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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: row unit frame 400. 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. 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.
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 row unit frame 400 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) of 5, 8, 9, and 17. No new matter should be entered. Additionally, the “non-metal sheet positioned between the deck plate and a row unit frame of the header” must be shown (and labeled) or the feature canceled from the claim(s) of 9 and 17.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 1, 14, and 19 recite the limitation or similar limitation to:
"a first sensor vibrationally connected to a deck plate of the header, wherein the first sensor is configured to generate first signals in response to detection of vibrations due to initial contact between a crop and the deck plate of the header; and a second sensor vibrationally connected to the deck plate of the header and positioned forward of the first sensor, wherein the second sensor is configured to generate second signals in response to detection of the vibrations due to the initial contact between the crop and the deck plate of the header".
It is unclear if the “initial contact” is the same contact for both the first sensor and the second sensor. Is the contact at the same time? Is the contact at different times, but with the same crop? What about more than one crop? For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that the initial contact with each sensor at different times.
Claims 2-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected for depending on rejected claims.
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, 6-7, 11-12, 14-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hendrickson et al. (US 2015/0319929 A1), hereinafter Hendrickson.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses an impact sensor system (54+70+130) for a header (106, fig. 1 and 2, par. 0024) of an agricultural system (100, fig. 1, par. 0024), the impact sensor system comprising:
a first sensor (54, fig. 2, 10 and 11, par. 0035-0036) vibrationally connected to a deck plate (16, fig. 2, 10 and 11, par. 0035-0036) of the header (106, fig. 1 and 2), wherein the first sensor is configured to generate first signals (64, par. 0036) in response to detection of vibrations due to initial contact between a crop and the deck plate of the header (par. 0035-0037 and 0042); and
a second sensor (70, fig. 10 and 11, par. 0058) vibrationally connected to the deck plate of the header (fig. 10 and 11, par. 0058; see also fig. 1 and 2, par. 0035-0037 and 0042) and positioned forward of the first sensor (fig. 10 and 11), wherein the second sensor is configured to generate second signals (par. 0058) in response to detection of the vibrations due to the initial contact between the crop and the deck plate of the header (par. 0058).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses wherein the first sensor is supported at a rearward portion of the deck plate of the header (54, par. 0035, fig. 10 and 11), and the second sensor is supported at a forward portion of the deck plate of the header (70, par. 0058, fig. 10 and 11).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses wherein the first sensor (54, fig. 2 and 11) is supported on a first extension (56+60, fig. 2, par. 0035) at a rearward portion of the deck plate of the header (fig. 1-2, and 10-11, wherein 54 comes off of 56 in fig. 2 and 54 is separate from 70 in fig. 11), the second sensor (70, fig. 2 and 11) is supported on a second extension at a forward portion of the deck plate of the header (fig. 1-2, and 10-11, wherein 70 is attached from the front part of 16 in fig. 10 and 11), and the first extension and the second extension extend laterally away from an inner edge of the deck plate of the header (fig. 10 and 11, wherein 54 and 70 are not on the innermost edge of 16).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses wherein the first extension and the second extension are configured to position the first sensor and the second sensor, respectively, under a cover of the header (fig. 1, wherein fig. 1 shows 10 and 54, and by extension 70, inside of 106, therefore it is covered).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses wherein the deck plate (16, fig. 2, 10 and 11, par. 0035-0036) is configured to couple to a linkage assembly (38+40+44+46+58+62, fig. 2), and the first extension (56+60) is configured to extend vertically over a rearward coupler (38+40+44+46, fig. 2) of the linkage assembly (38+40+44+46+58+62, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses wherein the first extension is part of the deck plate (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses comprising a controller (130, par. 0036-0037) configured to:
receive the first signals and the second signals (par. 0037, 0042, and 0058); and
process the first signals and the second signals to determine a location of the initial contact between the crop and the deck plate of the header (par. 0036-0037, 0043-0044, and 0058).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses wherein the controller (130, par. 0036-0037) is configured to provide an appropriate output based on the location of the initial contact (par. 0044-0045), and the appropriate output comprises one or more alarms, one or more control signals to adjust the header, or both (par. 0045-0047, wherein the header is adjusted).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses a header (106, fig. 1 and 2, par. 0024) for an agricultural system (100, fig. 1, par. 0024), the header comprising:
a plurality of row units distributed across a width of the header (par. 0024 and 0026, fig. 1 and 2);
a first sensor (54, fig. 2, 10 and 11, par. 0035-0036) coupled to a first location of a deck plate (fig. 2, 10 and 11) of a row unit of the plurality of row units (par. 0024 and 0026, fig. 1 and 2), wherein the first sensor is configured to generate first signals (64, par. 0036) in response to detection of vibrations due to initial contact between a crop and the deck plate of the header (par. 0035-0037 and 0042); and
a second sensor (70, fig. 10 and 11, par. 0058) coupled to a second location of the deck plate (fig. 2, 10 and 11) of the row unit of the plurality of row units (par. 0024 and 0026, fig. 1 and 2), wherein the second sensor is configured to generate second signals (par. 0058) in response to detection of the vibrations due to the initial contact between the crop and the deck plate of the header (par. 0058), and the first location is rearward of the second location along a longitudinal axis of the deck plate of the header (fig. 2, 10 and 11).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses wherein the first sensor (54, fig. 2 and 11) is supported on a first extension (56+60, fig. 2, par. 0035) at a rearward portion of the deck plate (fig. 1-2, and 10-11, wherein 54 comes off of 56 in fig. 2 and 54 is separate from 70 in fig. 11), and the second sensor (70, fig. 2 and 11) is supported on a second extension at a forward portion of the deck plate (fig. 1-2, and 10-11, wherein 70 is attached from the front part of 16 in fig. 10 and 11).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses comprising a cover, wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are positioned under the cover (fig. 1, wherein fig. 1 shows 10 and 54, and by extension 70, inside of 106, therefore it is covered) to block contact between the crop and the first sensor and the second sensor during harvesting operations (It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). see MPEP 2114, Subsection II "Manner of Operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art").
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses comprising a controller (130, par. 0036-0037) configured to:
receive the first signals and the second signals (par. 0037, 0042, and 0058); and
process the first signals and the second signals to determine a location of the initial contact relative to the deck plate of the row unit of the plurality of row units (par. 0036-0037, 0043-0044, and 0058).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses operating a header (106, fig. 1 and 2, par. 0024) to harvest crops as the header travels through a field (par. 0025);
generating (par. 0035), via a first sensor (54, fig. 2, 10 and 11, par. 0035-0036) coupled to a first location of a deck plate (fig. 2, 10, and 11) of the header (fig. 1-2), first signals (64, par. 0036) indicative of vibrations due to an initial contact between a portion of the crops and the deck plate of the header (par. 0035-0037 and 0042);
generating (par. 0035 and 0058), via a second sensor (70, fig. 10 and 11, par. 0058) coupled to a second location of the deck plate (fig. 2, 10 and 11) of the header (fig. 1-2) that is separated from the first location by a distance along a longitudinal axis (fig. 2, 10 and 11), second signals (par. 0058) indicative of the vibrations due to the initial contact between the portion of the crops and the deck plate of the header (par. 0058); and
processing, via one or more processors, the first signals and the second signals to determine a contact location of the initial contact between the portion of the crops and the deck plate of the header (130, par. 0036-0037, 0043-0044, and 0058).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson et al. (US 2015/0319929 A1), hereinafter Hendrickson.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses wherein the first extension (56+60, fig. 2, par. 0035) is configured to position the first sensor (54, fig. 2, 10 and 11, par. 0035-0036) in a space between adjacent row unit frames (12, fig. 2).
Hendrickson does disclose a second sensor (70, fig. 10-11, par. 0058), a row unit frame (12, fig. 2), and a second extension with a second sensor (fig. 10-11), but fails to explicitly discloses wherein the second extension is configured to position the second sensor in a space between adjacent row unit frames.
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 arrangement of the second sensor on a second extension with the specific arrangement of a sensor on an extension as is taught in Hendrickson with the first sensor on the first extension (fig. 2, par. 0035).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson et al. (US 2015/0319929 A1), hereinafter Hendrickson in view of Gramm (US 6,202,395 B1), hereinafter Gramm.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses a coupling (38+40, fig. 2, par. 0031) between the deck plate (16, fig. 2, 10 and 11, par. 0027) and a row unit frame (12, fig. 2, par. 0027) of the header (10, fig. 2, par. 0027).
However, Hendrickson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the coupling comprises a bushing formed from a composite material.
Gramm teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural devices wherein the coupling comprises a bushing formed from a composite material (nylon bushing 72, col. 4 lines 40-67).
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 coupling of Hendrickson with a bushing of Gramm to yield the predictable result of coupling different parts together (par. 0031 of Hendrickson).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses comprising at least one of: a coupling (38+40, fig. 2, par. 0031) between the deck plate (16, fig. 2, 10 and 11, par. 0027) and a row unit frame (12, fig. 2, par. 0027) of the row unit of the plurality of row units (par. 0024 and 0026, fig. 1 and 2),
However, Hendrickson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the coupling comprises a bushing formed from a composite material; and a non-metal sheet positioned between the deck plate and the row unit frame of the row unit of the plurality of row units.
Gramm teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural devices wherein the coupling comprises a bushing formed from a composite material (nylon bushing 72, col. 4 lines 40-67).
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 coupling of Hendrickson with a bushing of Gramm to yield the predictable result of coupling different parts together (par. 0031 of Hendrickson).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson et al. (US 2015/0319929 A1), hereinafter Hendrickson in view of Gramm (US 20050028504 A1), hereinafter Gramm-2005.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses a deck plate (16, fig. 2) and a row unit frame (12, fig. 2) of the header (10, fig. 2).
However, Hendrickson fails to explicitly disclose wherein a non-metal sheet positioned between the deck plate and a row unit frame of the header.
Gramm-2005 teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein a non-metal sheet (124, fig. 4, par. 0039) positioned between the deck plate and a row unit frame of the header (fig. 4).
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 Hendrickson to incorporate the non-metal sheet of Gramm-2005 in order to protect the sensor from crop damage (par. 0039).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson et al. (US 2015/0319929 A1), hereinafter Hendrickson in view of Baumgarten et al. (US 2006/0123757 A1), hereinafter Baum.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses a first sensor (54, fig. 2, par. 0035) and a second sensor (70, fig. 10 and 11, par. 0058).
However, Hendrickson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first sensor and the second sensor comprise knock sensors.
Baum teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural vehicles wherein the first sensor and the second sensor comprise knock sensors (knock sensors 37, par. 00366).
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 sensor of Hendrickson with a knock sensor of Baum to yield the predictable result of sensing crop contact (par. 0036 of Baum; par. 0042 of Hendrickson).
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson et al. (US 2015/0319929 A1), hereinafter Hendrickson in view of Walker et al. (US 20180139902 A1), hereinafter Walker.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses wherein the controller (130, par. 0036-0037) is configured to provide an appropriate output based on the location of the initial contact (par. 0044-0048).
However, Hendrickson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the appropriate output comprises one or more control signals to adjust a rotation rate of a pair of stalk rollers of the header.
Walker teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein the appropriate output comprises one or more control signals to adjust a rotation rate of a pair of stalk rollers of the header (par. 0071-0073).
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 adjustments of Hendrickson to incorporate adjusting the rotation rate of a pair of stalk rollers of Walker in order to “facilitate processing the crop material” (par. 0072 of Walker).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Hendrickson discloses claim 9.
However, Hendrickson fails to explicitly disclose wherein adjusting, via the one or more processors, a rotational rate of a pair of stalk rollers of the header based on the contact location of the initial contact between the portion of the crops and the deck plate of the header.
Walker teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein adjusting, via the one or more processors, a rotational rate of a pair of stalk rollers of the header based on the contact location of the initial contact between the portion of the crops and the deck plate of the header (par. 0071-0073).
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 adjustments of Hendrickson to incorporate adjusting the rotation rate of a pair of stalk rollers of Walker in order to “facilitate processing the crop material” (par. 0072 of Walker).
Conclusion
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
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672