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 Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 7 “when the swathboard to a full down position” should be --when the swathboard is positioned toward a full down position--.
Claim 1 line 10 “a shoe plate on which the sensor is co-planer with the swathboard” should be –a shoe plate on which the sensor is mounted is coplanar with the swathboard—since it is the shoe plate 608 that is coplanar with swathboard 110, as seen in Fig. 6 and recited in para. [0034].
Claim 2 line 1 “to the extended” should be –to the extended position--.
Claim 3 lines 4-5 which recite “wherein the sensor is positioned on the swathboard to coincide with the location where the stream of cut plant material interacts with the swathboard” should be deleted as this limitation is a substantial duplicate as the limitation set forth in in claim 1 lines 5-6, which recite “mounting a sensor on the swathboard to coincide with the location where the stream of cut plant material interacts with the swathboard”.
Claim 4 line 1 “wherein the cutter bed comprises ten rotary cutters” should be –wherein the plurality of rotating rotary cutters comprises ten rotary cutters—to make clear that the “ten rotary cutters” are not in addition to, but rather, make up the “plurality of rotating rotary cutters” of the cutter bed as set forth in claim 3 line 1.
Claim 4 line 4 “overlap region between second and third rotary cutters and eighth and ninth rotary cutters” should be --overlap region between the second and a third rotary cutter and an eighth and the ninth rotary cutter—as second and ninth rotary cutters are previously set forth in claim 4 line 2.
Claim 5 line 2 “second and third rotary cutters” should be –the second and third rotary cutters—as second and third rotary cutters are positively set forth in claim 4.
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 6-7 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 6 recites the limitation "the fourth and fifth rotary cutters" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the signal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Digman (US 20220210975 A1) in view of Hamilton (US 20210195833 A1) and Missotten et al. (US 20220394925 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Digman discloses a method for collecting crop parameter information from plant material being cut by a mower (“mower-conditioner” 211) as the mower moves over a field, the mower including a header assembly (“rotary disc headers”, para. [0028]) having a cutter bed (“a plurality of rotary discs with knives for cutting (mowing) the forage crop material”, para. [0030]), conditioning rollers (1172), and a swathboard (234B), the swathboard being positionable to shape a rearwardly-directed stream of cut plant material into windrows (see bottom of para. [0030], swath gate 234B can be adjusted to pivot about a transversely extending horizontal axis to control trajectory of exiting crop material), the method comprising:
mounting a sensor (227) on the swathboard to coincide with the location where the stream of cut plant material interacts with the swathboard (para. [0036] “Sensor 227 can be connected to the crop-engaging surface, i.e., underside, of swath gate 234B”);
positioning the swathboard toward a full down position (“low position of the swath gate”) wherein the swathboard is maximizing contact of the swathboard with the crop material such that the crop material is directed down to the ground (para. [0047] low position of swath gate maximizes crop mat contact with swath gate and minimizes/avoids striking the windrow shields to form a wide and thin swath, optimal for sunny and low wind conditions), wherein the sensor is in a base position when the swathboard is positioned toward the full down position such that a shoe plate (968) on which the sensor is mounted is coplanar with the swathboard (Fig. 9, para. [0036] swath gate 234B has a through-hole or recessed portion in which the mount is seated);
positioning the swathboard toward a full up position (“higher position of the swath gate”) such that some of the crop stream avoids the swathboard and is directed back to forming shields (235B) of the header assembly (para. [0047] high position of swath gate provides for a higher trajectory of exiting crop material “so as to strike the windrow shields” to form a high and fluffy windrow, optimal for a cloudy and windy conditions).
Digman teaches wherein the sensor collects moisture information instead of nutrient information.
Hamilton in the same field of endeavor teaches that it was known to mount one or more NIR sensors 134 on a swath board 28 in a similar manner in order to determine nutrient properties of the cut plant material (Fig. 3, para. [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the moisture sensors of Digman with one or more NIR sensors for collecting nutrient information, as taught by Hamilton, as a mere simple substitution of one crop property sensor for another to yield predictable results.
Digman fails to disclose moving the sensor to an extended position when the swathboard is positioned toward the full up position such that the shoe plate is pivoted relative to the swathboard.
Missotten discloses an NIR sensor 90 mounted in the flow path 88 of exiting crop material (Fig. 6, para. [0072] sensor window mounted flush with crop-directing component 54), wherein the sensor is adjustable to maintain an angle and/or level of insertion of sensor window 94 relative to the flow path 88 (para. [0062]), and further wherein an actuator may be used for adjusting the position—i.e. orientation and/or level of insertion of the sensor (para. [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to pivot the sensor arrangement to a lowered extended position when the swathboard is positioned upward out of the crop flow, in order to maintain an angle and/or level of insertion of the sensor relative to the crop flow path and prevent lower quality data being obtained from crop material not contacting the sensor window (Missotten at bottom of para. [0061]).
If one were to modify the sensor arrangement of Digman per the teachings of Hamilton and Missotten, as combined above, one would inherently acquire the following (a-c below):
Regarding claim 2, The method of claim 1 wherein moving the sensor to the extended position changes the orientation of a crop-facing sensor face of the sensor relative a crop facing surface of the swathboard (Missotten Fig.6, para. [0020] adjusting the orientation of NIR sensor 90 comprises changing a tilt angle of sensor window 94 relative to the flow-directing component 54 in order to maintain an angle between the sensor window and flow path 88, para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 1 wherein moving the sensor to adjust the orientation of the sensor relative to the crop stream is performed by an actuator after the mower analyzes a signal generated by the sensor (Missotten para. [0023,0066] the controller is configured to receive and analyze sensor data from NIR sensor 90 and determine whether to send an actuator control signal to control the actuator to adjust the sensor window position).
Regarding claim 8, The method of claim 1 wherein the sensor is a near-infra-red (NIR) sensor (Hamilton at para. [0024] and Missotten at para. [0053] teach sensors are NIR sensors for collecting information from exiting crop stream).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Digman as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of O'Halloran et al. (US 5463852 A).
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Digman discloses the method of claim 1 as combined above, wherein the cutter bed has a plurality of rotating rotary cutters (Digman teaches plurality of rotary discs 231B, para. [0038), but does not explicitly detail rotating at least one pair of oppositely rotating rotary cutters to send the rearwardly-directed stream of cut plant material between the oppositely rotating pair of rotary cutters (note the provision of oppositely rotating discs is generally understood as implicit in rotary disc headers of this type, however, O'Halloran has been incorporated below for purposes of completeness).
In the same field of endeavor, O'Halloran discloses a similar mower 10 including a cutter bed 30 comprised of a plurality of rotary cutters 32a-32j, wherein the plurality of rotary cutters includes at least one pair of oppositely rotating rotary cutters (cutters 32b-32i are arranged in cooperating pairs such that two cutters of each pair rotate in opposite directions) thereby sending a rearwardly-directed stream of cut plant material between the oppositely rotating pair of rotary cutters (Fig. 2, col. 7 lines 58-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the rotary cutters of Digman according to the configuration as disclosed by O'Halloran, in order to facilitate direction of the severed crop material rearwardly between such cutters at their point of convergence (O'Halloran col. 7 lines 58-67).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Digman discloses the method of claim 3 as combined above. O'Halloran further teaches wherein the plurality of rotating cutters comprises ten rotary cutters (32a-32j) across the cutter bed (30, Fig. 2), and the crop material cut by first (32a) and second (32b) rotary cutters and ninth (32i) and tenth (32j) rotary cutters is thrown laterally inwardly across a front portion of the header assembly (14) to an overlap region between the second (32b) and a third (32c) rotary cutter and an eighth (32h) and the ninth (32i) rotary cutter, respectively, where the cut crop material is swept rearwardly in streams from the overlap regions (col. 8 lines 1-8 teaches outermost first and tenth cutters 32a and 32j rotate in the same direction as second and ninth cutters 32b and 32i, respectively, such that crop materials severed thereby is moved inwardly along the front of the cutters 32a, 32b and 32j, 32i until reaching the next converging nip point of the cutters in front of the discharge opening 102, i.e. respective nip points between counter-rotating pairs 32b, 32c and 32h, 32i).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Digman, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Greten et al. (US 7859674 B2).
Regarding claims 5-6, the combination of Digman discloses the method of claim 4 as combined above, wherein the sensor is placed to interact with the crop stream at an interior middle portion of the swathboard (Digman Fig. 9, Hamilton Fig. 3), but fails to disclose wherein the sensor is positioned adjacent an outer end of the swathboard to interact with the crop stream produced by the second and third rotary cutters, as per claim 5, or positioned to interact with the crop stream produced by the fourth and fifth rotary cutters, as per claim 6.
In a similar field of endeavor, Greten discloses a harvesting machine comprising an NIR sensor 20 for collecting nutrient information of harvested plant material 50 (col. 5 lines 43-48 measures moisture, starch content, oil content, sugar content, protein content, digestibility, neutral detergent fiber content, etc.), and further comprising an actuator device 25 “capable of precisely conveying the sensor device 20 to…a number of measuring positions 100” (Fig. 2, col. 9 lines 7-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate an adjustable conveying system for the sensor of the combination, as taught by Greten, in order to allow an operator to selectively convey the sensor to a number of discrete discharge locations along the swathboard as desired for measuring (Greten col. 10 lines 4-10). Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See also, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Treffer et al. (US 20190021229 A1) discloses an angular adjustment system for a windrower swathboard. Claussen (US 20140111792 A1) discloses an adjustable base plate for an NIR sensor configured to collect nutrition information from a crop flow. Cash et al. (US 20130000393 A1) discloses an extendable moisture content sensor. Kormann et al. (US 20060027750 A1) discloses an adjustable base plate for an NIR sensor configured to collect nutrition information from a crop flow. Diekhans (US 6257072 B1) teaches that a reliability of measuring results of crop parameter sensors fitted in adjustable ejector flaps of forage harvesters depends on the angle of adjustment of the ejector flap.
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