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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 4 and 26-29 in the reply filed on 08-13-2026 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 6-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08-13-2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The examiner believes page 22 line 17 of the specification which recites “the control system 301” should read –the control system 300—, consistent with page 25 line 17 “The control system 300”, and since there is no reference character 301 shown in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 line 10 “cutter bar.” appears to contain a period which should be a comma, i.e., --cutter bar,--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the condition autonomously detected" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the condition autonomously " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
By virtue of its dependence on claim 27, this basis of rejection also applies to claim 28.
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)(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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dima et al. (US 20190021226 A1).
Regarding independent claim 4, Dima discloses a crop harvesting machine (Fig. 1) comprising:
a harvesting vehicle (10) mounted on ground wheels (14,16) for movement across ground carrying a standing crop (76) for harvesting;
a header (18) having a cutter bar (50) for cutting standing crop and a crop transport device (112) for transporting the standing crop inwardly from ends of the header to a collection location of the harvesting vehicle (para. [0028] “a transverse conveyor 112…in order to feed the crop cut by the knife bar 50 to the center of the platform 18 and…through a rear opening in the frame 56”) and a reel (52) mounted above the cutter bar for rotation about an axis (60) parallel to the cutter bar to sweep the crop over the cutter bar to the transport device;
a mounting assembly for carrying the header on the harvesting vehicle (para. [0026] “On the forward end area of the harvesting machine 10…harvesting platform 18 is releasably mounted”);
a detector for detecting the presence of a crop streak of uncut or poorly cut crop behind the cutter bar and/or Uncut downed crop or long stubble length…detected by another sensor looking to the field behind the platform or the harvesting machine”), and
a control system (46) arranged to generate an output signal responsive thereto and providing in response to the signal a control output to the machine (para. [0012] control unit automatically adjusts cutting height of platform and/or machine speed in response to signal, e.g. lower cut height, feederhouse aft adjustment for lower cut height, para. [0050], or reduced ground speed).
Claims 4 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aesaert et al. (US 20200093054 A1).
Regarding independent claim 4, Aesaert discloses a crop harvesting machine (Fig. 1) comprising:
a harvesting vehicle (1) mounted on ground wheels (7) for movement across ground carrying a standing crop for harvesting;
a header (2) having a cutter bar (para. [0026] “cutting knives of the header”) for cutting standing crop and a crop transport device (designated in annotated image below) for transporting the standing crop inwardly from ends of the header to a collection location (3) of the harvesting vehicle and a reel (designated in annotated image below) mounted above the cutter bar for rotation about an axis parallel to the cutter bar to sweep the crop over the cutter bar to the transport device;
a mounting assembly (5) for carrying the header on the harvesting vehicle;
a detector (8, 9) for detecting
a control system (“controller”) arranged to generate an output signal responsive thereto and providing in response to the signal a control output to the machine (para. [0014 and 0041] combine may be stopped before it gets stuck).
PNG
media_image1.png
455
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 1 of Aesaert
Regarding claim 27, Aesaert discloses the apparatus according to claim 4 wherein a condition autonomously monitored by the detector is a band of disturbed soil behind the cutter bar (Fig. 2, para. [0036-0037] difference between second soil sensor 9 measurement and first soil sensor 8 measurement is representative of the deformation of a strip of soil aligned with axis 12).
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 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dima as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Roberge (US 20140245712 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Dima discloses the apparatus according to claim 4, wherein a condition autonomously detected by the detector is the presence of a crop streak of uncut or poorly cut crop behind the cutter bar which is detected by monitoring crop length (para. [0050] uncut/poorly cut crop is measured by long stubble length left behind the cutterbar) instead of a crop height.
In the same area, Roberge discloses a machine (Fig. 1) for severing standing crops from the ground comprising a cutterbar (10) and a detector (68) for detecting the presence of a crop streak of uncut or poorly cut crop behind the cutter bar by monitoring crop height behind the cutterbar (see Figs. 2-3, para. [0029 and 0031] “crop cut quality sensors 68 positioned…rearward from the cutterbar 10…allows detection of variations in the height of the cut crop stubble aft of the cutterbar…The ECU 40, upon detection in non-uniformity in the height of the cut crop stubble from the cut quality sensors 68, can adjust…the cutterbar…to minimize crop cut streaking (longitudinal streaks on uncut or poorly cut crop in the swath)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the detector of Dima to determine the presence of a crop streak of uncut or poorly cut crop behind the cutter bar by monitoring the crop height, as taught by Roberge, as a mere simple substitution of one known parameter for determining the presence of uncut/poorly cut crop behind the cutterbar for another to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 29 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. Blackmore et al. (US 20020173893 A1) discloses crop presence detectors positioned behind a cutterbar. Boyd et al. (US 20160106038 A1) discloses a sensor for a combine harvester which can be utilized to visualize sections of crops that could be potentially left uncut and allow for proper adjustments to an operating parameter to make sure that all the uncut crops are cut. Roberge (US 20190254227 A1) discloses tines which can be used to measure the position and length of uncut crop streaks due to forces imparted on the tines by streaks of uncut crop.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Christopher Sebesta, can be reached on (571) 272-0547. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights