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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 December 2025, in which claims 1-8, 12, 14, and 16 were amended, has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner suggests changing the term “crib” to a term that is better associated with vehicle cab suspension systems (see details in 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection below). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner suggests changing “the link” to --the first link-- (line 21), so as to maintain consistent claim language of the same component. 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 1-20 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “crib” in claims 1, 4-8, 12, 13, 15-17, and 19 is used by the claim to mean a component different from the accepted meaning of an enclosure especially of framework, such as a stall for a stabled animal, a small child’s bed frame, a crate, or a building for storage (sourced from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary). While the cab of Applicant’s work vehicle does include a framework, the term “crib” in the present application is not associated with an enclosure as intended by its ordinary meaning, and the term “crib” is not commonly used in this art to reference this type of framework. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
In regards to claim 7, it is unclear if “a cab frame” (line 3) is the same feature as previously claimed “a cab frame” (claim 1). Examiner suggests referencing subsequent recitations of the same feature using the term “the” or “said”. Clarification and rephrasing are required.
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.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHorse et al. (US 6073714 A) in view of Foster (US 3948341 A), further in view of Benevelli et al. (US 10343729 B2). McHorse et al. discloses a method of operating a suspension system (#26, 28, 30) of a vehicle (#10), the method comprising disengaging/engaging a locking assembly (including latch mechanism #48) to release/retain a cab frame (frame of cab #12) from/relative to a cab crib (cross member #110), the cab crib operably supported by one or more support brackets (including rear brackets #34), the cab crib positioned between an upper portion of the one or more support brackets and the cab frame (figures 1-4; columns 2-5).
McHorse et al. discloses rotating the cab frame (frame of cab #12) between first and second positions about a pitch axis (axis through pivots #16; figures 1, 2; column 2; claims 16, 22, 26), wherein the cab frame is coupled to the cab crib (#110) in the first position (solid lines in figure 1) and separated from the cab crib in the second position (dotted lines in figure 1), but does not disclose actuating a position actuator to rotate the cab frame. Foster teaches a method of operating a suspension system of a vehicle (figure 1), the method comprising disengaging a locking assembly (including support members #54, 55, hydraulic actuators #57, 58, latch hooks #60, 61) to release a cab frame (frame of cab #14 including structural members #24, 25; figure 4; columns 3-5), actuating a position actuator (hydraulic power cylinders #46, 47) to rotate the cab frame from a first position to a second position about a pitch axis (axis of bushings #30, 31; figure 4; column 3, lines 20-32; column 5, line 51-column 6, line 8), wherein the cab frame is coupled in the first position (figure 1) and separated in the second position (figure 4), actuating the position actuator to rotate the cab frame from the second position to the first position about the pitch axis (figures 1, 4; column 3, lines 20-32; column 5, line 51-column 6, line 8), and engaging the locking assembly to retain the cab frame (figures 1, 4; columns 3-5) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of operating a suspension system of McHorse et al. to include actuating a position actuator to rotate the cab frame, as taught by Foster, so as to exert force upon the cab frame to more easily tilt the cab frame between operating positions (Foster: discussed throughout specification).
McHorse et al. does not disclose the vehicle is a harvester. Benevelli et al. teaches a method of operating a suspension system of a harvester (work vehicle #10, which may be a harvester; column 1, lines 8-9; column 3, lines 13-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of operating a suspension system of McHorse et al. for use with a harvester, as taught by Benevelli et al., so as to provide the benefits of the suspension system of McHorse et al., such as minimizing vibration transmission from the frame to the cab and minimizing side-to-side roll and side-to-side lateral shifting of the cab during operation, thereby enhancing driver comfort and reducing fatigue, for use in other work vehicles including harvesters, as taught by Benevelli et al.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHorse et al. (US 6073714 A) in view of Foster (US 3948341 A), further in view of Benevelli et al. (US 10343729 B2), and further in view of Furihata et al. (US 5623410 A). McHorse et al., as modified by Foster and Benevelli et al., discloses a valve that sense changes in cab frame height and admits or exhausts fluid to the suspension cylinder (including air springs #32 and/or shock absorbers #78, 80; columns 3-4), but does not disclose receiving data from sensors or actuating suspension cylinders based on received sensor data. Furihata et al. teaches a method of operating a suspension system for a vehicle (figure 1), the method comprising receiving, from one or more sensors (#28, 31), data indicative of a motion of a cab frame (frame of cab #3; column 3, lines 35-49), and actuating one or more suspension cylinders (#19FL-19RR) based on the data from the one or more sensors to dampen a movement of the cab frame relative to a base component (column 3, line 35-column 4, line 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the sensor and data processing as taught by Furihata et al., to improve the suspension system of McHorse et al., as modified by Foster and Benevelli et al., for the predictable result of more comprehensively and accurately collecting height data associated with the cab frame and using the data to control fluid flow toward and away from the suspension cylinder, with the use of computing systems to control suspension cylinders being exceedingly old and well known in the vehicle art.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHorse et al. (US 6073714 A) in view of Foster (US 3948341 A), further in view of Matway et al. (US 10412888 B2). McHorse et al. discloses a work vehicle (#10) comprising:
(claim 16) a cab frame (frame of cab #12; figures 1, 2);
a base component (including frame rails #18, 20; figures 1-4);
a suspension system (#26, 28, 30) operably coupled with the cab frame (frame of cab #12) and the base component (including frame rails #18, 20; figures 1-4), the suspension system comprising:
one or more second support brackets (rear brackets #34) operably coupled with the base component (including frame rails #18, 20; figures 1-4; columns 2-3);
a cab crib (cross member #110) suspended above the one or more second support brackets (#34) on an opposing side of the one or more second support brackets from the base component (including frame rails #18, 20; figures 2-8; column 5);
a suspension cylinder (including air springs #32 and/or shock absorbers #78, 80) coupled to a bottoms side of the cab crib (#110) and the one or more second support brackets (#34; figures 3, 4; columns 2-5);
(claim 17) a locking assembly (including latch mechanism #48) at least partially coupled with the cab crib (#110), wherein the locking assembly selectively retains the cab frame (frame of cab #12; figures 3-8; columns 3-5);
(claim 19) a sensor (sensor associated with leveler valve) operably coupled with the cab frame (frame of cab #12), wherein the sensor detects a change in a position of the cab frame (columns 3-4).
In regards to claim 16, McHorse et al. discloses pivot points (#16) for rotating the front portion of cab frame (frame of cab #12) around a pitch axis (axis through pivots #16; figures 1, 2; column 2; claims 16, 22, 26), but does not disclose first support brackets and respective retainment brackets. Foster teaches a suspension system for a work vehicle (figure 1), the suspension system comprising one or more first support brackets (#34, 40, 42) operably coupled with a base component (frame assembly #10; columns 2-3; figures 1, 2), one or more respective retainment brackets (#26, 27) operably coupled with the one or more first support brackets (#34, 40, 42) and a cab (#14; columns 2-3; figures 1, 2), wherein the one or more respective retainment brackets rotates relative to the one or more first support brackets about a pitch axis (axis of bushings #30, 31; figure 4; column 3, lines 20-32; column 5, line 51- column 6, line 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle of McHorse et al. to include first support brackets and respective retainment brackets, as taught by Foster, so as to simply and effectively tilt the cab about the front pivot axis when it is necessary to service an engine located beneath the cab (Foster: columns 5-6).
In regards to claims 16 and 18, McHorse et al. discloses rotating the cab frame (frame of cab #12) between first and second positions about a pitch axis (axis through pivots #16; figures 1, 2; column 2; claims 16, 22, 26), but does not disclose a position actuator that assists in moving the cab frame. Foster teaches a position actuator (hydraulic power cylinders #46, 47) operably coupled with a cab frame (frame of cab #14 including structural members #24, 25), wherein the position actuator assists in moving the cab frame from a first position to a second position about a pitch axis (axis of bushings #30, 31; figure 4; column 3, lines 20-32; column 5, line 51-column 6, line 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle of McHorse et al. to include a position actuator, as taught by Foster, so as to exert force upon the cab frame to more easily tilt the cab frame between operating positions (Foster: discussed throughout specification).
In regards to claim 16, McHorse et al. does not disclose a topper support bracket. Matway et al. teaches a work vehicle (harvester #10) comprising a topper support bracket (bracket supporting topper assembly #22) positioned forward of a cab frame (frame of cab #18) and operably coupled with a base component (frame #12; figure 1; column 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension system of McHorse et al. for use in a harvester including a topper support bracket, as taught by Matway et al., so as to provide the benefits of the suspension system of McHorse et al., such as minimizing vibration transmission from the frame to the cab and minimizing side-to-side roll and side-to-side lateral shifting of the cab during operation, thereby enhancing driver comfort and reducing fatigue, for use in other work vehicles including harvesters with a topper and topper support bracket, as taught by Matway et al. While it appears that the pitch axis of McHorse et al. would be vertically above the topper support bracket taught by Matway et al., it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to combine the features such that the pitch axis is vertically above the topper support bracket, for the predictable result of avoiding interference during tilting of the cab.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHorse et al. (US 6073714 A) in view of Foster (US 3948341 A), further in view of Matway et al. (US 10412888 B2), and further in view of Furihata et al. (US 5623410 A). McHorse et al., as modified by Foster and Matway et al., discloses a valve that senses changes in cab frame height and admits or exhausts fluid to the suspension cylinder (including air springs #32 and/or shock absorbers #78, 80; columns 3-4), but does not disclose a computing system that controls actuation of the suspension cylinder based on data from the sensor. Furihata et al. teaches a suspension system for a work vehicle (figure 1), the suspension system comprising a sensor (#28, 31) operably coupled with a cab frame (frame of cab #3) and configured to detect a change in a position of the cab frame (column 3, lines 35-49), and a computing system (electronic control device #47 comprised of a microcomputer) communicatively coupled to the sensor (column 3, line 66-column 4, line 27), wherein the computing system controls an actuation of a suspension cylinder (#19FL-19RR) based on data from the sensor (column 3, line 35-column 4, line 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the computing system taught by Furihata et al., to improve the work vehicle of McHorse et al., as modified by Foster and Matway et al., for the predictable result of more comprehensively and accurately collecting height data associated with the cab frame and using the data to control fluid flow toward and away from the suspension cylinder, with the use of computing systems to control suspension cylinders being exceedingly old and well known in the vehicle art.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best understood, claims 1-11 appear to be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the allowable subject matter of claim 1 is a combination of features, including details of a first suspension cylinder with an operable coupling to an aft side of a first bracket of the second set of support brackets and the cab crib, and details of a first link with an operable coupling to a laterally outward side of the first bracket and the cab crib, the first link being rotatable relative to the laterally outward side of the first bracket and the cab crib, wherein the cab crib is suspended above and separated from the first bracket by the rod and the first link, in combination with other features of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 29 December 2025, with respect to use of the term “crib”, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. The term is indefinite because the term “crib” in the present application is not associated with an enclosure as intended by its ordinary meaning (per Merriam-Webster, a crib is an enclosure especially of framework, such as a stall for a stabled animal, a small child’s bed frame, a crate, or a building for storage), and the specification does not clearly redefine the term “crib”. Thus, Examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejection of the claims.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 16-17, filed 29 December 2025, with respect to claim 16, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner relies upon Matway et al. (US 10412888 B2) to teach the newly added feature of a topper support bracket with motivation for the combination, as set forth above.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 17-18, filed 29 December 2025, with respect to claim 12, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. McHorse et al. (US 6073714 A) discloses rotating the cab frame (frame of cab #12) between first and second positions about a pitch axis (axis through pivots #16; figures 1, 2; column 2; claims 16, 22, 26), wherein the cab frame is coupled to the cab crib (#110) in the first position (solid lines in figure 1) and separated from the cab crib in the second position (dotted lines in figure 1). Foster (US 3948341 A) is relied upon to teach actuating a position actuator (hydraulic power cylinders #46, 47) to rotate the cab frame from a first position to a second position about a pitch axis (axis of bushings #30, 31; figure 4; column 3, lines 20-32; column 5, line 51-column 6, line 8), wherein the cab frame is coupled in the first position (figure 1) and separated in the second position (figure 4), with motivation for the combination, as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The newly cited prior art discloses harvesters with toppers and topper support brackets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA FREEDMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at 571-270-5985. 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.
/LAURA FREEDMAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3614