DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 12/09/2025. Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 17-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4, and 11-14 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument regarding claims 1 and 11-13 has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Clark (US 20230029905).
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 4 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 4 and 14 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley (US 20080209878) in view of Clark (US 20230029905).
Regarding claim 1, Farley teaches a crop debris routing assembly of an agricultural machine for processing harvested crop (Fig. 1, self-propelled rotary combine 20), comprising: a chopper rotor configured to rotate about a chopper axis (Fig. 3, chopper 84), the chopper rotor (Figs. 17-19, rotary impeller 156) including a plurality of chopper knives (Figs. 17-19, plurality of flail knives 152); opposing knives extending toward the chopper rotor and spaced from the chopper knives (Figs. 17-19, stationary knives 150); at least one load cell configured to measure a force applied to the opposing knives as harvested crop passes through the crop debris routing assembly (par. 87, “a load sensor operable for sensing applied loads on knives 150”); and a controller configured to: receive a signal from the at least one load cell indicative of the measured force applied to the opposing knives, and determine an amount of power required by the chopper rotor based on the measured force applied to the opposing knives and a rotational speed of the chopper rotor (par. 87, “A sensor 154 is preferably disposed in association with knives 150, and is configured in operable for outputting a signal representative of the position of knives 150. Alternatively, or additionally, it is contemplated that a load sensor operable for sensing applied loads on knives 150 could be used. Sensor 154 is connected via a conductive path 144 to controller 148 of system 146, as is sensor 158. In the chopping mode or configuration, the signal representative of the position of knives 150, and the speed of the chopper, if known, can be utilized by controller 148 as another factor in the determining of a value for power consumption of chopper 84”).
Farley fails to teach determine an amount of power required by the chopper rotor based on at least one of: a moisture level of the harvested crop, a toughness level of the harvested crop, and a type of crop processed by the agricultural machine.
However, Clark teaches determine an amount of power required by the chopper rotor based on at least one of: a moisture level of the harvested crop, a toughness level of the harvested crop, and a type of crop processed by the agricultural machine (par. 48, “Differences in grain types require different amounts of power for harvesting and for unloading, where the power required depends on the properties the individual kernels of grain, for instance moisture, geometrical shape, size, density, and weight. For instance, when comparing the harvesting of corn to the harvesting of wheat, corn harvesting may require more power than wheat harvesting”).
Farley and Clark are analogous art because both teach an agricultural harvesting machine that manages power.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Farley to incorporate the teachings of Clark to take into consideration the a moisture level of the harvested crop, a toughness level of the harvested crop, and a type of crop when determining the power in order to predict the required power and adjust the harvester accordingly (abstract). While Clark does not explicitly teach a chopper, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the physical characteristics of the crop would effect the power consumption.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Farley in view of Clark teaches the crop debris routing assembly of claim 1. Farley further teaches the controller is configured to determine the amount of power required by the chopper rotor based on the measured force applied to the opposing knives, the rotational speed of the chopper rotor, and a distance between a portion of the opposing knives and a center point of the chopper rotor through which the chopper axis extends (par. 87, “In the chopping mode or configuration, the signal representative of the position of knives 150, and the speed of the chopper, if known, can be utilized by controller 148 as another factor in the determining of a value for power consumption of chopper 84”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Farley in view of Clark teaches the crop debris routing assembly of claim 3. Farley further teaches the controller is configured to determine a corrected power requirement of the chopper rotor based on the determined amount of power required by the chopper rotor and a position of the opposing knives relative to the chopper rotor (par. 87, “In the chopping mode or configuration, the signal representative of the position of knives 150, and the speed of the chopper, if known, can be utilized by controller 148 as another factor in the determining of a value for power consumption of chopper 84 (fully extended equals more power; partially retracted equals less power; and fully retracted equals still less power), for reducing the maximum available power accordingly. Thus, this provides yet another indicator of crop residue processing configuration usable for determining a reduction in maximum available power to be applied to the operation of the engine”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Farley in view of Clark teaches crop debris routing assembly of claim 1. Farley fails to teach the controller is configured to determine the amount of power required by the chopper rotor based on the measured force applied to the opposing knives, the rotational speed of the chopper rotor, and a moisture level of the harvested crop.
However, Clark teaches the controller is configured to determine the amount of power required by the chopper rotor based at least on the moisture level of the harvested crop (par. 48, “Differences in grain types require different amounts of power for harvesting and for unloading, where the power required depends on the properties the individual kernels of grain, for instance moisture, geometrical shape, size, density, and weight. For instance, when comparing the harvesting of corn to the harvesting of wheat, corn harvesting may require more power than wheat harvesting”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Farley in view of Clark to further incorporate the teachings of Clark to take into consideration the a moisture level of the harvested crop, a toughness level of the harvested crop, and a type of crop when determining the power in order to predict the required power and adjust the harvester accordingly (abstract). While Clark does not explicitly teach a chopper, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the physical characteristics of the crop would affect the power consumption.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Farley in view of Clark teaches crop debris routing assembly of claim 1. Farley fails to teach the controller is configured to determine the amount of power required by the chopper rotor based on the measured force applied to the opposing knives, the rotational speed of the chopper rotor, and a toughness level of the harvested crop.
However, Clark teaches the controller is configured to determine the amount of power required by the chopper rotor based at least on the toughness level of the harvested crop (par. 48, “Differences in grain types require different amounts of power for harvesting and for unloading, where the power required depends on the properties the individual kernels of grain, for instance moisture, geometrical shape, size, density, and weight. For instance, when comparing the harvesting of corn to the harvesting of wheat, corn harvesting may require more power than wheat harvesting”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Farley in view of Clark to further incorporate the teachings of Clark to take into consideration the a moisture level of the harvested crop, a toughness level of the harvested crop, and a type of crop when determining the power in order to predict the required power and adjust the harvester accordingly (abstract). While Clark does not explicitly teach a chopper, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the physical characteristics of the crop would affect the power consumption.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Farley in view of Clark teaches crop debris routing assembly of claim 1. Farley fails to teach the controller is configured to determine the amount of power required by the chopper rotor based on the measured force applied to the opposing knives, the rotational speed of the chopper rotor, and a type of crop processed by the agricultural machine.
However, Clark teaches the controller is configured to determine the amount of power required by the chopper rotor based at least on the type of crop processed by the agricultural machine (par. 48, “Differences in grain types require different amounts of power for harvesting and for unloading, where the power required depends on the properties the individual kernels of grain, for instance moisture, geometrical shape, size, density, and weight. For instance, when comparing the harvesting of corn to the harvesting of wheat, corn harvesting may require more power than wheat harvesting”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Farley in view of Clark to further incorporate the teachings of Clark to take into consideration the a moisture level of the harvested crop, a toughness level of the harvested crop, and a type of crop when determining the power in order to predict the required power and adjust the harvester accordingly (abstract). While Clark does not explicitly teach a chopper, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the physical characteristics of the crop would affect the power consumption.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley in view of Clark, and further in view of Missotten (US 20220394921).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Farley in view of Clark teaches the crop debris routing assembly of claim 1. Farley further teaches the opposing knives are configured to extend and retract (par. 87, “An array or rack of stationary knives 150 are movable between at least a fully extended position (FIG. 17) extending into chopper 84 between adjacent ones of flail knives 152, and a fully retracted position (FIG. 18), a representative partially retracted position being exhibited in FIG. 19”).
Both Farley and Clark fail fails to teach relative to the chopper axis.
However, Missotten teaches the opposing knives are configured to extend and retract relative to the chopper axis (par 41 Fig. 2, "adjustment of the counter knife bank 86 in the substantially translational direction 88 can be performed").
Farley and Missotten are analogous art because both relate to a combine harvester with a chopper.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Farley in view of Clark to incorporate the teachings of Missotten. Opposing knives that extend and retract relative to the chopper axis are already well known in the art and can be found on many choppers. Missotten explains that adjusting the knife position can affect chop quality as well as power consumption (par. 62).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley in view of Clark, and further in view of Infantini (US 20240074349).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Farley in view of Clark teaches the crop debris routing assembly of claim 1. Both Farley and Clark fail fails to teach the controller is configured to determine the amount of power required by the chopper rotor based on the measured force applied to the opposing knives, the rotational speed of the chopper rotor, and an amount of harvested crop passing through the crop debris routing assembly.
However, Infantini teaches the controller is configured to determine the amount of power required by the chopper rotor based on the measured force applied to the opposing knives, the rotational speed of the chopper rotor, and an amount of harvested crop passing through the crop debris routing assembly (par. 31, “the operation model may also be configured to monitor one or more other harvester conditions and/or determine a power load of a chopper assembly based on the infeed volume of harvested material”).
Farley and Infantini are analogous art because both relate to a combine harvester with a chopper.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Farley in view of Clark to incorporate the teachings of Infantini. Infantini explains that as the infeed volume of harvested material increases, required chopper power also increases (par. 116). Therefore, there is a correlation between the amount of harvested crop passing through the crop debris routing assembly and power required by the chopper.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Farley in view of Clark and Infantini teaches the crop debris routing assembly of claim 6. Both Farley and Clark fail to teach the controller is configured to receive an indication of a feed rate of harvested crop into the agricultural machine; and wherein the controller is configured to determine the amount of harvested crop passing through the crop debris routing assembly based on the received indication.
However, Infantini teaches the controller is configured to receive an indication of a feed rate of harvested crop into the agricultural machine; and wherein the controller is configured to determine the amount of harvested crop passing through the crop debris routing assembly based on the received indication (par. 31, “the operation model may also be configured to monitor one or more other harvester conditions and/or determine a power load of a chopper assembly based on the infeed volume of harvested material”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Farley in view of Clark and Infantini to further incorporate the teachings of Infantini. Infantini explains that as the infeed volume of harvested material increases, required chopper power also increases (par. 116). Therefore, there is a correlation between the amount of harvested crop passing through the crop debris routing assembly and power required by the chopper.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley in view of Clark and Infantini as applied above, and further in view of Vandike (US 20210015045).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Farley in view of Clark and Infantini teaches the crop debris routing assembly of claim 6. Farley, Clark, and Infantini fail to teach the controller is configured to receive an indication of a grain yield from the harvest crop; and wherein the controller is configured to determine the amount of harvested crop passing through the crop debris routing assembly based on the received indication.
However, Vandike teaches the controller is configured to receive an indication of a grain yield from the harvest crop; and wherein the controller is configured to determine the amount of harvested crop passing through the crop debris routing assembly based on the received indication (par. 71, “Examples of various harvesting condition variables …include, but are not limited to, one or more of grain moisture; temperature; wind speed; wind direction; harvester roll; harvester pitch; current grain yield; current biomass yield; crop type; crop variety; soil moisture; soil type; row spacing; weed type; weed density, crop height, crop downstate, time of day, and sun angle. Such harvesting condition variables may be either input by an operator, sensed/detected by various sensors on the harvester or retrieved or obtained from a source or sensor external to the harvester”).
The combination of Farley in view of Clark and Infantini, and Vandike are analogous art because both relate to a combine harvester with a chopper.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Farley in view of Clark and Infantini to incorporate the teachings of Vandike. Vandike adjusts “operational settings of the harvester based upon current harvesting condition variables to optimize performance parameters” (par. 7).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley in view of Clark and Infantini as applied above, and further in view of Mahieu (US 20170055444).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Farley in view of Clark and Infantini teaches the crop debris routing assembly of claim 6. Farley, Clark, and Infantini fail to teach the controller is configured to receive an indication of power consumption of a component of the agricultural machine other than the chopper rotor; wherein the controller is configured to determine the amount of harvested crop passing through the crop debris routing assembly based on the received indication.
However, Mahieu teaches the controller is configured to receive an indication of power consumption of a component of the agricultural machine other than the chopper rotor; wherein the controller is configured to determine the amount of harvested crop passing through the crop debris routing assembly based on the received indication (par. 54, “the control unit may further be configured to receive, as an input signal, a power signal representative of the power consumption of the threshing system. It has been observed that the power consumption of the threshing system can be an indication of the size or average size of the flow or straw, i.e. crop residue, that is outputted by the threshing system…As such, a signal representing the power consumption of the threshing system may be applied, by the control unit, as an indication of the straw quality, in particular the straw density”).
The combination of Farley in view of Clark and Infantini, and Mahieu are analogous art because both relate to a combine harvester.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Farley in view of Clark and Infantini to incorporate the teachings of Mahieu. Mahieu states there is a correlation between the power consumption of the thresher and average harvested crop flow (par. 54), and by adjusting operational parameters of the threshing tool based on harvest quality will increase efficiency (par. 4).
Regarding claim 10, combination of Farley in view of Clark, Infantini, and Mahieu teach the crop debris routing assembly of claim 9. Farley, Clark, and Infantini fail to teach the component of the agricultural machine other than the chopper rotor is a threshing rotor that is configured to rotate to process harvested crop in cooperation with at least one of a thresher basket and guide vanes.
However, Mahieu teaches the component of the agricultural machine other than the chopper rotor is a threshing rotor (par. 54, “the control unit may further be configured to receive, as an input signal, a power signal representative of the power consumption of the threshing system) that is configured to rotate to process harvested crop in cooperation with at least one of a thresher basket and guide vanes (see Fig. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Farley in view of Clark, Infantini, and Mahieu to further incorporate the teachings of Mahieu. Mahieu states there is a correlation between the power consumption of the thresher and average harvested crop flow (par. 54), and by adjusting operational parameters of the threshing tool based on harvest quality will increase efficiency (par. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14-16 are allowed.
Farley has been identified as the most relevant prior art to the claimed invention(s).
Farley teaches Farley teaches a crop debris routing assembly of an agricultural machine for processing harvested crop (Fig. 1, self-propelled rotary combine 20), comprising: a chopper rotor configured to rotate about a chopper axis (Fig. 3, chopper 84), the chopper rotor (Figs. 17-19, rotary impeller 156) including a plurality of chopper knives (Figs. 17-19, plurality of flail knives 152); opposing knives extending toward the chopper rotor and spaced from the chopper knives (Figs. 17-19, stationary knives 150); at least one load cell configured to measure a force applied to the opposing knives as harvested crop passes through the crop debris routing assembly (par. 87, “a load sensor operable for sensing applied loads on knives 150”); and a controller configured to: receive a signal from the at least one load cell indicative of the measured force applied to the opposing knives, and determine an amount of power required by the chopper rotor based on the measured force applied to the opposing knives and a rotational speed of the chopper rotor (par. 87, “A sensor 154 is preferably disposed in association with knives 150, and is configured in operable for outputting a signal representative of the position of knives 150. Alternatively, or additionally, it is contemplated that a load sensor operable for sensing applied loads on knives 150 could be used. Sensor 154 is connected via a conductive path 144 to controller 148 of system 146, as is sensor 158. In the chopping mode or configuration, the signal representative of the position of knives 150, and the speed of the chopper, if known, can be utilized by controller 148 as another factor in the determining of a value for power consumption of chopper 84”).
Farley fails to teach to determine an amount of power required by the chopper rotor based on a distance between a portion of the opposing knives and a center point of the chopper rotor through which the chopper axis extends, and a distance between the portion of the opposing knives and the at least one load cell.
Farley also fails to teach determine a torque of the chopper rotor based on the measured force applied to the opposing knives and a distance between a portion of the opposing knives and a center point of the chopper rotor through which the chopper axis extends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665