Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/978,237

BALER POWER MANAGEMENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 12, 2024
Examiner
MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
Art Unit
3668
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Deere & Company
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
2-3
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
459 granted / 761 resolved
+8.3% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
799
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.2%
-30.8% vs TC avg
§103
61.8%
+21.8% vs TC avg
§102
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
§112
9.4%
-30.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 761 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2022/0192098) in view of McClure (US 2020/032147) As to claim 1 Smith discloses a combination comprising: a towing vehicle including a PTO unit (Paragraph 16 “The agricultural vehicle 102 generally includes a chassis, a prime mover, wheels and/or tracks 104, a tractor power-take-off (PTO) shaft 106, a controller 200 with a memory 202, and at least one operating condition sensor 204.”); a baler including a pick-up unit for picking up crop from the ground and feeding the crop into a baling unit, wherein the baling unit is configured for receiving the crop from the pick-up unit and forming the crop into a bale (Paragraph 18 “In operation, crop material is lifted from windrows into the baler 110 by a pickup unit 124. The crop material is moved rearwardly toward a bale chamber 126 which is connected to the frame 112. The bale chamber 126 may be in the form of a continuously variable bale chamber 126.”); a control unit connected to the PTO unit, wherein the PTO unit is mechanically connected to the baler to drive the baling unit and the pick-up unit, wherein the baling unit can be driven with a first energy value and the pick-up unit can be driven with a second energy value (Paragraph 16-17 “The agricultural vehicle 102 generally includes a chassis, a prime mover, wheels and/or tracks 104, a tractor power-take-off (PTO) shaft 106, a controller 200 with a memory 202, and at least one operating condition sensor 204… The baler 110 generally includes a frame 112, a hitch 114 pivotally connected to the agricultural vehicle 102, a baler PTO shaft 116 with a PTO clutch 118 affixed thereto, and wheels 120. The baler PTO shaft 116 is connected to and driven by the PTO 106 of the agricultural vehicle 102. The baler PTO shaft 116 drives a driving mechanism 122 which in turn powers the various operational systems of the baler 110. The baler PTO shaft 116 and/or the PTO clutch 118 may have a mechanical stop, e.g. a pawl, which may stop the baler PTO shaft 116 from rotating.”); wherein the control unit is configured to: receive or determine at least one of an energy consumption signal or a PTO consumption signal (Paragraph 29-30 “The controller 150 may determine the optimal PTO speed as a function of the maximum PTO speed, the minimum PTO speed, feed rate, and the capacity of the baler 110. The function may comprise: [00001]PTOOPT=PTOMAX-( PTOMAX -PTOMIN)*(1-CAPACITY/FEEDRATE), wherein in the above equation, PTO.sub.OPT is the PTO optimal speed, PTO.sub.MAX is the maximum PTO speed, PTO.sub.MIN is the minimum PTO speed, CAPACITY is the bale capacity of the bale chamber 126, and the FEED RATE is the real-time feed rate of the bale chamber 126.”); determine a total energy value from the energy consumption signal or the PTO consumption signal(Paragraph 29-30 “The controller 150 may determine the optimal PTO speed as a function of the maximum PTO speed, the minimum PTO speed, feed rate, and the capacity of the baler 110. The function may comprise: [00001]PTOOPT=PTOMAX-( PTOMAX -PTOMIN)*(1-CAPACITY/FEEDRATE), wherein in the above equation, PTO.sub.OPT is the PTO optimal speed, PTO.sub.MAX is the maximum PTO speed, PTO.sub.MIN is the minimum PTO speed, CAPACITY is the bale capacity of the bale chamber 126, and the FEED RATE is the real-time feed rate of the bale chamber 126.”);; compare the total energy value with the baler consumption value to determine if the total energy value is different from the baler consumption value (Paragraph 28 “If the present bale size is less than the threshold bale size, then the controller may compare the sensed PTO torque with the PTO clutch setting from the baler 110 (at block 312). If the sensed PTO torque is greater than a desired percentage of the PTO clutch setting, for example approximately half, then the controller 150 may increase the PTO speed (at block 310). If the sensed PTO torque is less than the desired percentage of the PTO clutch setting, the controller 150 may determine a real-time feed rate (at block 314). For instance, the feed rate may be based on the bale size growth rate taken over a set time period such as five seconds. Thereafter, the controller 150 may determine an optimal PTO speed based on the amount of torque of the baler PTO shaft (at block 316). After calculating the optimal PTO speed, the controller 150 may apply the optimal PTO speed to the baler PTO shaft 116.”); and define a first actuating signal for controlling the PTO unit when the total energy value is different from the baler consumption value (Paragraph 28 “For instance, the feed rate may be based on the bale size growth rate taken over a set time period such as five seconds. Thereafter, the controller 150 may determine an optimal PTO speed based on the amount of torque of the baler PTO shaft (at block 316). After calculating the optimal PTO speed, the controller 150 may apply the optimal PTO speed to the baler PTO shaft 116.”);”). Smith does not explicitly disclose wherein the total energy value is the maximum energy currently available for transfer from the PTO unit of the towing vehicle to the baler. McClure teaches wherein the total energy value is the maximum energy currently available for transfer from the PTO unit of the towing vehicle to the baler (Paragraph 33 “The baler controller 420 may be configured to determine the maximum available power by, for example, receiving a PTO power consumption signal, determining a PTO power consumption from the received PTO power consumption signal, and subtracting the PTO power consumption from a maximum tractor power value, which may correspond to a maximum output of the engine 412, to determine the maximum available power.”). determine a baler consumption value, wherein the baler consumption value is a current total energy demand of the baler(Paragraph 33 “The baler controller 420 may be configured to determine the maximum available power by, for example, receiving a PTO power consumption signal, determining a PTO power consumption from the received PTO power consumption signal, and subtracting the PTO power consumption from a maximum tractor power value, which may correspond to a maximum output of the engine 412, to determine the maximum available power.”). .It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Smith to include the teachings of determining a maximum energy currently available for the purpose of determining the available power available from the PTO unit to the baler to form the bale. As to claim 2 Smith discloses a combination set forth wherein the control unit is configured to set and/or adjust a speed of the towing vehicle with a driving signal when the total energy value is different from the baler consumption value (Paragraph 28). As to claim 3 Smith discloses a combination wherein the control unit is configured to define a density of the bale with a second actuating signal when the total energy value is different from the baler consumption value(Paragraph 27). As to claim 4 Smith discloses a combination wherein the baler consumption value is equal to a sum of the first energy value and the second energy value (Paragraph 29-30). As to claim 5 Smith discloses a combination further comprising a first sensor for capturing the first energy value of the baling unit and for capturing the second energy value of the pick-up unit, wherein the control unit is connected to the first sensor, and the control unit is configured to determine the sum of the first and second energy values using the signal from the first sensor (Paragraph 28). As to claim 6 Smith discloses a combination further comprising a first sensor for capturing the first energy value of the baling unit and a second sensor for capturing the second energy value of the pick-up unit, wherein the control unit is connected to the first and second sensors, and the control unit is configured to determine the first and second energy values and the sum of the first and second energy values using the signals from the first and second sensors (Paragraph 28). As to claim 7 Smith discloses a combination further comprising a drive unit mechanically connected to the baling unit and the pick-up unit and can be used to drive the baling unit and the pick-up unit(Paragraph 16-17). As to claim 8 Smith discloses a combination wherein the first energy value can be determined with the first sensor on a first drive shaft of the drive unit and the second energy value can be determined with the second sensor on a second drive shaft of the drive unit (Paragraph 28). As to claim 9 Smith discloses a combination wherein when the total energy value is different from the baler consumption value, the control unit is configured to: set an output size of the fully formed bale, wherein the output size defines when the fully formed bale is output; set and/or adjust the PTO unit with the first actuating signal (Paragraph 27); set and/or adjust a speed of the towing vehicle with a driving signal (Paragraph 29-30) and set and/or adjust a density of the bale with a second actuating signal (Paragraph 27). As to claim 10 Smith discloses a combination wherein the output size is defined by one of a volume of the bale, a diameter of the bale, a radius of the bale, a mass of the bale, a tension of the baling means, or a distribution of the crop, in particular a lateral distribution of the crop, in the swath (Paragraph 24). As to claim 11 Smith discloses a combination wherein the control unit is configured to set a density of the bale with the second actuating signal when the first energy value is different from a presently required energy value of the baling unit (Paragraph 24). As to claim 12 Smith discloses a combination wherein the control unit is configured to control an input and output unit based on the driving signal, with the result that the input and output unit signals to the operator to change a speed of the towing vehicle (Paragraph 28). As to claim 13 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1. As to claim 14 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 3. As to claim 15 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 5. As to claim 16 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 6. As to claim 17 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5. 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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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. IMRAN K. MUSTAFA Primary Examiner Art Unit 3668 /IMRAN K MUSTAFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668 4/4/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 12, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 24, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596142
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING AND CLASSIFYING DRONE SIGNALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583451
DRIVING SUPPORT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12559101
TRAVELING CONTROL APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12546608
VISION-BASED LOCATION AND TURN MARKER PREDICTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12528449
STATE QUANTITY CALCULATION DEVICE, CONTROL DEVICE, AND VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+22.3%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 761 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month