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 .
The current application filed Dec. 12, 2023.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12616098. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because CLAIM 1, e.g., is generic to all that is recited in CLAIM 1, e.g., of US Patent No. 12616098. In other words, CLAIM 1 of US Patent No. 12616098 fully encompasses the subject matter of CLAIM 1 and therefore anticipated CLAIM 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 & 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohde-Folling (20240155976) in view of McKinnis (20190327897).
With regard to claim 1, Rohde-Folling discloses a windrower implement (a self-prolled harvester, see Fig.1) comprising:
a frame extending along a central longitudinal axis between a forward end and a rearward end relative to a direction of travel during operation (the harvester 1 in a form of a rear and front in a longitudinal axis, see Fig.1);
an implement head attached to the frame proximate the forward end thereof, wherein the implement head includes a cutter configured for cutting standing crop material and a crop conditioning system having a rotating element configured for processing the crop material, wherein the implement head is configured to discharge the crop material from the crop conditioning system in a rearward direction along the central longitudinal axis (an attachment 4 attached to the harvester 1’s front for collecting or pickup harvested material from a field, see [0026]-[0030]+);
an actuation system coupled to the rotating element of the crop conditioning system and selectively controllable to control a position of the rotating element relative to another component to define a processing gap between the rotating element and the another component for moving the crop material therethrough (the attachments 4 operates with respect to their drive which requires a variable rotational drive speed, see [0027]-[0029]+);
a first hydraulic motor coupled to the rotating element of the crop conditioning system, wherein the first hydraulic motor is operable in response to a first fluid pressure to rotate the rotating element of the crop conditioning system (the attachment drive 29 comprises a hydraulic pump for driving a hydraulic motor, see [0034]+);
a controller including a processor and a memory having a plug prevention algorithm stored thereon, wherein the processor is operable to execute the plug prevention algorithm to: determine a current value of the first fluid pressure of the first hydraulic motor; and control the actuation system to increase the processing gap from a desired processing gap when the current value of the first fluid pressure of the first hydraulic motor is greater than the first threshold value (a control device 35 specifies a max displacement volume of the hydraulic motor 30 depending on the type of attachment 4 on the forage harvester such a pickup, corn header or direct cutting unit, see [0036]+).
Rohde-Folling fails to teach comparing the current value of the first fluid pressure of the first hydraulic motor to a first threshold value; and control the actuation system to increase the processing gap from a desired processing gap when the current value of the first fluid pressure of the first hydraulic motor is greater than the first threshold value.
McKinnis discloses a harvester which includes a crop merger system. The system compares the estimated or measure speed of the crop merger actuator (a hydraulic motor) with the desired speed set by the operator, and controls the actuator at the desired level during changes in crop load (see [0046]+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Rohde-Folling by including to compare the estimated or measure speed of the crop merger actuator (a hydraulic motor) with the desired speed set by the operator, and controls the actuator at the desired level during changes in crop load as taught by McKinnis for ensuring the Windrower operating smoothly.
With regard to claim 2, Rohde-Folling teaches that the windrower implement set forth in claim 1, wherein the processor is operable to execute the plug prevention algorithm to determine the desired processing gap (the attachment 4 operates specifications with respect to their drive provided for the purpose, see [0029]+).
With regard to claim 3, Rohde-Folling teaches that the windrower implement set forth in claim 2, wherein the processor is operable to execute the plug prevention algorithm todetermine the desired processing gap by receiving a commanded processing gap from an operator via an input device (using a display unit, an operator of the harvesting machine may enter a selection corresponding attachment model, see [0018]+).
With regard to claim 4, McKinnis teaches that the windrower implement set forth in claim 2, wherein the processor is operable to execute the plug prevention algorithm to to automatically determining the desired processing gap based on at least one sensed crop characteristic (see the abstract).
With regard to claim 5, McKinnis teaches that the windrower implement set forth in claim 1, wherein the processor is operable to execute the plug prevention algorithm to control the actuation system to decrease the processing gap to the desired processing gap when the current value of the first fluid pressure of the first hydraulic motor decreases below the first threshold value (the flow of hydraulic fluid and the engine speed (motor) are related to actuate rotation of the crop merger, see [0065]+).
With regard to claim 6, Rohde-Folling teaches that the windrower implement set forth in claim 1, further comprising a first pressure sensor configured for detecting fluid pressure at the first hydraulic motor and disposed in communication with the controller for communicating data thereto (a controller device 35 comprises a computing unit 40, and a memory unit 41 in communication with operating and display unit 42, see [0039]+).
With regard to claim 7, Mckinnis teaches that teaches that the windrower implement set forth in claim 1, further comprising a merger attachment coupled to the frame rearward of the implement head, wherein the merger attachment includes a driven roller supporting a conveyor positioned relative to the implement head to receive the crop material discharged from the implement head, and convey the crop material laterally relative to the central longitudinal axis to form a windrow laterally offset from the central longitudinal axis (a crop merger system 104 as shown in Fig.1 & Fig. 2) .
With regard to claim 8, McKinnis teaches that the windrower implement set forth in claim 7, further comprising a second hydraulic motor coupled to the driven roller of the merger attachment, wherein the second hydraulic motor is operable in response to a second fluid pressure to rotate the driven roller of the merger attachment (the crop merger comprises a hydraulic drive, see [0050]-[0051]+).
With regard to claims 9-10, McKinnis teaches that the windrower implement set forth in claim 8, wherein the processor is operable to execute the plug prevention algorithm to: determine a current value of the second fluid pressure of the second hydraulic motor; compare the current value of the second fluid pressure of the second hydraulic motor to a second threshold value; and control the actuation system to increase/decrease the processing gap from the desired processing gap when the current value of the second fluid pressure of the second hydraulic motor is greater/below than the second threshold value (see [0050]-[0060]+).
With regard to claims 11, McKinnis teaches that the windrower implement set forth in claim 7, further comprising a second pressure sensor configured for detecting fluid pressure at the second hydraulic motor and disposed in communication with the controller for communicating data thereto (the sensor are in electronic communication with one or more controller , see [0045]+).
With regard to claim 14, Rohde-Folling teaches that the windrower implement set forth in claim 1, wherein the actuation system includes an actuator selectively moveable in response to a control signal from the controller (the control device automatically select the attachment model for operating, see [0018]+).
With regard to claims 15 & 19, Mckinnis discloses a windrower (a harvester 100) implement comprising:
a frame extending along a central longitudinal axis between a forward end and a rearward end relative to a direction of travel during operation; an implement head attached to the frame proximate the forward end thereof, wherein the implement head includes a cutter configured for cutting standing crop material and a crop conditioning system having a rotating element configured for processing the crop material, wherein the implement head is configured to discharge the crop material from the crop conditioning system in a rearward direction along the central longitudinal axis (the harvester 1 in a form of a rear and front in a longitudinal axis, see Fig.1);
an actuation system coupled to the rotating element of the crop conditioning system and selectively controllable to control a position of the rotating element to define a processing gap between the rotating element and another component for receiving the crop material therethrough for processing (the attachments 4 operates with respect to their drive which requires a variable rotational drive speed, see [0027]-[0029]+);
a first hydraulic motor coupled to the rotating element of the crop conditioning system, wherein the first hydraulic motor is operable in response to a first fluid pressure to rotate the rotating element of the crop conditioning system (the attachment drive 29 comprises a hydraulic pump for driving a hydraulic motor, see [0034]+);
a controller including a processor and a memory having a plug prevention algorithm stored thereon, wherein the processor is operable to execute the plug prevention algorithm to: determine a current value of the first fluid pressure of the first hydraulic motor; and control the actuation system to increase the processing gap from a desired processing gap when the current value of the first fluid pressure of the first hydraulic motor is greater than the first threshold value (a control device 35 specifies a max displacement volume of the hydraulic motor 30 depending on the type of attachment 4 on the forage harvester such a pickup, corn header or direct cutting unit, see [0036]+).
Rohde-Folling fails to teach a merger attachment coupled to the frame rearward of the implement head, wherein the merger attachment includes a driven roller supporting a conveyor positioned relative to the implement head to receive the crop material discharged from the implement head, and convey the crop material laterally relative to the central longitudinal axis to form a windrow laterally offset from the central longitudinal axis; a second hydraulic motor coupled to the driven roller of the merger attachment, wherein the second hydraulic motor is operable in response to a second fluid pressure to rotate the driven roller of the merger attachment; a controller that determine a desired processing gap; determine a current value of the second fluid pressure of the second hydraulic motor; compare the current value of the second fluid pressure of the second hydraulic motor to a second threshold value; and control the actuation system to increase the processing gap from the desired processing gap when the current value of the second fluid pressure of the second hydraulic motor is greater than the second threshold value.
McKinnis discloses a harvester which includes a crop merger system. The system determines and compares the estimated or measure speed of the crop merger actuator (a hydraulic motor) with the desired speed set by the operator, and controls the actuator at the desired level during changes in crop load (see [0050]-[0051] & [0061]-[0062]+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Rohde-Folling by including a merger system which determines and compares the estimated or measure speed of the crop merger actuator (a hydraulic motor) with the desired speed set by the operator, and controls the actuator at the desired level during changes in crop load as taught by McKinnis for ensuring the Windrower operating smoothly.
With regard to claim 16, McKinnis teaches that the windrower implement set forth in claim 15, wherein the processor is operable to execute the plug prevention algorithm to control the actuation system to decrease the processing gap to the desired processing gap when the current value of the second fluid pressure of the second hydraulic motor decreases below the second threshold value ((see [0050]-[0060]+).
With regard to claims 17-18 & 20, Rohde-Folling teaches that the windrower implement set forth in claim 15, wherein the processor is operable to execute the plug prevention algorithm to: determine a current value of the first fluid pressure of the first hydraulic motor; compare the current value of the first fluid pressure of the first hydraulic motor to a first threshold value; and control the actuation system to increase/decrease the processing gap from a desired processing gap when the current value of the first fluid pressure of the first hydraulic motor is greater/below than the first threshold value (see [0059]-[0060]+).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohde-Folling and McKinnis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marchionda (20250003376).
With regard to claim 12, Rohde-Folling and McKinnis disclose the claimed subject matter but fail to teach a motion sensor coupled to one of the implement head and the merger attachment and operable to detect vibration of the one of the implement head and the merger attachment to which the motion sensor is attached.
Marchionda discloses a work machine (see Fig.1) comprises an internal combustion engine monitoring system that includes a motion sensor for detect vibration of the implement attached, see [0046]-[0047]+)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Rohde-Folling by including to compare the estimated or measure speed of the crop merger actuator (a hydraulic motor) with the desired speed set by the operator, and controls the actuator at the desired level during changes in crop load as taught by McKinnis, and further including a motion sensor for detect vibration of the implement attached as taught by Marchionda. The combination of Rohde-Folling, McKinnis and Marchionda is an adapted system for performance jobs effectively.
With regard to claim 13, Marchionda teaches that the windrower implement set forth in claim 12, wherein the processor is operable to execute the plug prevention algorithm to: determine a current magnitude of vibration in the one of the implement head and the merger attachment to which the motion sensor is attached from data sensed from the motion sensor; compare the current magnitude of vibration to a vibration threshold value; and control the actuation system to increase the processing gap when the current magnitude of the vibration is greater than the vibration threshold value (see [0046]-[0050]+).
Prior Arts Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Treffer (20160309655) discloses a windrower with a header and a substantially upstanding panel for blocking the mowed crop that is discharged rearward from the header, see [0023]-[0024]+.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
NGA X. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights