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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12, 14, and 16-21 remain pending in the application. Claim 13 has been canceled. Claim 22 has been added.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 11-12, and 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 the first 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);
a material flow sensor configured to detect material flow and generate a material flow signal indicative of the material flow ([0004] [0026] and [0033], where sensors “indicate the presence of loose crop material”, which will flow into the harvester or “fall out of the forward end of the corn header before the loose crop material can be transported into the conveyor section of the corn header” as the harvester is traveling, the feedback from which is used to trigger the “automatic raising and lowering [of] the crop saving attachment”);
an actuator controller that identifies a control action, corresponding to a crop saving attachment, to take based on the material flow signal indicative of the material flow ([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 position 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 adjust a position of the end divider relative to the first 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 adjust a position of the end divider relative to the first 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, Lauwers teaches:
an operator interface mechanism configured to detect an operator input command, wherein the actuator is controlled based on the operator input command ([0033]).
As per claim 3, Lauwers teaches:
a sensor configured to detect an 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), 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).
As per claim 4, Benes teaches:
wherein the end divider is actuated at least partially through a slot formed in a housing of 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 8, Lauwers teaches:
wherein the actuator controller identifies, as the control action, an end divider position or rotation speed based on the material flow signal ([0033], where the end divider position is determined based on feedback from the sensor “in order to more or less aggressively save the crop material from falling out of the corn header 200”).
As per claim 11, Lauwers teaches:
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, 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 presence of material near a crop saving attachment ([0033]);
identifying a control action, corresponding to the crop saving attachment, to take based on the detected presence of material near the crop saving attachment ([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 method for controlling a crop saving element of a harvester that is automatically activated based on the presence of loose crop material near the attachment ([0026] and [0033]). However, this attachment is not explicitly an end divider, and Lauwers does not teach that method includes adjusting a position of the end divider relative to the end of the head, nor does it teach that the material detected is on the end divider.
In the same field of endeavor, Benes teaches adjusting a position of the end divider relative to 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]). Additionally, Benes teaches that material on the end divider, such as material resting on the end divider, is detected ([0052], where “the cover element 10 is automatically deflected downwardly given an excessive load, e.g., owing to resting crop”).
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]), and just as Benes teaches how they are automatically actuated based on resting crop ([0052]).
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 14, Lauwers teaches:
detecting the presence of material on the end divider comprises:
detecting the presence of material with a sensor ([0033]).
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, 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”).
Although Benes teaches that the end divider lifts hanging or tangled crop ([0006], [0011], and [0058]), 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. Sensors that detect vegetation wrapping 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 wrapping of 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. 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.” The motivation to combine is to allow the end dividers to automatically be actuated to aid in the untangling and unwrapping of crops as Benes discloses they are capable of doing.
As per claim 16, 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]);
Although Benes teaches that the end divider lifts hanging or tangled crop ([0006], [0011], and [0058]), 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), and allows the end dividers to automatically be actuated to aid in the untangling and unwrapping of crops as Benes discloses they are capable of doing.
As per claim 17, 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]);
Although Benes teaches that the end divider lifts hanging or tangled crop ([0006], [0011], and [0058]), and that the end dividers are extended/retracted do to crop partially wrapped and resting on the end divider ([0052]), 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), and can ensure the end dividers can still extend and retract when crops are resting on them even in case of wear, damage, or malfunction to the spring compression based system of Benes ([0052]).
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, Lauwers teaches that the 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. As stated in MPEP § 2143(I)(B), “the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.” The motivation to combine is to allow for the of 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.
As per claim 7, 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. As stated in MPEP § 2143(I)(B), “the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.” The motivation to combine is to allow for the of 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.
As per claim 10, 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. As stated in MPEP § 2143(I)(B), “the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.” The motivation to combine is to allow for the of 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 in its current direction of travel.
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 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, 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, 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 20-22 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) 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 crop saving attachments of a harvester that is automatically activated based on action criterion ([0026] and [0033]). However, these crop saving attachments are not explicitly end dividers, and Lauwers 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 height that is too large relative to the reel position creates lost crop that is lost from the head as the crop is unable to be successfully harvested by the harvester, and results in “losses in the standing grain” when harvested ([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 to reduce loss. As a crop that has too large of a height relative to the reel is recognized as “losses in the standing grain” 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.
As per claim 21, 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 further teaches that the commanded state adjusts a height of the end divider from the end of the head ([0017] and Figs. 1A-1B, where the plate and cover element of the end divider are actuated to be lowered and raised).
As per claim 22, Benes teaches:
wherein the end divider is actuated at least partially through a slot formed in a housing of 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 of the head through the slot ([0066] and see Figs. 1A and 1B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, filed 5/13/2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection of amended claim 1, applicant argues that there is no rationale for modifying Lauwers and Benes to include the material flow sensor of Sauder as the material flow sensor of Sauder is “near the outlet of the clean grain elevator”, and not near the harvester header. This argument is unpersuasive. It is recognized that the location of the material flow sensor is not part of the language of claim 1. Therefore, the combination is not to put a material flow sensor on a harvester header, but rather to include such a sensor in the system of the previous combination. To that end, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that material flow near the grain elevator is indicative of the amount of crop that was harvested by the header. Therefore, the motivation is to allow the end dividers to be actuated based on the amount of crop being harvested. This allows them to be raised or lowered to save more or less crop, per the needs of the operator.
Examiner notes the broadest reasonable interpretation of “material flow”. Previously, examiner interpreted that “material flow” in the claims is the flow of crops into and within the harvester, which is determined by well-known yield sensors, such as disclosed by Sauder. However, applicant’s arguments regarding the location of the material flow sensor broadens the interpretation to beyond the well-known material flow as measured by yield sensors, and such the interpretation of “material flow” now includes any form of material movement. To this end, Lauwers teaches sensors that detect “loose crop material”, which it describes as material that flows further into the harvester or is lost over an end of the header ([0004] [0026] and [0033]). As this satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of “material flow”, Lauwers is relied upon to teach the material flow sensor of claim 1.
Applicant is advised to amend the claims to further specify the metes and bounds of the claimed “material flow”.
Regarding the rejection of amended claim 12, applicant argues that “the disclosure of ‘reel wrapping’ in Shearer has not been shown to teach or suggest modifying Lauwers to detect presence of material on an end divider.” However, it is noted that the amended claim 12 merely requires “detecting presence of material on the end divider”, and does also does not require the use of a sensor to perform this detection. As a result, Shearer is not relied upon for claim 12, which is rejected over Lauwers in view of Benes as stated in the rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments over claim 12 remain pertinent to claims 16 and 17; Shearer is still relied upon for these claims as they include the use of a sensor, and detect a more specific signal. To this end, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may 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 one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Benes discloses how the end divider extends and retracts based on the load of crops pushing downwards as detected by a biasing device, such as a spring ([0052]). Springs and other biasing devices are well known to experience degradation throughout their use cycle, which would degrade the biasing device’s ability to detect the load of crops, and thus the operation of the end divider. Benes also teaches how the end dividers can aid in the fixing of tangled or hanging crops ([0006] and [0011]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the sensor of Shearer to ensure that the end dividers can be actuated to aid when detecting hanging or tangled crop, and as a way of ensuring the accuracy of the detection and operation of the end divider even when the biasing device may degrade and become inaccurate.
Regarding the rejection of claim 20, applicant argues that “the Office Action has not shown a teaching or suggestion of "detects lost crop, that is lost from the head", as claimed. This argument is unpersuasive. Dima discloses that a reel height that is too low relative to the crop height results in “losses in the standing grain” ([0037]). Thus, because a crop over a certain height is lost when it is harvested, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a height sensor as a crop loss sensor that detects that crops are “lost from the head as the agricultural harvester traverses over a field”.
Examiner emphasizes the current claim language, wherein the sensor “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”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, this requires that the crops are lost when the harvester traverses over the field, but does not require the detection of these crops as being lost to occur at that same moment as they are falling off the header; it merely requires that the detection occurs before the crop falls on the field surface. Thus, under this interpretation, the metes and bounds of the claim language do not preclude sensors that predict that crop will be lost from the head as the agricultural harvester traverses over a field surface from reading on the claim. The claim is not restricted to sensors that detect lost crop as the crop is being lost from the head as is best understood to be intended by applicant. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to restrict the broadest reasonable interpretation of this detection.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
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
Prosecution Insights