Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/542,157

GRASS PICKUP HEADER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 15, 2023
Examiner
BEHRENS, ADAM J
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Cnh Industrial Belgium N V
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
421 granted / 549 resolved
+24.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
580
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.3%
+1.3% vs TC avg
§102
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
§112
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 549 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 12-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure (USPN 8181435). Regarding claim 1, McClure discloses a pickup header for picking up a swath of grass from a field when attached to an agricultural vehicle, the pickup header comprising: a header frame (Figure 2 element 44); and a reel assembly (displayed in figure 2), the reel assembly including: a reel (22) comprising a plurality of pickup tines (70), a plurality of adjacent tine guides (elements 50 and 36) at a back of the reel assembly attached to the header frame, at least one of the tine guides comprising a wall portion (50) having a concave front edge (Figure 3 shows a concave front edge) and a ridge portion (36 extends left and right of the wall portion 50 forming ridges) extending laterally on both sides of the wall portion along at least an upper half of the concave front edge. The tine guides of McClure are welded to the frame and therefore are not easily removable, however as they are assembled by welding they could be removed by cutting the weld for repair or a damaged part. For the sake of argument, the claim language “removably attached” does not further define any of the specific structure of the foldable auger that distinguishes it from the prior art. This claim limitation is directed to the means of attachment of one element to another. In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”). In the instant case, McClure discloses the same claimed structure although not necessarily assembled as claimed by bolting the guides to the frame It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to assemble the structure by any known means to include bolting components together for the purpose of easy removal and replacement due to damage. Regarding claim 15, McClure discloses tine guides (elements 50 and 36) at a back of the reel assembly, at least one of the tine guides comprising a wall portion (50) having a concave front edge (Figure 3 shows a concave front edge) and a ridge portion (36 extends left and right of the wall portion 50 forming ridges) extending laterally on both sides of the wall portion along at least an upper half of the concave front edge. The tine guides of McClure are welded to the frame and therefore are not easily removable, however as they are assembled by welding they could be removed by cutting the weld for repair or a damaged part. For the sake of argument, the claim language “removably attached” does not further define any of the specific structure of the foldable auger that distinguishes it from the prior art. This claim limitation is directed to the means of attachment of one element to another. In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”). In the instant case, McClure discloses the same claimed structure although not necessarily assembled as claimed by bolting the guides to the frame It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to assemble the structure by any known means to include bolting components together for the purpose of easy removal and replacement due to damage. Regarding claims 2 and 16, the claim language “wherein the at least one tine guide comprises integral pieces obtainable by injection molding or casting” does not further define any of the specific structure of the foldable auger that distinguishes it from the prior art. This claim limitation is directed to a product-by-process limitation as the means of production. It is noted wherein the patentability of a product does not necessarily depend on its method of production. See MPEP section 2113 Product-by-Process, which states, if the product in the claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In the instant case, McClure discloses the same claimed structure although not necessarily produced as claimed by injection molding or casting. As such, the claim is considered to be anticipated by McClure as the same claimed structure has been taught and the part is capable of being made by an injection molding or casting process. Regarding claims 3 and 17, McClure discloses wherein the ridge portion (36) extends symmetrically with respect to a vertical centre plane (defined by wall 50) of the at least one tine guide (best seen in figure 1, wall 50 has symmetrical ridge portion 30 extending to the left and right). Regarding claims 5 and 19, McClure discloses wherein the wall portion comprises a top part, a central part, and a base part, and wherein at least one of the top part or the base part becomes gradually wider starting from the thickness of the central part towards an upper or lower end of the wall portion (Figure 3 shows a central part pointed at by indicator 50, moving downwardly from there the thickness increases from a front to rear orientation). Regarding claim 12, McClure discloses wherein the wall portion has a straight back edge on an opposite side of the concave front edge (Figure 3 shows a straight back portion where the wall attached to the ridge 36). Regarding claim 13, the claim language “wherein the at least one tine guide is formed of injection molded plastic” does not further define any of the specific structure of the foldable auger that distinguishes it from the prior art. This claim limitation is directed to a product-by-process limitation as the means of production. It is noted wherein the patentability of a product does not necessarily depend on its method of production. See MPEP section 2113 Product-by-Process, which states, if the product in the claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In the instant case, McClure discloses the same claimed structure although not necessarily produced as claimed by injection molded plastic. As such, the claim is considered to be anticipated by McClure as the same claimed structure has been taught and the part is capable of being made by an injection molded plastic. Regarding claim 14, McClure discloses wherein the at least one tine guide comprises a plurality of adjacent tine guides attached to each other (Figure 1 shows a plurality attached to each other by frame portion 48). Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boll (EP 3763196). Regarding claim 1, Boll discloses a pickup header for picking up a swath of grass from a field when attached to an agricultural vehicle, the pickup header comprising: a header frame (element 11 of figure 1-3 is considered a part of the frame of the header when attached); and a reel assembly (10), the reel assembly including: a reel (14) comprising a plurality of pickup tines (12), a plurality of adjacent tine guides (Figure 5 shows an individual guide) at a back of the reel assembly and attached to the header frame, at least one of the tine guides comprising a wall portion having a concave front edge and a ridge portion extending laterally on both sides of the wall portion along at least an upper half of the concave front edge (See annotated figure 5, wall forms a concave front interior end). The figures of Boll show the guide removed from frame component 15 and shows what appear to be mounting holes for bolts. Boll further discloses in the second to last paragraph of the specification, before the list of reference symbols, easy access to the interior for maintenance and repair work. However, Boll is lacking specific mention in the disclosure regarding removal of the guards. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boll by using bolts to attach the guides as clear holes exist in the guide for what appear to be bolts. The bolted connection would allow for the operator to perform repairs on the guide in the instances of damage. PNG media_image1.png 585 971 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated figure 5 Regarding claim 15, Boll discloses tine guide (Figure 5 shows an individual tine guide) for use in a pickup header at a back of a reel assembly, the tine guide comprising: a wall portion having a concave front edge; and a ridge portion extending laterally on both sides of the wall portion along at least an upper half of the concave front edge; wherein the tine guide is removably attached to a header frame (See annotated figure 5 above, wall forms a concave front interior end). Regarding claims 2 and 16, Boll discloses wherein the at least one tine guide comprises integral pieces obtainable by injection molding or casting (Boll discloses casting in the last paragraph before the list of reference symbols). Regarding claims 3 and 17, Boll discloses wherein the ridge portion extends symmetrically with respect to a vertical centre plane of the at least one tine guide (The defined ridges of Boll are considered to extend laterally on each side equally in view of figure 5). Regarding claims 4 and 18, Boll discloses wherein the ridge portion is widest at a top of the tine guide and gradually becomes narrower in a downward direction (See annotated figure 6 below). PNG media_image2.png 771 734 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claims 5 and 19, Boll discloses wherein the wall portion comprises a top part, a central part, and a base part, and wherein at least one of the top part or the base part becomes gradually wider starting from the thickness of the central part towards an upper or lower end of the wall portion (Figure 5 shows a central part pointed at by indicator 18, moving upwardly or downwardly from there the thickness increases from a front to rear orientation). Regarding claim 6, Boll discloses wherein the central part has a constant thickness (The central part pointed to by indicator 18 of figure 3 defined by parallel ridge walls). Regarding claim 7, Boll discloses wherein the base part is placed in front of and partially overlapping the central part, such that a gap remains behind the base part, between the central part and the lower end of the base part (See annotated figure 6). PNG media_image3.png 582 876 media_image3.png Greyscale Annotated figure 6 Regarding claims 8 and 20, Boll discloses wherein the at least one tine guide is attached to the header frame by at least two bolt connections oriented in a front-to- back direction of the pickup header (Both defined bolt holes are oriented in a front to back direction, the top one substantially parallel with the front to rear direction and the bottom one on an angle in the front to back direction). Regarding claim 9, as discussed in above claim 1, Boll discloses easy operator access for maintenance and repair. Boll is lacking specific mention of removal of the guides for repair. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the easy maintenance and repair disclosed by Boll to include access to the bolts that attach the guides so the guides could also be removed and repaired as needed in instances of breakage. The easy and quick repair would be considered capable without removal of the reel as removal of the reel would not be easy and quick. Regarding claim 10, Boll discloses wherein the at least one tine guide has a top plane and a bottom plane and wherein the header comprises a plurality of C- shaped tine guards (17) at the front of the reel assembly, wherein at least one of the C- shaped tine guards are connected to the top and bottom planes of respective ones of the at least one tine guide (Figure 7 shows plane portions at the top and bottom pointed to by indicators 17A and 21 for attachment of the tine guards). Regarding claim 11, Boll discloses wherein the at least one tine guard is formed of flexible strips (As displayed by figures 5 and 7 from an attached position to an unattached position with flexing). Regarding claim 12, Boll discloses wherein the wall portion has a straight back edge on an opposite side of the concave front edge (The very back edge of the wall is straight as best seen in figure 6). Regarding claim 13, Boll discloses wherein the at least one tine guide is formed of injection molded plastic (Boll discloses the use of plastic in the last paragraph of the specification before the list of reference symbols and also the idea of casting). Boll is lacking the specific combination of both casting and plastic. As Boll discloses both casting and the possible use of plastic, it would be an obvious matter of design choice to make the guide from injection molded plastic as this limitation is directed to a product-by-process limitation as the means of production. It is noted wherein the patentability of a product does not necessarily depend on its method of production. Regarding claim 14, Boll discloses wherein the at least one tine guide comprises a plurality of adjacent tine guides attached to each other (Figure 1 shows a plurality). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pourchet (US 2009/0320434). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BEHRENS whose telephone number is (303)297-4336. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-2pm MST. 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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (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 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. /ADAM J BEHRENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 15, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599060
WEED SEED DESTRUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588585
VEGETATION CUTTING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582044
AUTOMATIC HEIGHT CONTROL FOR SUGARCANE HARVESTERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575554
Methods, Systems and Apparatus to Extract One or More Weeds
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575471
DOWNFORCE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR A FINISHING FRAME OF A TILLAGE IMPLEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+13.1%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 549 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month