DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 16, 18-19, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Childs (US 20210360859 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Childs discloses a pickup assembly (100) for an agricultural harvester, the pickup assembly comprising:
a pickup assembly frame,
a pickup unit (30) carried by the pickup assembly frame and configured to pick up crop from a field,
a feeding auger (110) configured to receive the crop from the pickup unit and feed the crop towards a crop inlet of the agricultural harvester,
a wind guard assembly (200) comprising (i) a wind guard frame (201), (ii) a wind guard lifting mechanism coupled to the pickup assembly frame and the wind guard frame, and (iii) an actuator (310) for lifting the wind guard frame from an operational configuration to a lifted configuration,
a lock switch (lock out activation, paragraph 0027 lines 1-9), and
an electronic circuit (320) operatively coupled to the lock switch and the actuator and configured to block control instructions from reaching the actuator when the lock switch is in an activated state and to allow control instructions to reach the actuator when the lock switch is in a deactivated state (paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 18, Childs discloses the pickup assembly as claimed in claim 16, wherein the actuator comprises an electric actuator (310) operatively coupled to the electronic circuit (320) such that no electric signal can reach the electric actuator when the lock switch is in the activated state.
Regarding claim 19, Childs discloses the pickup assembly as claimed in claim 16, wherein the electronic circuit is further configured to block control instructions from reaching the pickup unit and/or the feeding auger when the lock switch is in the activated state (paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 29, Childs discloses an agricultural harvester (10) comprising the pickup assembly as claimed in claim 16.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childs (US 20210360859 A1) in view of Humbert (US 20090139195 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Childs discloses the pickup assembly as claimed in claim 16, wherein the actuator comprises a hydraulic cylinder.
Childs does not disclose wherein the cylinder is controllable with an electrohydraulic valve, the electrohydraulic valve being operatively coupled to the electronic circuit such that no electric signal can reach the electrohydraulic valve when the lock switch is in the activated state.
In the same field of endeavor, Humbert discloses a hydraulic cylinder (50) that actuates a wind guard (40), wherein the cylinder is controllable with an electrohydraulic valve (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 Childs with an electrohydraulic valve to control the hydraulic cylinder, as disclosed by Humbert, as one way of integrating the hydraulic cylinder actuator with the electronic circuit for remote control.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clauss (US 6381932 B1) in view of Childs (US 20210360859 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Clauss discloses a method of removing a non-crop object from a pickup assembly, the method comprising the steps of:
detecting the non-crop object inside the pickup assembly while harvesting (via 144),
interrupting the harvesting,
lifting a wind guard frame (138) to a lifted configuration,
rotating a feeding auger (134) and/or a pickup unit (136) in a reverse direction relative to a normal harvesting direction,
stopping rotation of the feeding auger and/or the pickup unit,
lowering the wind guard frame to an operational configuration, and
resuming the harvesting (col. 5 line 16-col. 6 line 59).
Clauss does not disclose activating a lock switch or deactivating the lock switch after the non-crop object has been removed from the pickup assembly.
In the same field of endeavor, Childs discloses activating a lock switch and deactivating the lock switch after a non-crop object has been removed (paragraph 0027).
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 Clauss with a lock switch that is deactivated while a jam is removed, as disclosed by Childs, as a way of ensuring the wind guard is not inadvertently lowered before the jam has been cleared.
Regarding claim 31, Clauss, of the resultant combination discloses the method of claim 30, wherein removal of the non-crop object comprises the following steps:
a person taking a position, at least partly under the wind guard frame in its lifted configuration,
the person removing the non-crop object from the pickup assembly, and
the person leaving the position under the wind guard frame (col. 7 lines 29-33).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-28 are 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. EP 2449872 A1 discloses a system that detects the presence of a person near an agricultural machine pickup.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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