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 § 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 8-11 and 16 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.
Claims 8 and 10 in line 1 sets forth “a hinge”. However, it is unclear how this hinge is related to the hinge set forth in claim 1, line 15. It is unclear if these two portions are one and the same or two different portions altogether. Specifically, it is unclear if the hinge defined in claims 8 and 10 is the hinge of the linkage of claim 1 or another hinge; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting the hinge of claim 1 and the hinge of claims 8 and 10 to be two separate hinges.
Due to dependency on claims 8 and 10, claims 9 and 11 are rejected as well.
Claim 16, lines 6-7 recite "releasing the second pivot shaft from the receptacle in response to the wing frame being located at the first position.". However, is dependent on claim 14, that sets forth in lines 2-4 "in response to articulation of the actuator by the second amount includes pivoting the wing frame about the second pivot shaft by a selected angular amount from a first position to a second position." It is unclear how the second pivot shaft is released from the receptable at the first position in claim 16 if the first position is a result of the second pivot shaft pivoting the wing frame as set forth by claim 14 (please see response to argument section below).
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) 1, 3-6, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfenninger et al. (US 4232747 A) in view of van Vooren et al. (US 9992924 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Pfenninger et al. teaches an agricultural implement (see Fig. 1) comprising:
a center frame [16];
a wing frame [14] coupled to the center frame;
a first pivot axis (axis defined by shaft [40]) pivotably connecting the wing frame to the center frame (see Fig. 3), the first pivot axis configured to facilitate rotation of the wing frame between a folded configuration (see Fig. 5) and an unfolded configuration (see Fig. 3) relative to the center frame (facilitates rotation through shaft [40] moving within slot [50 and 52], see Col. 3, lines 29-43); and
a second pivot axis (axis of shaft [22]), offset from the first pivot axis (see Fig. 1), pivotably connecting the wing frame and the center frame, the second pivot axis configured to facilitate articulation of the wing frame, in the unfolded position, relative to the center frame (see Figs. 6-7 and Col. 3, lines 25-28);
an actuator ([24]; comprised of hydraulic cylinder [26] and extensible piston rod [30], see Col. 2, lines 60-65) interconnecting the wing frame and the center frame (see Fig. 2), the actuator configured both to rotate the wing frame relative to the center frame about the first pivot axis between the folded configuration and the unfolded configuration (raises and lowers wing through extending and retracting rod [30] of the actuator, see Col. 3, lines 28-37 and 44-54) and to articulate the wing frame, in the unfolded configuration, relative to the center frame (the rod [30] fully extends, allowing the wing frame to float over uneven terrain through the second pivot [22], see Col. 3, lines 18-32); and
a linkage [32 and 34] extending between the wing frame and the center frame (see Fig. 3), the linkage comprising a hinge [36], wherein an end of the actuator (end of [30]) is pivotably connected to the hinge of the linkage (see Col. 3, lines 44-49).
But Pfenninger et al. fails to explicitly disclose the agricultural implement is an agricultural head.
van Vooren et al. discloses an agricultural head [18] comprised of a center frame [102], wing frame [104], first pivot axis (axis of [116]), second pivot axis (axis of hinge [110]), and an actuator [120] configured to fold (see [104] side of Fig. 4), unfold (see Fig. 2), and articulate the wing frame when unfolded (see 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 apply the first and second pivot axis, actuator, and linkage of Pfenninger et al. to the agricultural head of van Vooren et al., thereby replacing the first and second pivot axis and actuator of van Vooren et al., as this is another well-known method of operating the wing frame to fold, unfold, and articulate. Further, the agricultural head of van Vooren et al. can be modified within the limits of the claims (see Col. 7, lines 21-27); therefore, when the first and second pivot axis, actuator, and linkage of Pfenninger et al. is applied to the agricultural head of van Vooren et al., the head still folds, unfolds, and articulates as claimed.
It can be seen then that all of the elements of Pfenninger et al. can be combined by known methods to one skilled in the art and each element performs the same function as it does separately, i.e. each element of Pfenninger et al. when applied to the head of van Vooren et al. still works to fold, unfold, and articulate the head. As well as, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable, i.e. the head of van Vooren et al. is still capable of folding, unfolding, and articulating through the first and second pivot axis, actuator and linkage of Pfenninger et al. (see KSR Rationale A, MPEP 2143)
Regarding claim 3, Pfenninger et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the actuator [24] is a linear actuator (actuator changes in length through rod [30] to move the wing frame; therefore, is a linear actuator, see Col. 2, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 4, Pfenninger et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the actuator [24] is a hydraulic linear actuator (uses hydraulic cylinder [26], see Col. 2, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 5, Pfenninger et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein a first end (end connected to pivot [28], see Col. 2, lines 60-65) of the actuator [24] is pivotably connected to the center frame [16].
Regarding claim 6, Pfenninger et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein a second end (end connected to pivot [36], see Col. 2, lines 66-68 and Col. 3, lines 1-3) of the actuator [24] is pivotably connected to the wing frame [14].
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Pfenninger et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses a hinge (hinge of shaft [40] in slot [50 and 52]) including:
a pivot shaft [40], the pivot shaft defining the first pivot axis (axis defined by shaft [40]); and
a slot [50 and 52], the pivot shaft received into and slidable within the slot (see Figs. 3-8) (please see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Pfenninger et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the pivot shaft [40] is fixedly connected to one of the wing frame ([14]; fixed to wing frame through lever [34]; therefore moves with the wing as it lifts and lowers, see Figs. 3-8) and the center frame and wherein the slot [50 and 52] is fixedly connected to the other of the wing frame and the center frame ([16]; fixedly connected to the center frame through base [46] and sides [48], see Col. 3, lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 12, Pfenninger et al. discloses a method (method of operating Fig. 1) for operating an agricultural implement (see Fig. 1) moveable between a folded configuration (see Fig. 5) and an unfolded configuration (see Fig. 3), the agricultural implement articulatable in the unfolded configuration (see Figs. 6-7 and Col. 3, lines 25-28), the method comprising:
actuating an actuator ([24]; comprised of hydraulic cylinder [26] and extensible piston rod [30], see Col. 2, lines 60-65) connected between a wing frame [14] of the agricultural implement and a center frame [16] of the agricultural implement by a first amount (amount of extension of rod [30] to unfold the wing, see Figs. 4-5 and 7-8) in a first direction (direction of extending rod [30], see Fig. 3);
pivoting the wing frame about a first pivot shaft (axis defined by shaft [40]) in a first rotational direction (downwards) in response to actuating the actuator in the first direction to move the wing frame from the folded configuration to the unfolded configuration (wing frame rotates downwards to move from folded to unfolded, see Figs. 3-5, uses shaft [40] as a fulcrum, see Col. 3, lines 50-54), the first pivot shaft disposed between the wing frame and the center frame (see below; pivot shaft is located between the two frames);
receiving a second pivot shaft [22] into a receptacle ([20], holds shaft [22] for wing frame to articulate; therefore, is a receptable, see Col. 2, lines 56-59 and Col. 3, lines 25-28);
actuating the actuator in the first direction by a second amount (full extension of rod [30], allowing for the wing frame to articulate over uneven terrain, see Col. 3, lines 25-32 and Fig. 6); and
pivoting the wing frame about the second pivot shaft within the receptacle in response to articulation of the actuator by the second amount (when actuator is actuated by the second amount, wing frame is free to pivot about second pivot shaft [22] in order to follow the uneven terrain, see Col. 3, lines 25-32 and Figs. 6-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
394
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Pfenninger et al. fails to explicitly disclose the agricultural implement is an agricultural head.
van Vooren et al. discloses an agricultural head [18] comprised of a center frame [102], wing frame [104], first pivot axis (axis of [116]), second pivot axis (axis of hinge [110]), and an actuator [120] configured to fold (see [104] side of Fig. 4), unfold (see Fig. 2), and articulate the wing frame when unfolded (see 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 agricultural implement of Pfenninger et al. with the agricultural head of van Vooren et al. since both are frames that fold, unfold, and articulate when unfolded, yielding the same predictable result; therefore, the first pivot axis, second pivot axis, actuator, and linkage of Pfenninger et al. are applied to the agricultural head of van Vooren et al.
Regarding claim 13, Pfenninger et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses sliding the first pivot shaft ([40]; pivot shafts slides up and down along vertical portion [52] of slot during articulation about [22], see Figs. 6-7) along a slot [50 and 52] in response to pivoting of the wing frame [14] about the second pivot shaft [22] within the receptable [20] in response to articulation of the actuator by the second amount (full extension of rod [30], allowing for the wing frame to rotate beyond the unfolded configuration, see Col. 3, lines 25-32 and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Pfenninger et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein pivoting the wing frame [14] about the second pivot shaft [22] within the receptacle [20] in response to articulation of the actuator [24] by the second (full extension of rod [30], allowing for the wing frame to articulate over uneven terrain, see Col. 3, lines 25-32 and Fig. 6) includes pivoting the wing frame about the second pivot shaft by a selected angular amount (see angular difference between wing frame and center frame in Figs. 6 and 7) from a first position (wing frame located above center frame, see Fig. 7) to a second position (wing frame located lower than center frame, see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 15, Pfenninger et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses releasably securing (secured at the top of the vertical slot [52], unable to move downwards or sideways but capable of being released when the wing frame lowers; see Fig. 7) the first pivot shaft [40] at a location (top of the slot [52], see Fig. 7) along the slot [50 and 52] in response to the wing frame [14] acquiring the first position (wing frame located above center frame, see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 16, Pfenninger et al. discloses the agricultural head as applied above, as well as, actuating the actuator [24] in a second direction (direction of retracting rod [30], see Figs. 4-5) to cause rotation of the wing frame about the second pivot shaft [22] in a second rotational direction (upwards), opposite the first rotational direction (downwards);
locating the wing frame at the first position (wing frame located above center frame, see Fig. 7) in response to rotation of the wing frame in the second rotational direction (please see 112(b) rejection above).
But Pfenninger et al. fails to disclose releasing the second pivot shaft from the receptacle in response to the wing frame being located at the first position.
van Vooren et al. discloses a similar second pivot shaft (shaft of [110]) received within a receptable (see below) wherein the second pivot shaft is released from the receptacle in response to the wing frame [104] being located at the first position (see [106] side of Fig. 3; wing frame floats through the second pivot shaft and receptable, see Col. 5, lines 24-31).
PNG
media_image2.png
364
551
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 second pivot shaft and receptable of Pfenninger et al. with the second pivot shaft and receptable of van Vooren et al. since both are pivot shafts pivoting within the receptable for articulation of the wing frame in relation to the center frame; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Regarding claim 17, Pfenninger et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses locking (receptable [20] is locked to the shaft [22], see Col. 2, lines 56-59, allowing for rotation and connection of the wing frame to the center frame) the second shaft [22] in the receptacle [20].
Regarding claim 18, Pfenninger et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein locking the second shaft [22] in the receptacle [20] includes locking the second shaft in the receptacle (second shaft and receptable are locked together, see Col. 2, lines 56-59) when the actuator [24] is articulated in the first direction (direction of extending rod [30], see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Pfenninger et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses in the unfolded configuration (see Fig. 3), actuating the actuator [24] in a second direction (direction of retracting rod [30], see Figs. 4-5);
locking the first pivot shaft [40] at a location (located at the bottom of the vertical slot [52], unable to move upwards or sideways but is capable of being released when the wing frame continues to rise, see Figs. 4-5) along a slot [50 and 52] in response to actuating the actuator in the second direction;
pivoting the wing frame about the first pivot shaft in a second rotational direction (upwards), opposite the first rotational direction (downwards), at the location along the slot (see Fig. 4).
But Pfenninger et al. fails to disclose releasing the second pivot shaft from the receptacle in response to pivoting of the wing frame about the first pivot shaft in the second rotational direction.
van Vooren et al. discloses a similar second pivot shaft (shaft of [110]) received within a receptable (see above; see Fig. 4) wherein the second pivot shaft is released from the receptacle in response to pivoting of the wing frame [104] about the first pivot shaft [116] in the second rotational direction (wing frame is folded in the second rotational direction; therefore, detaching the second pivot shaft from the receptable, see Fig. 4).
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 second pivot shaft and receptable of Pfenninger et al. with the second pivot shaft and receptable of van Vooren et al. since both are pivot shafts pivoting within the receptable for articulation of the wing frame in relation to the center frame; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Regarding claim 20, Pfenninger et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the first amount (amount of extension of rod [30] to unfold the wing, see Figs. 4-5 and 7-8) is greater than (the first amount is greater as the extension takes the full length of the rod whereas the second amount is the extension from unfolded to articulated positions) the second amount (full extension of rod [30], allowing for the wing frame to rotate beyond the unfolded configuration, see Col. 3, lines 25-32 and Fig. 6).
Response to Arguments
Please see updated art rejections above in response to applicant’s claim amendments, now including Pfenninger et al. (US 4232747 A).
In page 8, applicant sets forth “The Office Action also contends that the feature “releasing the second pivot shaft from the receptable in response to the wing frame being located at the first position” is also unclear for some reason.”
Examiner is maintaining the rejection. As set forth in claim 14 and para. [0033], lines 10-14, the first position of the wing frame is when it pivots upwards about the second pivot axis, Fig. 3, and the second position is when it pivots downwards about the second pivot axis, Fig. 4. This creates the articulation of the wing frame. However, claim 16 which is dependent off of claim 14, sets forth in lines 6-7 “releasing the second pivot shaft from the receptable in response to the wing frame being located at the first position.”
It is unclear how the second pivot shaft is released from the receptable if the first position is dependent on the second pivot shaft rotating within the receptable to create the upwards articulation as seen in Applicant’s Fig. 3. As can be seen in Applicant’s Fig. 6, the second pivot shaft is released from the receptable when the wing frame is folded, but maintains a connection to the receptable during articulation. As claim 16 is dependent off of claim 14 which sets forth the first and second position of articulation, it is unclear how the wing frame can pivot about the second pivot axis if the axis is removed from the receptable. It is for these reasons that the claim is rejected.
Examiner agrees with the arguments set forth in pages 10-11 regarding the combination of van Vooren et al. (US 9992924 B2) in view of Albringer et al. (EP 1769668 A1) in that the combination would render the head of van Vooren et al. inoperable.
Instead, the claims are rejected under Pfenninger et al. (US 4232747 A) in view of van Vooren et al. (US 9992924 B2). Pfenninger et al. discloses a similar first and second pivot axis, actuator, and linkage used for folding, unfolding, and articulating the wing frame in relation to the center frame. Although Pfenninger et al. discloses these features on an agricultural implement instead of a header, the features can be applied to the head of van Vooren et al. due to being analogous art of having a wing that also folds, unfolds, and articulates. Further, when the features of Pfenninger et al. are applied to the head of van Vooren et al., it can be seen that only one second pivot axis of Pfenninger et al. is applied in order to replace the second pivot axis of van Vooren et al.; therefore, the head of van Vooren et al. pivots about the second pivot axis of Pfenninger et al.
It is for these reasons that the claims remain rejected by Pfenninger et al. (US 4232747 A) in view of van Vooren et al. (US 9992924 B2).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights