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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 13-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinners et al. (6431981 hereinafter Shinners) in view of Ferre et al. (USP 7,322,175).
With respect to claim 1, Shinners discloses a system for automatically adjusting a conditioner roller assembly on a windrower machine (in lines 16-21 of column 23, Shinners discloses controlling roller gap clearance based on a yield monitor; in lines 9-12 of column 2, Shinners discloses that this can be embodied in a windrower; in figure 18, Shinners discloses automatic control of the equipment based on received signals), comprising:
a sensor array comprising one or more sensors that collect sensor data indicative of a condition of a target crop in real-time, the sensor array comprising a header load pressure sensor configured to identify an amount of load applied by a motor powering the windrower implement (in lines 15-18 of column 5, Shinners discloses a drive load measuring device, which reads on one or more sensors from a sensor array, that measures a forage mass flow rate – in paragraph 29 of applicant’s specification, applicant explains that data like load on a motor driving an header is indicative of crop condition; see also lines 60-67 of column 15, which discloses that an hydraulic drive motor 1103 is coupled to a load device, like a conditioner roller, with the load on the motor 1103 used to determine the mass flow rate – motor 1103 reads on a motor powering the windrower; also, in lines 32-33 of column 14, Shinners discloses that the mass flow rate can include moisture content, which is a crop condition);
one or more actuators that adjust a distance between rollers in a roller assembly of a windrower implement on the fly in the same real-time based at least on received adjustment data (in lines 16-22 of column 23, Shinners discloses controlling the roller gap of a conditioner according to a yield monitor – controlling the gap requires an actuator to actually control the gap; note that in lines 1-4 of column 23, Shinners has described the system as automatically and optimally controlling groundspeed independent of the operator and then, in lines 16-22 of the same column, transfers this automatic control to any portion of the machinery); and
a control module configured to receive the sensor data and transmits the adjustment data (in lines 8-19 of column 6, Shinners discloses a computer that receives data and then sends commands – the commands in this section are specific to the groundspeed of the machinery), the control module comprising:
a computer processor (in lines 44-48 of column 2, Shinners discloses a computer that receives input data and processes that data); and memory that stores instructions configured to, when processed by the computer processor, generate the adjustment data by determining an amount of roller adjustment that results in a predetermined conditioning for the target crop (in lines 16-22 of column 23, Shinners discloses adjusting a roller gap in accordance with the yield amount; in lines 52-56 of column 21, Shinners discloses stored data used for conditioning – this data reads on predetermined conditioning for the crop), the determined amount of roller adjustment based at least upon the sensor data, the sensor data comprising the amount of load applied by a motor powering the windrower implement (in lines 60-67 of column 15, Shinners discloses that an hydraulic drive motor 1103 is coupled to a load device 1102, like a conditioner roller, with the load on the motor 1103 used to calculate the mass flow rate which is in turn used to calculate a yield, as disclosed in lines 39-44 of column 2).
Shinners disclose that “the function of the conditioner is to break open the stems of the forage in some way to allow the moisture to escape quicker, preferably at about the same rate as the moisture escapes from the leaves.” See column 11 lines 58-61. However, Shinners is silent as to mitigating leaf loss. Ferre et al. disclose conditioners should have a minimum of cut off leaves and fine stems that will end up as harvesting losses and will lower the feed value (see column 3 lines 15-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conditioner of Shinners by including set a target level of crimping such that leaf loss is mitigated as taught by Ferre et al. in order to avoid harvesting losses and lower the feed value.
With respect to claim 2, Shinners discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shinners further discloses the one or more actuators further configured to adjust one or more of:
a speed of one or more rollers in the roller assembly (in lines 19-23 of column 23, Shinners discloses controlling the roller speed); and
a pressure exerted by the rollers on the target crop (in lines 19-23 of column 23, Shinners discloses controlling the roller separation for – which reads on the pressure exerted by the rollers).
With respect to claim 3, Shinners discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shinners further discloses the one or more actuators further configured to adjust a speed of the windrower implement (in lines 19-23 of column 23, Shinners discloses controlling the roller speed – because the roller is part of a windrower implement, adjusting the speed of the roller reads on adjusting a speed of the windrower implement).
With respect to claim 5, Shinners discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shinners further discloses the sensor array comprising a speed sensor configured to identify a speed of one or more of a speed of the rollers and a speed of the windrower implement (in figure 18, Shinners discloses receiving the groundspeed, where groundspeed reads on a speed of the windrower implement, from the forage processing machinery as detailed in lines 60-61 of column 22; this claim is written in the alternative, so the reference can meet the claim’s limitations without showing both alternatives).
With respect to claim 6, Shinners discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shinners further discloses the sensor array comprising a pressure sensor configured to identify an amount of pressure exerted by the rollers on the target crop (in lines 10-12 of column 12, Shinners discloses measuring the separation force on a movable roller).
With respect to claim 7, Shinners discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shinners further discloses the sensor array comprising a density or volume sensor configured to identify a density or volume of the target crop entering and/or exiting the windrower implement (in lines 31-33 of column 16, Shinners discloses measuring volume of crop entering the windrower; note that in lines 1-3 of column 22, Shinners discloses that yield monitors are not mutually exclusive and may be used together).
With respect to claim 13, claim 13 is a method directed to using the system of claim 1; Shinners discloses the limitations of claim 13 for the same reasons as claim 1.
With respect to claim 14, Shinners discloses the limitations of claim 13. Shinners further discloses the limitations of claim 14 for the same reasons as Shinners discloses the limitations of claim 2.
With respect to claim 16, Shinners discloses the limitations of claim 13. Shinners further discloses the limitations of claim 16 for the same reasons as Shinners discloses the limitations of claim 5.
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.
Claims 4, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinners in view of Rotole et al. (US 2018/0325031 hereinafter Rotole).
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Shinners discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13, respectively. Shinners does not disclose the sensor array comprising a camera configured to generate image data of the target crop before and/or after conditioning by the roller assembly.
However, Rotole, which is directed to a windrower, discloses a sensor array comprising a camera configured to generate image data of the target crop before and/or after conditioning by the roller assembly (in paragraph 74, Rotole discloses a camera as part of sensor 184 from figure 3; based on the description in this paragraph, the camera generates image data of the crop immediately after it has been conditioned).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the camera of Rotole with the windrower of Shinners because each element would merely perform the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be a combine harvester that brings in more information to optimize its operation (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
With respect to claim 20, Shinners discloses a system for automatically adjusting a conditioner roller assembly on a windrower machine (in lines 16-21 of column 23, Shinners discloses controlling roller gap clearance based on a yield monitor; in lines 9-12 of column 2, Shinners discloses that this can be embodied in a windrower; in figure 18, Shinners discloses automatic control of the equipment based on received signals), comprising:
one or more sensors that collect sensor data indicative of a condition of a target crop in real- time, the one or more sensors comprising a header load pressure configured to identify an amount of load applied by a motor powering the windrower implement (in lines 15-18 of column 5, Shinners discloses a drive load measuring device, which reads on one or more sensors from a sensor array, that measures a forage mass flow rate – in paragraph 29 of applicant’s specification, applicant explains that data like load on a motor driving an header is indicative of crop condition; see also lines 60-67 of column 15, which discloses that an hydraulic drive motor 1103 is coupled to a load device, like a conditioner roller, with the load on the motor 1103 used to determine the mass flow rate – motor 1103 reads on a motor powering the windrower; also, in lines 32-33 of column 14, Shinners discloses that the mass flow rate can include moisture content, which is a crop condition) and:
a speed sensor configured to identify a speed of one or more of a speed of the rollers and a speed of the windrower implement (in lines 19-23 of column 23, Shinners discloses controlling the roller speed – because the roller is part of a windrower implement, adjusting the speed of the roller reads on adjusting a speed of the windrower implement);
a pressure sensor configured to identify an amount of pressure exerted by the rollers on the target crop (in lines 10-12 of column 12, Shinners discloses measuring the separation force on a movable roller); and
a density or volume sensor configured to identify a density or volume of the target crop entering and/or exiting the windrower implement (in lines 31-33 of column 16, Shinners discloses measuring volume of crop entering the windrower; note that in lines 1-3 of column 22, Shinners discloses that yield monitors are not mutually exclusive and may be used together);
one or more actuators that adjust a distance between rollers in a roller assembly of a windrower implement on the fly based at least on received adjustment data (in lines 16-22 of column 23, Shinners discloses controlling the roller gap of a conditioner according to a yield monitor – controlling the gap requires an actuator to actually control the gap; note that in lines 1-4 of column 23, Shinners has described the system as automatically and optimally controlling groundspeed independent of the operator and then, in lines 16-22 of the same column, transfers this automatic control to any portion of the machinery), and the one or more actuators further usinq the adjustment data to adjust:
a speed of one or more rollers in the roller assembly (in lines 19-23 of column 23, Shinners discloses controlling the roller speed); and
a pressure exerted by the rollers on the target crop (in lines 19-23 of column 23, Shinners discloses controlling the roller separation for – which reads on the pressure exerted by the rollers); and
a control module configured to receive the sensor data and transmits the adjustment data (in lines 8-19 of column 6, Shinners discloses a computer that receives data and then sends commands – the commands in this section are specific to the groundspeed of the machinery), the control module comprising:
a computer processor (in lines 44-48 of column 2, Shinners discloses a computer that receives input data and processes that data); and
memory that stores instructions configured to, when processed by the computer processor, generate the adjustment data by determining an amount of roller adjustment that results in a predetermined conditioning for the target crop (in lines 16-22 of column 23, Shinners discloses adjusting a roller gap in accordance with the yield amount; in lines 52-56 of column 21, Shinners discloses stored data used for conditioning – this data reads on predetermined conditioning for the crop), the determined amount of roller adjustment based at least upon the sensor data, the sensor data comprising the amount of load applied by a motor powering the windrower implement (in lines 60-67 of column 15, Shinners discloses that an hydraulic drive motor 1103 is coupled to a load device 1102, like a conditioner roller, with the load on the motor 1103 used to calculate the mass flow rate which is in turn used to calculate a yield, as disclosed in lines 39-44 of column 2).
Shinners does not disclose a sensor array having a camera configured to generate image data of the target crop before and/or after conditioning by the roller assembly.
However, Rotole, which is directed to a windrower, discloses a sensor array comprising a camera configured to generate image data of the target crop before and/or after conditioning by the roller assembly (in paragraph 74, Rotole discloses a camera as part of sensor 184 from figure 3; based on the description in this paragraph, the camera generates image data of the crop immediately after it has been conditioned).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the camera of Rotole with the windrower of Shinners because each element would merely perform the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be a combine harvester that brings in more information to optimize its operation (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Shinners disclose that “the function of the conditioner is to break open the stems of the forage in some way to allow the moisture to escape quicker, preferably at about the same rate as the moisture escapes from the leaves.” See column 11 lines 58-61. However, Shinners is silent as to mitigating leaf loss. Ferre et al. disclose conditioners should have a minimum of cut off leaves and fine stems that will end up as harvesting losses and will lower the feed value (see column 3 lines 15-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conditioner of Shinners by including set a target level of crimping such that leaf loss is mitigated as taught by Ferre et al. in order to avoid harvesting losses and lower the feed value.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinners in view of Rotole et al. (US 2018/0325029 hereinafter Rotole II).
With respect to claims 8 and 17, Shinners discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Shinners does not disclose the sensor array comprising a vibration sensor that detects vibration in the windrower implement.
However, Rotole II discloses a sensor array comprising a vibration sensor that detects vibration in the windrower implement (in paragraph 104, Rotole II discloses a vibration sensor in a windrower that senses when conditioner rollers are in contact).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the vibration sensor of Rotole II with the windrower of Shinners since each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination is a windrower with a sensor that identifies with conditioning rollers are in contact (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 9-12, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinners in view of Bainbridge et al. (US 2023/0292647 hereinafter Bainbridge).
With respect to claims 9 and 18, Shinners discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Shinners does not disclose that the stored instructions further configured to perform edge detection on images generated by the sensor array to identify stems and leaves of the target crop.
However, Bainbridge discloses stored instructions configured to perform edge detection on images generated by the sensor array to identify stems and leaves of a target crop (in paragraph 154, Bainbridge discloses using image segmentation to identify crop features like leaves and stems; paragraph goes on to suggest edge detection algorithms for the image segmentation).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the identification of crop features like stems and leaves using edge detection shown by Bainbridge with the windrower of Shinners as each element would merely perform the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination is a windrower that can better identify features of the crop that it is processing (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
With respect to claim 10, Shinners in view of Bainbridge discloses the limitations of claim 9. Shinners in view of Bainbridge further discloses the stored instructions further configured to identify boundaries of stems and perform feature matching of the stems to match with the predetermined conditioning for the target crop (in lines 51-67 of column 11, Shinners discloses breaking stems or removing their waxy layer to allow for conditioning).
With respect to claim 11, Shinners in view of Bainbridge discloses the limitations of claim 1 as well as claim 9. Shinners in view of Bainbridge further discloses the stored instructions further configured to perform a multi-layered image classification of images generated by the sensor array based at least on deep convolutional neural network training of a classifier (in paragraph 154, Bainbridge discloses crop features derived from training images; Bainbridge also discloses that the training can use any artificial neural network, including a convolutional neural network, in paragraph 33).
With respect to claims 12 and 19, Shinners discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Shinners further discloses the stored instructions are further configured to utilize sensor data from a plurality of sensors in the sensor array to identify the adjustment data (in figure 12, Shinners discloses receiving multiple pieces of data, mass flow and groundspeed in this embodiment, to generate a control signal). Shinners does not disclose that the multiple sensors’ data is run through a decision forest regression.
However, Bainbridge discloses decision forest regression (in paragraph 33, Bainbridge discloses random forest regression, which is synonymous with decision forest regression; the regression is used in the context of a machine learning model that is providing data on crops).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the crop feature identification using a random forest regression of Bainbridge with the conditioner of Shinners because each element would merely perform the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of this combination is a conditioner that can use process data from the sensors using a decision forest regression to adjust the conditioner rollers (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Shinners does not disclose the predetermined conditioning. It is noted that Shinners does disclose that “the function of the conditioner is to break open the stems of the forage in some way to allow the moisture to escape quicker, preferably at about the same rate as the moisture escapes from the leaves.” See column 11 lines 58-61. However, Shinners is silent as to mitigating leaf loss. As noted above, Ferre et al. disclose conditioners should have a minimum of cut off leaves and fine stems that will end up as harvesting losses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have set a target level of crimping such that leaf loss is mitigated in order to avoid harvesting losses.
Applicant also argues that Shinners does not disclose “sensor data indicative of a condition of a target crop” as recited in the claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited passage regarding moisture content is considered a “condition” and therefor Shinners discloses sensor data indicative of a condition of a target crop.
Applicant also argues that Shinners does not disclose adjustment “on the fly in the same real-time.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shinners teaches that the roller separation force on the biasing device is related to the forage quantity and therefore is considered adjusted on the fly in the same real-time as set forth in the claim.
With respect to claims 9-12, 18, and 19, the Applicant argues that Bainbridge does not provide “motivation” and there is no “teaching, suggestion, or motivation.” It is noted that the claims were not rejected under KSR (G), but rather KSR (A). Under KSR(A) the prior art does not need to show a motivation or a TSM. Therefore, the rejection was considered proper as the rejection set forth the 4 prongs noted in 2143(I)(A): 1) a finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; (2) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. Furthermore, the result would be predictable, in that each element would merely perform the same function as it does separately.
The Applicant has also asserted a long-felt need, but has not established that the long-felt need was recognized, persistent, and not solved by others. As noted above, Shinners as modified by secondary references teaches the claimed invention.
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 NICOLE A COY whose telephone number is (571)272-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-3:30pm.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights