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 .
Introduction
Claims 1-17 are currently pending in this application and are subject to examination herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The two (2) information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 06/06/2024 and 12/09/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that Applicants have used the phrase “and/or” in claims 8, 15 and 17. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has held that use of the phrase "and/or” within a claim is not indefinite per se. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811 (Jan. 2014). Nevertheless, “[d]uring patent examination, the pending claims must be ‘given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’” MPEP § 2111; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Based upon this guidance from the MPEP and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the Examiner interprets the phrase "and/or" under its broadest reasonable interpretation of "or" for purposes of examination of the instant Application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
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.
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.
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) 1-3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0408653 to Childs (cited by Applicant in IDS filed on 12/09/2025) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0164558 to Smith.
Regarding claim 1, Childs discloses an agricultural implement system, comprising:
(a) an agricultural implement (agricultural implement 120) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0021], [0024]-[0031], [0040]), comprising:
a chassis (chassis 121) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0024], [0026]-[0027], [0029]-[0030]);
a rotatable power take off (PTO) (power take-off 124) (Fig. 1; Para. [0024]) carried by the chassis (chassis 121) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0024], [0026]-[0027], [0029]-[0030]) that is configured to be connected to a source of power (Para. [0024]);
a pickup (pickup 126) (Figs. 1, 3A-3D; Paras. [0024]) carried by the chassis (chassis 121) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0024], [0026]-[0027], [0029]-[0030]) and configured to receive mechanical power from the PTO shaft for rotating and conveying crop material (Para. [0024]);
a movable windguard (windguard 140) (Figs. 1, 3A-3D; Paras. [0026], [0029]-[0040]) carried by the chassis (chassis 121) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0024], [0026]-[0027], [0029]-[0030]) and comprising a roller (roller 142) (Figs. 1, 3A-3D; Paras. [0026], [0029], [0031], [0033]-[0040]);
a windguard displacement sensor (windguard displacement sensor 143) (Figs. 1, 3A-3D; Paras. [0029]-[0030]) associated with the windguard (windguard 140) (Figs. 1, 3A-3D; Paras. [0026], [0029]-[0040]) and configured to output windguard displacement signals corresponding to a displacement of the windguard relative to a zero position (Para. [0029]);
a roller speed sensor (roller speed sensor 144) (Figs. 1; 3A-3D; Paras. [0033]) associated with the roller (roller 142) (Figs. 1, 3A-3D; Paras. [0026], [0029], [0031], [0033]-[0040]) and configured to output roller speed signals (Para. [0033]) corresponding to a rotational speed of the roller (roller 142) (Figs. 1, 3A-3D; Paras. [0026], [0029], [0031], [0033]-[0040]);
(viii) a ground speed sensor (one or more sensors 115 may comprise a positioning sensor, such as a Global Positioning System (GPS) sensor or the like, a speed sensor) (Para. [0023]) configured to output ground speed signals corresponding to a ground speed of the agricultural implement; and
(b) a controller (controller(s) 116 and/or 151) (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0022]-[0023], [0027], [0030]-[0031], [0033]-[0039], [0041]) operably coupled to the windguard displacement sensor (windguard displacement sensor 143) (Figs. 1, 3A-3D; Paras. [0029]-[0030]), the ground speed sensor (one or more sensors 115 may comprise a positioning sensor, such as a Global Positioning System (GPS) sensor or the like, a speed sensor) (Para. [0023]), the roller speed sensor (roller speed sensor 144) (Figs. 1; 3A-3D; Paras. [0033]), the controller (controller(s) 116 and/or 151) (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0022]-[0023], [0027], [0030]-[0031], [0033]-[0039], [0041]) being configured to:
(i) calculate a difference between the rotational speed of the roller (roller 142) (Figs. 1, 3A-3D; Paras. [0026], [0029], [0031], [0033]-[0040]) and either the rotational speed of the PTO shaft or the ground speed (sensed by one or more sensors 115 may comprise a positioning sensor, such as a Global Positioning System (GPS) sensor or the like, a speed sensor) (Para. [0023]) of the agricultural implement (agricultural implement 120) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0021], [0024]-[0031], [0040]);
(ii) determine a plug condition exists when the displacement of the windguard (windguard 140) (Figs. 1, 3A-3D; Paras. [0026], [0029]-[0040]) exceeds a defined displacement and said calculated difference exceeds a predetermined threshold value (see Fig. 5; Paras. [0040]-[0041]); and
(iii) output at least one plug condition mitigation signal to adjust at least one parameter of the agricultural implement system and mitigate the plug condition responsively to determining the plug condition exists (see Fig. 5; Paras. [0040]-[0041]).
However, Childs does not expressly disclose a PTO shaft speed sensor associated with the PTO shaft and configured to output PTO shaft speed signals corresponding to a rotational speed of the PTO shaft; and the controller operably coupled to the PTO shaft speed sensor and the controller calculating a difference between the rotational speed of the roller and rotational speed of the PTO shaft. Nevertheless, Smith teaches a PTO shaft speed sensor (speed sensor 206) (Abstract; Fig. 2, ; Paras. [0009], [0021], [0056], [0060]-[0062]) associated with the PTO shaft and configured to output PTO shaft speed signals corresponding to a rotational speed of the PTO shaft (Abstract; Figs. ; Paras. [0071]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the agricultural implement system disclosed in Childs with the PTO shaft speed sensor taught in Smith with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow additional control of the agricultural implement to be facilitated by the PTO shaft speed sensor. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the agricultural implement system disclosed in Childs with the PTO shaft speed sensor taught in Smith with a reasonable expectation of success, , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Moreover, it should be noted that claim 1 does not require the controller to use the sensed PTO shaft speed, but instead can use the ground speed sensor, which is disclosed in Childs.
Regarding claim 2, Childs in view of Smith teaches the agricultural implement system of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Childs discloses an agricultural implement system wherein the windguard (windguard 140) (Figs. 1, 3A-3D; Paras. [0026], [0029]-[0040]) comprises at least one arm (arm(s) 141) (Figs. 1, 3A-3D; Para. [0026], [0029], [0031]) that is pivotable about a pivot axis (PA) (Figs. 1, 3A-3D; Figs. [0026], [0031]) and the windguard displacement sensor (windguard displacement sensor 143) (Figs. 1, 3A-3D; Paras. [0029]-[0030]) is coupled to the at least one arm (arm(s) 141) (Figs. 1, 3A-3D; Para. [0026], [0029], [0031]).
Regarding claim 3, Childs in view of Smith teaches the agricultural implement system of claim 2 (see above). Furthermore, Childs discloses an agricultural implement system wherein the windguard displacement sensor (windguard displacement sensor 143) (Figs. 1, 3A-3D; Paras. [0029]-[0030]) is an angle sensor (Para. [0029]) and the defined displacement is a defined pivot angle (Para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Childs in view of Smith teaches the agricultural implement system of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Childs discloses an agricultural implement system wherein said calculated difference is the difference between the rotational speed of the roller (roller 142) (Figs. 1, 3A-3D; Paras. [0026], [0029], [0031], [0033]-[0040]) and the ground speed (sensed by one or more sensors 115 may comprise a positioning sensor, such as a Global Positioning System (GPS) sensor or the like, a speed sensor) (Para. [0023]) of the agricultural implement (agricultural implement 120) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0021], [0024]-[0031], [0040]).
Regarding claim 6, Childs in view of Smith teaches the agricultural implement system of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Childs discloses an agricultural implement system wherein the controller (controller(s) 116 and/or 151) (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0022]-[0023], [0027], [0030]-[0031], [0033]-[0039], [0041]) is configured so the output at least one plug mitigation signal (Abstract; Paras. [0005]-[0006], [0030]) causes adjustment of at least one of a travel speed (Para. [0030]) of the agricultural implement (agricultural implement 120) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0021], [0024]-[0031], [0040]), a position of at least one knife (Para. [0030]) of the agricultural implement (agricultural implement 120) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0021], [0024]-[0031], [0040]), or a position of a rotor floor (Para. [0030]) of the agricultural implement (agricultural implement 120) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0021], [0024]-[0031], [0040]).
Regarding claim 7, Childs in view of Smith teaches the agricultural implement system of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Childs discloses an agricultural implement system further comprising a work vehicle (work vehicle 110) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0020]-[0024]) coupled to the agricultural implement (agricultural implement 120) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0021], [0024]-[0031], [0040]), the work vehicle (work vehicle 110) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0020]-[0024]) comprising a vehicle chassis (vehicle chassis 111) (Fig. 1; Para. [0021], [0027], [0030]) carrying the controller (controller 116) (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0022]-[0023], [0027], [0030]-[0031], [0033]-[0039], [0041]), and wherein the agricultural implement system is an agricultural baler (Fig. 1; Para. [0009], [0020], [0024]-[0025], [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Childs in view of Smith teaches the agricultural implement system of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Childs discloses an agricultural implement system wherein the agricultural implement (agricultural implement 120) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0021], [0024]-[0031], [0040]) is an agricultural baler (Fig. 1; Para. [0009], [0020], [0024]-[0025], [0037]) and/or a tractor.
Allowable Subject Matter & Examiner's Reasons For Allowance
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to disclose or otherwise teach the combination of limitations claimed in the aforementioned claims. In particular regarding independent claim 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose or otherwise teach an agricultural implement system, comprising:
(a) an agricultural implement, comprising:
a chassis;
a pickup carried by the chassis and configured to rotate and convey crop material;
a movable windguard carried by the chassis and comprising a roller;
a windguard displacement sensor associated with the windguard and configured to output windguard displacement signals corresponding to a displacement of the windguard relative to a zero position; and
a roller speed sensor associated with the roller and configured to output roller speed signals corresponding to a rotational speed of the roller; and
(b) a controller operably coupled to the windguard displacement sensor and the roller speed sensor, the controller being configured to:
(i) calculate a variance of the rotational speed of the roller over time;
(ii) determine a plug condition exists when the displacement of the windguard exceeds a defined displacement and said calculated variance exceeds a variance threshold value; and
(iii) output at least one plug condition mitigation signal to adjust at least one parameter of the agricultural implement system and mitigate the plug condition responsively to determining the plug condition exists.
Specifically, the prior art does not disclose or otherwise teach the claimed combination and, in particular, does not teach a controller operably coupled to the windguard displacement sensor and the roller speed sensor, the controller being configured to:
(i) calculate a variance of the rotational speed of the roller over time;
(ii) determine a plug condition exists when the displacement of the windguard exceeds a defined displacement and said calculated variance exceeds a variance threshold value; and
(iii) output at least one plug condition mitigation signal to adjust at least one parameter of the agricultural implement system and mitigate the plug condition responsively to determining the plug condition exists
Claims 10-15 depend, either directly or ultimately, from allowable, independent claim 9 and are, therefore, likewise allowed.
In particular regarding independent claim 16, the prior art of record fails to disclose or otherwise teach an agricultural implement system, comprising:
(a) an agricultural implement, comprising:
(i) a chassis;
(ii) a rotatable power take off (PTO) that is configured to be connected to a source of power;
(iii) a pickup carried by the chassis and configured to receive mechanical power from the PTO shaft for rotating and conveying crop material;
(iv) a movable windguard carried by the chassis and comprising a roller;
(v) a swath sensor configured to output swath signals corresponding to an amount
of crop that is located upstream of the pickup;
(vi) a roller speed sensor associated with the roller and configured to output roller speed signals corresponding to a rotational speed of the roller;
(vii) a PTO shaft speed sensor associated with the PTO shaft and configured to
output PTO shaft speed signals corresponding to a rotational speed of the PTO
shaft; and
(viii) a ground speed sensor configured to output ground speed signals corresponding to a ground speed of the agricultural implement; and
(b) a controller operably coupled to the swath sensor, the ground speed sensor, the roller speed sensor, and the PTO shaft speed sensor, the controller being configured to:
(i) calculate a difference between the rotational speed of the roller and either the rotational speed of the PTO shaft or the ground speed of the agricultural implement;
(ii) determine a plug condition exists when said calculated difference exceeds a predetermined threshold value and said output swath signals exceed a threshold swath value; and
(iii) determine no plug condition exists when said calculated difference exceeds a predetermined threshold value and said output swath signals are below a threshold swath value.
Specifically, the prior art does not disclose or otherwise teach the claimed combination and, in particular, does not teach (b) a controller operably coupled to the swath sensor, the ground speed sensor, the roller speed sensor, and the PTO shaft speed sensor, the controller being configured to:
(i) calculate a difference between the rotational speed of the roller and either the rotational speed of the PTO shaft or the ground speed of the agricultural implement;
(ii) determine a plug condition exists when said calculated difference exceeds a predetermined threshold value and said output swath signals exceed a threshold swath value; and
(iii) determine no plug condition exists when said calculated difference exceeds a predetermined threshold value and said output swath signals are below a threshold swath value.
Claims 17 depends directly from allowable, independent claim 16 and is, therefore, likewise allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Int’l. Pat. Pub. No. WO 2008/085617 A1 to Graber et al. relates to a baler having an articulated windguard. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,913,801 to Bottinger et al. and 11,885,873 to Ferrari et al.; and U.S. Pat. Pub. Nos. 2010/0122632 to Biziorek et al. and 2021/0191408 to Hayashida et al.; and Int’l. Pat. Pub. No. WO 2017/058006 A1 to Van Buuren; and European Pat. Pub. Nos. EP 3 695 695 A1 to Barbi et al.; EP 3 398 420 A1 to Gresch et al.; and EP 3 771 327 A1 to Ishikawa et al. relate to balers having swath sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAUDE J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (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 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.
/CLAUDE J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights