DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 12/02/2025.
Claims 1 and 15 were amended by Applicant.
Claims 3 – 14 and 16 remain as original.
Claim 2 was cancelled by Applicant.
Claims 1 and 3 – 16 are currently pending and have been examined.
The prior 35 USC 103 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 09/03/2025 as to claims 1 – 16 are maintained in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
There are no new grounds of rejection herein as to any of the claims.
Applicant substantially amended the claims of 6/4/2025 (upon which the last Non-Final Rejection was based) resulting in the claims of 12/2/2025 (upon which this Final Rejection is based). The above noted amendments (independent claims 1 and 15) mandated the need for new art to be applied. As such, the prior Wold reference was eliminated, and the new Strubee reference was added, in the below 35 USC 103 analysis.
As a consequence of the above, Applicant’s arguments are moot, as they focus on art and/or combinations of art that are no longer utilized by examiner proximately due to Applicant’s amendments, as above noted.
Generally as to obviousness, examiner submits that it is determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685,686 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,147 (CCPA 1976). Using this standard, examiner submits that the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness was successfully established in the prior Office Action of 09/03/2025, and also respecting the pending amended claim set of 12/02/2025, as seen below.
Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily altered or modified, and that there must be some reason why a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art would be motivated to make the proposed modifications. Although the motivation or suggestion to make modifications must be articulated, it is respectfully submitted that there is no requirement that the motivation to make modifications must be expressly articulated within the references themselves. References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures, In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
Examiner also notes that the motivation to combine the applied references is, where appropriate in the below detailed analysis pursuant to 35 USC 103, additionally accompanied by select passages from the respective references which specifically support that particular motivation. It is also respectfully submitted that motivation based on the logic and scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, which evidence can also support a finding of obviousness, is otherwise provided in the detailed 35 USC 103 analysis of the claim set below. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).
Examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 USC 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office Action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 USC 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3 – 6, and 8 – 16 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Bormann (US20190343044A1) in view of Behnke (DE10147733A1, an English copy is attached hereto) and in further view of Strubbe (US5046362A).
Regarding independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 16 (note that claim 15 is analyzed immediately below because it reads on claims 1, 8, and 16):
Bormann teaches:
A method of controlling operation of one or more systems of an agricultural machine, the method comprising:
sensing unit positioned within a flowpath of material deposited through an outlet through which the material may be deposited from the machine and adjacent to and downstream of the outlet of the spreader tool; See Fig. 1. of Bormann, wherein it is shown that the sensing unit inlet is within the flow path of the harvested material, and is adjacent to, and is downstream from, the outlet to the spreader tool;
controlling operation of one or more systems of the agricultural machine in dependence on the determined grain loss. (“ … forms independently operating automated adjusting mechanisms which are utilized for optimizing the control of the working mechanisms for carrying out the treatment subprocesses, wherein a process supervisor is assigned to the driver assistance system for controlling individual automated adjusting mechanisms and a data exchange of the automated adjusting mechanisms with one another.”, [ABSTRACT]) and (“The term “process quality parameters” is to be understood to mean, in the case of the working mechanism “header”, pick-up losses, cut crop losses, bouncing grain losses, etc. Process quality parameters are an evaluation criterion for an optimal adjustment of the working mechanism by the automated adjusting mechanisms.”, [010]), systems are controlled, inter alia, as a function of grain losses.
Bormann does not expressly disclose, but Behnke teaches:
the impact signal comprising a measurement of an impact parameter indicative of a force and/or frequency of material incident on a detection surface of the sensing unit; (“Such an impact plate sensor system can also be arranged at the end of the lower sieve 11 or at the point at which the return is returned to the threshing process for assessing the quantity of crop grains in the sweep);
receiving an impact signal from a sensing unit of a spreader tool of the agricultural machine, (“This sensor technology is also used in shakers 9 to detect the separation. In order to obtain information about the residual crop grains still in the straw, a shaker loss sensor 19 is attached at least to the rear end of a shaker 9. This sensor 19 partly detects the residual crop grains separated at the end of the shaker 9. Such an impact plate sensor system can also be arranged at the end of the lower sieve 11 or at the point at which the return is returned to the threshing process for assessing the quantity of crop grains in the sweep.”) and (“The selection also takes into account whether the loss signals that Tailings amount and / or the tailings grain amount in the combine in conjunction with the selected setting parameter”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bormann to incorporate the teachings of Behnke because Bormann would be more efficient and versatile if it could utilize an impact plate / sensing unit to determine grain losses, as done in Behnke (“They are usually designed as a baffle plate or tube and evaluate the vibrations that are generated by the impact of crop grains on the plate or tube. This sensor technology can also be used and arranged at any location in a combine harvester 1 . In this way, crop grain flows can be recorded and at least allow a comparative and relative statement about the grain quantities prevailing at the place of use.).
The combination of Bormann and Behnke do not expressly disclose, but Strubbe teaches:
and based on the received impact parameter, distinguishing grain within the material from straw and/or chaff in the material; (“In summary, the exercise as described above has indicated that the grain loss monitor according to the invention and as described above, i.e. a grain loss monitor including a high pass filter and an impact detector having a detector plate with a crystal transducer with a resonant frequency in the range of 15 KHz associated therewith, will adequately distinguish between grain and straw impacts in a wide variety of crops and crop conditions without having to adjust the threshold value to these crops and crop conditions; the only adjustment still being necessary being the sensitivity adjustment. This sensitivity adjustment still necessitates a calibration of the monitor involving a physical checking of the actual losses at the rear of the harvester. To this end, the monitor is provided with a single control means and this has greatly simplified the setting procedure.”, [col. 10: 34 – 49]);
determining, in dependence on the received impact signal, a measurement of grain loss associated with the agricultural machine; and (“This invention relates to an apparatus for measuring grain loss in harvesting machines. More particularly, this apparatus may be used for measuring grain losses occurring at the discharge end of grain handling mechanisms such as the threshing and separating mechanism or the cleaning apparatus of such harvesting machines.”, [col. 1: 12 – 23]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bormann to incorporate the teachings of Strubbe because Bormann would be more efficient and versatile if could attain a measurement / measured indication of grain loss by dent of its utilized sensing unit, as done in Strubbe). (Accordingly, it is the object of the present invention to provide a grain loss monitor which is simple to operate and which provides an indication of the magnitude of the actual grain losses occurring”, [col. 4: 9 – 15]).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Bormann, Behnke, and Strubbe have the limitations of claim 1:
Bormann further teaches:
wherein the sensing unit is positioned such that the detection surface is positioned within the flow path of material deposited through the outlet such that at least a portion of the deposited material contacts the detection surface as it is deposited from the machine. (“Thereby, the aforementioned conversion rule can advantageously be determined by means of a weighing device located on the distributor machine.”, [006]), and see both Bormann Fig. 1 and [032], as is expressly set forth above in the independent claim analysis.
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Bormann, Behnke, and Strubbe have the limitations of claim 1:
Bormann further teaches:
comprising a rotor or fan unit for providing a propulsive force for propelling the material from the spreader tool and out of the agricultural machine. (“The opening width of the threshing concave 4 b is variable. The cleaning mechanism 6 comprises a variable-speed fan 6 a and a variable-inclination sieve arrangement including at least one upper sieve 6 b and one lower sieve 6 c”, [030]).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Bormann, Behnke, and Strubbe have the limitations of claim 4:
Bormann further teaches:
configured such that the detection surface of the sensing unit is positioned in the flow path of material propelled by the rotor or fan unit. (“Thereby, the aforementioned conversion rule can advantageously be determined by means of a weighing device located on the distributor machine.”, [006]), and see only figure in Bormann publication.
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Bormann, Behnke, and Strubbe have the limitations of claim 4:
Bormann further teaches:
wherein the sensing unit is operable to measure the impact parameter in dependence on the operational speed of the rotor or fan unit. (“The cleaning mechanism 6 comprises a variable-speed fan 6 a and a variable-inclination sieve arrangement including at least one upper sieve 6 b and one lower sieve 6 c. The upper sieve 6 b and the lower sieve 6 c are oscillatingly driven and comprise sieve openings having a variable opening width. The chopping and spreading mechanism 7 comprises a chaff conveyor 7 a, a chopper 7 b, which is driven in a variable-speed manner, and a spreading mechanism 7 c.”, [030]) and (“ If, for example, the combine harvester 1 is operated at a ground speed on the field to be harvested, which is below a ground speed of the possible maximum throughput of crop, while the strategic objective of the harvesting process “maximum throughput” was selected by the operator, the process supervisor 28 utilizes the available resources of the working mechanisms 16 in order to change or prioritize their objectives of the sub-strategies”, [042]).
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Bormann, Behnke, and Strubbe have the limitations of claim 8:
Bormann further teaches:
control system of claim 8, operable to control operation of a user interface associated with the machine to provide an indication to the operator of the machine of the determined grain loss associated with the measured impact parameter. (“Moreover, the combine harvester 1 comprises a driver's cab 13, in which at least one graphical user interface 14 is situated. The graphical user interface 14 is connected to a bus system 15 of the combine harvester 1. A driver assistance system 18 communicates, via the bus system 15, in a way known per se, with the graphical user interface 14 and with a plurality of sensor systems 19.”, [032]).
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Bormann, Behnke, and Strubbe have the limitations of claim 8:
Bormann further teaches:
control system of claim 8, operable to control an operational speed of the machine or one or more components thereof. (“If, for example, the combine harvester 1 is operated at a ground speed on the field to be harvested, which is below a ground speed of the possible maximum throughput of crop, while the strategic objective of the harvesting process “maximum throughput” was selected by the operator, the process supervisor 28 utilizes the available resources of the working mechanisms 16 in order to change or prioritize their objectives of the sub-strategies”, [042]), the speed of the machine may be controlled.
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Bormann, Behnke, and Strubbe have the limitations of claim 10:
Bormann further teaches:
wherein the operational speed comprises a forward speed of the machine. See Fig. 1 where it is shown that the machine operates in a forward moving direction, and see (“If, for example, the combine harvester 1 is operated at a ground speed on the field to be harvested, which is below a ground speed of the possible maximum throughput of crop, while the strategic objective of the harvesting process “maximum throughput” was selected by the operator, the process supervisor 28 utilizes the available resources of the working mechanisms 16 in order to change or prioritize their objectives of the sub-strategies”, [042]), and see Abstract, published 11/14/2019.
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Bormann, Behnke, and Strubbe have the limitations of claim 8:
Bormann further teaches:
control system of claim 8, operable to adjust one or more operational parameters of components associated with threshing, separating and/or cleaning of the material in order to reduce grain loss. (“The present invention relates to a combine harvester having multiple working mechanisms for carrying out specific treatment subprocesses of an overall treatment process for processing crop, and a driver assistance system for controlling the working mechanisms.”, [002]).
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Bormann, Behnke, and Strubbe have the limitations of claim 8:
Bormann further teaches:
control system of claim 8, operable to receive a spreader operation signal indicative of one or more operational parameters of the spreader tool; and (“For the purpose of controlling these working mechanisms, at least an automated front attachment, an automated threshing mechanism, an automated separating mechanism, an automated cleaning mechanism, as well as an automated spreader can be provided as automated adjusting mechanisms.”, [020]);
determine a measurement of grain loss in dependence on spreader operation signal. (“Moreover, the combine harvester 1 comprises a driver's cab 13, in which at least one graphical user interface 14 is situated. The graphical user interface 14 is connected to a bus system 15 of the combine harvester 1. A driver assistance system 18 communicates, via the bus system 15, in a way known per se, with the graphical user interface 14 and with a plurality of sensor systems 19.”, [032]).
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Bormann, Behnke, and Strubbe have the limitations of claim 13:
Bormann further teaches:
control system of claim 13, wherein the spreader operation signal is indicative of an operational speed of the spreader tool. (“If, for example, the combine harvester 1 is operated at a ground speed on the field to be harvested, which is below a ground speed of the possible maximum throughput of crop, while the strategic objective of the harvesting process “maximum throughput” was selected by the operator, the process supervisor 28 utilizes the available resources of the working mechanisms 16 in order to change or prioritize their objectives of the sub-strategies”, [042]), as above, the spreader, as one of the working mechanisms of the vehicle, is a function of vehicle speed.
Claim 7 is rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Bormann (US20190343044A1) in view of Behnke (DE10147733A1, an English copy is attached hereto) in further view of Strubbe (US6524183B1) and in further view of Batcheller (US20140135082A1).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Bormann, Behnke, and Strubbe have the limitations of claim 1:
That combination does not expressly disclose, but Batcheller teaches:
wherein the sensing unit comprises an acoustic-electric sensing means configured to output an electrical signal which is proportional to the force of material incident on the detection surface of the sensing unit. (“The present invention relates generally to a system for detecting the amount of crop material present in an agricultural machine, and more particularly to a system using one or more acoustic sensors which can be used for detecting the amount of crop lost from a harvester, as well as the amount of crop yielded by the harvester.”, [003]) and (“When the kernels impact the sensor, the deformation of the piezoelectric pad generates a measurable voltage due to piezoelectric effect, which electrical signals can be detected and interpreted as the presence of lost crop material.”, [007])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bormann to incorporate the teachings of Batcheller because Bormann would be more efficient and versatile if it could utilize acoustics in determining grain losses in light of the simplicity and ruggedness of the noted sound sensor, as done in Batcheller. (“FIG. 1 shows an isometric view of one embodiment of an acoustic grain loss sensor 100. FIG. 1 is shown as an exploded view to better illustrate the construction of the grain loss sensor, as one distinct advantage of this sensor over prior art grain loss sensors is the simplicity and ruggedness of its construction.”, [027] of Batcheller).
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Murray (US9526211B2) - An agricultural harvesting system including a chassis, an agricultural product moving device coupled to the chassis, an airflow system, a cleaning system and an airflow characterizing system. The cleaning system is configured to receive the agricultural product from the moving device. The cleaning system is configured to receive an airflow from the airflow system. The airflow characterizing system is at least partially positioned in the airflow, and is configured to measure an airflow profile across the cleaning system. The airflow characterizing system includes a plurality of sensors that determine airflow by measuring a thermal transfer from the sensors to the airflow. The airflow characterizing system being configured to maintain a substantially constant electrical resistance of the sensors as the airflow varies. The airflow characteristics are measured in the cleaning system and are used to improve the cleaning capacity of the harvesting system.
Bojsen (US11712002B2) – A residue spreader for receiving crop residue from a residue chopper of a combine harvester and spreading crop residue onto the ground. The spreader includes a body having an inlet side and an outlet side, a plurality of outlet deflectors, each outlet deflector mounted on the body in juxtaposed position and configured to laterally deflect the crop residue between the inlet side and the outlet side, and a plurality of inlet deflectors, each inlet deflector pivotally mounted on the body in juxtaposed position and extending forwards from a respective pivot axis towards the inlet side and each configured to laterally deflect the crop residue between the inlet side and the outlet side upstream of the outlet deflectors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, M - F.
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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661