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.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting Rejections: Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 11/14/2025, with respect to claims 8 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 8 and 18 are held in abeyance.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103: Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Leenknegt may describe building a map of residue deposition. However, Leenknegt explicitly describes this map as being built after the harvesting is completed, and does not describe the map as being used by the harvester to compensate for the incomplete coverage in the initial pass.” Examiner maintains that the reference to the maps in Leenknegt in the previous office action was to provide evidence of the “outputs from the one or more sensors” (see Leenknegt [00129]) being stored for later use. The “outputs from the one or more sensors” are used by the harvester to compensate for the incomplete coverage in the initial pass. The use of “stor[ed] information from the outputs of the sensors” for determining residue spread variance is further detailed in paragraph [0097] of Leenknegt, which states “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.” This indicates that the residue coverage is detected as it is being deposited. Paragraph [0133] of Leenknegt further states, “residue deposition boundary target lines 24a, 24b. These … may move laterally in response to the detected residue coverage R.” The target lines for the follow-up path residue distribution are based on the detected residue coverage, which was detected during the first pass as stated in paragraph [0133]. Paragraphs [0133] and [0134] state, “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.” The adjustments to the residue spread follow the lines 24a and b based on the detected previous spread deposits. The introduction of additional elements from Leenknegt are meant to clarify how the cited element (Leenknegt [0129]: “storing information derived from the outputs of the one or more sensors”) teaches the limitation from claim 1 (“the residue spread variance being obtained before the spreader reaches a second position”) and is not intended to introduce new grounds of 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 19-21 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 distance between an edge (see at least FIG. 7: boarder between G and R in pass A) of the first residue and a first position (see at least annotated FIG. 7: first position) of a cut edge (see at least FIG. 7: boarder between passes A and B1) of the first harvesting area, 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
524
690
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 distance between an edge (see at least FIG. 7: boarder between G and R in pass A) of the first residue and a first position (see at least annotated FIG. 7: first position) of a cut edge (see at least FIG. 7: boarder between passes A and B1) of the first harvesting area, 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.
Regarding claim 21, Leenknegt teaches The agricultural harvester of claim 1,
wherein the residue spread variance corresponds to a continuous curve (see at least FIG. 3, [0133]: “residue deposition boundary target lines 24a, 24b. These … may move laterally in response to the detected residue coverage R.”) including a plurality of distances, the plurality of distances including the distance.
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 distance between an edge (see at least FIG. 7: boarder between G and R in pass A) of the first residue and a first position (see at least annotated FIG. 7: first position) of a cut edge (see at least FIG. 7: boarder between passes A and B1) of the first harvesting area, 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].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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