DETAILED ACTION
The Office Action is responsive to the amendments filed August 25, 2023.
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 § 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 5, 16-17, and 20-21 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 5 recites the limitation “the conveyor controller is configured to maintain a current mode of operation of the cross conveyor despite movements of the cross conveyor between the first and second positions if those movements are below a speed threshold”. The first half appears to contradict the second half as one cannot maintain a mode while moving the cross conveyor. It should be noted that claim 1 establishes that the mode and positions are related to one another. Therefore, the scope of the claims is unascertainable.
Claim 16, lines 2-3, has been amended to recite “a hydraulic cylinder”. It is unclear if this hydraulic cylinder is different from the one recited in claim 13. For examination purposes, it has been assumed that they are the same cylinder.
Claims 20-21, line 3, recites “vehicle” while the claims are drawn to an “agricultural wagon” (see preamble of claims 1-22). The introduction of the vehicle, which is outside and independent of the agricultural wagon, renders the scope of the claims unascertainable since it makes unclear whether the preamble limits the scope of the claims.
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.
Claims 1-4, 12-14, 18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schlimgen et al. (US 2020/367436 A1).
Re claim 1, Schlimgen et al. discloses an agricultural wagon (Figs. 1-3) including:
a compartment (118) configured to store material to be fed from the wagon;
a cross conveyor (110) for selectively feeding the material either from a first side of the wagon in a first mode (320) or from a second side of the wagon in a second mode (330), wherein the cross conveyor is movable between a first position that is located towards the first side of the wagon and a second position that is located towards the second side of the wagon; and
a conveyor controller (1200) that is configured to select whether the cross conveyor operates in the first mode or the second mode, the selection being based on a movement or position of the cross conveyor between the first side of the wagon and the second side of the wagon (Par. 0099).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Schlimgen et al. discloses the agricultural wagon of claim 1 wherein the conveyor controller is configured to select that the cross conveyor operates in the first mode when the cross conveyor is positioned nearer the first position than the second position and wherein the conveyor controller is configured to select that the cross conveyor operates in the second mode when the cross conveyor is positioned nearer the second position than the first position (Par. 0099).
Re claim 3, Schlimgen et al. discloses the agricultural wagon of claim 2 wherein the conveyor controller is configured to select that the cross conveyor operates in the first mode upon detection that the cross conveyor is in the first position and wherein the conveyor controller is configured to select that the cross conveyor operates in the second mode upon detection that the cross conveyor is in the second position (Par. 0099).
Re claim 4, Schlimgen et al. discloses the agricultural wagon of claim 1 wherein the conveyor controller is configured to select that the cross conveyor operates in the first mode upon detection of the cross conveyor moving towards the first position and wherein the conveyor controller is configured to select that the cross conveyor operates in the second mode upon detection of the cross conveyor moving towards the second position (Par. 0099).
Re claim 12, Schlimgen et al. discloses the agricultural wagon of claim 1 further comprising an actuator (194) for moving the cross conveyor between the first and second positions (Par. 0057).
Re claim 13, Schlimgen et al. discloses the agricultural wagon of claim 12 wherein the actuator is a hydraulic cylinder (194 – Par. 0057).
Re claim 14, Schlimgen et al. discloses the agricultural wagon of claim 13 wherein the conveyor controller is configured to select the mode of operation of the cross conveyor based on pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to the hydraulic cylinder (Par. 0057).
Re claim 18, Schlimgen et al. discloses the agricultural wagon of claim 1 wherein the conveyor controller is configured to select the mode of operation based on the position of the cross conveyor, the agricultural wagon further comprising an electronic position sensor (1232) in communication with the conveyor controller (Par. 0095).
Re claim 20, Schlimgen et al. discloses the agricultural wagon of claim 1 wherein the cross conveyor is configured to be moved between the first and second positions in response to control signals received from a vehicle to which the agricultural wagon is connected (1242 – Par. 0096).
Re claim 22, Schlimgen et al. discloses the agricultural wagon of claim 1 wherein the cross conveyor is configured to be positioned at a continuum of positions between the first and second position.
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.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlimgen et al. (US 2020/367436 A1).
Re claim 19, Schlimgen et al. discloses the agricultural wagon of claims 1 wherein the conveyor controller is configured to select the mode of operation based on the position of the cross conveyor, the agricultural wagon further comprising a position sensor (1232) coupled to the conveyor controller.
Schlimgen et al. does not explicitly specify a mechanical position sensor.
The examiner takes official notice that it is well known to use mechanical position sensors to determine the rotation position of an element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a mechanical position sensor in the device of Schlimgen et al. because of the simplicity, accuracy, and reliability of these sensors are well known in the art and because they are predictably adequate for the intended use.
Claims 6-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlimgen et al. (US 2020/367436 A1) in view of WO 94/24851 A1.
Schlimgen et al. fails to disclose a reversible hydraulic motor to rotate to operate the cross conveyor.
WO 94/24851 A1 discloses an agricultural wagon comprising a compartment (8), a cross conveyor (51), first and second modes of operation (pg. 12, lines 10-22; pg. 19, line 30 – page 20, line 2), a conveyor controller (pg. 16, lines 6-8).
PNG
media_image2.png
562
377
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 6, WO 94/24851 A1 further discloses the agricultural wagon comprising a reversible motor configured to rotate in a first direction to operate the cross conveyor in the first mode and rotate in a second direction to operate the cross conveyor in the second mode (Figs. 7 and 8; G, H).
Re claim 7, WO 94/24851 A1 further discloses an agricultural wagon of claim 6 wherein the reversible motor is a hydraulic motor (pg. 69).
Re claim 8, WO 94/24851 A1 further discloses the agricultural wagon of claim 7 wherein the conveyor controller further comprises a flow direction control valve to control the direction of flow of hydraulic fluid through the hydraulic motor (pg. 13, lines 28-31).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the auger-type conveyor of Schlimgen et al. for an endless belt-type conveyor with a reversible hydraulic motor with a control valve in view of WO ‘851 to improve the agricultural material flow rate and minimize clogging.
Regarding claims 9-11, Schlimgen et al. (US 2020/367436 A1) in view of WO 94/24851 A1 does not specifically show:
Re claim 9, wherein the flow direction control valve is a mechanically operated flow direction control valve,
Re claim 10, wherein the flow direction control valve is a hydraulically operated flow control valve, and
Re claim 11, wherein the flow direction control valve is an electrically operated flow direction control valve.
The examiner takes official notice that it is well known to use mechanical, hydraulic, or electronically operated flow direction control valves to control the direction of flow of hydraulic fluid through the hydraulic motor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have such control valves in the device of Schlimgen et al. as modified by WO ‘851 because these are art recognized equivalent valve arrangements that are well known in the art for reliably controlling fluid flow and are predicably adequate for the intended use.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlimgen et al. (US 2020/367436 A1) in view of DE 102015116761 A1.
Schlimgen et al. discloses a fluid control system (Fig. 12), but does not teach the specifics of the fluid handling structure.
However, fluid handling system for controlling dual-acting piston cylinder mechanisms with ports and relief valves are well known in the art. For example, DE ‘761 discloses:
PNG
media_image3.png
482
681
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 15, DE ‘761 discloses a fluid controller comprising a first port (13) on a first side of a piston of the hydraulic cylinder (15) is fluidly connected to a first pilot port of the hydraulically operated flow direction control valve (10) and a second port (14) on a second side of the piston is fluidly connected to a second pilot port of the hydraulically operated flow direction control valve.
Re claim 16, DE ‘761 discloses a fluid controller comprising a first pressure relief valve (35) connected between the first port of the hydraulic cylinder and the first pilot port and a second pressure relief valve (36) connected between the second port of the hydraulic cylinder and the second pilot port, wherein each pressure relief valve is configured to open and supply hydraulic fluid to the respective pilot port when pressure at the respective side of the piston exceeds a pressure threshold (Par. 38).
Re claim 17, DE ‘761 discloses a fluid controller wherein the pressure threshold is selected to be a pressure reached when the hydraulic cylinder reaches the end of its travel (Par. 38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a control for dual-acting piston cylinder with pilot ports and relief valves on the device of Schlimgen et al. in view of DE ‘761 to allow the reliable supply of pressurized fluid to the piston cylinder.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jennings (‘826), Hollenberg (‘952), and DE (‘713) discloses other agricultural vehicles having cross conveyors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAUL J RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7097. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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 Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
SAUL J. RODRIGUEZ
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652