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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered.
Status of the Claims
1. This Office action is responsive to the amendment and remarks filed 06/15/2026 in reply to the non-final Office action mailed 03/26/2026. The amendment has been entered. Claims 1–3, 7, 9–17, 19, and 20 are amended; claims 4–6, 8, and 18 are canceled; and claims 21 and 22 are newly added. Claims 1–3, 7, 9–17, and 19–22 are pending and have been examined as amended.
Claim Objections
2. The objections to claims 7 and 16 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in view of the amendments. Claim 7 now properly depends from “[t]he system of claim 1,” and claim 16 now consistently recites “the corn header height guidance mode.”
Withdrawn Rejection
3. The rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1) in view of Hunt (US 2021/0055158 A1) and Schlipf (US 2008/0155954 A1) is withdrawn. As to claims 4–6, 8, and 18, the rejection is moot in view of their cancellation. As to the remaining claims, the rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments, which, among other things, require first and second radar sensors coupled to the corn header at different vertical heights, determination of the presence of the ear layer at the vertical height of each respective radar sensor based on that sensor’s one-dimensional distance data, and control of the header height actuator to decrease and increase the picking height in response to those respective determinations.
4. Upon further consideration and an updated search necessitated by the amendments, new grounds of rejection are set forth in this Office action, as follows:
(a) Claims 1, 2, 7, 9–11, 13–17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Boyd in view of Hunt, further in view of Gale (US 5,299,413);
(b) Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Boyd in view of Hunt and Gale, further in view of Natsume (US 7,339,518 B2);
(c) Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Boyd in view of Hunt and Gale, further in view of Missotten (US 2021/0307248 A1) and Ferrari (US 10,531,603 B2);
(d) Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Boyd in view of Hunt and Gale, further in view of Boydens (US 10,117,374 B2); and
(e) Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Boyd in view of Hunt, Gale, and Natsume, further in view of Boydens.
5. The examiner notes that Missotten names inventors in common with the present application. Missotten was published on October 7, 2021, which is more than one year before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (October 14, 2022, the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/416,044). Missotten is therefore prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and the exception of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) does not apply. See MPEP 2152.02 and 2153.01(a).
A. Independent claims 1, 9, and 14
6. Applicant argues that Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf, individually, do not disclose a controller that controls a header height actuator to decrease the picking height in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor and to increase the picking height in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor (Remarks, pp. 3–4). Applicant further argues that, because Hunt’s height sensors 324 are “spaced apart equally along the lateral width of the header 110,” it is unclear why a person of ordinary skill in the art would add sensors along the vertical direction of Hunt’s header (Remarks, pp. 3–4). Applicant relies on the same reasoning for independent claims 9 and 14 (Remarks, pp. 5–6).
7. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. In view of the amendments, the prior rejection over Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf has been withdrawn, as noted above. However, the arguments do not overcome the new grounds of rejection set forth in this action. The new grounds rely on the newly cited Gale reference and a revised combination to address the particular limitations Applicant argues, namely the vertically spaced first and second radar sensors, the determination of the presence of the ear layer at the vertical height of each sensor, and the decrease and increase of the picking height in response to those respective determinations. Those limitations are not addressed by Schlipf, which is no longer relied upon, or by the lateral sensor arrangement of Hunt, and the rationale quoted by Applicant from page 60 of the prior Office action has been superseded. Boyd and Hunt remain relied upon for the teachings identified in the rejection. The examiner addresses the substance of Applicant’s arguments as they relate to the new grounds below.
8. Individual references and the combined teachings. To the extent Applicant argues that no individual reference expressly discloses the complete claimed arrangement (Remarks, p. 3), that argument does not address the combined teachings on which the rejection is based. Nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant separately challenges the rationale for vertically spacing the sensors; that argument has also been considered and is addressed in paragraph 9 below. The rejection does not assert that Boyd or Hunt alone discloses the argued control. Rather, as set forth in the rejection, Boyd teaches sensing the crop with header-mounted radio-wave sensors, identifying the valuable grain/ear layer from the sensed data, and raising and lowering the header relative to that layer (Boyd [0039], [0044]–[0045], [0051]); Hunt teaches implementing such header sensing with radar sensors on a corn header, a processor with memory storing instructions, and a height cylinder that the controller extends and retracts (Hunt [0024], [0034]–[0035], [0040], [0049]); and Gale teaches the vertically spaced two-sensor arrangement and the height control keyed to which sensor detects the crop feature, as discussed below.
9. Vertical spacing of the sensors. Applicant’s argument regarding Hunt’s lateral sensor arrangement does not overcome the present rejection. The rejection does not rely on Hunt, and does not propose modifying Hunt’s lateral array on the basis of Hunt’s own disclosure, to arrive at vertically spaced sensors. Gale expressly teaches “at least two sensors mounted on the support structure in such a manner as to be spaced apart vertically in use,” comprising “a lower sensor and a higher sensor” (Gale col. 2, ll. 23–26 and ll. 62–63; see also col. 6, ll. 45–47), and expressly teaches that, “[w]here the invention is used with a combine harvester, the invention may be used in controlling the height of the cutting table” (col. 1, ll. 21–23). The reason to combine is found in the references themselves, not in Applicant’s disclosure: Boyd explains why header height should be referenced to the grain layer itself rather than to the crop top (Boyd [0008], [0045]); Gale teaches that vertically spaced upper and lower sensors provide a simple window control that holds a harvesting component in a set relationship to the sensed crop, which reduces crop losses (Gale col. 10, l. 67 – col. 11, l. 1); and Gale identifies the disadvantage of its contact sensors, which disturb the crop and lose grain (col. 1, ll. 61–64), while stating that its arrangement may be used “with other kinds of sensor” (col. 4, ll. 47–51), for which Boyd and Hunt supply non-contact radio-wave/radar sensors. This is an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning, as required by KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). See MPEP 2143(I)(B)–(D).
10. Nor does Hunt’s disclosure of laterally spaced height sensors discourage the combination. A reference teaches away only when it criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the claimed solution; the mere disclosure of an alternative arrangement does not. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Hunt does not discourage vertically spaced sensors. To the contrary, Hunt states that “any number of height sensors 324 may be installed relative to the header 110” (Hunt [0034]) and that the header may be a corn header ([0024]). Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, but what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
11. Control responsive to the ear layer at each sensor height. The rejection relies on Gale for a two-level control in which a harvesting component is lowered or raised according to which vertically spaced sensor detects the sensed crop feature, so that the feature is held between the sensors (Gale col. 2, l. 58 – col. 3, l. 7; col. 7, l. 49 – col. 8, l. 3; col. 10, ll. 53–55), including raising the component when the crop feature is present at the upper sensor (col. 7, l. 67 – col. 8, l. 3). The examiner does not contend that Gale expressly recites lowering in response to detection at the lower sensor; Gale senses a single boundary (the crop top). As explained in the rejection, Boyd’s sensed feature is a layer of finite thickness bounded by grain plane P3 below and crop plane P2 above (Boyd [0045]; FIGS. 8–9). Applying Gale’s known window control to that layer predictably yields the claimed directional corrections: the ear layer present at the upper sensor’s height indicates the layer is high relative to the header (raise), and the ear layer present at the lower sensor’s height indicates the layer is low relative to the header (lower). The obviousness analysis may take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
12. All claim limitations are addressed. Applicant cites In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981 (CCPA 1974), for the proposition that all claim elements must be taught or suggested. Every limitation of the pending claims has been considered and is addressed in the rejection, either by express disclosure in the cited references or by explicit findings and reasoning as to why the limitation would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.03. In addition, the examiner has considered the claims as amended; to the extent Applicant’s quotation of the claims in the Remarks uses the prior wording “to decrease” and “to increase,” the claims have been examined as presently amended (“that decreases” and “that increases”).
13. For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claims 1, 9, and 14 are not persuasive as applied to the new ground of rejection.
B. Dependent claims
14. Applicant does not present separate arguments for dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 10–13, 15–17, 19, and 20, other than their dependence from claims 1, 9, and 14. Because the independent claims remain rejected, this argument is not persuasive. Moreover, dependency is not the sole basis of the rejection of any dependent claim: each dependent claim is separately rejected based on its additional limitation(s), as specifically mapped in the corresponding rejection above.
C. New claims 21 and 22
15. Applicant requests allowance of new claims 21 and 22 “based at least on their dependence from independent claim 1” (Remarks, p. 6). This is not persuasive because claim 1 remains rejected, as set forth above. Further, claims 21 and 22 are rejected on their own merits. As to claim 21, Boydens teaches header-mounted distance sensors at the lateral ends of a harvester header whose sensing axes are directed inwardly toward the machine center line so as to cover substantially the complete width in front of the header (Boydens col. 6, ll. 11–30). Because claim 21 recites the orientation in the alternative (“angled upwardly …, angled inwardly …, or any combination thereof”), the inward orientation satisfies the claim for each sensor. As to claim 22, Boydens teaches determining the spatial coordinates, including the height, of a sensed target from the measured distance together with the known mounting angle and position of each sensor (col. 7, ll. 7–14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
References relied upon: Boyd et al., US 2016/0106038 A1 (“Boyd”); Hunt et al., US 2021/0055158 A1 (“Hunt”); Gale, US 5,299,413 (“Gale”); Natsume et al., US 7,339,518 B2 (“Natsume”); Missotten et al., US 2021/0307248 A1 (“Missotten”); Ferrari et al., US 10,531,603 B2 (“Ferrari”); and Boydens et al., US 10,117,374 B2 (“Boydens”).
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9–11, 13–17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd in view of Hunt, further in view of Gale.
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1)
Boyd discloses:
A system, comprising:
See at least:
"a combine harvester 50, structurally similar to the combine harvester 20 shown in FIG. 1, is shown equipped with a sensor 52 that is held by the combine harvester 50." (Boyd [0039])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses a harvesting system made up of cooperating components (combine harvester 50, sensor 52, electrical processing circuit (EPC) 58, and header 28). These components together constitute a "system" comprising the recited elements.
coupled to the corn header
See at least:
"The sensor 52 can be mounted to the header 28 (as shown in FIG. 2)" (Boyd [0039])
Rationale: Express. Boyd discloses its crop-sensing sensor mounted to, and therefore coupled to, header 28. The radar character of the sensor and the corn-header character of the header are supplied by Hunt below; Boyd's header-mounted coupling carries over unchanged to the radar sensor and corn header of the combination.
at a first vertical height;
See at least:
"the mapped area will be between the sensor 52 and the ground 60 up to the sensor depth D1 away from the header 28." (Boyd [0043])
Rationale: Because the mapped area lies between the sensor and the ground (FIGS. 2 and 7), sensor 52 is necessarily held at a vertical height above the ground. A physical sensor mounted on a header inherently occupies a vertical height; this limitation is therefore inherent in Boyd's header-mounted sensor.
coupled to the corn header
See at least:
"the combine harvester 50 has one or more sensors 52 that are mounted to the header 28 generally perpendicular to the ground" (Boyd [0041])
Rationale: Each of the plural sensors 52 is expressly mounted to header 28, so the second radar sensor is coupled to the header; the corn-header character is supplied by Hunt below.
at a second vertical height,
See at least:
"The waves 54 from the sensor(s) 52 will travel through the crops to the ground 60, and be reflected back to the sensor(s) 52 from the ground 60." (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: Each sensor 52 transmits down through the crop to the ground and is therefore located at a vertical height above it. The second sensor is inherently mounted at a vertical height; the relationship between the two heights is addressed below.
a controller comprising:
See at least:
"The EPC 58 can be configured as any type of suitable processor that is capable of receiving and analyzing the output signals from the sensor(s) 52, such as a digital controller" (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: Boyd expressly identifies EPC 58 as, for example, a digital controller that receives and analyzes the sensor outputs, which is a controller.
one or more processors,
See at least:
"The EPC 58 can be configured as any type of suitable processor" (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses that the EPC comprises a processor, which satisfies "one or more processors."
wherein the controller:
See at least:
"The EPC 58 is configured so that once it receives output signals, it produces a field map of the area in front of the header 28 based on the received output signals." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: Boyd expressly assigns the receiving, determining, and controlling functions mapped below to EPC 58, i.e., the controller.
receives a first signal from the first radar sensor
See at least:
"the sensor(s) 52 can produce a plurality of output signals that are sent to an electrical processing circuit (EPC) 58 coupled to the sensor(s) 52." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: Express. Boyd discloses the EPC receiving an output signal from each sensor 52, including a first sensor. Boyd's sensor 52 emits and receives radio waves ([0039]); its express implementation as a radar sensor is supplied by Hunt below, so in the combination the received first signal is a signal from the first radar sensor.
indicative of first one-dimensional distance data
See at least:
"the various heights can be determined based on the travel time of the waves 54 through varying densities of the crops, with the densities of the non-valuable crop material 44 and valuable crop material 46 having different values." (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious. Consistent with the Specification ([0028]), one-dimensional distance data is data representing the reflected signal at each distance along the sensor's axis. Boyd's sensor emits along a single direction and resolves returns from crop layers of different density by their travel time. Because round-trip travel time corresponds one-to-one to distance along the beam, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to represent Boyd's output as reflection data indexed by distance along that single axis, i.e., one-dimensional distance data; that is the ordinary way range-resolved returns from a single-beam sensor are represented, and Hunt likewise processes its radar returns as data "associated with distances" (Hunt [0048]).
along a first axis emanating from the first radar sensor,
See at least:
"As shown in FIG. 2, the sensor 52 is directed generally perpendicularly to the ground in the path of the header 28" (Boyd [0039])
Rationale: A sensor "directed" in a single direction emits along a line extending from the sensor. That line is an axis emanating from the first radar sensor, along which the travel-time data of [0044] is resolved.
and concurrently receives a second signal from the second radar sensor
See at least:
"the EPC 58 can average out each height to produce an averaged crop height, an averaged stem height and an averaged grain height across the effective sensor width W1 up to the sensor depth D1." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious. Boyd's width W1 is formed by plural sensors (FIG. 5; [0041]) whose data the EPC combines into one map of the crop "in the path of the header 28 as it travels across the ground" ([0044]). Because the harvester is moving, data from the several sensors describe the same approaching crop only if they are acquired over the same interval. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to receive the sensors' signals concurrently, the predictable way to obtain a contemporaneous crop profile from a moving machine.
indicative of second one-dimensional distance data
See at least:
"Based on the reflected signal that is received by the sensor(s) 52, data can be collected that is sent to the EPC 58 as output signals from the sensor(s) 52." (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious for the same reasons as the first sensor. Each sensor 52 operates identically, so the second sensor's output would likewise be represented as range-resolved reflection data along its beam, i.e., second one-dimensional distance data.
along a second axis emanating from the second radar sensor;
See at least:
"each sensor 52 tends to collect data in a circular area with a center defined by the sensor 52." (Boyd [0041])
Rationale: Each sensor's sensing area is centered on that sensor, so each sensor's beam extends along its own axis. The second sensor's beam is thus a second axis emanating from the second radar sensor.
determines the first one-dimensional distance data based on the first signal;
See at least:
"The output signals sent from the sensor(s) 52 to the EPC 58 can be analyzed to determine information about the crops and ground profile 60" (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC analyzing each sensor's output signal to extract its travel-time reflection profile. Extracting that profile from the received first signal is determining the first one-dimensional distance data based on the first signal.
determines the second one-dimensional distance data based on the second signal;
See at least:
"The relationship between the speed of the sound or radio wave and the density of the medium it is travelling through can be utilized by the EPC 58 to determine the crop height H2, the stem height H3 and the grain height H4 from the output signals that are received from the sensor(s) 52." (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: The EPC performs the same analysis on each sensor's output, including the second sensor's, and thus determines the second one-dimensional distance data from the second signal.
based on the first one-dimensional distance data;
See at least:
"the valuable crop material 46 has a valuable crop height H4, which when referring to grain crops can be referred to as 'a grain height.'" (Boyd [0043])
Rationale: Boyd determines where the valuable crop layer (the grain/ear layer) is located from each sensor's reflected-wave data ([0044]). Boyd thus teaches making ear-layer determinations based on the first sensor's one-dimensional distance data. The presence-at-sensor-height determination that this data supports is supplied by Gale below.
based on the second one-dimensional distance data;
See at least:
"a three-dimensional field map can be produced that graphically indicates the ground profile as a ground plane P1, the top of the crops as a crop plane P2 and a bottom of the valuable crop material 46 as a grain plane P3." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: The field map, including grain plane P3, is built from all sensors across width W1, including the second sensor's data. Boyd therefore teaches grain/ear-layer determinations based on the second one-dimensional distance data.
that decreases a picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"the EPC 58 signals for the header 28 to be lowered as the wheels 24, 26 initially scale the foreign object 62" (Boyd [0051])
Rationale: Express as to lowering. Boyd discloses the EPC lowering header 28, which reduces cutting height H1, the height at which the header engages the crop. On the corn header of the combination, the height at which the header engages the crop is the picking height, so lowering the header decreases the picking height. The actuator performing the movement is Hunt's height cylinder, below.
that increases the picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"and signals for the header 28 to be raised as the wheels 24, 26 pass over the foreign object 62 and return to the ground 60" (Boyd [0051])
Rationale: Express as to raising. Boyd discloses the EPC raising header 28, which increases the height at which the header engages the crop, i.e., the picking height of the corn header of the combination.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
a corn header;
a first radar sensor
a second radar sensor
wherein the second vertical height is above the first vertical height; and
a memory that stores instructions; and
determines a presence of an ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor
determines the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor
controls a header height actuator
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor; and
controls the header height actuator
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor.
Disclosure by Hunt (US 2021/0055158 A1)
Hunt discloses:
a corn header;
See at least:
"The header 110 may be in the form of any desired header, such as a draper header or a corn header." (Hunt [0024])
Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses that the sensor-equipped, height-controlled header may be a corn header.
a first radar sensor
See at least:
"each height sensor 324 may correspond to a radar sensor configured to transmit radio waves outwardly therefrom for reflection off of the ground surface 301 and detect such reflected radio waves" (Hunt [0035])
Rationale: Express. Hunt discloses a header-mounted radar sensor. Boyd's sensor 52 already emits and receives radio waves (Boyd [0039]); Hunt expressly identifies such a header sensor as a radar sensor.
a second radar sensor
See at least:
"the header 110 includes four height sensors 324 supported thereon for monitoring the local height 326 relative to the ground surface 301" (Hunt [0034])
Rationale: Express. Hunt discloses plural radar sensors on one header (each may be a radar sensor, [0035]), so a second radar sensor is disclosed.
a memory that stores instructions; and
See at least:
"Such memory device(s) 404 may generally be configured to store suitable computer-readable instructions that, when implemented by the processor(s) 402, configure the controller 402 to perform various computer-implemented functions" (Hunt [0040])
Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a controller memory storing instructions executed by the controller's processors, including for "the automatic header height control system 300."
controls a header height actuator
See at least:
"the actuating system may include a height cylinder 121 (e.g., coupled between the feeder housing 106 and a portion of the chassis 102 of the vehicle 100) that is configured to adjust the height or vertical positioning of the header 110 relative to the ground" (Hunt [0024])
Rationale: Express. Hunt discloses a header height actuator (height cylinder 121) that raises and lowers the header.
controls the header height actuator
See at least:
"such as by extending/retracting the height cylinder 121 and/or the tilt cylinder(s) 123, as necessary, so as to maintain the height of the header 110 at a desired or predetermined height setting value(s)" (Hunt [0049])
Rationale: Express. Hunt discloses the controller controlling the same height cylinder in both directions (extending and retracting), i.e., controlling the header height actuator for both the decrease and the increase of the combination.
Motivation to Combine Boyd and Hunt
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd and Hunt before them, to implement Boyd's header-mounted radio-wave crop sensors as radar sensors on a corn header, with Boyd's EPC 58 implemented as a processor executing instructions stored in memory and commanding a header height cylinder, as taught by Hunt. The references are technically compatible and complementary: Boyd teaches sensing the crop layers with radio waves emitted from sensors mounted on the header and adjusting header height from the result (Boyd [0039], [0044]–[0045]), and Hunt teaches the conventional hardware for doing exactly that on a harvesting header, namely header-mounted radar sensors (Hunt [0034]–[0035]), a processor with memory storing the control instructions ([0040]), and a height cylinder the controller extends and retracts to set header height ([0024], [0049]). Boyd does not limit its header type and states that "other types of cutters could be used" (Boyd [0038]); Hunt states that its sensor-equipped, height-controlled header "may be in the form of any desired header, such as a draper header or a corn header" (Hunt [0024]). Applying Boyd's grain-layer-based height control to a corn header with Hunt's radar sensors, memory-based controller, and height cylinder is the use of known elements for their established functions, yielding the predictable result Boyd identifies: header height set relative to the valuable crop layer so that "as much valuable crop material 46 as possible" is collected (Boyd [0045]) (KSR; MPEP 2143(I)(A), (B)).
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Boyd and Hunt
After combining the teachings of Boyd and Hunt, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
wherein the second vertical height is above the first vertical height; and
determines a presence of an ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor
determines the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor; and
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor.
Disclosure by Gale (US 5,299,413)
Gale discloses:
wherein the second vertical height is above the first vertical height; and
See at least:
"Mounted in the undersurface 35 are two bi-stable sensors 37 and 38 which are spaced apart vertically and horizontally." (Gale col. 6, ll. 45–47)
Rationale: Gale expressly discloses two crop sensors on a header-mounted support that are spaced apart vertically. Gale designates them "a lower sensor and a higher sensor" (col. 2, ll. 62–63) carried on the frame of "a header of a grain harvester" (col. 5, ll. 36–37). The higher sensor 37 is at a second vertical height above the first vertical height of the lower sensor 38.
determines a presence of an ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor
See at least:
"The sensors are arranged, as will be described hereinafter, to be switchable between two states one of which corresponds to contact with the top of the crop 10 and the other of which corresponds to non-contact with the crop." (Gale col. 6, ll. 50–54)
Rationale: Gale expressly teaches that each sensor determines whether a target crop feature is present at that sensor's own vertical height (contact vs. non-contact state), including lower sensor 38 at the first vertical height. Gale's target feature is the crop top. Boyd teaches that the grain/ear layer (valuable crop material 46, bounded below by grain plane P3) is the feature that matters for header positioning, and that radio-wave returns distinguish that layer by its density ([0044]). Applied to Boyd's radar, Gale's per-sensor presence determination becomes a determination, from the first sensor's one-dimensional distance data, of whether the ear layer is present at the first sensor's vertical height. This is PHOSITA-obvious for the reasons given in the motivation below.
determines the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor
See at least:
"When the machine is at work in crop in the state shown in FIG. 1, the upper sensor 37 does not contact the crop, and the lower vane 47 is pivoted downwardly, as shown in FIG. 6. No signal is fed along the line 39." (Gale col. 7, ll. 49–53)
Rationale: Gale expressly teaches that upper sensor 37 independently reports whether the crop feature is present at its own, higher vertical height, separately from the lower sensor. In the combination, the second radar sensor makes the same determination for the ear layer at the second vertical height from the second sensor's one-dimensional distance data (Boyd [0044]–[0045]).
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor; and
See at least:
"Should a lower height of crop (for example laid crop or a gap in the crop) be encountered, then the lower sensor 38 will fail to make contact with the crop, and control system 41 will actuate the ram 14 to lower the hood inlet edge 30, until contact with the crop is re-established." (Gale col. 7, ll. 59–64)
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious; Gale is not relied on as expressly disclosing this trigger. Gale expressly teaches a two-sensor control window: the component is lowered or raised according to the detection states of the lower and upper sensors so that the sensed crop feature is held between them ("midway between the heights of the sensors 37 and 38," col. 10, ll. 53–55). Gale's sensed feature is a single boundary (the crop top), so the lower-sensor error condition in Gale is loss of contact. Boyd's sensed feature is not a boundary but a layer of finite thickness: the grain/ear layer lies between grain plane P3 below and crop plane P2 above (Boyd [0045]; FIGS. 8–9). When Gale's window is applied to a layer rather than a boundary, the in-window condition is the layer lying between the two sensor heights, and the directional error signals follow from the geometry: detection of the layer at the lower sensor's height means the layer sits low relative to the window, and the correction that restores it to the window is lowering the header. Lowering the picking height in response to the ear layer being present at the first (lower) vertical height is therefore the predictable result of applying Gale's known window control to Boyd's known ear-layer target.
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor.
See at least:
"Conversely, if tall stems of crop occur, both sensors 37 and 38 make contact with the crop, and the control system 41 then actuates the ram 14 to raise the hood until the upper sensor 37 ceases to give an output signal." (Gale col. 7, l. 67 – col. 8, l. 3)
Rationale: Gale expressly teaches raising the crop-engaging component in response to the crop feature being present at the upper sensor's height, and continuing until the upper sensor no longer detects it. In the combination, the ear layer being present at the second (upper) radar sensor's vertical height triggers the header height actuator to increase the picking height, in the same direction and on the same trigger Gale discloses.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Gale
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, and Gale before them, to arrange the header-mounted radar sensors of the Boyd/Hunt combination at two vertically spaced heights as taught by Gale, with each radar sensor determining whether the ear layer is present at its own height, and with the header height actuator lowering the picking height when the ear layer is present at the lower sensor's height and raising it when the ear layer is present at the upper sensor's height. The reasons for this modification come from the references themselves, not from Applicant's disclosure.
First, Boyd teaches why the grain/ear layer, rather than the crop top, is the feature the header should follow: height control that senses only the crop top and assumes "the bottom of the crop head to be a preselected distance from the top of the crop" can harvest excess non-valuable material or miss valuable crop (Boyd [0008]), so Boyd sets header height from the grain layer itself ([0045]).
Second, Gale teaches a known, simple control architecture for holding a harvesting component in a set relationship to a sensed crop feature: an upper and a lower sensor, spaced vertically on the header, each reporting whether the crop feature is present at its own height, with the component driven down or up according to which sensor's state indicates the feature is outside the window (Gale col. 2, l. 58 – col. 3, l. 7; col. 7, l. 49 – col. 8, l. 3). Gale expressly contemplates using this control "in controlling the height of the cutting table" of a combine harvester (col. 1, ll. 21–23) and reports that holding the crop-engaging edge in a fixed relationship to the crop reduces crop losses (col. 10, l. 67 – col. 11, l. 1).
Third, Gale identifies the drawback of its contact sensors, which "strike directly against the grain heads, with consequent disturbance of the crop and loss of grain" (col. 1, ll. 61–64), and states that its arrangement can be used "with other kinds of sensor" (col. 4, ll. 47–51). Boyd and Hunt supply non-contact radio-wave/radar sensors on the header (Boyd [0039]; Hunt [0035]), and Boyd teaches that such sensors distinguish the grain layer from the stem layer by density ([0044]). Substituting the Boyd/Hunt radar sensors for Gale's contact vanes directly addresses Gale's stated problem while preserving Gale's per-sensor, per-height presence function; this is the simple substitution of one known crop-presence sensor for another (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Fourth, applying Gale's window to Boyd's target produces a predictable directional error signal. Because the ear layer has a lower and an upper extent (Boyd [0045]), the in-window condition is the layer lying between the two sensor heights; the layer appearing at the upper sensor's height indicates the layer is high relative to the header (raise), and the layer appearing at the lower sensor's height indicates the layer is low relative to the header (lower). This is the use of a known control technique to improve a similar system in the same way (MPEP 2143(I)(C)–(D)). The result holds the picking height in a fixed relationship below the ears, improving harvesting accuracy and efficiency and reducing crop loss, objectives shared by all three references (KSR).
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Gale establishes the system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 2.
Disclosure by Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1)
Boyd discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the controller:
See at least:
"The EPC 58 is configured so that once it receives output signals, it produces a field map of the area in front of the header 28 based on the received output signals." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: The controller of the parent combination is Boyd's EPC 58, which performs the further functions recited below.
determines a measured ear layer height of the ear layer
See at least:
"the EPC 58 can average out each height to produce an averaged crop height, an averaged stem height and an averaged grain height across the effective sensor width W1 up to the sensor depth D1." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC determining a measured (averaged) grain height and grain plane P3, i.e., the measured height of the valuable-crop layer. On the corn header of the combination, that layer is the ear layer, so the EPC determines a measured ear layer height of the ear layer.
based on the first one-dimensional distance data, the second one-dimensional distance data, or both;
See at least:
"The relationship between the speed of the sound or radio wave and the density of the medium it is travelling through can be utilized by the EPC 58 to determine the crop height H2, the stem height H3 and the grain height H4 from the output signals that are received from the sensor(s) 52." (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: Boyd expressly derives the grain (ear-layer) height from the output signals of the sensors 52, i.e., from the one-dimensional distance data of the first sensor, the second sensor, or both. This satisfies the recited alternatives.
determines a target picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"The EPC 58 can use the averaged values of the grain plane P3 to determine what the height H1 of the header 28 should be that allows for collection of as much valuable crop material 46 as possible" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC determining the height the header "should be," i.e., a target height at which the header engages the crop. On the corn header of the combination, that is a target picking height of the corn header.
based on the measured ear layer height; and
See at least:
"the grain plane P3 defines a bottom of where valuable crop material 46 is located in the crops" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: The target header height is determined from the averaged grain plane P3 values, i.e., based on the measured ear layer height.
controls the header height actuator
See at least:
"The EPC58 can also use the averaged values of the grain plane P3 to adjust the height H1 of the header 28" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC adjusting header height H1. In the parent combination that adjustment is carried out by commanding the header height actuator (Hunt's height cylinder 121, Hunt [0024]), so the controller controls the header height actuator.
that adjusts the picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"to adjust the relative position of the header 28 to the chassis 22 to a compensating height" (Boyd [0051])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC adjusting the height at which header 28 engages the crop, i.e., adjusting the picking height of the corn header of the combination.
to match the target picking height.
See at least:
"so that minimal, if any, non-valuable crop material 44 is chopped and directed to the feeder 30, so that mostly valuable crop material 46 is collected by the combine harvester 50." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious. Boyd's EPC first determines what H1 "should be" and then adjusts H1 to achieve that result. Driving the controlled height to the controller-determined value is the ordinary function of closed-loop height control, and Hunt's controller likewise extends and retracts the height cylinder "so as to maintain the height of the header 110 at a desired or predetermined height setting value(s)" (Hunt [0049]).
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Gale
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, and Gale before them, to include the further controller functions recited in this claim in the combined system of the parent claim. Those functions are Boyd's own grain-layer height-control functions (Boyd [0044]–[0045]), and they operate unchanged when Boyd's controller is implemented with Hunt's radar sensors, instruction-storing memory, and height cylinder and arranged with Gale's vertically spaced sensor window. The reasons for combining Boyd, Hunt, and Gale set forth for the independent claims apply equally: each reference's elements perform the same function in the combination that they perform separately, and the result, header height set relative to the measured ear layer, is predictable (KSR; MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 7
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Gale establishes the system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 7.
Disclosure by Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1)
Boyd discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the controller
See at least:
"The EPC 58 is configured so that once it receives output signals, it produces a field map of the area in front of the header 28 based on the received output signals." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: The controller of the parent combination is Boyd's EPC 58, which performs the further functions recited below.
adjusts the picking height
See at least:
"The EPC58 can also use the averaged values of the grain plane P3 to adjust the height H1 of the header 28" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC adjusting header height H1. In the parent combination that adjustment is carried out by commanding the header height actuator (Hunt's height cylinder 121, Hunt [0024]), so the controller controls the header height actuator.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
at a threshold distance below the ear layer.
Disclosure by Gale (US 5,299,413)
Gale discloses:
at a threshold distance below the ear layer.
See at least:
"It is found in practice that positioning the hood inlet edge at a fixed percentage of the crop height, for example 80 percent, gives advantageous harvesting operation, particularly reduced crop losses." (Gale col. 10, l. 65 – col. 11, l. 1)
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious. Gale is not relied on as disclosing a fixed absolute distance; Gale's offset is proportional to crop height. Gale does, however, establish two facts: (i) positioning the crop-engaging edge at a predetermined offset below the sensed crop feature was known, and (ii) that offset is a result-effective variable, because it "gives advantageous harvesting operation, particularly reduced crop losses." Gale also defines its control band in fixed absolute distances, e.g., a crop-height variation of "plus or minus 50 mm" requiring no adjustment (col. 8, ll. 4–7). Boyd already places the picking height below the grain/ear layer ([0045]). Expressing Boyd's "below the ear layer" setting as a predetermined threshold distance below the ear layer, rather than as a proportion, is a choice between two known ways of specifying the offset Gale shows to be result-effective, and selecting a workable fixed value is routine optimization of that variable (MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Gale
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, and Gale before them, to have the controller of the combination set the picking height at a threshold distance below the measured ear layer. The Boyd, Hunt, and Gale combination is motivated for the reasons set forth for Claim 1. Boyd teaches placing the header below the grain layer to collect as much valuable crop as possible while collecting enough non-valuable material ([0045]); Gale teaches that holding the crop-engaging edge at a predetermined offset from the sensed crop feature reduces crop losses (col. 10, l. 65 – col. 11, l. 1); and Hunt's controller holds the header at "a desired or predetermined height setting value(s)" ([0049]). A predetermined threshold distance converts Boyd's qualitative "below the grain plane" into a repeatable control setting, predictably improving consistency of the picking height and reducing losses (KSR).
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9,
Disclosure by Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1)
Boyd discloses:
A control system
See at least:
"The EPC 58 can be coupled to the one or more sensors 52 in any way that allows the output signals to be sent from the sensor(s) 52 to the EPC 58, such as hardwiring or wireless transmission." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: Express. Boyd discloses sensors 52 coupled to EPC 58, which processes their signals and adjusts operating parameters of the harvester, including header height ([0045]). The interconnected sensors and controller constitute a control system.
coupled to the corn header
See at least:
"The sensor 52 can be mounted to the header 28 (as shown in FIG. 2)" (Boyd [0039])
Rationale: Express. Boyd discloses its crop-sensing sensor mounted to, and therefore coupled to, header 28. The radar character of the sensor and the corn-header character of the header are supplied by Hunt below; Boyd's header-mounted coupling carries over unchanged to the radar sensor and corn header of the combination.
at a first vertical height;
See at least:
"the mapped area will be between the sensor 52 and the ground 60 up to the sensor depth D1 away from the header 28." (Boyd [0043])
Rationale: Because the mapped area lies between the sensor and the ground (FIGS. 2 and 7), sensor 52 is necessarily held at a vertical height above the ground. A physical sensor mounted on a header inherently occupies a vertical height; this limitation is therefore inherent in Boyd's header-mounted sensor.
coupled to the corn header
See at least:
"the combine harvester 50 has one or more sensors 52 that are mounted to the header 28 generally perpendicular to the ground" (Boyd [0041])
Rationale: Each of the plural sensors 52 is expressly mounted to header 28, so the second radar sensor is coupled to the header; the corn-header character is supplied by Hunt below.
at a second vertical height,
See at least:
"The waves 54 from the sensor(s) 52 will travel through the crops to the ground 60, and be reflected back to the sensor(s) 52 from the ground 60." (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: Each sensor 52 transmits down through the crop to the ground and is therefore located at a vertical height above it. The second sensor is inherently mounted at a vertical height; the relationship between the two heights is addressed below.
a controller comprising:
See at least:
"The EPC 58 can be configured as any type of suitable processor that is capable of receiving and analyzing the output signals from the sensor(s) 52, such as a digital controller" (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: Boyd expressly identifies EPC 58 as, for example, a digital controller that receives and analyzes the sensor outputs, which is a controller.
one or more processors,
See at least:
"The EPC 58 can be configured as any type of suitable processor" (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses that the EPC comprises a processor, which satisfies "one or more processors."
wherein the controller:
See at least:
"The EPC 58 is configured so that once it receives output signals, it produces a field map of the area in front of the header 28 based on the received output signals." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: Boyd expressly assigns the receiving, determining, and controlling functions mapped below to EPC 58, i.e., the controller.
receives a first signal from the first radar sensor
See at least:
"the sensor(s) 52 can produce a plurality of output signals that are sent to an electrical processing circuit (EPC) 58 coupled to the sensor(s) 52." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: Express. Boyd discloses the EPC receiving an output signal from each sensor 52, including a first sensor. Boyd's sensor 52 emits and receives radio waves ([0039]); its express implementation as a radar sensor is supplied by Hunt below, so in the combination the received first signal is a signal from the first radar sensor.
indicative of first one-dimensional distance data
See at least:
"the various heights can be determined based on the travel time of the waves 54 through varying densities of the crops, with the densities of the non-valuable crop material 44 and valuable crop material 46 having different values." (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious. Consistent with the Specification ([0028]), one-dimensional distance data is data representing the reflected signal at each distance along the sensor's axis. Boyd's sensor emits along a single direction and resolves returns from crop layers of different density by their travel time. Because round-trip travel time corresponds one-to-one to distance along the beam, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to represent Boyd's output as reflection data indexed by distance along that single axis, i.e., one-dimensional distance data; that is the ordinary way range-resolved returns from a single-beam sensor are represented, and Hunt likewise processes its radar returns as data "associated with distances" (Hunt [0048]).
along a first axis emanating from the first radar sensor,
See at least:
"As shown in FIG. 2, the sensor 52 is directed generally perpendicularly to the ground in the path of the header 28" (Boyd [0039])
Rationale: A sensor "directed" in a single direction emits along a line extending from the sensor. That line is an axis emanating from the first radar sensor, along which the travel-time data of [0044] is resolved.
and concurrently receives a second signal from the second radar sensor
See at least:
"the EPC 58 can average out each height to produce an averaged crop height, an averaged stem height and an averaged grain height across the effective sensor width W1 up to the sensor depth D1." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious. Boyd's width W1 is formed by plural sensors (FIG. 5; [0041]) whose data the EPC combines into one map of the crop "in the path of the header 28 as it travels across the ground" ([0044]). Because the harvester is moving, data from the several sensors describe the same approaching crop only if they are acquired over the same interval. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to receive the sensors' signals concurrently, the predictable way to obtain a contemporaneous crop profile from a moving machine.
indicative of second one-dimensional distance data
See at least:
"Based on the reflected signal that is received by the sensor(s) 52, data can be collected that is sent to the EPC 58 as output signals from the sensor(s) 52." (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious for the same reasons as the first sensor. Each sensor 52 operates identically, so the second sensor's output would likewise be represented as range-resolved reflection data along its beam, i.e., second one-dimensional distance data.
along a second axis emanating from the second radar sensor;
See at least:
"each sensor 52 tends to collect data in a circular area with a center defined by the sensor 52." (Boyd [0041])
Rationale: Each sensor's sensing area is centered on that sensor, so each sensor's beam extends along its own axis. The second sensor's beam is thus a second axis emanating from the second radar sensor.
determines the first one-dimensional distance data based on the first signal;
See at least:
"The output signals sent from the sensor(s) 52 to the EPC 58 can be analyzed to determine information about the crops and ground profile 60" (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC analyzing each sensor's output signal to extract its travel-time reflection profile. Extracting that profile from the received first signal is determining the first one-dimensional distance data based on the first signal.
determines the second one-dimensional distance data based on the second signal;
See at least:
"The relationship between the speed of the sound or radio wave and the density of the medium it is travelling through can be utilized by the EPC 58 to determine the crop height H2, the stem height H3 and the grain height H4 from the output signals that are received from the sensor(s) 52." (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: The EPC performs the same analysis on each sensor's output, including the second sensor's, and thus determines the second one-dimensional distance data from the second signal.
based on the first one-dimensional distance data;
See at least:
"the valuable crop material 46 has a valuable crop height H4, which when referring to grain crops can be referred to as 'a grain height.'" (Boyd [0043])
Rationale: Boyd determines where the valuable crop layer (the grain/ear layer) is located from each sensor's reflected-wave data ([0044]). Boyd thus teaches making ear-layer determinations based on the first sensor's one-dimensional distance data. The presence-at-sensor-height determination that this data supports is supplied by Gale below.
based on the second one-dimensional distance data;
See at least:
"a three-dimensional field map can be produced that graphically indicates the ground profile as a ground plane P1, the top of the crops as a crop plane P2 and a bottom of the valuable crop material 46 as a grain plane P3." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: The field map, including grain plane P3, is built from all sensors across width W1, including the second sensor's data. Boyd therefore teaches grain/ear-layer determinations based on the second one-dimensional distance data.
that decreases a picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"the EPC 58 signals for the header 28 to be lowered as the wheels 24, 26 initially scale the foreign object 62" (Boyd [0051])
Rationale: Express as to lowering. Boyd discloses the EPC lowering header 28, which reduces cutting height H1, the height at which the header engages the crop. On the corn header of the combination, the height at which the header engages the crop is the picking height, so lowering the header decreases the picking height. The actuator performing the movement is Hunt's height cylinder, below.
that increases the picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"and signals for the header 28 to be raised as the wheels 24, 26 pass over the foreign object 62 and return to the ground 60" (Boyd [0051])
Rationale: Express as to raising. Boyd discloses the EPC raising header 28, which increases the height at which the header engages the crop, i.e., the picking height of the corn header of the combination.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
of a corn header comprising:
a first radar sensor
a second radar sensor
wherein the second vertical height is above the first vertical height; and
a memory that stores instructions; and
determines a presence of an ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor
determines the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor
controls a header height actuator
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor; and
controls the header height actuator
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor.
Disclosure by Hunt (US 2021/0055158 A1)
Hunt discloses:
of a corn header comprising:
See at least:
"The header 110 may be in the form of any desired header, such as a draper header or a corn header." (Hunt [0024])
Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses that the sensor-equipped, height-controlled header may be a corn header.
a first radar sensor
See at least:
"each height sensor 324 may correspond to a radar sensor configured to transmit radio waves outwardly therefrom for reflection off of the ground surface 301 and detect such reflected radio waves" (Hunt [0035])
Rationale: Express. Hunt discloses a header-mounted radar sensor. Boyd's sensor 52 already emits and receives radio waves (Boyd [0039]); Hunt expressly identifies such a header sensor as a radar sensor.
a second radar sensor
See at least:
"the header 110 includes four height sensors 324 supported thereon for monitoring the local height 326 relative to the ground surface 301" (Hunt [0034])
Rationale: Express. Hunt discloses plural radar sensors on one header (each may be a radar sensor, [0035]), so a second radar sensor is disclosed.
a memory that stores instructions; and
See at least:
"Such memory device(s) 404 may generally be configured to store suitable computer-readable instructions that, when implemented by the processor(s) 402, configure the controller 402 to perform various computer-implemented functions" (Hunt [0040])
Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a controller memory storing instructions executed by the controller's processors, including for "the automatic header height control system 300."
controls a header height actuator
See at least:
"the actuating system may include a height cylinder 121 (e.g., coupled between the feeder housing 106 and a portion of the chassis 102 of the vehicle 100) that is configured to adjust the height or vertical positioning of the header 110 relative to the ground" (Hunt [0024])
Rationale: Express. Hunt discloses a header height actuator (height cylinder 121) that raises and lowers the header.
controls the header height actuator
See at least:
"such as by extending/retracting the height cylinder 121 and/or the tilt cylinder(s) 123, as necessary, so as to maintain the height of the header 110 at a desired or predetermined height setting value(s)" (Hunt [0049])
Rationale: Express. Hunt discloses the controller controlling the same height cylinder in both directions (extending and retracting), i.e., controlling the header height actuator for both the decrease and the increase of the combination.
Motivation to Combine Boyd and Hunt
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd and Hunt before them, to implement Boyd's header-mounted radio-wave crop sensors as radar sensors on a corn header, with Boyd's EPC 58 implemented as a processor executing instructions stored in memory and commanding a header height cylinder, as taught by Hunt. The references are technically compatible and complementary: Boyd teaches sensing the crop layers with radio waves emitted from sensors mounted on the header and adjusting header height from the result (Boyd [0039], [0044]–[0045]), and Hunt teaches the conventional hardware for doing exactly that on a harvesting header, namely header-mounted radar sensors (Hunt [0034]–[0035]), a processor with memory storing the control instructions ([0040]), and a height cylinder the controller extends and retracts to set header height ([0024], [0049]). Boyd does not limit its header type and states that "other types of cutters could be used" (Boyd [0038]); Hunt states that its sensor-equipped, height-controlled header "may be in the form of any desired header, such as a draper header or a corn header" (Hunt [0024]). Applying Boyd's grain-layer-based height control to a corn header with Hunt's radar sensors, memory-based controller, and height cylinder is the use of known elements for their established functions, yielding the predictable result Boyd identifies: header height set relative to the valuable crop layer so that "as much valuable crop material 46 as possible" is collected (Boyd [0045]) (KSR; MPEP 2143(I)(A), (B)).
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Boyd and Hunt
After combining the teachings of Boyd and Hunt, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
wherein the second vertical height is above the first vertical height; and
determines a presence of an ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor
determines the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor; and
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor.
Disclosure by Gale (US 5,299,413)
Gale discloses:
wherein the second vertical height is above the first vertical height; and
See at least:
"Mounted in the undersurface 35 are two bi-stable sensors 37 and 38 which are spaced apart vertically and horizontally." (Gale col. 6, ll. 45–47)
Rationale: Gale expressly discloses two crop sensors on a header-mounted support that are spaced apart vertically. Gale designates them "a lower sensor and a higher sensor" (col. 2, ll. 62–63) carried on the frame of "a header of a grain harvester" (col. 5, ll. 36–37). The higher sensor 37 is at a second vertical height above the first vertical height of the lower sensor 38.
determines a presence of an ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor
See at least:
"The sensors are arranged, as will be described hereinafter, to be switchable between two states one of which corresponds to contact with the top of the crop 10 and the other of which corresponds to non-contact with the crop." (Gale col. 6, ll. 50–54)
Rationale: Gale expressly teaches that each sensor determines whether a target crop feature is present at that sensor's own vertical height (contact vs. non-contact state), including lower sensor 38 at the first vertical height. Gale's target feature is the crop top. Boyd teaches that the grain/ear layer (valuable crop material 46, bounded below by grain plane P3) is the feature that matters for header positioning, and that radio-wave returns distinguish that layer by its density ([0044]). Applied to Boyd's radar, Gale's per-sensor presence determination becomes a determination, from the first sensor's one-dimensional distance data, of whether the ear layer is present at the first sensor's vertical height. This is PHOSITA-obvious for the reasons given in the motivation below.
determines the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor
See at least:
"When the machine is at work in crop in the state shown in FIG. 1, the upper sensor 37 does not contact the crop, and the lower vane 47 is pivoted downwardly, as shown in FIG. 6. No signal is fed along the line 39." (Gale col. 7, ll. 49–53)
Rationale: Gale expressly teaches that upper sensor 37 independently reports whether the crop feature is present at its own, higher vertical height, separately from the lower sensor. In the combination, the second radar sensor makes the same determination for the ear layer at the second vertical height from the second sensor's one-dimensional distance data (Boyd [0044]–[0045]).
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor; and
See at least:
"Should a lower height of crop (for example laid crop or a gap in the crop) be encountered, then the lower sensor 38 will fail to make contact with the crop, and control system 41 will actuate the ram 14 to lower the hood inlet edge 30, until contact with the crop is re-established." (Gale col. 7, ll. 59–64)
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious; Gale is not relied on as expressly disclosing this trigger. Gale expressly teaches a two-sensor control window: the component is lowered or raised according to the detection states of the lower and upper sensors so that the sensed crop feature is held between them ("midway between the heights of the sensors 37 and 38," col. 10, ll. 53–55). Gale's sensed feature is a single boundary (the crop top), so the lower-sensor error condition in Gale is loss of contact. Boyd's sensed feature is not a boundary but a layer of finite thickness: the grain/ear layer lies between grain plane P3 below and crop plane P2 above (Boyd [0045]; FIGS. 8–9). When Gale's window is applied to a layer rather than a boundary, the in-window condition is the layer lying between the two sensor heights, and the directional error signals follow from the geometry: detection of the layer at the lower sensor's height means the layer sits low relative to the window, and the correction that restores it to the window is lowering the header. Lowering the picking height in response to the ear layer being present at the first (lower) vertical height is therefore the predictable result of applying Gale's known window control to Boyd's known ear-layer target.
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor.
See at least:
"Conversely, if tall stems of crop occur, both sensors 37 and 38 make contact with the crop, and the control system 41 then actuates the ram 14 to raise the hood until the upper sensor 37 ceases to give an output signal." (Gale col. 7, l. 67 – col. 8, l. 3)
Rationale: Gale expressly teaches raising the crop-engaging component in response to the crop feature being present at the upper sensor's height, and continuing until the upper sensor no longer detects it. In the combination, the ear layer being present at the second (upper) radar sensor's vertical height triggers the header height actuator to increase the picking height, in the same direction and on the same trigger Gale discloses.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Gale
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, and Gale before them, to arrange the header-mounted radar sensors of the Boyd/Hunt combination at two vertically spaced heights as taught by Gale, with each radar sensor determining whether the ear layer is present at its own height, and with the header height actuator lowering the picking height when the ear layer is present at the lower sensor's height and raising it when the ear layer is present at the upper sensor's height. The reasons for this modification come from the references themselves, not from Applicant's disclosure.
First, Boyd teaches why the grain/ear layer, rather than the crop top, is the feature the header should follow: height control that senses only the crop top and assumes "the bottom of the crop head to be a preselected distance from the top of the crop" can harvest excess non-valuable material or miss valuable crop (Boyd [0008]), so Boyd sets header height from the grain layer itself ([0045]).
Second, Gale teaches a known, simple control architecture for holding a harvesting component in a set relationship to a sensed crop feature: an upper and a lower sensor, spaced vertically on the header, each reporting whether the crop feature is present at its own height, with the component driven down or up according to which sensor's state indicates the feature is outside the window (Gale col. 2, l. 58 – col. 3, l. 7; col. 7, l. 49 – col. 8, l. 3). Gale expressly contemplates using this control "in controlling the height of the cutting table" of a combine harvester (col. 1, ll. 21–23) and reports that holding the crop-engaging edge in a fixed relationship to the crop reduces crop losses (col. 10, l. 67 – col. 11, l. 1).
Third, Gale identifies the drawback of its contact sensors, which "strike directly against the grain heads, with consequent disturbance of the crop and loss of grain" (col. 1, ll. 61–64), and states that its arrangement can be used "with other kinds of sensor" (col. 4, ll. 47–51). Boyd and Hunt supply non-contact radio-wave/radar sensors on the header (Boyd [0039]; Hunt [0035]), and Boyd teaches that such sensors distinguish the grain layer from the stem layer by density ([0044]). Substituting the Boyd/Hunt radar sensors for Gale's contact vanes directly addresses Gale's stated problem while preserving Gale's per-sensor, per-height presence function; this is the simple substitution of one known crop-presence sensor for another (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Fourth, applying Gale's window to Boyd's target produces a predictable directional error signal. Because the ear layer has a lower and an upper extent (Boyd [0045]), the in-window condition is the layer lying between the two sensor heights; the layer appearing at the upper sensor's height indicates the layer is high relative to the header (raise), and the layer appearing at the lower sensor's height indicates the layer is low relative to the header (lower). This is the use of a known control technique to improve a similar system in the same way (MPEP 2143(I)(C)–(D)). The result holds the picking height in a fixed relationship below the ears, improving harvesting accuracy and efficiency and reducing crop loss, objectives shared by all three references (KSR).
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Gale establishes the control system of Claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 10.
Disclosure by Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1)
Boyd discloses:
The control system of claim 9, wherein the controller:
See at least:
"The EPC 58 is configured so that once it receives output signals, it produces a field map of the area in front of the header 28 based on the received output signals." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: The controller of the parent combination is Boyd's EPC 58, which performs the further functions recited below.
determines a measured ear layer height of the ear layer
See at least:
"the EPC 58 can average out each height to produce an averaged crop height, an averaged stem height and an averaged grain height across the effective sensor width W1 up to the sensor depth D1." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC determining a measured (averaged) grain height and grain plane P3, i.e., the measured height of the valuable-crop layer. On the corn header of the combination, that layer is the ear layer, so the EPC determines a measured ear layer height of the ear layer.
based on the first one-dimensional distance data, the second one-dimensional distance data, or any combination thereof;
See at least:
"The relationship between the speed of the sound or radio wave and the density of the medium it is travelling through can be utilized by the EPC 58 to determine the crop height H2, the stem height H3 and the grain height H4 from the output signals that are received from the sensor(s) 52." (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: Boyd expressly derives the grain (ear-layer) height from the output signals of the sensors 52, i.e., from the one-dimensional distance data of the first sensor, the second sensor, or both. This satisfies the recited alternatives.
determines a target picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"The EPC 58 can use the averaged values of the grain plane P3 to determine what the height H1 of the header 28 should be that allows for collection of as much valuable crop material 46 as possible" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC determining the height the header "should be," i.e., a target height at which the header engages the crop. On the corn header of the combination, that is a target picking height of the corn header.
based on the measured ear layer height; and
See at least:
"the grain plane P3 defines a bottom of where valuable crop material 46 is located in the crops" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: The target header height is determined from the averaged grain plane P3 values, i.e., based on the measured ear layer height.
controls the header height actuator
See at least:
"The EPC58 can also use the averaged values of the grain plane P3 to adjust the height H1 of the header 28" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC adjusting header height H1. In the parent combination that adjustment is carried out by commanding the header height actuator (Hunt's height cylinder 121, Hunt [0024]), so the controller controls the header height actuator.
that adjusts the picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"to adjust the relative position of the header 28 to the chassis 22 to a compensating height" (Boyd [0051])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC adjusting the height at which header 28 engages the crop, i.e., adjusting the picking height of the corn header of the combination.
to match the target picking height.
See at least:
"so that minimal, if any, non-valuable crop material 44 is chopped and directed to the feeder 30, so that mostly valuable crop material 46 is collected by the combine harvester 50." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious. Boyd's EPC first determines what H1 "should be" and then adjusts H1 to achieve that result. Driving the controlled height to the controller-determined value is the ordinary function of closed-loop height control, and Hunt's controller likewise extends and retracts the height cylinder "so as to maintain the height of the header 110 at a desired or predetermined height setting value(s)" (Hunt [0049]).
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Gale
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, and Gale before them, to include the further controller functions recited in this claim in the combined system of the parent claim. Those functions are Boyd's own grain-layer height-control functions (Boyd [0044]–[0045]), and they operate unchanged when Boyd's controller is implemented with Hunt's radar sensors, instruction-storing memory, and height cylinder and arranged with Gale's vertically spaced sensor window. The reasons for combining Boyd, Hunt, and Gale set forth for the independent claims apply equally: each reference's elements perform the same function in the combination that they perform separately, and the result, header height set relative to the measured ear layer, is predictable (KSR; MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 11
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Gale establishes the control system of Claim 10, which is the basis for Claim 11.
Disclosure by Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1)
Boyd discloses:
The control system of claim 10, wherein the controller
See at least:
"The EPC 58 is configured so that once it receives output signals, it produces a field map of the area in front of the header 28 based on the received output signals." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: The controller of the parent combination is Boyd's EPC 58, which performs the further functions recited below.
controls the header height actuator
See at least:
"The EPC58 can also use the averaged values of the grain plane P3 to adjust the height H1 of the header 28" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC adjusting header height H1. In the parent combination that adjustment is carried out by commanding the header height actuator (Hunt's height cylinder 121, Hunt [0024]), so the controller controls the header height actuator.
that adjusts the picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"to adjust the relative position of the header 28 to the chassis 22 to a compensating height" (Boyd [0051])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC adjusting the height at which header 28 engages the crop, i.e., adjusting the picking height of the corn header of the combination.
at below the measured ear layer height.
See at least:
"chopping below the height of the grain plane P3, relative to the ground plane P1, will result in non-valuable crop material 44 to be directed into the feeder 30." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Express/implicit. Boyd teaches setting H1 to collect "as much valuable crop material 46 as possible while also collecting enough non-valuable crop material 44 to be distributed back on to the field" ([0045]). Collecting non-valuable material, which lies below grain plane P3 ([0043]), requires the header to engage the crop below P3. Boyd therefore teaches adjusting the picking height to below the measured ear layer height.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Gale
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, and Gale before them, to include the further controller functions recited in this claim in the combined system of the parent claim. Those functions are Boyd's own grain-layer height-control functions (Boyd [0044]–[0045]), and they operate unchanged when Boyd's controller is implemented with Hunt's radar sensors, instruction-storing memory, and height cylinder and arranged with Gale's vertically spaced sensor window. The reasons for combining Boyd, Hunt, and Gale set forth for the independent claims apply equally: each reference's elements perform the same function in the combination that they perform separately, and the result, header height set relative to the measured ear layer, is predictable (KSR; MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Gale establishes the control system of Claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 13.
Disclosure by Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1)
Boyd discloses:
The control system of claim 9, wherein the controller:
See at least:
"The EPC 58 is configured so that once it receives output signals, it produces a field map of the area in front of the header 28 based on the received output signals." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: The controller of the parent combination is Boyd's EPC 58, which performs the further functions recited below.
controls the header height actuator
See at least:
"The EPC58 can also use the averaged values of the grain plane P3 to adjust the height H1 of the header 28" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC adjusting header height H1. In the parent combination that adjustment is carried out by commanding the header height actuator (Hunt's height cylinder 121, Hunt [0024]), so the controller controls the header height actuator.
that translates the corn header along a vertical axis;
See at least:
"the EPC 58 signals for the header 28 to be lowered as the wheels 24, 26 initially scale the foreign object 62, increasing the height of the chassis 22 relative to the ground 60, and signals for the header 28 to be raised" (Boyd [0051])
Rationale: Express. Raising and lowering the header relative to the ground is translating it along a vertical axis, and Boyd discloses the controller commanding both directions of that translation.
determines a measured ear layer height of the ear layer
See at least:
"the EPC 58 can average out each height to produce an averaged crop height, an averaged stem height and an averaged grain height across the effective sensor width W1 up to the sensor depth D1." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC determining a measured (averaged) grain height and grain plane P3, i.e., the measured height of the valuable-crop layer. On the corn header of the combination, that layer is the ear layer, so the EPC determines a measured ear layer height of the ear layer.
controls the header height actuator
See at least:
"The EPC 58 can use the averaged values of the grain plane P3 to determine what the height H1 of the header 28 should be" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Express. Boyd's EPC determines and then effects the header height; in the parent combination that is done by commanding the header height actuator (Hunt's height cylinder 121).
that adjusts the picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"to adjust the relative position of the header 28 to the chassis 22 to a compensating height" (Boyd [0051])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC adjusting the height at which header 28 engages the crop, i.e., adjusting the picking height of the corn header of the combination.
based on the measured ear layer height.
See at least:
"the grain plane P3 defines a bottom of where valuable crop material 46 is located in the crops" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: The target header height is determined from the averaged grain plane P3 values, i.e., based on the measured ear layer height.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
in response to the first axis of the first radar sensor crossing the ear layer; and
Disclosure by Gale (US 5,299,413)
Gale discloses:
in response to the first axis of the first radar sensor crossing the ear layer; and
See at least:
"control system 41 will actuate the ram 14 to lower the hood inlet edge 30, until contact with the crop is re-established." (Gale col. 7, ll. 62–64)
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious. Gale teaches translating the crop-engaging component vertically until the lower sensor's detection state changes, i.e., until the lower sensor's sensing location crosses the sensed crop feature; at that transition the feature is known to lie at the sensor's height. In the combination, where Gale's contact vane is replaced by a radar sensor, the equivalent transition is the appearance or disappearance of the ear-layer return in that sensor's data as the header translates: Boyd teaches that the grain layer produces a distinguishable, density-dependent return ([0044]). A PHOSITA implementing Gale's crossing-based control with the combination's radar sensors would use that change as the crossing event, and would take the first sensor's height at that event as the measured ear layer height.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Gale
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, and Gale before them, to determine the measured ear layer height in response to the first radar sensor's axis crossing the ear layer as the header translates vertically. The Boyd, Hunt, and Gale combination is motivated for the reasons set forth for Claim 9. Gale's control translates its component until a sensor's crop-detection state changes (col. 7, ll. 59–64; col. 7, l. 67 – col. 8, l. 3), and the height at which the state changes identifies the crop feature's height. Using that transition in Boyd's system provides a simple, well-defined event from which to fix the ear layer height, predictably improving the reliability of the measured height used to set the picking height (MPEP 2143(I)(C)–(D)).
Claim 14
Regarding Claim 14,
Disclosure by Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1)
Boyd discloses:
A controller comprising:
See at least:
"The EPC 58 can be configured as any type of suitable processor that is capable of receiving and analyzing the output signals from the sensor(s) 52, such as a digital controller" (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: Boyd expressly identifies EPC 58 as, for example, a digital controller that receives and analyzes the sensor outputs, which is a controller.
one or more processors,
See at least:
"The EPC 58 can be configured as any type of suitable processor" (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses that the EPC comprises a processor, which satisfies "one or more processors."
wherein the controller:
See at least:
"The EPC 58 is configured so that once it receives output signals, it produces a field map of the area in front of the header 28 based on the received output signals." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: Boyd expressly assigns the receiving, determining, and controlling functions mapped below to EPC 58, i.e., the controller.
receives a first signal from a first radar sensor
See at least:
"the sensor(s) 52 can produce a plurality of output signals that are sent to an electrical processing circuit (EPC) 58 coupled to the sensor(s) 52." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: Express. Boyd discloses the EPC receiving an output signal from each sensor 52, including a first sensor. Boyd's sensor 52 emits and receives radio waves ([0039]); its express implementation as a radar sensor is supplied by Hunt below, so in the combination the received first signal is a signal from the first radar sensor.
indicative of first one-dimensional distance data
See at least:
"the various heights can be determined based on the travel time of the waves 54 through varying densities of the crops, with the densities of the non-valuable crop material 44 and valuable crop material 46 having different values." (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious. Consistent with the Specification ([0028]), one-dimensional distance data is data representing the reflected signal at each distance along the sensor's axis. Boyd's sensor emits along a single direction and resolves returns from crop layers of different density by their travel time. Because round-trip travel time corresponds one-to-one to distance along the beam, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to represent Boyd's output as reflection data indexed by distance along that single axis, i.e., one-dimensional distance data; that is the ordinary way range-resolved returns from a single-beam sensor are represented, and Hunt likewise processes its radar returns as data "associated with distances" (Hunt [0048]).
along a first axis emanating from the first radar sensor,
See at least:
"As shown in FIG. 2, the sensor 52 is directed generally perpendicularly to the ground in the path of the header 28" (Boyd [0039])
Rationale: A sensor "directed" in a single direction emits along a line extending from the sensor. That line is an axis emanating from the first radar sensor, along which the travel-time data of [0044] is resolved.
and concurrently receives a second signal from a second radar sensor
See at least:
"the EPC 58 can average out each height to produce an averaged crop height, an averaged stem height and an averaged grain height across the effective sensor width W1 up to the sensor depth D1." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious. Boyd's width W1 is formed by plural sensors (FIG. 5; [0041]) whose data the EPC combines into one map of the crop "in the path of the header 28 as it travels across the ground" ([0044]). Because the harvester is moving, data from the several sensors describe the same approaching crop only if they are acquired over the same interval. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to receive the sensors' signals concurrently, the predictable way to obtain a contemporaneous crop profile from a moving machine.
indicative of second one-dimensional distance data
See at least:
"Based on the reflected signal that is received by the sensor(s) 52, data can be collected that is sent to the EPC 58 as output signals from the sensor(s) 52." (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious for the same reasons as the first sensor. Each sensor 52 operates identically, so the second sensor's output would likewise be represented as range-resolved reflection data along its beam, i.e., second one-dimensional distance data.
along a second axis emanating from the second radar sensor;
See at least:
"each sensor 52 tends to collect data in a circular area with a center defined by the sensor 52." (Boyd [0041])
Rationale: Each sensor's sensing area is centered on that sensor, so each sensor's beam extends along its own axis. The second sensor's beam is thus a second axis emanating from the second radar sensor.
determines the first one-dimensional distance data based on the first signal;
See at least:
"The output signals sent from the sensor(s) 52 to the EPC 58 can be analyzed to determine information about the crops and ground profile 60" (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC analyzing each sensor's output signal to extract its travel-time reflection profile. Extracting that profile from the received first signal is determining the first one-dimensional distance data based on the first signal.
determines the second one-dimensional distance data based on the second signal;
See at least:
"The relationship between the speed of the sound or radio wave and the density of the medium it is travelling through can be utilized by the EPC 58 to determine the crop height H2, the stem height H3 and the grain height H4 from the output signals that are received from the sensor(s) 52." (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: The EPC performs the same analysis on each sensor's output, including the second sensor's, and thus determines the second one-dimensional distance data from the second signal.
based on the first one-dimensional distance data;
See at least:
"the valuable crop material 46 has a valuable crop height H4, which when referring to grain crops can be referred to as 'a grain height.'" (Boyd [0043])
Rationale: Boyd determines where the valuable crop layer (the grain/ear layer) is located from each sensor's reflected-wave data ([0044]). Boyd thus teaches making ear-layer determinations based on the first sensor's one-dimensional distance data. The presence-at-sensor-height determination that this data supports is supplied by Gale below.
based on the second one-dimensional distance data;
See at least:
"a three-dimensional field map can be produced that graphically indicates the ground profile as a ground plane P1, the top of the crops as a crop plane P2 and a bottom of the valuable crop material 46 as a grain plane P3." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: The field map, including grain plane P3, is built from all sensors across width W1, including the second sensor's data. Boyd therefore teaches grain/ear-layer determinations based on the second one-dimensional distance data.
that decreases a picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"the EPC 58 signals for the header 28 to be lowered as the wheels 24, 26 initially scale the foreign object 62" (Boyd [0051])
Rationale: Express as to lowering. Boyd discloses the EPC lowering header 28, which reduces cutting height H1, the height at which the header engages the crop. On the corn header of the combination, the height at which the header engages the crop is the picking height, so lowering the header decreases the picking height. The actuator performing the movement is Hunt's height cylinder, below.
that increases the picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"and signals for the header 28 to be raised as the wheels 24, 26 pass over the foreign object 62 and return to the ground 60" (Boyd [0051])
Rationale: Express as to raising. Boyd discloses the EPC raising header 28, which increases the height at which the header engages the crop, i.e., the picking height of the corn header of the combination.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
a memory that stores instructions; and
of a corn header
of the corn header
determines a presence of an ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor
determines the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor
controls a header height actuator
of the corn header
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at a first vertical height of the first radar sensor; and
controls the header height actuator
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at a second vertical height of the second radar sensor,
wherein the second vertical height is above the first vertical height.
Disclosure by Hunt (US 2021/0055158 A1)
Hunt discloses:
a memory that stores instructions; and
See at least:
"Such memory device(s) 404 may generally be configured to store suitable computer-readable instructions that, when implemented by the processor(s) 402, configure the controller 402 to perform various computer-implemented functions" (Hunt [0040])
Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a controller memory storing instructions executed by the controller's processors, including for "the automatic header height control system 300."
of a corn header
See at least:
"Alternatively, the header may be in the form of a corn header which includes an auger and row units with snouts, gathering chains, and stalk rolls in order to harvest corn." (Hunt [0004])
Rationale: Hunt expressly describes the corn header to which its header sensors and header-height control apply, so the radar sensors of the combination are sensors of a corn header.
of the corn header
See at least:
"The header 110 may be in the form of any desired header, such as a draper header or a corn header." (Hunt [0024])
Rationale: Express. Hunt's header carrying its plural radar height sensors 324 ([0034]–[0035]) may be a corn header, so the second radar sensor of the combination is a sensor of the same corn header.
controls a header height actuator
See at least:
"the actuating system may include a height cylinder 121 (e.g., coupled between the feeder housing 106 and a portion of the chassis 102 of the vehicle 100) that is configured to adjust the height or vertical positioning of the header 110 relative to the ground" (Hunt [0024])
Rationale: Express. Hunt discloses a header height actuator (height cylinder 121) that raises and lowers the header.
of the corn header
See at least:
"In one embodiment, the actuating system may be used to adjust a height of the header 110 relative to the ground so as to maintain the desired cutting height between the header 110 and the ground." (Hunt [0024])
Rationale: Express. Hunt's header-height actuating system acts on the header itself, which may be a corn header ([0024]); the header height actuator is therefore a header height actuator of the corn header.
controls the header height actuator
See at least:
"such as by extending/retracting the height cylinder 121 and/or the tilt cylinder(s) 123, as necessary, so as to maintain the height of the header 110 at a desired or predetermined height setting value(s)" (Hunt [0049])
Rationale: Express. Hunt discloses the controller controlling the same height cylinder in both directions (extending and retracting), i.e., controlling the header height actuator for both the decrease and the increase of the combination.
Motivation to Combine Boyd and Hunt
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd and Hunt before them, to implement Boyd's header-mounted radio-wave crop sensors as radar sensors on a corn header, with Boyd's EPC 58 implemented as a processor executing instructions stored in memory and commanding a header height cylinder, as taught by Hunt. The references are technically compatible and complementary: Boyd teaches sensing the crop layers with radio waves emitted from sensors mounted on the header and adjusting header height from the result (Boyd [0039], [0044]–[0045]), and Hunt teaches the conventional hardware for doing exactly that on a harvesting header, namely header-mounted radar sensors (Hunt [0034]–[0035]), a processor with memory storing the control instructions ([0040]), and a height cylinder the controller extends and retracts to set header height ([0024], [0049]). Boyd does not limit its header type and states that "other types of cutters could be used" (Boyd [0038]); Hunt states that its sensor-equipped, height-controlled header "may be in the form of any desired header, such as a draper header or a corn header" (Hunt [0024]). Applying Boyd's grain-layer-based height control to a corn header with Hunt's radar sensors, memory-based controller, and height cylinder is the use of known elements for their established functions, yielding the predictable result Boyd identifies: header height set relative to the valuable crop layer so that "as much valuable crop material 46 as possible" is collected (Boyd [0045]) (KSR; MPEP 2143(I)(A), (B)).
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Boyd and Hunt
After combining the teachings of Boyd and Hunt, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
determines a presence of an ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor
determines the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at a first vertical height of the first radar sensor; and
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at a second vertical height of the second radar sensor,
wherein the second vertical height is above the first vertical height.
Disclosure by Gale (US 5,299,413)
Gale discloses:
determines a presence of an ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor
See at least:
"The sensors are arranged, as will be described hereinafter, to be switchable between two states one of which corresponds to contact with the top of the crop 10 and the other of which corresponds to non-contact with the crop." (Gale col. 6, ll. 50–54)
Rationale: Gale expressly teaches that each sensor determines whether a target crop feature is present at that sensor's own vertical height (contact vs. non-contact state), including lower sensor 38 at the first vertical height. Gale's target feature is the crop top. Boyd teaches that the grain/ear layer (valuable crop material 46, bounded below by grain plane P3) is the feature that matters for header positioning, and that radio-wave returns distinguish that layer by its density ([0044]). Applied to Boyd's radar, Gale's per-sensor presence determination becomes a determination, from the first sensor's one-dimensional distance data, of whether the ear layer is present at the first sensor's vertical height. This is PHOSITA-obvious for the reasons given in the motivation below.
determines the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor
See at least:
"When the machine is at work in crop in the state shown in FIG. 1, the upper sensor 37 does not contact the crop, and the lower vane 47 is pivoted downwardly, as shown in FIG. 6. No signal is fed along the line 39." (Gale col. 7, ll. 49–53)
Rationale: Gale expressly teaches that upper sensor 37 independently reports whether the crop feature is present at its own, higher vertical height, separately from the lower sensor. In the combination, the second radar sensor makes the same determination for the ear layer at the second vertical height from the second sensor's one-dimensional distance data (Boyd [0044]–[0045]).
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at a first vertical height of the first radar sensor; and
See at least:
"Should a lower height of crop (for example laid crop or a gap in the crop) be encountered, then the lower sensor 38 will fail to make contact with the crop, and control system 41 will actuate the ram 14 to lower the hood inlet edge 30, until contact with the crop is re-established." (Gale col. 7, ll. 59–64)
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious; Gale is not relied on as expressly disclosing this trigger. Gale expressly teaches a two-sensor control window: the component is lowered or raised according to the detection states of the lower and upper sensors so that the sensed crop feature is held between them ("midway between the heights of the sensors 37 and 38," col. 10, ll. 53–55). Gale's sensed feature is a single boundary (the crop top), so the lower-sensor error condition in Gale is loss of contact. Boyd's sensed feature is not a boundary but a layer of finite thickness: the grain/ear layer lies between grain plane P3 below and crop plane P2 above (Boyd [0045]; FIGS. 8–9). When Gale's window is applied to a layer rather than a boundary, the in-window condition is the layer lying between the two sensor heights, and the directional error signals follow from the geometry: detection of the layer at the lower sensor's height means the layer sits low relative to the window, and the correction that restores it to the window is lowering the header. Lowering the picking height in response to the ear layer being present at the first (lower) vertical height is therefore the predictable result of applying Gale's known window control to Boyd's known ear-layer target.
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at a second vertical height of the second radar sensor,
See at least:
"Conversely, if tall stems of crop occur, both sensors 37 and 38 make contact with the crop, and the control system 41 then actuates the ram 14 to raise the hood until the upper sensor 37 ceases to give an output signal." (Gale col. 7, l. 67 – col. 8, l. 3)
Rationale: Gale expressly teaches raising the crop-engaging component in response to the crop feature being present at the upper sensor's height, and continuing until the upper sensor no longer detects it. In the combination, the ear layer being present at the second (upper) radar sensor's vertical height triggers the header height actuator to increase the picking height, in the same direction and on the same trigger Gale discloses.
wherein the second vertical height is above the first vertical height.
See at least:
"Mounted in the undersurface 35 are two bi-stable sensors 37 and 38 which are spaced apart vertically and horizontally." (Gale col. 6, ll. 45–47)
Rationale: Gale expressly discloses two crop sensors on a header-mounted support that are spaced apart vertically. Gale designates them "a lower sensor and a higher sensor" (col. 2, ll. 62–63) carried on the frame of "a header of a grain harvester" (col. 5, ll. 36–37). The higher sensor 37 is at a second vertical height above the first vertical height of the lower sensor 38.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Gale
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, and Gale before them, to arrange the header-mounted radar sensors of the Boyd/Hunt combination at two vertically spaced heights as taught by Gale, with each radar sensor determining whether the ear layer is present at its own height, and with the header height actuator lowering the picking height when the ear layer is present at the lower sensor's height and raising it when the ear layer is present at the upper sensor's height. The reasons for this modification come from the references themselves, not from Applicant's disclosure.
First, Boyd teaches why the grain/ear layer, rather than the crop top, is the feature the header should follow: height control that senses only the crop top and assumes "the bottom of the crop head to be a preselected distance from the top of the crop" can harvest excess non-valuable material or miss valuable crop (Boyd [0008]), so Boyd sets header height from the grain layer itself ([0045]).
Second, Gale teaches a known, simple control architecture for holding a harvesting component in a set relationship to a sensed crop feature: an upper and a lower sensor, spaced vertically on the header, each reporting whether the crop feature is present at its own height, with the component driven down or up according to which sensor's state indicates the feature is outside the window (Gale col. 2, l. 58 – col. 3, l. 7; col. 7, l. 49 – col. 8, l. 3). Gale expressly contemplates using this control "in controlling the height of the cutting table" of a combine harvester (col. 1, ll. 21–23) and reports that holding the crop-engaging edge in a fixed relationship to the crop reduces crop losses (col. 10, l. 67 – col. 11, l. 1).
Third, Gale identifies the drawback of its contact sensors, which "strike directly against the grain heads, with consequent disturbance of the crop and loss of grain" (col. 1, ll. 61–64), and states that its arrangement can be used "with other kinds of sensor" (col. 4, ll. 47–51). Boyd and Hunt supply non-contact radio-wave/radar sensors on the header (Boyd [0039]; Hunt [0035]), and Boyd teaches that such sensors distinguish the grain layer from the stem layer by density ([0044]). Substituting the Boyd/Hunt radar sensors for Gale's contact vanes directly addresses Gale's stated problem while preserving Gale's per-sensor, per-height presence function; this is the simple substitution of one known crop-presence sensor for another (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Fourth, applying Gale's window to Boyd's target produces a predictable directional error signal. Because the ear layer has a lower and an upper extent (Boyd [0045]), the in-window condition is the layer lying between the two sensor heights; the layer appearing at the upper sensor's height indicates the layer is high relative to the header (raise), and the layer appearing at the lower sensor's height indicates the layer is low relative to the header (lower). This is the use of a known control technique to improve a similar system in the same way (MPEP 2143(I)(C)–(D)). The result holds the picking height in a fixed relationship below the ears, improving harvesting accuracy and efficiency and reducing crop loss, objectives shared by all three references (KSR).
Claim 15
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Gale establishes the controller of Claim 14, which is the basis for Claim 15.
Disclosure by Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1)
Boyd discloses:
The controller of claim 14, wherein the controller:
See at least:
"The EPC 58 is configured so that once it receives output signals, it produces a field map of the area in front of the header 28 based on the received output signals." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: The controller of the parent combination is Boyd's EPC 58, which performs the further functions recited below.
determines a measured ear layer height of the ear layer
See at least:
"the EPC 58 can average out each height to produce an averaged crop height, an averaged stem height and an averaged grain height across the effective sensor width W1 up to the sensor depth D1." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC determining a measured (averaged) grain height and grain plane P3, i.e., the measured height of the valuable-crop layer. On the corn header of the combination, that layer is the ear layer, so the EPC determines a measured ear layer height of the ear layer.
based on the first one-dimensional distance data, the second one-dimensional distance data, or both;
See at least:
"The relationship between the speed of the sound or radio wave and the density of the medium it is travelling through can be utilized by the EPC 58 to determine the crop height H2, the stem height H3 and the grain height H4 from the output signals that are received from the sensor(s) 52." (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: Boyd expressly derives the grain (ear-layer) height from the output signals of the sensors 52, i.e., from the one-dimensional distance data of the first sensor, the second sensor, or both. This satisfies the recited alternatives.
determines a target picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"The EPC 58 can use the averaged values of the grain plane P3 to determine what the height H1 of the header 28 should be that allows for collection of as much valuable crop material 46 as possible" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC determining the height the header "should be," i.e., a target height at which the header engages the crop. On the corn header of the combination, that is a target picking height of the corn header.
based on the measured ear layer height; and
See at least:
"the grain plane P3 defines a bottom of where valuable crop material 46 is located in the crops" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: The target header height is determined from the averaged grain plane P3 values, i.e., based on the measured ear layer height.
controls the header height actuator
See at least:
"The EPC58 can also use the averaged values of the grain plane P3 to adjust the height H1 of the header 28" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC adjusting header height H1. In the parent combination that adjustment is carried out by commanding the header height actuator (Hunt's height cylinder 121, Hunt [0024]), so the controller controls the header height actuator.
that adjusts the picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"to adjust the relative position of the header 28 to the chassis 22 to a compensating height" (Boyd [0051])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC adjusting the height at which header 28 engages the crop, i.e., adjusting the picking height of the corn header of the combination.
to match the target picking height.
See at least:
"so that minimal, if any, non-valuable crop material 44 is chopped and directed to the feeder 30, so that mostly valuable crop material 46 is collected by the combine harvester 50." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious. Boyd's EPC first determines what H1 "should be" and then adjusts H1 to achieve that result. Driving the controlled height to the controller-determined value is the ordinary function of closed-loop height control, and Hunt's controller likewise extends and retracts the height cylinder "so as to maintain the height of the header 110 at a desired or predetermined height setting value(s)" (Hunt [0049]).
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Gale
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, and Gale before them, to include the further controller functions recited in this claim in the combined system of the parent claim. Those functions are Boyd's own grain-layer height-control functions (Boyd [0044]–[0045]), and they operate unchanged when Boyd's controller is implemented with Hunt's radar sensors, instruction-storing memory, and height cylinder and arranged with Gale's vertically spaced sensor window. The reasons for combining Boyd, Hunt, and Gale set forth for the independent claims apply equally: each reference's elements perform the same function in the combination that they perform separately, and the result, header height set relative to the measured ear layer, is predictable (KSR; MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 16
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Gale establishes the controller of Claim 15, which is the basis for Claim 16.
Disclosure by Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1)
Boyd discloses:
The controller of claim 15, wherein the controller:
See at least:
"The EPC 58 is configured so that once it receives output signals, it produces a field map of the area in front of the header 28 based on the received output signals." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: The controller of the parent combination is Boyd's EPC 58, which performs the further functions recited below.
receives an input indicative of a corn header height guidance mode; and
See at least:
"The display 59 can also be configured to accept input commands from the operator that are transmitted to the EPC 58 to control various operating parameters of the combine harvester 50." (Boyd [0046])
Rationale: Express as to receiving operator input; PHOSITA-obvious as to its content. Boyd discloses the controller receiving operator commands that govern how operating parameters, including header height H1 ([0045]), are controlled. An operator command selecting Boyd's automatic, sensor-based header-height control is an input indicative of a header height guidance mode, and on the corn header of the combination it is a corn header height guidance mode.
sets the corn header height guidance mode in response to receiving the input,
See at least:
"The display 59 can be placed in the cabin 38 so that the operator can view the field maps during the harvesting operation and manually adjust operating parameters of the combine harvester 50 using analog controls, if desired." (Boyd [0046])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious. Boyd discloses both automatic, field-map-based adjustment of operating parameters ([0045]) and manual adjustment "if desired." It would have been obvious to provide operator selection between these two disclosed modes, with the controller entering the automatic (guidance) mode in response to the operator's input, because a function that the operator may wish to override must be switchable, as is conventional for operator-selectable automatic machine functions.
wherein the corn header height guidance mode comprises:
See at least:
"The field map therefore allows for the system to determine approaching crop and ground conditions and automatically adjust operating parameters of the combine harvester 50." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Express. Boyd's automatic mode comprises the sensing, determining, and header-adjusting steps performed by the EPC; the constituent steps are mapped individually below.
determining the first one-dimensional distance data based on the first signal;
See at least:
"The output signals sent from the sensor(s) 52 to the EPC 58 can be analyzed to determine information about the crops and ground profile 60" (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC analyzing each sensor's output signal to extract its travel-time reflection profile. Extracting that profile from the received first signal is determining the first one-dimensional distance data based on the first signal.
determining the second one-dimensional distance data based on the second signal;
See at least:
"The relationship between the speed of the sound or radio wave and the density of the medium it is travelling through can be utilized by the EPC 58 to determine the crop height H2, the stem height H3 and the grain height H4 from the output signals that are received from the sensor(s) 52." (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: The EPC performs the same analysis on each sensor's output, including the second sensor's, and thus determines the second one-dimensional distance data from the second signal.
controlling the header height actuator that decreases the picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"the EPC 58 signals for the header 28 to be lowered as the wheels 24, 26 initially scale the foreign object 62" (Boyd [0051])
Rationale: Express as to lowering. Boyd discloses the EPC lowering header 28, which reduces cutting height H1, the height at which the header engages the crop. On the corn header of the combination, the height at which the header engages the crop is the picking height, so lowering the header decreases the picking height. The actuator performing the movement is Hunt's height cylinder, below.
controlling the header height actuator that increases the picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"and signals for the header 28 to be raised as the wheels 24, 26 pass over the foreign object 62 and return to the ground 60" (Boyd [0051])
Rationale: Express as to raising. Boyd discloses the EPC raising header 28, which increases the height at which the header engages the crop, i.e., the picking height of the corn header of the combination.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
determining the presence of the ear layer at the first vertical height based on the first one-dimensional distance data,
determining the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height based on the second one-dimensional distance data,
or the combination thereof;
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor; and
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor.
Disclosure by Gale (US 5,299,413)
Gale discloses:
determining the presence of the ear layer at the first vertical height based on the first one-dimensional distance data,
See at least:
"The sensors are arranged, as will be described hereinafter, to be switchable between two states one of which corresponds to contact with the top of the crop 10 and the other of which corresponds to non-contact with the crop." (Gale col. 6, ll. 50–54)
Rationale: Gale expressly teaches that each sensor determines whether a target crop feature is present at that sensor's own vertical height (contact vs. non-contact state), including lower sensor 38 at the first vertical height. Gale's target feature is the crop top. Boyd teaches that the grain/ear layer (valuable crop material 46, bounded below by grain plane P3) is the feature that matters for header positioning, and that radio-wave returns distinguish that layer by its density ([0044]). Applied to Boyd's radar, Gale's per-sensor presence determination becomes a determination, from the first sensor's one-dimensional distance data, of whether the ear layer is present at the first sensor's vertical height. This is PHOSITA-obvious for the reasons given in the motivation below.
determining the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height based on the second one-dimensional distance data,
See at least:
"When the machine is at work in crop in the state shown in FIG. 1, the upper sensor 37 does not contact the crop, and the lower vane 47 is pivoted downwardly, as shown in FIG. 6. No signal is fed along the line 39." (Gale col. 7, ll. 49–53)
Rationale: Gale expressly teaches that upper sensor 37 independently reports whether the crop feature is present at its own, higher vertical height, separately from the lower sensor. In the combination, the second radar sensor makes the same determination for the ear layer at the second vertical height from the second sensor's one-dimensional distance data (Boyd [0044]–[0045]).
or the combination thereof;
See at least:
"the two sensors are arranged to sense the position of the top of a crop by contact of one or both or neither of the sensors with the top of the crop." (Gale col. 2, ll. 42–45)
Rationale: Express. Gale teaches detection by either sensor or both, which meets the recited alternatives individually and in combination.
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the first vertical height of the first radar sensor; and
See at least:
"Should a lower height of crop (for example laid crop or a gap in the crop) be encountered, then the lower sensor 38 will fail to make contact with the crop, and control system 41 will actuate the ram 14 to lower the hood inlet edge 30, until contact with the crop is re-established." (Gale col. 7, ll. 59–64)
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious; Gale is not relied on as expressly disclosing this trigger. Gale expressly teaches a two-sensor control window: the component is lowered or raised according to the detection states of the lower and upper sensors so that the sensed crop feature is held between them ("midway between the heights of the sensors 37 and 38," col. 10, ll. 53–55). Gale's sensed feature is a single boundary (the crop top), so the lower-sensor error condition in Gale is loss of contact. Boyd's sensed feature is not a boundary but a layer of finite thickness: the grain/ear layer lies between grain plane P3 below and crop plane P2 above (Boyd [0045]; FIGS. 8–9). When Gale's window is applied to a layer rather than a boundary, the in-window condition is the layer lying between the two sensor heights, and the directional error signals follow from the geometry: detection of the layer at the lower sensor's height means the layer sits low relative to the window, and the correction that restores it to the window is lowering the header. Lowering the picking height in response to the ear layer being present at the first (lower) vertical height is therefore the predictable result of applying Gale's known window control to Boyd's known ear-layer target.
in response to determining the presence of the ear layer at the second vertical height of the second radar sensor.
See at least:
"Conversely, if tall stems of crop occur, both sensors 37 and 38 make contact with the crop, and the control system 41 then actuates the ram 14 to raise the hood until the upper sensor 37 ceases to give an output signal." (Gale col. 7, l. 67 – col. 8, l. 3)
Rationale: Gale expressly teaches raising the crop-engaging component in response to the crop feature being present at the upper sensor's height, and continuing until the upper sensor no longer detects it. In the combination, the ear layer being present at the second (upper) radar sensor's vertical height triggers the header height actuator to increase the picking height, in the same direction and on the same trigger Gale discloses.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Gale
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, and Gale before them, to arrange the header-mounted radar sensors of the Boyd/Hunt combination at two vertically spaced heights as taught by Gale, with each radar sensor determining whether the ear layer is present at its own height, and with the header height actuator lowering the picking height when the ear layer is present at the lower sensor's height and raising it when the ear layer is present at the upper sensor's height. The reasons for this modification come from the references themselves, not from Applicant's disclosure.
First, Boyd teaches why the grain/ear layer, rather than the crop top, is the feature the header should follow: height control that senses only the crop top and assumes "the bottom of the crop head to be a preselected distance from the top of the crop" can harvest excess non-valuable material or miss valuable crop (Boyd [0008]), so Boyd sets header height from the grain layer itself ([0045]).
Second, Gale teaches a known, simple control architecture for holding a harvesting component in a set relationship to a sensed crop feature: an upper and a lower sensor, spaced vertically on the header, each reporting whether the crop feature is present at its own height, with the component driven down or up according to which sensor's state indicates the feature is outside the window (Gale col. 2, l. 58 – col. 3, l. 7; col. 7, l. 49 – col. 8, l. 3). Gale expressly contemplates using this control "in controlling the height of the cutting table" of a combine harvester (col. 1, ll. 21–23) and reports that holding the crop-engaging edge in a fixed relationship to the crop reduces crop losses (col. 10, l. 67 – col. 11, l. 1).
Third, Gale identifies the drawback of its contact sensors, which "strike directly against the grain heads, with consequent disturbance of the crop and loss of grain" (col. 1, ll. 61–64), and states that its arrangement can be used "with other kinds of sensor" (col. 4, ll. 47–51). Boyd and Hunt supply non-contact radio-wave/radar sensors on the header (Boyd [0039]; Hunt [0035]), and Boyd teaches that such sensors distinguish the grain layer from the stem layer by density ([0044]). Substituting the Boyd/Hunt radar sensors for Gale's contact vanes directly addresses Gale's stated problem while preserving Gale's per-sensor, per-height presence function; this is the simple substitution of one known crop-presence sensor for another (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Fourth, applying Gale's window to Boyd's target produces a predictable directional error signal. Because the ear layer has a lower and an upper extent (Boyd [0045]), the in-window condition is the layer lying between the two sensor heights; the layer appearing at the upper sensor's height indicates the layer is high relative to the header (raise), and the layer appearing at the lower sensor's height indicates the layer is low relative to the header (lower). This is the use of a known control technique to improve a similar system in the same way (MPEP 2143(I)(C)–(D)). The result holds the picking height in a fixed relationship below the ears, improving harvesting accuracy and efficiency and reducing crop loss, objectives shared by all three references (KSR).
It would further have been obvious to perform these steps within an operator-selectable guidance mode, because Boyd's operator input commands govern whether operating parameters are adjusted automatically or manually (Boyd [0046]), predictably giving the operator control over when the automatic ear-layer guidance is active.
Claim 17
Regarding Claim 17,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Gale establishes the controller of Claim 16, which is the basis for Claim 17.
Disclosure by Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1)
Boyd discloses:
The controller of claim 16, wherein the corn header height guidance mode comprises
See at least:
"The field map therefore allows for the system to determine approaching crop and ground conditions and automatically adjust operating parameters of the combine harvester 50." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Express. Boyd's automatic (guidance) mode, as established for Claim 16, comprises the header-height adjustment mapped below.
controlling the header height actuator
See at least:
"The EPC58 can also use the averaged values of the grain plane P3 to adjust the height H1 of the header 28" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC adjusting header height H1. In the parent combination that adjustment is carried out by commanding the header height actuator (Hunt's height cylinder 121, Hunt [0024]), so the controller controls the header height actuator.
that adjusts the picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"to adjust the relative position of the header 28 to the chassis 22 to a compensating height" (Boyd [0051])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC adjusting the height at which header 28 engages the crop, i.e., adjusting the picking height of the corn header of the combination.
at below the measured ear layer height.
See at least:
"chopping below the height of the grain plane P3, relative to the ground plane P1, will result in non-valuable crop material 44 to be directed into the feeder 30." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Express/implicit. Boyd teaches setting H1 to collect "as much valuable crop material 46 as possible while also collecting enough non-valuable crop material 44 to be distributed back on to the field" ([0045]). Collecting non-valuable material, which lies below grain plane P3 ([0043]), requires the header to engage the crop below P3. Boyd therefore teaches adjusting the picking height to below the measured ear layer height.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Gale
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, and Gale before them, to include the further controller functions recited in this claim in the combined system of the parent claim. Those functions are Boyd's own grain-layer height-control functions (Boyd [0044]–[0045]), and they operate unchanged when Boyd's controller is implemented with Hunt's radar sensors, instruction-storing memory, and height cylinder and arranged with Gale's vertically spaced sensor window. The reasons for combining Boyd, Hunt, and Gale set forth for the independent claims apply equally: each reference's elements perform the same function in the combination that they perform separately, and the result, header height set relative to the measured ear layer, is predictable (KSR; MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 19
Regarding Claim 19,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Gale establishes the controller of Claim 14, which is the basis for Claim 19.
Disclosure by Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1)
Boyd discloses:
The controller of claim 14, wherein the controller:
See at least:
"The EPC 58 is configured so that once it receives output signals, it produces a field map of the area in front of the header 28 based on the received output signals." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: The controller of the parent combination is Boyd's EPC 58, which performs the further functions recited below.
determines a measured ear layer height of the ear layer
See at least:
"the EPC 58 can average out each height to produce an averaged crop height, an averaged stem height and an averaged grain height across the effective sensor width W1 up to the sensor depth D1." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC determining a measured (averaged) grain height and grain plane P3, i.e., the measured height of the valuable-crop layer. On the corn header of the combination, that layer is the ear layer, so the EPC determines a measured ear layer height of the ear layer.
based on the first one-dimensional distance data, the second one-dimensional distance data, or both;
See at least:
"The relationship between the speed of the sound or radio wave and the density of the medium it is travelling through can be utilized by the EPC 58 to determine the crop height H2, the stem height H3 and the grain height H4 from the output signals that are received from the sensor(s) 52." (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: Boyd expressly derives the grain (ear-layer) height from the output signals of the sensors 52, i.e., from the one-dimensional distance data of the first sensor, the second sensor, or both. This satisfies the recited alternatives.
receives an input indicative of a baseline target picking height of the corn header;
See at least:
"The header 28 height H1 can be adjusted by the operator to control how far below the valuable crop material 46 that the cutting surface 40 is located" (Boyd [0038])
Rationale: Express. Boyd discloses an operator-set header height H1, i.e., an operator input indicative of a baseline target height at which the header engages the crop, and discloses that operator input commands are transmitted to the EPC ([0046]). On the corn header of the combination this is an input indicative of a baseline target picking height.
determines the baseline target picking height of the corn header based on the input; and
See at least:
"the header 28 height H1 is preselected so that the cutting surface 40 is located below the valuable crop material 46" (Boyd [0038])
Rationale: Implicit. The preselected H1 is the baseline target height, and it is established from the operator's input; a controller that receives that input determines the baseline target picking height from it.
controls the header height actuator
See at least:
"The EPC58 can also use the averaged values of the grain plane P3 to adjust the height H1 of the header 28" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC adjusting header height H1. In the parent combination that adjustment is carried out by commanding the header height actuator (Hunt's height cylinder 121, Hunt [0024]), so the controller controls the header height actuator.
that adjusts the picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"to adjust the relative position of the header 28 to the chassis 22 to a compensating height" (Boyd [0051])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC adjusting the height at which header 28 engages the crop, i.e., adjusting the picking height of the corn header of the combination.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
to match the baseline target picking height.
Disclosure by Hunt (US 2021/0055158 A1)
Hunt discloses:
to match the baseline target picking height.
See at least:
"so as to maintain the height of the header 110 at a desired or predetermined height setting value(s), such as an operator-selected target height or target height range for the header 110." (Hunt [0049])
Rationale: Express. Hunt discloses controlling the height cylinder to hold the header at an operator-selected target height, i.e., adjusting the picking height to match the baseline target picking height.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Gale
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, and Gale before them, to have the controller of the combination automatically drive the header to match the operator's baseline setting, as Hunt's controller maintains the header at "an operator-selected target height" (Hunt [0049]). The Boyd, Hunt, and Gale combination is motivated for the reasons set forth for Claim 14. Automatically holding an operator-set height relieves the operator of continuous manual adjustment, which Boyd identifies as a source of trial-and-error inefficiency (Boyd [0013]), and predictably yields a consistent picking height (KSR).
Claim 20
Regarding Claim 20,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Gale establishes the controller of Claim 19, which is the basis for Claim 20.
Disclosure by Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1)
Boyd discloses:
The controller of claim 19, wherein the controller:
See at least:
"The EPC 58 is configured so that once it receives output signals, it produces a field map of the area in front of the header 28 based on the received output signals." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: The controller of the parent combination is Boyd's EPC 58, which performs the further functions recited below.
adjusts the baseline target picking height
See at least:
"The EPC58 can also use the averaged values of the grain plane P3 to adjust the height H1 of the header 28" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Express. Boyd's header height H1 starts from the operator-selected value ([0038]) and is then adjusted by the EPC using the measured grain plane, i.e., the EPC adjusts the baseline target picking height.
that establishes an updated target picking height
See at least:
"The EPC 58 can use the averaged values of the grain plane P3 to determine what the height H1 of the header 28 should be that allows for collection of as much valuable crop material 46 as possible" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC determining the height the header "should be," i.e., a target height at which the header engages the crop. On the corn header of the combination, that is a target picking height of the corn header.
based on the measured ear layer height and the baseline target picking height; and
See at least:
"the operating parameters of the agricultural harvester can be automatically adjusted to reduce wasted time and ruined valuable crop material that result from adjusting the operating parameters through trial and error." (Boyd [0013])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious; Boyd is not relied on as expressly reciting a two-input calculation. Boyd's automatic adjustment starts from the operator-selected H1 ([0038]) and corrects it using the measured grain plane P3 ([0045]). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA implementing that correction to compute the updated target from both values, e.g., by offsetting the operator's baseline according to the measured layer, because that preserves the operator's chosen setting while correcting it for measured crop conditions.
controls the header height actuator
See at least:
"The EPC58 can also use the averaged values of the grain plane P3 to adjust the height H1 of the header 28" (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC adjusting header height H1. In the parent combination that adjustment is carried out by commanding the header height actuator (Hunt's height cylinder 121, Hunt [0024]), so the controller controls the header height actuator.
that adjusts the picking height of the corn header
See at least:
"to adjust the relative position of the header 28 to the chassis 22 to a compensating height" (Boyd [0051])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC adjusting the height at which header 28 engages the crop, i.e., adjusting the picking height of the corn header of the combination.
to match the updated target picking height.
See at least:
"so that minimal, if any, non-valuable crop material 44 is chopped and directed to the feeder 30, so that mostly valuable crop material 46 is collected by the combine harvester 50." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious. Boyd's EPC first determines what H1 "should be" and then adjusts H1 to achieve that result. Driving the controlled height to the controller-determined value is the ordinary function of closed-loop height control, and Hunt's controller likewise extends and retracts the height cylinder "so as to maintain the height of the header 110 at a desired or predetermined height setting value(s)" (Hunt [0049]).
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Gale
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, and Gale before them, to have the controller of the combination update the operator's baseline target picking height using the measured ear layer height and drive the header to the updated target. The Boyd, Hunt, and Gale combination, including Hunt's control to an operator-selected target height (Hunt [0049]), is motivated for the reasons set forth for Claims 14 and 19. Boyd teaches automatically correcting operating parameters from the measured grain layer to avoid trial-and-error adjustment (Boyd [0013], [0045]). Combining the operator's baseline with the measured correction is a known control variable combined with a known measurement, yielding the predictable result of a picking height that tracks the ear layer while respecting the operator's setting (KSR).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd in view of Hunt and Gale, further in view of Natsume.
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Gale establishes the system of Claim 2, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Disclosure by Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1)
Boyd discloses:
The system of claim 2, wherein the controller:
See at least:
"The EPC 58 is configured so that once it receives output signals, it produces a field map of the area in front of the header 28 based on the received output signals." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: The controller of the parent combination is Boyd's EPC 58, which performs the further functions recited below.
determines a first distance between the first radar sensor and the ear layer
See at least:
"the various heights can be determined based on the travel time of the waves 54 through varying densities of the crops" (Boyd [0044])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious. The round-trip travel time of a reflected wave is a direct measure of the distance between the sensor and the reflecting layer. In resolving where the valuable-crop (ear) layer lies from travel time, Boyd's EPC works from the distance between the sensor and that layer; expressly determining that sensor-to-layer distance as an intermediate value before converting it to a height is the ordinary and predictable way to implement Boyd's travel-time analysis.
determines a second distance between the second radar sensor and the ear layer
See at least:
"The EPC 58 can also average out heights of the ground 60 to produce a ground profile." (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious for the same reasons. Boyd's EPC performs the same travel-time analysis on the output of every sensor 52 before averaging across width W1, so it would likewise determine the distance between the second sensor and the ear layer.
any combination thereof.
See at least:
"the combine harvester 50 has one or more sensors 52 that are mounted to the header 28" (Boyd [0041])
Rationale: The claim recites the first-distance determination, the second-distance determination, or any combination. Because Boyd's EPC performs the analysis for each of its plural sensors, the alternatives are met individually and in combination.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
based on a first peak within the first one-dimensional distance data;
based on a second peak within the second one-dimensional distance data; or
Disclosure by Natsume (US 7,339,518 B2)
Natsume discloses:
based on a first peak within the first one-dimensional distance data;
See at least:
"At the step S140, the microcomputer 10 obtains peak frequencies in the frequency increase interval and the frequency decrease interval, respectively. More specifically, the microcomputer 10 specifies all peak frequencies in the data for the frequency spectrum of the beat signal in the frequency increase interval and the frequency decrease interval. At step S150, the microcomputer 10 calculates the distance D and the relative velocity V of the target object, by using the equations (1) to (4) based on the peak frequencies" (Natsume col. 10, ll. 36–47)
Rationale: Express as to peak-based ranging; PHOSITA-obvious as applied. Natsume expressly discloses a radar processor that identifies the peaks in range-related radar return data and calculates the distance to the target "based on the peak frequencies." Natsume's beat-signal peaks are range-related but not a literal distance axis: its FMCW processing combines the peaks of the increasing and decreasing intervals to resolve both distance and relative velocity (col. 6, ll. 27–48). Natsume therefore establishes that identifying a peak in radar return data and computing target distance from that peak was a known radar-ranging technique. In the combination, each sensor's output is already represented as distance-indexed data (Boyd [0044]; Hunt [0048]); a PHOSITA applying Natsume's technique to that data would predictably take the distance at the peak attributable to the ear layer as the first distance.
based on a second peak within the second one-dimensional distance data; or
See at least:
"the reception signal fr is shifted, based on the distance D to the target object and the relative velocity V of the target object, in time and frequency, respectively." (Natsume col. 6, ll. 27–29)
Rationale: Express as to the relationship; PHOSITA-obvious as applied to the second sensor. Natsume teaches that the position of the radar return in its frequency data depends on the target distance (together with relative velocity), and it determines each detected target's distance from the corresponding peaks (col. 10, ll. 36–47). Applying the same known peak-based ranging to the second radar sensor's distance-indexed data determines the second distance based on the second peak.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, Gale, and Natsume
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, Gale, and Natsume before them, to determine the distance between each radar sensor of the Boyd/Hunt/Gale combination and the ear layer based on a peak within that sensor's one-dimensional distance data, as Natsume determines target distance from the peaks of its radar return spectrum. The Boyd, Hunt, and Gale combination is motivated for the reasons set forth for Claim 1. Natsume is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem the inventor faced, namely extracting the distance to a reflecting target from a radar return (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I); In re Bigio), and it teaches the standard radar processing for that problem: locating the peaks in range-related return data and computing distance "based on the peak frequencies" (Natsume col. 10, ll. 36–47). Hunt already processes its header radar returns as data associated with distances and distinguishes returns by amplitude (Hunt [0047]–[0048]), so adopting Natsume's peak-based distance determination is the use of a known technique to improve a similar radar system in the same way (MPEP 2143(I)(C)), predictably yielding a well-defined, repeatable distance value from each sensor's return profile.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd in view of Hunt and Gale, further in view of Missotten and Ferrari.
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Gale establishes the control system of Claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 12.
Disclosure by Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1)
Boyd discloses:
The control system of claim 9, wherein the controller:
See at least:
"The EPC 58 is configured so that once it receives output signals, it produces a field map of the area in front of the header 28 based on the received output signals." (Boyd [0042])
Rationale: The controller of the parent combination is Boyd's EPC 58, which performs the further functions recited below.
controls one or more first actuators
See at least:
"its relative position on the header 28 can be adjusted by an actuator 68 that is controlled by the EPC 58." (Boyd [0053])
Rationale: Express. Boyd discloses the controller commanding an actuator that repositions a component mounted on the header. The sensor-height function of the controlled actuator is addressed below.
controls one or more second actuators
See at least:
"In such instances, individual components of the header 28 can be adjusted to account for differing crop conditions or to avoid hazards present in the field." (Boyd [0052])
Rationale: Express. Boyd discloses controller-commanded adjustment of multiple individual header components, each by its own actuator (reel actuator 68, [0053]; flexible cutter bar 76, [0054]), so control of a further (second) actuator is disclosed. Its sensor-height function is addressed below.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
determines a first number of occurrences of the first radar sensor detecting the ear layer,
a second number of occurrences of the second radar sensor detecting the ear layer,
or any combination thereof; and
that adjust the first vertical height of the first radar sensor
based on the first number of occurrences,
to adjust the second vertical height of the second radar sensor
based on the second number of occurrences,
or any combination thereof.
Disclosure by Gale (US 5,299,413)
Gale discloses:
that adjust the first vertical height of the first radar sensor
See at least:
"the sensor nose 34 and hood nose 22 are fixed together, and are moveable together relative to the hood 18 by pivoting about a pivot 30A in the region of the hood inlet edge 30, in response to contraction and expansion of the ram 44." (Gale col. 6, ll. 63–67)
Rationale: Express. Gale discloses an actuator (ram 44), controlled by control system 41, that moves the sensor nose carrying the sensors, thereby changing the vertical position of the lower sensor 38 relative to the header, i.e., adjusting the first vertical height of the first sensor. In the combination the sensor so positioned is the first radar sensor.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Gale
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, and Gale before them, to provide the combination's controller with an actuator that adjusts the vertical height of the first radar sensor, as Gale's control system adjusts the position of its sensor nose with ram 44. The Boyd, Hunt, and Gale combination is motivated for the reasons set forth for Claim 9. Gale teaches that sensor position must be actively controlled so that "the relationship between signals derived from the sensors is not distorted" (col. 2, ll. 51–57) and so that the acceptable crop-height band defined by the sensors is preserved (col. 8, ll. 9–18), and Boyd teaches controller-commanded actuators for individual header components ([0052]–[0053]). Providing a controller-commanded sensor-height actuator predictably improves the accuracy and reliability of the two-level detection.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Gale
After combining the teachings of Boyd, Hunt, and Gale, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
determines a first number of occurrences of the first radar sensor detecting the ear layer,
a second number of occurrences of the second radar sensor detecting the ear layer,
or any combination thereof; and
based on the first number of occurrences,
to adjust the second vertical height of the second radar sensor
based on the second number of occurrences,
or any combination thereof.
Disclosure by Missotten (US 2021/0307248 A1)
Missotten discloses:
determines a first number of occurrences of the first radar sensor detecting the ear layer,
See at least:
"Crop engagement level versus amount of time in an engaged state (e.g., duty cycle or percentage of time) may be stored in a look-up table in memory accessible to the implement control system 748 for quickly determining crop engagement upon determining how long the crop detector is below the crop canopy at the set rotation rate for the reel 116 (e.g., based on its duty cycle or the percentage of time the signal is blocked in a full reel rotation)." (Missotten [0036])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious. Missotten expressly teaches a controller that quantifies how often a header-mounted crop detector detects the crop, as the detector's duty cycle or percentage of time in the detecting state, and uses that frequency-of-detection value as the control variable. Missotten's detectors report discrete detecting/non-detecting states ([0040]), and it expressly contemplates radar detectors ([0025]). Event count and time fraction are not mathematically identical (one long detection and several short detections can share a duty cycle), but both are conventional measures of repeated detection behavior. Where, as in Missotten, the detector provides discrete engaged/non-engaged states and the control objective is to quantify how often the crop feature intersects the detector, a PHOSITA would have recognized the number of detection events over a defined observation interval as an obvious alternative measure of that detection frequency. Applied to the first radar sensor of the combination, whose output indicates whether the ear layer is present at its height, this yields a first number of occurrences of the first radar sensor detecting the ear layer.
a second number of occurrences of the second radar sensor detecting the ear layer,
See at least:
"As the reel 116 turns, the light emitter and photodetectors 160 and reflectors 162 gather crop data at each sensor location." (Missotten [0028])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious for the same reasons. Missotten teaches plural crop detectors whose data are gathered individually "at each sensor location." Quantifying detection frequency separately for the second radar sensor of the combination yields a second number of occurrences.
or any combination thereof; and
See at least:
"the light emitter and photodetector 160 transmit data while they are in a particular state (e.g., engaged and/or non-engaged) and the implement control system determines the amount of time they are in a particular state." (Missotten [0040])
Rationale: The claim recites the first number, the second number, or any combination. Missotten's per-detector processing of detection states supports either count individually or both.
based on the first number of occurrences,
See at least:
"reel height is adjusted automatically, e.g., by controller 750, responsive to detected crop engagement. For example, controller 750 may lower reel 116 when crop engagement is 3% or less and may raise reel 116 when crop engagement is 7% or more." (Missotten [0045])
Rationale: Express as to the principle; PHOSITA-obvious as applied. Missotten's detectors are mounted on the reel ([0024]), so raising or lowering the reel based on detection frequency raises or lowers the detector itself. Missotten thus teaches adjusting the vertical height of a header-mounted crop detector based on how often that detector detects the crop, lowering it when detections are infrequent and raising it when they are frequent, so as to hold it at a desired engagement level with the crop layer. Using the first radar sensor's detection count to drive the combination's first sensor-height actuator (Gale ram 44) applies Missotten's teaching to the first radar sensor.
based on the second number of occurrences,
See at least:
"FIG. 5 depicts a flow chart 500 of example steps for adjusting vehicle operation (e.g., reel height) responsive to crop field parameters (crop engagement) detected based on measurements from a reel-mounted crop detector" (Missotten [0043])
Rationale: PHOSITA-obvious for the same reasons. Missotten's height adjustment is driven by the measurements of the detector being repositioned; applying that to the second radar sensor uses the second sensor's own detection count as the feedback for adjusting its height.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, Gale, and Missotten
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, Gale, and Missotten before them, to determine the number of occurrences with which each radar sensor of the combination detects the ear layer and to adjust each sensor's vertical height based on that count. The Boyd, Hunt, and Gale combination, including Gale's controller-commanded sensor-height actuator, is motivated for the reasons set forth above. Missotten, which is in the same field (header control for agricultural harvesters), teaches that the height of a crop-engaging header element relative to the crop layer affects yield ([0003]) and teaches measuring how often a header-mounted crop detector detects the crop and using that detection frequency as feedback to raise or lower the detector-carrying element so that it stays at a desired engagement level ([0036], [0045]). Gale likewise teaches that its sensors must be kept correctly positioned relative to the crop for the two-level window to operate (col. 8, ll. 9–18). Applying Missotten's detection-frequency feedback to the sensor-height actuators of the combination keeps each radar sensor at the level where its detections of the ear layer are meaningful, which is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way (MPEP 2143(I)(C)). Counting detection events over a defined interval, rather than measuring the fraction of time in the detecting state, is an obvious alternative measure of how frequently the crop layer intersects each sensor, and its use as the feedback variable yields predictable results.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Boyd, Hunt, Gale, and Missotten
After combining the teachings of Boyd, Hunt, Gale, and Missotten, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
to adjust the second vertical height of the second radar sensor
or any combination thereof.
Disclosure by Ferrari (US 10,531,603 B2)
Ferrari discloses:
to adjust the second vertical height of the second radar sensor
See at least:
"The one or more radar-sensors can be selectively positionable on the agricultural vehicle at: (i) a first-radar-position such that they have a first field-of-view that is above a canopy of the crop rows; or (ii) a second-radar-position such that they have a second field-of-view that is below the canopy of the crop rows. The first-radar-position can be on a tractor frame or boom to view above the canopy. In some examples, a controller can set the position of the one or more radar-sensors as either the first-radar-position or the second-radar-position based on crop-property-data, such as canopy-cover and crop-maturity, for instance." (Ferrari col. 6, ll. 34–43)
Rationale: Express as to controller-set radar height; PHOSITA-obvious as to independent actuation. Ferrari expressly discloses a controller that sets the vertical position of radar sensors on an agricultural vehicle (above versus below the crop canopy) based on radar-derived crop data, and plural radar sensors each at its own level (col. 6, ll. 4–12). Ferrari does not expressly describe a separate positioning actuator for each sensor. It does establish that radar-sensor vertical placement relative to the crop is a controllable variable selected in response to crop data. Where each of the two vertically spaced radar sensors of the combination provides its own detection feedback, providing the second sensor with its own controller-commanded height adjustment would have been a predictable implementation, adjusting the second vertical height of the second radar sensor.
or any combination thereof.
See at least:
"Any system disclosed herein can include one or a plurality of radar-sensors, which can include only one, or both of the radar-sensors 410a, 410b that are shown in FIG. 4." (Ferrari col. 6, ll. 16–19)
Rationale: The claim recites adjustment of the first sensor, the second sensor, or any combination. Ferrari's controller positions any one or more of plural radar sensors, meeting the alternatives individually and in combination.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, Gale, Missotten, and Ferrari
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, Gale, Missotten, and Ferrari before them, to provide the second radar sensor of the combination with its own controller-commanded actuator for adjusting its vertical height, in addition to the first sensor's actuator, with each adjusted based on its own detection count. The combination of Boyd, Hunt, Gale, and Missotten is motivated for the reasons set forth above. Ferrari, which is in the same field (radar sensing of crop from agricultural vehicles, expressly including a combine harvester, col. 6, ll. 1–3), teaches radar sensors mounted at different heights (col. 6, ll. 4–12) and a controller that sets each radar sensor's vertical position based on radar-derived crop data so that the sensor views the crop at the most useful level (col. 6, ll. 34–43), because radar data at the right level yield "a more accurate determination" of crop location (col. 3, ll. 54–56). Independently positioning each of the two vertically spaced radar sensors, rather than moving them only together as on Gale's single sensor nose, lets each sensor be placed at the level indicated by its own detection count, which predictably improves the accuracy and adaptability of the two-level ear-layer detection (MPEP 2143(I)(A), (C)).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd in view of Hunt and Gale, further in view of Boydens.
Claim 21
Regarding Claim 21,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Gale establishes the system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 21.
Disclosure by Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1)
Boyd discloses:
The system of claim 1,
See at least:
"any configuration that allows for such data sensing areas to be achieved is suitable for use." (Boyd [0041])
Rationale: Express. The system of Claim 1 is established by the combination, and Boyd teaches that the sensor configuration is selected to achieve the desired sensing area.
wherein the first radar sensor is
See at least:
"in FIG. 3 the sensor 52 is directed at an angle relative to the ground in the path of the header 28." (Boyd [0039])
Rationale: Express as to orientation being a selectable feature. The first radar sensor is that of the parent combination, and Boyd teaches that its crop sensor may be mounted at an angle rather than in a fixed orientation. The particular orientation recited is addressed below.
wherein the second radar sensor is
See at least:
"As shown in FIG. 2, the sensor 52 is directed generally perpendicularly to the ground in the path of the header 28" (Boyd [0039])
Rationale: Express as to orientation being a selectable feature. The second radar sensor is that of the parent combination; its recited orientation is addressed below.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
angled upwardly with respect to a longitudinal axis, angled inwardly with respect to the longitudinal axis, or any combination thereof; and
angled upwardly with respect to the longitudinal axis, angled inwardly with respect to the longitudinal axis, or any combination thereof.
Disclosure by Boydens (US 10,117,374 B2)
Boydens discloses:
angled upwardly with respect to a longitudinal axis, angled inwardly with respect to the longitudinal axis, or any combination thereof; and
See at least:
"FIG. 2 shows how the sensors 3, 4 are positioned such that their sensing axes 5, 6 cross each other at crossing point 9 before touching even ground surface at spots 7, 8. Because the sensing axes 5, 6 cross each other, the combined sensing axes 5, 6 hover over the ground surface over the substantially complete width of the forage harvester 1. As a result, an object arising anywhere over the width in front of the forage harvester can be detected by the sensors 3, 4. The sensors 3, 4 are preferably positioned such that the sensing axes 5, 6 show an angle β of about 45° with respect to the transverse direction." (Boydens col. 6, ll. 11–20)
Rationale: Express. Boydens discloses header-mounted distance sensors, one at each lateral end of the header (col. 5, ll. 23–25), whose sensing axes are directed toward each other at about 45° to the transverse direction so that they cross in front of the header. A sensor at a lateral end whose axis is directed toward the machine's center line is angled inwardly with respect to the longitudinal axis. The limitation is recited in the alternative ("angled upwardly ..., angled inwardly ..., or any combination thereof"), so the inward orientation alone satisfies it for the first radar sensor.
angled upwardly with respect to the longitudinal axis, angled inwardly with respect to the longitudinal axis, or any combination thereof.
See at least:
"Preferably, the sensors 3, 4 are placed and oriented symmetrically with respect to an imaginary upright plane comprising the center line 10 of the forage harvester (the center line being the central line in the forward direction of the harvester 1). As a result, the sensing axes 5, 6 will cross symmetrically, meaning that the crossing point 9 lays on the upright plane comprising the center line 10 of the harvester 1." (Boydens col. 6, ll. 23–30)
Rationale: Express. Boydens orients both sensors symmetrically toward the machine's center line, the central line in the forward direction, i.e., the longitudinal axis. The second sensor is therefore also angled inwardly with respect to the longitudinal axis, satisfying the alternative for the second radar sensor.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, Gale, and Boydens
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, Gale, and Boydens before them, to angle the first and second radar sensors of the combination inwardly with respect to the longitudinal axis, as Boydens angles its header-mounted distance sensors toward the machine's center line. The Boyd, Hunt, and Gale combination is motivated for the reasons set forth for Claim 1. Boydens, which is in the same field (header-mounted, non-contact crop sensing on a harvester), teaches that directing laterally mounted sensors inwardly makes their sensing axes cover "the substantially complete width" in front of the machine so that crop "anywhere over the width" is detected (col. 6, ll. 13–18). Boyd seeks the same result, a sensing area extending "at least an entire width W2 of the header 28" (Boyd [0041]), and identifies the header's side edge as a region where crop is otherwise missed ([0040]); Gale mounts its vertically spaced sensor pair "at one side" of the header (Gale col. 6, ll. 36–38), which is exactly the lateral location from which Boydens' inward angling provides that coverage. Boydens further teaches that "other types of distance sensors can also be used" (col. 7, ll. 33–35), so the orientation applies directly to the radar distance sensors of the combination. Angling the sensors inwardly is the use of a known technique to improve a similar sensing arrangement in the same way, with the predictable result that the radar beams observe the crop entering the header across its width (MPEP 2143(I)(C)).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd in view of Hunt, Gale, and Natsume, further in view of Boydens.
Claim 22
Regarding Claim 22,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, Gale, and Natsume establishes the system of Claim 3, which is the basis for Claim 22.
Disclosure by Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1)
Boyd discloses:
The system of claim 3, wherein the controller determines the measured ear layer height based on:
See at least:
“the EPC 58 can average out each height to produce an averaged crop height, an averaged stem height and an averaged grain height across the effective sensor width W1 up to the sensor depth D1.” (Boyd [0045])
Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the EPC determining a measured (averaged) grain height and grain plane P3, i.e., the measured height of the valuable-crop layer. On the corn header of the combination, that layer is the ear layer, so the EPC determines a measured ear layer height of the ear layer.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
a first relationship between the first distance and a first orientation of the first radar sensor;
a second relationship between the second distance and a second orientation of the second radar sensor;
or any combination thereof.
Disclosure by Boydens (US 10,117,374 B2)
Boydens discloses:
a first relationship between the first distance and a first orientation of the first radar sensor;
See at least:
“In a more sophisticated example, when the positions and mounting angles of the sensors in space are known, and the measured distances are known, the coordinates in space of measurement points 11 and 12 can be calculated. This gives two points in space that are known to lie on the surface of the swath. Swath properties can then be estimated such as the width but also height and detection distance in front of the header.” (Boydens col. 7, ll. 7–14)
Rationale: Express. Boydens discloses calculating the spatial coordinates of the sensed point, and from them the target’s height, from the measured distance together with the sensor’s known mounting angle (orientation) and position. Applied to the first radar sensor of the combination, the measured ear layer height is determined based on a relationship between the first distance and the first sensor’s orientation.
a second relationship between the second distance and a second orientation of the second radar sensor;
See at least:
“Furthermore, the sensors 3, 4 are placed such that their sensing axes 5, 6 show an angle with respect to the upward direction (this angle is shown in FIG. 1 with reference a), that is smaller than 90°.” (Boydens col. 5, ll. 53–56)
Rationale: Express. Each of Boydens’ sensors has its own defined mounting angle, and the coordinate calculation of col. 7, ll. 7–14 is performed for each sensor’s measurement point (points 11 and 12). Applied to the second radar sensor, the ear layer height is determined based on a relationship between the second distance and the second sensor’s orientation.
or any combination thereof.
See at least:
“This gives two points in space that are known to lie on the surface of the swath.” (Boydens col. 7, ll. 11–12)
Rationale: Express. Boydens uses the relationship for each sensor and combines the resulting points, meeting the alternatives individually and in combination.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, Gale, Natsume, and Boydens
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Boyd, Hunt, Gale, Natsume, and Boydens before them, to determine the measured ear layer height from the relationship between each radar sensor’s measured distance and that sensor’s orientation, as Boydens determines target height from measured distances and known sensor mounting angles. The Boyd, Hunt, Gale, and Natsume combination is motivated for the reasons set forth for Claims 1 and 3. Boyd already mounts its crop sensor “at an angle relative to the ground” ([0039]) yet controls header height from vertical heights relative to the ground ([0045]; FIG. 9); a distance measured along an angled axis gives the target’s vertical position only when combined with the axis orientation. Boydens, in the same field, teaches exactly that computation for header-mounted distance sensors (col. 7, ll. 7–14). Using the known distance-plus-orientation computation to convert each sensor’s measured distance into the ear layer height that the controller uses is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way, predictably yielding an accurate vertical ear layer height regardless of sensor tilt (MPEP 2143(I)©).
Conclusion
16. The new grounds of rejection respond to the amendments. In particular, independent claim 1 was amended from a single-radar-sensor system to require first and second radar sensors at different vertical heights with ear-layer presence determinations at each sensor height and corresponding decrease and increase control of the picking height; independent claim 14 was amended to require that decrease and increase control; dependent claims 3 and 12 were amended to recite, respectively, first and second peak-based distances and paired first and second sensor-height actuators; and new claims 21 and 22 add sensor-orientation and distance/orientation limitations. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
17. 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 OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 5PM).
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
