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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein. Claims 5 and 15 are canceled. Claims 11 and 18 are amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
Two information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner (dated 16 April 2026 and 27 May 2026).
Response to Amendments / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the Final Rejection dated 20 February 2026.
All claim objections from the prior office action are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the prior art rejections / prior art of record, from the prior office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Joint Inventors
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0350989 (Warwick et al., hereinafter, Warwick) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0120869 (Vandike and Readel; hereinafter, Vandike) in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0072773 (Schroeder et al., hereinafter, Schroeder).
Regarding Claim 1, Warwick discloses A monitoring system for an agricultural machine (see at least [0005] and [0016]: “the present subject matter is directed to an agricultural system for monitoring surface conditions for an agricultural field. The system includes an agricultural machine configured to travel across an agricultural field, and one or more imaging devices supported relative to the agricultural machine”), comprising:
a plurality of sensors mounted to the agricultural machine generating a plurality of sensor outputs that include two or more images… (see at least [0005], [0022], FIG. 1, and FIG. 2: “the agricultural machine 10 may include one or more imaging devices 104 coupled thereto and/or supported thereon”); and
a controller (see at least [0005], [0028]-[0031], and FIG. 2: computing system 110) configured to:
receive the plurality of sensor outputs from the plurality of sensors (see at least [0005], [0028], and [0038]: “The system also includes a computing system communicatively coupled to the one or more imaging devices. The computing system is configured to receive, from the one or more imaging devices, an image of an imaged portion of the agricultural field, with the imaged portion of the agricultural field being represented by a plurality of pixels within the image”);
determine one or more features of quality for two or more images of the plurality of sensor outputs (see at least [0005], [0017], [0022], [0032]-[0033], [0037]-[0043], [0048]-[0051], [0055]-[0058], FIG. 3, FIG. 4, and FIG. 5: “The computing system is further configured to identify at least one pixel-related parameter associated with the plurality of pixels within the image, determine whether at least one image quality metric for the image is satisfied based at least in part on the at least one pixel-related parameter”; “However, given that agricultural machines often operate in dirty/dusty environments and/or in low-lighting conditions, the images captured by the imaging device(s) (and/or the images generated based on the captured images) may often be of insufficient quality to accurately estimate the surface condition(s) associated with the imaged portion of the field. Thus, in accordance with aspects of the present subject matter, the disclosed systems and methods allow for the quality of the images to be automatically evaluated or assessed such that only images of a given quality are used to estimate the relevant surface condition(s). For instance, as will be described below, each candidate image for estimating one or more surface conditions may be analyzed in view of one or more quality metrics to assess the quality of the image. Images determined to be of “low-quality” may be disregarded (e.g., by being discarded or simply ignored) when determining the relevant surface condition(s) within the field. In addition, an operator notification may be generated when it is determined that “low-quality” images are being captured”; “image analysis module 118 may also be configured to assess the quality of the images deriving from the imaging device(s) 104 such that only images of a given quality are used to estimate the relevant surface condition(s). For instance, in several embodiments, each input image (e.g., an original 2-D image captured by the cameras 106, 108 and/or a depth image generated based on a pair of 2-D images) may be analyzed in view of one or more quality metrics to assess the quality of the image. Images determined to be of “low-quality” may then be disregard for purposes of determining the relevant surface condition(s) within the field”);
determine one or more features of merit for the two or more images of the plurality of sensor outputs, the one or more features of merit corresponding to operation of the agricultural machine and having one or more confidence scores associated therewith (see at least [0005], [0016], [0028], [0032]-[0033], [0040], [0051], [0058]-[0061], and [0065]-[0067]: “The computing system is configured to…estimate a surface condition associated with the agricultural field based at least in part on the image when it is determined that the at least one image quality metric is satisfied”; “The images can then be analyzed to estimate one or more surface conditions, such as one or more conditions relating to crop residue (e.g., percent residue coverage, residue size, residue bunches, residue mat height, etc.), soil clods (e.g., clod size/volume, clod count, etc.) and/or surface irregularities (e.g., surface roughness, levelness, including the detection of ridges and/or valleys), and/or the like within the field.”; “images deemed “acceptable” may be used by the computing system 110 to estimate a surface condition(s) associated with the portion of the field depicted within each of such images”; the confidence score of “acceptable” is associated with the surface condition);
select a sensor output from the two or more images of the plurality of sensor outputs as a selected sensor output corresponding to a selected image selected…according to the one or more features of quality for the two or more images of the plurality of sensor outputs (see at least [0033], [0037], and FIG. 3: “Images that are identified as having sufficient quality (e.g., above a given quality threshold(s)) will be classified as acceptable images for detecting the surface condition(s) of the imaged portion(s) of the field while images that are identified as having insufficient quality (e.g., below a given quality threshold(s)) will be classified as unacceptable images and disregarded for purposes of surface condition detection (e.g., by discarding or simply ignoring the image(s) when estimating a given surface condition(s)). Such a quality-based evaluation can ensure that only higher quality images are used for detecting surface conditions, thereby increasing the reliability and accuracy of the estimated surface conditions”); and
control the operation of the agricultural machine according to the one or more features of merit for selected image corresponding to the selected sensor output by controlling a speed, a position, or a direction of a spreader mechanism, a chopper, or a harvester head (see at least [0017]-[0018], [0020]-[0021], [0034], [0037], and [0045]: “Images determined to be of “low-quality” may be disregarded (e.g., by being discarded or simply ignored) when determining the relevant surface condition(s) within the field”; “the control module 120 may be configured to control the operation of the agricultural machine 10 based on the monitored surface condition(s) of the field”; “the control module 120 may be configured to adjust the operating parameters (e.g., penetration depth, down force/pressure, etc.) associated with one or more of the ground-engaging tools 126 of the implement 14 (e.g., the disc blades 30, shanks 32, leveling blades 34, and/or basket assemblies 36) to proactively or reactively adjust the operation of the implement 14 in view of the monitored surface condition(s)”; “For example, when the agricultural machine includes a tillage implement configured to perform a tillage operation within the field (e.g., the implement 14 shown in FIG. 1), real-time or on-the-fly adjustments may be made to the tillage parameters associated with the ground-engaging tools of the implement, such as by adjusting the penetration depth, down pressure/force, angle-of-attack, and/or the like of one or more of the ground-engaging tools”; the tillage implement is a chopper/spreader mechanism and adjusting the angle-of-attack is adjusting a position / direction).
Warwick does not explicitly disclose the plurality of sensors each having a priority associated therewith according to a capacity to detect a plume of crop residue released by the agricultural machine and select a sensor output from the two or more images of the plurality of sensor outputs as a selected sensor output corresponding to a selected image selected according to two or more of the priorities of the plurality of sensors. Warwick does, however, disclose that certain imaging devices may be better configured for certain determinations based on their position (see at least [0023]).
Vandike, in the same field of agricultural vehicles, and therefore analogous art, teaches a plume of crop residue released by the agricultural machine as a target to be viewed / analyzed by a camera (see at least [0053] and FIG. 2: “The cameras 142, 144, 146, 150, 152 are digital cameras that produce digital signals representing images of the plume of residue within their fields of view”). Additionally, Vandike teaches that one would want to detect a plume of crop residue released by the agricultural machine for multiple reasons including to “steer the spreader mechanism 126 to direct the plume of residue across the ground in a more even distribution” (is see at least [0054]).
Making a simple substitution of detecting / analyzing a plume of crop residue (taught by Vandike) into the Warwick invention of determining if an image is sufficient quality for detecting / analyzing agricultural conditions (i.e., in the combination, the image processing of Warwick is completed for images of the plume of crop residue of Vandike / the non-quality-related features being analyzed are related to plumes of crop residue, like the width of the plume), would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art; the motivation to combine is to only use high-quality images “to monitor the spread of the MOG behind the agricultural harvester and to control fans, vanes, and other steering devices to ensure that the MOG is properly distributed on the ground behind the combine” since “A common problem when spreading MOG (such as straw) behind the agricultural harvester is accurately monitoring the spread of the MOG, particularly when there are strong prevailing winds. The MOG is thrown to the rear of the vehicle and the wind carries it from side to side” (see at least Vandike [0005]-[0006]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the combination to provide predictable results of control based on of image analysis related to a plume of crop residue.
Schroeder, in the same field of operator assistance for agricultural vehicles, and therefore analogous art, teaches the plurality of sensors each having a priority associated therewith according to a capacity to provide sensor information that supports a certain function and select a sensor output…according to two or more of the priorities of the plurality of sensors (see at least [0024], [0031]-[0032], [0035]-[0037], FIG. 2, and FIG. 3: “The processor 60 is preferably programmed to arbitrate simultaneous requests for selection of video cameras 50 or images”; “The farm vehicle 10 can have an automatic default camera/image selection procedure”; “Additionally, video cameras 50 can be included which are not inside the farm vehicle 10, such as a rear video camera 50 facing away from a back portion of the farm vehicle 10”; “More than one video camera 50 can face the same place (to obtain different angle views)”; “have multiple cameras activated simultaneously (usually all of the video cameras 50), but to control which images are displayed on or fed to the graphic display 52. The information from the vehicle data bus 40 will provide the needed information to the graphic display control module 44 to either activate particular video camera(s) 50, or, preferably, to select images from particular activated video cameras 50 for display by the graphic display 52”; “The processor 60 can also be configured to prioritize, select, and exclude video cameras 50 for activation, or the images from activated video cameras 50 for display by the graphic display 52 based upon a predetermined command. For example, if an operator is or is not interested in viewing the grain material 26 proximate to the sieves 24, such situation can be programmed by the operator and the processor 60 would automatically select or exclude certain camera activation or image selection for display. The operator can program which video cameras 50 or images will be selected under particular operating conditions”; “the display of images on the graphic display 52 can be of a single image from a single camera 50, or it can be from two or more cameras 50 where the graphic display 52 displays different images at different portions of the graphic display 52, such as by splitting the screen of the graphic display 52”; “More than one rear video camera 50 may be on the rear of the farm vehicle 10, and the operator can program the graphic display 52 or processor 60 to choose which rear video camera or cameras 50 are displayed when the farm vehicle 10 is going in reverse”; certain cameras are better positioned for certain functions and selecting between the images from the cameras is done based on priority).
Applying the known technique of prioritizing selecting a sensor that is better configured for providing sensor information to supports a certain function, as taught by Schroeder, with the Warwick / Vandike combination, to improve the similar product of an agricultural vehicle of the Warwick / Vandike combination in the same way (i.e., applying priorities to at least two sensors in the Warwick / Vandike combination based on the ability to provide sensor information about the plume of crop residue), would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have known certain cameras are generally better at certain functions and would have wanted to apply the known technique of Vandike to the similar field of monitoring a plume of crop residue based on high quality images in the Warwick / Vandike combination with the motivation of using the best data available for decision making (see at least Schroeder [0012] and Warwick [0016]).
Regarding Claim 2, the Warwick / Vandike / Schroeder combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Warwick further discloses wherein the one or more features of quality for two or more images of the plurality of sensor outputs includes a fraction of the two or more images of the plurality of sensor outputs obscured by an obscurant (see at least [0047]-[0051] and FIG. 4: “the control logic 300 includes calculating a percent completeness of the depth image”; “in instances in which the view of one of the cameras 106, 108 is obscured with reference to a given pixel location within the image (e.g., due to dirt on the lens, airborne dust, poor lighting, out-of-view features, etc.) and/or in instances in which an imaged area includes insufficient features to perform stereo matching, one or more pixels (or, more likely, one or more areas of pixels) will not include depth information associated therewith”).
Regarding Claim 3, the Warwick / Vandike / Schroeder combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Warwick further discloses wherein the one or more features of quality for the two or more images of the plurality of sensor outputs includes a characterization of lighting represented in the two or more images of the plurality of sensor outputs (see at least [0047], [0049], and [0059]-[0060]: “Specifically, images captured under low-lighting conditions typically exhibit a lower standard deviation. Thus, in several embodiments, the standard deviation threshold may correspond to a minimum standard deviation threshold at or above which the image will be considered satisfactory”).
Regarding Claim 4, the Warwick / Vandike / Schroeder combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Vandike further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1 / as part of the same combination as Claim 1) wherein the one or more features of merit characterize the plume of crop residue as represented in the two or more images of the plurality of sensor outputs (see at least [0052]-[0053]: “The cameras 142, 144, 146, 150, 152 are digital cameras that produce digital signals representing images of the plume of residue within their fields of view. The cameras are coupled to one of more networked electronic control units (represented in FIG. 3 as ECU 302). The networked electronic control units 302 are configured to receive images of the plume of residue from each of the cameras and to transmit those images to a display unit 304 disposed in the operator cabin of the vehicle. The networked electronic control units 302 are also configured to extract physical characteristics of the plume of residue from the images”); and
wherein the one or more features of merit include at least one of a width, a distribution, or a direction of the plume of crop residue (see at least [0052]-[0053]: “These characteristics include the width of the plume and where the plume is falling on the ground behind the agricultural harvester 100—e.g. how far to the right and/or how far to the left of the agricultural harvester 100.”; “With this information, other ECUs and actuators can steer the spreader mechanism 126 to direct the plume of residue across the ground in a more even distribution”; “Collectively, the cameras, networked ECUs and display are a residue spread monitoring system 300”).
Regarding Claim 6, the Warwick / Vandike / Schroeder combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Warwick further discloses wherein the controller is configured to control operation of the agricultural machine according to the one or more features of merit by controlling a display device (see at least [0035], [0044], and [0047]: “Such actions may also include generating a notification for display to an operator (e.g., via the associated user interface 130) that provides information associated with the estimated surface condition. For instance, when the estimated surface condition corresponds to a residue-related surface condition(s), the operator notification may provide information associated with percent residue coverage, residue length, residue bunches (e.g., the location, number, and/or height of any detected residue bunches), and/or the like. Similarly, when the estimated surface condition corresponds to a clod-related surface condition(s), the operator notification may provide information associated with the clod locations, the number of clods, the size of the clods (e.g., length, width, height, and/or volume), and/or the like. As yet another example, when the estimated surface condition corresponds to a surface condition(s) associated with surface irregularities, the operator notification may provide information associated with the degree of soil roughness/levelness, the location, number and/or size of surface irregularities (e.g., ridges and valleys), and/or the like.”).
Regarding Claim 7, the Warwick / Vandike / Schroeder combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Warwick further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to select the sensor output as the selected sensor output additionally based on the one or more confidence scores for two or more images of the plurality of sensor outputs (see at least [0061]: when the image confidence score is “acceptable”, the image is used for surface condition detection).
Regarding Claim 8, the Warwick / Vandike / Schroeder combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 7. Furthermore, Warwick further discloses wherein the controller is configured to select the sensor output from the two or more images of the plurality of sensor outputs as the selected sensor output corresponding to the selected image further selected according to the one or more confidence scores for the two or more images of the plurality of sensor outputs (see at least [0061]: when the image confidence score is “acceptable”, the image is used for surface condition detection).
Regarding Claim 9, the Warwick / Vandike / Schroeder combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Warwick further discloses wherein the plurality of sensors comprise at least one of a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, an ultraviolet sensor, an infrared sensor, or a visible light camera (see at least [0025], [0040], and [0053]: the imaging devices include cameras that take RGB / color images; therefore, they are visible light cameras).
Regarding Claim 10, the Warwick / Vandike / Schroeder combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Warwick further discloses wherein the plurality of sensors includes two or more cameras, including at least one camera configured to detect rearward of the agricultural machine (see at least FIG. 1 and [0023]-[0025]: “a second imaging device(s) 104B may be provided at or adjacent to an aft end 40 of the implement 14 to allow the imaging device(s) 104B to capture images and related data of a section of the field disposed behind the implement 14”; “imaging device(s) 104 may correspond to a stereo camera”).
Regarding Claim 11, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1; additionally, Warwick discloses the limitation not already addressed in Claim 1: A method for monitoring an agricultural machine (see at least [0005]-[0006] and [0016]: an agricultural method for monitoring is disclosed).
Regarding Claim 12, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 2 and accordingly rejected for the same reasons as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 3 and accordingly rejected for the same reasons as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 4 and accordingly rejected for the same reasons as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 16, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 6 and accordingly rejected for the same reasons as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations in this claim are substantially similar to limitations in Claims 1 and 7. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as Claims 1 and 7.
Regarding Claim 18, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 8 and accordingly rejected for the same reasons as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 19, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 9 and accordingly rejected for the same reasons as Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 20, Warwick discloses all the limitations of Claim 11. Furthermore, Warwick discloses wherein the plurality of sensors includes two or more cameras, including at least one camera configured to detect rearward of a spreader mechanism of the agricultural machine (see at least FIG. 1 [0018]-[0020] and [0023]-[0025]: “a second imaging device(s) 104B may be provided at or adjacent to an aft end 40 of the implement 14 to allow the imaging device(s) 104B to capture images and related data of a section of the field disposed behind the implement 14”; “imaging device(s) 104 may correspond to a stereo camera”; in FIG. 1, imaging device 104B is shown rearward of a spreader mechanism).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights