DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/24/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 05/13/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 15 have been amended by Applicant.
Claims 3, 7, and 9 – 14 and 16 remain as original.
Claims 2 and 4 were cancelled by Applicant.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 – 16 are currently pending and have been examined.
The prior 35 USC 103 claim rejections set forth in the Final rejection of 03/25/2026 as to claims 1 and 3 – 16 are maintained in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments. Note that claim 4 has been cancelled by Applicant.
THIS ACTION IS MADE NON-FINAL
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues per 35 USC 103 that the citations set forth in the prior Final rejection are insufficient to reject the claims as amended on 03/25/2026. Remarks 5 – 8. In view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments, a new art combination was selected for the following 35 USC 103 analysis. That said, Applicant’s arguments respecting previous combinations of art are moot.
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 03/25/2026, and also respecting the pending amended claim set of 05/13/2026, 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, 5, 6, and 8 – 16 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Bormann (US20190343044A1) in view of Wold (US10897848B2), and in further view of Pfeiffer (US20170071125A1).
Regarding independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 16
(note that claim 15 is analyzed immediately below since it reads on claims 1, 8, and 16, and note that the additional hardware (from claim 1) is also added below as appropriate):
Bormann discloses:
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 Wold 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; (“In one implementation , downstream sensors 246 and 248 may comprise vibration sensors or impact plates that sense the impact of crop material there against.”, [col. 7:10 – 12]) and (“As indicated by block 112, a speed of fan 34 is adjusted based upon the estimated forthcoming load of crop material upon the chaffer. In one implementation, such adjustments may be continuous and proportional to the estimated load of crop material. For example, for every increase in the unit of force, the speed of fan 34 is increased by a corresponding or proportional amount of speed. For every decrease and the unit of force, the speed of fan 34 is decreased by a corresponding or proportional amount of speed.”, [col. 5: 3 – 8]) and (“In one implementation, downstream sensors 246 and 248 may comprise vibration sensors or impact plates that sense the impact of crop material there against.”, [col. 7: 10 - 12]);
receiving an impact signal from a sensing unit of a spreader tool of the agricultural machine, (“A combine harvester may include a chaffer to separate residue from grain in crop material, a fan to direct air through and across the chaffer to carry the residue from the harvester, a sensor to output signals indicating a characteristic of the crop material upstream of the chaffer and a controller to adjust a speed of the fan based on signals from the sensor.”, [Abstract published 01/26/2021]) and (“Such crop material may largely comprise crop material residue. In one implementation, downstream sensors 246 and 248 may comprise vibration sensors or impact plates that sense the impact of crop material there against.”, [col. 7: 9 – 12]), examiner further notes that the above includes a fan unit (per claim 1);
determining, in dependence on the received impact signal, a measurement of grain loss associated with the agricultural machine; and (“Material flow sensors 934B and 934C are similar to sensors 248 and 246, respectively, described above. Material flow sensor 934B is located downstream of chaffer 827 and outputs signals indicating the actual passage of crop material after it has been blown off of the top of chaffer 827 or is been blown off of the underlying sieves. At such a location, material flow sensor 934B senses crop material being discharged from harvester 800 which may largely consist of crop residue. Material flow sensor 934B may output signals that indicate potential crop loss in the form of grain that is being discharged.”, [col. 10: 41 – 51]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bormann to incorporate the teachings of Wold because Bormann would be more efficient and versatile if it could utilize an impact plate / sensing unit to determine grain losses, as done in Wold (“For example, in other implementations, at least one of material flow sensor 934 may comprise an impact plate situated across a portion of the region through which crop material flows, wherein the total crop flow is determined based upon signals from the impact plate and its location and size relative to the overall area through which crop material flows. In other implementations, other types of material flow sensors may be utilized.”, see Wold at [col. 11: 17 – 24]).
The combination of Bormann and Wold does not expressly disclose, but Pfeiffer teaches:
and based on the received impact parameter and in dependence on an operational speed of a rotor or fan unit of the spreader tool, distinguishing grain within the material from straw and/or chaff in the material; (“In one example, the fan speed 262 of the cleaning shoe fan also affects the ability to accurately sense grain loss. By way of example, if the fan speed is too high, this can cause some of the grain to become airborne with a trajectory that causes it to miss the cleaning shoe loss sensors. This type of grain loss will not be sensed. Therefore, fan speed sensor 148 can provide an indication of fan speed 262.”, [033]) and see claim 6, … (”The mobile machine of claim 1 wherein the harvesting mechanism comprises:a cleaning shoe with a cleaning shoe fan, wherein the context sensor includes a fan speed sensor that senses a speed of the cleaning shoe fan, the crop loss correction system generating the corrected loss signal based on the sensed speed of the cleaning shoe fan.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bormann to incorporate the teachings of Pfeiffer because Bormann would be more efficient and versatile if it could distinguish grain as against a fan speed by dent of a using a sensor as done in Pfeiffer (“Components 128 can thus include sensors such as machine state sensor 142, machine orientation sensor 144, crop property sensor 146, cleaning shoe fan speed sensor 148, material other than grain (MOG) moisture sensor 150, machine setting sensor 152, and it can include other items or sensors 154.”, [016] of .Pfeiffer.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Bormann, Wold and Pfeiffer 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 5:
The combination of Bormann, Wold and Pfeiffer have the limitations of claim 1:
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, Wold and Pfeiffer have the limitations of claim 1:
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, Wold and Pfeiffer 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, Wold and Pfeiffer 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, Wold and Pfeiffer 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, Wold and Pfeiffer 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, Wold and Pfeiffer 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, Wold and Pfeiffer 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 Wold (US10897848B2), and in further view of Pfeiffer (US20170071125A1), and in further view of Batcheller (US20140135082A1).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Bormann, Wold and of Batcheller disclose 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
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
Prosecution Insights