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 Claims
Claims 16-17, & 19-32 of U.S. Application No. 18/673370 filed on 08/03/2026 have been examined.
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed08/03/2026. Claims 16, 19, & 31 are presently amended, and Claims 1-15, &18 are cancelled. Claims 16-17, & 19-32 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the previous claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f): In response to an Office action that finds that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, if applicant does not want to have the claim limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) present a sufficient showing to establish that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or (2) amend the claim limitation in a way that avoids interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function). MPEP 2181(I). With respect to prong 1 of the 112(f) analysis, the standard for determining whether the claim recites sufficient structure is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. For a term to be considered a substitute for "means," and lack sufficient structure for performing the function, it must serve as a generic placeholder and thus not limit the scope of the claim to any specific manner or structure for performing the claimed function. MPEP 2181(I)(A).
Applicant has not established that the claim limitation “at least one processing member which is configured to grip a crop material” recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function to avoid interpretation under 112(f). As indicated in the previous 112(f) analysis, the term “member” is a generic placeholder. The term itself does not limit the scope of the claim to any specific structure for performing the claimed function. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the term as being limited to any specific structure for performing the claimed function. Applicant has not presented any evidence that the claimed “processing member” has any specific structure for performing the claimed function. The term “member” does not provide any indication of structure because it sets forth the same recitation of structure for providing the same specified function as if the term ‘means’ had been used.” MPEP 2181(I)(A).
Based on the above analysis, the term does not recite sufficient structure to avoid interpretation under 112(f). Interpretation of claim 20 under 35 USC § 112(f) is maintained.
In regards to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): the amendments to the claims overcome the previous 35 USC § 112(b) rejection. Therefore, the previous 35 USC § 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
In regards to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Applicants amendments overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Therefore, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is withdrawn.
In regards to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant argues that the prior art does not explicitly disclose the limitations “the rear coupling device being adjustable so that the rear coupling point is displaceable relative to the frame with respect to the longitudinal axis”. Applicant further argues on pages. 13-23 of the Remarks, “Applicant respectfully submits that none of Roux and Bechtel describe, teach or suggest at least the feature that "the rear coupling device being adjustable so that the rear coupling point is displaceable relative to the frame with respect to the longitudinal axis" as is now recited by independent claim 16 of the present invention. With respect to Bechtel, the Office itself states that "Roux does not explicitly disclose wherein the rear coupling device is adjustable so that the rear coupling point is displaceable relative to the frame with respect to the longitudinal axis”… Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 16 of the present invention does not recite a tow bar. Independent claim 16 of the present invention requires that "the rear coupling device [ of the swather is] adjustable so that the rear coupling point [ of the rear coupling device of the swather] is displaceable relative to the frame [of the swather] with respect to the longitudinal axis". To be very clear, the rear coupling point must be a part of the swather. The tow bar system 200 cited by the Office can never be part of the swather. Tow bar system 200 is a wholly independent component which is, for example, configured to be attached to the coupling point of the swather via a hitch receiver 206, 208. See Bechtel, paragraph [0054]. Nowhere does Bechtel teach or suggest that "the rear coupling device [is] adjustable so that the rear coupling point is displaceable relative to the frame with respect to the longitudinal axis" as is now recited by independent claim 16 of the present invention. "Obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim." CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int'l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). The combination of Roux and Bechtel thus fails to render independent claim 16 of the present invention obvious. For any of these reasons, the aforementioned feature of independent claim 16 cannot reasonably be said to be present in the asserted combination. Applicant notes merely for the record that claim 19 recites that "the rear coupling point is further displaceable with respect to the chassis with respect to the longitudinal axis." Applicant respectfully submits that the tow bar system 200 of Bechtel also fails to teach or suggest this required feature.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. As recited in the previous office action, Roux in incorporated to disclose a swather that contains a chassis with a frame, that contains a rotary rake with a front and rear coupling device that couples the swather to the tractor through the front coupling point (see at least Roux, para. [0052-0054] & [0058-0065]). Further Roux discloses a rear coupling device that is on the rear side of the frame with respect to the longitudinal axis, for attaching a baler to the swather (see at least Roux, para. [0079-0080]). Examiner is aware that the rear coupling device of Roux is not displaceable, however Bechtel is incorporated to teach the idea of a tow bar that contains a hitch receiver 206 (see at least Bechtel, para. [0030]). Further the tow bar of Bechtel, under broadest reasonable interpretation is considered a rear coupling device, since it is on the rear of a vehicle and further teaches an extension stop bumper in order for the length of the bar is needed to be lengthened or shortened (see at least Bechtel, para. [0030] & [0054]). Bechtel teaches the idea of a rear coupling device that is adjustable so the coupling point is displaceable relative to the frame with respect to the longitudinal axis, and considering that Roux already has a rear coupling device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Roux to incorporate the teaching of wherein the rear coupling device is adjustable so that the rear coupling point is displaceable relative to the frame with respect to the longitudinal axis of Bechtel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for the lead vehicle to do more of the forward motive work than the trailing vehicle (see at least Bechtel, para. [0030]).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“at least one processing member which is configured to grip a crop material” in claim 16.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure for the above limitation described in the specification: (see at least Applicant Specification, para. [0016]: The swather can, for example, be designed as a rotary rake having at least one raking rotor as a processing member.).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16-17, 19-20, & 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0059308A1 (“Roux”), in view of US 2024/0317003A1 (“Bechtel”).
As per claim 16 Roux discloses
A swather comprising (see at least Roux, Fig. 1 & para. [0052]: The device concerned comprises hitching means 10, a single frame 12, windrowing means 14 and means 16 for receiving and support of a baler 18 as can be seen in FIGS. 1, 2 and 3.):
a frame (see at least Roux, Fig. 1 & para. [0052]: The device concerned comprises hitching means 10, a single frame 12, windrowing means 14 and means 16 for receiving and support of a baler 18 as can be seen in FIGS. 1, 2 and 3.);
a chassis which supports the frame (see at least Roux, Fig. 1 & para. [0058]: The single frame 12, see FIGS. 1 to 9 as a whole, comprises a tongue 30 and receiving and support means 16 intended to accommodate a baler 18.);
at least one processing member which is configured to grip a crop material, the at least one processing member being connected at least indirectly to the frame (see at least Roux, Fig. 1 & para. [0062-0065]: These windrowing means 14 comprise two arms 34-1 and 34-2 that are mobile relative to said tongue so as to be able to impart to them two positions, one for transport in which the arms are lifted up vertically in a rotational movement upward and the other for work in which the arms are approximately horizontal…Each arm 34 carries rakes 38 mounted so they can rotate as well as a wheel set 40 intended to roll on the ground to maintain the height of the rakes in relation to the ground, with these wheels forming a gauge wheel set.);
a front coupling device which is arranged at a front side of the frame with respect to a longitudinal axis of the swather, the front coupling device defining a front coupling point for attaching the swather to a tractor (see at least Roux, Fig. 4 “10” & para. [0053-0054]: The hitching means 10, shown in detail in FIG. 8, comprise a three-point mechanical interface 20, intended to work with the three-point hitch of the tractor, not shown…These hitching means 10 further comprise a driving interface 22 intended to work with the power takeoff of the tractor, not shown, to supply the mechanical power and the hydraulic power and to transmit them to the driven mobile elements of the windrower and of the baler.); and
a rear coupling device which is arranged at a rear side of the frame with respect to the longitudinal axis, the rear coupling device defining a rear coupling point for attaching a baler to the swather (see at least Roux, Fig. 3-5 & para. [0079-0080]: The receiving and support means 16 of the baler 18 in addition comprise means 70 for loading and for holding the baler 18…In the first embodiment shown, these loading and holding means 70 comprise a loading pole 72 mounted in rotation and in translation facing the junction point of the tongue and the beams, on an arch 74.).
However Roux does not explicitly disclose
the rear coupling device being adjustable so that the rear coupling point is displaceable relative to the frame with respect to the longitudinal axis.
Bechtel teaches
the rear coupling device being adjustable so that the rear coupling point is displaceable relative to the frame with respect to the longitudinal axis (see at least Bechtel, para. [0030]: Fifth, the tow bar may be equipped with an extension stop bumper and force sensor for conditions where the longest tether bar length is desirable. Example conditions include: (i) when it is desirable for the lead vehicle to do more of the forward motive work than the trailing vehicle, (ii) when the maximum amount of free length is required for tight turning maneuvers, (iii) when it is unlikely that an unexpected acceleration by the lead vehicle will occur and/or the forces incurred between the two vehicles would disrupt their intended operation, and (iv) when it is desirable for the following vehicle to have a higher braking power to keep the connection in-line with the lead vehicle. & para. [0054]: As shown in FIG. 5, the tow bar system 200 is configured to removably couple a trailing vehicle 202 (e.g., a trailer) to a lead vehicle 204. The trailing vehicle 202 includes a hitch receiver 206, and the lead vehicle includes a hitch receiver 208. As shown in FIG. 6, the tow bar system 200 generally includes a front tow bar 210 and a rear tow bar 212 coupled by a damper system 214. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roux to incorporate the teaching of the rear coupling device being adjustable so that the rear coupling point is displaceable relative to the frame with respect to the longitudinal axis of Bechtel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for the lead vehicle to do more of the forward motive work than the trailing vehicle (see at least Bechtel, para. [0030]).
As per claim 17 Roux discloses
wherein, the swather is a rotary rake, and the at least one processing member of the swather is at least one raking rotor (see at least Roux, Fig. 1 & para. [0062-0065]: These windrowing means 14 comprise two arms 34-1 and 34-2 that are mobile relative to said tongue so as to be able to impart to them two positions, one for transport in which the arms are lifted up vertically in a rotational movement upward and the other for work in which the arms are approximately horizontal…Each arm 34 carries rakes 38 mounted so they can rotate as well as a wheel set 40 intended to roll on the ground to maintain the height of the rakes in relation to the ground, with these wheels forming a gauge wheel set.).
As per claim 19 Roux does not explicitly disclose
wherein the rear coupling point is further displaceable with respect to the chassis with respect to the longitudinal axis.
Bechtel teaches
wherein the rear coupling point is further displaceable with respect to the chassis with respect to the longitudinal axis (see at least Bechtel, para. [0030]: Fifth, the tow bar may be equipped with an extension stop bumper and force sensor for conditions where the longest tether bar length is desirable. Example conditions include: (i) when it is desirable for the lead vehicle to do more of the forward motive work than the trailing vehicle, (ii) when the maximum amount of free length is required for tight turning maneuvers, (iii) when it is unlikely that an unexpected acceleration by the lead vehicle will occur and/or the forces incurred between the two vehicles would disrupt their intended operation, and (iv) when it is desirable for the following vehicle to have a higher braking power to keep the connection in-line with the lead vehicle. & para. [0054]: As shown in FIG. 5, the tow bar system 200 is configured to removably couple a trailing vehicle 202 (e.g., a trailer) to a lead vehicle 204. The trailing vehicle 202 includes a hitch receiver 206, and the lead vehicle includes a hitch receiver 208. As shown in FIG. 6, the tow bar system 200 generally includes a front tow bar 210 and a rear tow bar 212 coupled by a damper system 214. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roux to incorporate the teaching of wherein the rear coupling point is further displaceable with respect to the chassis with respect to the longitudinal axis of Bechtel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for the lead vehicle to do more of the forward motive work than the trailing vehicle (see at least Bechtel, para. [0030]).
As per claim 20 Roux discloses
wherein the frame comprises a longitudinal section which extends along the longitudinal axis and which connects the front coupling device to the rear coupling device (see at least Roux, Fig. 3 “30” & para. [0059-0060]: The tongue 30 is equipped with a ring 32 intended to work with the hitching plate 28 of the hitching means 10, by its upstream end if the direction of movement of the unit toward the front is considered…The other end of the tongue 30 is integral with receiving and support means 16 intended to accommodate a baler 18.).
As per claim 22 Roux discloses
wherein, the longitudinal section has a length, and at least 80 % of the length of the longitudinal section extends at an angle of at most 10° to the longitudinal axis (see at least Roux, Fig. 3 “30” & para. [0059-0060]: The tongue 30 is equipped with a ring 32 intended to work with the hitching plate 28 of the hitching means 10, by its upstream end if the direction of movement of the unit toward the front is considered…The other end of the tongue 30 is integral with receiving and support means 16 intended to accommodate a baler 18.).
As per claim 23 Roux discloses
further comprising: at least one boom arm which is connected to the frame, wherein, at least one of the at least one processing member is arranged on a respective one of the at least one boom arm (see at least Roux, Fig. 1 “34-1, 34-2” & para. [0062-0065]: These windrowing means 14 comprise two arms 34-1 and 34-2 that are mobile relative to said tongue so as to be able to impart to them two positions, one for transport in which the arms are lifted up vertically in a rotational movement upward and the other for work in which the arms are approximately horizontal…Each arm 34 carries rakes 38 mounted so they can rotate as well as a wheel set 40 intended to roll on the ground to maintain the height of the rakes in relation to the ground, with these wheels forming a gauge wheel set.).
As per claim 24 Roux discloses
wherein, the frame comprises a boom connecting section (see at least Roux, Fig. 4, 6, & para. [0061-0064]: The tongue 30 also supports the windrowing means 14 that are therefore placed upstream from the receiving and support means 16 intended to accommodate the baler 18…),
the at least one boom arm is connected to the boom connecting section of the frame (see at least Roux, Fig. 1, 4, 6 “34-1, 34-2” & para. [0062-0065]: These windrowing means 14 comprise two arms 34-1 and 34-2 that are mobile relative to said tongue so as to be able to impart to them two positions,), and
the at least one boom arm projects upwards from the longitudinal section with respect to a vertical axis so that the at least one boom arm is higher than the longitudinal section at least in a region of the boom connecting section (see at least Roux, Fig. 4, 6, & para. [0061-0064]: The tongue 30 also supports the windrowing means 14 that are therefore placed upstream from the receiving and support means 16 intended to accommodate the baler 18…[Examiner Note: The boom arms 34-1 & 34-2 are shown to be connected higher on the tongue and are angled slightly downward.]).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roux, in view of Bechtel, in view of US 6227304B1 (“Schlegel”).
As per claim 21 Roux does not explicitly disclose
wherein, the front coupling point has a minimum ground clearance, the rear coupling point has a minimum ground clearance, and the longitudinal section has a ground clearance which is at most 50 % greater than the minimum ground clearance of the front coupling point and the minimum ground clearance of the rear coupling point.
Schlegel teaches
wherein, the front coupling point has a minimum ground clearance, the rear coupling point has a minimum ground clearance, and the longitudinal section has a ground clearance which is at most 50 % greater than the minimum ground clearance of the front coupling point and the minimum ground clearance of the rear coupling point (see at least Schlegel, col. 8 lines 9-30: Although FIGS. 1-5 illustrate an exemplary embodiment of front mount three-point hitch 12 configured for use on work vehicle 10, exact dimensions and configurations of hitch 12 may vary so long as hitch 12 meets the following criteria. First, the length of lower links 60 should preferably be as long as possible to flatten the path of the hitch point of links 60 as they are being pivoted. Second, the upper link 64 should preferably have a length extending between axes 74 and 78 approximately equal to or slightly less than the length of links 60 extending between axes 68 and 69 to reduce kick angle and insure that the kick angle is at least less than 15 degrees. Third, the forward most point of hitch 12, whether the forward most point of link 64 or the forward most point of link 60 should be longitudinally spaced from a median telescopic position of hub 52 by a distance of less than 3.5 meters. Fourth, the axes 68 and 74 must be located so to as to clear the front tire 42 during turning of tire 42 or the front of a track, when hitch 12 is employed on a tracked vehicle. Fifth, the axes 68 and 74 about which links 60 and link 64 pivot must be located so as to meet International Standards such as the maximum lower hitch point height above supporting surface, the minimum transport height and the minimum lower hitch point clearance set forth in International Standard 8759/2, the full disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roux to incorporate the teaching of wherein, the front coupling point has a minimum ground clearance, the rear coupling point has a minimum ground clearance, and the longitudinal section has a ground clearance which is at most 50 % greater than the minimum ground clearance of the front coupling point and the minimum ground clearance of the rear coupling point of Schlegel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce lateral movement of the three point hitch and the carried implement during turning of the work vehicle (see at least Schlegel, col. 2 lines 18-21).
Claim(s) 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roux, in view of Bechtel, in view of US 2018/0317388A1 (“Gresch”).
As per claim 25 Roux does not explicitly disclose
further comprising: an input clutch for a drive connection to a power take-off shaft of the tractor; and
an output clutch which is configured to be coupled to the input clutch at least in a force-transmitting manner and for a drive connection to the baler.
Gresch teaches
further comprising: an input clutch for a drive connection to a power take-off shaft of the tractor; and
an output clutch which is configured to be coupled to the input clutch at least in a force-transmitting manner and for a drive connection to the baler (see at least Gresch, para. [0056]: The transfer case 182 can make a direct connection to output shaft 204 for one of the shafts 210 or 206. The propulsion output shaft 210 drives, via a 184, a transmission shaft 212, which drives a drive transmission 186 with variable transmission ratio(for example, designed as a powershift transmission or continuously variable transmission), which drives the rear wheels 126 on the output side via a shaft 214, a differential gearbox 188, and wheel driveshafts 216. Optionally, the propulsion transmission 186 can also drive the front wheels 124 via drive means that are not shown. The load output shaft 206 is in drive connection with the PTO shaft118 via a PTO shaft clutch 190 and a PTO shaft transmission 192, the PTO shaft serving to drive the transmission 174 of the drive device 170 and other driven elements of the 114.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roux to incorporate the teaching of further comprising: an input clutch for a drive connection to a power take-off shaft of the tractor; and an output clutch which is configured to be coupled to the input clutch at least in a force-transmitting manner and for a drive connection to the baler of Gresch, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for developing an inexpensive and robust throughput control system for balers that can handle large variations in the windrow (see at least Gresch, para. [0008]).
As per claim 26 Roux does not explicitly disclose
further comprising: a gear arrangement, wherein,
the gear arrangement is configured to couple the at least one processing member to the input clutch in a force-transmitting manner, and
the gear arrangement is configured to couple the output clutch to the input clutch in the force-transmitting manner.
Gresch teaches
further comprising: a gear arrangement (see at least Gresch, para. [0057]: The transfer case 182, the load output shaft 206, the clutch 190, the PTO shaft transmission 192, the PTO shaft 118, and the transmission 174 (with the subsequent components for driving the plunger 120) form a load drive train to drive the 114 which is driven by the drive motor 180.), wherein,
the gear arrangement is configured to couple the at least one processing member to the input clutch in a force-transmitting manner (see at least Gresch, para. [0057]: The transfer case 182, the load output shaft 206, the clutch 190, the PTO shaft transmission 192, the PTO shaft 118, and the transmission 174 (with the subsequent components for driving the plunger 120) form a load drive train to drive the 114 which is driven by the drive motor 180.), and
the gear arrangement is configured to couple the output clutch to the input clutch in the force-transmitting manner (see at least Gresch, para. [0057]: The transfer case 182, the propulsion driveshaft 210, the clutch 184, the propulsion gearbox186, the shaft 214, the differential gear 188, and the wheel driveshafts 216 form a propulsion/drivetrain driven by drive motor 180 for driving the propulsion means (wheels 126) of the tractor 110, which has a transmission ratio that can be varied by means of actuator 200. The transfer case 182, the load output shaft 206, the clutch 190, the PTO shaft transmission 192, the PTO shaft 118, and the transmission 174 (with the subsequent components for driving the plunger 120) form a load drive train to drive the 114 which is driven by the drive motor 180.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roux to incorporate the teaching of further comprising: a gear arrangement, wherein, the gear arrangement is configured to couple the at least one processing member to the input clutch in a force-transmitting manner, and the gear arrangement is configured to couple the output clutch to the input clutch in the force-transmitting manner of Gresch, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for developing an inexpensive and robust throughput control system for balers that can handle large variations in the windrow (see at least Gresch, para. [0008]).
As per claim 27 Roux discloses
further comprising: a longitudinal shaft which is substantially arranged within the frame (see at least Roux, para. [0066-0067]: Also, in a known way, a main shaft 44 is carried by the tongue 30 with an upstream connection 46, able to work with the drive interface 22…This main shaft 44 extends up to the rear of said tongue 30 with a downstream connection 48.).
However Roux does not explicitly disclose
the longitudinal shaft being configured for a power transmission from the input clutch to the output clutch.
Gresch teaches
the longitudinal shaft being configured for a power transmission from the input clutch to the output clutch (see at least Gresch, para. [0057]: The transfer case 182, the propulsion driveshaft 210, the clutch 184, the propulsion gearbox186, the shaft 214, the differential gear 188, and the wheel driveshafts 216 form a propulsion/drivetrain driven by drive motor 180 for driving the propulsion means (wheels 126) of the tractor 110, which has a transmission ratio that can be varied by means of actuator 200. The transfer case 182, the load output shaft 206, the clutch 190, the PTO shaft transmission 192, the PTO shaft 118, and the transmission 174 (with the subsequent components for driving the plunger 120) form a load drive train to drive the 114 which is driven by the drive motor 180.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roux to incorporate the teaching of the longitudinal shaft being configured for a power transmission from the input clutch to the output clutch of Gresch, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for developing an inexpensive and robust throughput control system for balers that can handle large variations in the windrow (see at least Gresch, para. [0008]).
As per claim 28 Roux discloses
wherein the longitudinal shaft is substantially arranged within the longitudinal section of the frame (see at least Roux, para. [0066-0067]: Also, in a known way, a main shaft 44 is carried by the tongue 30 with an upstream connection 46, able to work with the drive interface 22…This main shaft 44 extends up to the rear of said tongue 30 with a downstream connection 48.).
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roux, in view of Bechtel, in view of Gresch, in view of US 6199355B1 (“Stiefvater”).
As per claim 29 Roux does not explicitly disclose
wherein the output clutch is connected to the rear coupling device so that a relative position of the output clutch vis-à-vis the rear coupling point with respect to the longitudinal axis is independent of a setting of the rear coupling device.
Stiefvater teaches
wherein the output clutch is connected to the rear coupling device so that a relative position of the output clutch vis-à-vis the rear coupling point with respect to the longitudinal axis is independent of a setting of the rear coupling device (see at least Stiefvater, Fig. 3 “33 & 37”, & col. 5 lines 24-50: The drive line includes a primary PTO 31, a secondary telescopic PTO 32, and a slip clutch 33…. The reason mounting assembly 34 for the gearbox/ 45 clutch is rotatable is so that the universal joint coupling drive line 28 to the clutch/gearbox combination, i.e., the rotatable gearbox assembly, is capable of following the transverse pivotal movements of tongue 11 and thereby keep universal joints 37, 38 within acceptable bend angles. [Examiner Note: Considering the clutch is front of the rear coupling point, the clutch is position is independent of the rear coupling device.]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roux to incorporate the teaching of wherein the output clutch is connected to the rear coupling device so that a relative position of the output clutch vis-à-vis the rear coupling point with respect to the longitudinal axis is independent of a setting of the rear coupling device of Stiefvater, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a pull-type, pivot-tongue crop harvester having a mechanical drive line coupled to a pivotal gearbox for operating the components of the harvester with improved serviceability, reliability and repairability (see at least Stiefvater, col. 3 lines 1-5).
As per claim 30 Roux does not explicitly disclose
wherein the output clutch is arranged offset forwards by between 10 cm and 20 cm vis-a-vis the rear coupling point with respect to the longitudinal axis.
Stiefvater teaches
wherein the output clutch is arranged offset forwards by between 10 cm and 20 cm vis-a-vis the rear coupling point with respect to the longitudinal axis (see at least Stiefvater, Fig. 3 “33 & 37”, & col. 5 lines 24-50: The drive line includes a primary PTO 31, a secondary telescopic PTO 32, and a slip clutch 33…. The reason mounting assembly 34 for the gearbox/ 45 clutch is rotatable is so that the universal joint coupling drive line 28 to the clutch/gearbox combination, i.e., the rotatable gearbox assembly, is capable of following the transverse pivotal movements of tongue 11 and thereby keep universal joints 37, 38 within acceptable bend angles. [Examiner Note: The clutch is in front of the rear coupling point roughly between 10cm and 20cm.]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roux to incorporate the teaching of wherein the output clutch is arranged offset forwards by between 10 cm and 20 cm vis-a-vis the rear coupling point with respect to the longitudinal axis of Stiefvater, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a pull-type, pivot-tongue crop harvester having a mechanical drive line coupled to a pivotal gearbox for operating the components of the harvester with improved serviceability, reliability and repairability (see at least Stiefvater, col. 3 lines 1-5).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roux, in view of Bechtel, in view of US 2019/0111900A1 (“Engel”).
As per claim 31 Roux does not explicitly disclose
wherein the chassis is configured so that a braking force is exertable thereon which is adjustable between a weaker single mode setting when the baler is coupled to the swather and a stronger combined mode setting when the swather is not coupled to the baler.
Engel teaches
wherein the chassis is configured so that a braking force is exertable thereon which is adjustable between a weaker single mode setting when the baler is coupled to the swather and a stronger combined mode setting when the swather is not coupled to the baler (see at least Engel, para. [0038]: The weight or estimated weight of the agricultural product within the towable implement being towed by the work vehicle (e.g., as determined by the braking force controller 28 based at least in part on the signals 70, 72, 74, 76, 78 and/or 79) may be used by the braking force controller 28 to determine the target braking force for the work vehicle brake system. In some embodiments, the target breaking force determined for the towable implement may be used in determining the target braking force for the work vehicle. In some embodiments, the braking force controller 28 may determine the target breaking force for the work vehicle based at least in part on the actual or estimated weight of the agricultural product within the towable implement and on an input 87 received from a brake pedal or an automatic brake system indicative of a braking force applied by an operator or the automatic brake system. If the braking force controller 28 determines that the braking force input 87 does not match the target braking force, the braking force controller 28 may output signals to the work vehicle brake system to apply the target braking force. For example, if the braking force input 87 is lower than the target braking force for the weight of the agricultural product within the tank of the towable implement, the braking force controller 28 may output a signal 88 indicative of an instruction to the work vehicle brake system to increase the braking force that applied to the wheels of the work vehicle. If the braking force input 87 is higher than the target braking force for the weight of the agricultural product within the tank of the towable implement, the braking force controller 28 may output a signal 90 indicative of an instruction to the work vehicle brake system to decrease the braking force that applied to the wheels of the work vehicle. In some embodiments, the control signals 88 and 90 output by the braking force controller 28 may be received by the actuators of the work vehicle brake system directly. In other embodiments, the signals 88 and 90 may be received by the work vehicle controller and subsequently output to the actuators of the work vehicle brake system.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roux to incorporate the teaching of wherein the chassis is configured so that a braking force is exertable thereon which is adjustable between a weaker single mode setting when the baler is coupled to the swather and a stronger combined mode setting when the swather is not coupled to the baler of Engel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve control the braking force applied to the wheels of the towable implement and/or to the wheels of the work vehicle in real-time or near real-time as the weight of the of the agricultural product within the towable implement varies (see at least Engel, para. [0045]).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roux, in view of Bechtel, in view of Engel, in view of US 2018/0098501A1 (“Kraus”).
As per claim 32 Roux does not explicitly disclose
wherein the swather is configured to automatically set the stronger combined mode setting when the baler is coupled to the swather and to automatically set the weaker single mode setting when the baler is not coupled to the swather.
Kraus teaches
wherein the swather is configured to automatically set the stronger combined mode setting when the baler is coupled to the swather and to automatically set the weaker single mode setting when the baler is not coupled to the swather (see at least Kraus, para. [0042-0043]: he input shaft or PTO shaft 108 may connect to an input of the gear train or transmission 112 providing rotational power to the baler 100 from the tractor 101 or other associated vehicle or power source. The transmission 112 may include a gearbox which converts the rotational motion of the input shaft 108 along a generally longitudinal axis of the baler 100 to a rotational motion along a generally transverse axis of the baler 100. A flywheel 114 may connect to the input shaft 108, the transmission 112, or both. The flywheel 114 can be positioned between the transmission 112 and the input shaft 108, as shown…The baler 100 can have a startup mode or state in which the input shaft 108 receives rotational power and begins to move or rotate, which causes the transmission 112, flywheel 114, and other components to also begin to move or rotate. The baler 100 remains in the startup mode until these components accelerate to a pre-determined or operational speed required for normal function of the baler 100. Once these components have reached the operational speed, then the baler 100 can proceed from the startup mode to an operational mode or state. One or more of the components of the baler 100 can be decoupled from the input shaft 108, or rotational power source, during the startup mode.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roux to incorporate the teaching of wherein the swather is configured to automatically set the stronger combined mode setting when the baler is coupled to the swather and to automatically set the weaker single mode setting when the baler is not coupled to the swather of Kraus, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to for selective engagement of an intermittent plunger in an agricultural harvesting device (see at least Kraus, para. [0122]).
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 MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights