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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, change “wherein the method of claim 9 further comprises:” to “the method further comprises:” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 is indefinite because the claim sets forth “determining…the amount of change in a ratio.” It is not clear whether the recited ratio is the same ratio from claim 1 or whether a new ratio is being recited to include the relationship between the performance parameter and the performance-modifying parameter relationship over time.
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) 1-5, 8-11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190104681 to Larson in view of US 10492364 to Heitmann et al. (“Heitmann”) in further view of US 20160029558 to Dybro et al. (“Dybro”).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Larson discloses an agricultural machine, comprising:
a threshing assembly 55 including a threshing rotor 90 configured to rotate to process harvested crop in cooperation with at least one of a thresher basket 110 and guide vanes 120;
a crop debris routing assembly 60 including opposing knives and a chopper rotor 165 configured to rotate to the process the harvested crop (as described in [0020]); and
a controller configured to identify a relationship between a performance parameter that is associated with operation of the threshing assembly or the crop debris routing assembly ([0018] disclosing controller 42 in communication with threshing assembly 55 via measuring means 145 that measures the load condition which is defined as power applied to or consumed by the threshing drum per a desired rotational velocity) and
a performance-modifying parameter that affects the performance parameter of the agricultural machine ((e.g. the rotational speed of the threshing rotor as set forth in [0018] noting the relationship between power and speed) and / or [0030]; the crop condition of a moisture level of the harvested crop impacting speed thus impacting the power performance parameter),
wherein the performance-modifying parameter is one of: (i) a machine parameter selected from the group consisting of: a feed rate of harvested crop into the agricultural machine, a rotational speed of the threshing rotor, a position of at least one of the thresher basket and the guide vanes, a rotational speed of the chopper rotor, and a position of the opposing knives, (ii) a crop condition selected from the group consisting of: a moisture level of the harvested crop and a toughness level of the harvested crop, and (iii) a chop quality of the harvested crop;
wherein the identified relationship comprises an amount of change in a ratio, over time, of the performance parameter relative to the performance-modifying parameter (as evident from [0030] to the extent that the disclosed measurement is dynamic, thus over time, at least as evidenced by the “slowing down of the threshing drum 90”); and
wherein the controller is configured to adjust [the crop discharge] to change an amount of power required by at least one of the threshing assembly and the crop debris routing assembly in response to determining that the amount of change in the ratio (e.g. the power relative to the speed of the threshing rotor) exceeds a threshold amount of change (e.g. “set point” discussed in [0030] to the extent that a change in the rotational velocity / speed changes the ratio).
It is not clear whether Larson discloses opposing knives that the chopper rotor rotates relative to. In any event, in an abundance of caution, examiner notes that the cooperation of such is well known as taught by Heitman (e.g. see adjustable knives 28 in Fig. 2; col. 7, ln 61-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the opposing knives feature of Heitman into the chopper assembly of Larson with the motivation of further reducing the crop debris and mitigating the opportunity for clogging of the chopper assembly discharge.
Additionally, Larson is largely directed to changing features that impact the crop discharge and not directly changing features relative to the at least one machine parameter in the group of machine parameters. Presumably, a change in the crop discharge will result in the speed of the threshing drum changing at least indirectly. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Dybro provides a teaching of directly changing various components such as the speed of the threshing drum in response to changes in the attributes of the crop residue (i.e. biomass portion) (see last 8 lines of [0054]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of providing a secondary means to impact and manage crop discharge therefore mitigating opportunities of clogging.
Regarding claim 2, Larson in view of Heitman and Dybro discloses the machine of claim 1 wherein the performance parameter is associated with the threshing assembly (as discussed above, the threshing rotor).
Regarding claim 3, Larson in view of Heitman and Dybro discloses the machine of claim 2 wherein the parameter is the power required by the threshing rotor (as discussed above, the threshing rotor).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Larson in view of Heitman and Dybro discloses the machine of claim 1 wherein the parameter is a power required by the chopper rotor (e.g. see [0030] discussing rotational velocity of chopping drum 165 wherein speed is related to power).
Regarding claim 8, Larson in view of Heitman and Dybro discloses the machine of claim 1 wherein the controller is configured to receive a measured value for the performance parameter (see [0027] especially last 14 lines);
wherein the controller is configured to compare the measured value for the performance parameter to a threshold value for the performance parameter (as previously discussed and see [0027], last 14 lines);
wherein the controller is configured to adjust the at least one machine parameter in the group of machine parameters in response to determining that the measured value for the performance parameter exceeds the threshold value for the performance parameter (as previously discussed; also see [0027], last 14 lines);
and wherein the controller is configured to adjust the at least one machine parameter in the group of machine parameters based on the identified relationship between the performance parameter and the performance-modifying parameter (as previously discussed; also see [0027], last 14 lines).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate related teachings of Dybro effecting the adjustment of the machine parameter with the motivation of providing a secondary means to impact and manage crop discharge therefore mitigating opportunities of clogging.
Regarding claim 9, the recited steps of using parameters for an agricultural machine are commensurate in scope with the machine recited in claim 1 as disclosed by Larson in view of Heitman and Dybro.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Larson in view of Heitman and Dybro discloses the method of claim 9 further comprising: measuring values of the performance parameter during an agricultural operation (as evident from limitations previously discussed and see [0029]); and determining, based on the identified relationship between the performance parameter and the performance-modifying parameter, that for the measured values of the performance parameter, the amount of change in a ratio (as evident from limitations previously discussed and see [0029] wherein the controller distinguishes between different magnitudes of difference from the set point therefore determining changes in the ratio).
Regarding claim 11, Larson in view of Heitman and Dybro discloses the method of claim 9, measuring a value of the performance parameter during an agricultural operation (as evident from limitations previously discussed and see [0029]); and
determining that, at the measured value, the performance parameter exceeds a threshold value for the performance parameter (as evident from limitations previously discussed and see [0029]);
wherein adjusting at least one machine parameter in the group of machine parameters includes: adjusting at least one machine parameter in the group of machine parameters based on the determined relationship between the performance parameter and the performance-modifying parameter and in response to determining that, at the measured value, the performance parameter exceeds a corresponding threshold value for the performance parameter (as evident from limitations previously discussed and see [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate related teachings of Dybro effecting the adjustment of the machine parameter with the motivation of providing a secondary means to impact and manage crop discharge therefore mitigating opportunities of clogging.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson in view of Heitman and Dybro in further view of US 20210144917 to Gurke et al. (“Gurke”).
Regarding claim 6, Larson in view of Heitman and Dybro discloses the machine of claim 4 but does not explicitly disclose that the performance parameter is a force on the opposing knives. In related field of chopping assemblies for crops, Gurke discloses analyzing the operating condition of a cutting device (see Abstract) in the context of harvesters (see [0002] – [0004]) including detecting knife forces (see e.g. [0010]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of providing greater control of the chopping assembly.
Claim(s) 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson in view of Heitman and Dybro in further view of US 20210015039 to Vandike et al. (“Vandike”).
Regarding claim 7, Larson in view of Heitman and Dybro discloses the machine of claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the agricultural machine further comprises a user interface operatively coupled to the controller; and wherein the controller is configured to cause to be displayed on the user interface the identified relationship between the performance parameter that is associated with the threshing assembly or the crop debris routing assembly and the performance-modifying parameter. Vandike discloses such (see e.g. [0026]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of providing greater control of the chopping assembly.
Regarding claim 12, Larson in view of Heitman and Dybro discloses the method of claim 9 further comprising:
adjusting at least one machine parameter in the group of machine parameters includes: adjusting the one or more machine parameters for which the one or more set points are received (as previously discussed). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the adjusting teachings of Dybro with the motivation of providing a secondary means to impact and manage crop discharge therefore mitigating opportunities of clogging.
However, Larson in view of Hietman and Dybro does not disclose the displaying steps recited herein.
Nevertheless, Vandike discloses:
displaying the identified relationship between the performance parameter and the performance-modifying parameter via a user interface operatively coupled to the controller (e.g. see display 462 in Fig. 6; [0026] discussing user interface related to parameters and [0065] for dynamic adjustments responsive to values received / determined from the user interface); and
receiving, via the controller, a set point for the machine parameter associated with the identified relationship, the set point being provided to the controller via the user interface (e.g. see display 462 in Fig. 6; [0026] discussing user interface related to parameters and [0065] for dynamic adjustments responsive to values received / determined from the user interface).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of providing greater control of the chopping assembly.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson in view of Heitman and Dybro in further view of US 20200196516 to Kowald et al. (“Kowald”).
Regarding claim 14, Larson in view of Heitman and Dybro discloses the method of claim 9 further but does not disclose: displaying, via a user interface operatively coupled to the controller, a recommendation that a user select at least one machine parameter in the group of machine parameters for adjustment. Kowald discloses such (see Fig. 9, [0140], Fig. 11, [0157]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of providing greater control of the threshing / chopping assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above the cited art discloses the limitations of claims 1-12, 14, and 20. Applicant does not provide any specific arguments countering the application of the cited and applied prior art beyond general allegations of patentability due to the amended claim language.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 SCOTT A BROWNE whose telephone number is (571)270-0151. The examiner can normally be reached on Variable Workweek/IFP.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s colleague, SPE Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights