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 Arguments
112(b) Rejection
Based on applicant’s filed amendments, the previously set forth 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
102 Rejection
Applicant argues Brubaker fails to anticipate claim 15 because Brubaker fails to teach “identifying a centerline of a harvester pass”. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is arguing the claim requires identifying the center line of a harvester, however that is not what is currently claimed. The recitation is broader, as it recites identifying a center line of a harvester pass. The pass, specifically the effective header harvesting width for row crops is directly determined by the row unit, attached to the harvester. Therefore, the claimed “harvester pass” includes both the harvester and the row unit. Therefore, the physical presence and spacing of the attached row units are integral to identifying the center line and overall width of the path the harvester is actively working. The claim does not define identifying the center line of the harvester, as argued on page 5. Therefore, the examiner is not persuaded.
103 Rejection
With respect to claim 1, applicant argues Brubaker fails to teach the claimed agricultural data system comprising, in part, wherein the processor is configured to align as-planted data with as-harvested data from at least one stalk sensor, however the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Brubaker teaches generated map 32 data created while planting, thereby reading on “as-planted data”; Col. 4 lines 15-19. Brubaker goes on to further disclose using data collected by the stalk sensor 20 collected during harvest; thereby reading on “as-harvested data”. In Col. 5 lines 12-19 Brubaker discloses the processor 30 uses the as-planted data, map 32, and as-harvested data collected using sensor 20, to algin the two to make corrective changes, thereby achieving row-by-row alignment.
Applicant appears to be arguing a more narrow claim than what is currently presented. The examiner suggests further defining the alignment process, as-planted data, and/or as-harvested data to overcome the current art rejection. However, as currently presented, the examiner is not persuaded.
With respect to claim 8, applicant argues Brubaker fails to teach aligning as-planted data with stalk data geo-spatially, however the examiner respectfully disagrees. Brubaker teaches integrating the as-planted data, i.e. map 32, and data collected from stalk sensor 20 and a DGPS sensor 16. The integration teaches comparing all the collected data to ensure proper alignment and if misalignment is determined through comparative analysis, alignment corrections are determined and implemented by the system. Therefore, the scope of the claimed invention, insofar as what is structurally recited is taught by Brubaker.
Applicant further argues claim 6, stating Brubaker fails to teach the system making one or more suggestion include an ideal planting prescription. The examiner has pointed to blocks 52 and 54 of Fig. 5 as reading on the claimed limitation. Here, insofar as how “an ideal prescription” is structural defined, Brubaker teaches based on determined misalignment between as sensed data and predetermined map data, the system preemptively suggests a correction based on the misalignment data from the map data. The determined steering correction reads on the claimed suggested idea prescription, as the correction is executed at step 54 to improve the future yields during that operation. The claim fails to differentiate the claimed invention over the prior art, as there is no defined reference of time for the claimed “suggestion” or when it is used thereby rendering the time line subjective. The examiner is not persuaded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brubaker (8,010,261).
With respect to claim 15, Brubaker teaches a method for aligning agricultural data comprising: identifying a center line (23, CL) of a harvester pass (Fig. 3A); identifying a swath width of a harvester (defined by dividers 18 of harvester 10); identifying a swath width (seen in Fig. 3A) of a planter (29); determining a number of harvester passes for each planter pass (as map 32 was generated during planting by the planter thereby containing a number of planter passes and blocks 44 and 46 determining the steering commands which indirectly containing a number of harvest passes determined from the map 32 and DCPS; col. 5 lines 4-19); determining an offset (as the taught correction data contains a correction for the offset) of the center line (CL) of the harvester pass for as-planted data (as part of the map 32) from the planter (29); and aligning the as-planted data with as-harvested data (col. 4 lines 62-65).
With respect to claim 16, Brubaker teaches the method wherein the as-planted data and as-harvested data are aligned on a row-by-row basis (as sensors on the harvester allow for a row-by-row alignment; col. 5 lines 12-19).
With respect to claim 18, Brubaker teaches the method further comprising detecting an offset of plant stalks entering row units of the harvester (via sensor 20); comparing the offset of plants stalks across a swath of the harvester (as block 50 compares the data to determine a misalignment; col 5 lines 13-17); and identifying if a guess row is being harvested (as if it is determined misalignment as occurred, the method recognizes a guess row is being harvested and steering is corrected; col 5 lines 13-17).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brubaker (8,010,261) in view of Ray et al. (9,826,673).
With respect to claim 1, Brubaker teaches in Fig. 4 an agricultural data system comprising: (a) at least one stalk sensor (20) disposed on a harvester (10) configured to sense incoming crop stalks (as sensors are able to sense incoming crops; col. 4 lines 7-11; note stalks are not part of the claimed combination of the system and therefore reads as an intended use; further sensors 20 are capable of sensing stalk of the disclosed crops entering the row unit 22); (b) at least one processor (30) in communication with the at least one stalk sensor (as seen in Fig. 4); and wherein the processor (30) is configured to align as-planted data with as-harvested data (col. 4 lines 62-65) from the at least one stalk sensor (20).
Brubaker remains silent regarding a display in communication with the at least one processor.
Ray et al. teaches a similar system having a display in communication with the at least one processor (a display of the user interface indicative of instructions to present a graphical representation of the path of the agricultural vehicle; Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of Brubaker to include the display taught in Ray et al. because such a modification presents an operator of the harvester updated data related to the path of the vehicle, thereby improving the operational interface of Brubaker et al.
With respect to claim 2, Brubaker teaches in Fig. 4 the agricultural data system further comprising at least one GNSS unit in communication with the at least one processor (as DGPS 16 is a differential GPS, which arguments a GNSS unit; col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 2).
With respect to claim 3, Brubaker teaches in Fig. 4 the agricultural data system wherein the at least one processor (30) is configured to detect when the harvester (10) has harvested crop at an offset (as block 48 monitors information from row sensor 20. If row sensor 20 indicates misalignment of crops relative to centerline 23 of row unit 22 at decision block 50, control is directed to block 52 where auto guidance system 30 determines a steering correction and steering system 34 executes that steering correction at blocks 52 and 54 respectively; col. 5 lines 13-19; the steering correction is the determined offset).
With respect to claim 4, Brubaker teaches in Fig. 4 the agricultural data system wherein the at least one processor (30) is configured to map (32) a comparison of planted seed to harvested stand (as map 32 depicts planted pants against harvested stand in an attempt to ensure alignment; col. 4 lines 62-65 and col. 5 lines 5-19).
With respect to claim 5, Brubaker teaches in Fig. 4 the agricultural data system wherein the at least one processor (30) is further configured to generate one or more suggestions to an operator for improving future yields (as the combination, as a whole, displays to the operator a map with steering correction to improve further yields; insofar as what is structurally recited defining “future”, the displayed correction ensures the vehicle is harvesting the correct swath for the upcoming plants in that harvesting operation).
With respect to claim 6, Brubaker teaches in Fig. 4 the agricultural data system wherein the one or more suggestions include an ideal planting prescription (for example steering corrections determined at blocks 52 and 54 of Brubaker).
With respect to claim 8, Brubaker teaches in Fig. 5 a method of estimating crop yield comprising: sensing incoming plant stalks via one or more stalk sensors (20) to generate stalk data (as sensors are able to sense incoming crops; col. 4 lines 7-11); correcting stalk data comprising: comparing as-planted data to stalk data geo-spatially (via blocks 42, 44, 46, 48, 50 and 52); and aligning as-planted data and stalk data on a row-by-row basis (via block 50; col. 4 lines 62-65) and.
Brubaker remains silent regarding displaying corrected stalk data to a user.
Ray et al. teaches a similar system having a display that displays data to a user (a display of the user interface indicative of instructions to present a graphical representation of the path of the agricultural vehicle; Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of Brubaker to include the display taught in Ray et al. because such a modification presents an operator of the harvester updated data related to the path of the vehicle, thereby improving the operational interface of Brubaker et al.
With respect to claim 9, Brubaker as modified teaches in Fig. 5 the method further comprising identifying if a guess row is being harvested and presenting a notification to a user of the guess row harvest (as if it is determined misalignment as occurred, the method recognizes a guess row is being harvested and steering is corrected; col 5 lines 13-17; the combination, as a whole, displays the information to a user using the display taught in Ray et al.).
With respect to claim 10, Brubaker as modified teaches in Fig. 5 the method further comprising generating guidance to correct errors from harvesting a guess row (as block 52 generates steering correction to correct errors from harvesting a guess row).
With respect to claim 11, Brubaker as modified teaches in Fig. 5 the method further comprising commanding an automatic steering system (34) to guide a harvester to a corrected pass (col. 4 lines 12-15).
With respect to claim 12, Brubaker as modified teaches in Fig. 5 the method further comprising detecting an offset of plant stalks entering row units (via sensor 20) and comparing the offset of plants stalks across a swath of a harvester (10; as block 50 determines an offset, i.e. misalignment of the plant stalks is occurring across the harvester and a correction is made based on the offset).
With respect to claim 13, Brubaker as modified teaches in Fig. 5 the method further comprising aligning the as-planted data and stalk data both laterally and longitudinally (as the system aligns the data as needed, thereby performing the alignment in both lateral and longitudinal directions, insofar as what is structurally defined).
With respect to claim 14, Brubaker as modified teaches in Fig. 5 the method further comprising aligning the as-planted data and stalk data on- the-go (as Fig. 5 is occurring during operation of the harvester, thereby reading on “on-the-go”.
With respect to claim 17, Brubaker teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 15 but remains silent regarding identifying a turning rate of the harvester and adjusting as-harvested data collection for the turning rate.
Ray et al. teaches a similar method that includes identifying a turning rate of a harvester and adjusting as-harvested data collection for the turning rate ([t]he swath acquisition path 18 may be adjusted based on operator input of one or more parameters (e.g., an initial turn rate of the agricultural vehicle, an approach angle of the agricultural vehicle toward the guidance swath, a swath turn rate of the agricultural vehicle, an overshoot of the guidance swath, etc.); col. 2 lines 53-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Brubaker to include the step of identifying a turn rate of the harvester and adjusting the data for the turning rate because Ray et al. teaches such a modification ensures all data aligns with an agricultural vehicle prior to engagement, thereby improving efficiency while minimizing fuel consumption; col. 1 lines 15- 21.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brubaker (8,010,261) in view of Ray et al. (9,826,673), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Farah (AU 2020201559A1).
With respect to claim 7, Brubaker as modified teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding the agricultural data system further comprising an automatic swath control system in communication with the at least one processor configured to detect overlapping harvest areas and stop data recording during subsequent passes.
Farah teaches a similar system comprising an automatic swath control system (130) in communication with at least one processor (404) configured to detect overlapping harvest areas and stop data recording during subsequent passes (Farah teaches the computer system detects data that represents overlapping harvest area and stops the data recording during subsequent passes using sensors; [0026]; Farah achieves no recording this data in a dataset by applying filters to remove the contaminated data that indicates overlapping passes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of Brubaker to include the automatic swath control system of Farah because Farah teaches such a modification improves accuracy of yield map data; [0009], thereby improving the accuracy of Brubaker.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brubaker (8,010,261) in view of Farah (AU 2020201559A1).
With respect to claim 19, Brubaker teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 15 but remains silent regarding the method further comprising filtering as-planted and as-harvested data where the offset is greater than a threshold distance.
Farah teaches a similar method that includes filtering agricultural data where a determined value is greater than a threshold [0146].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method to include a filter that filters as-planted and as-harvested data where the identified offset is greater than a threshold distance, as Farah teaches such a modification improves accuracy of mapped data by filtering out outliers; [0008]; thereby improving the accuracy of mapping in Brubaker.
With respect to claim 20, Brubaker teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 15 but remains silent regarding the method further comprising filtering as-planted and as-harvested data where the offset is greater than a threshold degree of heading difference.
Farah teaches a similar method that includes filtering agricultural data where a determined value is greater than a threshold [0146].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method to include a filter that filters as-planted and as-harvested data where the identified offset is greater than a threshold degree of heading difference, as Farah teaches such a modification improves accuracy of mapped data by filtering out outliers; [0008]; thereby improving the accuracy of mapping in Brubaker.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sneyders et al. (11,704,810) which teaches detecting crop rows from image data.
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 MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853