DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This office action is in response to application number 17/972,993 filed on 10/25/2022,
and the amendments and arguments filed on 12/18/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 14-16, and 18-19 have been amended.
No claims have been added.
Claims 2, 8, 11, 17, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 12-16, and 18-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2022 and 05/24/2024 has been received and considered.
Response to Amendment
4. Applicant' s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection
previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/24/2025. Applicants
arguments, see page 6-9 filed on 12/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s)
1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the
rejection has been withdrawn. A new grounds for rejection is made under 35 USC 103 as necessitated by amendment over Lommen (US 11202410 B2) in view of Meegan (US 9547417 B2) further in view of Hunt (US 10834798 B1) further in view of Beschorn (US 20200031270 A1) further in view of Rayfield (US 5784869 A) and further in view of Whitaker (US 4296409).
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.
5. Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lommen (US 11202410 B2) in view of (US 9547417 B2) to Meegan et al. (hereinafter Meegan).
Regarding claim 1, Lommen discloses A harvesting implement of an agricultural harvester, the harvesting implement comprising: (Lommen Column 1, line number 30-31: “In one embodiment of the present disclosure, a crop divider assembly for a harvesting header includes”) a frame; a plurality of row dividers supported on the frame; (Lommen Column 2, line number 9-10: “a crop divider assembly coupled at the first end of the frame,”)
a light-emitting device positioned on a respective row divider of the plurality of row dividers; (Lommen Column 6, line number 63-65: “Another feature of the light-emitting mechanism 314 is its placement relative to the crop divider assembly 308 and the ground.”)) […] and controls an operation of the light-emitting device (Lommen Column 7, line number 26-28: “The light-emitting mechanism 314 may be operably controlled by the operator from the cab using one of a plurality of controls in the cab.”
Lommen does not disclose […] and a computing system comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the computing system: receives an input indicative of a row guidance system of the agricultural harvester being enabled or activated; […] based on whether the row guidance system is enabled or activated
However, Meegan does teach […] and a computing system comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the computing system: receives an input indicative of a row guidance system of the agricultural harvester being enabled or activated; (Meegan Column 3, line number 60-66: “reference to acts and symbolic representations of operations (e.g., in the form of flowcharts) that may be implemented as program modules or functional processes including routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc., that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types and may be implemented using existing hardware.”) (Meegan Column 12, line number 66-Column 13, line number 1: “FIG. 5D illustrates the status of the guidance system, when the guidance system is enabled. The guidance system is enabled when inputs are made”) […] based on whether the row guidance system is enabled or activated. (Meegan Column 12, line number 66-Column 13, line number 1: “FIG. 5D illustrates the status of the guidance system, when the guidance system is enabled. The guidance system is enabled when inputs are made”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lommen to include […] and a computing system comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the computing system: receives an input indicative of a row guidance system of the agricultural harvester being enabled or activated; […] based on whether the row guidance system is enabled or activated taught by Meegan. This would have been for the benefit to provide a guidance system that can be enabled or activated in order to provide a work vehicle that has displays for displaying the status of the vehicle and various functions of the vehicle. [Meegan Column 1, line number 21-24 and Column 12, line number 66-Column 13, line number 2]
Regarding claim 6, Lommen discloses The harvesting implement of claim 1, wherein the harvesting implement comprises a corn header. (Lommen Column 3, line number 63-65: “A cutter head 18 is disposed at a forward end of the combine 10 and is used in order to harvest crop such as corn”)
6. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lommen (US 11202410 B2) in view of Meegan (US 9547417 B2) and further in view of (US 10834798 B1) to Hunt et al. (hereinafter Hunt).
Regarding claim 3, Lommen in view of Meegan teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Lommen does not teach The harvesting implement of claim 1, wherein when controlling the operation of the light-emitting device, the computing system: controls the operation of the light-emitting device wherein the light-emitting device emits a first color of light when the row guidance is enabled but not activated; and controls the operation of the light-emitting device wherein the light-emitting device emits a second color of light when the row guidance system is activated, the second color of light being different than the first color of light.
However, Meegan does teach […] when the row guidance system is enabled but not activated; (Meegan Column 12, line number 66-Column 13, line number 2: “FIG. 5D illustrates the status of the guidance system, when the guidance system is enabled. The guidance system is enabled when inputs are made and the guidance system may be activated by pushing the button 270c.”) (Note: The guidance system can be selectively enabled or activated one at a time.) […] when the row guidance system is activated, (Meegan Column 12, line number 66-Column 13, line number 1: “FIG. 5D illustrates the status of the guidance system, when the guidance system is enabled. The guidance system is enabled when inputs are made”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lommen to include […] when the row guidance system is enabled but not activated; […] when the row guidance system is activated, taught by Meegan. This would have been for the benefit to provide a guidance system that can be enabled or activated in order to provide a work vehicle that has displays for displaying the status of the vehicle and various functions of the vehicle. [Meegan Column 1, line number 21-24 and Column 12, line number 66-Column 13, line number 2]
Meegan does not teach The harvesting implement of claim 1, wherein when controlling the operation of the light-emitting device, the computing system: controls the operation of the light-emitting device wherein the light-emitting device emits a first color of light […] and controls the operation of the light-emitting device wherein the light-emitting device emits a second color of light […] the second color of light being different than the first color of light.
However, Hunt does teach The harvesting implement of claim 1, wherein when controlling the operation of the light-emitting device, the computing system: controls the operation of the light-emitting device wherein the light-emitting device emits a first color of light (Hunt Column 10, line number 30-34: “the controller 110 may be configured to control an operation of the illumination array 104 such that one or more of the lighting devices 106 provide a first pre-set illumination pattern based on a first operating state of the header 12.”) […] and controls the operation of the light-emitting device wherein the light-emitting device emits a second color of light (Hunt Column 2, line number 40-44: “the operation of the illumination array such that the lighting devices provide a second pre-set illumination pattern using one or more of the lighting devices based on the change in the operating state of the harvesting implement.”) […] the second color of light being different than the first color of light. (Hunt Column 11, line number 26-29: “Furthermore, it should be appreciated that the first pre-set illumination pattern may be different than the second pre-set illumination pattern.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lommen in view of Meegan to include The harvesting implement of claim 1, wherein when controlling the operation of the light-emitting device, the computing system: controls the operation of the light-emitting device wherein the light-emitting device emits a first color of light […] and controls the operation of the light-emitting device wherein the light-emitting device emits a second color of light […] the second color of light being different than the first color of light taught by Hunt. This would have been for the benefit to provide an illumination system that includes an illumination array including two or more lighting devices that provides sufficient light to illuminate the path of the header during harvesting operation. [Hunt Column 1, Line number 47-53 and Column 1, line number 66-Column 2, line number 5]
7. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lommen (US 11202410 B2) in view of Meegan (US 9547417 B2) and further in view of (US 20200031270 A1) to Beschorn et al. (hereinafter Beschorn).
Regarding claim 4, Lommen in view of Meegan teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Lommen in view of Meegan does not teach The harvesting implement of claim 1, wherein the light-emitting device comprises a light-emitting diode (LED) strip extending along at least a portion of an outer surface of the respective row divider.
However, Beschorn does teach The harvesting implement of claim 1, wherein the light-emitting device comprises a light-emitting diode (LED) strip extending along at least a portion of an outer surface of the respective row divider. (Beschorn Paragraph 0015: “lighting device(s) when the lighting device(s) are positioned on the crop dividers.”) (Beschorn Paragraph 0043: “In order to minimize the required energy, the lighting devices may comprise lights, such as an LED, or as a field of LEDs. For the crop flow lighting, a light strip may also be used,”) (Beschorn Paragraph 0061: “and the lighting devices 231, 232 of the lighting arrangement may comprise the crop flow lighting type.”) (Beschorn Paragraph 0064: “The lighting devices 231, 232 of the crop flow lighting type may be positioned on the attachment to thereby illuminate below stirred-up dust while harvesting”)
PNG
media_image1.png
597
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lommen in view of Meegan to include The harvesting implement of claim 1, wherein the light-emitting device comprises a light-emitting diode (LED) strip extending along at least a portion of an outer surface of the respective row divider taught by Beschorn. This would have been for the benefit to lighting of the attachment so it enables sufficient visibility of a region in front of the attachment of the crop to be harvested under changing and difficult visibility conditions. [Beschorn Paragraph 0016]
8. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lommen (US 11202410 B2) in view of Meegan (US 9547417 B2) and further in view of Rayfield (US 5784869 A).
Regarding claim 5, Lommen in view of Meegan teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Lommen in view of Meegan does not teach The harvesting implement of claim 1, wherein the respective row divider is a center row divider of the plurality of row dividers.
However, Rayfield does teach The harvesting implement of claim 1, wherein the respective row divider is a center row divider of the plurality of row dividers. (Rayfield Paragraph 0042: “The present invention 20 is located at the center 7 of the corn head 3 within 5 the auger trough 10 (sometimes referred to as the header floor). The divider 20 is positioned in front of the feeder house opening 11 and behind the center row divider 5a.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lommen in view of Meegan to include The harvesting implement of claim 1, wherein the respective row divider is a center row divider of the plurality of row dividers taught by Rayfield. This would have been for the benefit to provide to provide a corn head auger trough divider which can smoothly alter the flow of corn ears traveling in the auger trough and into the feeder house opening. [Rayfield Column 2, line number 30-33]
9. Claim(s) 7, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meegan (US 9547417 B2) in view of Lommen (US 11202410 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Meegan discloses A system of providing operating parameter notifications during operation of an agricultural harvester, the system comprising: (Meegan Column 15, line number 53-55: “the user interface 117 produces a message and icon with the module graphic to notify the user.”) […] and a computing system comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the computing system: receives an input indicative of a row guidance system of the agricultural harvester being enabled or activated; (Meegan Column 3, line number 60-66: “reference to acts and symbolic representations of operations (e.g., in the form of flowcharts) that may be implemented as program modules or functional processes including routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc., that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types and may be implemented using existing hardware.”) (Meegan Column 12, line number 66-Column 13, line number 1: “FIG. 5D illustrates the status of the guidance system, when the guidance system is enabled. The guidance system is enabled when inputs are made”) […] based on whether the row guidance system is enabled or activated. (Meegan Column 12, line number 66-Column 13, line number 1: “FIG. 5D illustrates the status of the guidance system, when the guidance system is enabled. The guidance system is enabled when inputs are made”)
Meegan does not disclose […] a frame; a plurality of row dividers supported on the frame; a light-emitting device positioned on a respective row divider of the plurality of row dividers; […] and controls an operation of the light-emitting device
However, Lommen teaches […] a frame; a plurality of row dividers supported on the frame; (Lommen Column 2, line number 9-10: “a crop divider assembly coupled at the first end of the frame,”) a light-emitting device positioned on a respective row divider of the plurality of row dividers; (Lommen Column 6, line number 63-65: “Another feature of the light-emitting mechanism 314 is its placement relative to the crop divider assembly 308 and the ground.”)) […] and controls an operation of the light-emitting device (Lommen Column 7, line number 26-28: “The light-emitting mechanism 314 may be operably controlled by the operator from the cab using one of a plurality of controls in the cab.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meegan to include […] a frame; a plurality of row dividers supported on the frame; a light-emitting device positioned on a respective row divider of the plurality of row dividers; […] and controls an operation of the light-emitting device taught by Lommen. This would have been for the benefit to provide a light on a harvesting header in order to solve for the need of a light-emitting mechanism located on the harvesting header at a location that can be seen by an operator from a cab of the agricultural machine and assists with aligning the header in the field. [Lommen Column 1, line number 23-26]
Regarding claim 15, Megan in view of Lommen teaches claim 7, accordingly the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated above.
Meegan does not teach The system of claim 7, wherein the harvesting implement comprises a corn header.
However, Lommen does teach The system of claim 7, wherein the harvesting implement comprises a corn header. (Lommen Column 3, line number 63-65: “A cutter head 18 is disposed at a forward end of the combine 10 and is used in order to harvest crop such as corn”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meegan to include The system of claim 7, wherein the harvesting implement comprises a corn header taught by Lommen. This would have been for the benefit to provide a light on a harvesting header in order to solve for the need of a light-emitting mechanism located on the harvesting header at a location that can be seen by an operator from a cab of the agricultural machine and assists with aligning the header in the field. [Lommen Column 1, line number 23-26]
Regarding claim 16, Meegan discloses A method of providing operating parameter notifications during operation of an agricultural harvester, (Meegan Column 15, line number 53-55: “the user interface 117 produces a message and icon with the module graphic to notify the user.”) […] controlling, with a computing system that comprises anon-transitory computer readable medium, an operation of the agricultural harvester when a harvesting operation is performed; receiving, with the computing system, an input indicative of a row guidance system of the agricultural harvester being enabled or activated; (Meegan Column 3, line number 60-66: “reference to acts and symbolic representations of operations (e.g., in the form of flowcharts) that may be implemented as program modules or functional processes including routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc., that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types and may be implemented using existing hardware.”) (Meegan Column 12, line number 66-Column 13, line number 1: “FIG. 5D illustrates the status of the guidance system, when the guidance system is enabled. The guidance system is enabled when inputs are made”) (Meegan Column 13, line number 19-21: “In addition to the guidance system 230, icons may represent the status of at least one of planting, plowing, spraying and harvesting.”) […] based on whether the row guidance system is enabled or activated. (Meegan Column 12, line number 66-Column 13, line number 1: “FIG. 5D illustrates the status of the guidance system, when the guidance system is enabled. The guidance system is enabled when inputs are made”)
Meegan does not disclose […] the agricultural harvester including a harvesting implement having a frame and a plurality of row dividers supported on the frame, the method comprising: […] and controlling, with the computing system, an operation of a light-emitting device positioned on a respective row divider of the plurality of row dividers
However, Lommen teaches […] the agricultural harvester including a harvesting implement having a frame and a plurality of row dividers supported on the frame, the method comprising: (Lommen Column 2, line number 9-10: “a crop divider assembly coupled at the first end of the frame,”) a light-emitting device positioned on a respective row divider of the plurality of row dividers; […] and controlling, with the computing system, an operation of a light-emitting device positioned on a respective row divider of the plurality of row dividers (Lommen Column 6, line number 63-65: “Another feature of the light-emitting mechanism 314 is its placement relative to the crop divider assembly 308 and the ground.”) (Lommen Column 7, line number 26-28: “The light-emitting mechanism 314 may be operably controlled by the operator from the cab using one of a plurality of controls in the cab.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meegan to include […] the agricultural harvester including a harvesting implement having a frame and a plurality of row dividers supported on the frame, the method comprising: […] and controlling, with the computing system, an operation of a light-emitting device positioned on a respective row divider of the plurality of row dividers taught by Lommen. This would have been for the benefit to provide a light on a harvesting header in order to solve for the need of a light-emitting mechanism located on the harvesting header at a location that can be seen by an operator from a cab of the agricultural machine and assists with aligning the header in the field. [Lommen Column 1, line number 23-26]
10. Claim(s) 9, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meegan (US 9547417 B2) in view of Lommen (US 11202410 B2) and further in view of Hunt (US 10834798 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Meegan in view of Lommen teaches claim 7, accordingly, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated above.
Meegan does teach […] when the row guidance system is enabled but not activated; (Meegan Column 12, line number 66-Column 13, line number 2: “FIG. 5D illustrates the status of the guidance system, when the guidance system is enabled. The guidance system is enabled when inputs are made and the guidance system may be activated by pushing the button 270c.”) (Note: The guidance system can be selectively enabled or activated one at a time.) […] when the row guidance system is activated, (Meegan Column 12, line number 66-Column 13, line number 1: “FIG. 5D illustrates the status of the guidance system, when the guidance system is enabled. The guidance system is enabled when inputs are made”)
Meegan in view of Lommen does not teach The system of claim 7, wherein, when controlling the operation of the light-emitting device, the computing system is configured to: controls the operation of the light-emitting device wherein the light-emitting device emits a first color of light […] and controls the operation of the light-emitting device wherein the light-emitting device emits a second color of light […] the second color of light being different than the first color of light.
However, Hunt does teach The system of claim 7, wherein, when controlling the operation of the light-emitting device, the computing system is configured to: controls the operation of the light-emitting device wherein the light-emitting device emits a first color of light (Hunt Column 10, line number 30-34: “the controller 110 may be configured to control an operation of the illumination array 104 such that one or more of the lighting devices 106 provide a first pre-set illumination pattern based on a first operating state of the header 12.”) […] and controls the operation of the light-emitting device wherein the light-emitting device emits a second color of light (Hunt Column 2, line number 40-44: “the operation of the illumination array such that the lighting devices provide a second pre-set illumination pattern using one or more of the lighting devices based on the change in the operating state of the harvesting implement.”) […] the second color of light being different than the first color of light. (Hunt Column 11, line number 26-29: “Furthermore, it should be appreciated that the first pre-set illumination pattern may be different than the second pre-set illumination pattern.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meegan in view of Lommen to include The system of claim 7, wherein, when controlling the operation of the light-emitting device, the computing system is configured to: controls the operation of the light-emitting device wherein the light-emitting device emits a first color of light […] and controls the operation of the light-emitting device wherein the light-emitting device emits a second color of light […] the second color of light being different than the first color of light taught by Hunt. This would have been for the benefit to provide an illumination system that includes an illumination array including two or more lighting devices that provides sufficient light to illuminate the path of the header during harvesting operation. [Hunt Column 1, Line number 47-53 and Column 1, line number 66-Column 2, line number 5]
Regarding claim 12, Meegan in view of Lommen teaches claim 7, accordingly, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated above.
Meegan in view of lommen does not teach The system of claim 7, wherein, the computing system further controls the operation of the light-emitting device such that the light-emitting device emits light when the harvesting implement is mechanically engaged.
However, Hunt does teach The system of claim 7, wherein, the computing system further controls the operation of the light-emitting device such that the light-emitting device emits light when the harvesting implement is mechanically engaged. (Hunt Column 4, line number 24-27: “For example, the controller may supply power to the lighting device(s) to provide a first pre-set illumination pattern based on a first operating state (e.g., a harvesting state).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meegan in view of Lommen to include The system of claim 7, wherein, the computing system further controls the operation of the light-emitting device such that the light-emitting device emits light when the harvesting implement is mechanically engaged taught by Hunt. This would have been for the benefit to provide an illumination system that includes an illumination array including two or more lighting devices that provides sufficient light to illuminate the path of the header during harvesting operation. [Hunt Column 1, Line number 47-53 and Column 1, line number 66-Column 2, line number 5]
Regarding claim 18, Meegan in view of Lommen teaches claim 16, accordingly, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated above.
Meegan does teach […] when the row guidance system is enabled but not activated; (Meegan Column 12, line number 66-Column 13, line number 2: “FIG. 5D illustrates the status of the guidance system, when the guidance system is enabled. The guidance system is enabled when inputs are made and the guidance system may be activated by pushing the button 270c.”) (Note: The guidance system can be selectively enabled or activated one at a time.) […] when the row guidance system is activated, (Meegan Column 12, line number 66-Column 13, line number 1: “FIG. 5D illustrates the status of the guidance system, when the guidance system is enabled. The guidance system is enabled when inputs are made”)
Meegan in view of Lommen does not teach The method of claim 16, wherein controlling the operation of the light-emitting device comprises: controlling, with the computing system, the operation of the light-emitting device such that wherein the light-emitting device emits a first color of light […] and controlling, with the computing system, the operation of the light-emitting device such that wherein the light-emitting device emits a second color of light […] the second color of light being different than the first color of light.
However, Hunt does teach The method of claim 16, wherein controlling the operation of the light-emitting device comprises: controlling, with the computing system, the operation of the light-emitting device such that wherein the light-emitting device emits a first color of light (Hunt Column 10, line number 30-34: “the controller 110 may be configured to control an operation of the illumination array 104 such that one or more of the lighting devices 106 provide a first pre-set illumination pattern based on a first operating state of the header 12.”) […] and controlling, with the computing system, the operation of the light-emitting device such that wherein the light-emitting device emits a second color of light (Hunt Column 2, line number 40-44: “the operation of the illumination array such that the lighting devices provide a second pre-set illumination pattern using one or more of the lighting devices based on the change in the operating state of the harvesting implement.”) […] the second color of light being different than the first color of light. (Hunt Column 11, line number 26-29: “Furthermore, it should be appreciated that the first pre-set illumination pattern may be different than the second pre-set illumination pattern.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meegan in view of Lommen to include The method of claim 16, wherein controlling the operation of the light-emitting device comprises: controlling, with the computing system, the operation of the light-emitting device such that wherein the light-emitting device emits a first color of light […] and controlling, with the computing system, the operation of the light-emitting device such that wherein the light-emitting device emits a second color of light […] the second color of light being different than the first color of light taught by Hunt. This would have been for the benefit to provide an illumination system that includes an illumination array including two or more lighting devices that provides sufficient light to illuminate the path of the header during harvesting operation. [Hunt Column 1, Line number 47-53 and Column 1, line number 66-Column 2, line number 5]
11. Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meegan (US 9547417 B2) in view of Lommen (US 11202410 B2) and further in view of (US 4296409 ) to Whitaker et al. (hereinafter Whitaker).
Regarding claim 10, Meegan discloses […] whether the row guidance system is enabled or activated, […] whether the row guidance system is enabled or activated (Meegan Column 12, line number 66-Column 13, line number 2: “FIG. 5D illustrates the status of the guidance system, when the guidance system is enabled. The guidance system is enabled when inputs are made and the guidance system may be activated by pushing the button 270c.”)
Meegan in view of Lommen does not The system of claim 7, further comprising: a sensor that generates data indicative of […] the sensor being communicatively coupled to the computing system, wherein: when receiving the input, the computing system receives the generated data from the sensor; and the computing system determines […] based on the data received from the sensor.
However, Whitaker does teach The system of claim 7, further comprising: a sensor that generates data indicative of […] the sensor being communicatively coupled to the computing system, wherein: when receiving the input, the computing system receives the generated data from the sensor; and the computing system determines […] based on the data received from the sensor. (Whitaker Column 2, line number 67-Column 3, line number 12: “the combine performance monitor of the invention, for use with a combine having a plurality of sensor means for detecting a plurality of different operating conditions of the combine and for providing sensor signals corresponding to said conditions, comprises display means, operator accessible control and selection means and a programmable, special purpose computer including means for storing a predetermined computer program, said computer being coupled to said sensor means, to said control and selection means and to said display means for calculating a plurality of predetermined combine performance parameters in accordance with said sensor signals”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meegan in view of Lommen to include The system of claim 7, further comprising: a sensor that generates data indicative of […] the sensor being communicatively coupled to the computing system, wherein: when receiving the input, the computing system receives the generated data from the sensor; and the computing system determines […] based on the data received from the sensor taught by Whitaker. This would have been for the benefit to provide an improved combine performance monitor capable of providing observable indications to the operator of the continued proper operation of a plurality of parts of the combine, as the operator remains seated on the tractor, or in the cab of a self-propelled combine. [Whitaker Column 2, line number 43-48]
Regarding claim 19, Meegan in view of Lommen teaches claim 16, accordingly, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated above.
Meegan does teach […] when the row guidance system is enabled or activated; (Meegan Column 12, line number 66-Column 13, line number 2: “FIG. 5D illustrates the status of the guidance system, when the guidance system is enabled. The guidance system is enabled when inputs are made and the guidance system may be activated by pushing the button 270c.”) (Note: The guidance system can be selectively enabled or activated one at a time.) […] whether the row guidance system is enabled or activated, (Meegan Column 12, line number 66-Column 13, line number 1: “FIG. 5D illustrates the status of the guidance system, when the guidance system is enabled. The guidance system is enabled when inputs are made”)
Meegan in view of Lommen does not teach […] whether the row guidance system is enabled or activated, […] whether the row guidance system is enabled or activated.
However, Whitaker does teach The method of claim 16, wherein receiving the input comprises receiving, with the computing system, sensor data indicative of […] the method further comprising: determining, with the computing system, […] based on the received sensor data. (Whitaker Column 2, line number 67-Column 3, line number 12: “the combine performance monitor of the invention, for use with a combine having a plurality of sensor means for detecting a plurality of different operating conditions of the combine and for providing sensor signals corresponding to said conditions, comprises display means, operator accessible control and selection means and a programmable, special purpose computer including means for storing a predetermined computer program, said computer being coupled to said sensor means, to said control and selection means and to said display means for calculating a plurality of predetermined combine performance parameters in accordance with said sensor signals”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meegan in view of Lommen to include The method of claim 16, wherein receiving the input comprises receiving, with the computing system, sensor data indicative of […] the method further comprising: determining, with the computing system, […] based on the received sensor data taught by Whitaker. This would have been for the benefit to provide an improved combine performance monitor capable of providing observable indications to the operator of the continued proper operation of a plurality of parts of the combine, as the operator remains seated on the tractor, or in the cab of a self-propelled combine. [Whitaker Column 2, line number 43-48]
12. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meegan (US 9547417 B2) in view of Lommen (US 11202410 B2) and further in view of (US 20200031270 A1) to Beschorn et al. (hereinafter Beschorn).
Regarding claim 13, Meegan in view of Lommen teaches claim 7, accordingly, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated above.
Meegan in view of Lommen does not teach The system of claim 7, wherein the light-emitting device comprises a light-emitting diode (LED) strip extending along at least a portion of an outer surface of the respective row divider.
However, Beschorn does teach The system of claim 7, wherein the light-emitting device comprises a light-emitting diode (LED) strip extending along at least a portion of an outer surface of the respective row divider. (Beschorn Paragraph 0015: “lighting device(s) when the lighting device(s) are positioned on the crop dividers.”) (Beschorn Paragraph 0043: “In order to minimize the required energy, the lighting devices may comprise lights, such as an LED, or as a field of LEDs. For the crop flow lighting, a light strip may also be used,”) (Beschorn Paragraph 0061: “and the lighting devices 231, 232 of the lighting arrangement may comprise the crop flow lighting type.”) (Beschorn Paragraph 0064: “The lighting devices 231, 232 of the crop flow lighting type may be positioned on the attachment to thereby illuminate below stirred-up dust while harvesting”)
PNG
media_image1.png
597
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meegan in view of Lommen to include The system of claim 7, wherein the light-emitting device comprises a light-emitting diode (LED) strip extending along at least a portion of an outer surface of the respective row divider taught by Beschorn. This would have been for the benefit to lighting of the attachment so it enables sufficient visibility of a region in front of the attachment of the crop to be harvested under changing and difficult visibility conditions. [Beschorn Paragraph 0016]
13. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lommen (US 11202410 B2) in view of Meegan (US 9547417 B2) and further in view of Rayfield (US 5784869 A).
Regarding claim 14, Meegan in view of Lommen teaches claim 7, accordingly, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated above.
Meegan in view of Lommen does not teach The system of claim 7, wherein the respective row divider comprises a center row divider of the plurality of row dividers.
However, Rayfield does teach The system of claim 7, wherein the respective row divider comprises a center row divider of the plurality of row dividers. (Rayfield Paragraph 0042: “The present invention 20 is located at the center 7 of the corn head 3 within 5 the auger trough 10 (sometimes referred to as the header floor). The divider 20 is positioned in front of the feeder house opening 11 and behind the center row divider 5a.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meegan in view of Lommen to include The system of claim 7, wherein the respective row divider comprises a center row divider of the plurality of row dividers taught by Rayfield. This would have been for the benefit to provide to provide a corn head auger trough divider which can smoothly alter the flow of corn ears traveling in the auger trough and into the feeder house opening. [Rayfield Column 2, line number 30-33]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to 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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. 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.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights