DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statement has been received and considered..
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: at para 0020 of the corresponding U.S. 2025/0353478 Publication “74.3” should be changed to “70.3”..
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14-17 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 14 the limitation “the slave controller” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 15 the limitation “the master controller” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13,14,18,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucchino et al. 10,710,566 in view of U.S. Publication 2018/0304877 to Ciarrocchi and Fay 11,708,106.
Regarding claim 13 Lucchino shows a brake system capable of providing redundant control (col 4 around line 30; valve 24) of a parking brake (see cols 1 and 2 in their entirety) which includes:
a hydraulic pressure source (not shown but connected to outlet 27—col 8 lines 20-23) of higher pressure hydraulic fluid; a hydraulic pressure return 33,34 for receiving lower pressure hydraulic fluid, the lower pressure hydraulic fluid being at a lower pressure than the higher pressure hydraulic fluid; a parking brake 11 configured to apply a braking force to at least one of the ground engaging units, the parking brake being configured to be released by application of the higher pressure hydraulic fluid to the parking brake; a hydraulic fluid supply line (not labeled but line connected to port 22) communicated with the parking brake; an electrically operated hydraulic fluid supply valve 24 and/or 26 shiftable between a supply position communicating the supply line with the hydraulic pressure source, and a return position communicating the supply line with the hydraulic pressure return 33,34; and an electrically operated selectable check valve 23 disposed in the supply line between the supply valve 24,26 and the parking brake, the check valve 23 being shiftable between a checking position permitting hydraulic fluid flow from the supply valve to the parking brake and preventing hydraulic fluid flow from the parking brake to the supply valve 24,26, and an open position communicating the supply valve 24,26 with the parking brake; wherein the method comprises: in a primary operational control mode placing the check valve 23 in its checking position and ‘controlling operation’ of the parking brake by moving the supply valve 24 or 26 between its supply position and return position (as broadly claimed).
As stated in col 9 lines 55+ over to col 11 note the different driving modes in which the valves 23,24 and 26 can shift positions.
Lacking in Lucchino is a specific showing of a windrower vehicle and the pump connected to outlet port 27.
The reference to Fay is relied upon to show a windrower vehicle to which the brake system of Lucchino is capable of use with and Ciarrocchi is relied upon to show a nearly identical brake system to that of Lucchino but shows the pump at 19.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have utilize a brake system taught by Lucchino with a windrower, as shown by Fay, since Lucchino indicates in columns 1 and 2 that the brake system may be utilized with these types of vehicles.
Further, since Lucchino indicates that pump could be used at port 27 it would have been obvious to have used a pump there as shown more explicitly by Ciarrocchi at 19.
Regarding claim 14 these limitations are capable of being met should either of supply valves 24 or 26 fail.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, as broadly claimed, as discussed in columns 9-11 of Lucchino these limitations are capable of being met.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed.
Claims 15-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
6/23/26
Prosecution Insights