DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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, 6-7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Landry, et al. US4722174.
Regarding claim 1, Landry, et al. teaches an agricultural harvester 20, comprising:
a chassis 28;
a forward frame 48/50 supported on the chassis 28;
a cutter assembly 60 supported on the forward frame 48/50 and configured to sever crop material as the agricultural harvester 20 traverses a field (the flat surface of Figure 2);
a divider shoe 44 coupled to the forward frame 48/50 and configured to direct the crop material toward the cutter assembly 60 as the agricultural harvester 20 traverses the field;
a first feed roller 36 coupled to the forward frame 48/50;
a second feed roller 38 extending between a first end (one end of feed roller 38) and a second end (the opposite end of feed roller 38), the first end of the second feed roller 38 pivotably coupled (via 54 moving on frame 50) to the divider shoe 44 such that a position of the second feed roller 38 is adjustable (Column 3: 44-50 “ The scrolls 36 and 38 are rotatably supported by adjustable frame structures 48 and 50 which can be elevated and lowered by hydraulic piston and cylinder assemblies 52 with the rear of the top scrolls being vertically adjusted by movement of a carriage 54 in vertical tracks 56 so that the elevational position of the top cutter and shredder 26 can be varied” ) relative to the first feed roller 36, the second feed roller 38 configured to operate in conjunction with the first feed roller 36 to direct the crop material (via engagement of the flights 42 and 40) toward the cutter assembly 60 as the agricultural harvester 20 traverses the field; and
an actuator 52 coupled between (as shown in Figure 2, wherein piston 52 is disposed laterally between feed roller 38 and the forward frame) the second feed roller 38 and the forward frame 48/50 and configured to adjust the position of the second feed roller 38 relative to the first feed roller 36 (by lifting and lowering as described above, and wherein the rear of 38 can be lifted and lowered on 54) to control a quantity of the crop material (via change in the distances between 38 and 36, which widen or narrow the gap that intakes crop) that is directed toward the cutter assembly 60.
It is noted that the claims do not define the pivot point or orientation of the angle deflection that the second feed roller traverse relative to the first feed roller, therefore, any change of height of the second feed roller relative to the first feed roller is currently interpreted to teach the claimed adjusted positions.
Regarding claim 2, Landry, et al. teaches that an operation of the actuator 52 is selectively controlled (wherein operation of the piston necessarily indicates control to activate or deactivate the piston) to adjust the position of the second feed roller 38 relative to the first feed roller 36.
Regarding claim 6, Landry, et al. teaches that:
the first feed roller 36 is fixed relative (when piston 52 attached to frame 48 is not actuated) to the forward frame 48/50 such that an angular orientation of the first feed roller 36 relative to the forward frame 48/50 is fixed.
Regarding claim 7, Landry, et al. teaches:
an input device (Column 3: 33-37, wherein the operator’s station and controls is the input device) configured to control an operation of the actuator 52 based on a received operator input (wherein an operator is necessarily required for the above described operator’s station) .
Regarding claim 9, Landry, et al. teaches that the actuator 52 comprises a fluid-filled actuator 52 (wherein 52 is hydraulic Column 3:46-47, thus is a fluid-filled actuator).
Regarding claim 11, Landry, et al. teaches a harvesting assembly of an agricultural harvester 20, the harvesting assembly comprising:
a cutter assembly 60 configured to sever crop material as the agricultural harvester 20 traverses a field;
a divider shoe 44 configured to direct the crop material toward the cutter assembly 60 as the agricultural harvester 20 traverses the field;
a first feed roller 36;
a second feed roller 38 extending between a first end and a second end, the first end of the second feed roller 38 pivotably coupled to the divider shoe 44 such that a position of the second feed roller 38 is adjustable relative to the first feed roller 36, the second feed roller 38 configured to operate in conjunction with the first feed roller 36 to direct the crop material toward the cutter assembly 60 as the agricultural harvester 20 traverses the field; and
an actuator 52 coupled between the second feed roller 38 and a forward frame 48/50 of the agricultural harvester 20, the actuator 52 configured to adjust the position of the second feed roller 38 relative to the first feed roller 36 to control a quantity of the crop material that is directed toward the cutter assembly 60.
Regarding claim 12, Landry, et al. teaches that an operation of the actuator 52 is selectively controlled (wherein operation of the piston necessarily indicates control to activate or deactivate the piston) to adjust the position of the second feed roller 38 relative to the first feed roller 36.
Regarding claim 16, Landry, et al. teaches that:
the first feed roller 36 is fixed relative (when piston 52 attached to frame 48 is not actuated) to the forward frame 48/50 such that an angular orientation of the first feed roller 36 relative to the forward frame 48/50 is fixed.
Regarding claim 17, Landry, et al. teaches:
an input device (Column 3: 33-37, wherein the operator’s station and controls is the input device) configured to control an operation of the actuator 52 based on a received operator input (wherein an operator is necessarily required for the above described operator’s station) .
Regarding claim 19, Landry, et al. teaches that the actuator 52 comprises a fluid-filled actuator 52 (wherein 52 is hydraulic Column 3:46-47, thus is a fluid-filled actuator).
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(s) 3-5, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landry, et al. in view of Peng CN106385983.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Landry, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach that:
the second feed roller 38 is coupled to the divider shoe 44 at a pivot joint, the second feed roller 38 configured to pivot about the pivot joint relative to the first feed roller 36; and
when adjusting the position of the second feed roller 38, the actuator 52 is configured to pivot the second feed roller 38 about the pivot joint between a lowered position and a raised position.
Peng teaches that it is known in the art to mount feed rollers/augers 8/9 on a support frame 2 that pivots (with hinges shown in Figure 1) to adjust the augers by piston 3, as a known means for providing actuation and movement for rollers.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Landry, et al.’s actuator and second feed roller to have the claimed pivot joint to pivot the second feed roller as a known means for providing movement for the feed roller as taught by Peng.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Landry, et al. of the combination teaches that:
when the second feed roller 38 is pivoted about the pivot joint toward the raised position, the quantity of the crop material that is directed toward the cutter assembly 60 is increased (due to an increased distance between the two feed rollers, which increases the intake area for crop, which necessarily increases the quantity of crop that can be directed).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Landry, et al. of the combination teaches that:
when the second feed roller 38 is pivoted about the pivot joint toward the lowered position, the quantity of the crop material that is directed toward the cutter assembly 60 is decreased (due to decreased distance between the two feed rollers, thus decreasing an intake area for crop, which thus necessarily decreases the quantity of crop that can be directed) .
Claim(s) 8, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landry, et al. in view of Ducroquet, et al. US2018/0160624.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Landry, et al. teaches:
an input device (Column 3: 33-37, wherein the operator’s station and controls is the input device) configured to receive an operator input to control an operation of the actuator 52 (as recited above).
Landry, et al. does not teach a computing system communicatively coupled to the input device, the computing system configured to control the operation of the actuator 52 based on the received operator input.
Ducroquet, et al. teaches that it is known in the art to control operation of a harvester with a computing system (controller 132 with memory 134) coupled to an input device (user interface 138). This controls a hydraulic cylinder for desired actuation ¶0059 (“ The ECU signals the actuable control valve (e.g., a solenoid of the actuable control valve) to adjust the internal flow control mechanisms (e.g., spool) of the control valve, which in turn adjusts hydraulic fluid flow to ports of the hydraulic cylinder in known manner, resulting in actuation of the hydraulic cylinder (e.g., extension or retraction of the piston rod of the hydraulic cylinder).”), which is responsive to an operator input (¶0064 “Note that the input at the user interfaces 138 may correspond to the operator turning the unload system of the combine harvester 10 (FIG. 1) off)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Landry, et al. to include Ducroquet, et al.’s computing system to provide desired control of actuation from an actuator in the harvester based upon user inputs.
Regarding claim 20, Landry, et al. teaches a method of controlling the operation of an agricultural harvester 20, the agricultural harvester 20 including a divider shoe 44 configured to direct crop material toward a cutter assembly 60 as the agricultural harvester 20 traverses a field, a first feed roller 36, and a second feed roller 38 extending between a first end and a second end, the 4 first end of the second feed roller 38 pivotably coupled to the divider shoe 44 such that a position of the second feed roller 38 is adjustable relative to the first feed roller 36,
Landry, et al. does not teach the method comprising:
receiving, with a computing system, a first operator input to pivot the second feed roller 38 toward a raised position
controlling, with the computing system, an operation of an actuator 52 configured to pivot the second feed roller 38 relative to the first feed roller 36 between a lowered position and the raised position such that the second feed roller 38 is pivoted toward the raised position based on the received first operator input;
receiving, with the computing system, a second operator input to pivot the second feed roller 38 toward the lowered position; and
controlling, with the computing system, the operation of the actuator 52 such that the second feed roller 38 is pivoted relative to the first feed roller 36 toward the lowered position based on the received second operator input.
Ducroquet, et al. teaches that it is known in the art to control operation of a harvester with a computing system (controller 132 with memory 134) coupled to an input device (user interface 138). This controls a hydraulic cylinder for desired actuation ¶0059 (“ The ECU signals the actuable control valve (e.g., a solenoid of the actuable control valve) to adjust the internal flow control mechanisms (e.g., spool) of the control valve, which in turn adjusts hydraulic fluid flow to ports of the hydraulic cylinder in known manner, resulting in actuation of the hydraulic cylinder (e.g., extension or retraction of the piston rod of the hydraulic cylinder).”), which is responsive to an operator input (¶0064 “Note that the input at the user interfaces 138 may correspond to the operator turning the unload system of the combine harvester 10 (FIG. 1) off)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Landry, et al. to include Ducroquet, et al.’s computing system to provide desired control of actuation from an actuator in the harvester based upon user inputs.
The modification would thus also provide the claimed controlling with the computing system the actuator such that the second feed roller is raised or lowered relative to the first feed roller. In a similar manner, the rear end of second feed roller 38 can be actuated by the computing system commanding 54 to raise or lower.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landry, et al. alone.
Regarding claim 10, Landry, et al. teaches that:
the actuator 52 extends between a first end (right) and a second end (left), the second end of the actuator 52 coupled to the forward frame 48/50.
Landry, et al. is silent as to whether the first end of the actuator 52 coupled to the second feed roller 38 between the second end of the second feed roller 38 and a position on the second feed roller 38 halfway between the first end of the second feed roller 38 and the second end of the second feed roller 38.
At the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to select the connection for the actuator to be located halfway between the first end and the second end of the second feed roller as obvious to try- in which a middle mounting position for the actuator is one of a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success in enabling actuation for the second feed roller. The other predictable solutions would be the actuator mounted near the first or the second ends.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pereira de Camargo, et al. US2023/0284559 demonstrates a typical prior art agricultural harvester 100 with first and second feed rollers 32, wherein these feed rollers are fixed relative to each other, and thus do not have the second roller adjustable relative to the first feed roller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 8/28/2026
