition and a height control operating condition based on the implement head elevation (technical field, col. 2 lines 4-23, col. 6 lines 25-29). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Long in view of Strosser to incorporate the processor controlling a change between a float operating condition and a height control operating condition based on the implement head elevation of Strosser in order to automatically and consistently provide the changes between a float operating condition and a height control operating condition (col. 2 lines 4-12 and col. 8 lines 24-43 of Strosser).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Deneault et al. (US 2013/0091819 A1), hereinafter Deneault in view of Strosser (US 7,707,811 B1), hereinafter Strosser.
Regarding claim 15, Long in view of Deneault teaches claim 14, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is operable to execute the head height determination algorithm to control the implement linkage system between one of a float operating condition and a height control operating condition based on the implement head elevation.
Strosser teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein the processor is operable to execute the head height determination algorithm to control the implement linkage system between one of a float operating condition and a height control operating condition based on the implement head elevation (technical field, col. 2 lines 4-23, col. 6 lines 25-29).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Long in view of Deneault to incorporate the processor controlling a change between a float operating condition and a height control operating condition based on the implement head elevation of Strosser in order to automatically and consistently provide the changes between a float operating condition and a height control operating condition (col. 2 lines 4-12 and col. 8 lines 24-43 of Strosser).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Deneault et al. (US 2013/0091819 A1), hereinafter Deneault in view of view of Strosser (US 7,707,811 B1), hereinafter Strosser and further in view of Deneault.
Regarding claim 16, Long in view of Deneault and Strosser teaches the traction unit (32+50+52+54, fig. 1, [0028 and 0031-0032]) that includes a wheel (32+50, fig. 1, [0028, 0031]) that supports the frame relative to the ground surface (fig. 1), and the wheel is monitored for over compression (0043). However, Long fails to explicitly disclose wherein the tire is an inflatable tire and the sensor monitors the tire pressure. Deneault teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein the tire is an inflatable tire and the sensor monitors the tire pressure (0010, 0012-0014, 0023, and 0031 of Deneault). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the generic wheel of Long with the inflatable tire of Deneault to yield the predictable result of allowing travel over the ground surface wherein the load is distributed evenly ([0005-0007 of Deneault]), and with the modification it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also modify the sensor of Long to include a tire pressure sensor to monitor the tire compression in order to monitor the height of the header to the ground ([0013 and 0031 of Deneault])
Regarding claim 17, Long in view of Deneault and Strosser teaches wherein the processor is operable to execute the head height determination algorithm to identify a change in the tire pressure of the inflatable tire based on data sensed by the tire pressure sensor ([0013, 0015, and 0030-0033] of Deneault).
Regarding claim 18, Long in view of Deneault and Strosser wherein the processor is operable to execute the head height determination algorithm to adjust the traction unit elevation datum based on the change in the tire pressure ([0038-0043] of Deneault).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seiders, JR (US 2020/0045884 A1), hereinafter Seiders – harvester that has a hydraulic cylinder system and sensors that can automatically adjust the height of the header; however, it doesn’t appear to have a sensor with the traction unit.
Noonan et al. (US 20170359957 A1) – harvester wherein the tire pressure is monitored.
Posselius et al. (US 9585309 B2) – harvester with a header height control and sensors on the header and areas that contact the ground.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Railey whose telephone number is (571)270-7353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-4).
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/JENNIFER A RAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676