DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/05/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 remain pending in the application. Claim 15 has been canceled. Claim 21 has been added.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 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 no obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lauwers et al. (US 20210378178 A1) in view of Benes et al. (US 20190045710 A1).
As per claim 1, Lauwers teaches an agricultural system comprising:
a head configured to be mounted to an agricultural harvester, the end having a first end, a second end, and one or more row dividers disposed between the first end of the head and the second end of the head ([0023-0024]);
an end divider on at least one of the first end of the head or the second end of the head ([0003], where the header of Lauwers includes “a pair of end dividers at the lateral ends of the frame” as well understood in the art);
an actuator controller that identifies a control action, corresponding to a crop saving attachment, to take based on a crop saving attachment action criterion detected by an input mechanism ([0026] and [0033], where the actuators are controlled by the control device for automatic operation);
and a control signal generation system that automatically generates a control signal to control the actuator to actuate the crop saving attachment, to adjust the height of the crop saving attachment based on the identified control action ([0026] and [0033], where the control device processes signals from sensors and outputs to the actuators).
Lauwers teaches end dividers and a system for controlling a crop saving element of a harvester that is automatically activated based on action criterion ([0026] and [0033]). It does not teach that the system includes an actuator configured to actuate the end divider at least partially through an opening formed in a housing of the head to adjust a height of the end divider from the at least one end of the head.
In the same field of endeavor, Benes teaches an agricultural harvester with retractable components on outer end dividers. Benes teaches that this system includes an actuator configured to actuate the end divider at least partially through an opening formed in a housing of the head to adjust a height of the end divider from the at least one end of the head ([0066] and Figs. 1A and 1B, where the loss preventor 13 retracts into and out of the base body 11). This element of Benes is considered as an end divider under a broadest reasonable interpretation as it is located on an outer stalk divider ([0038]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the system of Lauwers with the structure of the end dividers taught by Benes. These end dividers would advantageously be automatically controlled via detected control action criterion just as the crop saving attachments of Lauwers are automatically controlled ([0026] and [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to include the end dividers of Benes based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Benes, of reducing bulk components, e.g. ears of corn, that are lost over outer stalk dividers ([0006] and [0011]).
As per claim 2, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Lauwers teaches that the input mechanism comprises:
an operator interface mechanism ([0033]),
the operator interface mechanism being configured to detect, as the end divider action criterion, an operator input command ([0033]).
As per claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Lauwers teaches that the input mechanism comprises:
a sensor configured to detect the end divider action criterion and generate a criterion signal based on the detected end divider action criterion ([0033], where a sensor is configured to detect loose crop material).
wherein the actuator controller identifies the control action based on the criterion signal ([0033], where the end divider would be retracted or extended in order to “more or less aggressively save the crop material from falling out of the corn header” according to the combination of claim 1).
As per claim 4, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Benes teaches that wherein the opening comprises a slot formed in the housing of the head ([0066]), and the actuator is configured to move the end divider, relative to the head, between a fully extended position and a fully retracted position in which at least a portion of the end divider is retracted into the housing a body of the head through the slot ([0066] and Figs. 1A and 1B).
As per claim 11, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Lauwers teaches that the system is further comprising:
a second end divider on the second end of the head ([0003], where the harvester header includes “a pair of end dividers”);
a second actuator that actuates the second crop saving attachment ([0026], where each actuatable element has one or more actuators),
wherein the actuator controller identifies a second crop saving attachment control action, corresponding to the crop saving attachment, to take based on the detected crop saving attachment action criterion ([0033], wherein each crop saving attachment can be individually actuated by their respective actuator to “more or less aggressively save the crop material”). It is noted that each crop saving element of Lauwers can be individually actuated by a control signal ([0033]).
Although Lauwers discloses two end dividers on opposite ends of the head, it does not explicitly disclose that these elements are extended to the second end divider of the pair.
Benes does teach that end dividers are included on both outer stalk dividers ([0040]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to ensure that the second end divider includes a second actuator configured to be controlled by control signals just as the first end divider is in the prior combination. Further, As Lauwers teaches that each crop saving element can be controlled individually ([0033]), it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, in view of the prior art combination, to ensure that the end dividers can also be individually actuated by configuring the second actuator to actuate the second end divider with a second end divider action based on a detected end divider action criterion. This would ensure that both end dividers are capable of being retracted or extended independently for different crop conditions on their respective ends of the header.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination of Lauwers and Benes to enable a second end divider to be individually controlled and actuated based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Benes, of reducing bulk components, e.g. ears of corn, that are lost over outer stalk dividers ([0006] and [0011]).
As per claim 12, Lauwers teaches a method of controlling an end divider on a head of an agricultural harvester, the method comprising:
detecting an end divider action criterion corresponding to a crop saving attachment ([0033]);
identifying a control action, corresponding to the crop saving attachment, to take based on the detected end divider action criterion ([0026] and [0033], where the actuators are controlled by the control device for automatic operation);
and automatically generating a control signal to control an actuator to extend the crop saving attachment ([0026] and [0033], where the control device processes signals from sensors and outputs to the actuators to raise and/or lower the attachment).
Lauwers teaches end dividers and a system for controlling a crop saving element of a harvester that is automatically activated based on action criterion ([0026] and [0033]). It does not teach that the system includes an actuator configured to actuate the end divider at least partially through an opening formed in a housing of the head to adjust a height of the end divider from the at least one end of the head.
In the same field of endeavor, Benes teaches an agricultural harvester with retractable components corresponding to the end divider on an end of the head. Benes teaches that this system includes an actuator configured to actuate the end divider, at least partially through an opening formed in a housing of the head. to adjust a height of the end divider from the at least one end of the head ([0066] and Figs. 1A and 1B, where the loss preventor 13 retracts into and out of the base body 11). This element of Benes is considered as an end divider under a broadest reasonable interpretation as it is located on an outer stalk divider ([0038]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the system of Lauwers with the structure of the end dividers taught by Benes. These end dividers would advantageously be automatically controlled via detected control action criterion just as the crop saving attachments of Lauwers are automatically controlled ([0026] and [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to include the end dividers of Benes based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Benes, of reducing bulk components, e.g. ears of corn, that are lost over outer stalk dividers ([0006] and [0011]).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art remains as applied in claim 12. Lauwers teaches wherein detecting the end divider action criterion comprises:
detecting, as the end divider action criterion, an operator input command on an operator interface mechanism ([0033]).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art remains as applied in claim 12. Lauwers teaches that detecting the end divider action criterion comprises:
detecting, with a sensor, the end divider action criterion ([0033], where a sensor is configured to detect loose crop material);
generating a criterion signal based on the detected end divider action criterion, and
wherein the actuator controller identifies the control action based on the criterion signal ([0033], where the end divider would be retracted or extended in order to “more or less aggressively save the crop material from falling out of the corn header” according to the combination of claim 1).
Claims 5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lauwers in view of Benes as applied to claims 3 and 14 above, and further in view of Shearer et al. (US 12171163 B2).
As per claim 5, the prior art remains as applied in claim 3. Lauwers teaches that actuator controller identifies, as the control action, an end divider position based on the criterion signal indicative it receives from the sensor ([0033], where the criterion signal is “the presence of loose crop material”).
The prior combination does not teach that the criterion the sensor is configured to detect is the vegetation that is wrapped around the end divider. It also does not teach that the criterion signal that the sensor generates and that the actuator controller receives is based on the vegetation wrapped around the end divider.
Shearer teaches a camera monitoring system, i.e. a sensor, (Col. 5, lines 28-39) that is configured to detect the vegetation that is wrapped around a component of the harvester header, and generate a signal based on the vegetation wrapped around the component of the harvester header (Col. 8, lines 22-37).
Shearer is analogous to the art of controlling components of an agricultural harvester header. The invention taught via the prior combination differs from the applicant’s invention only by what criterion the sensor is detecting, and what signal that sensor is outputting in response to that criterion. This sensor and signal that it is outputting are known to those in the art as established in Shearer. Substituting the sensor taught in the prior combination with the sensor taught in Shearer results in the predictable outcome of the end divider action criterion that the sensor is detecting changing from the presence of loose crop material to the vegetation around the end divider. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the teachings of the prior combination to incorporate the teachings of Shearer by substituting the sensor of the prior combination with the sensor taught in Shearer. The motivation to combine, as stated in MPEP § 2143(I)(B), is “the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
As per claim 16, the prior art remains as applied in claim 14. Lauwers teaches:
generating, as the criterion signal, a signal ([0033]);
wherein identifying the control action comprises identifying, as the control action, an end divider position or speed of rotation based on the signal ([0033]);
The prior combination does not teach that the criterion the sensor is configured to detect is accumulation of vegetation on an edge of the first end divider. It also does not teach that the criterion signal that the sensor generates and that the actuator controller receives is a hair pinning signal indicative of the accumulation of vegetation.
Shearer teaches a camera sensing system (Col. 5, lines 28-39) that is configured to detect the accumulation of vegetation on a component of the harvester header, and generate a hair pinning signal indicative of the accumulation of vegetation (Col. 8, lines 22-37, where vegetation that is wrapped around a component must necessarily be wrapped around the edges of said component).
Shearer is analogous to the art of controlling components of an agricultural harvester header. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the camera sensing system of the prior combination to detect the accumulation of vegetation on an end divider based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to control the end dividers corresponding this detection of vegetation. As Shearer teaches, this advantageously allows a component where vegetation is accumulated to be lifted in order to free said accumulation of vegetation (Col. 8, lines 22-37).
As per claim 17, the prior art remains as applied in claim 14. Lauwers teaches:
generating, as the criterion signal, a signal ([0033]);
wherein identifying the control action comprises identifying, as the control action, an end divider position or speed of rotation based on the signal ([0033]);
The prior combination does not teach that the criterion the sensor is configured to detect is wrapping of material at least partially around the end divider. It also does not teach that the criterion signal that the sensor generates and that the actuator controller receives is a wrapping signal indicative of the wrapping of material.
Shearer teaches a camera sensing system (Col. 5, lines 28-39) that is configured to detect wrapping of material at least partially around a component of the harvester header, and generate a signal based on of the wrapping of material (Col. 8, lines 22-37).
Shearer is analogous to the art of controlling components of an agricultural harvester header. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the camera sensing system of the prior combination to detect the wrapping of material around an end divider based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to control the end dividers corresponding this detection of wrapping. As Shearer teaches, this advantageously allows a component where wrapping is detected to be lifted in order to free the component of said wrapping (Col. 8, lines 22-37).
Claims 6-7, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lauwers in view of Benes as applied to claims 3 and 14 above, and further in view of Peiter et al. (EP 3603379 A1).
As per claim 6, the prior art remains as applied in claim 3. Lauwers teaches that actuator controller identifies, as the control action, an end divider position based on the criterion signal indicative it receives from the sensor ([0033], where the criterion signal is “the presence of loose crop material”).
The prior combination does not teach that the criterion the sensor is configured to detect is a crop state characteristic of crop proximate the agricultural harvester. The prior combination also does not teach that the criterion signal that the sensor generates and that the actuator controller receives is based on crop state characteristic of crop proximate the agricultural harvester.
Peiter discloses a sensor system comprising a camera configured to detect a crop state characteristic of crop proximate the agricultural harvester, and generate a signal based on the crop state characteristic of crop proximate the agricultural harvester ([0027], where the sensor determines whether crops proximate the harvester are harvested).
Peiter is analogous to the art controlling components of an agricultural harvester header. The invention taught in the prior combination differs from the applicant’s invention only by what criterion the sensor is detecting, and what signal that sensor is outputting in response to that criterion. This sensor and signal that it is outputting are known to those in the art as established in Peiter. Substituting the sensor taught in the prior combination with the sensor taught in Peiter results in the predictable outcome of the end divider action criterion that the sensor is detecting changing from loose crop material to the crop state characteristic of crop proximate the agricultural harvester. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the teachings of the prior combination to incorporate the teachings of Peiter by substituting the sensor of the prior combination with the sensor taught in Peiter. The motivation to combine, as stated in MPEP § 2143(I)(B), is “the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
As per claim 7, the prior art remains as applied in claim 3. Lauwers teaches that actuator controller identifies, as the control action, an end divider position based on the criterion signal indicative it receives from the sensor ([0033], where the criterion signal is “the presence of loose crop material”).
The prior combination does not teach that the criterion the sensor is configured to detect is a harvest state of crop proximate the agricultural harvester. The prior combination also does not teach that the criterion signal that the sensor generates and that the actuator controller receives is based on the harvest state of crop proximate the agricultural harvester.
Peiter discloses a sensor system comprising a camera configured to detect a harvest state of crop proximate the agricultural harvester, and generate a signal based on the harvest state of crop proximate the agricultural harvester ([0027], where the sensor determines whether crops proximate the harvester are harvested).
Peiter is analogous to the art of sensors and control of an agricultural harvester header. The invention taught in the prior combination differs from the applicant’s invention only by what criterion the sensor is detecting, and what signal that sensor is outputting in response to that criterion. This sensor and signal that it is outputting are known to those in the art as established in Peiter. Substituting the sensor taught in the prior combination with the sensor taught in Peiter results in the predictable outcome of the end divider action criterion that the sensor is detecting changing from loose crop material to the harvest state of crop proximate the agricultural harvester. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the teachings of the prior combination to incorporate the teachings of Peiter by substituting the sensor of the prior combination with the sensor taught in Peiter. The motivation to combine, as stated in MPEP § 2143(I)(B), is “the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
As per claim 10, the prior art remains as applied in claim 3. Lauwers teaches that actuator controller identifies, as the control action, an end divider position based on the criterion signal indicative it receives from the sensor ([0033], where the criterion signal is “the presence of loose crop material”).
The prior combination does not teach that the criterion the sensor is configured to detect is a direction of travel of the agricultural harvester. The prior combination also does not teach that the criterion signal that the sensor generates and that the actuator controller receives is based on the direction of travel of the agricultural harvester.
Peiter discloses a sensor system comprising a camera configured to detect a direction of travel of the agricultural harvester, and generate a signal based on the direction of travel of the agricultural harvester ([0031], where the operation of the harvesting machine is controlled depending on the direction of travel determined from steering angle as obtained from a sensor well known in the art). Examiner additionally makes note of position determination device 60 in Peiter that is capable of outputting two subsequent signals representative of the harvester’s location, in which the direction of travel can also be derived via comparisons as is known to those in the art ([0028]).
Peiter is analogous to the art of sensors and control of an agricultural harvester header. The invention taught in the prior combination differs from the applicant’s invention only by what criterion the sensor is detecting, and what signal that sensor is outputting in response to that criterion. This sensor and signal that it is outputting are known to those in the art as established in Peiter. Substituting the sensor taught in the prior combination with the sensor taught in Peiter results in the predictable outcome of the end divider action criterion that the sensor is detecting changing from loose crop material to the direction of the agricultural harvester. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the teachings of the prior combination to incorporate the teachings of Peiter by substituting the sensor of the prior combination with the sensor taught in Peiter. The motivation to combine, as stated in MPEP § 2143(I)(B), is “the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
As per claim 18, the prior art remains as applied in claim 14. Lauwers teaches:
generating, as the criterion signal, a signal ([0033]);
wherein identifying the control action comprises identifying, as the control action, an end divider position or speed of rotation based on the signal ([0033]);
The prior combination does not teach that the criterion the sensor is configured to detect is whether crop adjacent the end of the head is unharvested or harvested. It also does not teach that the criterion signal that the sensor generates and that the actuator controller receives is a harvested/unharvested signal indicative of whether the crop adjacent the end of the head is unharvested or harvested, nor that a first or second action is taken based on this signal.
Peiter teaches a camera sensing system ([0027]) that is configured to detect whether crop adjacent the end of the head is unharvested or harvested, and generate a signal based on whether crop adjacent the end of the head is unharvested or harvested ([0027]). It also teaches that a first or second action is taken based on this signal ([0027], where the drives of the two elements are switched on or off depending on if there is still standing crop material to be harvested).
Peiter is analogous to the art of controlling components of an agricultural harvester header. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the camera sensing system of the prior combination to determine whether crop adjacent to the end of the head is harvested based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to control the end dividers corresponding this detection, advantageously allowing the end dividers to be positioned so as to not accumulate vegetation when there is no crop to be harvested.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lauwers in view of Benes as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Sauder et al. (US 9322629 B2).
As per claim 8, the prior art remains as applied in claim 3. Lauwers teaches that actuator controller identifies, as the control action, an end divider position based on the criterion signal indicative it receives from the sensor ([0033], where the criterion signal is “the presence of loose crop material”).
The prior combination does not teach that the criterion the sensor is configured to detect is material flow. The prior combination also does not teach that the criterion signal that the sensor generates and that the actuator controller receives is based on the material flow.
Sauder discloses a yield sensor that is configured to detect material flow, and generate a material flow signal indicative of the material flow (Column 3, lines 5-11).
Sauder is analogous to the art of sensors for the operation of an agricultural harvester header. The invention taught in the prior combination differs from the applicant’s invention only by what criterion the sensor is detecting, and what signal that sensor is outputting in response to that criterion. This sensor and signal that it is outputting are known to those in the art as established in Sauder. Substituting the sensor taught in the prior combination with the sensor taught in Sauder results in the predictable outcome of the end divider action criterion that the sensor is detecting changing from loose crop material to material flow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the teachings of Lauwers to incorporate the teachings of Sauder by substituting the sensor of Lauwers with the sensor taught in Sauder. The motivation to combine, as stated in MPEP § 2143(I)(B), is “the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
Claim 9 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lauwers in view of Benes as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and further in view of Dighton et al. (US 20190230856 A1).
As per claim 9, the prior art remains as applied in claim 3. Lauwers teaches that actuator controller identifies, as the control action, an end divider position based on the criterion signal indicative it receives from the sensor ([0033], where the criterion signal is “the presence of loose crop material”).
The prior combination does not teach that the criterion the sensor is configured to detect is an orientation of ears of corn proximate the agricultural harvester. The prior combination also does not teach that the criterion signal that the sensor generates and that the actuator controller receives is based on the orientation of ears proximate the agricultural harvester.
Dighton discloses a stereo-camera sensor coupled to the frame of the harvester that is configured to detect the orientation of ears proximate the agricultural harvester, and generate a signal based on the orientation of ears proximate the agricultural harvester ([0040-0043], where the sensor detects crop attributes including the “lay orientation” and “lay angle”).
Dighton is analogous to the art of using sensors for improving the operation of an agricultural harvester header. The invention taught in the prior combination differs from the applicant’s invention only by what criterion the sensor is detecting, and what signal that sensor is outputting in response to that criterion. This sensor and signal that it is outputting are known to those in the art as established in Dighton. Substituting the sensor taught in the prior combination with the sensor taught in Dighton results in the predictable outcome of the end divider action criterion that the sensor is detecting changing from loose crop material to the orientation of ears of corn proximate the agricultural harvester. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the teachings of the prior combination to incorporate the teachings of Dighton by substituting the sensor of the prior combination with the sensor taught in Dighton. The motivation to combine, as stated in MPEP § 2143(I)(B), is “the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
As per claim 19, the prior art remains as applied in claim 14. Lauwers teaches:
generating, as the criterion signal, a signal ([0033]);
wherein identifying the control action comprises identifying, as the control action, an end divider position or speed of rotation based on the signal ([0033]);
The prior combination does not teach that the criterion the sensor is configured to detect is ear orientation proximate the harvester. It also does not teach that the criterion signal that the sensor generates and that the actuator controller receives is an ear orientation signal indicative of the ear orientation proximate the agricultural harvester.
Dighton teaches a camera sensing system that is configured to detect ear orientation proximate the harvester, and generate a signal based on the ear orientation proximate the agricultural harvester ([0040-0043]).
Dighton is analogous to the art of controlling components of an agricultural harvester header. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the camera sensing system of the prior combination to determine whether crop adjacent to the ear orientation proximate the agricultural harvester based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to control the end dividers corresponding this detection, advantageously allowing the end dividers to be positioned so as to not accumulate vegetation when the crop ears are oriented in a manner where the end divider is not needed to aid crop harvesting.
Claims 20-21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lauwers et al. (US 20210378178 A1) in view of Benes et al. (US 20190045710 A1) and Dima et al. (US 20190307070 A1).
As per claim 20, Lauwers teaches an agricultural system comprising:
a head configured to be mounted on an agricultural harvester ([0023-0024]);
an end divider on an end of the head ([0003]);
an actuator, mounted on the head, that actuates a crop saving attachment between an active and an inactive state ([0026] and Figs. 2 and 3, where the attachment 230 is active and extended or inactive and retracted);
one or more processors ([0033]); and
memory storing computer executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform steps comprising ([0033]):
identifying a control action, corresponding to the crop saving attachment, to take based on a signal ([0033], where the feedback from signals are sent and identified by the control device); and
automatically generating a control signal to control the actuator to move the end divider to a commanded state based on the identified control action ([0026] and [0033], where the attachment is raised or lowered based on the feedback signal).
Lauwers teaches end dividers and a system for controlling a crop saving element of a harvester that is automatically activated based on action criterion ([0026] and [0033]). It does not teach that the system explicitly actuates the end divider per the action criterion.
In the same field of endeavor, Benes teaches an agricultural harvester with retractable components on outer end dividers. Benes teaches that this system includes an actuator configured to actuate the end divider ([0066] and Figs. 1A and 1B, where the loss preventor 13 retracts into and out of the base body 11). This element of Benes is considered as an end divider under a broadest reasonable interpretation as it is located on an outer stalk divider ([0038]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the system of Lauwers with the structure of the end dividers taught by Benes. These end dividers would advantageously be automatically controlled via detected control action criterion just as the crop saving attachments of Lauwers are automatically controlled ([0026] and [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to include the end dividers of Benes based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Benes, of reducing bulk components, e.g. ears of corn, that are lost over outer stalk dividers ([0006] and [0011]).
Lauwers teaches that sensors for actuating the crop saving attachments “indicate the presence of loose crop material”, and subsequently produce a signal based on this detected presence ([0033]). While Benes does that the end dividers are adjusted to reduce the loss of bulk components, such as ears of corn ([0006], and [0011]), the prior combination does not teach that the system includes a crop loss sensor that detects lost crop, that is lost from the head as the agricultural harvester traverses over a field surface, before the lost crop falls on the field surface.
In the field of sensing systems for controlling agricultural harvester implements, Dima teaches a sensor that detects the height of a crop as the agricultural harvester traverses over a field surface – before any crop is harvested and before the lost crop falls on the field surface – so that the height of an implement can be controlled to reduce crop loss and other errors ([0042-0044], where the camera 48 detects the height of a crop being harvested). It also teaches that a detected crop of a sufficient height creates lost crop that is lost from the head as it is unable to be successfully harvested by the harvester ([0037]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the prior combination with the use of sensor as such a sensor would have been recognized as a crop loss sensor in the determination of a crop height of sufficient height. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to perform such a modification based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to better enable the end dividers of the previous combination to predict and react to the conditions of the crop being harvested. As a crop of sufficient height creates crop loss as taught by Dima ([0037]), and the purpose of such end dividers is to reduce crop loss as taught by Benes ([0006] and [0011]), such a modification better enables the end dividers to be actuated to reduce said crop loss in accordance with the detected height.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art remains as applied in claim 20. Lauwers teaches that the lost crop comprises one or more crop ears ([0004], where ears of corn are lost once separated from the stalk). Benes teaches that the commanded state adjusts a height of the end divider from the end of the head ([0017] and Fig. 1b, where the plate and cover element of the end divider at the end of the head are raised above the head).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the independent claims 1 and 12, applicant argues that the amended limitation added to claim 1, namely that the end divider is being actuated “at least partially through an opening formed in a housing of the head to adjust a height of the end divider from the at least one end of the head,” is not taught by the previously cited references. Similarly, applicant argues over the amended limitation added to claim 12, namely that the end divider is being “at least partially through an opening in the end of the head, to adjust a height of the end divider from the end of the head,” is also not taught by the previously cited reference. These arguments are persuasive, and the rejection over the previously cited references is withdrawn. However, a new rejection is made over Lauwers in view of Benes as Benes teaches the recited structure of the amended limitations. Thus, the independent claims 1 and 12 are rejected over Lauwers in view of Benes.
Regarding the independent claim 20, applicant argues that the amended limitation added to claim 20, namely that the sensor is “a crop loss sensor that detects lost crop, that is lost from the head as the agricultural harvester traverses over a field surface, before the lost crop falls on the field surface,” is not taught by the previously cited references. This argument is persuasive, and the previous rejection is withdrawn. However, a new rejection is made over Lauwers in view of Benes and Dima as Dima discloses a sensor that performs such functionality. Thus, the independent claim 20 is rejected over Lauwers in view of Benes and Dima.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R. BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
JACK R. BREWER
Examiner
Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663