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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to application number 18/985,430 filed on 12/18/2024, in which Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant claims priority to provisional application 63/622,146, filed 1/18/2024. Examiner would like to note that the Application Data Sheet, filed 12/18/2024, incorrectly lists the filing date of provisional application 63/622,146 as 1/18/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/18/2025 and the IDS submitted on 10/15/2025 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
It is too long and
It contains legalese, "comprises" (line 8).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 6, para 0030:
"processor 64" should be "processor 52,"
"monitoring devices 62" should be "monitoring devices 50," and
"control units 68" should be "control units 56."
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (lines 4 and 7), Claim 4 (line 2), Claim 5 (line 3), Claim 6 (lines 3-4, 7, 9, and 11), Claim 9 (line 2), and Claim 10 (line 2) recite inner and outer portion. It is unclear what is meant by “portion” and the language should be updated to more clearly state what is meant by inner and outer portion. For examination purposes, “portion” will be interpreted as “edge” or “end.” Please note, any changes made to this language should also reflect proper antecedent basis, see the rejection to Claims 1, 4-6, and 9-10 in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section below.
Claim 2-3 and 7-8, according to MPEP 2111.03, have no clear transitional phrase for the method of Claims 2-3 and the system of Claims 6-7. For example, Claims 2-3 could be updated to recite “the method of claim […], […] further comprising […].” For example. Claims 7-8 could be updated to recite “the system of claim […], comprising the processor, wherein if the processor determines […], the processor is further configured to […].”
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 1-10 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 1 (line and Claim 6 (lines 6-7) recite the limitation "the side wing section." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the side wing section” will be interpreted as “a side wing section of the plurality of side wing sections.”
Claim 1 (line 17), Claim 4 (line 2), Claim 5 (lines 2-3), Claim 6 (lines 5-6 and 8), Claim 9 (line 2), and Claim 10 (line 2) recites the limitation “[one of] the plurality of outer portions.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “[one of] the plurality of outer portions” will be interpreted as “[one of] the plurality of side wing sections” or “the side wing section of the plurality of side wing sections,” as noted above.
Claim 5 and Claim 10 recite “an average height of the plurality of outer portions.” There is insufficient explanation of what “an average height” refers to and instead should be explicitly stated or more clearly described. “An average height of the plurality of outer portions” could be interpreted as an average height for each side section or a single average height of the two sides together. It is unclear based on the specification, pg. 7, para 0032, "use the average of the signals from the two outer sensors,” if this is meant to be an average of each of the signals or an average of the two signals combined. For examination purposes, Claims 5 and 10, “an average height of the plurality of outer portions,” will be read as an average of each side wing section.
Claim 6 is directed towards a system comprising sensors and a processor, whereas Claims 9 and 10 recite “the system of claim 6, wherein the outer wing height comprises […],” and are therefore not directed towards a structural component of the system. The claims need correction to more clearly state in the preamble which structure of the system the claim is directed towards. For example, as stated in MPEP 2114(II), an apparatus claim “covers what a device is, not what a device does” and further, MPEP 2173.05(g) explains that “without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.” Therefore, for examination purposes, Claims 9 and 10 will be interpreted as “the system of claim 6, comprising the processor configured to determine the outer wing height, wherein the outer wing height includes […].”
Claims 2-3 and 7-8 are rejected by dependency on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A method for adjusting a header mounted on an agricultural harvester, wherein the header includes a central section and a plurality of side wing sections, wherein each of the plurality of side wing sections extends between an inner portion and an outer portion, wherein the inner portion of each of the plurality of side wing sections is pivotally coupled to the central section, and wherein each of the plurality of side wing sections includes a ground engaging device mounted on the side wing section adjacent the outer portion, wherein each ground engaging device has an adjustable height, the method comprising the steps of:
determining a height of the central section of the header [mental process];
determining an outer wing height based on a height of one of the plurality of outer portions [mental process];
determining whether the outer wing height is within a threshold of the height of the central section [mental process]; and
if it is determined that the outer wing height is not within the threshold of the height of the central section, adjusting the height of the ground engaging device until the outer wing height is within the threshold of the height of the central section [post-solution activity].
101 Analysis
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a method for adjusting a header containing a center and multiple side wing sections and adjustable ground-engaging devices mounted on each side wing section, wherein the method includes determining a height of the center section and the height of the side wing sections and determining if the height of the center section and the height of the side wing sections are within a threshold, where when the heights are not within a threshold the height of the ground-engaging devices are adjusted until the heights are within the threshold.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Process
The claim recites the mental processes, as bolded above. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, could be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can look at a header and determine the height across various portions of the header and any differences in height across the header.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application – No
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (underlined above) do not impose any meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Adjusting the height of the ground engaging devices is recited at a high level and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Step 2B Evaluation:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim elements, as stated for Step 2A Prong Two, do no more than add insignificant extra-solution activity. And therefore, does not provide an inventive concept.
The specification explains that “adjusting the height of the ground engaging device” is raising or lowering, for example, a skid shoe using a signal sent to a cylinder, specification pg. 7, para 0032 recites, “In one embodiment of the present invention, the system 48 uses the center height sensor 44 as a target and adjusts the height of the skid shoe cylinders 40 so that the positions of the outer height sensors 46 match or come within a set threshold of the height measured by the center height sensor 44. […]. When the combine operator raises the AHHC setting on the combine, the system 48 will detect an increase in the header height from the center height sensor 44 and automatically adjust the position of the skid shoe assemblies 32 accordingly. If the operator lowers the header 10, the system 48 will detect the lower cut-height from center height sensor 44 and automatically lower (retract) the skid shoe assemblies 32 until position of the outer height sensors 46 comes within the set threshold of the position of the center height sensor 44.” The specification does not provide any indication that “adjusting the height of the ground engaging device,” as recited in Claim 1, is anything other than the standard method for modifying a component state based on a measurement or calculation used, and known, to those of ordinary skill in the art, especially for achieving a desired state or position of a work machine, such as generally raising or lowering a header. Therefore, the specification indicates that “adjusting the height of the ground engaging device” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function as it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Independent Claim 6 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the claim is directed towards a system for performing the method of Claim 1, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, Claim 6 is not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2-5 and 7-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The limitations of the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea, and thus can also be performed as a mental process, in the human mind. These limitations do no more than add additional mental processes and insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, Claims 2-5 and 7-10 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for Claim 1.
Therefore, Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception, without amounting to significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze Selting et al., PG Pub US-2018/0368317-A1 (herein "Schulze Selting").
Regarding Claim 1, Schulze Selting discloses: A method for adjusting a header mounted on an agricultural harvester, wherein the header includes a central section and a plurality of side wing sections, wherein each of the plurality of side wing sections extends between an inner portion and an outer portion, wherein the inner portion of each of the plurality of side wing sections is pivotally coupled to the central section, and wherein each of the plurality of side wing sections includes a ground engaging device mounted on the side wing section adjacent the outer portion, wherein each ground engaging device has an adjustable height. See [Schulze Selting, FIG 1. and pg. 4, paras 0030 and 0032], which explain that a harvesting header includes a middle section and two side sections attached through an articulated connection,”[0030] FIG. 1 shows a view of a harvesting head 2 from an oblique rear perspective. The harvesting head 2 consists in the exemplary embodiment of a middle section 4 and two side sections 6 attached to it. The harvesting head 2 is connected by connection elements 8 to the entrance conduit of a combine. […]. [0032] The middle section 4 is connected to each of the side sections 6 by an articulated connection 12. The articulated connection 12 consists of a rotary shaft about which the side sections 6 can pivot with their free ends up or down.” See also [Schulze Selting, pg. 4, paras 0035-0037], which explain that a computer converts sensor signals to commands for adjusting the height of the header using adjustable support wheels attached to the side sections, “[0035] In the evaluation device 16 a computer converts the sensor signals of the sensors 10 into adjusting commands for changing the height level of the device for the height adjustment with an appropriately designed software. These adjusting commands are forwarded by a connection line 22 to the device for the height adjustment which is located in the combine not shown in detail in FIG. 1. Therefore, the connection line 22 designates an interface to the electronic system and actuating system of the harvester to which the harvesting head 2 is attached. [0036] The device for height adjustment cannot only raise and lower the harvesting head 2 in accordance with its design but it is also additionally possible to rotate the harvesting head 2 about the longitudinal middle axis 24 if this seems to be necessary based on the sensor data of the sensors 10 and/or of the sensors 14. [0037] The undercarriage of the harvesting head 2 consists of the two support wheels 34 associated with one of the side sections. The support wheels 34 can be adjusted in height in the exemplary embodiment.”
Schulze Selting further discloses: the method comprising the steps of: determining a height of the central section of the header; determining an outer wing height based on a height of one of the plurality of outer portions; determining whether the outer wing height is within a threshold of the height of the central section; and if it is determined that the outer wing height is not within the threshold of the height of the central section, adjusting the height of the ground engaging device until the outer wing height is within the threshold of the height of the central section. See [Schulze Selting, pg. 1, para 0001], which explains that the height of the header sections can be adjusted based on a sensor reading which measures the ground distance during travel, “The present invention relates to a harvesting head comprised of several sections for being attached to a harvester, with a middle section comprising the connection elements with which the middle section can be attached to a carrier device of the harvester, and with at least one side section which is connected by an articulated connection to the middle section and about which the side section can pivot from a lower to an upper stop, wherein the carrier device comprises a device for the height adjustment whose adjusting movements are controlled by an evaluation device which is connected to sensors which constantly measure the ground distance of one or more sections of the harvesting head during the forward travel of the harvester, the evaluation device converts the sensor signals of the sensors into adjusting commands for changing the height level of the device for adjusting the height and transfers these adjusting commands to an actuator of the device for the height adjustment. The invention also relates to a method for regulating the height of such a harvesting head,” where [Schulze Selting, FIGs. 3-4 and pg. 4, para 0031], the header includes four sensors mounted on each end and at the middle of the header, “The harvesting head 2 comprises in the exemplary embodiment a total of four sensors 10 with which the distance to the ground of the harvesting head 2 can be continuously measured. The sensors 10 are in the exemplary embodiment pivotable ground surface feelers which are coupled to a rotary potentiometer.” See again [Schulze Selting, pg. 4, paras 0035-0037], which explain that a computer converts the sensor signals to commands for adjusting the height of the header using adjustable support wheels attached to the side sections. Finally see [Schulze Selting, pg. 2, para 0013], which explains that the sensors use a mechanical or virtual limit value to quantify a height difference between the middle and side sections, “The limit value at which the sensor signal is transmitted can correspond to the mechanical stop at which the mechanical movability of the articulated connection ends. However, the limit value can also be defined to be where the pivoting movement of the side section has not yet reached the mechanical stop but has almost reached it. Therefore, a virtual stop can also be defined which does not correspond to the mechanical stop. If the limit value is defined shortly before the reaching of the mechanical stop, the evaluation device still has time to control the carrier device in the correction mode and to raise or lower the middle section as needed so that the stop is either no longer reached or the stop movement of the side section is no longer as hard as it would be if the carrier device had not already raised or lowered the middle section already in the correction mode,” where [Schulze Selting, pgs. 2-3, paras 0016-0018], the limit value can indicate that the side section is unable to touch the ground and the middle section must be lowered or if the header is sagging, where the side section is lower than the middle section, the middle section can be raised, “[0016] When the free end of a side section has been pivoted so far down that the sensor reports the reaching of the limit value, the free end of this side section most probably is hanging in the air and its entire weight is being carried by the articulated connection to the middle section. […]. In this situation the correction mode can provide lowering the middle section of the harvesting head via the carrier device. […]. [0017] If the free end of a lateral section has been pivoted so far upward that the sensor reports the reaching of the limit value, a sagging of the harvesting head could occur or the free end of the side section could be rammed into the ground if the harvester continues its advance. In order to avoid this, it is possible to raise the middle section in the correction mode via the carrier device.”
Schulze Selting does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 1, more specifically, the limitation wherein each ground engaging device has an adjustable height, as a single embodiment. Each ground engaging device with an adjustable height is described as an alternate embodiment, [Schulze Selting, pg. 3, para 0022], “According to an embodiment of the invention the support wheels arranged on the side sections can be adjusted in height, the adjustment in height of the support wheels takes place by the evaluation device, and the evaluation device holds the support wheel in the correction mode of the associated side section in the current position or moves it downward if a sensor for the particular side section transmits a sensor signal to the evaluation device which indicates that the side section is located in the area of its lower stop and/or of the lower limit value.” As stated in MPEP § 2143(I)(A), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to incorporate the main embodiment of Schulze Selting, including a harvesting head with a middle and pivoting side sections and an evaluation module using sensors for adjusting a ground distance of the sections, with the alternate embodiment, including adjustable wheel supports, into a combined system. Doing so would be technically feasible, with no inventive effort. Furthermore, the resulting harvesting head system would yield predictable results, where the components of the embodiments would be expected to work as intended, with each component in the combined system performing the same. Finally, Schulze Selting also teaches that harvesting heads in prior art have ground-engaging devices, such as wheel supports to support a wheel carriage, and are used for height adjustments, which allows the side sections to follow the contour of the ground, including on uneven surfaces, [Schulze Selting, pg. 1, para 0006], and greatly reduces the risk that a side section could collide with the ground [Schulze Selting, pg., para 0022].
Regarding Claim 2, Schulze Selting discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Schulze Selting further discloses: […], wherein if it is determined that the outer wing height is not within the threshold of the height of the central section: determining whether the outer wing height is greater than the height of the central section; and if it is determined that the outer wing height is greater than the height of the central section, lowering the ground engaging device. See again [Schulze Selting, pg. 1, para 0001], which explains that the height of the header sections can be adjusted based on a sensor reading which measures the ground distance during travel, where [Schulze Selting, FIGs. 3-4 and pg. 4, para 0031], the header includes four sensors mounted on each end and at the middle of the header. Also see again [Schulze Selting, pg. 4, paras 0035-0037], which explain that a computer converts the sensor signals to commands for adjusting the height of the header using adjustable support wheels attached to the side sections. Finally see again [Schulze Selting, pg. 2, para 0013], which explains that the sensors use a mechanical or virtual limit value to quantify a height difference between the middle and side sections, where [Schulze Selting, pgs. 2-3, paras 0016-0018], the limit value can indicate that the side section is unable to touch the ground and the middle section must be lowered or if the header is sagging, where the side section is lower than the middle section, the middle section can be raised.
Schulze Selting does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 1, more specifically, the limitation wherein each ground engaging device has an adjustable height, and Claim 2, more specifically lowering the ground engaging device, as a single embodiment. Each ground engaging device with an adjustable height is described as an alternate embodiment, [Schulze Selting, pg. 3, para 0022]. As stated in MPEP § 2143(I)(A), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to incorporate the main embodiment of Schulze Selting, including a harvesting head with a middle and pivoting side sections and an evaluation module using sensors for adjusting a ground distance of the sections, with the alternate embodiment, including adjustable wheel supports, into a combined system. Doing so would be technically feasible, with no inventive effort. Furthermore, the resulting harvesting head system would yield predictable results, where the components of the embodiments would be expected to work as intended, with each component in the combined system performing the same. Finally, Schulze Selting also teaches that harvesting heads in prior art have ground-engaging devices, such as wheel supports to support a wheel carriage, and are used for height adjustments, which allows the side sections to follow the contour of the ground, including on uneven surfaces, [Schulze Selting, pg. 1, para 0006], and greatly reduces the risk that a side section could collide with the ground [Schulze Selting, pg., para 0022].
Regarding Claim 3, Schulze Selting discloses the limitations of Claim 2.
Schulze Selting further discloses: […], wherein if it is determined that the outer wing height is not greater than the height of the central section, raising the ground engaging device. See again [Schulze Selting, pg. 1, para 0001], which explains that the height of the header sections can be adjusted based on a sensor reading which measures the ground distance during travel, where [Schulze Selting, FIGs. 3-4 and pg. 4, para 0031], the header includes four sensors mounted on each end and at the middle of the header. Also see again [Schulze Selting, pg. 4, paras 0035-0037], which explain that a computer converts the sensor signals to commands for adjusting the height of the header using adjustable support wheels attached to the side sections. Finally see again [Schulze Selting, pg. 2, para 0013], which explains that the sensors use a mechanical or virtual limit value to quantify a height difference between the middle and side sections, where [Schulze Selting, pgs. 2-3, paras 0016-0018], the limit value can indicate that the side section is unable to touch the ground and the middle section must be lowered or if the header is sagging, where the side section is lower than the middle section, the middle section can be raised.
Schulze Selting does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 1, more specifically, the limitation wherein each ground engaging device has an adjustable height, and Claim 3, more specifically raising the ground engaging device, as a single embodiment, [Schulze Selting, pg. 3, para 0022]. Each ground engaging device with an adjustable height is described as an alternate embodiment. As stated in MPEP § 2143(I)(A), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to incorporate the main embodiment of Schulze Selting, including a harvesting head with a middle and pivoting side sections and an evaluation module using sensors for adjusting a ground distance of the sections, with the alternate embodiment, including adjustable wheel supports, into a combined system. Doing so would be technically feasible, with no inventive effort. Furthermore, the resulting harvesting head system would yield predictable results, where the components of the embodiments would be expected to work as intended, with each component in the combined system performing the same. Finally, Schulze Selting also teaches that harvesting heads in prior art have ground-engaging devices, such as wheel supports to support a wheel carriage, and are used for height adjustments, which allows the side sections to follow the contour of the ground, including on uneven surfaces, [Schulze Selting, pg. 1, para 0006], and greatly reduces the risk that a side section could collide with the ground [Schulze Selting, pg., para 0022].
Regarding Claim 4, Schulze Selting discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Schulze Selting further discloses: […], wherein the step of determining the outer wing height comprises determining a lowest height of the plurality of outer portions. See again [Schulze Selting, pg. 4, para 0039], which also explains that the ends of the side sections have only a slight distance from the ground and any further lowering of the middle section could result in the ends of the side sections dragging on the ground, and therefore the correction mode evaluation device must consider this lowest point in the side sections, “While the ground distance 30 in the area of the middle section 4 is so great that the surface 2 could still be lowered at this degree of distance, the ground distance 30 is so slight in the area of the free ends of the side sections 6 that upon a further lowering of the middle section 4 downward, the structural components of the articulated connection 12 would be exposed to a significant stress. Upon a further lowering of the middle section 4 the outer ends of the side sections 6 would violently drag on the ground 26, which could lead to damage to the surface 2 and to the carrier device on the combine. In this situation the correction mode in the evaluation device 16 should prevent that the middle section 4 is lowered down even more. If the sensors 14 report the reaching of a limit value in this position of use of the harvesting head, it is all the more important that the evaluation device 16 switches into the correction mode and outputs an adjusting signal to the carrier device in this correction mode upon which signal the harvesting head 2 is raised upward in a direction to remove the stress from the articulated connections 12 between the side sections 6 and the middle section 4.”
Regarding Claim 6, Schulze Selting discloses: A system on a header mounted on an agricultural harvester, wherein the header includes a central section and a plurality of side wing sections, wherein each of the side wing sections extends between an inner portion and an outer portion, wherein the inner portion of each of the plurality of side wing sections is pivotally coupled to the central section, and wherein each of the plurality of side wing sections includes a ground engaging device mounted on the side wing section adjacent the outer portion, wherein each ground engaging device has an adjustable height, the system comprising: a center sensor configured to measure a height of the central section; an outer sensor configured to measure a height of one of the plurality of outer portions; and a processor. See again [Schulze Selting, FIG 1. and pg. 4, paras 0030 and 0032], which explain that a harvesting header includes a middle section and two side sections attached through an articulated connection. Also see again [Schulze Selting, pg. 4, paras 0035-0037], which explain that a computer converts sensor signals to commands for adjusting the height of the header using adjustable support wheels attached to the side section. Finally see again [Schulze Selting, pg. 1, para 0001], which explains that the height of the header sections can be adjusted based on a sensor reading which measures the ground distance during travel, where [Schulze Selting, FIGs. 3-4 and pg. 4, para 0031], the header includes four sensors mounted on each end and at the middle of the header.
Schulze Selting further discloses: a processor configured to: use the height of the one of the plurality of outer portions to determine an outer wing height; determine whether the outer wing height is within a threshold of the height of the central section; and if the processor determines that the outer wing height is not within the threshold of the height of the central section, the processor is configured to instruct a control unit to adjust the height of the ground engaging device until the outer wing height is within the threshold of the height of the central section. See again [Schulze Selting, pg. 1, para 0001], which explains that the height of the header sections can be adjusted based on a sensor reading which measures the ground distance during travel. Also see again [Schulze Selting, pg. 4, paras 0035-0037], which explain that a computer converts the sensor signals to commands for adjusting the height of the header using adjustable support wheels attached to the side sections. Finally see again [Schulze Selting, pg. 2, para 0013], which explains that the sensors use a mechanical or virtual limit value to quantify a height difference between the middle and side sections, where [Schulze Selting, pgs. 2-3, paras 0016-0018], the limit value can indicate that the side section is unable to touch the ground and the middle section must be lowered or if the header is sagging, where the side section is lower than the middle section, the middle section can be raised.
Schulze Selting does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 6, more specifically, the limitation wherein each ground engaging device has an adjustable height, as a single embodiment. Each ground engaging device with an adjustable height is described as an alternate embodiment, [Schulze Selting, pg. 3, para 0022]. As stated in MPEP § 2143(I)(A), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to incorporate the main embodiment of Schulze Selting, including a harvesting head with a middle and pivoting side sections and an evaluation module using sensors for adjusting a ground distance of the sections, with the alternate embodiment, including adjustable wheel supports, into a combined system. Doing so would be technically feasible, with no inventive effort. Furthermore, the resulting harvesting head system would yield predictable results, where the components of the embodiments would be expected to work as intended, with each component in the combined system performing the same. Finally, Schulze Selting also teaches that harvesting heads in prior art have ground-engaging devices, such as wheel supports to support a wheel carriage, and are used for height adjustments, which allows the side sections to follow the contour of the ground, including on uneven surfaces, [Schulze Selting, pg. 1, para 0006], and greatly reduces the risk that a side section could collide with the ground [Schulze Selting, pg., para 0022].
Regarding Claim 7, Schulze Selting discloses the limitations of Claim 6.
Schulze Selting further discloses: […], wherein if the processor determines that the outer wing height is not within the threshold of the height of the central section: the processor is configured to determine whether the outer wing height is greater than the height of the central section; and if the processor determines that the outer wing height is greater than the height of the central section, the processor is configured to instruct the control unit to lower the ground engaging device. See again [Schulze Selting, pg. 1, para 0001], which explains that the height of the header sections can be adjusted based on a sensor reading which measures the ground distance during travel, where [Schulze Selting, FIGs. 3-4 and pg. 4, para 0031], the header includes four sensors mounted on each end and at the middle of the header. Also see again [Schulze Selting, pg. 4, paras 0035-0037], which explain that a computer converts the sensor signals to commands for adjusting the height of the header using adjustable support wheels attached to the side sections. Finally see again [Schulze Selting, pg. 2, para 0013], which explains that the sensors use a mechanical or virtual limit value to quantify a height difference between the middle and side sections, where [Schulze Selting, pgs. 2-3, paras 0016-0018], the limit value can indicate that the side section is unable to touch the ground and the middle section must be lowered or if the header is sagging, where the side section is lower than the middle section, the middle section can be raised.
Schulze Selting does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 6, more specifically, the limitation wherein each ground engaging device has an adjustable height, and Claim 7, more specifically lower the ground engaging device, as a single embodiment. Each ground engaging device with an adjustable height is described as an alternate embodiment, [Schulze Selting, pg. 3, para 0022]. As stated in MPEP § 2143(I)(A), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to incorporate the main embodiment of Schulze Selting, including a harvesting head with a middle and pivoting side sections and an evaluation module using sensors for adjusting a ground distance of the sections, with the alternate embodiment, including adjustable wheel supports, into a combined system. Doing so would be technically feasible, with no inventive effort. Furthermore, the resulting harvesting head system would yield predictable results, where the components of the embodiments would be expected to work as intended, with each component in the combined system performing the same. Finally, Schulze Selting also teaches that harvesting heads in prior art have ground-engaging devices, such as wheel supports to support a wheel carriage, and are used for height adjustments, which allows the side sections to follow the contour of the ground, including on uneven surfaces, [Schulze Selting, pg. 1, para 0006], and greatly reduces the risk that a side section could collide with the ground [Schulze Selting, pg., para 0022].
Regarding Claim 8, Schulze Selting discloses the limitations of Claim 7.
Schulze Selting further discloses: […], wherein if the processor determines that the outer wing height is not greater than the height of the central section, the processor is configured to instruct the control unit to raise the ground engaging device. See again [Schulze Selting, pg. 1, para 0001], which explains that the height of the header sections can be adjusted based on a sensor reading which measures the ground distance during travel, where [Schulze Selting, FIGs. 3-4 and pg. 4, para 0031], the header includes four sensors mounted on each end and at the middle of the header. Also see again [Schulze Selting, pg. 4, paras 0035-0037], which explain that a computer converts the sensor signals to commands for adjusting the height of the header using adjustable support wheels attached to the side sections. Finally see again [Schulze Selting, pg. 2, para 0013], which explains that the sensors use a mechanical or virtual limit value to quantify a height difference between the middle and side sections, where [Schulze Selting, pgs. 2-3, paras 0016-0018], the limit value can indicate that the side section is unable to touch the ground and the middle section must be lowered or if the header is sagging, where the side section is lower than the middle section, the middle section can be raised.
Schulze Selting does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 6, more specifically, the limitation wherein each ground engaging device has an adjustable height, and Claim 8, more specifically raise the ground engaging device, as a single embodiment. Each ground engaging device with an adjustable height is described as an alternate embodiment, [Schulze Selting, pg. 3, para 0022]. As stated in MPEP § 2143(I)(A), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to incorporate the main embodiment of Schulze Selting, including a harvesting head with a middle and pivoting side sections and an evaluation module using sensors for adjusting a ground distance of the sections, with the alternate embodiment, including adjustable wheel supports, into a combined system. Doing so would be technically feasible, with no inventive effort. Furthermore, the resulting harvesting head system would yield predictable results, where the components of the embodiments would be expected to work as intended, with each component in the combined system performing the same. Finally, Schulze Selting also teaches that harvesting heads in prior art have ground-engaging devices, such as wheel supports to support a wheel carriage, and are used for height adjustments, which allows the side sections to follow the contour of the ground, including on uneven surfaces, [Schulze Selting, pg. 1, para 0006], and greatly reduces the risk that a side section could collide with the ground [Schulze Selting, pg., para 0022].
Regarding Claim 9, Schulze Selting discloses the limitations of Claim 6.
Schulze Selting further discloses: […], wherein the outer wing height comprises a lowest height of the plurality of outer portions. See again [Schulze Selting, pg. 4, para 0039], which also explains that the ends of the side sections have only a slight distance from the ground and any further lowering of the middle section could result in the ends of the side sections dragging on the ground, and therefore the correction mode evaluation device must consider this lowest point in the side sections.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze Selting of Hunt et al., PG Pub (herein "Hunt").
Regarding Claim 5, Schulze Selting discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Schulze Selting does not disclose: […], wherein the step of determining the outer wing height comprises determining an average height of the plurality of outer portions.
However, Hunt teaches: […], wherein the step of determining the outer wing height comprises determining an average height of the plurality of outer portions. See [Hunt, pg. 5, para 0047], which explains that the header position control system generates outputs for the actuators using an average of the sensor signals on each side of the header, “The specific control algorithms can vary, but a typical unitary header position control system 306 generates control outputs for the actuators 212, 216 by averaging the sensor signals on the two sides of the header 204. For example, the unitary header position control system 306 averages the values of the left-side inboard height sensor signal (L.sub.I) and the left-side outboard height sensor signal (L.sub.O) to determine a left-side average height, and averages the values of the right-side inboard height sensor signal (R.sub.I) and the right-side outboard height sensor signal (R.sub.O) to determine a right-side average height. Based on these two average height values, the system 306 issues control signals to raise, lower, or tilt the header 204. For example, if the left-side average height is above the desired cutting height, and the right-side average height is below the desired cutting height, the system 306 will generate commands to tilt the header 204 downward on the left side and upwards on the right side. Similarly, if the left-side and right-side average heights are all above the desired cutting height, the system 306 will generate commands to lower the entire header 204. Of course, combinations of commands can also be issued to account for provide combined tilting and height adjustments.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Schulze Selting with Hunt to include an average height of the outer portions. Doing so helps to smooth the reaction of the system to the height inputs [Hunt, pg. 7, para 0062].
Regarding Claim 10, Schulze Selting discloses the limitations of Claim 6.
Schulze Selting does not disclose: […], wherein the outer wing height comprises an average height of the plurality of outer portions.
However, Hunt teaches: […], wherein the outer wing height comprises an average height of the plurality of outer portions. See [Hunt, pg. 5, para 0047], which explains that the header position control system generates outputs for the actuators using an average of the sensor signals on each side of the header.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Schulze Selting with Hunt to include an average height of the outer portions. Doing so helps to smooth the reaction of the system to the height inputs [Hunt, pg. 7, para 0062].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reference C, Füchtling et al., PG Pub US-20230105797-A1, discusses a method for operating an attachment comprising a central portion and two side portions, which are pivotably connected to the central axis by an actuator, wherein, based on a ground distance, the height of the attachment is adjusted with a hydraulic cylinder and the side portions can be independently adjusted with their respective actuators relative to the central portion.
Reference D, Thomson, PG Pub US-20190230857-A1, discusses a harvesting header comprising left and right float elements for control and upward floating of each end of the header in response to ground contact, wherein the header includes a center portion and first and second wing portions pivotably connected to the center portion, where a difference and an average height of the wing portions are used to maintain the required lateral tilt.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN MARIE HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5309. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights