DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 04/03/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 6-8, 11-15, and 20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the teaching of transmitting a modified operation parameter. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Foster et al.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/03/2026 with respect to a harvester receiving a signal indicating an own residue spread performance have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Leenknegt et al. fails to teach that a second combine harvester with which the residue deposition information is shared supports the sensors which obtain residue deposition information. However, Leenknegt et al. teaches a harvester which obtains residue deposition information from a second vehicle, and Herrmann et al. teaches a harvester which senses residue deposition in an adjacent swathe of field. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a combination of the two teachings results in a first harvester which obtains residue deposition information from a second harvester, while the second harvester senses residue deposition in an adjacent swathe of field (i.e., the swathe of field in which the first harvester is working).
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, 6-8, 11-15, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leenknegt et al. (US 20230225246, previously cited) in view of Herrmann et al. (US 20230000015, previously cited) in view of Foster et al. (US 20090312919, previously cited).
Claim 1.
Leenknegt et al. teaches:
receive a first signal from another
(Leenknegt – [0053]) “The one or more sensors referred to above may include one or more sensors supported by… a further machine such as a vehicle.”
(Leenknegt – [0098]) “one or more images of the field residue while it is being deposited, or shortly after it has been deposited”
receive a first signal from another agricultural harvester, the first signal indicating a residue spread performance, the residue spread performance corresponding to a
(Leenknegt – [0098]) “one or more images of the field residue while it is being deposited, or shortly after it has been deposited”
(Leenknegt – [0128]) “it is necessary for the residue deposition information acquired by the first combine harvester 10a to be shared with the second combine harvester 10b. This can be achieved through the first and second combine harvesters 10a, 10b being capable of mutual (wireless) communication”
modify an operation parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the residue spread performance to obtain a modified operation parameter
(Leenknegt – [0134]) “the combine harvester(s) 10 may respond to the outputs of the sensor(s) in an automated mode, in which adjustments of the various parameters of residue spreading occur automatically in accordance with one or more control algorithms”
control a residue spread of the agricultural harvester in a second harvesting area according to the modified operation parameter
(Leenknegt – [0134]) “the combine harvester(s) 10 may respond to the outputs of the sensor(s) in an automated mode, in which adjustments of the various parameters of residue spreading occur automatically in accordance with one or more control algorithms”
While Leenknegt et al. teaches a first harvester receiving first residue spread data from another vehicle and teaches a first harvester receiving residue spread data from a second harvester, Leenknegt et al. does not explicitly teach a harvester capable of monitoring residue spread data from another harvester. However, Herrmann et al. teaches:
another agricultural harvester, the first signal indicating a residue spread performance, the residue spread performance corresponding to a first residue in air, and the first residue being spread by the agricultural harvester in a first harvesting area
(Herrmann – Abstract) “capturing, with at least one image capture device that is located on the harvester, images of a field view of an unharvested region to be harvested, analyzing the captured images to determine crop information for a crop of a harvested region that is adjacent to the unharvested region”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the agricultural vehicle of Leenknegt et al. with the setting adjustment system of Herrmann et al. Leenknegt et al. teaches obtaining residue spread data from a generic vehicle, and Herrmann et al. teaches a harvester which monitors crop information in an adjacent swathe and is capable of communication with other agricultural machines (Herrmann – [0021]); therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings could be combined, resulting in a harvester which monitors residue spread data in an adjacent swathe and transmits said data to another harvester. This would have been a substitution of one known element (the harvester of Herrmann et al.) for another (the generically recited vehicle of Leenknegt et al.) with predictable results.
While Leenknegt et al. teaches the use of wireless communication to share residue deposition information with another combine harvester, Leenknegt et al. does not explicitly teach sharing an operation parameter. However, Foster et al. teaches:
transmit a second signal to the other agricultural harvester, the second signal indicating the modified operation parameter
(Foster – [0014]) “effect the transmission by the exemplar machine of data representative of the base operating set of performance parameters of such exemplar machine to others of the plurality of agricultural machines”
(Foster – [0043]) “when a replacement base operating set of performance parameters is established in a target harvester, such harvester will transmit to at least the harvester which had instigated such replacement action, if not to other group members as well, an indication that such replacement activity has occurred.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings, modifying the agricultural vehicle of Leenknegt et al. with the parameter communication of Foster et al. Both Leenknegt et al. and Foster et al. teach the communication of data between a plurality of harvesters; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this combination could be made with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to optimize the performance of a fleet of harvesters (Foster – [0004]).
Claim 6.
The combination of Leenknegt et al., Herrmann et al., and Foster et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Leenknegt et al. further teaches:
transmit a third signal to the third agricultural harvester, the third signal indicating the second residue spread performance
(Leenknegt – [0128]) “it is necessary for the residue deposition information acquired by the first combine harvester 10a to be shared with the second combine harvester 10b. This can be achieved through the first and second combine harvesters 10a, 10b being capable of mutual (wireless) communication”
receive a fourth signal from the third agricultural harvester in response to the third signal, the fourth signal indicating a second modified operation parameter
(Leenknegt – [0128]) “it is necessary for the residue deposition information acquired by the first combine harvester 10a to be shared with the second combine harvester 10b. This can be achieved through the first and second combine harvesters 10a, 10b being capable of mutual (wireless) communication”
(Leenknegt – [0134]) “the combine harvester(s) 10 may respond to the outputs of the sensor(s) in an automated mode, in which adjustments of the various parameters of residue spreading occur automatically in accordance with one or more control algorithms”
control the residue spread of the first agricultural harvester in a third harvesting area according to the second modified operation parameter
(Leenknegt – [0134]) “the combine harvester(s) 10 may respond to the outputs of the sensor(s) in an automated mode, in which adjustments of the various parameters of residue spreading occur automatically in accordance with one or more control algorithms”
Leenknegt et al. does not explicitly teach a harvester monitoring the residue spread of another harvester; however, Herrmann et al. teaches:
detect a second residue spread performance corresponding to a residue spread of a third agricultural harvester
(Herrmann – Abstract) “capturing, with at least one image capture device that is located on the harvester, images of a field view of an unharvested region to be harvested, analyzing the captured images to determine crop information for a crop of a harvested region that is adjacent to the unharvested region”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 7.
The combination of Leenknegt et al., Herrmann et al., and Foster et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above. Leenknegt et al. further teaches:
wherein the third agricultural harvester is the same as the second agricultural harvester
(Leenknegt – [0128]) “it is necessary for the residue deposition information acquired by the first combine harvester 10a to be shared with the second combine harvester 10b. This can be achieved through the first and second combine harvesters 10a, 10b being capable of mutual (wireless) communication”
[Examiner’s Note: If the harvesters are capable of mutual communication, then the receiving harvester (second harvester) and transmitting harvester (third harvester) could be the same harvester.]
Claim 8.
Leenknegt et al. teaches:
detect a residue spread performance corresponding to a first residue in air
(Leenknegt – [0098]) “one or more images of the field residue while it is being deposited, or shortly after it has been deposited”
The rest is rejected by the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 11.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 6, by virtue of its inclusion of all the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 12.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 13.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 7.
Claim 14.
Leenknegt et al. teaches:
A system, comprising: a first agricultural harvester… and [a] second agricultural harvester
(Leenknegt – [0128]) “it is necessary for the residue deposition information acquired by the first combine harvester 10a to be shared with the second combine harvester 10b. This can be achieved through the first and second combine harvesters 10a, 10b being capable of mutual (wireless) communication”
The rest is rejected by the same rationale as claim 6, by virtue of its inclusion of all the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 15.
The combination of Leenknegt et al., Herrmann et al., and Foster et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above. Leenknegt et al. further teaches:
the first agricultural harvester is configured to control a residue spread of the first agricultural harvester in a third harvesting area according to the modified operation parameter
(Leenknegt – [0134]) “the combine harvester(s) 10 may respond to the outputs of the sensor(s) in an automated mode, in which adjustments of the various parameters of residue spreading occur automatically in accordance with one or more control algorithms”
Claim 20.
The combination of Leenknegt et al., Herrmann et al., and Foster et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above. Leenknegt et al. further teaches:
receive a third signal from a third agricultural harvester, the third signal indicating a second residue spread performance, the second residue spread performance corresponding to a residue spread of the first agricultural harvester in a fourth harvesting area
(Leenknegt – [0128]) “it is necessary for the residue deposition information acquired by the first combine harvester 10a to be shared with the second combine harvester 10b. This can be achieved through the first and second combine harvesters 10a, 10b being capable of mutual (wireless) communication”
modify an operation parameter of the first agricultural harvester based on the second residue spread performance to obtain a second modified operation parameter
(Leenknegt – [0134]) “the combine harvester(s) 10 may respond to the outputs of the sensor(s) in an automated mode, in which adjustments of the various parameters of residue spreading occur automatically in accordance with one or more control algorithms”
control the residue spread of the first agricultural harvester in a fifth harvesting area according to the second modified operation parameter
(Leenknegt – [0134]) “the combine harvester(s) 10 may respond to the outputs of the sensor(s) in an automated mode, in which adjustments of the various parameters of residue spreading occur automatically in accordance with one or more control algorithms”
While Leenknegt et al. teaches monitoring a residue spread of a harvester by a further vehicle, Leenknegt et al. does not explicitly teach a harvester capable of monitoring the residue spread of another harvester; however, Herrmann et al. teaches:
receive a third signal from a third agricultural harvester, the third signal indicating a second residue spread performance, the second residue spread performance corresponding to a residue spread of the first agricultural harvester in a fourth harvesting area
(Herrmann – Abstract) “capturing, with at least one image capture device that is located on the harvester, images of a field view of an unharvested region to be harvested, analyzing the captured images to determine crop information for a crop of a harvested region that is adjacent to the unharvested region”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 21.
The combination of Leenknegt et al. and Herrmann et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Foster et al. further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the agricultural harvester to detect the residue spread performance
(Herrmann – Abstract) “capturing, with at least one image capture device that is located on the harvester, images of a field view of an unharvested region to be harvested, analyzing the captured images to determine crop information for a crop of a harvested region that is adjacent to the unharvested region”
Herrmann et al. does not explicitly teach a threshold distance; however, Foster et al. teaches:
a position located a threshold distance from the other agricultural harvester
(Foster – [0008]) “the slave vehicle is controlled to follow, or to remain at a relatively fixed distance from, the master vehicle, based on a continuing communication of positioning and location information”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 10, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Leenknegt et al., Herrmann et al., and Foster et al. as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of Wilken et al. (US 9807938, previously cited).
Claim 3.
The combination of Leenknegt et al., Herrmann et al., and Foster et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Neither reference explicitly teaches an environmental condition; however, Wilken et al. teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the agricultural harvester to modify the operation parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the residue spread performance and an environmental condition
(Wilken – Col. 2, lines 42-47) “The inventive self-propelled harvesting machine provides for environmental information to flow into a characteristic control, with which environmental information effective control of the working units is achieved via the on-going, working unit-specific adjustment of machine parameters, in order to further improve the start-up behavior.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the system of agricultural machines of Leenknegt et al. with the environmental sensors of Wilken et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to detect environmental information that might influence a harvesting process (Wilken – Col. 1, lines 22-25).
Claim 5.
The combination of Leenknegt et al., Herrmann et al., and Foster et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. None of the aforementioned references explicitly teaches an environmental parameter corresponding to the geo-location; however, Wilken et al. teaches:
cause the agricultural harvester to determine an environmental parameter corresponding to the first geo-location
(Wilken – Col. 9, lines 22-26) “This also preferably includes environmental information relating to the geometric conditions of the field comprising the field crop in the particular area of applicability such as ‘obstacle encountered,’ ‘ground topology,’ or the like.”
modify the operation parameter of the agricultural harvester further based on the environmental parameter
(Wilken – Col. 2, lines 42-47) “The inventive self-propelled harvesting machine provides for environmental information to flow into a characteristic control, with which environmental information effective control of the working units is achieved via the on-going, working unit-specific adjustment of machine parameters, in order to further improve the start-up behavior.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 3.
Claim 10.
The combination of Leenknegt et al., Herrmann et al., and Foster et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Foster et al. further teaches:
control the residue spread of the agricultural harvester according to the adjusted operation parameter
(Foster – [0027]) “Such controls C1 through Cn may, for example, include… distribution of crop residue”
(Foster – [0028]) “Control of output performance portion 28 and of the individual controls C1 through Cn thereof is effected by the establishment by processor portion 32 of various performance parameters”
Neither reference explicitly teaches an environmental condition; however, Wilken et al. teaches:
adjust the modified operation parameter based on an environmental condition or a machine parameter to obtain an adjusted operation parameter
(Wilken – Col. 2, lines 42-47) “The inventive self-propelled harvesting machine provides for environmental information to flow into a characteristic control, with which environmental information effective control of the working units is achieved via the on-going, working unit-specific adjustment of machine parameters, in order to further improve the start-up behavior.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 3.
Claim 16.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 10.
Claim 17.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 19.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim(s) 4, 9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Leenknegt et al., Herrmann et al., and Foster et al. as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of Sunil et al. (US 20210400870, previously cited).
Claim 4.
The combination of Leenknegt et al., Herrmann et al., and Foster et al.. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Neither Leenknegt et al. nor Herrmann et al. explicitly teach a geo-location of the residue spread; however, Sunil et al. teaches:
wherein the first signal indicates the residue spread performance and a first geo-location, the first geo-location corresponding to a geo-location of the residue spread of the agricultural harvester at a time at which the other agricultural harvester detects the first residue
(Sunil – [0028]) “The computer 124 may use the properties of the residue 208 (typically mass and location or velocity and location) in combination with ground speed and/or wind speed, to calculate the trajectory of the residue 208 and predict where the residue 208 will land. The computer 124 may also optionally adjust an operating parameter of the combine harvester 100 (e.g., a ground speed, an operating parameter of the header 102, an operating parameter of the crop processing apparatus 106, and/or an operating parameter of the spreading system 112).”
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the agricultural harvester to modify the operation parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the residue spread performance and the first geo-location
(Sunil – [0028]) “The computer 124 may use the properties of the residue 208 (typically mass and location or velocity and location) in combination with ground speed and/or wind speed, to calculate the trajectory of the residue 208 and predict where the residue 208 will land. The computer 124 may also optionally adjust an operating parameter of the combine harvester 100 (e.g., a ground speed, an operating parameter of the header 102, an operating parameter of the crop processing apparatus 106, and/or an operating parameter of the spreading system 112).”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the residue spread sensors of Leenknegt et al. such that it geo-locates a residue spread, as performed by the sensor of Sunil et al. Both Leenknegt et al. and Sunil et al. teach residue spread sensors which are capable of detecting a residue spread during deposition (i.e., while in air); therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the two references could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this because determining the residue spread prior to its landing on the field would allow for a quicker correction of any detected issues in the distribution of residue.
Claim 9.
The combination of Leenknegt et al., Herrmann et al., and Foster et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Herrmann et al. further teaches:
detect the residue spread performance including detecting the first residue
(Herrmann – Abstract) “capturing, with at least one image capture device that is located on the harvester, images of a field view of an unharvested region to be harvested, analyzing the captured images to determine crop information for a crop of a harvested region that is adjacent to the unharvested region”
Leenknegt et al. does not explicitly teach associating the performance with the location; however, Sunil et al. teaches:
determine a first geo-location of the other agricultural harvester at a time of detecting the first residue
(Sunil – [0028]) “The computer 124 may use the properties of the residue 208 (typically mass and location or velocity and location) in combination with ground speed and/or wind speed, to calculate the trajectory of the residue 208 and predict where the residue 208 will land. The computer 124 may also optionally adjust an operating parameter of the combine harvester 100 (e.g., a ground speed, an operating parameter of the header 102, an operating parameter of the crop processing apparatus 106, and/or an operating parameter of the spreading system 112).”
generate the first signal as indicating the residue spread performance at the first geo-location
(Sunil – [0028]) “The computer 124 may use the properties of the residue 208 (typically mass and location or velocity and location) in combination with ground speed and/or wind speed, to calculate the trajectory of the residue 208 and predict where the residue 208 will land. The computer 124 may also optionally adjust an operating parameter of the combine harvester 100 (e.g., a ground speed, an operating parameter of the header 102, an operating parameter of the crop processing apparatus 106, and/or an operating parameter of the spreading system 112).”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 4.
Claim 18.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights