DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
2. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
“an harvesting machine” should read “a harvesting machine”.
“interface for inputting commands being associated with the machine” should read “interface for inputting commands being associated with the harvesting machine”.
4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-13 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.
7. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a central unit extending at least mainly between the left-hand unit and the right-hand unit viewed in the working direction.” The term “mainly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mainly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “a central unit extending between the left-hand unit and the right-hand unit viewed in the working direction.”
8. Claims 2-5, and recites the limitation “the first input”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “a first input”.
9. Claims 2-5 recites the limitation “the second input”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “a second input”.
10. Claims 2-5 recites the limitation “the third input”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “a third input”.
11. Claims 7 recites the limitation “the right sequences”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “right sequences”.
12. Claims 7 recites the limitation “the left sequences”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “left sequences”.
13. Claims 9 recites the limitation “the ongoing mode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “an ongoing mode”.
14. Claims 10 recites the limitation “the start of a sequence”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “a start of a sequence”.
15. Claim(s) 2-13 rejected by virtue of its/their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
16. 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.
17. Claim(s) 13
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
18. The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
19. Claim(s) 13 is/are directed to a computer program.
A computer program does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Therefore, claim 13 is not within at least one of the four statutory categories and the claim is not patent eligible. Applicant is advised to amend the claim and use the phrase “a computer program product” to overcome the rejection.
20. Therefore, claim(s) 13 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
21. 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.
22. Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11-13
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelbauer et al. (DK-3892084-T3) in view of Fillep et al. (US-20210185928-A1).
In regard to claim 1
, Edelbauer discloses an harvesting machine moving in a working direction and including a right-hand unit, a left-hand unit and a central unit extending at least mainly between the left-hand unit and the right-hand unit viewed in the working direction, each unit being able to occupy a working configuration and a headland configuration, an interface for inputting commands being associated with the machine and connected to a controller able to transpose each unit downwards, which means to transpose each unit from the headland configuration to the working configuration, and to transpose each unit upwards, which means to transpose each unit from the working configuration to the headland configuration, wherein the controller is configured to allow execution of a lowering sequence during which each input of a same lowering command transposes at least one of the units downwards, and a lifting sequence during which each input of a same lifting command transposes at least one of the units upwards (See at least Figs. 1-2, 4A-4D, 5A-5D, and [0002 & 0009-0012 & 0025 & 0029 & 0038]: an agricultural machine [i.e., an harvesting machine] using an equipment combination consisting of a towing vehicle and a rake. The multiple rotary rake comprises a rake rotor in the front right [i.e., a right-hand unit] as viewed in a working direction of travel [i.e., moving in a working direction], which rake rotor is adjustable between a working position [i.e., a working configuration] and a lifting position [i.e., headland configuration] by means of a first lifting actuator, a rake rotor in the front left [i.e., a left-hand unit] as viewed in the working direction of travel, which rake rotor is adjustable between a working position [i.e., a working configuration] and a lifting position [i.e., headland configuration] by means of a third lifting actuator, and a user interface for inputting input commands [i.e., an interface for inputting commands being associated with the machine], wherein the user interface is coupled to the controller [i.e., connected to a controller]. Activating a lifting operation for transferring the right rake rotors into the lifting position, wherein the lifting operation is initiated by a first input command, which is input by a machine operator, transfers the front right rake rotor into the lifting position [i.e., to transpose each unit upwards, which means to transpose each unit from the working configuration to the headland configuration] in a first step. Activating a lifting operation for transferring the left rake rotors into the lifting position, wherein the lifting operation is initiated by a second input command, which is input by the machine operator, transfers the front left rake rotor into the lifting position [i.e., to transpose each unit upwards, which means to transpose each unit from the working configuration to the headland configuration] in a second step. Activating a lowering operation for transferring the right rake rotors into the working position, wherein the lowering operation is initiated by a first input command, which is input by a machine operator, transfers the front right rake rotor into the working position [i.e., to transpose each unit downwards, which means to transpose each unit from the headland configuration to the working configuration] in a first step. Activating a lowering operation for transferring the left rake rotors into the working position, wherein the lowering operation is initiated by a second input command, which is input by the machine operator, transfers the front left rake rotor into the working position [i.e., to transpose each unit downwards, which means to transpose each unit from the headland configuration to the working configuration] in a second step. A computer program is also configured, comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by the controller [i.e., the controller], cause the controller to perform the steps above [i.e., to allow execution of a lowering sequence during which each input of a same lowering command transposes at least one of the units downwards, and a lifting sequence during which each input of a same lifting command transposes at least one of the units upwards]. Figs. 4A-4D shows a sequence of the method for lifting the individual rake rotors [i.e., a lifting sequence]. Figs. 5A-5D shows sequence of the method for lowering the individual rake rotors [i.e., a lowering sequence]).
Edelbauer is silent on a central unit extending at least mainly between the left-hand unit and the right-hand unit viewed in the working direction.
However, Fillep teaches a mower combination 2 comprises an agricultural vehicle 4 such as a tractor and a number of mowing units 6, 8, 10 suitable for cutting standing crop, the mowing units 6, 8, 10 being connected to the agricultural vehicle. The mowing units include a front mowing unit 6 [i.e., a central unit] located to the front of the agricultural vehicle 4 and two lateral mowing units 8, 10 located behind and to the sides of the agricultural vehicle 4 [i.e., extending at least mainly between the left-hand unit and the right-hand unit viewed in the working direction], each of the mowing units 6, 8, 10 being adapted to cut crop. The front mowing unit 6 is conveniently mounted on a front hitch 12 of the agricultural vehicle 4. Each hydraulic unit 22, 24 is used to move a respective lateral mowing unit 8, 10 from a working position to a transport position. A headland position is defined between the working position and the transport position. In the working position the height of each of the lateral mowing units 8, 10 above the ground surface may be further controlled by operation of the hydraulic apparatus 22, 24. An operator controls operation of the front and rear mowing units 6, 8, 10 from within the agricultural vehicle 4 by use of a suitable user terminal 30. The operator controls the lateral displacement of the conveyor units, causes each of the mowing units 6, 8, 10 to move from a working position to a headland position, causes the rear mowing units 8, 10 to move from the working position to a transport position, or causes the conveyor units 16, 18 to move from an active position to an inactive position (See at least Fig. 1, and [0026-0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Edelbauer, by incorporating the teachings of Fillep, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – agricultural machines, such that a front mowing unit is added to the agricultural machine of Edelbauer, and input keys for transferring the front mower from a working position to a headland position and transferring the front mower from a headland position to a working position is provided by the user interface of the agricultural machine.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Fillep, the operator no longer needs constantly to monitor the operation of the conveyor units thereby reducing the stress and tiredness of the operator (See at least [0008]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the operation of the machine to become safer and more reliable.
In regard to claim 2
, Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep, teaches the harvesting machine according to claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
While Edelbauer discloses when all rakes and rotors are in their working position activating a lifting operation for transferring the right rake rotors into the lifting position, wherein the lifting operation is initiated by a first input command, which is input by a machine operator, transfers the front right rake rotor into the lifting position in a first step, and then transfers the rear right rake rotor into the lifting position with a delay value relative to the first step (See at least [0010]) and Fillep teaches the operator controls the lateral displacement of the conveyor units, causes each of the mowing units 6, 8, 10 to move from a working position to a headland position (See at least Fig. 1, and [0031]), Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep, does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to allow the execution of a right lifting sequence during which the first input of the lifting command transposes the central unit upwards, the second input of the lifting command transposes the right-hand unit upwards, and the third input of the lifting command transposes the left-hand unit upwards.
However, as mentioned above, Edelbauer discloses activating a sequence of operation, such as transferring the front and rear right rake rotors into the lifting position with a delay between the operations. Further, as mentioned above, Fillep teaches transferring all units, including the central unit, into a lifting or headland position. By combining the teachings of Edelbauer and Fillep, and introducing a delay between transferring the units into a lifting position, all the units will be lifted one by one. Furthermore, having 3 units, there are 6 possible combinations for the order/sequence of operations to choose from, including lifting the central unit, lifting the right-hand unit, and then lifting the left-hand unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Edelbauer, as already modified by Fillep, by further incorporating the teachings of Fillep, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – agricultural machines, such that a lifting command that includes a sequence of inputs for transferring all the units into the lifting position is added to the user interface. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try and choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, including choosing the sequence of lifting the central unit, lifting the right-hand unit, and then lifting the left-hand unit and configure the controller to allow the execution of the sequence.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Fillep in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 3
, Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep, teaches the harvesting machine according to claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
While Edelbauer discloses activating a lowering operation for transferring the right rake rotors into the working position, wherein the lowering operation is initiated by a first input command, which is input by a machine operator, transfers the front right rake rotor into the working position in a first step, and then transfers the rear right rake rotor into the working position with a delay value relative to the first step (See at least [0025]) and Fillep teaches the operator controls the lateral displacement of the conveyor units, causes each of the mowing units 6, 8, 10 to move from a working position to a headland position (See at least Fig. 1, and [0031]), Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep, is silent on wherein the controller is configured to allow the execution of a right lowering sequence during which the first input of the lowering command transposes the central unit downwards, the second input of the lowering command transposes the right-hand unit downwards, and the third input of the lowering command transposes the left-hand unit downwards.
However, as mentioned above, Edelbauer discloses activating a sequence of operation, such as transferring the front and rear right rake rotors into the lowering operation with a delay between the operations. Further, as mentioned above, Fillep teaches transferring all units, including the central unit, into a lifting or headland position. By combining the teachings of Edelbauer and Fillep, and introducing a delay between transferring the units into a lowering operation, all the units will be lowered one by one. Furthermore, having 3 units, there are 6 possible combinations for the order/sequence of operations to choose from, including lowering the central unit, lowering the right-hand unit, and then lowering the left-hand unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Edelbauer, as already modified by Fillep, by further incorporating the teachings of Fillep, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – agricultural machines, such that a lowering command that includes a sequence of inputs for transferring all the units into the working position is added to the user interface. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try and choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, including choosing the sequence of lowering the central unit, lowering the right-hand unit, and then lowering the left-hand unit and configure the controller to allow the execution of the sequence.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Fillep in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 4
, Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep, teaches the harvesting machine according to claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
While Edelbauer discloses when all rakes and rotors are in their working position activating a lifting operation for transferring the left rake rotors into the lifting position, wherein the lifting operation is initiated by a second input command, which is input by the machine operator, transfers the front left rake rotor is transferred into the lifting position in a second step, and then transfers the rear left rake rotor is transferred into the lifting position with a delay value relative to the second step (See at least [0010]) and Fillep teaches the operator controls the lateral displacement of the conveyor units, causes each of the mowing units 6, 8, 10 to move from a working position to a headland position (See at least Fig. 1, and [0031]), Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep, does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to allow the execution of a left lifting sequence during which the first input of the lifting command transposes the central unit upwards, the second input of the lifting command transposes the left-hand unit upwards, and the third input of the lifting command transposes the right-hand unit upwards.
However, as mentioned above, Edelbauer discloses activating a sequence of operation, such as transferring the front and rear left rake rotors into the lifting position with a delay between the operations. Further, as mentioned above, Fillep teaches transferring all units, including the central unit, into a lifting or headland position. By combining the teachings of Edelbauer and Fillep, and introducing a delay between transferring the units into a lifting position, all the units will be lifted one by one. Furthermore, having 3 units, there are 6 possible combinations for the order/sequence of operations to choose from, including lifting the central unit, lifting the left-hand unit, and then lifting the right-hand unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Edelbauer, as already modified by Fillep, by further incorporating the teachings of Fillep, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – agricultural machines, such that a lifting command that includes a sequence of inputs for transferring all the units into the lifting position is added to the user interface. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try and choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, including choosing the sequence of lifting the central unit, lifting the left-hand unit, and then lifting the right-hand unit and configure the controller to allow the execution of the sequence.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Fillep in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 5
, Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep, teaches the harvesting machine according to claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
While Edelbauer discloses activating a lowering operation for transferring the left rake rotors into the working position, wherein the lowering operation is initiated by a second input command, which is input by the machine operator, transfers the front left rake rotor into the working position in a second step, and then transfers the rear left rake rotor into the working position with a delay value relative to the second step (See at least [0025]) and Fillep teaches the operator controls the lateral displacement of the conveyor units, causes each of the mowing units 6, 8, 10 to move from a working position to a headland position (See at least Fig. 1, and [0031]), Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep, is silent on wherein the controller is configured to allow the execution of a left lowering sequence during which the first input of the lowering command transposes the central unit downwards, the second input of the lowering command transposes the left-hand unit downwards, and the third input of the lowering command transposes the right-hand unit downwards.
However, as mentioned above, Edelbauer discloses activating a sequence of operation, such as transferring the front and rear right rake rotors into the lowering operation with a delay between the operations. Further, as mentioned above, Fillep teaches transferring all units, including the central unit, into a lifting or headland position. By combining the teachings of Edelbauer and Fillep, and introducing a delay between transferring the units into a lowering operation, all the units will be lowered one by one. Furthermore, having 3 units, there are 6 possible combinations for the order/sequence of operations to choose from, including lowering the central unit, lowering the left-hand unit, and then lowering the right-hand unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Edelbauer, as already modified by Fillep, by further incorporating the teachings of Fillep, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – agricultural machines, such that a lowering command that includes a sequence of inputs for transferring all the units into the working position is added to the user interface. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try and choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, including choosing the sequence of lowering the central unit, lowering the left-hand unit, and then lowering the right-hand unit and configure the controller to allow the execution of the sequence.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Fillep in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 6
, Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep, teaches the harvesting machine according to claim 1, wherein a predetermined number of commands is associated with each sequence, and wherein the controller is configured to end each sequence once all commands of that sequence are input (See at least [0010]: when all rakes and rotors are in their working position activating a lifting operation for transferring the left rake rotors into the lifting position [i.e., sequence], wherein the lifting operation is initiated by a second input command, which is input by the machine operator, transfers the front left rake rotor is transferred into the lifting position in a second step, and then transfers the rear left rake rotor is transferred into the lifting position with a delay value relative to the second step. Examiner notes, as mentioned above, the sequence of lifting operation for transferring the left rake rotors into the lifting position, has two steps which is the predetermined number of commands associated with each sequence. Furthermore, activating the sequence executes both steps. That is, the controller is configured to end each sequence once all commands of that sequence are input).
In regard to claim 7
, Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep, teaches the harvesting machine according to claim 6, wherein the controller is configured to allow entry into a right mode in which only the right sequences can be executed and to allow entry into a left mode in which only the left sequences can be executed (See at least Fig. 2, and [0054-0058]: the user interface 28 comprises a first input key 35 and a second input key 36, which are used to enter commands into the user interface 28. It is provided that the input key 35 disposed at the right-hand side is used to initiate a lifting operation of the right rake rotors [i.e., to allow entry into a right mode in which only the right sequences can be executed] and the input key 36 disposed at the left-hand side is used to initiate a lifting operation of the left rake rotors [i.e., each associated with a respective mode]. Further input keys are configured to be used to sequentially initiate a lowering operation of the individual rake rotors [i.e., allow entry into a left mode in which only the left sequences can be executed]. Examiner notes, as portrayed by Fig. 2 of Edelbauer (reproduced and annotated for Applicant’s convenience), keys are used to initiate lifting or lowering of the right and left rake rotors. That is, the controller is configured to allow entry into a right mode in which only the right sequences can be executed and to allow entry into a left mode in which only the left sequences can be executed).
PNG
media_image1.png
548
1069
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - Annotated Fig. 2 of Edelbauer
In regard to claim 9
, Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep, teaches the harvesting machine according to claim 7, wherein the interface is provided with a lifting key and a lowering key, and wherein the controller is configured so that the input of the lowering command corresponds to a single actuation of the lowering key only, whatever of the ongoing mode, and so that the input of the lifting command corresponds to a single actuation of the lifting key only, whatever of the ongoing mode (See at least Fig. 2, and [0054-0058]: the user interface 28 comprises a first input key 35 and a second input key 36, which are used to enter commands into the user interface 28. The first input key 35 and the second input key 36 are in the form of a softkey, which are assigned to pictograms shown on the graphic display 34. It is thus conceivable that a different function is assigned to the input keys 35, 36 for respectively selectable input commands. It is provided that the input key 35 disposed at the right-hand side is used to initiate a lifting operation of the right rake rotors and the input key 36 disposed at the left-hand side is used to initiate a lifting operation of the left rake rotors [i.e., wherein the interface is provided with a lifting key]. Further input keys are configured to be used to sequentially initiate a lowering operation of the individual rake rotors [i.e., wherein the interface is provided with … a lowering key]. Examiner notes, as portrayed by Fig. 2, each unit has two corresponding keys, one for lifting and one for lowering command. As such, regardless of the current mode the lift command lifts the respective unit and the lowering command lowers the respective unit. That is, the input of the lowering command corresponds to a single actuation of the lowering key only, whatever of the ongoing mode, and so that the input of the lifting command corresponds to a single actuation of the lifting key only, whatever of the ongoing mode).
In regard to claim 11
, Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep, teaches the harvesting machine according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured so that, when no sequence is ongoing, the first input of the lowering or lifting command enables starting a sequence (See at least Figs. 1-2, and [0009-0012 & 0025 & 0029]: the user interface is coupled to the controller [i.e., the controller]. Activating a lifting operation for transferring the right rake rotors or the left rake rotors into the lifting position, wherein the lifting operation is initiated by a first input command [i.e., the first input of the … lifting], which is input by a machine operator, transfers the front right rake rotor or front the left rake rotor into the lifting position in a first step [i.e., enables starting a sequence, especially when no sequence is ongoing or being executed]. Activating a lowering operation for transferring the right rake rotors or the left rake rotors into the working position, wherein the lowering operation is initiated by a first input command [i.e., the first input of the lowering], which is input by a machine operator, transfers the front right rake rotor or the front left rake rotor into the working position in a first step [i.e., enables starting a sequence, especially when no sequence is ongoing or being executed]. A computer program is also configured, comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by the controller, cause the controller to perform the steps above).
In regard to claim 12
, Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep, teaches a controller for a harvesting machine wherein the controller is configured to allow a lowering and lifting sequence according to claim 1 (ee at least [0029]: a computer program is configured, comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a controller [i.e., a controller for a harvesting machine], cause the controller to perform the steps above. Examiner notes, the steps described by claim 1 allow to execute a lowering and lifting sequence).
In regard to claim 13
, Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep, teaches a computer program for a harvesting machine, wherein it contains a code allowing to execute a lowering and lifting sequence according claim 1 (See at least [0029]: a computer program [i.e., a computer program for a harvesting machine] is configured, comprising instructions [i.e., it contains a code] which, when the program is executed by a controller, cause the controller to perform the steps above. Examiner notes, the steps described by claim 1 allow to execute a lowering and lifting sequence).
23. Claim(s) 8
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelbauer et al. (DK-3892084-T3) in view of Fillep et al. (US-20210185928-A1) and further in view of Morita (US-20220382449-A1).
In regard to claim 8
, Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep, teaches the harvesting machine according to claim 7, wherein the interface is provided with selection keys, each associated with a respective mode, (See at least Fig. 2, and [0054-0058]: the user interface 28 comprises a first input key 35 and a second input key 36 [i.e., wherein the interface is provided with selection keys], which are used to enter commands into the user interface 28. It is provided that the input key 35 disposed at the right-hand side is used to initiate a lifting operation of the right rake rotors and the input key 36 disposed at the left-hand side is used to initiate a lifting operation of the left rake rotors [i.e., each associated with a respective mode]. Further input keys are configured to be used to sequentially initiate a lowering operation of the individual rake rotors [i.e., each associated with a respective mode]).
Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep, is silent on the controller being configured so that the selection keys are deactivated when a sequence is ongoing.
However, Morita teaches an information processing apparatus 1 is a device having a touch panel such as an image forming apparatus 10. Fig. 5 is a flowchart illustrating a process of starting to disable input reception of a touch panel. Step S111: The image forming apparatus 10 transmits a menu screen to the touch panel 941. The display control unit 102 displays a menu screen on the touch panel 941. The operation receiving unit 103 receives an operation input, such as pressing a button by a user via the touch panel 941. Fig. 6 is a diagram illustrating a menu screen displayed on the touch panel 941 of the image forming apparatus 10. The menu screen 120 displays a function A 121, a function B 122, and a function C 123, which are buttons for activating applications of various functions executed by the image forming apparatus, and a touch disabling function 124 that activates an application that disables input reception of the touch panel 941 [i.e., the selection keys are deactivated when a sequence is ongoing]. In step S112: The image forming apparatus 10 activates an application which disables input reception and transmits a setting screen for setting the application to the touch panel 941. The display control unit 102 displays the setting screen on the touch panel 941. The operation receiving unit 103 receives an operation input relating to the setting by a user via the touch panel 941. In step S112, the operation receiving unit 103 receives only the operation input of cancelling the disablement of the input reception (See at least Figs. 1, 5-6, and [0023 & 0036-0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep, by incorporating the teachings of Morita, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – user interfaces, such that the user interface of Edelbauer adds the touch disabling functionality, as taught by Morita, to the input keys and when the user starts a sequence, the selection keys are disabled while the sequence is ongoing.
The motivation to modify is that, to prevent the user from accidentally cancelling the sequence or starting another sequence that might interfere with the ongoing sequence which one of ordinary skill would have recognized prevents possible damage to the unit.
24. Claim(s) 10
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelbauer et al. (DK-3892084-T3) in view of Fillep et al. (US-20210185928-A1) and further in view of Morita (US-20220382449-A1) and further in view of Rotole et al. (US-20160278284-A1).
In regard to claim 10
, Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep and Morita, teaches the harvesting machine according to claim 8, accordingly the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated.
Further, Morita teaches an information processing apparatus 1 is a device having a touch panel such as an image forming apparatus 10. Fig. 5 is a flowchart illustrating a process of starting to disable input reception of a touch panel. Step S111: The image forming apparatus 10 transmits a menu screen to the touch panel 941. The display control unit 102 displays a menu screen on the touch panel 941. The operation receiving unit 103 receives an operation input, such as pressing a button by a user via the touch panel 941. Fig. 6 is a diagram illustrating a menu screen displayed on the touch panel 941 of the image forming apparatus 10. The menu screen 120 displays a function A 121, a function B 122, and a function C 123, which are buttons for activating applications of various functions executed by the image forming apparatus, and a touch disabling function 124 that activates an application that disables input reception of the touch panel 941 [i.e., the selection keys are deactivated when a sequence is ongoing]. In step S112: The image forming apparatus 10 activates an application which disables input reception and transmits a setting screen for setting the application to the touch panel 941. The display control unit 102 displays the setting screen on the touch panel 941. The operation receiving unit 103 receives an operation input relating to the setting by a user via the touch panel 941. In step S112, the operation receiving unit 103 receives only the operation input of cancelling the disablement of the input reception (See at least Figs. 1, 5-6, and [0023 & 0036-0045]). Accordingly, Morita teaches deactivating the keys.
Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep and Morita, is silent on wherein a configuration sensor is associated with each unit, each configuration sensor detects whether the associated unit is in the working or headland configuration, and wherein the controller is configured such that at the start of a sequence, if the configuration sensors inform the controller that all units are in the same configuration, one of the lifting and lowering keys is deactivated.
However, Rotole teaches an agricultural vehicle 100 used in the agricultural industry. The header sensor 150 is positioned on or near the harvesting header 120. The header sensor 150 detects the position, the operating condition, or both of the header 120 [i.e., a configuration sensor is associated with each unit, each configuration sensor detects whether the associated unit is in the working or headland configuration] (See at least Figs. 1-4, and [0026 & 0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Edelbauer, as modified by Fillep and Morita, by incorporating the teachings of Rotole, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – agricultural machines, such that a sensor for detecting the position and the operating condition of each unit is added to the harvester of Edelbauer, and based on the signal from the sensor, the input key for transferring the unit into the detected position or the current operating condition of the unit is deactivated, as taught by Morino.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Rotole, automatically repositioning the harvesting devices to non-operating positions based at least in part upon the intent to move the agricultural vehicle in a non-operational direction (See at least [0007]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized using sensors for automatically detecting the operating condition before moving to a non-operational direction, allows the harvester to reposition the harvesting device and prevent damage to the harvesting device.
Conclusion
25. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carsten et al. (US-20220279710-A1) teaches an agriculture machine assembly for use as part of or with one or more agricultural work machines and one or more attachments configured to work with an agricultural work machine.
Ingalls et al. (US-20250127079-A1) teaches controlling an operation of a wheel actuator to raise the cutting assembly of the agricultural implement.
26. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Preston J Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
27. 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.
28. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571) 272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
29. 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.
/P.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights