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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/18/2026 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 03/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 7 and 16 have been canceled.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to for the following informality: line three of the claim currently reads as “a plurality of sensors installed relative to agricultural implement…”. Examiner is assuming this to be a typographical error. To expedite prosecution, examiner is interpreting a “the” to be in the location at issue. Namely, the claim is interpreted to read as “a plurality of sensors installed relative to the agricultural implement…”. Applicant should amend to correct the issue.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank et al. (US20180120133 A1) in view of Seiders (US 20210120725 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blank teaches a method for automatically identifying sensors provided in association with agricultural equipment (Fig. 9), the method being performed by a computing system that comprises one or more computing devices (Fig. 1A), the method comprising:
receiving data from a plurality of sensors as the orientation of the agricultural implement changes ([0084]: the force exerted by the ground that is measured by sectional force sensors 252A-252H varies as the ground its traveling on varies; [0087]: the machine travels in directions as indicated in Fig. 4, where the machine can travel over uneven terrain, such as a hill, so that the orientation of the equipment varies),
the plurality of sensors being installed relative to the agricultural implement at spaced apart locations (see Figs. 4 and 14: the sensors spaced along the implement along the directions);
and identifying, with the computing system, respective locations of the plurality of sensors relative to the agricultural implement based at least in part on the data ([0114]: position of each of the sensors are identified as “each ground engaging element or sensor may have its own positioning system or positioning sensor disposed on it”).
Blank locates its sensors as the orientation of the vehicle changes while it operates in a field. Blank does not explicitly teach actively controlling an operation of one or more actuators that adjusts an orientation of an agricultural implement relative to a ground surface such that a distance defined between the agricultural implement and the ground surface is varied in at least one direction, and that the orientation of the agricultural implement is being actively adjusted as associated with the distance defined between the agricultural implement and the ground surface at spaced apart locations defined along the at least one direction.
In the same field of endeavor, Seiders teaches:
actively controlling an operation of one or more actuators that adjusts an orientation of an agricultural implement relative to a ground surface such that a distance defined between the agricultural implement and the ground surface is varied in at least one direction ([0029-0031]: the implement is tilted by tilt cylinders 102 and 104, wherein, when this tilting occurs as indicated by the arrows 112 and 114 in Fig. 2A, the height of the implement is varied in one direction; [0045]: the tilt cylinders are controlled with corresponding actuators);
wherein the orientation of the agricultural implement is being actively adjusted as associated with the distance defined between the agricultural implement and the ground surface at spaced apart locations defined along the at least one direction ([0029-0031]: the orientation of the implement is actively adjusted based on readings from the height sensors on the implement, which detect the distance from that location on the header to the ground; [0041]: inclination sensors 70 can also be arranged in either direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Seiders with this active control of the orientation of the implement based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Seiders, to best align the header with ground contours while “avoiding significant lag and slow response times” ([0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Blank teaches:
wherein the agricultural equipment extends in a fore-aft direction between a forward end and an aft end and in a lateral direction between a first lateral end and a second lateral end, and wherein the at least one direction comprises at least one of the fore-aft direction or the lateral direction (see Fig. 4: the machine extends in both directions, with sensors 252A-252H arranged in lateral direction).
Regarding claim 3, Blank teaches:
wherein at least a portion of the plurality of sensors are spaced apart along the lateral direction of the agricultural equipment (see Fig. 4: the sensors 252A-252H arranged in fore-aft direction).
Seiders further teaches:
the actively controlling the operation of the one or more actuators comprises actively controlling the operation of the one or more actuators to adjust the orientation of the agricultural implement relative to the ground surface that enables the distance defined between the agricultural implement and the ground surface being varied at the spaced apart locations defined along the lateral direction ([0029-0031] and [0041]: the active controlling of the implement is done based on height sensors arranged in the lateral direction as shown in Fig. 2A, and based on inclination sensors “that can be spaced apart in a lengthwise direction 105”).
Regarding claim 4, Blank teaches:
wherein at least a portion of the plurality of sensors are spaced apart along the fore-aft direction of the agricultural equipment (see Fig. 4: the sensor 254 is spaced in fore-aft direction from sensors 252A-252H).
Seiders further teaches:
the actively controlling the operation of the one or more actuators comprises actively controlling the operation of the one or more actuators to adjust the orientation of the agricultural implement relative to the ground surface that enables the distance defined between the agricultural implement and the ground surface being varied at the spaced apart locations defined along the fore-aft direction ([0029-0031] and [0040-0041]: the active controlling of the implement is done based on inclination sensors “that can be spaced apart in a direction of travel 21” in a longitudinal direction).
Regarding claim 5, Blank teaches:
accessing a plurality of predefined sensor locations associated with the agricultural equipment ([0114]: the relationship between the machine and locations of those sensors relative to the machine).
Regarding claim 6, Blank teaches:
wherein identifying respective locations of the plurality of sensors comprises assigning each sensor of the plurality of sensors to a respective sensor location of the plurality of predefined sensor locations based at least in part on the data ([0114]: the positioning system located at a fixed position so that the dimensions of the machine are known so that the geographic location of the sensor can be known with high precision, “each ground engaging element or sensor may have its own positioning system or positioning sensor disposed on it”).
Regarding claim 8, Seiders teaches:
wherein the data received from the each sensor of the plurality of sensors is associated with a distance defined between the ground surface and the each sensor ([0030-0031]: the height sensors monitor the height at their respective points).
Regarding claim 9, Blank teaches:
adjusting a sensor parameter of at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors ([0120]: performing post calibration/correction with respect to the sensors) based at least in part on the identified location of the at least one sensor relative to the agricultural equipment ([0115]: based on the position where the sensors are located).
Regarding claim 10, Blank teaches an automatic sensor identification system (see Fig. 9), the system comprising:
an agricultural implement (see Fig. 1: machine 100);
a plurality of sensors installed relative to the agricultural implement at a plurality of spaced apart locations along at least one direction (see Fig. 4: sensors 252A-252H);
a computing system communicatively coupled to the plurality of sensors (see Fig. 1A and [0037]: the control system 110 may receive sensor signals from sensors 122), the computing system:
receiving data from a plurality of sensors as the orientation of the agricultural implement changes ([0084]: the force exerted by the ground that is measured by sectional force sensors 252A-252H varies as the ground its traveling on varies; [0087]: the machine travels in directions as indicated in Fig. 4, where the machine can travel over uneven terrain, such as a hill, so that the orientation of the equipment varies); and
identifying respective locations of the plurality of sensors relative to the agricultural equipment based at least in part on the data ([0114]: position of each of the sensors are identified as “each ground engaging element or sensor may have its own positioning system or positioning sensor disposed on it”).
Blank locates its sensors as the orientation of the vehicle changes while it operates in a field. Blank does not explicitly teach actively controlling an operation of one or more actuators that adjusts an orientation of the agricultural implement relative to a ground surface such that a distance defined between the agricultural implement and the ground surface is varied in at least one direction, and that the orientation of the agricultural implement is being actively adjusted as associated with the distance defined between the agricultural implement and the ground surface at the plurality of spaced apart locations.
In the same field of endeavor, Seiders teaches:
actively controlling an operation of one or more actuators that adjusts an orientation of the agricultural implement relative to a ground surface such that a distance defined between the agricultural implement and the ground surface is varied in at least one direction ([0029-0031]: the implement is tilted by tilt cylinders 102 and 104, wherein, when this tilting occurs as indicated by the arrows 112 and 114 in Fig. 2A, the height of the implement is varied in one direction; [0045]: the tilt cylinders are controlled with corresponding actuators);
wherein the orientation of the agricultural implement is being actively adjusted as associated with the distance defined between the agricultural implement and the ground surface at the plurality of spaced apart locations ([0029-0031]: the orientation of the implement is actively adjusted based on readings from the height sensors on the implement, which detect the distance from that location on the header to the ground; [0041]: inclination sensors 70 can also be arranged in either direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Seiders with this active control of the orientation of the implement based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Seiders, to best align the header with ground contours while “avoiding significant lag and slow response times” ([0003]).
Regarding claim 11, Blank teaches:
wherein the agricultural equipment extends in a fore-aft direction between a forward end and an aft end and in a lateral direction between a first lateral end and a second lateral end; and wherein the at least one direction comprising at least one of the fore-aft direction or the lateral direction (Fig. 4, sensors 252A-252H arranged in lateral direction).
Regarding claim 12, Blank teaches:
wherein at least a portion of the plurality of sensors are spaced apart along the lateral direction of the agricultural equipment (see Fig. 4: the sensors 252A-252H arranged in fore-aft direction).
Seiders further teaches:
the actively controlling the operation of the one or more actuators comprises actively controlling the operation of the one or more actuators to adjust the orientation of the agricultural implement relative to the ground surface that enables the distance defined between the agricultural implement and the ground surface being varied at the spaced apart locations defined along the lateral direction ([0029-0031] and [0041]: the active controlling of the implement is done based on height sensors arranged in the lateral direction as shown in Fig. 2A, and based on inclination sensors “that can be spaced apart in a lengthwise direction 105”).
Regarding claim 13, Blank teaches:
wherein at least a portion of the plurality of sensors are spaced apart along the fore-aft direction of the agricultural equipment (see Fig. 4: the sensor 254 is spaced in fore-aft direction from sensors 252A-252H).
Seiders further teaches:
the actively controlling the operation of the one or more actuators comprises actively controlling the operation of the one or more actuators to adjust the orientation of the agricultural implement relative to the ground surface that enables the distance defined between the agricultural implement and the ground surface being varied at the spaced apart locations defined along the fore-aft direction ([0029-0031] and [0040-0041]: the active controlling of the implement is done based on inclination sensors “that can be spaced apart in a direction of travel 21” in a longitudinal direction).
Regarding claim 14, Blank teaches:
wherein the computing system assesses a plurality of predefined sensor locations associated with the agricultural equipment ([0114]: the relationship between the machine and locations of those sensors relative to the machine).
Regarding claim 15, Blank teaches:
wherein the computing system assigns each sensor of the plurality of sensors to a respective sensor location of the plurality of predefined sensor locations based at least in part on the data ([0114]: the positioning system located at a fixed position so that the dimensions of the machine are known so that the geographic location of the sensor can be known with high precision, “each ground engaging element or sensor may have its own positioning system or positioning sensor disposed on it”).
Regarding claim 17, Seiders teaches:
wherein the data received from the each sensor of the plurality of sensors is associated with a distance defined between the ground surface and the each sensor ([0030-0031]: the height sensors monitor the height at their respective points).
Regarding claim 18, Blank teaches:
wherein the computing system adjusts a sensor parameter of at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors ([0120]: performing post calibration/correction with respect to the sensors) based at least in part on the identified location of the at least one sensor relative to the agricultural equipment ([0115]: based on the position where the sensors are located).
Regarding claim 19, Blank teaches:
wherein the agricultural implement comprises a header of an agricultural harvester ([0140] and see Fig. 11: header 402 of the combine harvester 400).
Regarding claim 20, Blank teaches:
wherein the plurality of sensors comprise a height sensor that provides an indication of a position of the header relative to a ground surface ([0140]).
However, in the teachings of the embodiment of combine harvester, Blank does not explicitly disclose that this is a plurality of height sensors. However, as the other embodiments of Blank disclose a plurality of height sensors ([0148]: “machine orientation sensors 708 may sense the height”), and as Seiders discloses a plurality of height and inclination sensors ([0029-0031] and [0040-0041]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to include multiple height sensors on the embodied header of the combine harvester based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to be able read multiple heights of different portions of the header and to correspondingly control the header based on the multiple heights.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/04/2026 with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C 103 over Blank have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made over Blank in view of Seiders as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Lohrentz et al. (US 20130298515 A1)
Sargent et al. (US 20160112216 A1)
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 10AM-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