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. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: WINDROWER WITH PICKUP DEVICE FOR FOLLOWING GROUND PROFILE. Claim Objections Claim s 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 line 2 “has a suspension link” should be –having a suspension link--. Claim 21 line 2 “has a double-link suspension” should be –having a double-link suspension--. Appropriate correction is required. 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 16-30 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. Claim 16 recites the limitation " FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT the operating state " in FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. By virtue of their dependence on claim 1 6 , this basis of rejection also applies to dependent claims 17-30. Claim 30 is further rejected as indefinite since it depends from cancelled claim 1. For purposes of applying prior art claim 30 is construed as depending from claim 1 6 . 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 16-22, 25, 27, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Boll (US 20210282325 A1) . Regarding independent claim 1 6 , Boll discloses a windrower (10) comprising of: a main frame (11) , which can be supported via an undercarriage (16) in an operating state, and having at least one windrower unit which is connec ted at least indirectly to the main frame ( Fig. 1, para. [0024] each windrower unit is comprised of two pickup members 18 arranged on each side of the longitudinal member 12) ; and a pickup device ( Figs. 2-3, each pickup device includes two subunits 18) , and a transverse conveyor (19) , 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 (para. [0030-0031] a single transverse conveyor device 19 is arranged on each side of longitudinal member 12 and behind the pickup members 18) , wherein the pickup device is configured, in the working configuration, to pick up agricultural crop material from the ground (para. [0025]) and to transfer it to the transverse conveyor which is configured to convey the transferred crop material along a windrower transverse axis (para. [0028]) and deposit it in windrows on the ground (inherent in “pickup swather”/ ”merger”); wherein the pickup device is vertically movable both relative to the transverse conveyor frame and relative to the main frame (para. [0038] each pickup member 18 is individually movable relative to transverse conveyor 19 and main frame 11 for the purpose of adapt ing to the underlying ground surface to be cultivated ) , at least in relation to a windrower vertical axis (as seen in Figs. 4-6, pickup members 18 move up and down relative to conveyors 19) . Regarding claim 1 7, Boll discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, wherein the pickup device (18) is connected in a vertically movable manner to the transverse conveyor frame (19) via a pickup suspension (22,25) (para. [0039,0042]) . Regarding claim 1 8, Boll discloses the windrower according to Claim 17, wherein the pickup suspension (22,25) is arranged at least in part below and/or at least in part within the transverse conveyor (19) (Figs. 7-8, para. [0040,0042] joint 22 is arranged within aperture 24 of conveyor 19, and adjustment system 25 is arranged below conveyor 19). Regarding claim 1 9 , Boll discloses the windrower according to Claim 17, wherein the pickup suspension (22,25) has a plurality of suspension units (23,26) spaced apart along the windrower transverse axis (four suspension units total, each corresponding to a respective pickup device 18 , i.e. two pickup devices 18 are disposed on each side of central member 12). Regarding claim 2 0, Boll discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, further comprising at least one suspension unit (22,25) having a suspension link (23,26) which extends forwards to the pickup device (18) from a region (24,29) of the transverse conveyor frame which is at the rear in relation to the windrower longitudinal axis (Fig. 8, link 23 extends from rear end of aperture 24 toward pickup device 18, link 26 extends from rear tab 29 toward pickup device 18) . Regarding claim 21, Boll discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, further comprising at least one suspension unit (22,25) having a double-link suspension (23,26) , in particular a parallelogram suspension (Figs. 7-8, note the BRI of “parallelogram suspension” is in the shape of/forming a parallelogram). Regarding claim 22, Boll discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, wherein the pickup device (18) is configured to discharge the crop material above the transverse conveyor (19) in relation to the windrower vertical axis and to throw it onto the said conveyor (para. [0028, 0044] pickup members 18 transfer crop material onto upper surface of transverse conveyor 19) . Regarding claim 25, Boll discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, wherein the pickup device (18) includes ground guidance elements (21) , via which it can be supported at least proportionately on the ground (para. [0026]). Regarding claim 27 , Boll discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, wherein the pickup device includes two subunits ( para. [0024] each pickup device includes two subunits 18 arranged on each side of the longitudinal member 12) , which are offset with respect to one another along the windrower transverse axis (i.e. laterally offset) and can be tilted relative to one another about a bending axis extending at least proportionately along the windrower longitudinal axis (Figs. 4-6, central bending axis extends between subunits 18 in a longitudinal direction) , wherein the subunits are vertically movable relative to the transverse conveyor frame, at least partially independently of one another (para. [0034] subunits 18 are individually pivotable from one another relative to transverse conveyor 19 ). Regarding claim 30, Boll discloses the windrower according to Claim 1, wherein the main frame (11) includes two side arms (13,14) , and a respective windrower unit is connected at least indirectly to each side arm (Fig. 1). 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 s 2 3-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boll as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Fortschritt (GB 1578207 A) . Regarding claim 2 3, Boll discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, wherein the pickup device (18) can be deflected relative to the transverse conveyor frame (19), but does not explicitly detail a stop position upon which the pickup device interacts with the transverse conveyor frame via a positive engagement acting along the windrower vertical axis. Fortschritt discloses a similar pick-up apparatus (3 , Fig. 1 ) comprising pivotably mounted pick-up drums (7) (page 2 lines 106-110), a transverse conveyor (6), and a transverse conveyor frame (4), wherein the pick-up drums can be deflected relative to the transverse conveyor frame as far as a stop position wherein the pickup device interacts with the transverse conveyor frame via a positive engagement acting along the windrower vertical axis (Fig. 2 or 3, page 2 lines 115-1 20 and page 3 lines 19-27 pivot range of pickup drums 7 is delimited by upper and lower stop surfaces of slots in transverse conveyor frame 4 defining a sliding block range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar sliding block arrangement in the pick-up of Boll for forming a positive engagement between the pick-up drums and transverse conveyor frame when the pick-up drums reach a stop/maximum pivot position , as taught by Fortschritt , such that if the soil unevenness is greater than the pivot range can accommodate, the position of the entire pick-up apparatus may be set to the correct working height ( Fortschritt at page 2 lines 53-63 and page 3 lines 19 - 27 ). Regarding claim 2 4, Boll discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, but does not explicitly detail a stop position that is defined by one end of an aperture which is closed on at least one side and extends along the windrower vertical axis, 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. Fortschritt discloses a similar pick-up apparatus detailed above, wherein the pick-up drums can be deflected relative to the transverse conveyor frame as far as a stop position defined by one end of an aperture which extends along a vertical axis (see sliding block arrangement 12 or 13 of Fig. 2 or 3) , and into which there engages a stop part vertically movable within the aperture (page 1 lines 86 - page 2 lines 2, 19-21, 115-1 20 pivot range of pickup drums 7 is delimited by upper and lower stop surfaces of slots in transverse conveyor frame 4 defin ing a sliding block range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar sliding block arrangement in the pick-up of Boll for forming a positive engagement between the pick-up drums and transverse conveyor frame when the pick-up drums reach a stop/maximum pivot position , as taught by Fortschritt , such that if the soil unevenness is greater than the pivot range can accommodate, the position of the entire pick-up apparatus may be set to the correct working height ( Fortschritt at page 2 lines 53-63 and page 3 lines 19 -27). Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boll as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Dow (US 9386749 B1) . Regarding claim 2 6 , Boll discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, wherein the pickup device (18) is connected to the transverse conveyor frame (19) but does not explicitly detail by at least one spring element therebetween configured to exert a tensile force acting at least proportionately along the windrower vertical axis. In the same field of endeavor, Dow discloses a similar windrow merger comprising a pick-up device (2) pivotable (about rocking axis 32) relative to a transverse conveyor (48), wherein the pick-up device is connected to a transverse conveyor frame by a spring element ( air springs 22) configured to exert a tensile force acting along a vertical direction (col. 10 lines 9-22 air springs 22 exert tensile force in a vertical direction by urging upward against pickup device 2 and downward against the conveyor frame). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include similar springs between the pick-up device and conveyor frame of Boll, as taught by Dow, in order to provide load relief capable of “floating” the pickup head so that it leaves a lighter footprint upon the soil while still following the contour of the ground (col. 10 lines 41-45). Claim s 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boll as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Breure ( US 20210352845 A1 ). Regarding claim 2 8 , Boll discloses the windrower according to Claim 16, wherein the transverse conveyor frame (19) is connected at least indirectly to the main frame (11) (Fig. 1), 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 Boll, as taught by Breure, in order to provide means for selectively vary ing 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 2 9, Boll 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 provid e the merger with a relatively large flexibility to temporarily lift the units , for example in order to pass obstacles. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure . Scholtissek et al. ( US 4464890 A ) discloses a pick-up reel for an agricultural machine. Peeters et al. ( US 6212865 B1 ) discloses a windrow merger. Geiser ( US 20060248870 A1 ) and ( US 20060254244 A1 ) disclose triple-unit windrower s . Gantzer et al. ( US 20140150396 A1 ) discloses an articulated pick-up device comprising stop means defining two work end positions. Schwer et al. ( US 20150020492 A1 ) discloses a machine for windrower and suspension means. Boll ( US 20210007283 A1 ) discloses a windrower. Jadhav et al. ( US 20230136518 A1 ) discloses a moveable pick-up belt. 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 /JOSEPH M ROCCA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671