DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Depestel et al. 20160302360 in view of Pollkas et al. 7721515 and Nishi et al. 20240016087.
Referring to claim 1, Depestel discloses a control system for an agricultural harvester, the harvester including a crop inlet for collecting crop from a pickup assembly connected to the harvester; and a lift assembly for moving the pickup assembly from an operational configuration, in which the pickup assembly is operable to pick up crop from the ground and to convey the picked-up crop to the crop inlet of the harvester, to a non-operational configuration, the control system comprising: a detector (27) for detecting a foreign object in the collected crop; and one or more controllers (80) configured to: receive a signal from the detector that is indicative of a foreign object in the collected crop while the pickup assembly is in the operational configuration and stop rotation of a plurality of infeed rollers in the crop inlet in response to receiving the first signal indicating that the foreign object is in the collected crop (see paragraph 0037): stop movement of the agricultural harvester in response to receiving the first signal indicating that the foreign object is in the collected crop, wherein, when the agricultural harvester is stopped, the agricultural harvester is brought to a standstill (see paragraph 0038). Depestel does not disclose the controller is configured to control a lift assembly to raise the pickup assembly away from the crop on the ground to the non-operational configuration, in response to receiving the first signal or receive a second signal from the detector indicative of detecting an absence of the foreign object: control the lift assembly to lower the pickup assembly to the operational configuration in response to receiving the second signal indicative of the absence of the foreign object: resume the rotation of the plurality of infeed rollers in the crop inlet in response to receiving the second signal indicative of the absence of the foreign object: and resume the movement of the agricultural harvester in response to receiving the second signal indicative of the absence of the foreign object. Pollkas teaches a harvester with a controller (25) configured to control the lift assembly to raise the pickup assembly away from the crop on the ground to the non-operational configuration, in response to receiving the first signal (see col. 7, lines 52-63, and claims 12 and 15, after receiving signal that object is detected the pickup is automatically raised from operational to turnaround position see figure 1D, although lift device is not shown would inherently need some type of device to lift pickup off the ground). Pollkas further teaches the lifting helps to prevent crop material does not pile up (see col. 7, lines 52-60). Nishi teaches a harvester having a control system where after abnormality is resolved the control causing automatic resumption of word (see paragraph 0013) Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control system disclosed by Depestel to have the controller to control a lift assembly to raise the pickup assembly away from the crop on the ground to the non-operational configuration, in response to receiving the first signal and receive a second signal from the detector indicative of detecting an absence of the foreign object: control the lift assembly to lower the pickup assembly to the operational configuration in response to receiving the second signal indicative of the absence of the foreign object: resume the rotation of the plurality of infeed rollers in the crop inlet in response to receiving the second signal indicative of the absence of the foreign object: and resume the movement of the agricultural harvester in response to receiving the second signal indicative of the absence of the foreign object in view of the teachings of Pollkas and Nishi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure crop material does not pile up and that normal harvesting operations resume after determining foreign object has been removed.
Referring to claim 2, Depestel discloses the detector (27) is a metal detector for detecting metallic foreign objects (see paragraph 0034).
Referring to claim 3, Depestel discloses the detector (27) is disposed of at the crop inlet (21) of the harvester.
Referring to claim 4, Depestel discloses the plurality of infeed rollers (22) for collecting the crop at the crop inlet; and wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to stop rotation of the infeed rollers in a collection direction in dependence on the received signal (see paragraph 0037).
Referring to claim 5, Pollkas discloses the one or more controllers (25) are configured to stop rotation of the infeed rollers by operating a driver of the infeed rollers (see col. 5, lines 35-45, rollers are driven so for quick stop to happen device driving the rollers needs to be stopped).
Referring to claim 6, Pollkas teaches the one or more controllers (85) are further configured to raise the pickup assembly to the non-operational configuration at the same time as, or prior to, stopping rotation of the infeed rollers (see col. 7, lines 52-col. 8, line 7).
Referring to claim 7, Depestal discloses the control system is connectable to the pickup assembly, and the one or more controllers are further configured to control the pickup assembly to stop conveying the picked-up crop toward the crop inlet of the harvester in response to receiving the first signal (see paragraph 0037-0038).
Referring to claim 8, Depestal discloses the pickup assembly includes: a reel (11) with pickup tines operable to pick up crop from the ground during active rotation of the reel; and an auger (12) operable to transport the picked-up crop to the crop inlet, wherein the infeed rollers (22) collect the picked-up crop. Pollkas teaches the control system is configured to control the lift assembly to raise the reel of the pickup assembly out of contact with the crop on the ground in the non-operational configuration (see col. 7, lines 52-63 and claim 12).
Referring to claim 9, Depestel discloses the pickup assembly further includes a driver (60) operable to rotate the reel in a pick-up direction and the auger in a collection direction for picking up and transporting the crop; and wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to stop conveying the collected crop toward the crop inlet by controlling the driver to stop rotation of the reel in the pickup direction or the auger in the collection direction (see paragraph 0038).
Referring to claim 10, Pollkas teaches the one or more controllers (25) are configured to control the lift assembly to raise the pickup assembly away from the crop on the ground to the non-operational configuration by lifting or tilting the pickup assembly out of contact with the crop on the ground (see fig. 1d).
Referring to claims 11-12, Depestel discloses a harvesting system comprising: an agricultural harvester comprising: a crop inlet (21) for collecting crop from a pickup assembly connected to the harvester and a pickup assembly (10) attached to the agricultural harvester. Depestal does not disclose a lift assembly for moving the connected pickup assembly from an operational configuration, in which the pickup assembly is operable to pick up crop from the ground and to convey the picked-up crop to the crop inlet of the harvester, to a non-operational configuration; and a control system according to claim 1. Pollkas teaches a harvester with a controller (25) configured to control the lift assembly to raise the pickup assembly away from the crop on the ground to the non-operational configuration, in response to receiving the first signal (see col. 7, lines 52-63, and claims 12 and 15, after receiving signal that object is detected the pickup is automatically raised from operational to turnaround position see figure 1D, although lift device is not shown would inherently need some type of device to lift pickup off the ground). Pollkas further teaches the lifting helps to prevent crop material does not pile up (see col. 7, lines 52-60). Nishi teaches a harvester having a control system where after abnormality is resolved the control causing automatic resumption of word (see paragraph 0013) Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control system disclosed by Depestel to have the controller to control a lift assembly to raise the pickup assembly away from the crop on the ground to the non-operational configuration, in response to receiving the first signal and receive a second signal from the detector indicative of detecting an absence of the foreign object: control the lift assembly to lower the pickup assembly to the operational configuration in response to receiving the second signal indicative of the absence of the foreign object: resume the rotation of the plurality of infeed rollers in the crop inlet in response to receiving the second signal indicative of the absence of the foreign object: and resume the movement of the agricultural harvester in response to receiving the second signal indicative of the absence of the foreign object in view of the teachings of Pollkas and Nishi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure crop material does not pile up and that normal harvesting operations resume after determining foreign object has been removed.
Referring to claim 13, Depestel discloses the pickup assembly comprises: a pickup assembly frame; a reel (11) carried by the pickup assembly frame and configured to pick up crop from the ground; and a feeding auger (12) configured to receive the crop from the reel and to convey the crop towards a crop inlet of the agricultural harvester.
Referring to claim 14, Depestel discloses a method of controlling an agricultural harvester while harvesting, the agricultural harvester including a crop inlet (21) for collecting crop from a pickup assembly (10) connected to the harvester; and the method comprising the steps of: detecting a foreign object in the collected crop ( with detector 27). Depestel does not disclose controlling a lift assembly to raise the pickup assembly away from the crop on the ground to the non-operational configuration, in response to receiving the first signal or receive a second signal from the detector indicative of detecting an absence of the foreign object: control the lift assembly to lower the pickup assembly to the operational configuration in response to receiving the second signal indicative of the absence of the foreign object: resume the rotation of the plurality of infeed rollers in the crop inlet in response to receiving the second signal indicative of the absence of the foreign object: and resume the movement of the agricultural harvester in response to receiving the second signal indicative of the absence of the foreign object. Pollkas teaches a harvester with a controller (25) configured to control the lift assembly to raise the pickup assembly away from the crop on the ground to the non-operational configuration, in response to receiving the first signal (see col. 7, lines 52-63, and claims 12 and 15, after receiving signal that object is detected the pickup is automatically raised from operational to turnaround position see figure 1D, although lift device is not shown would inherently need some type of device to lift pickup off the ground). Pollkas further teaches the lifting helps to prevent crop material does not pile up (see col. 7, lines 52-60). Nishi teaches a harvester having a control system where after abnormality is resolved the control causing automatic resumption of word (see paragraph 0013) Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control system disclosed by Depestel to have the controller to control a lift assembly to raise the pickup assembly away from the crop on the ground to the non-operational configuration, in response to receiving the first signal and receive a second signal from the detector indicative of detecting an absence of the foreign object: control the lift assembly to lower the pickup assembly to the operational configuration in response to receiving the second signal indicative of the absence of the foreign object: resume the rotation of the plurality of infeed rollers in the crop inlet in response to receiving the second signal indicative of the absence of the foreign object: and resume the movement of the agricultural harvester in response to receiving the second signal indicative of the absence of the foreign object in view of the teachings of Pollkas and Nishi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure crop material does not pile up and that normal harvesting operations resume after determining foreign object has been removed..
Referring to claim 15, Depestel discloses the steps of: picking up the crop from the ground by a reel ( 11) of the pickup assembly with pick-up tines; transporting the picked-up crop by an auger (12) of the pickup assembly to the crop inlet of the agricultural harvester; collecting the transported crop by infeed rollers (22) of the agricultural harvester; and in response to detecting the foreign object, stopping one or more of: collecting the transported crop by the infeed rollers; picking up crop from the ground by the reel; and transporting the picked-up crop by the auger to the crop inlet (see paragraph 0037-0038).
Referring to claim 16, Depestel, as modified, discloses the rotation of the plurality of infeed rollers is stopped within 300 milliseconds (see paragraph 0037).
Referring to claim 17, Depestel discloses the rotation of the reel in the pickup direction and the rotation of the auger in the collection direction are simultaneously stopped along with the plurality of infeed rollers (see paragraph 0038).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under Depestel et al. 20160302360 in view of Pollkas et al. 7721515 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Depestel et al. 20160302360 in view of Pollkas et al. 7721515 and Nishi et al. 20240016087.
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 GIOVANNA WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7027. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am- 5 pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/Giovanna Wright/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights