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 first end of the actuator in claim 6, line 5 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 Objections
Claims 10 and 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 6 recites “a folded configuration to an unfolded configuration”, should read – the folded configuration to the unfolded configuration – from previous mention of the configurations in lines 1-2.
Claim 12, line 1 recites “a first pivot axis”, should read – the first pivot axis – from mention of the first pivot axis in dependent claim 10, line 7.
Claim 12, line 2 recites “an intermediate portion”, should read – the intermediate portion – from mention of the intermediate portion in dependent claim 10, lines 7-8.
Claim 12, line 2 and 4 recites “a first rotational direction”, should read – the first rotational direction – from mention of the rotational direction in dependent claim 10, lines 8-9 .
Claim 13, line 3 recites “second pivot axis when the when the wing”, should read – second pivot axis when the wing –.
Claim 14, line 1 recites “a second pivot axis”, should read – the second pivot axis – from mention of the second pivot axis in dependent claim 10, line 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14, lines 3-4 sets forth “in response to articulation of the actuator in the first direction by the second amount includes releasing the first pivot axis”. Applicant’s specification paragraph [0051], lines 3-7 states “For example, extension of the actuator 914 by the second amount causes the wing frame 904 to rotate about the second pivot axis 910 a second rotational amount (e.g., by a second angular amount) beyond the first rotational amount. The second angular amount is an angular range between the unfolded configuration of the wing frame 904 and a fully articulated configuration of the wing frame 904.”. However, also in applicant’s specification, paragraph [0048], lines 4-7 states “For example, the second pivot shaft 910 (and, hence, the end of the intermediate portion 906 through which the second pivot axis 910 passes) is fixed, such as being locked into position (e.g., with the use of a lock 928), as the wing frame 904 is rotated from the folded configuration to the unfolded configuration.”
The specification states the pivot axis is released as the wing frame is rotated from the folded to the unfolded configurations, but is silent on the pivot axis being released from the unfolded to articulated configurations. The drawings also show the pivot axis being released as the wing frame is unfolded, not during articulation of the frame; therefore, the limitation was not described in the disclosure in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skill in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting the limitation “second amount” to be the first amount.
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 2 and 10-15 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, lines 1 and 2 sets forth “a vertical location of the first location” and “a vertical location of the second location”, however, it is unclear what the first and second locations are. Specifically, it is unclear which limitation has a vertical location at a first and second location; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting the limitation “first location” to mean the first pivot axis, and the “second location” to mean the second pivot axis.
Claim 10, lines 7-8, recite the limitation “a first pivot axis pivotably connecting an intermediate portion and the wing frame at a first location”, however, applicant’s specification paragraph [0047], lines 6-7, sets forth “the intermediate portion 906 is pivotably connected to the center frame 902 along a first pivot axis 908 and pivotably connected to the wing frame 904 at a second pivot axis 910.”. The drawings also reflect the first pivot axis connecting the intermediate potion and the center frame, not the wing frame. It is unclear which of the first and second pivot axes are connected to the wing frame and which is connected to the center frame; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Likewise, claim 10, lines 12-13 sets forth “a second pivot axis pivotably connecting the intermediate portion and the center frame at a second location along the intermediate portion”. This is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting lines 7-8 to read as “a first pivot axis pivotably connecting an intermediate portion and the center frame at a first location” and lines 12-13 to read as “a second pivot axis pivotably connecting the intermediate portion and the wing frame at a second location along the intermediate portion”.
Due to dependency on claim 10, claims 11-15 are rejected as well.
Due to the interpretation of the pivot axis’ from claim 10 above, the examiner is interpreting claim 13, lines 1-2 to read as “fixing a location of the second pivot axis relative to the center frame such that the intermediate portion is prevented from rotating”. This is also due to applicant’s specification paragraph [0048], lines 4-7, reciting “For example, the second pivot shaft 910 (and, hence, the end of the intermediate portion 906 through which the second pivot axis 910 passes) is fixed, such as being locked into position (e.g., with the use of a lock 928), as the wing frame 904 is rotated from the folded configuration to the unfolded configuration.”
Similarly, claim 14, line 4 recites “releasing the first pivot axis”. Examiner is interpreting this limitation to read as “releasing the second pivot axis” due to reasons as stated above.
Claim 15 in line 1 sets forth “the first wing frame”. However, it is unclear how this first wing frame is related to the wing frame set forth in dependent claim 10, line 4. Specifically, it is unclear if these two portions are one and the same or two different portions altogether. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “the wing frame”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lacher (EP 0890301 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lacher teaches an agricultural head [1] comprising:
a center frame [2];
a wing frame ([3]; same configuration as wing [4], therefore can fold/unfold as well, see paragraph [0008], lines 4-7) coupled to the center; and
an intermediate portion [7] disposed between the center frame and the wing frame (see Fig. 1), the intermediate portion pivotably connected (see paragraph [0008], lines 8-11) to the center frame at a first pivot axis (see below) and pivotably connected to the wing frame at a second pivot axis (see below), the first pivot axis offset from the second pivot axis (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
439
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Lacher teaches an actuator [14], interconnecting the center frame [2] and the wing frame [3], configured to pivot the wing frame relative to the center frame (see paragraph [0009], lines 1-7) about one of the first pivot axis (see above) and the second pivot axis (see above; rotates about both axis’).
Regarding claim 8, Lacher teaches wherein the actuator [14] is a linear actuator (actuator is a hydraulic cylinder, see paragraph [0009], lines 1-4, converting energy into linear motion to pivot the wing frame; therefore, is a linear actuator).
Regarding claim 9, Lacher teaches wherein the linear actuator [14] is a hydraulic linear actuator (actuator is a hydraulic cylinder, see paragraph [0009], lines 1-4, converting energy into linear motion to pivot the wing frame; therefore, is a hydraulic linear actuator).
Regarding claim 16, Lacher teaches an agricultural system (system of Fig. 1) comprising:
an agricultural machine (see paragraph [0008], lines 1-4) configured to move along a surface;
an agricultural head [1] connected to the agricultural machine and configured to harvest crop as the agricultural head is moved along the surface (see paragraph [0008], lines 1-4) by the agricultural machine, the agricultural head comprising:
a center frame [2];
a wing frame ([3]; same configuration as wing [4], therefore can fold/unfold as well, see paragraph [0008], lines 4-7) coupled to and disposed laterally adjacent to the center; and
an intermediate portion [7] disposed between the center frame and the wing frame, the intermediate portion pivotably connected (see paragraph [0008], lines 8-11) to the center frame at a first rotational axis (see below) and pivotably connected to the wing frame at a second rotational axis (see below), the first rotational axis positioned at a first location (see location of first axis below) on the center frame and the second rotational axis positioned at a second location (see location of second axis below) along the wing frame, the first location offset from the second location (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
441
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacher (EP 0890301 A).
Regarding claim 2, Lacher discloses the agricultural head as applied above, as well as, a vertical component of the first pivot axis (see location of the first axis above) and a vertical component of the second pivot axis (see location of the second axis above), but fails to explicitly disclose the vertical component of the first pivot axis is less than the vertical component of the second pivot axis (please see 112(b) rejection above).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the vertical component of the first pivot axis less than the vertical component of the second pivot axis, since this rearrangement would still allow for the wing frame to be pivoted about the first pivot axis to the folded and unfolded configurations through actuation of the actuator, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 17, Lacher discloses the agricultural system as applied above, as well as, a vertical component of the first location (see location of first axis above) and a vertical component of the second location (see location of second axis above), but fails to explicitly disclose the vertical component of the first pivot axis is less than the vertical component of the second pivot axis.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the vertical component of the first location less than the vertical component of the second location, since this rearrangement would still allow for the wing frame to be pivoted about the first pivot axis to the folded and unfolded configurations through actuation of the actuator, and 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(s) 3-4, 6, 10-12, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacher (EP 0890301 A) in view of van Vooren et al. (US 9992924 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Lacher discloses the agricultural head as applied above, as well as, an actuator [14] interconnecting the center frame [2] and the wing frame [3], the actuator configured to rotate the wing frame relative to the center frame (see paragraph [0009], lines 1-7) about the second pivot axis (see above; wing rotates between configurations through connection to second pivot axis and actuator, see Fig. 1) a first rotational amount (amount between the dotted and solid lines, see Fig. 1) between a folded configuration [T] and an unfolded configuration [A] with a coupler [16] rigidly coupling the center and wing frame together when in the unfolded configuration.
But Lacher fails to explicitly disclose the actuator capable of articulating the wing frame a second rotational amount beyond the first rotational amount relative to the center frame about the first pivot axis between the unfolded configuration and a fully articulated configuration.
van Vooren et al. discloses a similar agricultural head [18] comprising an actuator [120] interconnecting the center frame [102] and the wing frame [104], the actuator configured both to rotate the wing frame relative to the center frame about the second pivot axis [116] a first rotational amount (rotation between Figs. 2 and 4) between a folded configuration (see Fig. 4) and an unfolded configuration (see Fig. 2) and to articulate the wing frame (articulates around hinge [110], see Col. 5, lines 24-35 and lines 45-52) a second rotational amount (rotation between Figs. 2 and [104] side of Fig. 3) beyond the first rotational amount relative to the center frame about the first pivot axis [114] between the unfolded configuration and a fully articulated configuration (see [104] side of Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the coupling and actuator of Lacher with the hinge and actuator of van Vooren et al. since both are mechanisms used to connect the center and wing frame together, yielding the same predictable result; therefore, when the coupling and actuator of Lacher is substituted with the hinge and actuator of van Vooren, the wing frame of Lacher would be capable of articulating about the hinge, actuator and first pivot axis to allow the agricultural head to reach a fully articulated configuration.
Regarding claim 4, Lacher, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the wing frame [3] is pivotable about the first pivot axis (see above; see paragraph [0008], lines 7-11), in response to actuation of the actuator ([14], see paragraph [0009], lines 1-7) to the unfolded configuration [A].
But Lacher fails to explicitly disclose the wing frame is pivotable about the first pivot axis in response to the actuation of the actuator to the fully articulated configuration.
However, van Vooren et al. discloses the wing frame ([104]; articulates around detachable hinge [110] and actuator [120], see Col. 5, lines 24-35 and lines 45-52) is pivotable to the fully articulated configuration (see [104] side of Fig. 3).
It can be seen then that when the coupling and actuator of Lacher is substituted with the hinge and actuator of van Vooren et al. that the wing frame is pivotable about the first pivot axis in response to actuating of the actuator between the unfolded configuration and the fully articulated configuration as disclosed by Vooren et al. (see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 6, Lacher, of the above resultant combination, further discloses a linkage [5] including:
a first link [12] pivotably attached to the center frame [2]; and
a second link [10] pivotably attached to the wing frame [3], the first link and the second link pivotably attached to each other (pivotably attached through another link, see below; see paragraph [0009], lines 1-3), and
wherein the actuator [14] is pivotably attached to the center frame at a first end (see below) and pivotably connected to the linkage at a location (see below; pivotably connected through the link that connects the first and second link) where the first link and the second link are pivotably attached to each other.
PNG
media_image3.png
439
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Lacher teaches a method (method of operating [1]) for operating an agricultural head [1] moveable between a folded configuration [T] and an unfolded configuration [A], with a coupler [16] rigidly coupling the center and wing frame together when in the unfolded configuration, the method comprising:
actuating an actuator [14] interconnecting a wing frame [2] of the agricultural head and a center frame [2] of the agricultural head by a first amount (amount between the folded and unfolded configurations) in a first direction (downwards) to unfold the wing frame from the folded configuration to the unfolded configuration;
pivoting (see paragraph [0008], lines 8-11) the wing frame about a first pivot axis (see below) pivotably connecting an intermediate portion [7] and the center frame at a first location (see location of first pivot axis below) along the intermediate portion in a first rotational direction (rotating downwards) in response to actuating the actuator in the first direction to unfold the wing frame; and
pivoting (see paragraph [0008], lines 8-11) the wing frame about a second pivot axis (see below) pivotably connecting the intermediate portion and the wing frame at a second location (see location of second pivot axis below) along the intermediate portion offset from the first location (see below) in the first rotational direction (please see 122(b) rejection above).
PNG
media_image1.png
439
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Lacher fails to explicitly disclose the actuating the actuator in the first direction by a second amount beyond the first amount, and pivoting the wing frame about a second pivot axis in the first rotational direction in response to articulation of the actuator in the first direction by the second amount.
van Vooren et al. discloses a similar agricultural head [18] comprising of an actuator [120] wherein actuating the actuator in the first direction (downwards) by a second amount (amount between unfolded and fully articulation configurations, see Figs. 2 and [104] side of Fig. 3) beyond the first amount (amount between unfolded and folded configurations, see Fig. 2 and 4), and pivoting the wing frame about a second pivot axis [116] in the first rotational direction (rotating downwards) in response to articulation of the actuator in the first direction by the second amount (articulates around detachable hinge [110] and actuator [120], see Col. 5, lines 24-35 and lines 45-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the coupling and actuator of Lacher with the hinge and actuator of van Vooren et al. since both are mechanisms used to connect the center and wing frame together, yielding the same predictable result; therefore, when the coupling and actuator of Lacher is substituted with the hinge and actuator of van Vooren, the wing frame of Lacher would be capable of articulating about the hinge, actuator and first pivot axis to allow the agricultural head to reach a fully articulated configuration.
Regarding claim 11, Lacher, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein pivoting the wing frame [3] about the second pivot axis (see above) in response to articulation of the actuator ([14], see paragraph [0009], lines 1-7) to the unfolded configuration [A].
But Lacher fails to explicitly disclose pivoting the wing frame about the second pivot axis by the second amount includes pivoting the wing frame between the unfolded configuration and a fully articulated configuration.
However, van Vooren et al. discloses the wing frame ([104]; articulates around detachable hinge [110] and actuator [120], see Col. 5, lines 24-35 and lines 45-52) is pivotable between the unfolded configuration (see Fig. 2) and a fully articulated configuration (see [104] side of Fig. 3).
It can be seen then that when the coupling and actuator of Lacher is substituted with the hinge and actuator of van Vooren et al. that the wing frame is pivotable about the second pivot axis in response to actuating of the actuator between the unfolded configuration and the fully articulated configuration as disclosed by Vooren et al. (see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 12, Lacher, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein pivoting the wing frame [3] about the first pivot axis (see above) pivotably connecting a first end (see below) of the intermediate portion [7] and the wing frame in the first rotational direction (rotating downwards) in response to actuating the actuator ([14]; see paragraph [0009], lines 1-7) in the first direction (downwards) to unfold the wing frame [A] includes pivoting the wing frame about the first pivot axis a first rotational amount (amount between the unfolded and folded configurations) in the first rotational direction.
PNG
media_image4.png
439
617
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Lacher, of the above resultant combination, further discloses pivoting the wing frame [3] about the second pivot axis (see above), but fails to disclose pivoting the wing frame about the second pivot axis by a first rotational amount between the fully articulated configuration and the unfolded configuration in response to actuation of the actuator by a first amount in a second direction, opposite the first direction (please see 112(b) rejection above).
However, van Vooren et al. discloses pivoting the first wing frame [104] about the second pivot axis [116] by a first rotational amount (rotation amount between Figs. 2 and 3) between the fully articulated configuration (see [104] side of Fig. 3) and the unfolded configuration (see Fig. 2) in response to actuation of the actuator ([120]; articulates around detachable hinge [110] and actuator, see Col. 5, lines 24-35 and lines 45-52) by a first amount (amount between Figs. 2 and 3) in a second direction (upwards), opposite the first direction.
It can be seen then that when the coupling and actuator of Lacher is substituted with the hinge and actuator of van Vooren et al. that the wing frame is pivotable about the second pivot axis in response to actuating of the actuator between the unfolded configuration and the fully articulated configuration as disclosed by Vooren et al. (see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 18, Lacher discloses the agricultural head as applied above, as well as, wherein the agricultural header [1] further comprises an actuator [14] interconnecting the center frame [2] and the wing frame [3], the actuator configured to rotate the wing frame relative to the center frame (see paragraph [0009], lines 1-7) about the second pivot axis (see above) a first rotational amount (amount between folded and unfolded configurations) between a folded configuration [T] and an unfolded configuration [A], with a coupler [16] rigidly coupling the center and wing frame together when in the unfolded configuration.
But Lacher fails to disclose articulating the wing frame a second rotational amount beyond the first rotational amount relative to the center frame about the first pivot axis between the unfolded configuration and a fully articulated configuration.
van Vooren et al. discloses a similar agricultural head [18] comprising of an actuator [120] configured to both to rotate the wing frame [104] relative to the center frame about the second pivot axis [116] a first rotational amount (amount between Figs. 2 and 4) between a folded configuration (see Fig. 4) and an unfolded configuration (see Fig. 2) and to articulate the wing frame a second rotational amount (amount between Figs. 2 and [104] side of Fig. 3) beyond the first rotational amount relative to the center frame (articulates around detachable hinge [110] and actuator [120], see Col. 5, lines 24-35 and lines 45-52) about the first pivot axis [114] between the unfolded configuration and a fully articulated configuration (see [104] side of Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the coupling and actuator of Lacher with the hinge and actuator of van Vooren et al. since both are mechanisms used to connect the center and wing frame together, yielding the same predictable result; therefore, when the coupling and actuator of Lacher is substituted with the hinge and actuator of van Vooren, the wing frame of Lacher would be capable of articulating about the hinge, actuator and first pivot axis to allow the agricultural head to reach a fully articulated configuration.
Regarding claim 20, Lacher, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the agricultural head [1] comprises a linkage [5] including:
a first link [12] pivotably attached to the center frame [2]; and
a second link [10] pivotably attached to the wing frame [3], the first link and the second link pivotably attached to each other (pivotably attached through another link, see below; see paragraph [0009], lines 1-3), and
wherein the actuator [14] is pivotably attached to the center frame at a first end (see below) and pivotably connected to the linkage at a location (see below; pivotably connected through the link that connects the first and second link) where the first link and the second link are pivotably attached to each other.
PNG
media_image3.png
439
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5, 13-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacher (EP 0890301 A) and van Vooren et al. (US 9992924 B2) as applied to claims 3-4, 6, 10-12, 15, 18, and 20 above, and further in view of Wiebe et al. (US 4660654 A).
Regarding claim 5, Lacher, of the above resultant combination, further discloses a first pivot shaft (not shown but inherent for the intermediate portion [7] to connect to the center [2] and wing frame [3] at the first pivot axis) that defines the first pivot axis (see above); and
a second pivot shaft (not shown but inherent for the intermediate portion [7] to connect to the center [2] and wing frame [3] at the second pivot axis) that defines the second pivot axis (see above),
and wherein the second pivot shaft is movable relative (second pivot shaft is connected to the wing frame that moves relative to the center frame; therefore, is movable relative to the center frame) to the center frame when the wing frame is pivoted between the unfolded configuration [A] and the fully articulated configuration.
But Lacher fails to disclose wherein the second pivot shaft is fixed relative to the center frame when the wing frame is pivoted at least partially between the folded configuration and unfolded configuration.
Wiebe et al. discloses a similar agricultural head [10] comprising of a second pivot shaft [36] that is fixed (fixed through holding pivot in latch [50], see Col. 3, lines 59-68) relative to the center frame [12] when the wing frame [14] is pivoted at least partially between the folded configuration and unfolded configuration (fixed when the wing frame is folded, see Col. 3, lines 59-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the latch of Wiebe et al. on the agricultural head of Lacher and van Vooren et al. in order to engage the wing frame and hold it in the folded configuration to help ensure the frame maintains its position (see Wiebe et al. Col. 3, lines 59-68).
Regarding claim 13, the above combination discloses the agricultural head as applied above, but fails to disclose fixing a location of the second pivot axis relative to the center frame such that the intermediate portion is prevented from rotating relative to the center frame about the second pivot axis when the when the wing frame is pivoted about the first pivot axis in the first rotational direction in response to actuation of the actuator in the first direction (please see 112(b) rejection above).
Wiebe et al. discloses a similar agricultural head [10] comprising of fixing a location (fixes location through holding pivot in latch [50], see Col. 3, lines 59-68) of the second pivot axis [36] relative to the center frame [12] such that the intermediate portion [38] is prevented from rotating relative to the center frame about the second pivot axis (prevented from rotating about the second pivot axis until actuator reaches a certain extension, freeing the second pivot axis to allow the wing frame to fully unfold; see Col. 4, lines 38-54) when the wing frame [14] is pivoted about the first pivot axis ([22]; connected to the end of the intermediate portion through the wing frame) in the first rotational direction (rotating downwards) in response to actuation of the actuator [26] in the first direction (downwards).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the latch of Wiebe et al. on the agricultural head of Lacher and van Vooren et al. in order to engage the wing frame and hold it in the folded configuration to help ensure the frame maintains its position (see Wiebe et al. Col. 3, lines 59-68).
Regarding claim 14, Wiebe et al., of the above combination, further discloses wherein pivoting the wing frame [14] about the second pivot axis [36] pivotably connecting a second end (see Fig. 2) of the intermediate portion [38], opposite the first end (end connecting to wing frame, see Fig. 2), and the center frame [12] in the first rotational direction (rotating downwards) in response to articulation of the actuator [26] in the first direction (downwards) by the first amount (amount between folding and unfolding configurations) includes releasing the second pivot axis relative to the center frame to cause the intermediate portion to pivot about the second pivot axis relative to the center frame (prevented from rotating about the second pivot axis until actuator reaches a certain extension, freeing the second pivot axis to allow the wing frame to fully unfold; see Col. 4, lines 38-54) (please see 112 rejections above).
Regarding claim 19, Lacher, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the second pivot axis (see above) is movable relative (second pivot shaft is connected to the wing frame that moves relative to the center frame; therefore, is movable relative to the center frame) to the center frame [2] when the wing frame [3] is pivoted between the unfolded configuration [A] and the fully articulated configuration.
But Lacher fails to disclose wherein the second pivot shaft is fixed relative to the center frame when the wing frame is pivoted at least partially between the folded configuration and unfolded configuration.
Wiebe et al. discloses a similar agricultural head [10] comprising of a second pivot shaft [36] that is fixed (fixed through holding pivot in latch [50], see Col. 3, lines 59-68) relative to the center frame [12] when the wing frame [14] is pivoted at least partially between the folded configuration and unfolded configuration (fixed when the wing frame is folded, see Col. 3, lines 59-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the latch of Wiebe et al. on the agricultural head of Lacher and van Vooren et al. in order to engage the wing frame and hold it in the folded configuration to help ensure the frame maintains its position (see Wiebe et al. Col. 3, lines 59-68).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for the full list of references.
Reference US 10798868 B2 discloses a similar agricultural head comprising of a center frame [140], a wing frame [160], and an intermediate portion [280].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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 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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671