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 .
This office action is in response the Request for Continued Examination filed on 6 October 2025
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 4 and 16 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-22 have been added.
The objection to claim 18, the 112 rejections, and the art rejections of Claims 1-17 from the previous office action have been withdrawn as neccessited by the amendment.
Claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-22 are pending. Claims 1, 13, and 18 are independent claims.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/16/25 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-6 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per dependent claims 5-6, Claims 5-6 recites being dependent upon claim 4; however, claim 4 was cancelled by the Applicant, making Claims 5-6 not depend on any independent or dependent claim. Therefore, Claims 5-6 contains a typographical error. Therefore, throughout this Office Action, Claims 5-6 will depend on Claim 1.
As per dependent claim 17, Claim 17 recites being dependent upon claim 16; however, claim 1 was cancelled by the Applicant, making Claim 16 not depend on any independent or dependent claim. Therefore, Claim 16 contains a typographical error. Therefore, throughout this Office Action, Claim 16 will depend on Claim 13
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The new drawings and replacement drawings filed on 9/16/25 have been accepted and entered.
However, the drawings remain objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the following drawing issues remain:
1) reference characters "28" and "50" have both been used to designate a clean crop routing assembly; FIG 1 has 28 and 50 pointing to the same item;
2) reference characters "210" and "212" have both been used to designate a sensor; FIG 2-4 has 210 and 212 pointing to the same item.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings remain objected to because 1) FIG 1A does not show reference character “82” pointing to a spreader. FIG 1A has the arrow associated with 82 pointing to an empty area near various element of the machine itself. 2) FIG 1A does not show reference character “108” pointing to a housing. FIG 1A has the arrow associated with 82 pointing to an empty area near various elements (104, 106) of the machine itself. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 9/16/25 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.121(b)(3) because: An instruction to replace the specification is missing. Applicant did not provide an explicit instruction to have the substitute specification replace the existing specification. Furthermore, the substitute specification filed 9/16/25 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c): Applicant replaced a number of paragraphs within the substitute specification with different text but failed to show the necessary markings of text being deleted and text being added. 37 CFR 1.125(c) clearly states “A substitute specification submitted under this section must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown pursuant to this paragraph. For example, Applicant amended Paragraph 0016 to include new text; however, failed to show markings deleting the existing text 0016 originally had. In addition, Paragraph 0017 was amended to include text; however, failed to show markings deleting the existing text 0017 originally had and markings showing the new text 0017 now contains. Paragraphs 0018-0080 have the same issue as Paragraph 0017. In other words, Paragraphs 0016-0080 were renumbered but the necessary markings were not shown indicating the renumbering. Paragraph 0081 was added but no markings are shown of the added subject matter in the marked up copy. Therefore, this substitute specification was not entered for these reasons.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para 0015 of Applicant’s specification states “FIG. 1” which indicates that a FIG. 1 is presented in applicant’s disclosure. However, FIG. 1 itself no longer exists after the replacement drawings filed on 9/16/25. Only FIG 1A and FIG 1B exist. Therefore, Applicant’s specification recites a FIGURE no longer presented.
Appropriate correction is required.
Because the substitute specification (i.e. amendments to the specification) filed on 9/16/25 was not entered, the amendment to the abstract is not also not entered since the amendments to the specification are not entered in part. Therefore:
The original abstract of the disclosure, filed on 3/22/23, remains objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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) 1-2, 7-15, 17, 21-22 are rejected and 3, 5-6, 18-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen et al (US20220375228, pub. 11/24/2022, filed 5/19/2022) in further view of Zieser et al (US 20200032487, 2020)
As per independent claim 1, Christiansen et al discloses an agricultural machine (FIG 1) comprising:
a chassis; (FIG 1; 0023: discloses a combine harvesting vehicle. Vehicles have a chassis)
a header coupled to the chassis, (FIG 1; 0042)
the header configured to harvest a crop in a field; (FIG 1; 0042: harvest crops)
a spreader coupled to the chassis (FIG 1; 0042)
the spreader configured to discharge a residue of the harvested crop in a rearward direction from the agricultural machine (FIG 1; 0042: ejects residue/MOG from the rear of the combine)
an unloading conveyor comprising a first end, a second end, a top portion, a bottom portion, a first side portion, a second side portion, and a rear portion, the first end of the unloading conveyor coupled to the chassis and the second end extending from the chassis; (FIG 1; 0042: unloading auger (conveyor) attach to vehicle at one end wherein the other end extends from the vehicle past the rear of the vehicle. In addition, auger has top, bottom, multiple side portions, and rear portion (FIG 1))
a sensor adjustably coupled to the unloading conveyor, the sensor configured to sense a characteristic of the residue as the residue is discharged from the machine by the spreader or has settled in the field; (FIG 1; 0024, 0044, 0047: sensor is to used to determine one or more characteristics of a distribution of residue; FIG 3A-3B shows that the position of the sensor/camera is movable based on the position of the auger. 3B shows the position of the camera/sensor shifted/tilted to the right from 3A)
wherein the sensor is controllably movably between a first location and a second location. (0052, 0053: Moving the auger changes the position of the camera/sensor on the auger as shown in FIG 3B such as tilting. For example, 3B shows the camera tilted from 3A; 0053 discloses changing the positioning (location) of the camera in order to overcome obstructions in part of the sensing region that results in intruding on the images)
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the sensor is controllably movable between a first location and a second location, (such that) the first location corresponding to a location on the top portion, first side portion, second side portion, or rear portion of the unloading conveyor, and the second location corresponding to another location on the unloading conveyor different from the first location. However, Zieser et al discloses the sensor is controllably movable between a first location and a second location, (such that) the first location corresponding to a location on the top portion, first side portion, second side portion, or rear portion of the unloading conveyor, and the second location corresponding to another location on the unloading conveyor different from the first location. Zieser et al discloses an agricultural work vehicle (0040) having an articulable implement (0041) having a camera (couple to the implement (Abstract, 0047) that can be positioned in multiple places along the articulable implement (0008-0009) See also FIG 3, 5-6; 0049, 0053, 0059-0060, 0066 discloses the camera/sensor is movable/positioned in more than one location along the articulable implement (e.g. movable from at least one portion, e.g. side portion to another portion e.g. another side portion) The camera is able to be positioned mounted along a variety/plurality of positions/portions along the arm of articulable implement). 0047 discloses the camera being a sensor.
The motivation to combine the cited art, Christiansen et al, with Zieser et al would be because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of agricultural vehicles (e.g. harvesters) would have found it obvious to combine cited art with Zieser et al to update it using a mounted camera, on an implement of an agricultural vehicle, that rotates in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaptation, such as improving the operation of work vehicles such a more robust and versatile imaging system for work vehicles.(0004)
As per dependent claim 2, Christiansen et al discloses wherein the sensor is directly coupled to the unloading conveyor and disposed at a location that is rearward of the spreader (FIG 1; 0042, 0046; Abstract)
As per dependent claim 3, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the sensor is pivotally coupled to the unloading conveyor. However, based on the rejection of claim 3 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Zieser et al discloses an agricultural work vehicle (0040) having an articulable implement (0041) having a camera that rotates (pivots)(0061)
As per dependent claim 5, based on the rejection of claim 3 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Zieser et al discloses wherein the sensor is movably adjustable relative to the unloading conveyor by a linear actuator or a rotary actuator (0061: discloses actuator allowing camera to rotate, form of rotary actuator; 0047, 0066 discloses an actuator used with a track that moves the camera linearly on a rail of a track)
As per dependent claim 6, based on the rejection of claim 3 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Zieser et al discloses wherein the unloading conveyor comprises a track to which the sensor is movably coupled, the sensor being movable along the track to any of a plurality of locations on the unloading conveyor (FIG 3, 5-7; 0047, 0066)
As per dependent claim 7, Christiansen et al discloses wherein the sensor comprises a camera, radar, LIDAR, an ultrasonic sensor, infrared sensor, or a thermal sensor (0044: camera)
As per dependent claim 8, Christiansen et al discloses wherein the sensor is coupled to the unloading conveyor at a first location that is rearward of the spreader, the sensor being positioned to sense an area of the field that is forward of the first location and rearward of the spreader. (FIG 1; 0007; 0046: positioned on the auger which is spaced rearwardly of the spreader; In addition, FIG 1, 4; 0054-0055 discloses an image, by the camera, of a sensing region showing the spreader of the machine (at the bottom) and the area of residue material outputted by the spreader (in the middle). This shows that the camera facing towards the harvester to sense the residue laid out between the spreader and the location of the sensor on the unloading conveyor. FIG 1 shows that the image, from the camera, would be of the area between the camera and the spreader)
As per dependent claim 9, Christiansen et al discloses wherein the sensor is coupled to the unloading conveyor at a first location and positioned relative to the agricultural machine to sense an area of the field that is directly below the first location. (FIG 1; 0007; 0046: positioned on the auger. In addition, FIG 1, 4; 0054-0055 discloses an image, by the camera, of a sensing region includes the area of residue material outputted by the spreader (in the middle). This shows that the camera is positioned at a location that can sense the area of the field below the camera)
As per dependent claim 10, Christiansen et al discloses wherein the sensor is coupled to the unloading conveyor at a first location and positioned relative to the agricultural machine to sense an area of the field that is rearward of the first location (FIG 1; 0007; 0046: positioned on the auger. In addition, FIG 1, 4; 0054-0055 discloses an image, by the camera, of a sensing region showing the area of the field/ground behind the laid residue material outputted by the spreader (top of the image). This shows that the camera is positioned at a location that can sense the area of the field/ground that is rearward of the first location)
As per dependent claim 11, Christiansen et al discloses a controller disposed in communication with the sensor, the sensor configured to output the characteristic of the residue to the controller; wherein, the controller analyzes the characteristic of the residue and controllably adjusts a function of the agricultural machine to adjust the characteristic of the residue. (0006, 0012, 0061-0064: processor determines the correct response to control the combine harvester based on the determined characteristic of the residue. For example, the analysis determines if the spread is skewed to the left or right and adjusts a motor of the spreader to reduce the skewing)
As per dependent claim 12, Christiansen et al discloses wherein the controller controllably adjusts a speed of the spreader, a shroud position of the spreader, or a spread pattern (0064: e.g. speed of the spreader adjusted)
As per independent claim 13, Claim 13 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Christiansen et al discloses the additional limitations/subject matter:
an unloading conveyor comprising a first end and a second end, the first end of the unloading conveyor movably coupled to the chassis and the second end extending from the chassis; (FIG 1; 0042:unloading auger (conveyor) attach to vehicle at one end wherein the other end extends from the vehicle past the rear of the vehicle. 0026, Claim 5: discloses repositioning/moving the auger)
a sensor movably coupled to the unloading conveyor; the sensor is relative to the unloading conveyor between the first location and a second location (FIG 3A-3B shows that the position of the sensor/camera is movable based on the position of the auger; 0052, 0053:Moving the auger changes the position of the camera/sensor on the auger as shown in FIG 3B such as tilting. For example, 3B shows the camera tilted to the right from 3A; 0053 discloses changing the positioning (location) of the camera in order to overcome obstructions in part of the sensing region that results in intruding on the images)
the sensor configured to sense a characteristic of the residue discharged from the spreader; (FIG 1; 0024, 0044, 0047: sensor is used to determine one or more characteristics of a distribution of residue)
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the sensor is coupled at a first location to a top portion or a side portion of the unloading conveyor, wherein the sensor is movable on and relative to the unloading conveyor between the first location and a second location, (such that) the second location corresponding to a bottom portion, a rear portion or a second side portion on the unloading conveyor. However, Zieser et al discloses an agricultural work vehicle (0040) having an articulable implement (0041) having a camera (coupled to the implement (Abstract, 0047: ) that can be positioned in multiple places along the articulable implement (0008-0009) See also FIG 3, 5-6; 0049, 0053, 0059-0060, 0066 discloses the camera/sensor is movable/positioned in more than one location along the articulable implement (e.g. movable from at least one portion, e.g. side portion to another portion e.g. another side portion.) (0047 discloses the camera being a sensor) For example, FIG 2 shows a camera movable along an arm 24 of the implement between elements 148 and 138. In other words, the camera can be repositioned to be located near element 148, near element 138, or somewhere in between elements 148 and 138. Furthermore, when the camera is position near element 148 as show in FIG 2, the camera is in a first location of the arm of the implement which is viewed as a first side portion of the arm of the implement. The camera is able be relocated to a second position along the arm of the implement that is closer to element 138, a second side portion of the arm of the implement. In other words, the camera is able to be positionally mounted along a variety/plurality of positions along the arm , each of the mounted positions residing at a side-portion (i.e. a first, second, etc. side portions of a side of the arm of the implement).
The motivation to combine the cited art, Christiansen et al, with Zieser et al would be because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of agricultural vehicles (e.g. harvesters) would have found it obvious to combine cited art with Zieser et al to update it using a mounted camera, on an implement of an agricultural vehicle, that rotates in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaptation, such as improving the operation of work vehicles such a more robust and versatile imaging system for work vehicles.(0004)
As per dependent claim 14, Christansen et al discloses wherein the unloading conveyor extends outwardly from the chassis in the rearward direction and overhangs a portion of the field rearward of the agricultural machine, (FIG 1; 0042: unloading auger (conveyor) attach to vehicle which extends from the vehicle from the rear of the vehicle; thus overhang portion of the field) the sensor located at a first location on the unloading conveyor at a distance spaced rearwardly of the spreader; (FIG 1; 0007; 0046:positioned on the auger which is spaced rearwardly of the spreader) wherein the sensor is oriented in a forward direction to sense an area of the field defined between the spreader and the first location. (FIG 4; 0054-0055 discloses an image by the camera showing the spreader of the machine and the area of residue material outputted by the spreader. This shows that the camera facing towards the harvester to sense the residue laid out between the spreader and the location of the sensor on the unloading conveyor; FIG 1 shows that the image, from the camera, would be of the area between the camera and the spreader)
As per dependent claim 15, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the sensor is pivotally coupled to the unloading conveyor. However, based on the rejection of Claim 13, and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Zieser et al discloses an agricultural work vehicle (0040) having an articulable implement (0041) having a camera that rotates (pivots)(0061)
As per dependent claim 17, based on the rejection of claim 15 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Zieser et al discloses wherein the sensor is movably relative to the unloading conveyor to any of a plurality of locations on the top portion, the bottom portion, the first side portion, the second side portion, and a rear portion of the unloading conveyor. (FIG 2-3, 5-6; 0049, 0059-0060: discloses the camera/sensor is movable from/to any one portion)
As per independent claim 18, Christiansen et al discloses a method of controlling a spread pattern of crop residue discharged from an agricultural machine during a harvesting operation (FIG 1; 0059-0064), the agricultural machine comprising a header, a spreader, an unloading conveyor, and a sensor; (FIG 1; 0042, 0044) comprising:
harvesting a crop in a field by the header; (0042)
discharging the crop residue by the spreader from the agricultural machine; (0042)
positioning the sensor at a first location on to a bottom portion of the unloading conveyor, the sensor being spaced a distance rearwardly of the spreader at the first location; (FIG 1; 0007; 0046: positioned (first location) on the auger which is spaced at a distance rearwardly of the spreader)
orienting the sensor in a forward direction towards the spreader to sense an area of the field defined between the spreader and the first location of the sensor on the unloading conveyor; and (FIG 1, 4; 0054-0055 discloses an image, by the camera, of a sensing region showing the spreader of the machine (at the bottom) and the area of residue material outputted by the spreader (in the middle). This shows that the camera facing towards the harvester to sense the residue laid out between the spreader and the location of the sensor on the unloading conveyor. FIG 1 shows that the image, from the camera, would be of the area between the camera and the spreader)
sensing a distribution of the crop residue by the sensor from the first location as the crop residue is discharged from the agricultural machine or has settled in the area of the field. (0024, 0028, 0044, 0047: characteristics of residue distribution is sense/determined)
controlling moving the sensor from the first location to a second location; sensing the distribution of the crop residue by the sensor from the second location (0053 discloses changing the positioning of the camera in order to overcome obstructions in part of the sensing region that results in intruding on the images. By moving the auger/camera, one of a skilled artisan would have realize this would remove any obstructions covering at least part of the sensing region resulting in better quality image from the camera. One of a skilled artisan would have kept moving the camera until the obstructions no longer cover any portion of sensing region in order to be satisfactory/meet a threshold. Repeatedly sensing is inherently performed since it’s a camera capturing images or video and always looking for whether “at least part of the sensing region” is covered)
However, Christiansen et al fails to controllably moving the sensor from the first location to a second location on the unloading conveyor, (such that) the second location corresponding to a first side portion or a second side portion of the unloading conveyor; and sensing the distribution of the crop residue by the sensor from the second location on the unloading conveyor. However, Zieser et al discloses an agricultural work vehicle (0040) having an articulable implement (0041) having a camera (couple to the implement (Abstract, 0047) that can be positioned in multiple places along a track on the arms of articulable implement (0008-0009) See also FIG 3, 5-6; 0053, 0059-0060, 0066 discloses the camera/sensor is movable/positioned in more than one location along arms of the articulable implement. (0047 discloses the camera being a sensor) For example, FIG 2 shows a camera movable along an arm 24 of the implement between elements 148 and 138. In other words, the camera can be repositioned to be located near element 148, near element 138, or somewhere in between elements 148 and 138. Furthermore, when the camera is position near element 148 as show in FIG 2, the camera is in a first location of the arm of the implement which is viewed as a first side portion of the arm of the implement. The camera is able be relocated to a second position along the arm of the implement that is closer to element 138, a second side portion of the arm of the implement. In other words, the camera is able to be positionally mounted along a variety/plurality of positions along the arm , each of the mounted positions residing at a side-portion (i.e. a first, second, etc. side portions of a side of the arm of the implement).
The motivation to combine the cited art, Christiansen et al, with Zieser et al would be because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of agricultural vehicles (e.g. harvesters) would have found it obvious to combine cited art with Zieser et al to update it using a mounted camera, on an implement of an agricultural vehicle, that rotates in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaptation, such as improving the operation of work vehicles such a more robust and versatile imaging system for work vehicles.(0004)
Furthermore, since Christiansen et al discloses the ability to sense a distribution of the crop residue by the sensor at a first location on the unloading conveyor and 0053 discloses the repositioning of the camera, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that Christiansen et al would have allowed the sensing of a distribution of the crop residue by the sensor if repositioned at another location on the auger. Therefore, in conjunction with Zieser et al, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention would have realized that the combination of Zieser’s repositioning of the camera along an implement with Christiansen et al’s camera having sensing distribution abilities would allow the sensing a distribution of the crop residue by the sensor at any location on the unloading conveyor. This would have provided the intrinsic advantage of distribution of material from an agricultural machine can be monitored and optionally controlled more effectively and efficiently.
As per dependent claim 19, Christiansen et al discloses outputting by the sensor an output signal indicative of the distribution of the crop residue; determining if a quality of the output signal satisfies a threshold; operably moving the sensor to a new location or new orientation relative to the unloading conveyor if the quality of the output signal does not satisfy the threshold; and repeatedly sensing the distribution of the crop residue until the quality of the output signal satisfies the threshold. (0053 discloses changing the positioning of the camera in order to overcome obstructions in part of the sensing region that results in intruding on the images. If image data from the camera (e.g. signal) contains any obstruction covering at least part of the sensing region then one of a skilled artisan would understand that the quality of the image data is not satisfying. Thus, a threshold was not met since at least part of the sensing region was obstructed. By moving the auger/camera, one of a skilled artisan would have realize this would remove any obstructions covering at least part of the sensing region resulting in better quality image from the camera. One of a skilled artisan would have kept moving the camera until the obstructions no longer cover any portion of sensing region in order to be satisfactory/meet a threshold. Repeatedly sensing is inherently performed since it’s a camera capturing images or video and always looking for whether “at least part of the sensing region” is covered)
As per dependent claim 20, Christiansen et al discloses analyzing the output signal to determine the spread pattern of the crop residue; determining based on the spread pattern if a function of the agricultural machine needs to be adjusted; and adjusting the function of the agricultural machine if the agricultural machine is determined to need adjustment. (0006, 0012, 0057, 0059-0064: determines the correct response to control the combine harvester based on the determined characteristic of the residue. For example, the analysis determines if the spread is skewed to the left or right and adjusts a motor of the spreader to reduce the skewing)
As per dependent claim 21, based on the rejection of claim 18 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Zeiser et al discloses wherein the sensor is configured to be controllably moved on and relative to the unloading conveyor between the first side portion, the second side portion, and the bottom portion. (FIG 2 shows a camera movable along an arm 24 between elements 148 and 138. In other words, the camera can be repositioned to be located near element 148, near element 138, or somewhere in between elements 148 and 138. Furthermore, when the camera is position near element 148 as show in FIG 2, the camera is in a first location of the arm which is viewed as a bottom portion of the arm. The camera is able be relocated to a second position along the arm that is closer to element 138. In other words, the camera is able to be positionally mounted along a variety/plurality of positions along the arm , each of the mounted positions residing at a side-portion (i.e. a first, second, etc side portions of a side of the arm)
As per dependent claim 22, Christiansen et al discloses a controller coupled to the unloading conveyor, the controller configured to receive the characteristic of the residue from the sensor and controllably adjust a function of the agricultural machine in response to the characteristic of the residue. (0006, 0012, 0057, 0059-0064: determines the correct response to control the combine harvester based on the determined characteristic of the residue by the processor. For example, the analysis determines if the spread is skewed to the left or right and adjusts a motor of the spreader to reduce the skewing)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s remarks to the drawings objection(s) on pages 7-8, the Examiner respectfully states that the replacement drawings have resolved a number of issues previously stated; however, the replacement drawings did not overcome the drawings objection entirely. As further explained above, and briefly summarized here, the Examiner states the following issues remain: 1) reference characters "28" and "50" have both been used to designate a clean crop routing assembly; FIG 1 has 28 and 50 pointing to the same item; 2) reference characters "210" and "212" have both been used to designate a sensor; FIG 2-4 has 210 and 212 pointing to the same item; 3) FIG 1A does not show reference character “82” pointing to a spreader. FIG 1A has the arrow associated with 82 pointing to an empty area near various element of the machine itself and 4) FIG 1A does not show reference character “108” pointing to a housing. FIG 1A has the arrow associated with 108 pointing to an empty area near various elements (104, 106) of the machine itself. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully states reference characters “204” and “206” have not been objected in any previous action. Thus, the drawing objections remain for these reasons.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection to the abstract on page 9, since the substitute specification (amendment to the specification) filed on 9/16/25 was not entered (see reasons above under heading “Specification”, the amendment to the abstract is not also not entered since the amendments to the specification overall are not entered in part. However, if the amendment to the abstract was entered, the objection to specification would have been overcome since the amendment results in the Abstract being in narrative form.
On pages 15-17, in regards to the 103 rejection of Claim 18, Applicant argues that Christiansen and Zieser fails to teach the following limitation, “"positioning the sensor at a first location on a bottom portion of the unloading conveyor, the sensor being spaced a distance rearwardly of the spreader at the first location ... [and] controllably moving the sensor from the first location to a second location on the unloading conveyor, the second location corresponding to a first side portion or a second side portion of the unloading conveyor". Applicant argues that the subject matter of 0044, 0052, and 0053 of Christiansen does not teach "controllably moving the sensor from the first location to a second location on the unloading conveyor" as recited in claim 18. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the subject matter of 0047, and 0049 of Zieser does not disclose "positioning the sensor at a first location on a bottom portion of the unloading conveyor, the sensor being spaced a distance rearwardly of the spreader at the first location ... [and] controllably moving the sensor from the first location to a second location on the unloading conveyor, the second location corresponding to a first side portion or a second side portion of the unloading conveyor" as recited in independent claim 18. Therefore, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of Claim 18. However, the Examiner disagrees.
Based on Applicant’s arguments overall, the Examiner respectfully submits that the Applicant states that Christiansen and Zieser does not teach the limitations by merely generally merely summarizing/reciting different paragraphs/sections of each reference and allegedly concludes that Christiansen and Zieser do not teach the limitations. Applicant does not disclose how the claim language of each argued claim limitation is different from the teachings of Christiansen and Zieser by describing the differences that involve any supporting evidence from the specification stating or describing the limitation, or how Christiansen and Zieser is specifically different from Applicant's invention. Applicant merely argues that paragraphs of Christiansen and Zieser do not teach the argued limitations without any explanation or describing how the claim language and invention is performed regarding the claimed subject matter. Thus, Applicant's arguments fail to disclose how the cited art is silent or doesn't teach on the limitations since the Applicant does not fully describe the differences that involve any supporting evidence from Applicant's specification stating or describing the limitations, or how the cited art is specifically different from the invention itself. Therefore, the Applicant did not explicitly state how Applicant's invention, other than stating Christiansen and Zieser, individually, doesn't teach the limitations, is different to prove that the cited art’s functionality does not equivalently teach the limitation.
Furthermore, based on the language, the limitation, being argued, stating “positioning the sensor at a first location on a bottom portion of the unloading conveyor, the sensor being spaced a distance rearwardly of the spreader at the first location” is silent and/or broad on a number of elements. The claimed language does not clarify or explained what a first location on a bottom portion of the unloading conveyor. In other words, the language does not define what “a bottom portion” is. The Examiner requests what does the language mean by “first location on a bottom portion of the unloading conveyor”. No additional details are provided or being claimed that would limit the interpretation or how to properly interpret of a first location on a bottom portion of the unloading conveyor. Thus, the language does not provide any detail/explanation on the language of a first location on a bottom portion of the unloading conveyor. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Furthermore, the limitation, also being argued, stating “moving the sensor from the first location to a second location on the unloading conveyor, the second location corresponding to a first side portion or a second side portion of the unloading conveyor” is also silent and/or broad on a number of elements. The claimed language does not clarify or explained what a first side portion or a second side portion of the unloading conveyor is. In other words, the language does not define what “a first side portion” or “a second side portion” is. The Examiner requests what does the language mean by “the second location corresponding to a first side portion or a second side portion of the unloading conveyor”. No additional details are provided or being claimed that would limit the interpretation or how to properly interpret of how the second location corresponding to a first side portion or a second side portion of the unloading conveyor. Thus, the language does not provide any detail/explanation on the language of the second location corresponding to a first side portion or a second side portion of the unloading conveyor. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. In addition, the language provides no distinction between a bottom portion and side portions. Thus, the bottom portion and side portions could share a common side.
Furthermore, the Examiner refers the Applicant to MPEP 904.01 (b) that states "All subject matter that is the equivalent of the subject matter as defined in the claim, even though specifically different from the definition in the claim, must be considered unless expressly excluded by the claimed subject matter." In other words, while the prior art cited may not explicitly use the same terminology as disclosed in the claim limitations, it doesn't mean the art doesn't teach it and can't be considered to reject Applicant’s claimed invention. Thus, examiner submits that what is taught by the references of the cited art is considered functionally equivalent to that which is claimed discussed below.
Therefore, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of language of the subject matter/limitations, Christiansen discloses the subject matter of positioning the sensor at a first location on to a bottom portion of the unloading conveyor, the sensor being spaced a distance rearwardly of the spreader; (FIG 1; 0007; 0046: positioned on the auger which is spaced at a distance rearwardly of the spreader) In addition, Christiansen discloses the subject matter of controlling moving the sensor from the first location to a second location (0053 discloses changing the positioning of the camera in order to overcome obstructions in part of the sensing region that results in intruding on the images. By moving the auger/camera, one of a skilled artisan would have realize this would remove any obstructions covering at least part of the sensing region resulting in better quality image from the camera. One of a skilled artisan would have kept moving the camera until the obstructions no longer cover any portion of sensing region in order to be satisfactory/meet a threshold. Repeatedly sensing is inherently performed since it’s a camera capturing images or video and always looking for whether “at least part of the sensing region” is covered)
However, Christiansen et al fails to controllably moving the sensor from the first location to a second location on the unloading conveyor, (such that) the second location corresponding to a first side portion or a second side portion of the unloading conveyor; and sensing the distribution of the crop residue by the sensor from the second location on the unloading conveyor. However, Zieser et al discloses an agricultural work vehicle (0040) having an articulable implement (0041) having a camera (couple to the implement (Abstract, 0047) that can be positioned in multiple places along a track on the arms of articulable implement (0008-0009) See also FIG 3, 5-6; 0053, 0059-0060, 0066 discloses the camera/sensor is movable/positioned in more than one location along arms of the articulable implement. (0047 discloses the camera being a sensor) For example, FIG 2 shows a camera movable along an arm 24 of the implement between elements 148 and 138. In other words, the camera can be repositioned to be located near element 148, near element 138, or somewhere in between elements 148 and 138. Furthermore, when the camera is position near element 148 as show in FIG 2, the camera is in a first location of the arm of the implement which is viewed as a first side portion of the arm of the implement. The camera is able be relocated to a second position along the arm of the implement that is closer to element 138, a second side portion of the arm of the implement. In other words, the camera is able to be positionally mounted along a variety/plurality of positions along the arm , each of the mounted positions residing at a side-portion (i.e. a first, second, etc. side portions of a side of the arm of the implement).
The motivation to combine the cited art, Christiansen et al, with Zieser et al would be because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of agricultural vehicles (e.g. harvesters) would have found it obvious to combine cited art with Zieser et al to update it using a mounted camera, on an implement of an agricultural vehicle, that rotates in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaptation, such as improving the operation of work vehicles such a more robust and versatile imaging system for work vehicles.(0004)
Furthermore, since Christiansen et al discloses the ability to sense a distribution of the crop residue by the sensor at a first location on the unloading conveyor and 0053 discloses the repositioning of the camera, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that Christiansen et al would have allowed the sensing of a distribution of the crop residue by the sensor if repositioned at another location on the auger. Therefore, in conjunction with Zieser et al, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention would have realized that the combination of Zieser’s repositioning of the camera along an implement with Christiansen et al’s camera having sensing distribution abilities would allow the sensing a distribution of the crop residue by the sensor at any location on the unloading conveyor. This would have provided the intrinsic advantage of distribution of material from an agricultural machine can be monitored and optionally controlled more effectively and efficiently.
Therefore, Christiansen and Zieser teaches the argued limitation(s) based on the current language of the limitations of Claim 18 under BRI.
On pages 17-19, in regards to the 103 rejection of Claim 13, Applicant argues that Christiansen, Bonefas, and Zieser fails to teach the following limitation, "the sensor is coupled at a first location to a top portion or a first side portion of the unloading conveyor" and "the sensor is movable on and relative to the unloading conveyor between the first location and a second location, the second location corresponding to a bottom portion, a rear portion or a second side portion on the unloading conveyor"". Applicant argues that the subject matter of 0044, 0052, and 0053 of Christiansen does not teach " the sensor is movable on and relative to the unloading conveyor between the first location and a second location, the second location corresponding to a bottom portion, a rear portion or a second side portion on the unloading conveyor" as recited in claim 13. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the subject matter of 0047, and 0049 of Zieser does not disclose " the sensor is coupled at a first location to a top portion or a first side portion of the unloading conveyor" and "the sensor is movable on and relative to the unloading conveyor between the first location and a second location, the second location corresponding to a bottom portion, a rear portion or a second side portion on the unloading conveyor" as recited in independent claim 13. Therefore, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of Claim 13. However, the Examiner disagrees.
Note: Bonefas is no longer used to teach any limitations of Claim 13 and any arguments regarding Bonefas are considered moot and will not be addressed.
Based on Applicant’s arguments overall, the Examiner respectfully submits that the Applicant states that Christiansen and Zieser does not teach the limitations by merely generally merely summarizing/reciting different paragraphs/sections of each reference and allegedly concludes that Christiansen and Zieser do not teach the limitations. Applicant does not disclose how the claim language of each argued claim limitation is different from the teachings of Christiansen and Zieser by describing the differences that involve any supporting evidence from the specification stating or describing the limitation, or how Christiansen and Zieser is specifically different from Applicant's invention. Applicant merely argues that paragraphs of Christiansen and Zieser do not teach the argued limitations without any explanation or describing how the claim language and invention is performed regarding the claimed subject matter. Thus, Applicant's arguments fail to disclose how the cited art is silent or doesn't teach on the limitations since the Applicant does not fully describe the differences that involve any supporting evidence from Applicant's specification stating or describing the limitations, or how the cited art is specifically different from the invention itself. Therefore, the Applicant did not explicitly state how Applicant's invention, other than stating Christiansen and Zieser, individually, doesn't teach the limitations, is different to prove that the cited art’s functionality does not equivalently teach the limitation.
Furthermore, based on the language, the limitation, being argued, stating “the sensor is coupled at a first location to a top portion or a first side portion of the unloading conveyor” is silent and/or broad on a number of elements. The claimed language does not clarify or explained what a first location to a top portion or a first side portion of the unloading conveyor is. In other words, the language does not define what “a top portion” or “a first side portion” is. The Examiner requests what does the language mean by “a first location to a top portion or a first side portion of the unloading conveyor”. No additional details are provided or being claimed that would limit the interpretation or how to properly interpret of a first location to a top portion or a first side portion of the unloading conveyor. Thus, the language does not provide any detail/explanation on the language of a first location to a top portion or a first side portion of the unloading conveyor. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Furthermore, the limitation, also being argued, stating “the sensor is movable on and relative to the unloading conveyor between the first location and a second location, the second location corresponding to a bottom portion, a rear portion or a second side portion on the unloading conveyor.” is also silent and/or broad on a number of elements. The claimed language does not clarify or explained how the sensor is relative to the unloading conveyor between the first location and a second location. In other words, how exactly is and in what way is the sensor relative to the unloading conveyor. The language fails to further explain or limit on the meaning “relative to the unloading conveyor. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Furthermore, the claimed language does not clarify or explained what a bottom portion, a rear portion or a second side portion on the unloading conveyor is. In other words, the language does not define what “a bottom portion”, “a rear portion” or “a second side portion” is. The Examiner requests what does the language mean by “the second location corresponding to a bottom portion, a rear portion or a second side portion on the unloading conveyor”. No additional details are provided or being claimed that would limit the interpretation or how to properly interpret of how the second location corresponding to a bottom portion, a rear portion or a second side portion on the unloading conveyor. Thus, the language does not provide any detail/explanation on the language of the second location corresponding to a bottom portion, a rear portion or a second side portion on the unloading conveyor. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. In addition, the language provides no distinction between a bottom portion and side portions. Thus, the bottom portion and side portions could share a common side.
Furthermore, the Examiner refers the Applicant to MPEP 904.01 (b) that states "All subject matter that is the equivalent of the subject matter as defined in the claim, even though specifically different from the definition in the claim, must be considered unless expressly excluded by the claimed subject matter." In other words, while the prior art cited may not explicitly use the same terminology as disclosed in the claim limitations, it doesn't mean the art doesn't teach it and can't be considered to reject Applicant’s claimed invention. Thus, examiner submits that what is taught by the references of the cited art is considered functionally equivalent to that which is claimed discussed below.
Therefore, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of language of the subject matter/limitations, Christiansen discloses the subject matter of the sensor is.. relative to the unloading conveyor between the first location and a second location. (0052, 0053: Moving the auger changes the position of the camera/sensor on the auger as shown in FIG 3B such as tilting. For example, 3B shows the camera tilted from 3A; 0053 discloses changing the positioning (location) of the camera in order to overcome obstructions in part of the sensing region that results in intruding on the images)
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the sensor is coupled at a first location to a top portion or a side portion of the unloading conveyor, wherein the sensor is movable on ... the unloading conveyor between the first location and a second location, (such that) the second location corresponding to a bottom portion, a rear portion or a second side portion on the unloading conveyor. However, Zieser et al discloses an agricultural work vehicle (0040) having an articulable implement (0041) having a camera (coupled to the implement (Abstract, 0047: ) that can be positioned in multiple places along the articulable implement (0008-0009) See also FIG 3, 5-6; 0049, 0053, 0059-0060, 0066 discloses the camera/sensor is movable/positioned in more than one location along the articulable implement (e.g. movable from at least one portion, e.g. side portion to another portion e.g. another side portion.) (0047 discloses the camera being a sensor) For example, FIG 2 shows a camera movable along an arm 24 of the implement between elements 148 and 138. In other words, the camera can be repositioned to be located near element 148, near element 138, or somewhere in between elements 148 and 138. Furthermore, when the camera is position near element 148 as show in FIG 2, the camera is in a first location of the arm of the implement which is viewed as a first side portion of the arm of the implement. The camera is able be relocated to a second position along the arm of the implement that is closer to element 138, a second side portion of the arm of the implement. In other words, the camera is able to be positionally mounted along a variety/plurality of positions along the arm , each of the mounted positions residing at a side-portion (i.e. a first, second, etc. side portions of a side of the arm of the implement).
The motivation to combine the cited art, Christiansen et al, with Zieser et al would be because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of agricultural vehicles (e.g. harvesters) would have found it obvious to combine cited art with Zieser et al to update it using a mounted camera, on an implement of an agricultural vehicle, that rotates in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaptation, such as improving the operation of work vehicles such a more robust and versatile imaging system for work vehicles.(0004)
Therefore, Christiansen and Zieser teaches the argued limitation(s) based on the current language of the limitations of Claim 13 under BRI.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) since the new ground(s) of rejection(s) was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172