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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the application filed on September 29, 2023. Claims 1-18 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 29, 2023 and August 13, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen et al., US 2021/0045288A1 (IDS)(Hereinafter “Sorensen”) in view of Loftus et al., US 5,732,539 (IDS) (Hereinafter “Loftus”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Sorensen discloses: a header (22) for an agricultural harvester comprising: a (60) comprising a plurality of knives See at least Fig.1-3 and [0016-0020].
a sensor configured to sense a condition of the plurality of knives in increments comprising non-adjacent groups of one or more knives, whereby substantially an entirety of the plurality of knives is sensed after a plurality of cycles of the continuous loop knife assembly past the sensor. See at least [0005], “a system for monitoring a condition of a sickle of a header of an agricultural machine comprises a knife guard mounted to the header; … a sensor either mounted to the knife guard or another surface of the header for sensing the condition of the knife section.” While the sensor is fixed to the device, it could obviously monitor the entirety of the knives with the mechanism of the chain loop returning to the same point at every revolution. Also in [0024], “Every guard 50 of the header 22 (FIG. 1) could have its own sensor 80, or alternatively, every other guard (non-adjacent groups) 50 in a row of guards 50 may have a sensor 80.”
Sorensen discloses monitoring a knife assembly on a harvester, but does not disclose a motorized continuous loop cutting device. However, Loftus teaches a harvester header with:
continuous loop knife assembly (8) comprising a plurality of knives attached to an endless flexible member; See at least col.5 ln.49-56, “FIG. 2, the sickle chain assembly 8 is comprised of knives 10, chain members 12, alternating link members 14.”
a motor operatively engaged with the endless flexible member for moving the plurality of knives past the sensor. See at least Fig.3 and col.6 ln.25-28.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Sorensen’s harvester monitoring device with the continuous chain limitations disclosed in Loftus with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more efficient cutting device, see Loftus [col3. ln.49 - col.4 ln.33].
Regarding Claim 2, Sorensen discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the sensor is a camera/visual image recording device. See at least [0024], “As shown in FIG. 4, sensors 80 are mounted to the guards 50. Each sensor 80 … could be, for example, an electric eye, a miniature camera.”
Regarding Claims 3 and 8, Sorensen discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 1 and 6:
wherein the camera is configured to have a field of view sufficient to capture images of adjacent knives of the plurality of knives in the non-adjacent groups of one or more knives. See at least [0025], “the sensor 80 may be positioned on a surface of the stub guard adjacent the blade sections. The sensor 80 may be configured to detect the sharpened or dulled condition of the blade sections of the knife section 62, especially if the sensor 80 is a camera.” With the use of multiple sensors, it would be obvious in order to manage non-adjacent groups you would mount the sensors in non-adjacent areas of the device as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Sorensen discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 1, 9 and 15:
wherein the sensor includes a plurality of sensors for sensing different knives of the plurality of knives in the non-adjacent groups of one or more knives. See at least [0024], “FIG. 4, sensors 80 are mounted to the guards 50. Each sensor 80 detects the condition, presence or absence of the knife section 62 as the knife section 62 passes within the slot 48 of a respective guard 50.” With the use of multiple sensors, it would be obvious to manage non-adjacent sections by mounting the sensors in non-adjacent areas of the device as seen in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Sorensen discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the sensor is configured to be in communication with a monitor for displaying the condition of the plurality of knives sensed by the sensor. See at least [0026], “each sensor 80 continuously transmits signals … to a processer or controller 92.“ And [0027], “Once the controller 92 identifies that the knife section 62 is impaired, the controller 92 alerts the user to the impaired condition of the knife section 62 by way of a visual … display monitor.”
Regarding Claim 7, Sorensen discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 6:
further comprising capturing images with the sensor of adjacent knives of the plurality of movable knives in the non-adjacent groups of one or more knives. See at least [0026], “sensor 80 is a camera, for example, the controller 92 may be configured to compare a digital image of the knife section 62 with a representative stock image of a flawless knife section.” With the use of multiple sensors, it would be obvious in order to manage non-adjacent sections you would mount the sensors in non-adjacent areas of the device as in Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, teach the specific limitations of “A header for an agricultural harvester comprising: a continuous loop knife assembly comprising X knives attached to an endless flexible member; a sensor for sensing a condition of the X knives according to a knife sampling interval Y; and a motor operatively engaged with the endless flexible member for moving the X knives past the sensor, wherein X is an integer, wherein Y is an integer equal to any integer not equal to X or a factor of X, excluding 1, and wherein X/Y has a remainder that does not share a prime number factor with Y” stated in claim 9 and equivalent method claim 15.
Claims 9-18 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, NAVID MEHDIZADEH can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669