DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendment to the claims, filed 11/25/2024, have been entered.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 13, 14, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gette, et al. US2007/0119140.
Regarding claim 13, Gette, et al. teaches a pickup assembly (Figure 1) for an agricultural harvester 1, the pickup assembly comprising:
a pickup assembly frame (see Figure A, annotated from Figure 1);
a pickup unit 15 carried by the pickup assembly frame and configured to pick up crop from a field (via the tines 16);
a wind guard assembly 2 comprising a wind guard frame 20, pivotably coupled (at pivot 19) to the pickup assembly frame at a wind guard pivot axle 19; and
a wind guard height control mechanism comprising:(i) a control arm 22 pivotably coupled to the pickup assembly frame for pivoting coaxially with the wind guard frame 20,(ii) a height control flange 26 on the wind guard frame 20, configured to be in contact with the control arm 22, and(iii) a linear actuator 18 having a first end (at 25) connected to the pickup assembly frame and a second end (bottom) connected (via 20) to the control arm 22.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: annotated from Figure 1
Regarding claim 14, Gette, et al. teaches the height control flange 26 and the linear actuator are arranged at opposite sides (front versus rear of the frame) of the control arm 22.
Regarding claim 22, Gette, et al. teaches the wind guard height control mechanism is located at a first lateral end (left or right side) of the pickup assembly frame, and further comprising a second wind guard height control mechanism (on the other side), located at an opposite lateral end of the pickup assembly, the second wind guard height control mechanism comprising (wherein Figure 2 shows a symmetric system. The second elements of the second wind guard height control mechanism are disposed on opposite lateral sides of the machine to the first elements of the first wind guard height control mechanism described above):
a second control arm 22 pivotably coupled to the pickup assembly frame for pivoting coaxially with the wind guard frame 20, a second height control flange 26 on the wind guard frame 20, configured to be in contact with the second control arm 22, a second linear actuator having a first end (at 25) connected to the pickup assembly frame and a second end (bottom) connected to the second control arm 22.
Regarding claim 23, Gette, et al. teaches an agricultural harvester 1 comprising the pickup assembly as claimed in claim 13.
Regarding claim 24, Gette, et al. teaches a method for controlling a height of a wind guard assembly 2 of a pickup assembly (Figure 1) of an agricultural harvester 1, the method comprising the steps of:
operating the pickup assembly with the wind guard assembly 2 set to a first minimum height setting (such as a lowered position by pushing down 18), halting operation of the pickup assembly (wherein at some point in operation the pickup assembly must be halted), extending (moving upward) a linear actuator 18 for raising the wind guard assembly 2 to a lifted configuration (by pulling up on 18), retracting (moving downward) the linear actuator for returning the wind guard assembly 2 to the first minimum height setting, and resuming operation of the pickup assembly.
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gette, et al. in view of Han CN2880586.
Regarding claim 16, Gette, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach the wind guard height control mechanism further comprises a releasable coupling for connecting the control arm 22 to the height control flange 26.
Regarding claim 17, Gette, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach the releasable coupling comprises an electromagnetic coupling.
Han teaches that it is known in the art to use a releasable electromagnetic releasable coupling 20 to selectively hold a control arm 19 and a flange 20 together (“the locking hook 20 return under the action of gravity, locking the shaft 21 needs to release the shaft 21, it can control the electromagnetic switch locking hook lifting device according to claim 20”, see English translation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date. to modify Gette, et al. to include Han’s releasable electromagnetic coupling to provide desired release of movable parts, for connecting the control arm to the height control flange to provide releasable locking until its desired to move the control arm.
Claim(s) 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gette, et al. in view of Childs, et al. US2023/0240188.
Regarding claim 18, Gette, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach a controller that is operatively coupled to the linear actuator for adjusting a minimum height setting of the wind guard assembly 2, the minimum height setting lying between a dropped configuration and a lifted configuration of the wind guard assembly 2.
Childs, et al. teaches a controller 123 (shown in Figure 5) that is operatively coupled to the linear actuator for adjusting a minimum height setting of the wind guard assembly 128, the minimum height setting (¶44 the “some intermediate position therebetween”) lying between a dropped configuration 237 (Figure 4 solid lines) and a lifted configuration 338 (Figure 5) of the wind guard assembly, to permit unplugging (¶45 “ Controller 123 (and/or controller 115) can be configured for: (a) receiving this plug signal; (b) for outputting an adjustment signal, based at least in part on the plug signal, so as to adjust windguard assembly 128 so as to remove the plug of crop material 136 and thereby to move windguard assembly to second position 338”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Gette, et al.’s system to include Childs, et al.’s controller to be able to automatically sense and control the wind guard position, thus enabling plug removal.
Regarding claim 19, Gette, et al. teaches the wind guard height control mechanism further comprises an angle sensor that is operatively coupled to the controller and configured to measure an angle of rotation of the control arm 22 relative to the wind guard pivot axle 19, the controller being configured to control the linear actuator in dependence of the angle of rotation of the control arm 22.
Childs, et al. teaches it is known to use an angle sensor 535b (¶44 teaches measuring angular position for the wind guard “Each sensor 535A, 535B can be a position sensor for sensing a position of windguard assembly 128, so as to determine whether windguard assembly 128 is in first position 237, second position 338, or some intermediate position therebetween”, and “sensor 535B can sense an angular position”), the controller being configured to control the linear actuator in dependence of the angle of rotation of the control arm ¶44 “Sensors 535A, 535B can output their position signals (corresponding to the sensed position of the referenced structures) to controller 123 (and/or controller 115), which can receive the position signals and output an adjustment signal to feeder system 108 based upon these position signals. The adjustment signals can reposition windguard assembly 128”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date. to modify Gette, et al.’s control system to include Childs, et al.’s angle sensor to detect the wind guard’s position for better control during unplugging operations.
Regarding claim 20, Gette, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach the linear actuator is a hydraulic actuator.
Childs, et al. teaches a hydraulic actuator 251 is known to be a hydraulic actuator (¶39 “Actuator 251 can be in any form (such as a linear or a rotary actuator, a hydraulic actuator, a pneumatic actuator, or an electric actuator)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Gette, et al.’s actuator to be a hydraulic actuator as a notoriously well-known type of actuator for providing controllable actuation.
Regarding claim 21, Gette, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach the linear actuator is an electric actuator.
Childs, et al. teaches an electric actuator is known ¶39 (see above) for providing actuation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Gette, et al.’s actuator to be Childs, et al.’s electric actuator, for providing electrically controllable actuation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Gette, et al. does not teach, in combination, the height control flange is rearward of the control arm and the linear actuator is arranged forward of the control arm. While the height control flange 26 is towards the rear of arm 22, the linear actuator is not arranged forward of the control arm. Instead, actuator 18 is well behind the arm 22. Modification would require impermissible hindsight reasoning, and change the mechanical operation of the actuator 18, which is attached via the column 25 that is set behind the arm 22.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights