Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This office action is in response to application number 18/602,491 filed on 03/12/2024, in
which the amendments and arguments filed on 10/28/2025.
Claims 1, 4, 13, and 19 has been amended.
No claims have been added.
Claim 16-17 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-15 and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2024 have been received and considered.
Response to Amendment
4. Applicant' s amendments to the Claims have overcome the rejection previously set forth
in the Non-Final Office Action and has overcome the objection in the Non-Final Office
Action mailed on 08/08/2025. Applicants arguments, see page 8-19 filed on 10/28/2025, with
respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 are persuasive. Therefore, a new grounds for rejection is made under 35 USC 103 as necessitated by amendment over Hertzog (EP 3837941 A1) in view of Clark (EP 4256942 A1) with respect to Claim(s) 1 and 19. Another grounds for rejection is made under 35 USC 103 as necessitated by amendment over Hertzog (EP 3837941 A1) in view of Clark (EP 4256942 A1) and further in view of Young (US 20230104698 A1) with respect to Claim(s) 2-7 and 20. Also another grounds of rejection is made under 35 USC 103 as necessitated by amendment over Hertzog (EP 3837941 A1) in view of Clark (EP 4256942 A1) further in view of Young (US 20230104698 A1) and further in view of (US 5911769 A) to Orbach et al. (hereinafter Orbach) with respect to Claim(s) 8-11 and 13-15.
Finally, under 35 USC 103 a rejection is made under 35 USC 103 as necessitated by amendment over Hertzog (EP 3837941 A1) in view of Clark (EP 4256942 A1) further in view of Young (US 20230104698 A1) further in view of (US 5911769 A) to Orbach et al. (hereinafter Orbach) and further in view of (US 20200156470 A1) to Stanhope et al. (hereinafter Stanhope) with respect to Claim(s) 12 and 18.
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.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog (EP 3837941 A1) in view of Clark (EP 4256942 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hertzog discloses An agricultural system comprising: (Hertzog Paragraph 0021: “In another aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a control unit for use with an agricultural system, wherein the agricultural system comprises:”) an implement including a frame assembly; one or more ground-engaging tools operably supported by the frame assembly; (Hertzog Paragraph 0030: “The plough implement 10 comprises a main frame 12. The main frame 12 may be a rectangular or round tube extending between a headstock 14 at a front end 16 of the plough towards a plough wheel 20 at a rear end 18 of the plough. The main frame 12 supports a variety of ground-engaging tools.”) a vehicle including a power plant; (Hertzog Paragraph 0048: “Although the following generally refers to more conventional internal combustion engines,”) a computing system operably coupled with the vehicle; (Hertzog Paragraph 0021: “In another aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a control unit for use with an agricultural system, wherein the agricultural system comprises: an agricultural work vehicle comprising an engine for moving the agricultural work vehicle; an agricultural implement comprising at least one ground engaging tool; and the control unit is configured to: receive an engine operating parameter representative of an engine output; compare the engine operating parameter to a predetermined first threshold; determine an implement-control-signal for moving the at least one ground engaging tool into an engine recovery state so as to reduce a load based on a result of the comparison.”) (Hertzog Paragraph 0022: “According to another aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a computer program configured to perform any of the above methods or to configure the above control unit The agricultural implement may be a fully-mounted agricultural implement.”) (Hertzog Paragraph 0025: “The agricultural work vehicle (such as a tractor) may include one or more control units, such as but not limited to programmable or non-programmable processors”) and an implement control unit communicatively coupled to the computing system, the implement control unit including a processor and associated memory, the memory storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor, configure the implement control unit to: (Hertzog Paragraph 0025: “The agricultural work vehicle (such as a tractor) may include one or more control units, such as but not limited to programmable or non-programmable processors. Similarly, the agricultural implement may include one or more control units, such as but not limited to programmable or non-programmable processors.”) receive a power band and a torque curve of the power plant from the computing system; (Hertzog Paragraph 0049: “In a first step S102, the method of Figure 3 comprises receiving an engine operating parameter representative of an engine output. In some examples, the engine operating parameter may be an engine speed and/or an engine torque. It will be appreciated that the speed and torque of an engine are related to each other and can be derived from each other on the basis of known engine power characteristics. The engine operating parameters may be obtained by any known sensor associated with the agricultural work vehicle.”) (Hertzog Paragraph 0073: “In scenario B, the agricultural work vehicle is operated continuously at the maximum torque output engine speed of 1,320rpm. In this case, as soon as the load on the work vehicle exceeds the maximum output torque of the engine, the engine speed will fall until engine lugging or stalling occurs as the engine itself does not have sufficient output torque to maintain movement of the engine's flywheel against the increased load experienced by the agricultural vehicle. Again, the control unit will not take remedial action, by transferring one or more of the ground engaging tools into their engine recovery state, until the drop in engine output speed indicates that the engine operates at a speed below the first threshold 202.”) […] determine a defined operating speed for operating the implement in the defined implement mode based at least in part on the power band and the torque curve of the power plant; (Hertzog Paragraph 0078: “In such cases, the only way to avoid stalling or lugging of the engine is to reduce the work vehicle load. Moreover, operating the agricultural machinery at a sub-optimal transmission ratio will have a negative impact on the fuel efficiency and emissions of the work vehicle. The control unit of the present disclosure may, therefore, be configured to transfer one or more of the ground engaging tools into an engine recovery state that will reduce the load on the agricultural work vehicle such that the work vehicle may consistently be operated at a preferred output speed.”) and transfer a speed instruction to the vehicle to operate the vehicle at the defined operating speed. (Hertzog Paragraph 0081: “In another example of the present disclosure, the implement-control-signal may be determined incrementally. For example, the control unit may determine a first implement-control-signal that comprises instructions for an actuator mechanism to remove one of the ground engaging tools from the soil if the engine speed drops below the first threshold 202. The control unit may be configured to monitor the engine output speed after the first implement-control-signal has been provided to the actuator mechanism. If, after the first implement-control-signal has been provided to the actuator mechanism (and thus a first ground engaging tool has been removed from the soil), the control unit determines that the engine speed still does not start to recover, i.e. if the engine speed does not increase, the control unit may determine a second implement-control-signal. The second implement-control-signal may instruct the actuator mechanism to remove a second ground engaging tool from the soil.”)
Hertzog does not teach […] receive an input indicative of a defined implement mode, wherein the defined implement mode is a predefined setting for the implement;
However, Clark does teach […] receive an input indicative of a defined implement mode, wherein the defined implement mode is a predefined setting for the implement; (Clark Paragraph 0029: “The control system may also receive a setting from the operator or control system for establishing the tilt angle and roll angle of the header 102 and implement the inputted settings by controlling associated actuators, not shown, that operate to change the tilt angle and roll angle of the header 102.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog to include […] receive an input indicative of a defined implement mode, wherein the defined implement mode is a predefined setting for the implement; taught by Clark. This would have been for the benefit to provide a system that predicts the necessary power usage or requirement of the main systems of the harvester and the power usage or requirement of the harvester auxiliary systems in order to proactively manage power distribution. For instance, to provide only the required amount or more closely approximate the required amount of power to the auxiliary system, to prevent taking power or to selectively take power from other systems or to prevent other performance deficiencies. [Clark Paragraph 0006]
Regarding claim 19, Hertzog discloses An agricultural system comprising: (Hertzog Paragraph 0021: “In another aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a control unit for use with an agricultural system, wherein the agricultural system comprises:”) an implement including a frame assembly; one or more ground-engaging tools operably supported by the frame assembly; (Hertzog Paragraph 0030: “The plough implement 10 comprises a main frame 12. The main frame 12 may be a rectangular or round tube extending between a headstock 14 at a front end 16 of the plough towards a plough wheel 20 at a rear end 18 of the plough. The main frame 12 supports a variety of ground-engaging tools.”) a vehicle including a power plant; (Hertzog Paragraph 0048: “Although the following generally refers to more conventional internal combustion engines,”) and an implement control unit including a processor and associated memory, the memory storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor, configure the implement control unit to: (Hertzog Paragraph 0025: “The agricultural work vehicle (such as a tractor) may include one or more control units, such as but not limited to programmable or non-programmable processors. Similarly, the agricultural implement may include one or more control units, such as but not limited to programmable or non-programmable processors.”) […] determine a defined operating speed for operating the implement in the defined implement mode based at least in part on a power band and the torque curve of the power plant. (Hertzog Paragraph 0049: “In a first step S102, the method of Figure 3 comprises receiving an engine operating parameter representative of an engine output. In some examples, the engine operating parameter may be an engine speed and/or an engine torque. It will be appreciated that the speed and torque of an engine are related to each other and can be derived from each other on the basis of known engine power characteristics. The engine operating parameters may be obtained by any known sensor associated with the agricultural work vehicle.”) (Hertzog Paragraph 0078: “In such cases, the only way to avoid stalling or lugging of the engine is to reduce the work vehicle load. Moreover, operating the agricultural machinery at a sub-optimal transmission ratio will have a negative impact on the fuel efficiency and emissions of the work vehicle. The control unit of the present disclosure may, therefore, be configured to transfer one or more of the ground engaging tools into an engine recovery state that will reduce the load on the agricultural work vehicle such that the work vehicle may consistently be operated at a preferred output speed.”)
Hertzog does not teach […] receive an input indicative of a defined implement mode, wherein the defined implement mode is a predefined setting for the implement;
However, Clark does teach […] receive an input indicative of a defined implement mode, wherein the defined implement mode is a predefined setting for the implement; (Clark Paragraph 0029: “The control system may also receive a setting from the operator or control system for establishing the tilt angle and roll angle of the header 102 and implement the inputted settings by controlling associated actuators, not shown, that operate to change the tilt angle and roll angle of the header 102.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog to include […] receive an input indicative of a defined implement mode, wherein the defined implement mode is a predefined setting for the implement; taught by Clark. This would have been for the benefit to provide a system that predicts the necessary power usage or requirement of the main systems of the harvester and the power usage or requirement of the harvester auxiliary systems in order to proactively manage power distribution. For instance, to provide only the required amount or more closely approximate the required amount of power to the auxiliary system, to prevent taking power or to selectively take power from other systems or to prevent other performance deficiencies. [Clark Paragraph 0006]
7. Claim(s) 2-7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog (EP 3837941 A1) in view of Clark (EP 4256942 A1) and further in view of Young (US 20230104698 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hertzog in view of Clark teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Hertzog in view of Clark does not teach The agricultural system of claim 1, further comprising: a sensor system operably coupled with the implement.
However, Young does teach The agricultural system of claim 1, further comprising: a sensor system operably coupled with the implement. (Young Paragraph 0054: “The lift arm assembly 230 in turn supports an implement interface 270, which includes an implement carrier 272 that can receive and secure various implements to the loader 200 for performing various work tasks and power couplers 274, to which an implement can be coupled for selectively providing power to an implement that might be connected to the loader. Power couplers 274 can provide sources of hydraulic or electric power or both.” Paragraph 0083: “As yet another example, the power machine 400 can include an angle sensor for each pivotable joint of the lift arm of the power machine 400 to determine a current orientation of the lift arm (and implement coupled thereto).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog in view of Clark to include The agricultural system of claim 1, further comprising: a sensor system operably coupled with the implement taught by Young. This would have been for the benefit to provide improvements in the power management of electrically powered power machines to manage (e.g., conserve or optimally allocate) the power of an electrical power source. In this way, for example, the total run-time of the power machine can be increased to complete a work task (e.g., digging) without requiring that the electrical power source to be recharged during the work task. [Young Paragraph 0005]
Regarding claim 3, Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young teaches claim 2, accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated above.
Hertzog in view of Clark does not teach The agricultural system of claim 2, wherein the sensor system is further operably coupled with the vehicle.
However, Young does teach The agricultural system of claim 2, wherein the sensor system is further operably coupled with the vehicle. (Young Paragraph 0083: “As yet another example, the power machine 400 can include a speed sensor or an acceleration sensor (e.g., an accelerometer) to respectively determine a current speed or a current acceleration of the entire power machine 400 or of a component thereof.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog in view of Clark to include The agricultural system of claim 2, wherein the sensor system is further operably coupled with the vehicle taught by Young. This would have been for the benefit to provide improvements in the power management of electrically powered power machines to manage (e.g., conserve or optimally allocate) the power of an electrical power source. In this way, for example, the total run-time of the power machine can be increased to complete a work task (e.g., digging) without requiring that the electrical power source to be recharged during the work task. [Young Paragraph 0005]
Regarding claim 4, Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young teaches claim 3, accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated above.
Hertzog in view of Clark does not teach The agricultural system of claim 3, wherein the sensor system is further configured to generate data indicative of one or more operating parameters.
However, Young does teach The agricultural system of claim 3, wherein the sensor system is further configured to generate data indicative of one or more operating parameters. (Young Paragraph 0038: “Thus, an operational parameter implemented as a power consumption threshold can inform control of one or more electrical actuators or other systems to prevent the one or more electrical actuators or other systems (e.g., the power machine as a whole) from drawing excessive power.”) (Young Paragraph 0040: “In this case, for example, if the present power consumption exceeds a power threshold, then the power machine can decrease the power draw of the drive actuator”) (Note: In order to determine if the power consumption threshold has been met or not the current power consumption must be determined)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog in view of Clark to include The agricultural system of claim 3, wherein the sensor system is further configured to generate data indicative of one or more operating parameters taught by Young. This would have been for the benefit to provide improvements in the power management of electrically powered power machines to manage (e.g., conserve or optimally allocate) the power of an electrical power source. In this way, for example, the total run-time of the power machine can be increased to complete a work task (e.g., digging) without requiring that the electrical power source to be recharged during the work task. [Young Paragraph 0005]
Regarding claim 5, Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young teaches claim 4, accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated above.
Hertzog in view of Clark does not teach The agricultural system of claim 4, wherein the one or more operating parameters includes a current power usage of the vehicle.
However, Young does disclose The agricultural system of claim 4, wherein the one or more operating parameters includes a current power usage of the vehicle. (Young Paragraph 0038: “Thus, an operational parameter implemented as a power consumption threshold can inform control of one or more electrical actuators or other systems to prevent the one or more electrical actuators or other systems (e.g., the power machine as a whole) from drawing excessive power.”) (Young Paragraph 0040: “In this case, for example, if the present power consumption exceeds a power threshold, then the power machine can decrease the power draw of the drive actuator”) (Note: In order to determine if the power consumption threshold has been met or not the current power consumption must be determined)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog in view of Clark to include The agricultural system of claim 4, wherein the one or more operating parameters includes a current power usage of the vehicle taught by Young. This would have been for the benefit to provide improvements in the power management of electrically powered power machines to manage (e.g., conserve or optimally allocate) the power of an electrical power source. In this way, for example, the total run-time of the power machine can be increased to complete a work task (e.g., digging) without requiring that the electrical power source to be recharged during the work task. [Young Paragraph 0005]
Regarding claim 6, Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young teaches claim 5, accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated above.
Hertzog in view of Clark does not teach The agricultural system of claim 5, wherein the control unit is further configured to: receive the current power usage of the vehicle; compare the current power usage of a total vehicle power to a defined power threshold; and determine the defined operating speed based at least in part on the current power usage of the total vehicle power.
However, Young teaches The agricultural system of claim 5, wherein the control unit is further configured to: receive the current power usage of the vehicle; (Young Paragraph 0077: “Thus, for example, the control device 404 can determine a present power consumption for each electrical load of the power machine 400 “) compare the current power usage of a total vehicle power to a defined power threshold; and determine the defined operating speed based at least in part on the current power usage of the total vehicle power. (Young Paragraph 0040: “In this case, for example, if the present power consumption exceeds a power threshold, then the power machine can decrease the power draw of the drive actuator (e.g., thereby slowing the speed of the drive actuator and ground speed of the power machine)”) (Young Paragraph 0114: “limiting maximum speed to below a particular speed threshold (e.g., corresponding to a particular power threshold).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog in view of Clark to include The agricultural system of claim 5, wherein the control unit is further configured to: receive the current power usage of the vehicle; compare the current power usage of a total vehicle power to a defined power threshold; and determine the defined operating speed based at least in part on the current power usage of the total vehicle power taught by Young. This would have been for the benefit to provide improvements in the power management of electrically powered power machines to manage (e.g., conserve or optimally allocate) the power of an electrical power source. In this way, for example, the total run-time of the power machine can be increased to complete a work task (e.g., digging) without requiring that the electrical power source to be recharged during the work task. [Young Paragraph 0005]
Regarding claim 7, Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young teaches claim 6, accordingly, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated above.
Hertzog in view of Clark does not teach The agricultural system of claim 6, wherein the control unit is further configured to set the defined operating speed at a current speed when a current power is at or above the defined power threshold.
However, Young does teach The agricultural system of claim 6, wherein the control unit is further configured to set the defined operating speed at a current speed when a current power is at or above the defined power threshold. (Young Paragraph 0009: “a reduction in power consumption at one or more drive actuators included in a plurality of electrical actuators”) (Young Paragraph 0040: “In this case, for example, if the present power consumption exceeds a power threshold, then the power machine can decrease the power draw of the drive actuator (e.g., thereby slowing the speed of the drive actuator and ground speed of the power machine)”) (Young Paragraph 0041: “In some embodiments, electrical actuators can be controlled to cause a fluctuating movement of an implement or other work element of a power machine over multiple cycles”) (Young Paragraph 0114: “limiting maximum speed to below a particular speed threshold (e.g., corresponding to a particular power threshold).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog in view of Clark to include The agricultural system of claim 6, wherein the control unit is further configured to set the defined operating speed at a current speed when a current power is at or above the defined power threshold taught by Young. This would have been for the benefit to provide improvements in the power management of electrically powered power machines to manage (e.g., conserve or optimally allocate) the power of an electrical power source. In this way, for example, the total run-time of the power machine can be increased to complete a work task (e.g., digging) without requiring that the electrical power source to be recharged during the work task. [Young Paragraph 0005]
Regarding claim 20, Hertzog in view of Clark teaches claim 19, accordingly, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated above.
Hertzog in view of Clark does not teach The agricultural system of claim 19, wherein the control unit is further configured to: compare a current power usage of a total vehicle power to a defined power threshold; and determine the defined operating speed based at least in part on the current power usage of the total vehicle power.
However, Young teaches The agricultural system of claim 19, wherein the control unit is further configured to: compare a current power usage of a total vehicle power to a defined power threshold; and determine the defined operating speed based at least in part on the current power usage of the total vehicle power. (Young Paragraph 0040: “In this case, for example, if the present power consumption exceeds a power threshold, then the power machine can decrease the power draw of the drive actuator (e.g., thereby slowing the speed of the drive actuator and ground speed of the power machine)”) (Young Paragraph 0077: “Thus, for example, the control device 404 can determine a present power consumption for each electrical load of the power machine 400 “) (Young Paragraph 0114: “limiting maximum speed to below a particular speed threshold (e.g., corresponding to a particular power threshold).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog in view of Clark to include The agricultural system of claim 19, wherein the control unit is further configured to: compare a current power usage of a total vehicle power to a defined power threshold; and determine the defined operating speed based at least in part on the current power usage of the total vehicle power taught by Young. This would have been for the benefit to provide improvements in the power management of electrically powered power machines to manage (e.g., conserve or optimally allocate) the power of an electrical power source. In this way, for example, the total run-time of the power machine can be increased to complete a work task (e.g., digging) without requiring that the electrical power source to be recharged during the work task. [Young Paragraph 0005]
8. Claim(s) 8-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog (EP 3837941 A1) in view of Clark (EP 4256942 A1) further in view of Young (US 20230104698 A1) and further in view of (US 5911769 A) to Orbach et al. (hereinafter Orbach).
Regarding claim 8, Hertzog in view of Clark and further in view of Young teaches claim 5, accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated above.
Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young does not teach The agricultural system of claim 5, wherein the one or more operating parameters includes slip data indicative of a wheel slippage condition, and wherein the control unit is further configured to: receive the slip data; and set the defined operating speed below a current speed when a wheel slippage condition exceeds a defined threshold.
However, Orbach teaches The agricultural system of claim 5, wherein the one or more operating parameters includes slip data indicative of a wheel slippage condition, (Orbach Column 11, line number 57-60: “draft operating parameters when excessive slip occurs.”) (Note: In order to determine draft, slip is needed) and wherein the control unit is further configured to: receive the slip data; (Orbach Column 8, line number 44-49: “In a control system equipped for slip control, control circuit 64 also receives a command from command device 102. As described below in relation to FIG. 9, command device 102 is used for turning a slip control function on and off and for setting a slip limit, and is also referred to herein as the slip rocker switch.”) and set the defined operating speed below a current speed when a wheel slippage condition exceeds a defined threshold. (Orbach Column 1, line number 49-58: “Generally, such control systems determine wheel slippage as the difference between the apparent speed and the true ground speed of the tractor. Upon detecting excessive slippage (i.e., when slippage exceeds a threshold), the control system reduces wheel slippage by raising the implement, thereby reducing the draft force on the tractor and increasing the transfer of implement weight onto the tractor to improve traction.”) (Note: Reducing the draft force thus reduces speed of the implement) (Note: defining the operating speed as below the current speed is also determined)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young to include The agricultural system of claim 5, wherein the control unit is further configured to: receive data indicative of a position of the one or more ground-engaging tools and an implement speed; determine a draft force function that is indicative of a resulting draft force for each change in the position of the one or more ground-engaging tools and the implement speed; and determine a calculated power usage for a current speed taught by Orbach. This would have been for the benefit to provide a system for controlling wheel slippage of a vehicle carrying or trailing an implement wherein a control signal is generated in a first manner based upon an operating parameter when a slip signal is below a slip limit, and in a second manner based upon the operating parameter or the amount of slip detected when the slip signal is above a slip limit. [Orbach Column 2, line number 9-14]
Regarding claim 9, Hertzog in view of Clark and further in view of Young teaches claim 5, accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated above.
Hertzog in view of Clark does not teach The agricultural system of claim 5, wherein the control unit is further configured to: receive data indicative of a position of the one or more ground-engaging tools and an implement speed; determine a draft force function that is indicative of a resulting draft force for each change in the position of the one or more ground-engaging tools and the implement speed; and determine a calculated power usage for a current speed.
However, Young does teach […] and determine a calculated power usage for a current speed. (Young Paragraph 0079: “In some embodiments, the control device 404 can determine a present power consumption for the electrical power source of the power machine 400 by adding the present power consumption for each relevant electrical load of the power machine 400. The power can be determined by multiplying current and voltage. Alternatively, the power can be determined by multiplying the torque and speed of a motor.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog in view of Clark to include […] and determine a calculated power usage for a current speed taught by Young. This would have been for the benefit to provide improvements in the power management of electrically powered power machines to manage (e.g., conserve or optimally allocate) the power of an electrical power source. In this way, for example, the total run-time of the power machine can be increased to complete a work task (e.g., digging) without requiring that the electrical power source to be recharged during the work task. [Young Paragraph 0005]
Young does not teach The agricultural system of claim 5, wherein the control unit is further configured to: receive data indicative of a position of the one or more ground-engaging tools and an implement speed; determine a draft force function that is indicative of a resulting draft force for each change in the position of the one or more ground-engaging tools and the implement speed;
However, Orbach does teach The agricultural system of claim 5, wherein the control unit is further configured to: receive data indicative of a position of the one or more ground-engaging tools and an implement speed; (Orbach Column 8, line number 9-13: “control circuit 64 receives signals representative of both the position of implement 44 and either the draft force generated by interaction of implement 44 with the ground”) (Note: Speed is needed to determine the draft force) determine a draft force function that is indicative of a resulting draft force for each change in the position of the one or more ground-engaging tools and the implement speed; (Orbach Column 8, line number 9-13: “control circuit 64 receives signals representative of both the position of implement 44 and either the draft force generated by interaction of implement 44 with the ground or, when implement 44 is in a lifted position, the load exerted by implement 44 on links 40.”) (Note: As the draft force is being calculated it also uses the implement speed)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young to include The agricultural system of claim 5, wherein the control unit is further configured to: receive data indicative of a position of the one or more ground-engaging tools and an implement speed; determine a draft force function that is indicative of a resulting draft force for each change in the position of the one or more ground-engaging tools and the implement speed; taught by Orbach. This would have been for the benefit to provide a system for controlling wheel slippage of a vehicle carrying or trailing an implement wherein a control signal is generated in a first manner based upon an operating parameter when a slip signal is below a slip limit, and in a second manner based upon the operating parameter or the amount of slip detected when the slip signal is above a slip limit. [Orbach Column 2, line number 9-14]
Regarding claim 10, Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young and further in view of Orbach teaches claim 9, accordingly, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated above.
Hertzog does not teach The agricultural system of claim 9, wherein the control unit is further configured to: determine a calibration value based on a difference between the calculated power usage and the current power usage of the vehicle.
However, Clark does teach The agricultural system of claim 9, wherein the control unit is further configured to: determine a calibration value based on a difference between the calculated power usage and the current power usage of the vehicle. (Clark Paragraph 0074: “The predictive map 264 may then be a predictive power map that maps predictive values of one or more power characteristics to different geographic locations in the field. In such an example, the relative power characteristic differences in the georeferenced information map 358 from the prior year can be used by predictive model generator 310 to generate a predictive model that models a relationship between the relative power characteristic differences on the information map 358 and the values of one or more power characteristics sensed by in-situ sensors 308 during the current operation.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog to include The agricultural system of claim 9, wherein the control unit is further configured to: determine a calibration value based on a difference between the calculated power usage and the current power usage of the vehicle taught by Clark. This would have been for the benefit to provide a system that predicts the necessary power usage or requirement of the main systems of the harvester and the power usage or requirement of the harvester auxiliary systems in order to proactively manage power distribution. For instance, to provide only the required amount or more closely approximate the required amount of power to the auxiliary system, to prevent taking power or to selectively take power from other systems or to prevent other performance deficiencies. [Clark Paragraph 0006]
Regarding claim 11, Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young further in view of Orbach teaches claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated above.
Hertzog in view of Clark does not teach The agricultural system of claim 10, wherein the control unit is further configured to: update the defined operating speed based on the calibration value to determine an estimated power usage of the defined operating speed.
However, Young does teach The agricultural system of claim 10, wherein the control unit is further configured to: update the defined operating speed based on the calibration value to determine an estimated power usage of the defined operating speed. (Young Paragraph 0108: “In some cases, a computing device can otherwise modify input commands (e.g., operator commands for position, speed, torque, etc.) so that appropriate operation of an actuator may proceed, but with a lower power consumption than would otherwise correspond to those same input commands.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog in view of Clark to include The agricultural system of claim 10, wherein the control unit is further configured to: update the defined operating speed based on the calibration value to determine an estimated power usage of the defined operating speed taught by Young. This would have been for the benefit to provide selecting a power management mode can include a control device: identifying one or more operational conditions of a power machine; and based on identifying the one or more operational conditions, automatically selecting a corresponding power management mode from a plurality of power management modes. [Young Paragraph 0015]
Regarding claim 13, Hertzog discloses A method for operating an agricultural system, the method comprising: (Hertzog Paragraph 0008: “According to an aspect of the present invention, there is provided a computer-implemented method for controlling agricultural machinery”) receiving, from a computing system, (Hertzog Paragraph 0025: “The agricultural work vehicle (such as a tractor) may include one or more control units, such as but not limited to programmable or non-programmable processors. Similarly, the agricultural implement may include one or more control units, such as but not limited to programmable or non-programmable processors.”) a power band and a torque curve of a power plant from the computing system; (Hertzog Paragraph 0049: “In a first step S102, the method of Figure 3 comprises receiving an engine operating parameter representative of an engine output. In some examples, the engine operating parameter may be an engine speed and/or an engine torque. It will be appreciated that the speed and torque of an engine are related to each other and can be derived from each other on the basis of known engine power characteristics. The engine operating parameters may be obtained by any known sensor associated with the agricultural work vehicle.”) (Hertzog Paragraph 0073: “In scenario B, the agricultural work vehicle is operated continuously at the maximum torque output engine speed of 1,320rpm. In this case, as soon as the load on the work vehicle exceeds the maximum output torque of the engine, the engine speed will fall until engine lugging or stalling occurs as the engine itself does not have sufficient output torque to maintain movement of the engine's flywheel against the increased load experienced by the agricultural vehicle. Again, the control unit will not take remedial action, by transferring one or more of the ground engaging tools into their engine recovery state, until the drop in engine output speed indicates that the engine operates at a speed below the first threshold 202.”) determining, with a control unit communicatively coupled with the computing system, a defined operating speed for operating an implement based at least in part on the power band and the torque curve of the power plant; (Hertzog Paragraph 0078: “In such cases, the only way to avoid stalling or lugging of the engine is to reduce the work vehicle load. Moreover, operating the agricultural machinery at a sub-optimal transmission ratio will have a negative impact on the fuel efficiency and emissions of the work vehicle. The control unit of the present disclosure may, therefore, be configured to transfer one or more of the ground engaging tools into an engine recovery state that will reduce the load on the agricultural work vehicle such that the work vehicle may consistently be operated at a preferred output speed.”) transferring a speed instruction from the control unit to a vehicle to operate the vehicle at the defined operating speed; (Hertzog Paragraph 0081: “In another example of the present disclosure, the implement-control-signal may be determined incrementally. For example, the control unit may determine a first implement-control-signal that comprises instructions for an actuator mechanism to remove one of the ground engaging tools from the soil if the engine speed drops below the first threshold 202. The control unit may be configured to monitor the engine output speed after the first implement-control-signal has been provided to the actuator mechanism. If, after the first implement-control-signal has been provided to the actuator mechanism (and thus a first ground engaging tool has been removed from the soil), the control unit determines that the engine speed still does not start to recover, i.e. if the engine speed does not increase, the control unit may determine a second implement-control-signal. The second implement-control-signal may instruct the actuator mechanism to remove a second ground engaging tool from the soil.”)
Hertzog does not disclose […] receiving, from the computing system, data indicative of a position of one or more ground-engaging tools and an implement speed; determining, with the control unit, a draft force function that is indicative of a resulting draft force for each change in the position of the one or more ground-engaging tools and the implement speed; determining, with the control unit, a calculated power usage for a current speed; determining, with the control unit, a calibration value based on a difference between the calculated power usage and the current power usage of the vehicle; and updating, with the control unit, the defined operating speed based on the calibration value to determine an estimated power usage of the defined operating speed.
However, Clark does teach […] determining, with the control unit, a calibration value based on a difference between the calculated power usage and the current power usage of the vehicle; (Clark Paragraph 0074: “The predictive map 264 may then be a predictive power map that maps predictive values of one or more power characteristics to different geographic locations in the field. In such an example, the relative power characteristic differences in the georeferenced information map 358 from the prior year can be used by predictive model generator 310 to generate a predictive model that models a relationship between the relative power characteristic differences on the information map 358 and the values of one or more power characteristics sensed by in-situ sensors 308 during the current operation.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog to include teach […] determining, with the control unit, a calibration value based on a difference between the calculated power usage and the current power usage of the vehicle; taught by Clark. This would have been for the benefit to provide a system that predicts the necessary power usage or requirement of the main systems of the harvester and the power usage or requirement of the harvester auxiliary systems in order to proactively manage power distribution. For instance, to provide only the required amount or more closely approximate the required amount of power to the auxiliary system, to prevent taking power or to selectively take power from other systems or to prevent other performance deficiencies. [Clark Paragraph 0006]
Clark does not teach […] receiving, from the computing system, data indicative of a position of one or more ground-engaging tools and an implement speed; determining, with the control unit, a draft force function that is indicative of a resulting draft force for each change in the position of the one or more ground-engaging tools and the implement speed; […] and updating, with the control unit, the defined operating speed based on the calibration value to determine an estimated power usage of the defined operating speed.
However, Young does teach […] determining, with the control unit, a calculated power usage for a current speed; (Young Paragraph 0079: “In some embodiments, the control device 404 can determine a present power consumption for the electrical power source of the power machine 400 by adding the present power consumption for each relevant electrical load of the power machine 400. The power can be determined by multiplying current and voltage. Alternatively, the power can be determined by multiplying the torque and speed of a motor.”) […] and updating, with the control unit, the defined operating speed based on the calibration value to determine an estimated power usage of the defined operating speed. (Young Paragraph 0108: “In some cases, a computing device can otherwise modify input commands (e.g., operator commands for position, speed, torque, etc.) so that appropriate operation of an actuator may proceed, but with a lower power consumption than would otherwise correspond to those same input commands.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog in view of Clark to include […] determining, with the control unit, a calculated power usage for a current speed; […] and updating, with the control unit, the defined operating speed based on the calibration value to determine an estimated power usage of the defined operating speed taught by Young. This would have been for the benefit to provide selecting a power management mode can include a control device: identifying one or more operational conditions of a power machine; and based on identifying the one or more operational conditions, automatically selecting a corresponding power management mode from a plurality of power management modes. [Young Paragraph 0015]
Young does not teach […] receiving, from the computing system, data indicative of a position of one or more ground-engaging tools and an implement speed; determining, with the control unit, a draft force function that is indicative of a resulting draft force for each change in the position of the one or more ground-engaging tools and the implement speed;
However, Orbach does teach […] receiving, from the computing system, data indicative of a position of one or more ground-engaging tools and an implement speed; (Orbach Column 8, line number 9-13: “control circuit 64 receives signals representative of both the position of implement 44 and either the draft force generated by interaction of implement 44 with the ground”) (Note: Speed is needed to determine the draft force) determining, with the control unit, a draft force function that is indicative of a resulting draft force for each change in the position of the one or more ground-engaging tools and the implement speed; (Orbach Column 8, line number 9-13: “control circuit 64 receives signals representative of both the position of implement 44 and either the draft force generated by interaction of implement 44 with the ground or, when implement 44 is in a lifted position, the load exerted by implement 44 on links 40.”) (Note: As the draft force is being calculated it also uses the implement speed)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young to include […] receiving, from the computing system, data indicative of a position of one or more ground-engaging tools and an implement speed; determining, with the control unit, a draft force function that is indicative of a resulting draft force for each change in the position of the one or more ground-engaging tools and the implement speed; taught by Orbach. This would have been for the benefit to provide a system for controlling wheel slippage of a vehicle carrying or trailing an implement wherein a control signal is generated in a first manner based upon an operating parameter when a slip signal is below a slip limit, and in a second manner based upon the operating parameter or the amount of slip detected when the slip signal is above a slip limit. [Orbach Column 2, line number 9-14]
Regarding claim 14, Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young further in view of Orbach teaches claim 13, accordingly, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated above.
Hertzog in view of Clark does not teach The method of claim 13, further comprising: receiving, from the computing system, a current power usage of the vehicle; comparing, with the control unit, the current power usage of a total vehicle power to a defined power threshold; and determining, with the control unit, the defined operating speed based at least in part on the current power usage of the total vehicle power.
However, Young teaches The method of claim 13, further comprising: receiving, from the computing system, a current power usage of the vehicle; (Young Paragraph 0021: “control device, one or more electronic control signals to one or more electrical actuators to cause an orientation of an implement of the power machine to automatically fluctuate”) (Young Paragraph 0077: “Thus, for example, the control device 404 can determine a present power consumption for each electrical load of the power machine 400 “) comparing, with the control unit, the current power usage of a total vehicle power to a defined power threshold; and determining, with the control unit, the defined operating speed based at least in part on the current power usage of the total vehicle power. (Young Paragraph 0040: “In this case, for example, if the present power consumption exceeds a power threshold, then the power machine can decrease the power draw of the drive actuator (e.g., thereby slowing the speed of the drive actuator and ground speed of the power machine)”) (Young Paragraph 0114: “limiting maximum speed to below a particular speed threshold (e.g., corresponding to a particular power threshold).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog in view of Clark to include The method of claim 13, further comprising: receiving, from the computing system, a current power usage of the vehicle; comparing, with the control unit, the current power usage of a total vehicle power to a defined power threshold; and determining, with the control unit, the defined operating speed based at least in part on the current power usage of the total vehicle power taught by Young. This would have been for the benefit to provide improvements in the power management of electrically powered power machines to manage (e.g., conserve or optimally allocate) the power of an electrical power source. In this way, for example, the total run-time of the power machine can be increased to complete a work task (e.g., digging) without requiring that the electrical power source to be recharged during the work task. [Young Paragraph 0005]
Regarding claim 15, Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young further in view of Orbach teaches claim 13, accordingly, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated above.
Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young does not teach The method of claim 13, further comprising: receiving, from the computing system, slip data; and setting, with the control unit, the defined operating speed below a current speed when a wheel slippage condition exceeds a defined threshold.
However, Orbach does teach The method of claim 13, further comprising: receiving, from the computing system, slip data; (Orbach Column 8, line number 44-49: “In a control system equipped for slip control, control circuit 64 also receives a command from command device 102. As described below in relation to FIG. 9, command device 102 is used for turning a slip control function on and off and for setting a slip limit, and is also referred to herein as the slip rocker switch.”) Orbach Column 11, line number 57-60: “draft operating parameters when excessive slip occurs.”) (Note: In order to determine draft, slip is needed) and setting, with the control unit, the defined operating speed below a current speed when a wheel slippage condition exceeds a defined threshold. (Orbach Column 1, line number 49-58: “Generally, such control systems determine wheel slippage as the difference between the apparent speed and the true ground speed of the tractor. Upon detecting excessive slippage (i.e., when slippage exceeds a threshold), the control system reduces wheel slippage by raising the implement, thereby reducing the draft force on the tractor and increasing the transfer of implement weight onto the tractor to improve traction.”) (Note: Reducing the draft force thus reduces speed of the implement) (Note: defining the operating speed as below the current speed is also determined)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young to include The method of claim 13, further comprising: receiving, from the computing system, slip data; and setting, with the control unit, the defined operating speed below a current speed when a wheel slippage condition exceeds a defined threshold taught by Orbach. This would have been for the benefit to provide a system for controlling wheel slippage of a vehicle carrying or trailing an implement wherein a control signal is generated in a first manner based upon an operating parameter when a slip signal is below a slip limit, and in a second manner based upon the operating parameter or the amount of slip detected when the slip signal is above a slip limit. [Orbach Column 2, line number 9-14]
9. Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog (EP 3837941 A1) in view of Clark (EP 4256942 A1) further in view of Young (US 20230104698 A1) further in view of (US 5911769 A) to Orbach et al. (hereinafter Orbach) and further in view of (US 20200156470 A1) to Stanhope et al. (hereinafter Stanhope).
Regarding claim 12, Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young and further in view of Orbach teaches claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated above.
Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young and further in view of Orbach does not teach The agricultural system of claim 10, wherein the control unit is further configured to: compare the defined operating speed to an implement speed limit; and set the defined operating speed to the implement speed limit if the defined operating speed is greater than the implement speed limit.
However, Stanhope does teach The agricultural system of claim 10, wherein the control unit is further configured to: compare the defined operating speed to an implement speed limit; (Stanhope Paragraph 0051: “Additionally, in one embodiment, the operator may set minimum and/or maximum travel speed limits for the vehicle/implement 10/12.”) (Stanhope Paragraph 0051: “initiate active adjustments to the travel speed of the vehicle/implement 10/12 when the monitored ground contact metric fall outside of the range.”) and set the defined operating speed to the implement speed limit if the defined operating speed is greater than the implement speed limit. (Stanhope Paragraph 0051: “operator may set minimum and/or maximum travel speed limits for the vehicle/implement 10/12. In such embodiment, the vehicle and/or implement controller(s) 108, 114 may be configured to initiate active adjustments of the travel speed of the vehicle/implement 10/12 based on the monitored ground contact metric so long as the travel speed remains above the minimum travel speed limit and/or below the maximum travel speed limit. Alternatively, as the vehicle/implement 10/12 makes the first pass, the vehicle controller(s) 108 may, itself, be configured to monitor the ground contact metric relative to the predetermined ground contact metric range and initiate active adjustments to the travel speed of the vehicle/implement 10/12 when the monitored ground contact metric fall outside of the range.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young and further in view of Orbach to include The agricultural system of claim 10, wherein the control unit is further configured to: compare the defined operating speed to an implement speed limit; and set the defined operating speed to the implement speed limit if the defined operating speed is greater than the implement speed limit taught by Stanhope. This would have been for the benefit to provide a more efficient system for pre-emptively adjusting machine parameters based on predicted field conditions.[Stanhope Paragraph 0007]
Regarding claim 18, Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young and further in view of Orbach teaches claim 13, accordingly, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated above.
Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young and further in view of Orbach does not teach The method of claim 13, further comprising: comparing, with the control unit, the defined operating speed to an implement speed limit; and setting, with the control unit, the defined operating speed to the implement speed limit if the defined operating speed is greater than the implement speed limit.
However, Stanhope does teach The method of claim 13, further comprising: comparing, with the control unit, the defined operating speed to an implement speed limit; (Stanhope Paragraph 0051: “Additionally, in one embodiment, the operator may set minimum and/or maximum travel speed limits for the vehicle/implement 10/12.”) (Stanhope Paragraph 0051: “initiate active adjustments to the travel speed of the vehicle/implement 10/12 when the monitored ground contact metric fall outside of the range.”) and setting, with the control unit, the defined operating speed to the implement speed limit if the defined operating speed is greater than the implement speed limit. (Stanhope Paragraph 0051: “operator may set minimum and/or maximum travel speed limits for the vehicle/implement 10/12. In such embodiment, the vehicle and/or implement controller(s) 108, 114 may be configured to initiate active adjustments of the travel speed of the vehicle/implement 10/12 based on the monitored ground contact metric so long as the travel speed remains above the minimum travel speed limit and/or below the maximum travel speed limit. Alternatively, as the vehicle/implement 10/12 makes the first pass, the vehicle controller(s) 108 may, itself, be configured to monitor the ground contact metric relative to the predetermined ground contact metric range and initiate active adjustments to the travel speed of the vehicle/implement 10/12 when the monitored ground contact metric fall outside of the range.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertzog in view of Clark further in view of Young and further in view of Orbach to include The method of claim 13, further comprising: comparing, with the control unit, the defined operating speed to an implement speed limit; and setting, with the control unit, the defined operating speed to the implement speed limit if the defined operating speed is greater than the implement speed limit taught by Stanhope. This would have been for the benefit to provide a more efficient system for pre-emptively adjusting machine parameters based on predicted field conditions. [Stanhope Paragraph 0007]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. 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.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664