DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rogers (US 2343583 A).
Regarding independent claim 16, Rogers discloses a windrower (page 1 col. 1 lines 1-14) comprising of:
a main frame (B), which can be supported via an undercarriage (11) in an operating state (Fig. 2, page 2, col. 1 lines 36-45), and having at least one windrower unit, which is connected at least indirectly to the main frame (Fig. 1); and
a pickup device (P), and a transverse conveyor (M), which is arranged at least predominantly behind it in relation to a windrower longitudinal axis in a working configuration of the windrower and has a transverse conveyor frame (33) (Fig. 1), wherein the pickup device is configured, in the working configuration, to pick up agricultural crop material from the ground (page 4 col. 1 lines 52-56) and to transfer it to the transverse conveyor (see Figs. 1 & 5), and the transverse conveyor is configured to convey the transferred crop material along a windrower transverse axis (40) and deposit it in windrows on the ground (page 5 col. 2 lines 3-5, 21-35);
wherein the pickup device is vertically movable both relative to the transverse conveyor frame and relative to the main frame in relation to a windrower vertical axis (page 1, col. 1, lines 20-23, 27-33);
wherein the vertical movement of the pickup device comprises a rotational movement about the windrower transverse axis (page 3 col. 1 lines 13-18 “Each of the conveyors P comprises the side members 54…with the shaft 40 freely disposed through the upper end portions thereof whereby the conveyor P is freely mounted for up and down swinging movement”).
Regarding claim 17, Rogers discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, wherein the pickup device (P) is connected in a vertically movable manner to the transverse conveyor frame (33) via a pickup suspension (linkage assembly 117-129,143-152) (Figs. 5 &10, page 4 col. 2 lines 12-72 and page 5 col. 1 lines 21-59).
Regarding claim 18, Rogers discloses the windrower according to Claim 17, wherein the pickup suspension is arranged at least in part below and/or at least in part within the transverse conveyor (M) (Fig. 5, links 143-152 of linkage assembly arranged below conveyor).
Regarding claim 19, Rogers discloses the windrower according to Claim 17, wherein the pickup suspension has a plurality of suspension units spaced apart along the windrower transverse axis (40) (see Fig. 1, each pickup device P has a respective linkage suspension assembly “each independently supported for swinging movement in order to readily compensate for any inequality in the surface over which the machine travels”, page 1 col. 1 lines 20-23).
Regarding claim 20, Rogers discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, further comprising at least one suspension unit having a suspension link (145) which extends forwards to the pickup device (P) from a region of the transverse conveyor frame (33) which is at the rear in relation to the windrower longitudinal axis (Figs. 1 & 5).
Regarding claim 22, Rogers discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, wherein the pickup device (P) is configured to discharge the crop material above the transverse conveyor (M) in relation to the windrower vertical axis and to throw it onto the said conveyor (Fig. 5).
Claims 16-19, 22, 25-26, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dow (US 9386749 B1).
Regarding independent claim 16, Dow discloses a windrower (70) comprising of:
a main frame (74), which can be supported via an undercarriage (designated in annotated image of Fig. 18 below) in an operating state, and having at least one windrower unit (Fig. 2), which is connected at least indirectly to the main frame; and
PNG
media_image1.png
444
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 18 of Dow
a pickup device (2), and a transverse conveyor having a transverse conveyor frame (48), which is arranged at least predominantly behind it in relation to a windrower longitudinal axis (50) in a working configuration of the windrower (Fig. 2,18), wherein the pickup device is configured, in the working configuration, to pick up agricultural crop material from the ground and to transfer it to the transverse conveyor (col. 9 line 54-col. 10 line 1), and the transverse conveyor is configured to convey the transferred crop material along a windrower transverse axis (32) and deposit it in windrows on the ground (col. 7 lines 31-33);
wherein the pickup device is vertically movable both relative to the transverse conveyor frame and relative to the main frame, at least in relation to a windrower vertical axis; wherein the vertical movement of the pickup device comprises a rotational movement about the windrower transverse axis (Figs. 2-3,15 and col. 14 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 17, Dow discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, wherein the pickup device (2) is connected in a vertically movable manner to the transverse conveyor frame (48) via a pickup suspension (100,102) (Fig 15, col. 13 line 64 – col. 14 line 3).
Regarding claim 18, Dow discloses the windrower according to Claim 17, wherein the pickup suspension (100,102) is arranged at least in part below and/or at least in part within the transverse conveyor (48) (Figs. 2,15 pin 100 and pin aperture 102 in line with rocking axis 32).
Regarding claim 19, Dow discloses the windrower according to Claim 17, wherein the pickup suspension (100,102) has a plurality of suspension units spaced apart along the windrower transverse axis (32) (Fig. 15, suspensions units disposed on each side of pickup 2).
Regarding claim 22, Dow discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, wherein the pickup device (2) is configured to discharge the crop material above the transverse conveyor (48) in relation to the windrower vertical axis and to throw it onto the said conveyor (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 25, Dow discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, wherein the pickup device (2) includes ground guidance elements (24), via which it can be supported at least proportionately on the ground (Fig. 2, 5, 10A, col. 3 line 65 – col. 4 line 9).
Regarding claim 26, Dow discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, wherein the pickup device (2) is connected to the transverse conveyor frame (48) by at least one spring element (22), which is designed to exert a tensile force acting at least proportionately along the windrower vertical axis (Fig. 2, col. 10 lines 11-22 first end of air bag 22 urges against pickup head 2 and second end of air bag 22 urges against a portion of the conveyor frame, i.e. exerts tensile force having at least a vertical component).
Regarding claim 30, Dow discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, wherein the main frame (74) includes two side arms and a respective windrower unit is connected at least indirectly to each side arm (see annotated image of Fig. 18 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
426
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 18 of Dow
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ricketts et al. (US 20210112715 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Dow discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, further comprising at least one suspension unit (100,102).
Dow fails to disclose wherein the at least one suspension unit is a parallelogram suspension.
Ricketts discloses a similar header (400, Fig. 4) for use with a swather or windrower (para. [0031]) comprising a cutter/pick-up head (410) and a transverse conveyor belt (420), wherein the cutter/pick-up head is movable in the vertical direction (V) relative to the transverse conveyor belt via a parallelogram suspension (428) (para. [0040-0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the suspension unit of Dow to utilize a similar parallelogram suspension between the pick-up head and conveyor belt, as taught by Ricketts, as a mere simple substitution of one known suspension linkage for permitting vertical movement to account for variations in the ground level for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 23, Dow discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, but fails to disclose wherein the pickup device (2) can be deflected relative to the transverse conveyor frame as far as a stop position, upon reaching which the pickup device interacts with the transverse conveyor frame via a positive engagement acting along the windrower vertical axis.
Ricketts discloses a similar header (400) described above which utilizes a parallel linkage (428) for accommodating movement of cutter/pick-up head (410) in the vertical direction, wherein the pick-up head can be deflected relative to the transverse conveyor frame as far as a stop position, upon reaching which the pickup device interacts with the transverse conveyor frame (420) via a positive engagement acting along the vertical axis (V) (para. [0050] teaches that in any of the disclosed embodiments, the range of motion of the parallel linkage may be delimited by travel stops, e.g. travel stops 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize travel stops for limiting the range of vertical travel of the pick-up head of Dow, as aught by Ricketts, in order to protect the pick-up head against excessive rotation.
Regarding claim 24, Dow discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, but fails to disclose a stop position that is defined by one end of an aperture, which extends along the windrower vertical axis, is closed on at least one side and into which there engages a stop part, which, when the pickup device is deflected along the windrower vertical axis, can be deflected relative to the aperture.
Ricketts discloses a similar header (400) described above which utilizes a parallel linkage (428) for accommodating movement of cutter/pick-up head (410) in the vertical direction, wherein the pick-up head can be vertically deflected relative to the transverse conveyor frame as far as a stop position (para. [0050] teaches that in any of the disclosed embodiments, the range of motion of the parallel linkage may be delimited by travel stops, e.g. travel stops 48) that is defined by one end of an aperture which extends along the windrower vertical axis (i.e. aperture defined by space formed between upper and lower travel stops 48) is closed on at least one side and into which there engages a stop part (48), which, when the cutter/pick-up head is deflected along the vertical axis, can be deflected relative to the aperture (i.e. when implemented with parallel linkage 428 in Fig. 4 embodiment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize travel stops for limiting the range of vertical travel of the pick-up head of Dow, as aught by Ricketts, in order to protect the pick-up head against excessive rotation.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Breure (US 20210352845 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Dow discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, wherein the transverse conveyor frame (48) is connected at least indirectly to the main frame (74) (Fig. 17-18), but does not explicitly disclose details of the connection.
In the same field of endeavor, Breure discloses a similar windrow merger (1) comprising a pick-up device (13a, 13b) for deposing material onto a transverse conveyor (11a, 11b), wherein a transverse conveyor frame is connected to a main frame (40) of the windrower via a central link (73) and two lateral links (31, 33) which are offset both laterally and vertically with respect to the said central link (Figs. 8-9b), wherein the central link and the lateral links are pivotably attached on both sides independently of one another and wherein each lateral link (31, 33) can be pivoted by an actuator (41) (para. [0036], see Figs. 4a-4c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar connection between the transverse conveyor frame and main frame of Dow, as taught by Breure, in order to provide means for selectively varying the distance between the pick-up units and/or the load on ground-contacting elements in the working position (Breure at para. [0033,0045]).
Regarding claim 29, Dow in view of Breure discloses the windrower according to Claim 28. Breure further teaches wherein the central link (73) and the lateral links (31, 33) are connected to a suspension frame (57), which can be pivoted by an actuator (53) relative to the main frame (40) about a transport pivoting axis running at least proportionately along the windrower transverse axis (see Figs. 7a-7b comparison, para. [0038] actuator 53 pivots suspension frame about a horizontal axis to move between working and folded-up positions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar actuator in the windrower of Boll for pivoting the suspension frame into a folded-up position, as taught by Breure, in order to provide the merger with a relatively large flexibility to temporarily lift the units, e.g. to pass obstacles (Breure at para. [0038]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 16-30 the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Martin (US 2363888 A) discloses a pickup device for harvester platforms. Sommerfield (US 20220061220 A1) discloses a swath lifter.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights