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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18744839 (US 20250040484). Although the pending claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as they recite the same structure of a windrower and header flotation system, wherein in each claim the same calculations are performed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gahres (US 20240138302 A1) in view of Wegscheid (US 4008556 A).
Regarding claim 1, Gahres discloses a windrower (100) comprising:
a windrower frame (130) having left and right header lift arms (131);
a header floatation cylinder (133) configured to adjust the positioning of the header lift arms by causing the header lift arms to pivot about a header lift arm fulcrum (235);
a header assembly (101, see fig. 2) mounted on the header lift arms (131), the header assembly comprising:
a header framework pivotably connected to the header lift arms (131);
a header pitch cylinder (134) is connected between the header framework and the windrower frame, wherein extension of the header pitch cylinder causes the header framework to pivot about a header fulcrum (237) to adjust the pitch of the header assembly with respect to the windrower frame, wherein the header pitch cylinder has a position sensor (243) configured to determine a position of the header pitch cylinder;
a cutter bar pivotably mounted on the header framework so as to pivot about a cutterbar fulcrum (236), the cutter bar comprising:
a plurality of rotary cutters, each of the plurality of rotary cutters synchronized to rotate about a vertically axis (paragraph 0004);
a plurality of cutterbed modules (paragraph 0004, 0026), wherein each rotary cutter of the plurality of rotary cutters is mounted on a respective cutterbed module of the plurality of cutterbed modules such that the cutterbed modules are arranged in series to form the cutter bar, wherein each cutterbed module is pivotably attached to the header framework with a pivotable module mounting mechanism (236) that at least partially forms the cutterbar fulcrum, and wherein each cutterbed module is fixed to adjacent cutterbed modules with a linking mechanism forming a rigid connection such that the plurality of cutterbed modules combine to form a rigid body and;
at least one reaction arm (132);
at least one load cell (241, paragraph 0043) located between the header framework and a reaction arm; and
a controller (114) configured to receive input from position sensor of the header pitch cylinder and calculate a point of ground engagement (236 in fig. 4, paragraph 0044) for the cutter bar, the controller also configured to receive input from the at least one load cell and use a distance (346) between the cutterbar fulcrum (236) and the calculated point of ground engagement and a distance (347) between the load cell (241) and the cutterbar fulcrum (236) to calculate a ground force and compare the calculated ground force to a desired force (paragraphs 0043-48).
Gahres does not disclose wherein an elastomeric isolator is located in the module mounting mechanism between the each cutterbed module and the header framework.
In the same field of endeavor, Wegscheid discloses elastomeric isolators (55, 56, 52, 54, 70, 72) for mounting a cutterbar (38) to the remainder of a harvester header (20, see fig. 3) (col. 3 lines 33-41, col. 4 lines 49-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Gahres with elastomeric isolators, as disclosed by Wegscheid, to lower vibration from the cutterbed to the rest of the harvester, thereby increasing the harvester’s durability.
Regarding claim 2, Wegscheid, of the resultant combination discloses the windrower of claim 1 wherein the module mounting mechanism includes a collar (53) on a rear portion of each cutterbed module that interfaces with an associated collar bracket (78) extending from the header framework, wherein the collar is fastened to the collar bracket with a suitable fastener (76) and nut (80).
Regarding claim 3, Wegscheid, of the resultant combination discloses the windrower of claim 2 wherein the elastomeric isolator comprises a cylindrical member (58) that fits within an opening formed by the collar (53) such that the isolator provides an elastomeric medium (70, 72) between the collar and the fastener that attaches the collar to the collar bracket.
Regarding claim 5, Gahres, of the resultant combination, discloses the windrower of claim 1 the linking mechanism comprises at least one fastener connecting ends of adjacent cutterbed modules such that adjacent modules pivot about the cutterbar fulcrum (236) as a single body (see fig. 2-5).
Regarding claim 6, Wegscheid, of the resultant combination, discloses the windrower of claim 1 wherein a forward portion of each cutterbed module receives a replaceable rock guard (40).
Regarding claim 7, the resultant combination discloses the windrower of claim 1.
The combination does not disclose wherein each of the rotary cutters comprises an elliptical, metal knife carrier, and a pair of free swinging knives at opposite ends of the knife carrier, wherein each of plurality of rotary cutters is ninety degrees out of phase with respect to the adjacent rotary cutter such that circular paths of travel of the knives of adjacent cutters overlap one another and are out of phase so as to avoid striking each other.
The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art for a mower conditioner to utilize an elliptical, metal knife carrier, and a pair of free swinging knives at opposite ends of the knife carrier, wherein each of plurality of rotary cutters is ninety degrees out of phase with respect to the adjacent rotary cutter such that circular paths of travel of the knives of adjacent cutters overlap one another and are out of phase so as to avoid striking each other to mow crop while creating swaths. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the resultant combination with a mower comprising elliptical metal knife carriers positioned out of phase to avoid striking each other as one of many suitable mowing devices for a mower-conditioner harvesting machine.
Allowable Subject Matter
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210063265 A1 discloses a method for measuring a center of gravity of a header.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE RUNCO whose telephone number is (469)295-9123. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 M-F.
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 Rocca can be reached at 5712728971. 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.
/MADELINE I RUNCO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights