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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on December 1, 2025. Claims 5 and 15 have been cancelled and claims 1-4, 6-14 and 16-20 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
The previous nonstatutory double patenting rejections of claims 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20 are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claims 1 and 11.
Applicant's arguments filed December 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The previous rejections of claims 1-4, 6-14 and 16-20 under U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Regarding amended claims 1 and 11, applicant claims that Grotelueschen fails to teach “wherein the body includes a residue system, and wherein the programming instructions that instruct the one or more processor to enable operation of the propulsion input device in response to receipt of the second input include programming instructions that instruct the one or more processor to configure the residue system into a first configuration,” as recited in amended claim 1 (Applicant’s Remarks pg. 9 last paragraph). However, this limitation is taught by the combination of Buerkle and Grotelueschen as provided in the previous rejection. Buerkle discloses a second input received from the operator station to enable operation of a propulsion input device (¶ [0019]) but fails to disclose that the second input further adjusts a residue system into a first configuration. Grotelueschen teaches controlling one or more actuating cylinders that raise or lower a residue system via controls in the operator cabin (¶ [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that combining the input for enabling a propulsion device with the control for raising a residue system would have the predicted result of an input that both enables a propulsion device and raises or lowers a residue system.
Applicant claims that the motivation provided for combining Buerkle and Grotelueschen is entirely conclusory with a lack of any evidentiary support (Applicant Remarks pg. 10 last paragraph). However, Grotelueschen provides a motivation for including inputs for controlling a residue management system with the stated benefit of lower resource, time, and labor costs while performing agricultural operations (¶ [0002]). This motivation is an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning and thus establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143.01(IV) and 2144(II)). Further, MPEP 2144(IV) states that “the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.” Therefore, the reason for combining the teachings of Buerkle and Grotelueschen may be motivated for reasons that are not the same as those provided in the instant application, though examiner claims that using a single input to perform two operations, enabling a propulsion unit and raising a residue system, would save time while performing agricultural operations.
Applicant further claims that the rejection is premised entirely on impermissible hindsight reconstruction (Applicant Remarks pg. 11 last paragraph). However, MPEP 2145(X)(A) states that “[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.” Buerkle and Grotelueschen teach or suggest the limitations of amended claim 1. Thus, a person with knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made could have combined the teachings of Buerkle and Grotelueschen to come to the claimed invention based on the motivation suggested by Grotelueschen and without knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure.
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 1 and 11 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 1 recites the limitation "wherein the programming instructions that instruct the one or more processor to enable operation of the propulsion input device in response to receipt of the second input" in the last paragraph of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "wherein enabling operation of the propulsion input device in response to the second input" in the last paragraph of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 2 and 12 do not further limit claims 1 and 11 from which they respectively depend. Claims 2 and 12 recite programming instructions to enable operation of a propulsion input device in response to a second input which is a limitation included in amended claims 1 and 11. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-4, 6-8, 11-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 103 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150047918 by Buerkle et al. (hereafter "Buerkle"), in view of US 20150040528 by Grotelueschen et al. (hereafter "Grotelueschen").
Regarding claim 1, Buerkle discloses a vehicle comprising: a frame (Buerkle: tractor 13 in Fig. 1);
a ground engaging component coupled to the frame, the ground engaging component configured to move the agricultural harvester over a surface (Buerkle: wheels 56L and 56R in Fig. 1);
a propulsion system configured to drive the ground engaging component (Buerkle ¶ [0012]: a tractor having a propulsion system which includes an engine 51 which rotationally drives hydrostatic transmission 52; Fig. 3);
a propulsion input device (Buerkle: positioning controls 11 in Figs. 1-3) in communication with the propulsion system and configured to receive input to control operation of the propulsion system (Buerkle ¶ [0023]: if the forward or reverse switch is actuated, the controller 20 commands the propulsion system to move the tractor 13 in forward or reverse), the propulsion input device accessible from an exterior of the body (Buerkle ¶ [0010]: a tractor positioning system 10 may include positioning controls 11 located on the outer surface of the tractor 13 outside the operator station. For example, the positioning controls 11 may be located at the rear of the tractor 13);
an electronic controller including: one or more processors (Buerkle ¶ [0014]: An electronic controller 20, such as a microprocessor-based microcontroller, may be signal-connected, through signal conditioning or amplifying circuitry, to solenoid 31 of forward drive proportional pressure control valve 32 and to solenoid 34 of reverse drive proportional pressure control valve 36); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing programming instructions for execution by the one or more processors (Buerkle ¶ [0018]: The controller 20 executes an algorithm 100 represented by FIG. 4. The conversion of this flow chart into a standard language for implementing the algorithm described by the flow chart in a digital computer or microprocessor, will be evident to one with ordinary skill in the art), the programming instructions instruct the one or more processors to:
operate the propulsion system in one of a first configuration to drive the ground engaging component in a first direction or a second configuration to drive the ground engaging component in a second direction, opposite the first direction, in response to a first input received by the propulsion input device, the propulsion system being operated for a duration of time that the propulsion input device receives the first input (Buerkle ¶ [0023]: if the forward or reverse switch is actuated, the controller 20 commands the propulsion system to move the tractor 13 in forward or reverse); and
cease operation of the propulsion system in response to cessation of the first input being applied to the propulsion input device (Buerkle ¶ [0030]: To move the tractor 13 using the positioning system, the operator must continuously actuate the positioning controls 11 which require the operator to remain in direct contact with the controls 11 on the tractor 13. The operator may actuate these controls 11 while standing near the rear of the tractor 13, after exiting the operator station. If the operator discontinues contact with the controls 11 on the tractor 13, the positioning system will cause the tractor 13 to stop moving),
wherein the programming instructions that instruct the one or more processor to enable operation of the propulsion input device in response to receipt of the second input (Buerkle ¶ [0019]: the controller 20 may determine if the positioning enable switch 17 in the operator station of the tractor 13 is actuated).
It is noted Buerkle fails to particularly disclose an agricultural harvester comprising: a body coupled to the frame; wherein the body includes a residue system, and wherein the programming instructions that instruct the one or more processor to enable operation of the propulsion input device in response to receipt of the second input include programming instructions that instruct the one or more processor to configure the residue system into a first configuration.
However, Grotelueschen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an agricultural harvester (Grotelueschen: harvesting vehicle 12 in Fig. 1) comprising:
a frame (Grotelueschen ¶ [0019]: support structures of the vehicle 12);
a body coupled to the frame (Grotelueschen: residue management system 14, operator cabin 26, and storage compartment 32 in Fig. 1);
wherein the body includes a residue system (Grotelueschen: residue management system 14 in Fig. 1), and
wherein the programming instructions that instruct the one or more processor to enable operation of the propulsion input device in response to receipt of the second input include programming instructions that instruct the one or more processor to configure the residue system into a first configuration (Grotelueschen ¶ [0021]: The system 14 is additionally supported by one or more actuating cylinders 60 that provide linear force to enable the residue management system 14 to be lowered or raised. The actuating cylinders 60 (e.g., hydraulic cylinders, pneumatic cylinders, etc.) may be controlled by the operator via controls located in the operator cabin 26).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle positioning system of Buerkle to include the harvesting vehicle including the residue management system and controls of Grotelueschen with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to lower resource, time, and labor cost while performing agricultural operations (Grotelueschen ¶ [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, Buerkle discloses wherein the programming instructions include programming instructions to instruct the one or more processors to enable operation of the propulsion input device in response to receipt of a second input (Buerkle ¶ [0019]: the controller 20 may determine if the positioning enable switch 17 in the operator station of the tractor 13 is actuated).
Regarding claim 3, Buerkle discloses wherein the body includes an operator station (Buerkle ¶ [0004]: a vehicle, such as an agricultural tractor, includes an operator station), and
wherein the second input is received from the operator station (Buerkle ¶ [0019]: the controller 20 may determine if the positioning enable switch 17 in the operator station of the tractor 13 is actuated).
Regarding claim 4, Buerkle fails to particularly disclose wherein the operator station is a cab of the body.
However, Grotelueschen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the operator station is a cab of the body (Grotelueschen ¶ [0019]: An operator cabin 26 is also located at the front end 24 of the vehicle 12, generally above the harvesting units 22, thereby providing a substantially unobstructed view of the harvesting operation).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle positioning system of Buerkle modified by the harvesting vehicle including the residue management system and controls of Grotelueschen to further include the operator cabin of Grotelueschen with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to lower resource, time, and labor cost while performing agricultural operations (Grotelueschen ¶ [0002]) and to provide an unobstructed view of a harvesting operation for an operator (Grotelueschen ¶ [0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Buerkle fails to particularly disclose wherein the programming instructions that instruct the one or more processor to configure the residue system into a first configuration include programming instructions that instruct the one or more processor to cause the residue system to be moved into a raised position.
However, Grotelueschen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the programming instructions that instruct the one or more processor to configure the residue system into a first configuration include programming instructions that instruct the one or more processor to cause the residue system to be moved into a raised position (Grotelueschen ¶ [0021]: The system 14 is additionally supported by one or more actuating cylinders 60 that provide linear force to enable the residue management system 14 to be lowered or raised. The actuating cylinders 60 (e.g., hydraulic cylinders, pneumatic cylinders, etc.) may be controlled by the operator via controls located in the operator cabin 26).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle positioning system of Buerkle modified by the harvesting vehicle including the residue management system and controls of Grotelueschen to explicitly include the configuration that raises the residue management system of Grotelueschen. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to lower resource, time, and labor cost while performing agricultural operations (Grotelueschen ¶ [0002]).
Regarding claim 7, Buerkle discloses wherein the propulsion input device is located on an aft portion of the body of the agricultural harvester (Buerkle ¶ [0010]: a tractor positioning system 10 may include positioning controls 11 located on the outer surface of the tractor 13 outside the operator station. For example, the positioning controls 11 may be located at the rear of the tractor 13).
Regarding claim 8, Buerkle discloses wherein the first direction is a forward direction, and wherein the second direction is a rearward direction (Buerkle ¶ [0023]: if the forward or reverse switch is actuated, the controller 20 commands the propulsion system to move the tractor 13 in forward or reverse).
Claim 11 recites analogous limitations to claim 1, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 12 recites analogous limitations to claim 2, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 13 recites analogous limitations to claim 3, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 14 recites analogous limitations to claim 4, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 16 recites analogous limitations to claim 6, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 17 recites analogous limitations to claim 7, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 18 recites analogous limitations to claim 8, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 103 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150047918 by Buerkle et al. (hereafter "Buerkle"), in view of US 20150040528 by Grotelueschen et al. (hereafter "Grotelueschen "), further in view of US 20130338894 by Olofsson (hereafter “Olofsson”).
Regarding claim 9, Buerkle discloses further comprising a brake system (Buerkle ¶ [0017]: The system 10 also may include a conventional electro-hydraulic brake control valve 80 which is controlled by the controller 20),
wherein the propulsion system includes a transmission (Buerkle ¶ [0012]: a tractor having a propulsion system which includes an engine 51 which rotationally drives hydrostatic transmission 52; Fig. 3), and
wherein the programming instructions that instruct the one or more processors to operate the propulsion system in one of a first configuration to drive the ground engaging component in a first direction or a second configuration to drive the ground engaging component in a second direction, opposite the first direction, in response to the first input received from the input device, the propulsion system being operated for a duration of time that the propulsion input device receives the first input, include programming instructions that instruct the one or more processors to:
operate the transmission to cause the propulsion system to operate in the one of the first configuration and the second configuration for as long as the first input is received from the propulsion system input (Buerkle ¶ [0023]: if the forward or reverse switch is actuated, the controller 20 commands the propulsion system to move the tractor 13 in forward or reverse).
It is noted Buerkle fails to particularly disclose place the brake system in a release condition in which a brake force is not applied.
However, Olofsson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a brake system (Olofsson ¶ [0013]: accelerator pedal operated braking system),
wherein the propulsion system includes a transmission (Olofsson ¶ [0013]: automatic transmission vehicle), and
wherein the programming instructions that instruct the one or more processors to operate the propulsion system in one of a first configuration to drive the ground engaging component in a first direction in response to the first input received from the input device, the propulsion system being operated for a duration of time that the propulsion input device receives the first input (Olofsson ¶ [0085]: a typical floor mounted accelerator pedal, the arc of movement of the pedal as relayed by the engine management system to the control module via cable 122 is divided into first, second and third zones as programmed in the control module 114), include programming instructions that instruct the one or more processors to:
place the brake system in a release condition in which a brake force is not applied (Olofsson ¶ [0087]: The second zone from "B" to "C" represents an arc of movement through a neutral zone in which the brakes are fully released but still within an increase of the engine RPM insufficient to urge the vehicle into motion); and
cause the propulsion system to operate for as long as the first input is received from the propulsion system input (Olofsson ¶ [0087]: The final arc of movement from "C" to "D" represents the angle of movement of the accelerator pedal during which engine RPM can increase to full power). The examiner interprets the floor mounted accelerator pedal of Olofsson to be analogous to each of the positioning controls of Buerkle. Position “C” and position “A” being analogous to receiving a first input and cessation of the first input, respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the brake disengaging functionality of Olofsson to each of the positioning controls of Buerkle.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle positioning system of Buerkle modified by the harvesting vehicle including the residue management system and controls of Grotelueschen to further include the disengaging of a brake system of Olofsson. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to allow a vehicle to come to stop quickly by reducing braking distance in emergency situations (Olofsson ¶ [0006]).
Regarding claim 10, Buerkle fails to particularly disclose wherein the programming instructions that instruct the one or more processors to cease operation of the propulsion system in response to cessation of the first input being applied to the input device include programming instructions that instruct the one or more processors to place the brake system in an engaged condition in which the brake force is applied.
However, Olofsson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the programming instructions that instruct the one or more processors to cease operation of the propulsion system in response to cessation of the first input being applied to the input device include programming instructions that instruct the one or more processors to place the brake system in an engaged condition in which the brake force is applied (Olofsson ¶ [0085]: While the pedal remains at its default zero depressed angle at "A", but with the engine 100 started and the system switched to ON, the braking system of the invention applies maximum braking force to hold the vehicle stationary). The examiner interprets the floor mounted accelerator pedal of Olofsson to be analogous to each of the positioning controls of Buerkle. Position “C” and position “A” being analogous to receiving a first input and cessation of the first input, respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the brake engaging functionality of Olofsson to each of the positioning controls of Buerkle.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle positioning system of Buerkle modified by the harvesting vehicle including the residue management system and controls of Grotelueschen and the disengaging of a brake system of Olofsson to further include the engagement of a brake system of Olofsson. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to allow a vehicle to come to stop quickly by reducing braking distance in emergency situations (Olofsson ¶ [0006]).
Claim 19 recites analogous limitations to claim 9, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 20 recites analogous limitations to claim 10, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
WO 2024040314 discloses a system for moving and stopping an agricultural harvester using a remote control while attaching components.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICHOLAS P LANGHORNE whose telephone number is (571)272-5670. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/N.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666