DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 16-19 and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lapp et al. DE 102018206762 A1 (hereinafter Lapp; a translated document is provided which the examiner relies upon) in view of Brubaker US 20180338422 A1 (hereinafter Brubaker) and Diekhans US 6073428 A (hereinafter Diekhans).
Regarding claims 16-17 and 28-31, Lapp teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (translated page 2 paragraph 11 teaches a computer-readable storage medium) on which is stored a computer program (translated page 2 paragraph 11 teaches a computer program on the storage medium) for operating a control device (translated page 3 paragraph 4 details operating a control device) of an agricultural utility vehicle (Abstract details use of the method in a utility vehicle; translated page 3 paragraph 4 discloses an agricultural machine such as a combine) for carrying out a work process (Abstract details use of the method for work), the utility vehicle including a number of sub-systems, each of the sub-systems configured to execute a respective sub-process of a plurality of sub-processes of the work process (translated page 3 paragraph 4 discloses multiple features such as an engine and a camera for plant detection for example; it is inherent that these aspects or “systems” of the invention complete separate or sub processes of a work flow such as moving a vehicle or detecting a plant), wherein a control program for controlling the utility vehicle and the work process is divided into a number of sub-programs, wherein each sub-program of the sub-programs is configured to control a respective sub-system of the sub-systems of the utility vehicle and to control the respective sub-process of the work process executed by the respective sub-system (translated page 3 paragraph 4 discloses that the previously detailed features are controlled by sub-functions of the control device; these inherently complete sub-processes as stated previously), the method comprising: executing a number of virtual machines (Figure 9 teaches multiple virtual machines), each individual virtual machine of the virtual machines respectively executing one of the sub-programs (translated page 19 paragraphs 2-3 detail using a hypervisor to manage software to prevent affecting other functionality of the control device wherein each virtual machine managed by the hypervisor has independent software installed) in order to control the utility vehicle to carry out a physical action that is associated with at least a corresponding one of the sub processes of the work process (translated Abstract discloses implementing software to perform a physical function of a control vehicle; translated page 3 paragraph 4 discloses some example functions including control of a tool on a combine).
Lapp does not disclose controlling the utility vehicle to carry out a physical action on a tangible material that is associated with at least a corresponding one of the sub processes of the work process, wherein each respective sub-program includes an object-specific variant that depends on an object to be processed by the respective sub-program.
Brubaker teaches controlling the utility vehicle to carry out a physical action on a tangible material that is associated with at least a corresponding one of the sub processes of the work process (paragraph 0041 discloses various examples of functions including, for example, transfer of harvested grain to a grain cart), wherein each respective sub-program includes an object-specific variant that depends on an object to be processed by the respective sub-program (paragraph 0041 discloses that a harvester’s components can be controlled based on sensor from a following aerial vehicle including various examples of adjusting functional performance of a harvester based on aspects of the environment including processed crop).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapp to incorporate the teachings of Brubaker since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, a virtual machine set programmed to modularly perform specific functions and the additional agricultural functions to be performed by an agricultural machine (e.g. transfer of crop). In the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. That is the virtual machines would still modularly control the individual functions of the vehicle including those described in Lapp, and the functions of Brubaker would still perform their specific functions with no meaningful changes in their behavior. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Further, it would have been further prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Lapp to incorporate the teachings of Brubaker such that each function to be performed by the virtual machine set of Lapp can be varied and adjusted based on sensor data of an aerial vehicle following the harvester including aspects relevant for each function (e.g. adjusting fan speed based on sensed crop density). This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve operational efficiency and crop yield.
Lapp does not teach that the object-specific variant is loaded into the control device during a tool change by being selected from a plurality of variants of the respective sub- program.
Diekhans teaches that the object-specific variant is loaded into the control device during a tool change by being selected from a plurality of variants of the respective sub-program (column 6 lines 28-42 disclose that limit values for controlling an agricultural vehicle can be adjusted when attachments are connected or cutter bars are changed wherein a plurality of variation standards for changing between are suggested as existing).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapp to incorporate the teachings of Diekhans such that the sub-functions of Lapp can further have limit values that, when an attachment or cutter bar is changed, are automatically adjusted as taught by Diekhans. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a user friendly experience that does not require user intervention for regulating operations as taught by Diekhans (column 6 lines 43-64).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Lapp reference teaches all of claim 16 as detailed above. Lapp further teaches that a first processor core (translated page 5 paragraph 1 discloses a processor core) of a processor unit of the control device executes a basic functionality of the control device including an operating system and safety-relevant software (translated page 19 paragraph 3 discloses using a processor core for executing an operating system and AUTOSAR which is understood by the examiner to be safety-related software), and wherein the first processor core and/or at least a second processor core of the processor unit executes the number of virtual machines (translate page 19 paragraph 3 discloses running the virtual machines on the processor core).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Lapp reference teaches all of claim 16 as detailed above. Lapp further teaches that the first processor core executes a first management unit, which manages access of the individual virtual machines to resources of the control device and/or of the utility vehicle (translated page 19 paragraph 3 discloses that the virtual machines are managed by a lightweight hypervisor which is executed by the processor core such that the virtual machines have restricted access to each other's variables and functions).
Regarding claim 31, the modified Lapp reference teaches all of claim 16 as detailed above. Lapp further teaches that as a result of the control program being divided into the sub-programs, the control program is divided into a number of independent partitions (translated page 19 paragraph 3 discloses that the virtual machines containing independent software applications cannot call each other's variables or functions; examiner interprets these software applications as being the explicit software of the sub-functions taught in translated page 3 paragraph 4 recited above).
Claim(s) 20-21 and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lapp in view of Brubaker and Diekhans as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Schleusner et al. US 2018/0000011 A1 (hereinafter Schleusner) and Behnke et al. US 20080228361 A1 (hereinafter Behnke).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Lapp reference teaches all of claim 16 as detailed in the 102 rejection section. Lapp further teaches that the utility vehicle is configured as a combine harvester (translated page 3 paragraph 4 discloses an agricultural machine such as a combine), wherein a first sub-system of the combine harvester is provided for basic functions of the combine harvester (translated page 3 paragraph 4 discloses a sub-system of engine control and cruise control), wherein on the control device, a first sub-program is executed in a first virtual machine and controls the basic functions of the combine harvester (translated page 19 paragraph 3 teaches using a separate virtual machine for independent applications), wherein a second sub-system of the combine harvester is provided for driving the combine harvester (translated page 3 paragraph 4 discloses a sub-system of cruise control which is known to the examiner as a software for supporting driving of a vehicle), wherein on the control device, a second sub-program is executed in a second virtual machine and controls a sub-process of driving the combine harvester (translated page 19 paragraph 3 teaches using a separate virtual machine for independent applications).
Lapp does not explicitly teach that a third sub-system of the combine harvester is provided for mowing useful plants, a fourth sub-system of the combine harvester is provided for threshing the mowed useful plants, a fifth sub-system of the combine harvester is provided for separating straw and grains and/or seeds, a sixth sub-system of the combine harvester is provided for storing the separated grains and/or seeds, or a seventh sub-program is executed in a seventh virtual machine and controls a sub-process of straw management.
Schleusner teaches a third sub-system of the combine harvester is provided for mowing useful plants (paragraph 0067 teaches mowing of crop), a fourth sub-system of the combine harvester is provided for threshing the mowed useful plants (0064 teaches a rotor thresher), and a sixth sub-system of the combine harvester is provided for storing the separated grains and/or seeds (paragraph 0012 teaches a yield sensor which is known to the examiner, from context of claim 26, as a type of storing function).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Lapp to incorporate the teachings of Schleusner since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, a virtual machine set programmed to modularly perform specific functions and three additional agricultural functions (threshing, mowing, and storing). In the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. That is the virtual machines would still modularly control the individual functions of the vehicle including those described in Lapp, and the functions of Schleusner would still perform their specific functions with no meaningful changes in their behavior. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modification of Lapp with Schleusner still fails to teach a fifth sub-system of the combine harvester is provided for separating straw and grains and/or seeds, or a seventh sub-program is executed in a seventh virtual machine and controls a sub-process of straw management.
Behnke teaches a fifth sub-system of the combine harvester is provided for separating straw and grains and/or seeds (paragraph 0058 discloses separating straw from the grain), or a seventh sub-program is executed in a seventh virtual machine and controls a sub-process of straw management (paragraph 0062 teaches ejecting the separated straw which is considered a type of straw management by the examiner).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapp to incorporate the teachings of Behnke since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, a virtual machine set programmed to modularly perform specific functions and two additional agricultural functions (sorting and ejecting). In the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. That is the virtual machines would still modularly control the individual functions of the vehicle including those described in Lapp, and the functions of Behnke would still perform their specific functions with no meaningful changes in their behavior. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Examiner note for completeness of record: regarding each sub-program having object-specific variants as detailed in claim 1 in context of the sub-programs of claim 20, evidence for variants for each of the detailed sub-programs being known in the art can be found in at least relied upon art Brubaker paragraph 0041 and Schleusner paragraphs 0064-0065. Further evidence, if desired, of existence for variants for the specific sub-programs being known in the art can also be found in at least non-relied upon art Behnke EP 2702854 A1 translated paragraph 0012 and Hodson BR 102020011886 A2 translated paragraph 002. Examiner does not rely on these citations for the heart of the rejection due to breadth detailed in both the specification and the independent claims and the breadth detailed in Brubaker, but examiner understands these citations may be pertinent to further prove non-patentable subject matter of applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 21, the modified Lapp reference teaches all of claim 20 as detailed above. Lapp further teaches that the first sub-program for controlling the basic functions controls one or more of the following functions: a powertrain function; and/or an internal combustion engine control (translated page 3 paragraph 4 discloses a sub-system of engine control); and/or auxiliary unit functions; and/or a longitudinal and lateral guidance.
Regarding claim 24, the modified Lapp reference teaches all of claim 20 as detailed above. Schleusner further teaches that the fourth sub-program for controlling threshing controls one or more of the following functions: a rotor threshing unit (0064 teaches a rotor thresher); and/or a tangential threshing unit; and/or an axial threshing unit; and/or a hybrid threshing unit.
Regarding claim 25, the modified Lapp reference teaches all of claim 20 as detailed above.
Lapp does not teach that the fifth sub-program for controlling separating controls one or more of the following functions: a slope compensation; and/or a loss determination; and/or a screen movement; and/or a gap; and/or a fan.
Behnke further teaches that the fifth sub-program for controlling separating controls of a loss determination (paragraph 0067 teaches measuring the losses due to cleaning).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapp to incorporate the further teachings of Behnke since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, a virtual machine set programmed to modularly perform specific functions and a loss determination system. In the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. That is the virtual machines would still modularly control the individual functions of the vehicle including those described in Lapp, and the loss determination system would still count loss with no meaningful changes to their behavior. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 26, the modified Lapp reference teaches all of claim 20 as detailed above.
Lapp does not teach that the sixth sub-program for controlling storing controls one or more of the following functions: a yield measurement; and/or a detection of breakage and soiling; and/or a transfer.
Schleusner further teaches that the sixth sub-program for controlling storing controls the following functions a yield measurement (paragraph 0012 teaches a yield sensor).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapp to incorporate the further teachings of Schleusner since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, a virtual machine set programmed to modularly perform specific functions and a yield sensor. In the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. That is the virtual machines would still modularly control the individual functions of the vehicle including those described in Lapp, and the yield sensor would still count total yield with no meaningful changes to their behavior. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Lapp with Brubaker, Diekhans, Schleusner, and Behnke as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Pirro et al. US 20050279070 A1 (hereinafter Pirro).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Lapp reference teaches all of claim 20 as detailed above. Lapp further teaches that a second sub-system of the combine harvester is provided for driving the combine harvester (translated page 3 paragraph 4 discloses a sub-system of cruise control which is known to the examiner as a software for supporting driving of a vehicle).
Lapp does not teach that the second sub-program for controlling driving controls one or more of the following functions: an automatic steering system; and/or parallel driving for transfer operations; and/or a right-of-way control.
Pirro teaches that the second sub-program for controlling driving controls an automatic steering system (paragraph 0018 teaches automatic steering).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapp to incorporate the teachings of Pirro since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, a virtual machine set programmed to modularly perform specific functions and a vehicular function (automatic steering). In the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. That is the virtual machines would still modularly control the individual functions of the vehicle including those described in Lapp, and the function of Pirro would still perform its specific function with no meaningful changes in its behavior. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Lapp with Brubaker, Diekhans, Schleusner, and Behnke as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Hodson BR 102020011886 A2 (hereinafter Hodson; a translated document is provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Lapp reference teaches all of claim 20 as detailed above. Schleusner teaches a third sub-system of the combine harvester is provided for mowing useful plants (paragraph 0067) as detailed above.
Schleusner does not teach the third sub-program for controlling mowing controls cutting-unit types and cutting-unit functions depending on a respective useful plant variety.
Hodson teaches that the third sub-program for controlling mowing controls cutting-unit types (translated paragraph 002 teaches multiple types of cutting decks attachments) and cutting-unit functions depending on a respective useful plant variety (translated paragraph 002 teaches switching out and operating cutting attachments depending on the crop).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapp to incorporate the teachings of Hodson since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, a virtual machine set programmed to modularly perform specific functions and an agricultural function (switching cutting implements and functions depending on crop type). In the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. That is the virtual machines would still modularly control the individual functions of the vehicle including those described in Lapp, and the function of Hodson would still perform its specific function with no meaningful changes in its behavior. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Lapp with Brubaker, Diekhans, Schleusner, and Behnke as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Baumgarten et al. US 20200060092 A1 (hereinafter Baumgarten).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Lapp reference teaches all of claim 20 as detailed above. Behnke teaches a seventh sub-system of the combine harvester is provided for straw management of the separated straw (paragraph 0062) as detailed above.
Behnke does not teach that the seventh sub-program for controlling the straw management controls one or more of the following functions: a chaff cutter; and/or a windrow placement; and/or a wind measurement; and/or a wind compensation; and/or a slope measurement; and/or a slope compensation.
Baumgarten teaches that the seventh sub-program for controlling the straw management controls a chaff cutter (Abstract discloses a chaff cutter).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapp to incorporate the teachings of Baumgarten since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, a virtual machine set programmed to modularly perform specific functions and a functioning chaff cutter. In the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. That is the virtual machines would still modularly control the individual functions of the vehicle including those described in Lapp, and the chaff cutter function of Baumgarten would still perform its specific function with no meaningful changes in its behavior. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 7/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16 and 28-30 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of claim amendments filed 7/2/2026. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lapp in view of Brubaker and Diekhans (see 103 rejection above).
Applicant's arguments, without view of the amended claim language, filed 7/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 8, applicant argues that Brubaker does not disclose sub-programs but at most suggests a single program for controlling a vehicle. Applicant is respectfully reminded that Brubaker is being used to modify Lapp which does teach the plurality of sub-programs implemented by virtual machines required by the invention in light of at least translated page 3 paragraph 4 as detailed in the rejection above. Brubaker is merely used to modify the sub-functions (sub-programs) of Lapp to be able to vary as taught by Brubaker. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In arguendo, even when considering Brubaker as taking one program fulfilling a plurality of functions, splitting one program performing a plurality of functions into a multitude of sub-programs performing at least one of the plurality of functions each such that combination with Lapp would be further reasonable would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C) and the court cases cited therein. The important teaching of the instant application that would be required for determining novelty and/or non-obviousness of the invention in light of Brubaker would be the existence of variants for each function of Lapp which Brubaker does teach as disclosed above. Therefore, Brubaker is still adequate to reject the claim set filed 11/24/2025 as indicated in the Office Action dated 1/2/2026.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights