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 . Pursuant to communications filed on 15 September 2024, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04 December 2024 and 16 January 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant provides the phrase “harvest crops of plans” in line 3 of claims 1 & 11, respectively, however it appears that this is a misprint and should read “harvest crops of plants”. Accordingly, appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 8-10, 11-14 and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,483,975 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are coextensive in scope to the allowed claims and would be fully encompassed and/or anticipated by the issued U.S. Patent.
Specifically wherein;
Regarding claim 1, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 1 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A harvesting vehicle comprising:
a body; and
a pick deck comprising picking systems configured to harvest crops of plants growing in at least one plant bed,
wherein the pick deck is adjustable with respect to the body to adjust a position of the picking systems over the at least one plant bed.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claims 2-10, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided in at least claims 1-4 and 8-10 of the issued U.S. Patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 11 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A method of providing a harvesting vehicle, comprising:
providing a body; and
providing a pick deck comprising picking systems configured to harvest crops of plans growing in at least one plant bed,
wherein the pick deck is adjustable with respect to the body to adjust a position of the picking systems over the at least one plant bed.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claims 12-20, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided in at least claims 11-14 and 18-20 of the issued U.S. Patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Examiner notes wherein the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) provided herein would be overcome with 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).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 11, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ringwald et al (US 2010/0287900 A1, hereinafter Ringwald).
Regarding claim 1, Ringwald teaches a harvesting vehicle (Figure 1; vehicle 10; at least as in paragraph 0022) comprising:
a body (Figure 2, frame 13; at least as in paragraph 0022, 0024 and 0029, specifically as shown in at least Figure 2); and
a pick deck (Figure 2, housing assembly 18) comprising picking systems (Figures 1 & 2, picker implement(s) 14) configured to harvest crops of plants growing in at least one plant bed (Figures 1 & 2; at least as in paragraphs 0022, 0024 and 0026-0028, specifically at least as in paragraph 0022 wherein “A representative cotton harvesting vehicle is shown in FIG. 1, including a cotton compacting structure and bin 11 for receiving and holding cotton harvested by a plurality of picker implements 14 arrayed across a forward end of vehicle 10”, and further as in at least paragraph 0024, wherein “Each harvesting implement 14 is a conventional structure including a fore-and-aft extending housing assembly 18 which rotatably supports a harvesting mechanism (not shown) and other associated mechanisms for stripping or picking cotton from the plants as the harvester is driven across the field”),
wherein the pick deck is adjustable with respect to the body to adjust a position of the picking systems over the at least one plant bed (Figures 1 & 2; at least as in paragraphs 0022, 0024 and 0026-0028, at least as in paragraph 0022, wherein “The cotton harvester travels along ground 12 and monitors a height of the implement 14 above the ground 12. Automatic controls provide height adjustment of implement 14 above ground 12”, and further as in paragraph 0028, wherein “A lift mechanism 39, as shown in FIG. 2, is provided for supporting the harvesting implement 14 for vertical movement between lowered and raised elevational positions”).
Regarding claim 2, Ringwald teaches the harvesting vehicle further comprising: at least one sensor configured to provide distance measurement data of a height of the pick deck over the at least one plant bed (Figures 1 & 2; at least as in paragraphs 0019-0021 and 0031, specifically regarding “height sensing system 46”).
Regarding claim 4, Ringwald teaches the harvesting vehicle further comprising: actuators each adjustably coupling the pick deck to the body (Figures 1 & 2, implement lift mechanism 39; at least as in paragraphs 0023 and 0027-0031).
Regarding claim 11 Ringwald teaches a method of providing a harvesting vehicle (Figure 1; vehicle 10; at least as in paragraph 0022), comprising:
providing a body (Figure 2, frame 13; at least as in paragraph 0022, 0024 and 0029, specifically as shown in at least Figure 2); and
providing a pick deck (Figure 2, housing assembly 18) comprising picking systems (Figures 1 & 2, picker implement(s) 14) configured to harvest crops of plants growing in at least one plant bed (Figures 1 & 2; at least as in paragraphs 0022, 0024 and 0026-0028, specifically at least as in paragraph 0022 wherein “A representative cotton harvesting vehicle is shown in FIG. 1, including a cotton compacting structure and bin 11 for receiving and holding cotton harvested by a plurality of picker implements 14 arrayed across a forward end of vehicle 10”, and further as in at least paragraph 0024, wherein “Each harvesting implement 14 is a conventional structure including a fore-and-aft extending housing assembly 18 which rotatably supports a harvesting mechanism (not shown) and other associated mechanisms for stripping or picking cotton from the plants as the harvester is driven across the field”),
wherein the pick deck is adjustable with respect to the body to adjust a position of the picking systems over the at least one plant bed (Figures 1 & 2; at least as in paragraphs 0022, 0024 and 0026-0028, at least as in paragraph 0022, wherein “The cotton harvester travels along ground 12 and monitors a height of the implement 14 above the ground 12. Automatic controls provide height adjustment of implement 14 above ground 12”, and further as in paragraph 0028, wherein “A lift mechanism 39, as shown in FIG. 2, is provided for supporting the harvesting implement 14 for vertical movement between lowered and raised elevational positions”).
Regarding claim 12, Ringwald teaches the method further comprising: providing at least one sensor configured to provide distance measurement data of a height of the pick deck over the at least one plant bed (Figures 1 & 2; at least as in paragraphs 0019-0021 and 0031, specifically regarding “height sensing system 46”).
Regarding claim 14, Ringwald teaches the method further comprising: providing actuators each adjustably coupling the pick deck to the body (Figures 1 & 2, implement lift mechanism 39; at least as in paragraphs 0023 and 0027-0031).
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.
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) 3, 5-10, 13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringwald et al (US 2010/0287900 A1, hereinafter Ringwald) in view of Pitzer (US 2016/0161238 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ringwald is silent regarding wherein: the at least one sensor comprises a respective imaging system at each of the picking systems; and the distance measurement data is collected from the respective imaging systems of the picking systems. Pitzer, in the same field of endeavor of harvesting vehicles, teaches “harvesting vehicle can include a body including a plurality of picking systems configured to be carried over plants growing in one or more plant beds to harvest crops of the plants. Each picking system can include an imaging system and can be configured to (a) determine a height of the picking system over one of the one or more plant beds as the picking system is carried over the plants and (b) provide distance measurement data based on the height” (Figures 21 & 57; at least as in paragraphs 0078-0079 and 0375). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Ringwald to include Pitzer’s teaching of providing an imaging system with a respective picking system to determine a relative height between the picking system and a plant/crop, since Pitzer teaches wherein such an imaging system provides more accurate detection of a crop/plant relative to the picking system of the harvest vehicle, thereby providing an improved picking system for a harvesting vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, Ringwald is silent regarding wherein each of the actuators are configured be adjusted independently of each other to collectively control a pitch position of the pick deck and a roll position of the pick deck. Pitzer, in the same field of endeavor of harvesting vehicles, teaches a harvesting vehicle that includes a suspension system comprising a plurality of independently controlled actuators that are utilized to adjust the roll, pitch and yaw of the vehicle with respect to detected crops by an imaging system of said harvesting vehicle as well as the height of said picking system of said harvesting vehicle relative to said detected crops (Figures 41-42 & 44-46; at least as in paragraphs 0078, 0224, 0240, 0313 and 0375, wherein a wheel mount 4405 can be adjusted vertically up or down with respect to body 4406 with actuator 4408, which can be a hydraulic or electric actuator, and further wherein with body frame axes defined, as shown in at least Figures 41-42, attitude parameters, specifically, roll, pitch, and yaw, can be defined). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Ringwald, to include Pitzer’s teaching of employing a suspension system comprising a multiple individually controlled actuators for adjusting the picking system of a harvesting vehicle relative to detected crops/plants, since Pitzer teaches wherein providing an adjustable picking system provides enhanced and more accurate control of said picking system for harvesting one or more crops/plants.
Regarding claim 6, Ringwald is silent regarding wherein each of the actuators are coupled to the pick deck at a different quadrant of the pick deck. Pitzer, in the same field of endeavor of harvesting vehicles, teaches a harvesting vehicle that includes a suspension system comprising a plurality of independently controlled actuators that are utilized to adjust the roll, pitch and yaw of the vehicle with respect to detected crops by an imaging system of said harvesting vehicle as well as the height of said picking system of said harvesting vehicle relative to said detected crops (Figures 41-42 & 44-46; at least as in paragraphs 0078, 0224, 0240, 0313 and 0375, wherein a wheel mount 4405 can be adjusted vertically up or down with respect to body 4406 with actuator 4408, which can be a hydraulic or electric actuator, and further wherein with body frame axes defined, as shown in at least Figures 41-42, attitude parameters, specifically, roll, pitch, and yaw, can be defined). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Ringwald, to include Pitzer’s teaching of providing a plurality of individually controlled actuators taught by Pitzer in corresponding quadrants locations of said harvesting vehicle, to thereby accomplish adjusting the yaw, pitch and roll of said deck relative to said crops for said harvesting operation, thereby employing a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 7, Ringwald is silent regarding wherein each of the actuators is a rotary servo actuator. Pitzer, in the same field of endeavor of harvesting vehicles, teaches a harvesting vehicle that includes a suspension system comprising a plurality of independently controlled actuators that are utilized to adjust the roll, pitch and yaw of the vehicle with respect to detected crops by an imaging system of said harvesting vehicle as well as the height of said picking system of said harvesting vehicle relative to said detected crops (at least as in paragraph 0240, wherein the actuator may be one or more of a hydraulic or electric actuator, etc.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Ringwald, to include Pitzer’s teaching of providing one or more of a hydraulic or electric actuator, since Pitzer teaches wherein such actuators provide efficient and/or enhanced control of a suspension system for a harvesting vehicle, thereby providing a more robust suspension system for the harvesting vehicle.
Regarding claim 8, Ringwald is silent regarding the harvesting vehicle further comprising: a suspension control system configured to control adjustments to a vertical position of the pick deck, a pitch position of the pick deck, and a roll position of the pick deck. Pitzer, in the same field of endeavor of harvesting vehicles, teaches a harvesting vehicle that includes a suspension system comprising a plurality of independently controlled actuators that are utilized to adjust the roll, pitch and yaw of the vehicle with respect to detected crops by an imaging system of said harvesting vehicle as well as the height of said picking system of said harvesting vehicle relative to said detected crops (Figures 41-42 & 44-46; at least as in paragraphs 0078, 0224, 0240, 0313 and 0375, wherein a wheel mount 4405 can be adjusted vertically up or down with respect to body 4406 with actuator 4408, which can be a hydraulic or electric actuator, and further wherein with body frame axes defined, as shown in at least Figures 41-42, attitude parameters, specifically, roll, pitch, and yaw, can be defined). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Ringwald, to include Pitzer’s teaching of employing a suspension system comprising a multiple individually controlled actuators for adjusting the picking system of a harvesting vehicle relative to detected crops/plants, since Pitzer teaches wherein providing an adjustable picking system provides enhanced and more accurate control of said picking system for harvesting one or more crops/plants.
Regarding claim 9, in view of the above combination of Ringwald and Pitzer, Pitzer further teaches wherein: the suspension control system is configured to control the adjustments such that a bottommost part of each picking system of the picking systems is kept with a first distance range above a bed of the at least one plant bed when the picking system is moved over the bed; and the first distance range is approximately 5.08 cm to approximately 12.7 cm (Figure 32; at least as in paragraph 0250).
Regarding claim 10, Ringwald is silent regarding wherein the harvesting vehicle is configured to carry the picking systems simultaneously over at least four plant beds while wheels of the harvesting vehicle straddle at least two inner plant beds of the at least four plant beds. Pitzer, in the same field of endeavor of harvesting vehicles, teaches a harvesting vehicle that includes a suspension system comprising a plurality of independently controlled actuators that are utilized to adjust the roll, pitch and yaw of the vehicle with respect to detected crops by an imaging system of said harvesting vehicle as well as the height of said picking system of said harvesting vehicle relative to said detected crops. Pitzer goes on to teach wherein said harvesting vehicle is configured to carry the plurality of picking systems over plant beds for harvesting one or more plants/crops (Figures 32-34; at least as in paragraphs 0078, 0208, 0224 & 0357). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Ringwald, to include Pitzer’s teaching of employing a suspension system comprising a multiple individually controlled actuators for adjusting the plurality of picking systems of a harvesting vehicle relative to a plurality of detected crops/plants, since Pitzer teaches wherein providing an adjustable picking system provides enhanced and more accurate control of said picking system for harvesting one or more crops/plants.
Regarding claim 13, Ringwald is silent regarding wherein: the at least one sensor comprises a respective imaging system at each of the picking systems; and the distance measurement data is collected from the respective imaging systems of the picking systems. Pitzer, in the same field of endeavor of harvesting vehicles, teaches “harvesting vehicle can include a body including a plurality of picking systems configured to be carried over plants growing in one or more plant beds to harvest crops of the plants. Each picking system can include an imaging system and can be configured to (a) determine a height of the picking system over one of the one or more plant beds as the picking system is carried over the plants and (b) provide distance measurement data based on the height” (Figures 21 & 57; at least as in paragraphs 0078-0079 and 0375). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Ringwald to include Pitzer’s teaching of providing an imaging system with a respective picking system to determine a relative height between the picking system and a plant/crop, since Pitzer teaches wherein such an imaging system provides more accurate detection of a crop/plant relative to the picking system of the harvest vehicle, thereby providing an improved picking system for a harvesting vehicle.
Regarding claim 15, Ringwald is silent regarding wherein each of the actuators are configured be adjusted independently of each other to collectively control a pitch position of the pick deck and a roll position of the pick deck. Pitzer, in the same field of endeavor of harvesting vehicles, teaches a harvesting vehicle that includes a suspension system comprising a plurality of independently controlled actuators that are utilized to adjust the roll, pitch and yaw of the vehicle with respect to detected crops by an imaging system of said harvesting vehicle as well as the height of said picking system of said harvesting vehicle relative to said detected crops (Figures 41-42 & 44-46; at least as in paragraphs 0078, 0224, 0240, 0313 and 0375, wherein a wheel mount 4405 can be adjusted vertically up or down with respect to body 4406 with actuator 4408, which can be a hydraulic or electric actuator, and further wherein with body frame axes defined, as shown in at least Figures 41-42, attitude parameters, specifically, roll, pitch, and yaw, can be defined). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Ringwald, to include Pitzer’s teaching of employing a suspension system comprising a multiple individually controlled actuators for adjusting the picking system of a harvesting vehicle relative to detected crops/plants, since Pitzer teaches wherein providing an adjustable picking system provides enhanced and more accurate control of said picking system for harvesting one or more crops/plants.
Regarding claim 16, Ringwald is silent regarding wherein each of the actuators are coupled to the pick deck at a different quadrant of the pick deck. Pitzer, in the same field of endeavor of harvesting vehicles, teaches a harvesting vehicle that includes a suspension system comprising a plurality of independently controlled actuators that are utilized to adjust the roll, pitch and yaw of the vehicle with respect to detected crops by an imaging system of said harvesting vehicle as well as the height of said picking system of said harvesting vehicle relative to said detected crops (Figures 41-42 & 44-46; at least as in paragraphs 0078, 0224, 0240, 0313 and 0375, wherein a wheel mount 4405 can be adjusted vertically up or down with respect to body 4406 with actuator 4408, which can be a hydraulic or electric actuator, and further wherein with body frame axes defined, as shown in at least Figures 41-42, attitude parameters, specifically, roll, pitch, and yaw, can be defined). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Ringwald, to include Pitzer’s teaching of providing a plurality of individually controlled actuators taught by Pitzer in corresponding quadrants locations of said harvesting vehicle, to thereby accomplish adjusting the yaw, pitch and roll of said deck relative to said crops for said harvesting operation, thereby employing a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 17, Ringwald is silent regarding wherein each of the actuators is a rotary servo actuator. Pitzer, in the same field of endeavor of harvesting vehicles, teaches a harvesting vehicle that includes a suspension system comprising a plurality of independently controlled actuators that are utilized to adjust the roll, pitch and yaw of the vehicle with respect to detected crops by an imaging system of said harvesting vehicle as well as the height of said picking system of said harvesting vehicle relative to said detected crops (at least as in paragraph 0240, wherein the actuator may be one or more of a hydraulic or electric actuator, etc.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Ringwald, to include Pitzer’s teaching of providing one or more of a hydraulic or electric actuator, since Pitzer teaches wherein such actuators provide efficient and/or enhanced control of a suspension system for a harvesting vehicle, thereby providing a more robust suspension system for the harvesting vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, Ringwald is silent regarding the method further comprising: providing a suspension control system configured to control adjustments to a vertical position of the pick deck, a pitch position of the pick deck, and a roll position of the pick deck. Pitzer, in the same field of endeavor of harvesting vehicles, teaches a harvesting vehicle that includes a suspension system comprising a plurality of independently controlled actuators that are utilized to adjust the roll, pitch and yaw of the vehicle with respect to detected crops by an imaging system of said harvesting vehicle as well as the height of said picking system of said harvesting vehicle relative to said detected crops (Figures 41-42 & 44-46; at least as in paragraphs 0078, 0224, 0240, 0313 and 0375, wherein a wheel mount 4405 can be adjusted vertically up or down with respect to body 4406 with actuator 4408, which can be a hydraulic or electric actuator, and further wherein with body frame axes defined, as shown in at least Figures 41-42, attitude parameters, specifically, roll, pitch, and yaw, can be defined). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Ringwald, to include Pitzer’s teaching of employing a suspension system comprising a multiple individually controlled actuators for adjusting the picking system of a harvesting vehicle relative to detected crops/plants, since Pitzer teaches wherein providing an adjustable picking system provides enhanced and more accurate control of said picking system for harvesting one or more crops/plants.
Regarding claim 19, in view of the above combination of Ringwald and Pitzer, Pitzer further teaches wherein: the suspension control system is configured to control the adjustments such that a bottommost part of each picking system of the picking systems is kept with a first distance range above a bed of the at least one plant bed when the picking system is moved over the bed; and the first distance range is approximately 5.08 cm to approximately 12.7 cm (Figure 32; at least as in paragraph 0250).
Regarding claim 20, Ringwald is silent regarding wherein the harvesting vehicle is configured to carry the picking systems simultaneously over at least four plant beds while wheels of the harvesting vehicle straddle at least two inner plant beds of the at least four plant beds. Pitzer, in the same field of endeavor of harvesting vehicles, teaches a harvesting vehicle that includes a suspension system comprising a plurality of independently controlled actuators that are utilized to adjust the roll, pitch and yaw of the vehicle with respect to detected crops by an imaging system of said harvesting vehicle as well as the height of said picking system of said harvesting vehicle relative to said detected crops. Pitzer goes on to teach wherein said harvesting vehicle is configured to carry the plurality of picking systems over plant beds for harvesting one or more plants/crops (Figures 32-34; at least as in paragraphs 0078, 0208, 0224 & 0357). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Ringwald, to include Pitzer’s teaching of employing a suspension system comprising a multiple individually controlled actuators for adjusting the plurality of picking systems of a harvesting vehicle relative to a plurality of detected crops/plants, since Pitzer teaches wherein providing an adjustable picking system provides enhanced and more accurate control of said picking system for harvesting one or more crops/plants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 – Notice of References Cited form. Examiner additionally notes the following prior art references, in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention and also reads on several of the currently provided claim limitations above;
US 2018/0035611 A1, issued to D’Arrigo et al, which is directed towards a harvester vehicle for harvesting one or more crops/plants, and further wherein said harvester includes a cut and lift mechanism that is adjustable relative to the vehicle body/frame.
US 2015/0305239 A1, issued to Jung, which is directed towards a monitoring system for controlling the position of an implement for an agricultural vehicle while accounting for vehicle dynamics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN L SAMPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5925. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571)270-5376. 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.
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657