DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claim 21 has been added.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §102, 103: Claims 1, 14, and 19 have been amended to change the scope of the claimed invention. Specifically, amended claim 1 recites “the residue spread variance corresponding to a continuous curve including a plurality of different distances between an edge of the first residue and a cut edge of the first harvesting area, the plurality of different distances including a distance”, which changes the scope of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection: Applicant requested that, because the present claims and the claims of the co-pending application are currently being prosecuted (and, thus, subject to change so as to render this rejection moot), the rejection be held in abeyance. However, examiner maintains that the relevant pending and co-pending claims have not changed to a degree that would overcome the double patenting rejection.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §102, 103: Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pg. 11 of response filed 04/27/2026 that “the Office Action has failed to establish that Leenknegt’s residue deposit boundary lines (alleged by the Office Action to respond to the claimed “continuous curve”) include “a plurality of different distances between an edge of the first residue and a cut edge” [emphasis added], as is the case with the claimed “continuous curve.”” However, examiner maintains that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the section G shown in Leenknegt FIG. 7 contains multiple distances, examples of which are depicted in annotated FIG. 7 below, across it’s width. The claim language does not require that the distances comprise multiple distances with varying lengths, as is show in FIG. 3 of the instant application.
Applicant further argues on pgs. 11-12 that “the Office Action has failed to establish that the lateral adjustment of Leenknegt’s deposit boundary lines would result in a deposit boundary line including “a plurality of different distances between an edge of the first residue and a cut edge” rather than resulting in a new deposit boundary line at a different lateral position.” Examiner maintains that, similar to the reasoning in the paragraph above, different distances of the same value can be identified across section G of FIG. 7 of Leenknegt.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/158,722 in view of Leenknegt et al. (US 20230225246 A1). Claim 1 of the copending application teaches the limitations of claim 8 (dependent on independent claim 1) of the instant application except for:
“a spreader”
“a residue spread variance of a first residue spread in a first harvesting area, the residue spread variance corresponding to a continuous curve including a plurality of different distances between an edge fo the first residue and a cut edge of the first harvesting area, the plurality of different distances including a distance between the edge of the first residue and a first position of the cut edge”
“and the residue spread variance being obtained before the spreader reaches a second position in a second harvesting area”
“the second harvesting area being adjacent to the first harvesting area”
“and the first position being aligned with the second position”
“the control of the agricultural harvester according to the adjusted operation parameter causing the spreader to spread a second residue at the second position to compensate for the residue spread variance.”
Leenknegt et al. (US 20230225246 A1) teaches:
a spreader (see at least Leenknegt FIG. 5: impellers 29 and 31)
a residue spread variance (see at least Leenknegt FIG. 7: width of ground surface G in Pass A; [0124]: “strips G of uncovered ground the boundaries of which vary”)
the residue spread variance corresponding to a continuous curve including a plurality of different distances (see at least FIG. 7: a straight line is a continuous curve; section G includes multiple different distances (see annotated FIG. 7)) between an edge (see at least FIG. 7: boarder between G and R in pass A) of the first residue and a cut edge (see at least FIG. 7: boarder between passes A and B1) of the first harvesting area, the plurality of different distances including a distance between the edge of the first residue and a first position (see at least annotated FIG. 7: first position) of the cut edge
adjacent harvesting areas (see at least Leenknegt FIG. 7: passes A and B1)
1st and 2nd positions being aligned (see at least Leenknegt annotated FIG. 7 (included in 103 section below): first and second positions) *Examiner’s interpretation: first and second positions are the same positions. Spreading second residue at the second position to compensate for the residue spread variance, which is measured at the first position, would not be guaranteed to successfully compensate if the positions were different, because the residue spread variance can vary at different positions along a cut swath.*
Compensating for residue spread variance in adjacent field (FIG. 7, [0126]: “a first combine harvester 10a has completed an initial pass (Pass A) in which the described incomplete coverage has occurred, and is in the process of compensating for this during a second pass (Pass B1) along the field with the settings of the combine harvester 10a ensuring that the coverage of residue is complete in the area harvested during Pass A.”; [0134]: “under-coverage of deposited field residue R leaving strips G of uncovered ground”)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the harvester recited in claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/158,722 with the teachings of Leenknegt, including a spreader and compensation for spread variances in adjacent fields, in order to “provide for a dependable way of ensuring desired residue deposition results”, as recognized by Leenknegt in paragraph [0142].
Claim 18 is also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/158,722 in view of Leenknegt et al. (US 20230225246 A1) according to similar logic.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leenknegt et al. (US 20230225246 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Leenknegt teaches An agricultural harvester (see at least FIG. 5: combine harvester 10), comprising:
a spreader (see at least FIG. 5: impellers 29 and 31; [0079]: “a spreader that typically would adopt the dual-impeller design”); and
processing circuitry (see at least FIG. 3: processor 22) configured to cause the agricultural harvester to,
obtain (see at least [0136]: “the output signals of the one or more sensors that detect the deposition of residue on the ground”) a residue spread variance (see at least FIG. 7: width of ground surface G in Pass A; [0124]: “strips G of uncovered ground the boundaries of which vary”) of a first residue spread (see at least FIG. 7, [0126]: “incomplete coverage”) in a first harvesting area (see at least FIG. 7: pass A), the residue spread variance corresponding to a continuous curve including a plurality of different distances (see at least FIG. 7: a straight line is a continuous curve; section G includes multiple different distances (see annotated FIG. 7)) between an edge (see at least FIG. 7: boarder between G and R in pass A) of the first residue and a cut edge (see at least FIG. 7: boarder between passes A and B1) of the first harvesting area, the plurality of different distances including a distance between the edge of the first residue and a first position (see at least annotated FIG. 7: first position) of the cut edge, and the residue spread variance being obtained before (see at least [0129]: “storing information derived from the outputs of the one or more sensors. … This can be for example through the use of on-board memory”; [0097]: “The vehicle-mounted camera/sensor 18 … is in a preferred location at the rear of the combine harvester 10 such that its “line of sight” … takes in the field residue that is in the process of being deposited behind the moving combine harvester 10.”; [0133]: “residue deposition boundary target lines 24a, 24b. These … may move laterally in response to the detected residue coverage R.”; [0133]-[0134]: “The operator of the combine harvester 10a may respond to the movement of the boundary lines 24a, 24b by adjusting one or more settings in order to ensure coverage of residue in the incompletely covered strip G that results from the influence of the wind and/or slope as described. … alternatively … 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.”; [0130]: “The presence of such memory facilities allows … the building-up of a map of residue deposition in a chosen field. … provide information some time after harvesting has been completed on the amount and distribution of spread residue in the field.”) the spreader reaches a second position (see at least annotated FIG. 7: second position) in a second harvesting area (see at least FIG. 7: path B1), the second harvesting area being adjacent to the first harvesting area, and the first position being aligned with (see at least annotated FIG. 7: first and second positions) *Examiner’s interpretation: first and second positions are the same positions. Spreading second residue at the second position to compensate for the residue spread variance, which is measured at the first position, would not be guaranteed to successfully compensate if the positions were different, because the residue spread variance can vary at different positions along a cut swath.* the second position,
PNG
media_image1.png
617
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
adjust an operation parameter (see at least [0037]: “a range of additional parameters, such as … a target residue swath width and/or the regions spread with residue, may be automatically adjusted”; [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.”) of the agricultural harvester based on the residue spread variance to obtain an adjusted (see at least [0116]: “The residue distribution optimisation shown in FIG. 5 is a form of lateral offsetting strategy. In this the distribution of residue R is, … laterally offset to one side”) operation parameter, and
control the agricultural harvester in the second harvesting area according to the adjusted operation parameter (see at least FIG. 7, [0126]: “a first combine harvester 10a has completed an initial pass (Pass A) in which the described incomplete coverage has occurred, and is in the process of compensating for this during a second pass (Pass B1) along the field with the settings of the combine harvester 10a ensuring that the coverage of residue is complete in the area harvested during Pass A.”; [0134]: “under-coverage of deposited field residue R leaving strips G of uncovered ground”), the control of the agricultural harvester according to the adjusted operation parameter causing the spreader to spread a second residue at the second position to compensate for the residue spread variance.
Regarding claim 2, Leenknegt teaches The agricultural harvester of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the agricultural harvester to control the agricultural harvester according to the adjusted operation parameter such that the second residue is spread into (see at least FIG. 7, [0126]: “a first combine harvester 10a has completed an initial pass (Pass A) in which the described incomplete coverage has occurred, and is in the process of compensating for this during a second pass (Pass B1) along the field with the settings of the combine harvester 10a ensuring that the coverage of residue is complete in the area harvested during Pass A.”; [0134]: “under-coverage of deposited field residue R leaving strips G of uncovered ground”) the first harvesting area between the edge of the first residue and the cut edge.
Regarding claim 4, Leenknegt teaches The agricultural harvester of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the agricultural harvester to obtain the residue spread variance from a map (see at least [0130]: “The presence of such memory facilities allows among other things the building-up of a map of residue deposition in a chosen field. This may be useful in a number of ways, one of which is to provide information some time after harvesting has been completed on the amount and distribution of spread residue in the field.”).
Regarding claim 5, Leenknegt teaches The agricultural harvester of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the agricultural harvester to generate the map (see at least [0130]: “The presence of such memory facilities allows among other things the building-up of a map of residue deposition in a chosen field. This may be useful in a number of ways, one of which is to provide information some time after harvesting has been completed on the amount and distribution of spread residue in the field.”) based on at least one residue spread variance value sensed using one or more sensors on the agricultural harvester.
Regarding claim 6, Leenknegt teaches The agricultural harvester of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the agricultural harvester to receive (see at least [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.”) the map from another agricultural harvester or another machine.
Regarding claim 7, Leenknegt teaches The agricultural harvester of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the agricultural harvester to obtain the map before (see at least [0128]: “In order for a second combine harvester 10b to proceed …, it is necessary for the residue deposition information … to be shared with the second combine harvester 10b”) spreading the second residue (see at least [0127]: “a further strip of incomplete coverage G to the right of the residue coverage caused by Pass B1. This in turn may be compensated for through use of a second combine harvester 10b”).
Regarding claim 8, Leenknegt teaches The agricultural harvester of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the agricultural harvester to obtain the residue spread variance from a first signal (see at least [0128]: “In order for a second combine harvester 10b to proceed as explained 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”) received from another agricultural harvester or another machine.
Regarding claim 9, Leenknegt teaches The agricultural harvester of claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the agricultural harvester to receive (see at least [0128]: “the residue deposition information acquired by the first combine harvester 10a to be shared with the second combine harvester 10b.”) the first signal while spreading (see at least FIG. 7, [0127]: “a second combine harvester 10b completing a third pass (Pass B2) in the same direction as and slightly behind combine harvester 10a when completing Pass B1.”) the second residue.
Regarding claim 10, Leenknegt teaches The agricultural harvester of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the agricultural harvester to adjust the operation parameter based on the residue spread variance and an environmental condition (see at least [0124] – [0125]: “FIG. 7 shows another way in which sub-optimal deposition of field residue may arise. In FIG. 7 undesired lateral offsetting of the deposition of residue may occur because of a weather phenomenon such as a cross-wind and/or a geographical feature such as a field slope. Such influences are represented schematically in FIG. 7 by wind sock 27. They can result in uncontrolled under-coverage of deposited field residue R leaving strips G of uncovered ground the boundaries of which vary as illustrated along the respective passes of the combine harvester 10 along the field. The optimisation mode to be adopted in accordance with the disclosure hereof in such a situation may include augmenting the output of an interface device in a manner encouraging the deposition of field residue during subsequent passes that compensates for incomplete coverage in previous passes.”).
Regarding claim 19, Leenknegt teaches A method performed by an agricultural harvester (see at least FIG. 5: combine harvester 10), the method comprising:
obtaining (see at least [0136]: “the output signals of the one or more sensors that detect the deposition of residue on the ground”) a residue spread variance (see at least FIG. 7: width of ground surface G in Pass A; [0124]: “strips G of uncovered ground the boundaries of which vary”) of a first residue spread (see at least FIG. 7, [0126]: “incomplete coverage”) in a first harvesting area (see at least FIG. 7: pass A), the residue spread variance corresponding to a continuous curve including a plurality of different distances (see at least FIG. 7: a straight line is a continuous curve; section G includes multiple different distances (see annotated FIG. 7)) between an edge (see at least FIG. 7: boarder between G and R in pass A) of the first residue and a cut edge (see at least FIG. 7: boarder between passes A and B1) of the first harvesting area, the plurality of different distances including a distance between the edge of the first residue and a first position (see at least annotated FIG. 7: first position) of the cut edge, and the residue spread variance being obtained before (see at least [0129]: “storing information derived from the outputs of the one or more sensors. . This can be for example through the use of on-board memory”; [0130]: “The presence of such memory facilities allows … the building-up of a map of residue deposition in a chosen field. … provide information some time after harvesting has been completed on the amount and distribution of spread residue in the field.”) a spreader of the agricultural harvester reaches a second position (see at least annotated FIG. 7: second position) in a second harvesting area (see at least FIG. 7: path B1), the second harvesting area being adjacent to the first harvesting area, and the first position being aligned with (see at least annotated FIG. 7: first and second positions) *Examiner’s interpretation: first and second positions are the same positions. Spreading second residue at the second position to compensate for the residue spread variance, which is measured at the first position, would not be guaranteed to successfully compensate if the positions were different, because the residue spread variance can vary at different positions along a cut swath.* the second position;
adjusting an operation parameter (see at least [0037]: “a range of additional parameters, such as … a target residue swath width and/or the regions spread with residue, may be automatically adjusted”; [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.”) of the agricultural harvester based on the residue spread variance to obtain an adjusted (see at least [0116]: “The residue distribution optimisation shown in FIG. 5 is a form of lateral offsetting strategy. In this the distribution of residue R is, … laterally offset to one side”) operation parameter; and
controlling the agricultural harvester in the second harvesting area according to the adjusted operation parameter (see at least FIG. 7, [0126]: “a first combine harvester 10a has completed an initial pass (Pass A) in which the described incomplete coverage has occurred, and is in the process of compensating for this during a second pass (Pass B1) along the field with the settings of the combine harvester 10a ensuring that the coverage of residue is complete in the area harvested during Pass A.”; [0134]: “under-coverage of deposited field residue R leaving strips G of uncovered ground”), the controlling causing the spreader to spread a second residue at the second position to compensate for the residue spread variance.
Regarding claim 20, Leenknegt teaches The method of claim 19, wherein the controlling causes the spreader to spread the second residue into (see at least FIG. 7, [0126]: “a first combine harvester 10a has completed an initial pass (Pass A) in which the described incomplete coverage has occurred, and is in the process of compensating for this during a second pass (Pass B1) along the field with the settings of the combine harvester 10a ensuring that the coverage of residue is complete in the area harvested during Pass A.”; [0134]: “under-coverage of deposited field residue R leaving strips G of uncovered ground”) the first harvesting area between the edge of the first residue and the cut edge.
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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leenknegt et al. (US 20230225246 A1) in view of Ferrari et al. (US 20210034867 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Leenknegt teach The agricultural harvester of claim 1, wherein circuitry is configured to cause the agricultural harvester to obtain (see at least [0136]: “the output signals of the one or more sensors that detect the deposition of residue on the ground”) the residue spread variance by sensing the residue spread variance using one or more sensors (see at least [0053]: “sensors supported by the mobile harvesting machine”) on the agricultural harvester.
However, Leenknegt does not explicitly teach the one or more sensors including a sensor having a sensing area directed toward a front of the agricultural harvester.
Ferrari teach the one or more sensors including a sensor having a sensing area directed toward a front (see at least FIG. 1, [0052]: “the work vehicle 110 and/or the implement 112 may include one or more of the residue sensors 224 of the system 200 coupled thereto and/or supported thereon for capturing data associated residue coverage of the field in front of the implement 112 in the direction of travel 134.”; “a field of view 225 directed towards a portion(s) of the field disposed in front of … the work vehicle 110”) of the agricultural harvester.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leenknegt to incorporate the teachings of Ferrari to include forward facing sensors. Doing so would help “to more accurately determine residue coverage after a harvesting operation”, as recognized by Ferrari in paragraph [0001].
Regarding claim 14, Leenknegt teach at least one processor (see at least FIG. 3: processor 22) of an agricultural harvester (see at least FIG. 5: combine harvester 10);
the method comprising:
obtaining (see at least [0136]: “the output signals of the one or more sensors that detect the deposition of residue on the ground”) a residue spread variance (see at least FIG. 7: width of ground surface G in Pass A; [0124]: “strips G of uncovered ground the boundaries of which vary”) of a first residue spread (see at least FIG. 7, [0126]: “incomplete coverage”) in a first harvesting area (see at least FIG. 7: pass A), the residue spread variance corresponding to a continuous curve including a plurality of different distances (see at least FIG. 7: a straight line is a continuous curve; section G includes multiple different distances (see annotated FIG. 7)) between an edge (see at least FIG. 7: boarder between G and R in pass A) of the first residue and a cut edge (see at least FIG. 7: boarder between passes A and B1) of the first harvesting area, the plurality of different distances including a distance between the edge of the first residue and a first position (see at least annotated FIG. 7: first position) of the cut edge, and the residue spread variance being obtained before (see at least [0129]: “storing information derived from the outputs of the one or more sensors. . This can be for example through the use of on-board memory”; [0130]: “The presence of such memory facilities allows … the building-up of a map of residue deposition in a chosen field. … provide information some time after harvesting has been completed on the amount and distribution of spread residue in the field.”) a spreader of the agricultural harvester reaches a second position (see at least annotated FIG. 7: second position) in a second harvesting area (see at least FIG. 7: path B1), the second harvesting area being adjacent to the first harvesting area, and the first position being aligned with (see at least annotated FIG. 7: first and second positions) *Examiner’s interpretation: first and second positions are the same positions. Spreading second residue at the second position to compensate for the residue spread variance, which is measured at the first position, would not be guaranteed to successfully compensate if the positions were different, because the residue spread variance can vary at different positions along a cut swath.* the second position;
adjusting an operation parameter (see at least [0037]: “a range of additional parameters, such as … a target residue swath width and/or the regions spread with residue, may be automatically adjusted”; [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.”) of the agricultural harvester based on the residue spread variance to obtain an adjusted (see at least [0116]: “The residue distribution optimisation shown in FIG. 5 is a form of lateral offsetting strategy. In this the distribution of residue R is, … laterally offset to one side”) operation parameter; and
controlling the agricultural harvester in the second harvesting area according to the adjusted operation parameter (see at least FIG. 7, [0126]: “a first combine harvester 10a has completed an initial pass (Pass A) in which the described incomplete coverage has occurred, and is in the process of compensating for this during a second pass (Pass B1) along the field with the settings of the combine harvester 10a ensuring that the coverage of residue is complete in the area harvested during Pass A.”; [0134]: “under-coverage of deposited field residue R leaving strips G of uncovered ground”), the controlling causing the spreader to spread a second residue at the second position to compensate for the residue spread variance.
However, Leenknegt does not explicitly teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method.
Ferrari teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium (see at least FIG. 1: memory 206; [0025]: “the memory 206 may generally comprise … computer readable medium (e.g., random access memory (RAM)”) storing instructions (see at least [0025]: “Such memory 206 may generally be configured to store … instructions 210 that can be executed by the processor(s) 204.”) that, when executed by at least one processor of an agricultural harvester, cause the at least one processor to perform a method.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leenknegt to incorporate the teachings of Ferrari to include RAM storing instructions executed by a processor. Doing so would help “to more accurately determine residue coverage after a harvesting operation”, as recognized by Ferrari in paragraph [0001].
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Leenknegt and Ferrari teach The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14.
Leenknegt further teach wherein the controlling causes the spreader to spread the second residue into (see at least FIG. 7, [0126]: “a first combine harvester 10a has completed an initial pass (Pass A) in which the described incomplete coverage has occurred, and is in the process of compensating for this during a second pass (Pass B1) along the field with the settings of the combine harvester 10a ensuring that the coverage of residue is complete in the area harvested during Pass A.”; [0134]: “under-coverage of deposited field residue R leaving strips G of uncovered ground”) the first harvesting area between the edge of the first residue and the cut edge.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Leenknegt and Ferrari teach The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14.
Leenknegt further teach wherein the obtaining (see at least [0136]: “the output signals of the one or more sensors that detect the deposition of residue on the ground”) the residue spread variance comprises sensing the residue spread variance using one or more sensors (see at least [0053]: “sensors supported by the mobile harvesting machine”) on the agricultural harvester.
Ferrari further teach the one or more sensors including a sensor having a sensing area directed toward a front (see at least FIG. 1, [0052]: “the work vehicle 110 and/or the implement 112 may include one or more of the residue sensors 224 of the system 200 coupled thereto and/or supported thereon for capturing data associated residue coverage of the field in front of the implement 112 in the direction of travel 134.”; “a field of view 225 directed towards a portion(s) of the field disposed in front of … the work vehicle 110”) of the agricultural harvester.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leenknegt to incorporate the teachings of Ferrari to include forward facing sensors. Doing so would help “to more accurately determine residue coverage after a harvesting operation”, as recognized by Ferrari in paragraph [0001].
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Leenknegt and Ferrari teach The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14.
Leenknegt further teach wherein the obtaining the residue spread variance comprises obtaining the residue spread variance from a map (see at least [0130]: “The presence of such memory facilities allows among other things the building-up of a map of residue deposition in a chosen field. This may be useful in a number of ways, one of which is to provide information some time after harvesting has been completed on the amount and distribution of spread residue in the field.”) before ([0128]: “In order for a second combine harvester 10b to proceed …, it is necessary for the residue deposition information … to be shared with the second combine harvester 10b”) the spreader spreads the second residue (see at least [0127]: “a further strip of incomplete coverage G to the right of the residue coverage caused by Pass B1. This in turn may be compensated for through use of a second combine harvester 10b”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Leenknegt and Ferrari teach The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14.
Leenknegt further teach wherein the obtaining the residue spread variance comprises obtaining the residue spread variance from a first signal (see at least [0128]: “In order for a second combine harvester 10b to proceed as explained 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”) received from another agricultural harvester or another machine.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leenknegt et al. (US 20230225246 A1) in view of Wilken et al. (US 9807938 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Leenknegt teach The agricultural harvester of claim 10.
However, Leenknegt does not explicitly teach wherein the environmental condition corresponds to an environment at the agricultural harvester in the second harvesting area.
Wilken teach wherein the environmental condition corresponds to an environment at the agricultural harvester in the second harvesting area (see at least column 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.”; FIG. 2: environmental sensor system 14; FIG. 2, column 6 lines 15-18: “The area of applicability of a piece or portion of environmental information can be located, for example, in a forward area 15 … of the harvesting machine”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leenknegt to incorporate the teachings of Wilken to determine environmental conditions at the harvester. Doing so would make it “possible, therefore, to orient the set wheel tracks with respect to crop edges or to avoid obstacles, on the basis of the environmental information.”, as recognized by Wilken in column 10 lines 56-58.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leenknegt et al. (US 20230225246 A1) in view of Craig (US 20220232768 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Leenknegt teach The agricultural harvester of claim 1.
However, Leenknegt does not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the agricultural harvester to adjust the operation parameter based on the residue spread variance based on a table, the table including a plurality of operation parameter adjustments stored in association with corresponding residue spread variance values.
Craig teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the agricultural harvester to adjust the operation parameter based on the residue spread variance based on a table (see at least [0059]: “the debris director 1440 is moved between the extended and retracted positions proportionally to the sensed parameter in a predetermined fashion that may be coded into the control system 1000, such as in a lookup table or by way of a formula. In such implementations, the debris director 1440 may move to adjust the residue discharge angle closer to 90 degrees in response to one or more of 1) an increasing upwind component/vector of the wind direction, 2) an increasing wind speed”), the table including a plurality of operation parameter adjustments stored in association with corresponding residue spread variance values.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leenknegt to incorporate the teachings of Craig to determine residue spread control parameters using a table. Doing so would compensate for environmental conditions when controlling residue area size, as recognized by Craig in paragraph [0032, and “it is beneficial to spread the residue over a large area in order to increase ease of reincorporating the residue into the field”, as recognized by Craig in paragraph [0029].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leenknegt et al. (US 20230225246 A1) in view of Craig (US 20220232768 A1) and Ferrari et al. (US 20190392269 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Leenknegt and Craig teach The agricultural harvester of claim 12.
However, the combination of Leenknegt and Craig does not explicitly teach wherein the table is generated based on a machine learning model trained using a plurality of reference residue spread variance values and a plurality of reference operation parameter adjustments, each of the plurality of operation parameter adjustments being an adjustment to the operation parameter sufficient to change a residue spread by a distance corresponding to an associated reference residue spread variance value among the plurality of reference residue spread variance values.
Ferrari teach wherein the table is generated based on a machine learning model (see at least [0021]: “Through the use of a machine-learned convolutional neural network, the systems and methods of the present disclosure can produce crop residue estimates that exhibit greater accuracy. These more accurate estimates of crop residue can enable improved and/or more precise control of the work vehicle and/or implement to obtain a desired crop residue condition within a field and, as a result, lead to superior agricultural outcomes.”) trained using a plurality of reference residue spread variance values and a plurality of reference operation parameter adjustments, each of the plurality of operation parameter adjustments being an adjustment to the operation parameter sufficient to change a residue spread (see at least [0092]: “when the level of crop residue determined at (208) differs from a target level, the controller 102 may be configured to actively adjust the operation of the work vehicle 10 and/or the implement 12 in a manner that increases … the level of crop residue remaining within the field following the operation being performed (e.g., a tillage operation), such as … by adjusting one or more operating parameters associated with the ground-engaging elements of the implement 12, including … angle or position relative to the ground (e.g., height)”) by a distance corresponding to an associated reference residue spread variance value among the plurality of reference residue spread variance values.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leenknegt to incorporate the teachings of Ferrari to use machine learning to determine residue spread information for control operations. Doing so would “produce crop residue estimates that exhibit greater accuracy. These more accurate estimates of crop residue can enable improved and/or more precise control of the work vehicle and/or implement to obtain a desired crop residue condition within a field and, as a result, lead to superior agricultural outcomes”, as recognized by Ferrari in paragraph [0021].
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leenknegt et al. (US 20230225246 A1) in view of Vandike et al. (US 20210084820 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Leenknegt teach The agricultural harvester of claim 1.
However, Leenknegt does not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the agricultural harvester to obtain the residue spread variance based on the first position being at least a threshold distance away from at least one of the agricultural harvester or the spreader.
Vandike teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the agricultural harvester to obtain the residue spread variance ([0033]: “The width of the second harvested area 122b is defined as the distance between the edges … 130 of the prior pass of the harvester 10. If the residue does not extend entirely across the width of the second harvested area 122b, or is an incomplete spread, the system determines where the residue is not present (e.g., where an open area is detected). For example, the residue may be distributed over an incomplete distance between one … 130 of the second harvested area 122b, with a band (or bands) of open area positioned between the residue and one (or both) of the edges … 130.”) based on the first position being at least a threshold distance away (FIG. 2: distance from rightmost edge of field of view F2 and spreading assembly 54; [0031]: “the acquired image (or images) captured by the at least one camera … 78 … is analyzed to assess the distribution of residue in the second harvested area 122b.”; [0020]: “The second camera 78 has a second field of view F2.”) from at least one of the agricultural harvester or the spreader
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leenknegt to incorporate the teachings of Vandike to measure crop spread variance a distance ahead of spreader device. Doing so would “improve residue distribution”, as recognized by Vandike in paragraph [0001].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior art previously presented:
Mahieu et al. (US 20210127573 A1) teaches a system that allows an operator to adjust the crop residue distribution over a ground area (see paragraph [0087]).
Schlesser et al. (US 20120245802 A1) teaches a crop residue spreading system that “save[s] data regarding its control of the spreading and collecting of crop residue to generate residue map data” (see paragraph [0066]).
Herrmann et al. (US 20230000015 A1) teaches a system that adjusts harvester control parameters based on images of crop residue present on adjacent harvested field region (see paragraphs [0015] and [0028]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE ALCORN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30 am – 6:30 pm est.
Examiner Interview 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/GEORGE A ALCORN III/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights