Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/20/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 05/20/2026 contains reference “EP4218392A1” which shares same assignee of record and inventor (“Vandike, Nathan”). Effective filing date of present invention is 08/11/2022 and publication date of ‘392 is 08/02/2023, therefore, submitted IDS reference does not qualify as a prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the compaction-based operational constraint is identified at a location in the field based on the soil property map and wherein the commanded route of the mobile material receiving machine avoids an area of the field at which the compaction-based operational constraint is located”.
The claim language is indefinite because the specification consistently distinguishes between the compaction-based operational constraint itself and the area of the field to which that constraint applies. The specification describes that compaction constraints logic identifies “areas (or zones) of the field based on their compaction susceptibility level” and then assigns “operational constraints (or operational limits) to the different areas of the field” (paragraph 168, applicant’s specification). The constraint is thus an operational parameter or limit assigned to an area, not a thing that is itself “identified at a location” or that can be “located” somewhere in the field. A person of ordinary skilled in the art would not understand with reasonable certainty whether the claim requires identifying the constraint as an operational parameter or identifying a location as being subject to the constraint. Independent claim 17 recites similar element, however, clearly treats constraint as operational parameter or limit assigned to an area, “…control output that limits a travel speed of the mobile material receiving machine at the location in the field to which the operator-based operational constraint corresponds”
Examiner recommends amending claim 4 such that it reads, “wherein a location in the field at which the compaction-based operational constraint applies is identified applies
Although claim 8 recites different subject matter, the formatting of the claim is recited similar to claim 4 (“…identify the compaction-based operational constraint at a location in the field…at which the compaction-based operational constraint is located…”). Please correct claim 8 similar fashion to claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 11-17, 19, and 21-25 are allowed over prior art.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The primary reason for the allowance of the Claim 1 is the inclusion of the limitation, "obtain a soil property map that maps values of a soil property to different locations in a field; identify a compaction-based operational constraint based on the soil property map; and control an operation of a mobile machine operating in an agricultural harvesting operation based on the compaction-based operational constraint" in conjunction with all disclosed steps of functions or all disclosed structures performing corresponding functions in claim 1.
The prior art of record teaches soil-property-map-based-machine control only in the context of tillage and chemical application machines, where the constraint derived is an input rate, not a compaction-based operational constraint. The prior art teaches harvesting machine control using positional maps, not soil property or compaction maps. No reference, along, or in combination without hindsight, teaches deriving a compaction-based operational constraint from a soil property map and applying it specifically to control a mobile machine during an agricultural harvesting operation.
The primary reason for the allowance of the Claim 11 is the inclusion of the limitation, " identifying an operational constraint, wherein identifying the operational constraint comprises one of: identifying a compaction-based operational constraint; identifying a field-based operational constraint, wherein the field-based operational constraint is identified based, at least on a topographic map, of the one or more maps of the field, that maps values of topographic characteristics to different geographic locations in the field: or identifying an operator-based operational constraint, wherein the operator-based operational constraint is identified based on at least one of: operator fatigue, operator skill, or operator experience; and controlling a location of a material transfer operation, that transfers harvested agricultural material from a first mobile machine to a second mobile machine, based on the operational constraint." in conjunction with all disclosed steps of functions or all disclosed structures performing corresponding functions in claim 11.
The primary reason for the allowance of the Claim 17 is the inclusion of the limitation, " obtain a topographic map that maps values of topographic characteristics to different locations in a field; identify an operator-based operational constraint at a location in the field based on the topographic map, wherein the operator-based operational constraint is identified based on at least one of: operator fatigue, operator skill, or operator experience, and control operation of a mobile machine operation in a harvesting operation comprising one or more of the following: a commanded route control output that controls a travel path of a mobile material receiving machine to avoid the location in the field to which the operator-based operational constraint corresponds; a fill strategy control output that controls a material transfer subsystem, of an agricultural harvester to limit an amount of material transferred to the mobile material receiving machine; or a commanded travel speed control output that limits a travel speed of the mobile material receiving machine at the location in the field to which the operator-based operational constraint corresponds" in conjunction with all disclosed steps of functions or all disclosed structures performing corresponding functions in claim 17.
The primary reason for the allowance of the Claim 19 is the inclusion of the limitation, "wherein the one or more maps include one or more of: a topographic map that maps values of topographic characteristics to different locations in the field; a field feature map that maps field feature values to different locations in the field; or an optical map that maps optical characteristic values to different locations in the field; identify a first operational constraint comprising at least one of: a compaction-based operational constraint; or an operator-based operational constraint, wherein the operator-based operational constraint is identified based on at least one of: operator fatigue, operator skill, or operator experience; identify, as a second operational constraint, a field-based operational constraint at a location in the field based on the one or more of the topographic map, the field feature map, or the optical map; and control operation of a mobile machine operating in a harvesting operation comprising one or more of the following: a commanded route control output that controls a travel path of a mobile material receiving machine to avoid the location in the field to which the field-based operational constraint corresponds; a fill strategy control output that controls a material transfer subsystem, of an agricultural harvester to limit an amount of material transferred to the mobile material receiving machine; or a commanded travel speed control output that limits a travel speed of the mobile material receiving machine at the location in the field to which the field-based operational constraint corresponds." in conjunction with all disclosed steps of functions or all disclosed structures performing corresponding functions in claim 19.
Each of prior arts of record teaches portions of the scope of the claim above, however, it would have not been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine all prior arts to teach the claim limitations before the effective filing date of instant application unless knowledge from the applicant's disclosure is obtained.
Examiner notes the above limitation is novel over the prior art in view of the entirety of the claim, not just the limitation presented alone. Examiner is pointing out the subject matter of the above-described claims of which is considered novel over the prior art for the benefit of the Applicant and cannot be considered novel alone, but in context of the entirety of the claim language.
Consequently, the prior arts of record individually and as a whole do not teach the claim limitation above.
Claims 3-4, 8, 12-16, 21-25 depending on claims 1 and 11 respectively, therefore, are considered allowable on the basis as the independent claim as well as for the further limitations set forth.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights