DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on 08/26/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ricketts et al. (USPGPub 2022/0000029).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2025 and 08/26/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herrmann et al. (USPGPub 2023/0000015), in view of Karst (USPGPub 2022/0061211), and further in view of Ricketts et al. (USPGPub 2022/0000029). As per clam 1, Herrmann discloses a harvester adjustment system comprising: (a) a database (see at least Figure 7, item 705); (b) at least one sensor configured to determine a crop condition (see at least paragraphs 0026-0027; wherein at operation 204, the at least one image capture device captures images (e.g., sequence of images, video) of a field view of a first region to be harvested that is adjacent to a second region that has been harvested. At operation 206, the method includes analyzing the captured images to determine crop information); (c) a processor in communication with the database and the at least one sensor (see at least Figure 7); (d) a header height adjustment mechanism (see at least paragraph 0043; wherein the operations may include configuration of the machine or implement (e.g., adjust angle of header, header height)) in communication with the processor (see at least paragraph 0042; wherein the processing system 720 communicates bi-directionally with header 780); and wherein the processor is configured to adjust the header height and the row divider angle based upon data from the database and sensed crop condition (see at least paragraph 0042; wherein the processing system 720 communicates bi-directionally with memory 705, header 780…see at least paragraph 0043; wherein the operations may include configuration of the machine or implement, reporting of data, control of the machine or implement including sensors and controllers (e.g., adjust angle of header, header height) based on captured images from image capturing devices, and storage of the data generated). Herrmann does not explicitly mention a database comprising one or more of rock locations, hazard locations, terrain obstacles and topography; (e) a plurality of row divider adjustment mechanisms, one the plurality of row divider adjustment mechanisms disposed on each row divider of a harvester, each in communication with the processor; and wherein the processor is configured to adjust the row divider angle, wherein the plurality of row dividers are adjusted on a row-by-row basis. However Karst does disclose: a database comprising one or more of rock locations, hazard locations, terrain obstacles and topography (see at least paragraph 0057; wherein a first event 128a may include a “high impact” event representative of a large obstacle previously identified and stored in the field map database via the obstacle detection and mapping module 86 (FIG. 6)). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Karst with the teachings as in Herrmann. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide safety to the vehicle, see Karst paragraph 0046. Herrmann and Karst do not explicitly mention (e) a plurality of row divider adjustment mechanisms, one the plurality of row divider adjustment mechanisms disposed on each row divider of a harvester, each in communication with the processor; and wherein the processor is configured to adjust the row divider angle, wherein the plurality of row dividers are adjusted on a row-by-row basis. However Ricketts does disclose: (e) a plurality of row divider adjustment mechanisms (see at least paragraph 0032; wherein divider lifter 310 for pivoting one or more of the row dividers 130 is illustrated coupled directly to the row divider 130), one the plurality of row divider adjustment mechanisms disposed on each row divider of a harvester, each in communication with the processor (see at least paragraph 0041; wherein the controller 170 is configured to automatically activate one or more of the actuators 310 to pivot the respectively coupled row dividers 130 without additional operator input); and wherein the processor is configured to adjust the row divider angle (see at least paragraph 0034; wherein raise a tip 331 of the row divider 130, relative to the ground, so the row divider 130 is in a raised position), wherein the plurality of row dividers are adjusted on a row-by-row basis (see at least paragraph 0039; wherein activating the divider lifters 310 remotely, such as from the operating cab 180, allows for on-the-go pivoting adjustment of the row dividers 130). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ricketts with the teachings as in Herrmann and Karst. The motivation for doing so would have been to save an operator a significant amount of time and reduce the safety risk associated with entering and exiting the operating cab, see Ricketts paragraph 0038. As per claim 3, Ricketts discloses wherein a target header height and a target row divider position are inputted into the processor (see at least paragraph 0038; wherein the remote controller 170, provides a convenient and easy way of raising and lowering the row dividers 130 to, for example, prepare the header 110 for transport. Previously known row dividers are pivotable relative to the header frame, but must be manually pivoted by an operator. To pivot the row dividers, the operator, who is generally in the operating cab during harvesting, must leave the operating cab and manually pivot each row divider individually. For headers that include 12 or more row dividers, manually pivoting each of the row dividers may require a significant amount of time over the course of a harvesting season. On the contrary, the row dividers 130 of the header 110 disclosed herein may be raised for transport as the harvester 100 is carrying the header 110 to the transport vehicle so the header 110 only needs to be detached from the harvester 100 upon arrival at the transport vehicle). As per claim 7, Ricketts discloses further comprising a row divider sensor in communication with the processor and configured to determine an actual row divider position (see at least paragraph 0041; wherein the controller 170 may be configured to detect that one or more of the row dividers 130 is not being utilized based on input from the crop detecting sensors 290 and activate the respective divider lifter(s) 310 of the unutilized row divider(s) 130 to raise the unutilized row divider(s) 130 and reduce the risk of the unutilized row divider(s) 130 being damaged).
Claims 4-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herrmann et al. (USPGPub 2023/0000015), in view of Karst (USPGPub 2022/0061211), in view of Ricketts et al. (USPGPub 2022/0000029), and further in view of Hunt et al. (USPGPub 2021/0352847). As per claim 4, Herrmann, Karst, and Ricketts do not explicitly mention further comprising a header height sensor in communication with the processor and configured to determine an actual header height. However Hunt does disclose: further comprising a header height sensor in communication with the processor and configured to determine an actual header height (see at least paragraph 0031; wherein the control system 164 may include a height position sensor 188 configured to output a height position signal 190 indicative of a height of the header with respect to the soil surface). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hunt with the teachings as in Herrmann, Karst, and Ricketts. The motivation for doing so would have been to limit management techniques for automatic ground-following actuation on a multi-segment harvesting head, see Hunt paragraph 0001. As per claim 5, Hunt discloses wherein the actual header height is compared to the target header height (see at least paragraph 0032; wherein the work vehicle controller 166 is configured to receive a header wing target height 226 and/or a header wing target height threshold) and the header height is adjusted so that the actual header height is within deadband of the target header height (see at least paragraph 0035; wherein the work vehicle controller may be configured to output a header wing control signal in response to determining that the header wing 130 is positioned above or below the header wing target height threshold 200. The wing valve block may receive the header wing control signal and drive the wing actuator (e.g., left wing actuator or right wing actuator) to move (e.g., lift or lower) the header wing 130 with respect to the center section 126). As per claim 6, Hunt discloses wherein no adjustment to the header height is made if the actual header height is within deadband of the target header height (see at least paragraph 0036; wherein the wing actuator may not move the header wing 130 beyond the angle limit threshold 206). As per claim 8, Herrmann, Karst, and Ricketts do not explicitly mention wherein the actual row divider position is compared to the target row divider angle and the row divider angle is adjusted so that the actual row divider position is within deadband of the target row divider position. However Hunt does disclose: wherein the actual row divider position is compared to the target row divider angle and the row divider angle is adjusted so that the actual row divider position is within deadband of the target row divider position (see at least paragraph 0029; wherein the header wing actuator may rotate the respective header wing to a target wing angle in response to instructions from the work vehicle controller 166 to move the header wing to an orientation that maintains the header wing at a target height 226 above the soil surface). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hunt with the teachings as in Herrmann, Karst, and Ricketts. The motivation for doing so would have been to limit management techniques for automatic ground-following actuation on a multi-segment harvesting head, see Hunt paragraph 0001. As per claim 9, Herrmann, Karst, and Ricketts do not explicitly mention wherein no adjustment to the row divider angle is made if the actual row divider position is within deadband of the target row divider position. However Hunt does disclose: wherein no adjustment to the row divider angle is made if the actual row divider position is within deadband of the target row divider position (see at least paragraph 0036; wherein the wing actuator may not actuate the header wing beyond a maximum rotation angle 204. Thus, the wing actuator may not move the header wing 130 to a position within the header wing target height threshold 200 when the header wing 130 is oriented at or above the angle limit threshold 206). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hunt with the teachings as in Herrmann, Karst, and Ricketts. The motivation for doing so would have been to limit management techniques for automatic ground-following actuation on a multi-segment harvesting head, see Hunt paragraph 0001.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hunt et al. (USPGPub 2021/0352847) in view of Ricketts et al. (USPGPub 2022/0000029). As per claim 10, Hunt discloses a method for adjusting harvester orientation comprising: entering a target row divider height (see at least paragraph 0032 and Figure 2; wherein the work vehicle controller 166 may be configured to receive the header wing target height and/or the header wing target height threshold via a target height signal 192 output from the user interface 122); determining an actual row divider height from a row divider sensor (see at least paragraph 0031; wherein the control system 164 may include a height position sensor 188 configured to output a height position signal 190 indicative of a height of the header with respect to the soil surface); comparing the actual row divider height to the target row divider height and determining if the actual row divider height is approximately the target row divider height (see at least paragraph 0032; wherein the work vehicle controller 166 is configured to receive a header wing target height 226 and/or a header wing target height threshold). Hunt does not explicitly mention row divider tip height; and outputting a signal to a row divider adjustment mechanism to urge the row divider to an angle where the row divider is approximately the target row divider height. However Ricketts does disclose: row divider tip height (see at least paragraph 0044; wherein a pulling force is exerted on the divider support 520 that pivots the divider support 520 such that the tip 331 of the row divider 130 is raised relative to the ground); and outputting a signal to a row divider adjustment mechanism to urge the row divider to an angle where the row divider is approximately the target row divider height (see at least paragraph 0036; wherein the control system 171 may allow an operator to specify individual row dividers 130 to raise, with the controller 170 selectively activating the divider lifters 310 associated with the specified row dividers 130 to raise the specified row dividers 130). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ricketts with the teachings as in Hunt. The motivation for doing so would have been to save an operator a significant amount of time and reduce the safety risk associated with entering and exiting the operating cab, see Ricketts paragraph 0038. As per claim 11, Hunt discloses wherein the row divider sensor is an angle sensor or a height sensor (see at least paragraph 0031; wherein the control system 164 may include a height position sensor 188 configured to output a height position signal 190 indicative of a height of the header with respect to the soil surface). As per claim 12, Hunt discloses wherein the height sensor is an ultrasonic sensor or a time-of-flight sensor (see at least claim 14; wherein one wing height sensor comprises at least one laser, ultrasonic, or radar sensor). As per claim 13, Ricketts discloses wherein the method is conducted iteratively and the row divider tip height is adjusted on-the-go (see at least paragraph 0039; wherein activating the divider lifters 310 remotely, such as from the operating cab 180, allows for on-the-go pivoting adjustment of the row dividers 130). As per claim 14, Hunt discloses wherein no adjustment to the row divider tip height is made if the row divider tip height is approximately the target row divider tip height (see at least paragraph 0036; wherein the wing actuator may not move the header wing 130 beyond the angle limit threshold 206). As per claim 15, Hunt discloses wherein the target row divider tip height is based upon one or more of crop condition, ground condition, and topography (see at least paragraph 0029; wherein the work vehicle controller 166 to move the header wing to an orientation that maintains the header wing at a target height 226 above the soil surface). As per claim 16, Hunt discloses further comprising: entering a target header height into a processor (see at least paragraph 0032; wherein the work vehicle controller 166 may be configured to receive the header wing target height and/or the header wing target height threshold via a target height signal 192 output from the user interface 122. In other embodiments, the header wing target height and/or the header wing target height threshold may be stored on the memory device 178 of the controller 166); determining an actual header height from a header height sensor (see at least paragraph 0031; wherein the control system 164 may include a height position sensor 188 configured to output a height position signal 190 indicative of a height of the header with respect to the soil surface); comparing the actual header height to the target header height and determining if the actual header height is approximately the target header height (see at least paragraph 0032; wherein the work vehicle controller 166 is configured to receive a header wing target height 226 and/or a header wing target height threshold); and outputting a signal to a header height adjustment mechanism to move the header to a height that is approximately the target header height (see at least paragraph 0035; wherein the work vehicle controller may be configured to output a header wing control signal in response to determining that the header wing 130 is positioned above or below the header wing target height threshold 200. The wing valve block may receive the header wing control signal and drive the wing actuator (e.g., left wing actuator or right wing actuator) to move (e.g., lift or lower) the header wing 130 with respect to the center section 126). As per claim 17, Hunt discloses wherein the header height sensor is an ultrasonic sensor or time-of-flight sensor (see at least claim 14; wherein one wing height sensor comprises at least one laser, ultrasonic, or radar sensor). As per claim 18, Hunt discloses wherein no adjustment to the header height is made if the header height is approximately the target header height (see at least paragraph 0036; wherein the wing actuator may not move the header wing 130 beyond the angle limit threshold 206). As per claim 19, Ricketts discloses wherein the method is conducted iteratively and the header height and the row divider tip height are adjusted on-the-go (see at least paragraph 0039; wherein activating the divider lifters 310 remotely, such as from the operating cab 180, allows for on-the-go pivoting adjustment of the row dividers 130). As per claim 20, Hunt discloses a method of adjusting a row divider angle, comprising: entering a target row divider height (see at least paragraph 0032 and Figure 2; wherein the work vehicle controller 166 may be configured to receive the header wing target height and/or the header wing target height threshold via a target height signal 192 output from the user interface 122); entering a target header height (see at least paragraph 0032 and Figure 2; wherein the work vehicle controller 166 may be configured to receive the header wing target height and/or the header wing target height threshold via a target height signal 192 output from the user interface 122); determining an actual row divider height from a row divider sensor (see at least paragraph 0031; wherein the control system 164 may include a height position sensor 188 configured to output a height position signal 190 indicative of a height of the header with respect to the soil surface); determining an actual header height from a header height sensor (see at least paragraph 0031; wherein the control system 164 may include a height position sensor 188 configured to output a height position signal 190 indicative of a height of the header with respect to the soil surface); comparing the actual row divider height to the target row divider height and determining if the actual row divider height is the target row divider height (see at least paragraph 0032; wherein the work vehicle controller 166 is configured to receive a header wing target height 226 and/or a header wing target height threshold); comparing the actual header height to the target header height and determining if the actual header height is the target header height (see at least paragraph 0032; wherein the work vehicle controller 166 is configured to receive a header wing target height 226 and/or a header wing target height threshold). Hunt does not explicitly mention row divider tip height; outputting one or more signals to a row divider adjustment mechanism and a header height adjustment mechanism to move the header and urge the row divider to positions where the row divider and header are at the target row divider height and target header height; and wherein the method is conducted iteratively and the row divider height and header height are adjusted on-the-go. However Ricketts does disclose: row divider tip height (see at least paragraph 0044; wherein a pulling force is exerted on the divider support 520 that pivots the divider support 520 such that the tip 331 of the row divider 130 is raised relative to the ground); outputting one or more signals to a row divider adjustment mechanism and a header height adjustment mechanism to move the header and urge the row divider to positions where the row divider and header are at the target row divider height and target header height (see at least paragraph 0036; wherein the control system 171 may allow an operator to specify individual row dividers 130 to raise, with the controller 170 selectively activating the divider lifters 310 associated with the specified row dividers 130 to raise the specified row dividers 130); and wherein the method is conducted iteratively and the row divider height and header height are adjusted on-the-go (see at least paragraph 0039; wherein activating the divider lifters 310 remotely, such as from the operating cab 180, allows for on-the-go pivoting adjustment of the row dividers 130). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ricketts with the teachings as in Hunt. The motivation for doing so would have been to save an operator a significant amount of time and reduce the safety risk associated with entering and exiting the operating cab, see Ricketts paragraph 0038.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2020/0053961 – Provide agricultural harvesters and, more particularly, to systems and methods for operating an agricultural harvester in one or more operating modes as the harvester is traveling across a field. USPGPub 2014/0116077 – Provide height control systems for agricultural implements, and, more particularly, to a method and system for a controlling the height of an agricultural implement relative to a ground surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662