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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Remillard et al. (US 6591598 B2) in view of Dima et al. (US 20190021226 A1).
Regarding independent claims 1, 7, and 16, Remillard discloses an agricultural harvester comprising:
a header (10) comprising:
a frame (11);
a support arm (12) connected to the frame;
a harvesting reel assembly comprising:
a central rotatable shaft (25) connected to the support arm;
a reel member (20) extending widthwise across the harvesting reel assembly and connected to the central rotatable shaft for rotation therewith; and
a first cam assembly (30) connected to and rotatable about a first end of the central rotatable shaft, the first cam assembly comprising:
a first cam plate (30A);
a first non-circular cam track (30C) mounted to the first cam plate and configured to guide rotation of the reel member (Fig. 5); and
a first adjustor (30G) operatively engaged with the first cam plate and pivotably connected to the support arm (lever 30G pivots about axis 26 of tube 32 relative to arm 21), wherein the first adjustor is configured to adjust a rotational position of the first cam assembly relative to the central rotatable shaft (col. 7 lines 45-48);
a cab for an operator of the agricultural harvester, and a control unit operatively in communication with the first adjustor (as suggested in col. 9 lines 14-16 wherein “alternatively mechanical drive linkages can be provided so that the adjustment can be made on the go from the cab”),
wherein the control unit is configured to control the first adjustor to adjust the rotational position of the first cam assembly based on a height of uncut crops in a crop field (col. 3 lines 27-37 teaches pattern can be rotated on the go without stopping based on whether standing or lodged crop is encountered “The cam can be adjusted infinitely with a cylinder, electric linear actuator”. Note that “standing or lodged” crop inherently encompasses a height of uncut crop, i.e. at least two crop heights).
Remillard fails to disclose wherein the height of uncut crop is a particular monitored height of uncut crop provided to the control unit via a crop sensor signal.
In the same area, Dima teaches a similar harvesting reel assembly comprising control unit (46) configured to receive a signal from a crop sensor (e.g. camera 48), wherein the crop sensor is configured to output a signal (78) indicative of crop properties such as “standing, down…and…standing or downed crop height” (para. [0038]) such that “[t]he camera looks onto the standing (or possibly downed) population of the crop 76 in front of the platform 18…and outputs signals 78 during operation that represent the height of the upper surface of the standing crop 76 over ground. This signal 78 is used for controlling reel position…to appropriate values when the reel 52 interacts with the crop 76 at the position at which the sensor 48 has produced the signal 78” (para. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar crop height sensor for providing a particular monitored crop height signal of the standing or downed crop to the control unit of Remillard, as taught by Dima, in order to provide an automatic adjustment system for controlling reel settings (i.e. the first adjustor and the first cam assembly) based on detected crop height to optimize harvesting performance and reduce operator work.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, The combination of Remillard discloses the harvesting reel assembly of claim 1 and 7, and further wherein the first cam assembly (30) comprises a fore-aft adjustor (34) operatively engaged with the first cam plate (30A) and configured to adjust a fore-aft position of the first cam assembly relative to the agricultural harvester (moves along adjustment openings 21C in arm 21 as seen in Fig. 5 and described in col. 7 lines 25-29. Note col. 3 lines 9-11 also teaches wherein the “cam shown can be made to be moved hydraulically fore and aft along the length of the reel support arms with cylinders”).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, The combination of Remillard discloses the harvesting reel assembly of claim 1 and 7, wherein the first cam assembly (30) comprises a height adjustor (23) operatively engaged with the first cam plate (30A) and configured to adjust a height of the first cam assembly relative to the agricultural harvester (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Remillard discloses the header of claim 8, wherein the fore-aft adjustor may be a cylinder (col. 3 lines 9-11), but does not explicitly detail wherein the control unit is configured to control the fore-aft adjustor to adjust the fore-aft position of the first cam and thus reel assembly based on the particular monitored height of the uncut crops in the field.
However, Dima discloses a control unit (46) for controlling a reel fore-aft adjustor (68) in response to a detected crop height signal (para. [0038-0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the automatic control system of the combination to further control the fore-aft adjustor and thus a fore-aft position of the reel based on the detected crop height, as taught by Dima, in order to provide optimal crop pick-up for a given crop height (Dima para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Remillard discloses the header of claim 10, but does not explicitly detail wherein the control unit is configured to control the height adjustor to adjust the height of the first cam and thus reel assembly based on the particular monitored height of the uncut crops in the field.
However, Dima discloses a control unit (46) for controlling a reel height adjustor (58) in response to a detected crop height signal (para. [0038-0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the automatic control system of the combination to further control the height adjustor and thus the reel height based on the detected crop height, as taught by Dima, in order to provide optimal crop pick-up for a given crop height (Dima para. [0038]).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, The combination of Remillard discloses the harvesting reel assembly of claim 1, 7, and 16, further comprising a locking mechanism (coupling/clamping mechanism disclosed in col. 7 lines 1-8 of Remillard) configured to maintain the rotational position of the first cam assembly.
Regarding claims 12 and 18, The combination of Remillard discloses the header of claim 7 and 16, wherein the first cam assembly (30) comprises:
a fore-aft adjustor configured to adjust a fore-aft position (34) of the first cam assembly relative to the agricultural harvester (along adjustment openings 21C in arm 21), wherein the fore-aft adjustor is operatively engaged with the first cam plate (30A) (Fig. 5, col. 7 lines 25-29, note col. 3 lines 9-11 also teaches wherein the “cam shown can be made to be moved hydraulically fore and aft along the length of the reel support arms with cylinders”); and
a height adjustor (23) configured to adjust a height of the first cam assembly relative to the agricultural harvester (Fig. 1), wherein the height adjustor is operatively engaged with the first cam plate (30A).
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Remillard discloses the header of claim 12, but does not explicitly detail wherein the control unit is configured to control the height adjustor to adjust the height of the first cam assembly and the fore-aft adjustor (disclosed as a cylinder in col. 3 lines 9-11) to adjust the fore-aft position of the first cam assembly based on the particular monitored height of the uncut crops in the field.
However, Dima discloses a control unit (46) for controlling a reel height adjustor (58) and a reel fore-aft adjustor (68) in response to a detected crop height signal (para. [0038-0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the automatic control system of the combination to further control the height and fore-aft adjustor based on the detected crop height, as taught by Dima, in order to adjust reel position accordingly to provide optimal crop pick-up for a given crop height (Dima para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Remillard discloses the agricultural harvester of claim 16, further comprising a control panel operatively connected to the header and configured to operate the first adjustor, wherein the control unit is operatively in communication with the control panel (implicit from col. 9 lines 14-16, mechanical drive linkages can be provided so that the adjustment can be made by an operator on the go from the cab). Note Dima in para. [0029,0037] also discloses an operator panel (44) in the operator cab (38) in communication with the control unit (46) for controlling actuators (58,68,98,102).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Remillard in view of Dima as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Coers et al. (US 6170244 B1).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, The combination of Remillard discloses the harvesting reel assembly of claim 1 and 7, but does not explicitly detail a second cam assembly on a second end of the central rotatable shaft opposite the first end of the central rotatable shaft.
However, Coers teaches that it is old and well-known to use a pair of cams disposed at each end of a reel (24) in order to control the angular position of the tines (48) (col. 3 lines 21-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a second cam assembly at the second end of the central rotatable shaft of Remillard having the same structural features as the first cam assembly, as Coers teaches that the use of two cam assemblies for controlling the angular position of the fingers is an old and well known in the art of harvesting as an alternative to a single cam assembly (Coers at col. 1 lines 63-65).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Remillard in view of Dima as applied to claims 1, 7, and 16 above, and further in view of Yasuno et al. (JP S63173517 A).
It is noted that all citations to Yasuno et al. (JP S63173517 A) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding claims 21-23, The combination of Remillard discloses the harvesting reel assembly of claims 1, 7, and 16, but does not explicitly detail wherein the control unit controls the first adjustor in adjusting the rotational position of the first cam assembly in response to a change in a position of the harvesting reel assembly.
However, adjusting finger pitch in response to a change in position of the harvesting reel assembly is old and known.
In the same area, Yasuno discloses a harvesting reel (20) comprising a plurality of finger tines (27) (Fig. 1), wherein a control unit controls a first adjustor (45) in adjusting the rotational position of a first cam assembly (37, Fig. 4) in order to change a pitch angle (λ) of the tine in response to a change in position of the harvesting reel assembly (top-middle of page 6 teaches potentiometer 49 detects height of reel 20, wherein the detected reel height from the potentiometer 49 is fed to control box 60 which expands and retracts cylinder 45 to automatically rotate cam plate 37 to adjust the angle of the tines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the first adjustor in adjusting the rotational position of the first cam assembly in response to a change in a position of the harvesting reel assembly, as taught by Yasuno, as such a measure of reel height can be representative of crop height (see Yasuno top of page 7, reel height adjusted based on crop height), and is therefore a mere simple substitution of one basis for adjusting finger pitch for another to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1, 7, and 16, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“While Remillard discloses that "[t]he pattern can be . . . rotated for different crop conditions, that is standing or lodged", Remillard does not appear to disclose adjusting the rotational position of the cam assembly based on a particular monitored height of uncut crops in a crop field…as recited by independent claim 1” (Applicant’s Remarks page 10).
“Dima does not appear to obviate the deficiencies of Remillard. Instead, Dima appears to disclose controlling reel position and speed based on the height of standing crops…Dima does not appear to disclose adjusting a rotational position of a cam assembly based on the height of standing crops and/or crop properties and/or orientations” (Applicant’s Remarks pages 10-11).
Regarding (a), Applicant argues the references individually rather than the combination of references. Adjusting the rotational position of a cam assembly of a reel (“[i]n order to adjust the finger pitch”, col. 7 lines 56-57) based on whether standing or downed crop is encountered is taught by Remillard (see col. 9 lines 33-36 “A change of finger angle…provides the possibility of yet further increasing the aggressive action…to provide a further lifting of the crop in a condition where the crop is downed”). Remillard therefore only lacks a teaching of providing this adjustment automatically based on particular monitored crop heights rather than based just merely on standing or downed height categories.
Dima teaches that it was known to adjust of reel settings to optimize harvesting (e.g. picking up of downed crop) based on a particular monitored crop height of the standing or downed crop (see Dima at para. [0032] “The camera looks onto the standing (or possibly downed) population of the crop 76 in front of the platform 18…and outputs signals 78 during operation that represent the height of the upper surface of the standing crop 76 over ground. This signal 78 is used for controlling reel position…to appropriate values when the reel 52 interacts with the crop 76 at the position at which the sensor 48 has produced the signal 78”). Dima therefore teaches that it was known to use a particular monitored height of uncut (standing or downed) crop as the basis for adjusting reel settings and optimizing picking performance in different conditions.
Thus, control of reel settings (such as the rotation of a cam for changing a reel finger angle) based on standing or downed crop conditions for the purpose of optimizing crop pick-up is disclosed by Remillard, while Dima teaches that optimization of crop pick up can be based not only on standing or downed crop, but on a particular detected height of the standing or downed crop. As such, it would have been obvious to use a particular monitored height of the standing or downed crop, instead of just the generic categories of standing or downed crop, as the criteria for adjusting reel settings in either case, as a mere simple substitution of one basis for optimizing reel settings for standing/downed crop pick up for another to yield predictable results.
It should be further noted that Yasuno (JP S63173517 A), incorporated in the present office action, also teaches control of an adjuster for rotating a cam based at least indirectly on crop height. Yasuno discloses a harvesting reel 20 and potentiometer 49 for detecting the height of the reel such that when the reel moves up and down, an adjuster 45 is controlled to rotate a cam 37 to change a pitch angle of tines 37 automatically in response to the change in reel height, wherein the reel height is set based on a crop height (see Yasuno top of page 7, “the raking reel…provided to move up and down freely according to the height of the culm, and when the raking reel…moves up and down, the ground-bearing angle of the reel tine n changes”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights