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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on December 2, 2025. Claims 4, 10, 16, and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-19 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn. Applicant amended claims 1, 14, and 18 to recite “control a speed of the separator at the preferred separator speed,” “control a speed of the fan” and “control a speed of the harvester,” respectively. Controlling a speed of a vehicle or component applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the previous rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn.
The previous rejections of claims 1-4 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 are withdrawn in consideration of cancelled claim 4 and of amended independent claim 1. However, new rejections of claims 1-3 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are set forth below.
The previous rejections of claims 5-10, 13-16, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in consideration of cancelled claims 10, 16 and 20 and of amended independent claims 14 and 18. However, new rejections of claims 5-9, 11-15, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are set forth below.
Regarding amended claims 1 and 14, Applicant claims that Baumgarten does not teach “calculating multiple financial costs at different separator speeds, selecting a minimum cost, or controlling machine speed accordingly,” “calculating multiple financial costs at different fan speeds, selecting the minimum cost, or controlling fan speed accordingly” and that the rationale provided is conclusory (Applicant Remarks pg. 8 paragraphs 1-3 and pg. 9 paragraph 4). However, the combination of Dugas and Baumgarten teaches the limitations of amended claims 1 and 14. Dugas teaches a system for controlling harvester speed parameters based on a desired level of cleaning. Further, Baumgarten teaches mathematical models (see Fig. 2B and Fig. 2C) that include functions relating separator rotor speed (axis 45 in Fig. 2B) and fan speed (axis 47 in Fig. 2C) to other working parameters used to minimize operational cost or loss. The functions include different separator and fan speeds where a “common working point 42” (see Baumgarten ¶ [0042]) defines optimum speeds for minimizing cost or losses. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the harvester speed parameter control, including separator and fan speeds, of Dugas with the mathematical models of Baumgarten with a reasonable expectation of success. The combination would have the predicted result of controlling harvester speed parameters based on optimized speeds proposed by the system of Baumgarten. Baumgarten further includes a motivation to combine the references when it states that the assistance system including mathematical models can be used to optimize the efficiency of an agricultural working machine based on operating costs in short periods of time (¶ [0010]). Thus, the rationale to combine Dugas and Baumgarten is not conclusory and includes an articulated reasoning with some rationale underpinning.
Applicant further claims that “the lowest financial cost will be the most cost-effective” is a generic truism that does not satisfy the requirement for an articulated reasoning with a rationale underpinning (Applicant Remarks pg. 8 paragraph 4 and pg. 9 paragraph 5). However, the common definition of “cost-effective” includes a product or service that provides maximum value for the lowest cost. When operational costs include crop loss, crop cleanliness or any potential revenue loss associated with sub-optimal working parameters of an agricultural machine, proposals for cost-effective adjustments will implicitly include optimal settings for working parameters that will produce the lowest financial cost associated with the most financial gain. Therefore, Baumgarten does teach “determining a minimum financial cost of the plurality of financial costs” and offers an articulated reasoning with a rationale underpinning for combining the cited references when it states that the assistance system including mathematical models can be used to optimize the efficiency of an agricultural working machine based on operating costs in short periods of time (¶ [0010]).
On pages 8 and 9 of Applicant Remarks, Applicant claims that the cited art, Dugas and Baumgarten, addresses different problems and there is no teaching or suggestion to combine the cited references. However, MPEP 2144(IV) states “One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.” Dugas discloses a system for adjusting harvester speeds based on a desired level of cleaning and Baumgarten teaches a system for determining optimal working parameter adjustments that minimize financial costs and maximize financial gains. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that combining the teachings of Dugas and Baumgarten would have the predicted result of a system for controlling harvester speeds that optimizes working parameters to minimize financial costs and maximize financial gains. Further, as stated above, Baumgarten includes a motivation to combine the references when it states that the assistance system including mathematical models can be used to optimize the efficiency of an agricultural working machine based on operating costs in short periods of time (¶ [0010]). Thus, the rationale to combine Dugas and Baumgarten is not conclusory and includes an articulated reasoning with some rationale underpinning.
Regarding amended claim 18, Applicant claims that Quick fails to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 20. However, Quick teaches determining settings that will provide the maximum economic return for a specific crop and condition (¶ [0023]) which would implicitly include calculating multiple financial returns at different harvester speeds and selecting the maximum return. It is not possible to determine optimal settings that will provide maximum economic return for a specific crop and condition without determining a result of the settings at different speeds. Further, Quick discloses graphs that detail how changes in harvester speed affect economic returns (Figs. 2-6). Still further, Quick teaches a master controller that automatically controls a harvesting machine to measure important quality parameters and correct performance for optimal economic returns while the harvesting machine is operating (¶ [0024]). Therefore, the combination of Dugas and Quick teaches the limitations of amended claim 18.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 reads in part “configured to indicate the preferred separator speed of the separator to an operator at the operator interface” should be “at an [[the]] operator interface.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 103 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190037770 by Dugas et al. (hereafter "Dugas"), in view of US 20140129048 by Baumgarten et al. (hereafter "Baumgarten").
Regarding claim 1, Dugas discloses a harvester (Dugas: harvester 10 in Fig. 1) comprising: a separator configured to separate a cut crop into a billet material and extraneous plant matter (Dugas ¶ [0030]: the separator 55 receives the cut crop from the chopper 28 and generally separates the cut crop by way of a crop cleaner, which will be described in greater detail below. The crop cleaner may include any suitable mechanism for cleaning the cut crop, such as a fan (as in the illustrated construction that will be described below), a source of compressed air, a rake, a shaker, or any other mechanism that discriminates various types of crop parts by weight, size, shape, etc. in order to separate extraneous plant matter from billets),
a billet loss sensor configured to generate a first signal indicative of the amount of billet material that is lost and unharvested at the separator (Dugas ¶ [0043]: The billet loss sensor 74 is configured for sending a signal to the control unit 68 corresponding to each billet B passing through the separator 55 and, more specifically, out the opening 54);
a trash sensor configured to generate a second signal indicative of the amount of the extraneous plant matter that is harvested from the separator (Dugas ¶ [0048]: The trash sensor 82 may quantify the amount of trash as an absolute amount or as a percentage of total yield through the discharge opening 58); and
a control unit configured to, based at least partly on the first signal and the second signal, determine a preferred ground speed of the harvester and/or a preferred separator speed of the harvester (Dugas ¶ [0058]: The control unit 68 includes a controlled cleaning system (the sequence 90 of which is illustrated in FIG. 6) allowing the user to input a desired level of cleaning, e.g., by way of the operator interface 66. Alternatively, the desired level of cleaning may be input into the controlled cleaning system by a sensor, such as the sensor 82 indicating a percentage of leaf trash. The desired level of cleaning may be expressed as a desired level of billet present in the residue; Dugas ¶ [0059]: The level of billet present in the residue generally corresponds inversely with a level of trash passing through the conveyor discharge opening 58, e.g., the more billet in the residue, the less trash is discharged from the discharge opening 58 and vice versa. Thus, the controlled cleaning system may also, or alternatively, allow the user to input a desired level of cleaning as a desired level of trash passing through the conveyor outlet 58; Dugas ¶ [0061]: To achieve the desired cleaning level, the control unit 68 may continuously or periodically adjust the fan speed until the percentage of billet B achieves (e.g., is approximately equal to, or within a threshold close to) the desired cleaning level. The controlled cleaning system 90 may calculate the cleaning level by calculating trash as a percentage of crop discharged from the discharge opening 58. As discussed above, the level of billet and the level of trash are inversely related, thus the control unit 68 may use either as a measure of cleaning level and can convert between the two; Dugas ¶ [0063]: The controlled cleaning system 90 may also control ground speed of the harvester 10. For example, the controlled cleaning system may be operatively coupled to the throttle 11 to control the prime mover (not shown) to effectuate changes in the ground speed of the harvester 10. Changes in the ground speed may affect the cleaning level of the crop),
wherein the control unit is configured to determine the preferred separator speed of the separator based at least partly on the first signal and the second signal, and control a speed of the separator at the preferred separator speed (Dugas ¶ [0058]: The control unit 68 includes a controlled cleaning system (the sequence 90 of which is illustrated in FIG. 6) allowing the user to input a desired level of cleaning, e.g., by way of the operator interface 66. Alternatively, the desired level of cleaning may be input into the controlled cleaning system by a sensor, such as the sensor 82 indicating a percentage of leaf trash. The desired level of cleaning may be expressed as a desired level of billet present in the residue; Dugas ¶ [0059]: The level of billet present in the residue generally corresponds inversely with a level of trash passing through the conveyor discharge opening 58, e.g., the more billet in the residue, the less trash is discharged from the discharge opening 58 and vice versa. Thus, the controlled cleaning system may also, or alternatively, allow the user to input a desired level of cleaning as a desired level of trash passing through the conveyor outlet 58; Dugas ¶ [0061]: To achieve the desired cleaning level, the control unit 68 may continuously or periodically adjust the fan speed until the percentage of billet B achieves (e.g., is approximately equal to, or within a threshold close to) the desired cleaning level. The controlled cleaning system 90 may calculate the cleaning level by calculating trash as a percentage of crop discharged from the discharge opening 58. As discussed above, the level of billet and the level of trash are inversely related, thus the control unit 68 may use either as a measure of cleaning level and can convert between the two).
It is noted Dugas fails to particularly disclose wherein the control unit is further configured to calculate a plurality of financial costs at different speeds of the separator, determine a minimum financial cost of the plurality of financial costs, and control a speed of the separator at the preferred separator speed to correspond to the minimum financial cost.
However, Baumgarten, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the control unit is further configured to calculate a plurality of financial costs at different speeds of the separator (Baumgarten ¶ [0043]-[0044]: One or more mathematical models 39 describing the working process of the agricultural working machine 1 are stored in the arithmetic logic unit 27 associated with the control/regulating device 23. As stated above, the stored mathematical models 39 comprise, at the least, a program map 41 for describing the working process of the separating device 10 and a program map 40 for describing the working process of the cleaning device 17. Input quantities 43 of the mathematical models 39 generating the particular program maps 40, 41 are machine-related working parameters 34, such as the speed 45, 47 of certain working parts 20, and crop-related working parameters 34, such as crop throughput 48, the moisture content of the straw and grain, and humidity. With consideration for these working parameters 34 and, possibly, other external and internal information 28, 29, the stored mathematical models 39 first generate the efficiency parameters 37. Where the agricultural working machine 1 is designed as a combine harvester 2, the efficiency parameters 37 can comprise, for example, one or more of the efficiency parameters 37 "loss due to separation" 50, "loss due to cleaning" 51, "cleanliness of the grain" 52, "non-threshold out components in the grain tank" 53, "damaged grain" 54 and "fuel consumption" 55. The stored mathematical interrelationships 39 also account for so-called monetary interrelationships 44, wherein the monetary interrelationships 44 can comprise one or more of the parameters "price of the crop to be harvested" 56; "fuel price" 57; "yield of the harvested crop" 58 and the "rate of work of the agricultural working machine" 59. Also, valuation quantities 60 in the form of so-called opportunity costs 61 are then determined from the ascertained efficiency parameters 37 with consideration for the available monetary interrelationships 44; Baumgarten ¶ [0049]: the determined opportunity costs 61, 64 to be continuously determined either before the start of the working process 62 of the agricultural working machine 1 in the form of a simulation, or in the on-going working process 62. The stored mathematical models 39 account for historic and/or current working parameters 34 and additional internal and external information 28, 29 in the simulation and during on-line operation),
determine a minimum financial cost of the plurality of financial costs, and control a speed of the separator at the preferred separator speed to correspond to the minimum financial cost (Baumgarten ¶ [0046]: With respect to the above-described monetary interrelationships 44, it does apply that, independently of the actual costs, the monetary valuation of the working process of the agricultural working machine 1 is positively affected when fuel consumption is low, crop losses are low and, correspondingly, quantities of grain actually harvested are high, and the portion of damaged grain is low. Due to the fact that the costs of fuel per liter or ton differ from the costs of grain per liter or ton, a cost-effective working process of the agricultural working machine is decisively dependent on the costs of fuel and the crop to be harvested, and can be subject to constant fluctuations. Therefore, determining the effect of the individual parameters 37 on the opportunity costs 61 is particularly significant in terms of determining a cost-effective working process of the agricultural working machine 1; Baumgarten ¶ [0050]: the assistance system 35 generates a proposal 70, with consideration for the opportunity costs 61, 64 that were determined, for adjusting at least the working parameters 34 of the agricultural working machine 1). The Examiner interprets the system and method of Baumgarten to calculate a plurality of financial costs using mathematical models that include characteristic maps describing various working parameters of the agricultural working machine and monetary relationships in order to propose a cost-effective adjustment to at least one working parameter of the agricultural working machine. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that when operational financial costs for an agricultural working machine include crop loss, crop cleanliness and any financial losses associated with sub-optimal working parameters, cost-effective working parameter adjustments will be associated with the lowest financial cost.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for determining harvester speed parameters of Dugas to include the calculation of a plurality of financial costs for determining a cost-effective change to a working parameter of Baumgarten with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that replacing the level of cleaning of Dugas with the mathematical models for determining a cost-effective change to working parameters of Baumgarten would have the predicted result of a system that controls ground and separator speed of a harvester in a cost-effective way. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the efficiency of an agricultural working machine based on operating costs in a short period of time (Baumgarten ¶ [0010]).
Regarding claim 2, Dugas discloses wherein the control unit is configured to determine the preferred ground speed of the harvester based at least partly on the first signal and the second signal, and wherein the control unit is further configured to modify a ground speed of the harvester in view of the preferred ground speed (Dugas ¶ [0061]: To achieve the desired cleaning level, the control unit 68 may continuously or periodically adjust the fan speed until the percentage of billet B achieves (e.g., is approximately equal to, or within a threshold close to) the desired cleaning level. The controlled cleaning system 90 may calculate the cleaning level by calculating trash as a percentage of crop discharged from the discharge opening 58. As discussed above, the level of billet and the level of trash are inversely related, thus the control unit 68 may use either as a measure of cleaning level and can convert between the two; Dugas ¶ [0063]: The controlled cleaning system 90 may also control ground speed of the harvester 10. For example, the controlled cleaning system may be operatively coupled to the throttle 11 to control the prime mover (not shown) to effectuate changes in the ground speed of the harvester 10. Changes in the ground speed may affect the cleaning level of the crop).
Regarding claim 3, Dugas discloses further comprising an operator interface (Dugas: interface 66 in Fig. 10), wherein the control unit is configured to determine the preferred ground speed of the harvester based at least partly on the first signal and the second signal, wherein the control unit is further configured to indicate the preferred ground speed of the harvester to an operator at the operator interface (Dugas ¶ [0064]: the controlled cleaning system 90 may recommend a change in ground speed of the harvester 10 to the operator. For example, the controlled cleaning system may display a message, or suggestion, to the operator by way of the display 91 (FIG. 10) on the user interface 66 recommending that the operator effectuate changes in the ground speed of the harvester 10 to adjust the cleaning level as discussed above).
Regarding claim 5, Dugas fails to particularly disclose wherein the control unit is further configured to indicate the preferred separator speed of the separator to an operator at the operator interface.
However, Baumgarten, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the control unit is further configured to indicate the preferred separator speed of the separator to an operator at the operator interface (Baumgarten ¶ [0050]: the assistance system 35 generates a proposal 70, with consideration for the opportunity costs 61, 64 that were determined, for adjusting at least the working parameters 34 of the agricultural working machine 1 and displays these in the display unit 22).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for determining harvester speed parameters of Dugas modified by the calculation of a plurality of financial costs for determining a cost-effective change to a working parameter of Baumgarten to further include the visualization of working parameter proposals and opportunistic costs of Baumgarten with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the efficiency of an agricultural working machine based on operating costs in a short period of time (Baumgarten ¶ [0010]).
Regarding claim 6, Dugas fails to particularly disclose wherein the control unit is configured to calculate a financial cost of the lost billet material and the harvested extraneous plant matter based on the first signal, the second signal, and further based on an external input.
However, Baumgarten, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the control unit is configured to calculate a financial cost of the lost billet material and the harvested extraneous plant matter (Baumgarten ¶ [0044]: Where the agricultural working machine 1 is designed as a combine harvester 2, the efficiency parameters 37 can comprise, for example, one or more of the efficiency parameters 37 "loss due to separation" 50, "loss due to cleaning" 51, "cleanliness of the grain" 52, "non-threshold out components in the grain tank" 53, "damaged grain" 54 and "fuel consumption" 55. The stored mathematical interrelationships 39 also account for so-called monetary interrelationships 44, wherein the monetary interrelationships 44 can comprise one or more of the parameters "price of the crop to be harvested" 56; "fuel price" 57; "yield of the harvested crop" 58 and the "rate of work of the agricultural working machine" 59. Also, valuation quantities 60 in the form of so-called opportunity costs 61 are then determined from the ascertained efficiency parameters 37 with consideration for the available monetary interrelationships 44) based on the first signal, the second signal (Baumgarten ¶ [0037]: The control/regulating unit 23 communicates via a bus system 25 in a manner known per se with a large number of sensor systems 26), and further based on an external input (Baumgarten ¶ [0037]: The agricultural working machine 1 also comprises a driver's cab 21, in which at least one control/regulating unit 23 equipped with a display device 22 is disposed. The control/regulating 23 uses a plurality of processes, which are known per se and are therefore not described in greater detail. The processes are initiated automatically or by the operator 24 of the agricultural working machine 1; Baumgarten ¶ [0043]: With consideration for these working parameters 34 and, possibly, other external and internal information 28, 29, the stored mathematical models 39 first generate the efficiency parameters 37; Baumgarten ¶ [0046]: it may be significant that the current fuel and grain prices are continuously acquired via data bases that are available on-line).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for determining harvester speed parameters of Dugas modified by the calculation of a plurality of financial costs for determining a cost-effective change to a working parameter of Baumgarten to further include the determination of opportunity costs including monetary costs associated with crop loss, crop cleanliness, and external inputs of Baumgarten with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the efficiency of an agricultural working machine based on operating costs in a short period of time (Baumgarten ¶ [0010]).
Regarding claim 7, Dugas fails to particularly disclose wherein the preferred ground speed of the harvester and/or the preferred separator speed of the separator corresponds to a financial cost that is less than the calculated financial cost.
However, Baumgarten, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the preferred ground speed of the harvester and/or the preferred separator speed of the separator corresponds to a financial cost that is less than the calculated financial cost (Baumgarten ¶ [0043]-[0044]: One or more mathematical models 39 describing the working process of the agricultural working machine 1 are stored in the arithmetic logic unit 27 associated with the control/regulating device 23. As stated above, the stored mathematical models 39 comprise, at the least, a program map 41 for describing the working process of the separating device 10 and a program map 40 for describing the working process of the cleaning device 17. Input quantities 43 of the mathematical models 39 generating the particular program maps 40, 41 are machine-related working parameters 34, such as the speed 45, 47 of certain working parts 20, and crop-related working parameters 34, such as crop throughput 48, the moisture content of the straw and grain, and humidity. With consideration for these working parameters 34 and, possibly, other external and internal information 28, 29, the stored mathematical models 39 first generate the efficiency parameters 37. Where the agricultural working machine 1 is designed as a combine harvester 2, the efficiency parameters 37 can comprise, for example, one or more of the efficiency parameters 37 "loss due to separation" 50, "loss due to cleaning" 51, "cleanliness of the grain" 52, "non-threshold out components in the grain tank" 53, "damaged grain" 54 and "fuel consumption" 55. The stored mathematical interrelationships 39 also account for so-called monetary interrelationships 44, wherein the monetary interrelationships 44 can comprise one or more of the parameters "price of the crop to be harvested" 56; "fuel price" 57; "yield of the harvested crop" 58 and the "rate of work of the agricultural working machine" 59. Also, valuation quantities 60 in the form of so-called opportunity costs 61 are then determined from the ascertained efficiency parameters 37 with consideration for the available monetary interrelationships 44; Baumgarten ¶ [0049]: the determined opportunity costs 61, 64 to be continuously determined either before the start of the working process 62 of the agricultural working machine 1 in the form of a simulation, or in the on-going working process 62. The stored mathematical models 39 account for historic and/or current working parameters 34 and additional internal and external information 28, 29 in the simulation and during on-line operation). The Examiner interprets the mathematical models, including characteristic maps, that determine opportunity costs continuously during the operation of the agricultural working machine to include a plurality of calculated financial costs that will vary from a high to a low. Given the plurality of determined opportunity costs and the intention of Baumgarten to optimize operation efficiency based on operation costs it is inevitable that a proposal for adapting a working parameter of the agricultural working machine will be lower than at least one previously determined opportunity cost or a cost associated with the current operation of agricultural working machine.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for determining harvester speed parameters of Dugas modified by the calculation of a plurality of financial costs for determining a cost-effective change to a working parameter and the determination of opportunity costs including monetary costs associated with crop loss, crop cleanliness, and external inputs of Baumgarten to further include the proposal for adapting a working parameter that would lower the operational financial cost of Baumgarten with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the efficiency of an agricultural working machine based on operating costs in a short period of time (Baumgarten ¶ [0010]).
Regarding claim 8, Dugas fails to particularly disclose wherein the external input includes one or more of a fuel/transportation cost, a mill processing cost of the extraneous plant matter, a sugar absorption rate of the extraneous plant matter, or a market price of the billet material.
However, Baumgarten, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the external input includes one or more of a fuel/transportation cost, a mill processing cost of the extraneous plant matter, a sugar absorption rate of the extraneous plant matter, or a market price of the billet material (Baumgarten ¶ [0044]: the monetary interrelationships 44 can comprise one or more of the parameters "price of the crop to be harvested" 56; "fuel price" 57; "yield of the harvested crop" 58 and the "rate of work of the agricultural working machine" 59).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for determining harvester speed parameters of Dugas modified by the calculation of a plurality of financial costs for determining a cost-effective change to a working parameter and the determination of opportunity costs including monetary costs associated with crop loss, crop cleanliness, and external inputs of Baumgarten to further include the external input of monetary parameters of Baumgarten with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the efficiency of an agricultural working machine based on operating costs in a short period of time (Baumgarten ¶ [0010]).
Regarding claim 9, Dugas discloses further comprising an operator interface configured to receive an input from an operator of the harvester (Dugas ¶ [0040]: an operator interface 66 (e.g., including a display 91 (FIG. 10) and input members 93 (FIG. 10), for example including any combination of one or more of buttons, dials, joysticks, mouse pads, a touch screen, a graphical user interface, or the like) with which a user can input settings, preferences, commands, etc. to control the harvester 10).
It is noted Dugas fails to particularly disclose wherein the control unit is configured to receive the external input via the operator interface.
However, Baumgarten, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising an operator interface configured to receive an input from an operator of the harvester wherein the control unit is configured to receive the external input via the operator interface (Baumgarten ¶ [0037]: The agricultural working machine 1 also comprises a driver's cab 21, in which at least one control/regulating unit 23 equipped with a display device 22 is disposed. The control/regulating 23 uses a plurality of processes, which are known per se and are therefore not described in greater detail. The processes are initiated automatically or by the operator 24 of the agricultural working machine 1; Baumgarten ¶ [0043]: With consideration for these working parameters 34 and, possibly, other external and internal information 28, 29, the stored mathematical models 39 first generate the efficiency parameters 37.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for determining harvester speed parameters of Dugas modified by the calculation of a plurality of financial costs for determining a cost-effective change to a working parameter and the determination of opportunity costs including monetary costs associated with crop loss, crop cleanliness, and external inputs of Baumgarten to further include the operator interface for external input of Baumgarten with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the efficiency of an agricultural working machine based on operating costs in a short period of time (Baumgarten ¶ [0010]).
Regarding claim 11, Dugas discloses wherein the harvester is a sugarcane harvester, and wherein the cut crop is sugarcane (Dugas: a sugarcane chopper harvester 10 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Dugas discloses wherein the separator includes a fan driven by a motor (Dugas ¶ [0030]: The separator 55 may include any combination of one or more of a cleaning chamber 32, a cleaning chamber housing 34, a primary crop cleaner such as a fan 40 (e.g., a primary fan), a fan enclosure 36, a motor 50 driving the fan 40),
wherein the control unit is configured to control a speed of the motor (Dugas ¶ [0041]: The control unit 68 may also have other outputs, such as for controlling the fan pumps 64a, 64b, the fan motors 50, 63).
Regarding claim 13, Dugas discloses a signal from a load sensor, a moisture sensor, and/or a ground speed sensor (Dugas ¶ [0040]: sensors may include a yield monitoring sensor 72, a billet loss sensor 74, a primary fan speed sensor 76, a load sensor 78, a moisture sensor 80, a trash sensor 82, a ground speed sensor 84, a secondary fan speed sensor 92, and a throughput sensor 94).
It is noted Dugas fails to particularly disclose wherein the control unit is configured to calculate a financial cost of the lost billet material and the harvested extraneous plant matter based on the first signal, the second signal and further based on a signal from a load sensor, moisture sensor, and/or a ground speed sensor.
However, Baumgarten, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the control unit is configured to calculate a financial cost of the lost billet material and the harvested extraneous plant matter (Baumgarten ¶ [0044]: Where the agricultural working machine 1 is designed as a combine harvester 2, the efficiency parameters 37 can comprise, for example, one or more of the efficiency parameters 37 "loss due to separation" 50, "loss due to cleaning" 51, "cleanliness of the grain" 52, "non-threshold out components in the grain tank" 53, "damaged grain" 54 and "fuel consumption" 55. The stored mathematical interrelationships 39 also account for so-called monetary interrelationships 44, wherein the monetary interrelationships 44 can comprise one or more of the parameters "price of the crop to be harvested" 56; "fuel price" 57; "yield of the harvested crop" 58 and the "rate of work of the agricultural working machine" 59. Also, valuation quantities 60 in the form of so-called opportunity costs 61 are then determined from the ascertained efficiency parameters 37 with consideration for the available monetary interrelationships 44) based on the first signal, the second signal (Baumgarten ¶ [0037]: The control/regulating unit 23 communicates via a bus system 25 in a manner known per se with a large number of sensor systems 26), and further based on various other sensor signals (Baumgarten ¶ [0041]: the software module 38 to comprise a plurality of program maps that describe the working process of an agricultural working machine 1; Baumgarten ¶ [0043]: One or more mathematical models 39 describing the working process of the agricultural working machine 1 are stored in the arithmetic logic unit 27 associated with the control/regulating device 23. As stated above, the stored mathematical models 39 comprise, at the least, a program map 41 for describing the working process of the separating device 10 and a program map 40 for describing the working process of the cleaning device 17. Input quantities 43 of the mathematical models 39 generating the particular program maps 40, 41 are machine-related working parameters 34, such as the speed 45, 47 of certain working parts 20, and crop-related working parameters 34, such as crop throughput 48, the moisture content of the straw and grain, and humidity; Fig. 2). The Examiner interprets the working processes of an agricultural working machine to include ground and separator speed as well as throughput and crop moisture. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that when generating characteristic maps for working processes such as speed, throughput, and moisture it would be effective to utilize sensor data that relates to speed, throughput, and moisture as taught by Dugas.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for determining harvester speed parameters of Dugas modified by the calculation of a plurality of financial costs for determining a cost-effective change to a working parameter of Baumgarten to further include the characteristic maps for speed, throughput and moisture of Baumgarten with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that utilizing the speed, load, and moisture sensors of Dugas would facilitate generation of effective characteristic maps for determining a cost-effective operation for an agricultural working machine of Baumgarten. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the efficiency of an agricultural working machine based on operating costs in a short period of time (Baumgarten ¶ [0010]).
Regarding claim 14, Dugas discloses a control system (Dugas ¶ [0040]: The operator interface 66 is operatively coupled with a control unit 68 as illustrated in FIG. 10, such as a microprocessor-based electronic control unit or the like, for receiving signals from the operator interface 66 and from several sensors and for sending signals to control various components of the harvester 10) for a harvester (Dugas: harvester 10 in Fig. 1) having a separator for separating a cut crop into a billet material and extraneous plant matter (Dugas ¶ [0030]: the separator 55 receives the cut crop from the chopper 28 and generally separates the cut crop by way of a crop cleaner, which will be described in greater detail below. The crop cleaner may include any suitable mechanism for cleaning the cut crop, such as a fan (as in the illustrated construction that will be described below), a source of compressed air, a rake, a shaker, or any other mechanism that discriminates various types of crop parts by weight, size, shape, etc. in order to separate extraneous plant matter from billets), the separator including a fan (Dugas ¶ [0030]: The separator 55 may include any combination of one or more of a cleaning chamber 32, a cleaning chamber housing 34, a primary crop cleaner such as a fan 40 (e.g., a primary fan), a fan enclosure 36, a motor 50 driving the fan 40), the control system configured to: monitor an amount of the billet material that is lost and unharvested at the separator (Dugas ¶ [0043]: The billet loss sensor 74 is configured for sending a signal to the control unit 68 corresponding to each billet B passing through the separator 55 and, more specifically, out the opening 54);
monitor an amount of the extraneous plant matter that is harvested from the separator (Dugas ¶ [0048]: The trash sensor 82 may quantify the amount of trash as an absolute amount or as a percentage of total yield through the discharge opening 58); and
control a speed of the fan (Dugas ¶ [0061]: To achieve the desired cleaning level, the control unit 68 may continuously or periodically adjust the fan speed until the percentage of billet B achieves (e.g., is approximately equal to, or within a threshold close to) the desired cleaning level. The controlled cleaning system 90 may calculate the cleaning level by calculating trash as a percentage of crop discharged from the discharge opening 58. As discussed above, the level of billet and the level of trash are inversely related, thus the control unit 68 may use either as a measure of cleaning level and can convert between the two).
It is noted Dugas fails to particularly disclose calculate a financial cost of the lost billet material and the harvested extraneous plant matter based on the monitored amounts of billet material and extraneous plant matter and further based on an external input, and calculate a plurality of financial costs at different speeds of the fan, determine a minimum financial cost of the plurality of financial costs, and control a speed of the fan to correspond to the minimum financial cost.
However, Baumgarten, in the same field of endeavor, teaches calculate a financial cost of the lost billet material and the harvested extraneous plant matter (Baumgarten ¶ [0044]: Where the agricultural working machine 1 is designed as a combine harvester 2, the efficiency parameters 37 can comprise, for example, one or more of the efficiency parameters 37 "loss due to separation" 50, "loss due to cleaning" 51, "cleanliness of the grain" 52, "non-threshold out components in the grain tank" 53, "damaged grain" 54 and "fuel consumption" 55. The stored mathematical interrelationships 39 also account for so-called monetary interrelationships 44, wherein the monetary interrelationships 44 can comprise one or more of the parameters "price of the crop to be harvested" 56; "fuel price" 57; "yield of the harvested crop" 58 and the "rate of work of the agricultural working machine" 59. Also, valuation quantities 60 in the form of so-called opportunity costs 61 are then determined from the ascertained efficiency parameters 37 with consideration for the available monetary interrelationships 44) based on the monitored amounts of billet material and extraneous plant matter (Baumgarten ¶ [0037]: The control/regulating unit 23 communicates via a bus system 25 in a manner known per se with a large number of sensor systems 26) and further based on an external input (Baumgarten ¶ [0037]: The agricultural working machine 1 also comprises a driver's cab 21, in which at least one control/regulating unit 23 equipped with a display device 22 is disposed. The control/regulating 23 uses a plurality of processes, which are known per se and are therefore not described in greater detail. The processes are initiated automatically or by the operator 24 of the agricultural working machine 1; Baumgarten ¶ [0043]: With consideration for these working parameters 34 and, possibly, other external and internal information 28, 29, the stored mathematical models 39 first generate the efficiency parameters 37; Baumgarten ¶ [0046]: it may be significant that the current fuel and grain prices are continuously acquired via data bases that are available on-line), and
and calculate a plurality of financial costs at different speeds of the fan (Baumgarten ¶ [0043]-[0044]: One or more mathematical models 39 describing the working process of the agricultural working machine 1 are stored in the arithmetic logic unit 27 associated with the control/regulating device 23. As stated above, the stored mathematical models 39 comprise, at the least, a program map 41 for describing the working process of the separating device 10 and a program map 40 for describing the working process of the cleaning device 17. Input quantities 43 of the mathematical models 39 generating the particular program maps 40, 41 are machine-related working parameters 34, such as the speed 45, 47 of certain working parts 20, and crop-related working parameters 34, such as crop throughput 48, the moisture content of the straw and grain, and humidity. With consideration for these working parameters 34 and, possibly, other external and internal information 28, 29, the stored mathematical models 39 first generate the efficiency parameters 37. Where the agricultural working machine 1 is designed as a combine harvester 2, the efficiency parameters 37 can comprise, for example, one or more of the efficiency parameters 37 "loss due to separation" 50, "loss due to cleaning" 51, "cleanliness of the grain" 52, "non-threshold out components in the grain tank" 53, "damaged grain" 54 and "fuel consumption" 55. The stored mathematical interrelationships 39 also account for so-called monetary interrelationships 44, wherein the monetary interrelationships 44 can comprise one or more of the parameters "price of the crop to be harvested" 56; "fuel price" 57; "yield of the harvested crop" 58 and the "rate of work of the agricultural working machine" 59. Also, valuation quantities 60 in the form of so-called opportunity costs 61 are then determined from the ascertained efficiency parameters 37 with consideration for the available monetary interrelationships 44; Baumgarten ¶ [0049]: the determined opportunity costs 61, 64 to be continuously determined either before the start of the working process 62 of the agricultural working machine 1 in the form of a simulation, or in the on-going working process 62. The stored mathematical models 39 account for historic and/or current working parameters 34 and additional internal and external information 28, 29 in the simulation and during on-line operation),
determine a minimum financial cost of the plurality of financial costs (Baumgarten ¶ [0046]: With respect to the above-described monetary interrelationships 44, it does apply that, independently of the actual costs, the monetary valuation of the working process of the agricultural working machine 1 is positively affected when fuel consumption is low, crop losses are low and, correspondingly, quantities of grain actually harvested are high, and the portion of damaged grain is low. Due to the fact that the costs of fuel per liter or ton differ from the costs of grain per liter or ton, a cost-effective working process of the agricultural working machine is decisively dependent on the costs of fuel and the crop to be harvested, and can be subject to constant fluctuations. Therefore, determining the effect of the individual parameters 37 on the opportunity costs 61 is particularly significant in terms of determining a cost-effective working process of the agricultural working machine 1; Baumgarten ¶ [0050]: the assistance system 35 generates a proposal 70, with consideration for the opportunity costs 61, 64 that were determined, for adjusting at least the working parameters 34 of the agricultural working machine 1). The Examiner interprets the system and method of Baumgarten to calculate a plurality of financial costs using mathematical models that include characteristic maps describing working parameters including fan speed of the agricultural working machine and monetary relationships in order to propose a cost-effective adjustment to at least one working parameter including fan speed of the agricultural working machine. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that when operational financial costs for an agricultural working machine include crop loss, crop cleanliness and any financial losses associated with sub-optimal working parameters, cost-effective working parameter adjustments will be associated with the lowest financial cost.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for determining harvester speed parameters of Dugas to include the mathematical models for determination of proposed working parameters based on opportunity costs that include monetary costs associated with crop loss, crop cleanliness, and external inputs and the calculation of a plurality of financial costs for determining a cost-effective change to a working parameter of Baumgarten with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that replacing the level of cleaning of Dugas with the mathematical models for determining a cost-effective change to working parameters of Baumgarten would have the predicted result of a system that controls ground, separator and fan speeds of a harvester in a cost-effective way. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the efficiency of an agricultural working machine based on operating costs in a short period of time (Baumgarten ¶ [0010]).
Regarding claim 15, Dugas fails to particularly disclose wherein the external input includes one or more of a fuel/transportation cost, a mill processing cost of the extraneous plant matter, a sugar absorption rate of the extraneous plant matter, or a market price of the billet material.
However, Baumgarten, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the external input includes one or more of a fuel/transportation cost, a mill processing cost of the extraneous plant matter, a sugar absorption rate of the extraneous plant matter, or a market price of the billet material (Baumgarten ¶ [0044]: the monetary interrelationships 44 can comprise one or more of the parameters "price of the crop to be harvested" 56; "fuel price" 57; "yield of the harvested crop" 58 and the "rate of work of the agricultural working machine" 59).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for determining harvester speed parameters of Dugas modified by the mathematical models for determination of proposed working parameters based on opportunity costs that include monetary costs associated with crop loss, crop cleanliness, and external inputs and the calculation of a plurality of financial costs for determining a cost-effective change to a working parameter of Baumgarten to further include the external input of monetary parameters of Baumgarten with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the efficiency of an agricultural working machine based on operating costs in a short period of time (Baumgarten ¶ [0010]).
Regarding claim 17, Dugas fails to particularly disclose wherein the control system is further configured to provide an instruction to an operator to modify a speed of the harvester in response to the calculated financial cost of the lost billet material and the harvested extraneous plant matter.
However, Baumgarten, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the control system is further configured to provide an instruction to an operator to modify a speed of the harvester in response to the calculated financial cost of the lost billet material and the harvested extraneous plant matter (Baumgarten ¶ [0050]: the assistance system 35 generates a proposal 70, with consideration for the opportunity costs 61, 64 that were determined, for adjusting at least the working parameters 34 of the agricultural working machine 1 and displays these in the display unit 22).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for determining harvester speed parameters based on a level of cleaning of Dugas modified by the mathematical models for determination of proposed working parameters based on opportunity costs that include monetary costs associated with crop loss, crop cleanliness, and external inputs and the calculation of a plurality of financial costs for determining a cost-effective change to a working parameter of Baumgarten to further include the proposal to an operator based on financial cost of Baumgarten with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the efficiency of an agricultural working machine based on operating costs in a short period of time (Baumgarten ¶ [0010]).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 103 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190037770 by Dugas et al. (hereafter "Dugas"), in view of US 20050150202 by Quick (hereafter " Quick ").
Regarding claim 18, Dugas discloses a control system (Dugas ¶ [0040]: The operator interface 66 is operatively coupled with a control unit 68 as illustrated in FIG. 10, such as a microprocessor-based electronic control unit or the like, for receiving signals from the operator interface 66 and from several sensors and for sending signals to control various components of the harvester 10) for a harvester (Dugas: harvester 10 in Fig. 1) having a separator for separating a cut crop into a billet material and extraneous plant matter (Dugas ¶ [0030]: the separator 55 receives the cut crop from the chopper 28 and generally separates the cut crop by way of a crop cleaner, which will be described in greater detail below. The crop cleaner may include any suitable mechanism for cleaning the cut crop, such as a fan (as in the illustrated construction that will be described below), a source of compressed air, a rake, a shaker, or any other mechanism that discriminates various types of crop parts by weight, size, shape, etc. in order to separate extraneous plant matter from billets), the control system configured to: monitor an amount of the billet material that is harvested (Dugas ¶ [0042]: The yield monitoring sensor 72 is coupled to the conveyor 56 and sends a crop yield signal to the control unit 68 corresponding to an amount (e.g., a mass or a volume) of crop being discharged from the discharge opening 58);
monitor an amount of the billet material that is lost and unharvested from the separator (Dugas ¶ [0043]: The billet loss sensor 74 is configured for sending a signal to the control unit 68 corresponding to each billet B passing through the separator 55 and, more specifically, out the opening 54);
monitor an amount of the extraneous plant matter that is harvested from the separator (Dugas ¶ [0048]: The trash sensor 82 may quantify the amount of trash as an absolute amount or as a percentage of total yield through the discharge opening 58); and
control a speed of the harvester (Dugas ¶ [0063]: The controlled cleaning system 90 may also control ground speed of the harvester 10. For example, the controlled cleaning system may be operatively coupled to the throttle 11 to control the prime mover (not shown) to effectuate changes in the ground speed of the harvester 10. Changes in the ground speed may affect the cleaning level of the crop).
It is noted Dugas fails to particularly disclose calculate a financial return of the harvested billet material in view of the lost billet material, the harvested extraneous plant matter, and further based on an external input; and calculate a plurality of financial returns at different speeds of the harvester, determine a maximum financial return of the plurality of financial returns, and control a speed of the harvester to correspond to the maximum financial return.
However, Quick, in the same field of endeavor, teaches calculate a financial return of the harvested billet material in view of the lost billet material, the harvested extraneous plant matter, and further based on an external input (Quick ¶ [0032]: FIG. 8 provides a flow chart that outlines the process of utilizing monitored information for a machine or combine 10 to determine the maximum economic return on the combine's operation. Specifically, prior to operation of the combine 10, the operator programs into the controller 26 certain predetermined O&O costs and economic data. These costs and econometrics, as detailed above in regards to FIG. 3, are saved into a memory bank within controller 26. During operation of the combine 10, the controller 26 receives input from the grain yield monitor 12, the grain quality sensors including the grain moisture sensor 22 and grain damage monitor 24, and the combine and engine performance sensors. The controller 26 applies a cost calculating algorithm to analyze these inputs in consideration of the predetermined O&O costs and econometrics stored in the memory bank of the controller 26. Through analysis of these factors, either the controller 26 or the operator determines the proper adjustment and operation of the combine 10 that will achieve the maximum economic return); and
calculate a plurality of financial returns at different speeds of the harvester (Quick ¶ [0023]: The master controller 26 utilizes the signals conditioned from these sensors as inputs to compute, display and maintain machine settings for economic returns. The sensor data is processed by a signal-conditioning unit within the master controller 26 and simplifies the operator's tasks in the field by integrating a wide range of data coming in at any moment, including data from the grain yield monitor 12, the grain quality sensors 22 and 24, and the engine parameter sensors. In particular, however, the controller 26 tells the operator what settings will provide the maximum economic return from the harvest operation in real dollars for the specific crop and condition; Figs. 2-7),
determine a maximum financial return of the plurality of financial returns, and control a speed of the harvester to correspond to the maximum financial return (Quick ¶ [0024]: After processing, the master controller 26 signals to the operator via an overhead display panel 28 in the cab of the combine 10 and/or automatically controls the harvesting machine or combine 10 to simultaneously measure the important grain quality parameters of the crop and correct the performance of the combine 10 for optimal profitability or economic returns "on-the-go", or while the combine 10 is operating). The Examiner interprets the system and method of Quick to generate cost relative curves, shown in Figs. 2-7, based on factors including ground speed and threshing speed used for determining operation settings to produce a maximum profit margin or economic return.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for determining harvester speed parameters based on a level of cleaning of Dugas to include the calculation of financial return including the calculation of a plurality of financial returns at different harvester speeds of Quick with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that replacing the level of cleaning of Dugas with the determined operation settings that produce maximum profit margin or economic return of Quick would have the predicted result of a system that controls ground speed of a harvester to maximize financial returns. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to allow an operator to adjust operational settings of a harvester to keep econometric performance within a narrow band (Quick ¶ [0007]).
Regarding claim 19, Dugas fails to particularly disclose wherein the external input includes one or more of a fuel/transportation cost, a mill processing cost of the extraneous plant matter, a sugar absorption rate of the extraneous plant matter, or a market price of the billet material.
However, Quick, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the external input includes one or more of a fuel/transportation cost, a mill processing cost of the extraneous plant matter, a sugar absorption rate of the extraneous plant matter, or a market price of the billet material (Quick ¶ [0027]: The amount of harvested returns displayed in FIG. 3 is further adjusted by the actual ownership and operating (O&O) costs of the particular harvesting machine or combine 10. This predetermined information is inputted by the owner or operator preferably at the beginning of each season or harvest, or when a new crop is to be harvested; Quick ¶ [0032]: Specifically, prior to operation of the combine 10, the operator programs into the controller 26 certain predetermined O&O costs and economic data). The Examiner interprets operating costs to include fuel/transportation costs and economic data to include the market price of a crop which includes cost for processing and crop quality based on the graphs shown in Figs 2-7 of Quick.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for determining harvester speed parameters based on a level of cleaning of Dugas modified by the calculation of financial return including the calculation of a plurality of financial returns at different harvester speeds of Quick to further include the external inputs for operating cost and economic data of Quick. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to allow an operator to adjust operational settings of a harvester to keep econometric performance within a narrow band (Quick ¶ [0007]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
EP 1321024 by Behnke discloses a system and method for optimizing working parameters of a harvester based on operating values and harvesting conditions.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICHOLAS P LANGHORNE whose telephone number is (571)272-5670. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/N.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666