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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2023 and 04/10/2024 were filed. The submission is in /compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure /statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to as being of improper dependent form because it recites “The controller of claim 1” even though Claim 1 is directed to “A control system for a corn header” rather than to a controller alone. Claim 7 therefore does not properly further limit the subject matter of Claim 1.
Claim 16 is objected because it inconsistently refers to “a corn header height guidance mode” and later “the corn header guidance mode.”. The omission of the term “height” from the later phrase creates inconsistency.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 35 as being unpatentable over Boyd (US 2016/0106038 A1), in view of Hunt (US 2021/0055158 A1)), and in view of Schlipf (US 2008/0155954 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
A control systemSee at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses a processor-based arrangement that uses sensor outputs to control harvester operation, which discloses a control system.
comprising:See at least:“The invention in one form is directed to an agricultural harvester that includes a chassis; at least one ground engaging traction member held by the chassis; a cutter held by the chassis; a sensor held by the agricultural harvester so that the sensor is directed in front of the cutter and is configured to emit and receive sound and/or radio waves and produce a plurality of output signals; and an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd’s “includes” formulation satisfies the open-ended comprising transition.
a controllerSee at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor” (0011)Rationale: Boyd’s electrical processing circuit is the claimed controller because it receives sensor-derived information and performs control-related processing.
comprising:See at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor” (0011)Rationale: Boyd discloses the controller as an electronic circuit structure, satisfying this structural connector.
wherein the controller is configured to:See at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly uses “configured to” for the controller-side functionality.
receive a signalSee at least:“a sensor held by the agricultural harvester so that the sensor is directed in front of the cutter and is configured to emit and receive sound and/or radio waves and produce a plurality of output signals” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses received reflected-wave sensing that produces output signals for the EPC, thus disclosing receipt of a signal.
from a radar sensorSee at least:“the sensor is directed in front of the cutter and is configured to emit and receive sound and/or radio waves” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses radio-wave sensing. In a §103 posture, a PHOSITA would have found radar to be an obvious radio-wave sensor implementation.
indicative of a return magnitudeSee at least:“The present invention provides an agricultural harvester with one or more sensors that can be used to determine the height of crop heads relative to the ground based on density” (0010)“the sensor is directed in front of the cutter and is configured to emit and receive sound and/or radio waves and produce a plurality of output signals” (0011)Rationale: Boyd does not use the exact phrase “return magnitude,” but its reflected-wave sensing and output-signal generation would have taught a PHOSITA that the signal is indicative of measured return characteristics, including magnitude/intensity.
determine a measured ear layer heightSee at least:“determine the height of crop heads relative to the ground based on density” (0010)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses determining crop-head height. In a §103 analysis, once placed in the explicit corn-header context later supplied by Schlipf, that teaching renders obvious the determination of a measured ear-layer height. Because this limitation is already satisfied by Boyd under a proper PHOSITA-obviousness rationale, it is not remapped later.
based on the return magnitudeSee at least:“determine the height of crop heads relative to the ground based on density” (0010)“emit and receive sound and/or radio waves and produce a plurality of output signals” (0011)Rationale: Boyd ties crop-height determination to reflected-wave sensing and resulting output signals. That renders it obvious to determine the height based on the return information embodied in the sensed signal.
andSee at least:“produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses multiple linked control functions, satisfying this connective limitation.
to adjust a picking heightSee at least:“The described system includes a sensor mounted on the agricultural harvester for predicting ground contour of an area that is in front of the header. The predicted ground contour can be used to keep a header of the agricultural harvester a desired height above the ground contour or below the crop heads.” (0008)“These determinations are used to produce a field map that can be utilized to adjust one or more operating parameters of the agricultural harvester” (0010)Rationale: Boyd expressly discusses header-height control relative to crop heads and sensor-based adjustment of operating parameters. In a §103 rejection, that renders obvious adjusting a picking height. This limitation is therefore already mapped by Boyd and is not remapped later.
based on the measured ear layer height.See at least:“determine the height of crop heads relative to the ground based on density” (0010)“These determinations are used to produce a field map that can be utilized to adjust one or more operating parameters of the agricultural harvester” (0010)Rationale: Boyd expressly links measured crop-region height information to harvester control. In the corn context, that renders obvious adjusting picking height based on measured ear-layer height. This limitation is already accounted for by Boyd and is not remapped later.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
for a corn header
a memory
configured to store instructions;
and
one or more processors,
at a plurality of targets
along an axis emanating from the radar sensor;
at the plurality of targets;
control a header height actuator
of the corn header
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
a memorySee at least:“The memory 306 may include a volatile memory, such as random access memory (RAM), and/or a nonvolatile memory, such as read-only memory (ROM). The memory 306 may store a variety of information and may be used for various purposes. For example, the memory 306 may store processor-executable instructions (e.g., firmware or software) for the processor 307 to execute” (0021)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a memory.
configured to store instructions;See at least:“the memory 306 may store processor-executable instructions (e.g., firmware or software) for the processor 307 to execute” (0021)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses the claimed instruction-storage function.
and one or more processors,See at least:“the processor 307 may include one or more reduced instruction set (RISC) or complex instruction set (CISC) processors” (0021)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses one or more processors.
at a plurality of targetsSee at least:“the controller 305 may use the 1D distance data from the left sensor 302, along with a left angle 308, to determine a left horizontal distance 309 from the left sensor 302 to the left stalk 310” (0022)“the controller 305 may determine a left vertical distance 312 from the left sensor 302 to the soil surface 314” (0022)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses measurements to multiple targets, including a stalk and the soil surface.
along an axis emanating from the radar sensor;See at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may include any suitable type(s) of sensor(s) (e.g., light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor(s), radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor(s), etc.) configured to output one-dimensional (1D) distance data.” (0020)“The left angle 308 may be an angle between the vertical axis 144 and a 1D line sensed by left sensor 302.” (0022)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses radar sensing along a defined 1D sensed line from the sensor, which corresponds to an axis emanating from the radar sensor.
at the plurality of targets;See at least:“determine a left horizontal distance 309 from the left sensor 302 to the left stalk 310” (0022)“determine a left vertical distance 312 from the left sensor 302 to the soil surface 314” (0022)“determine a right horizontal distance 316 and a right vertical distance 318” (0022)Rationale: Hunt expressly completes the multi-target aspect not already mapped by Boyd.
control a header height actuatorSee at least:“The controller 305 may be communicatively coupled to the header height actuator 226 and may be configured to output control signals to the actuator to adjust the height of the header relative to the agricultural system chassis.” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses controller-based control of a header height actuator.
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 reflected-wave crop-height-based header-control logic using Hunt’s expressly disclosed controller architecture including a memory, one or more processors, multi-target sensing along a defined sensor line/axis, and direct control of a header height actuator, because doing so would have been a predictable use of known agricultural control elements to improve automation, controllability, and precision in header-height adjustment.
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:
for a corn header
Disclosure by Schlipf
Schlipf discloses:
for a corn headerSee at least:“there have been no header height control systems that can provide the necessary sensitivity and responsiveness needed for corn headers” (0001)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses the corn-header environment.
See at least:“a conventional combine harvester indicated generally by reference numeral 10 having a corn header 12 mounted thereon” (0017)“FIG. 2 illustrates a typical corn header 12.” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly supplies the corn-header context for the already-mapped Boyd control logic and Hunt actuator implementation.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to apply Boyd’s reflected-wave crop-height determination and picking-height control logic, implemented using Hunt’s controller/memory/processor architecture and header-height-actuator control, to Schlipf’s expressly disclosed corn header environment, because the references address the same agricultural-header control problem and are technically compatible.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf establishes the control system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 2.
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to:See at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses that the controller-side circuitry is configured to perform control functions.
determine a target picking heightSee at least:“As shown in FIG.1, the header 28 height H1 is preselected so that the cutting surface 40 is located below the valuable crop material 46 to ensure that the valuable crop material 46 is separated from the crops and directed to the feeder 30.” (0038)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses a preselected header height H1. A preselected harvesting height corresponds to a target picking height.
wherein the target picking heightSee at least:“As shown in FIG.1, the header 28 height H1 is preselected” (0038)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses that the relevant height H1 is preselected, corresponding to the claimed target picking height.
is below the measured ear layer height; andSee at least:“the cutting surface 40 is located below the valuable crop material 46” (0038)“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.’” (0044)“the various heights can be determined based on the travel time of the waves 54 through varying densities of the crops” (0044)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses a preselected cutting height below the valuable crop material and expressly discloses measured crop-region heights, including grain height H4, from reflected-wave sensing. In the already-established Claim 1 corn-header context, a PHOSITA would have understood the measured upper valuable crop region to correspond to the ear-bearing layer, making Boyd sufficient under §103 for a target picking height below the measured ear layer height.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
control the header height actuator
to adjust the picking height
to match the target picking height.
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
control the header height actuatorSee at least:“The controller 305 may be communicatively coupled to the header height actuator 226 and may be configured to output control signals to the actuator to adjust the height of the header relative to the agricultural system chassis.” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses controller-based control of a header height actuator.
to adjust the picking heightSee at least:“At block 418, the height of the header is adjusted.” (0033)“The height of the header may be raised or lowered” (0033)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses adjusting header height by raising or lowering the header. In the established harvesting context of Claim 1, that is adjustment of picking height.
to match the target picking height.See at least:“The threshold range may be a header height range.” (0032)“The threshold range may be determined by the controller 305, or manually input by a user.” (0032)“the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to raise the header so that it is in the threshold range value.” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a controller-determined or user-input target header-height range and actuator control that adjusts header height so that the header is in that target range. A PHOSITA would have recognized that adjusting the header until it reaches the desired set height/range corresponds to adjusting the picking height to match the target picking height.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to apply Boyd’s preselected below-crop-region header-height control and Hunt’s actuator-based header-height adjustment to Schlipf’s expressly disclosed corn-header environment, because the references are directed to technically compatible agricultural-header control systems and their combination would have predictably improved corn-harvesting control by adjusting the corn-header picking height to a target value positioned below the measured ear-bearing crop region.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf establishes the control system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
wherein the controller is configured toSee at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses that the controller-side circuitry is configured to perform signal-based control functions.
determine the measured ear layer heightSee at least:“The present invention provides an agricultural harvester with one or more sensors that can be used to determine the height of crop heads relative to the ground based on density” (0010)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses determining crop-head height. In the already-established Claim 1 corn-header environment supplied by Schlipf, a PHOSITA would have understood this measured crop-head region to correspond to the measured ear layer height.
the controller is configured toSee at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses that the controller is configured to perform processing based on sensor outputs.
determine the distance between the radar sensor and the ear layerSee at least:“The sensor 52 can be any type of sensor capable of emitting sound waves, radio waves, or both and receiving reflected sound waves, radio waves, or both off of objects to determine the relative density of the objects that the sound and/or radio waves have reflected off of.” (0039)“The various heights can be determined based on the travel time of the waves 54 through varying densities of the crops in the sensing area.” (0044)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses radio-wave sensing and expressly discloses determining crop-region heights from wave travel time. A PHOSITA would have understood that determining a crop-region height from reflected radio-wave travel time entails determining the distance from the sensor to that crop region, including the ear-bearing layer in the established corn context.
based on a peak within the return magnitude.See at least:“The sensor 52 can be any type of sensor capable of emitting sound waves, radio waves, or both and receiving reflected sound waves, radio waves, or both off of objects to determine the relative density of the objects that the sound and/or radio waves have reflected off of.” (0039)“Once the sensor(s) 52 has received reflected sound and/or radio waves, the sensor(s) 52 can produce a plurality of output signals that are sent to an electrical processing circuit (EPC) 58.” (0042)“The various heights can be determined based on the travel time of the waves 54 through varying densities of the crops in the sensing area.” (0044)Rationale: Boyd does not expressly use the word “peak.” However, Boyd expressly discloses reflected-wave return processing, output signals generated from received returns, and height determination from those returns through varying crop densities. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to identify a crop-region distance from a salient local maximum or peak in the return magnitude profile corresponding to a dense crop interface, because that is a predictable signal-processing implementation of Boyd’s disclosed reflected-return height-determination approach.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
based on a relationship between a distance between the radar sensor and an ear layer,
and an orientation of the radar sensor,
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
based on a relationship between a distance between the radar sensor and an ear layer,See at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may each output 1D distance data to the controller 305” (0022)“the controller 305 may use the 1D distance data from the left sensor 302, along with a left angle 308, to determine a left horizontal distance 309 from the left sensor 302 to the left stalk 310.” (0022)“In addition, the controller 305 may determine a left vertical distance 312 from the left sensor 302 to the soil surface 314 based on the 1D distance data from the left sensor 302 and a right angle 311.” (0022)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses determining location-related distances from sensor distance data using a relationship between sensed distance and sensor angle/orientation. In the established Claim 1 corn context, and combined with Boyd’s measured ear-layer-height determination, this teaches the claimed relationship-based height determination framework.
and an orientation of the radar sensor,See at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may include any suitable type(s) of sensor(s) (e.g., light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor(s), radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor(s), etc.) configured to output one-dimensional (1D) distance data.” (0020)“Each sensor may be positioned ahead of the header along the direction of travel ... and oriented to point generally perpendicularly to the direction of travel.” (0020)“Additionally, each sensor may be angled partially downward and partially horizontally toward the centerline of the header.” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses radar sensors and expressly discloses their orientation and angular placement. This directly supplies the radar-sensor-orientation aspect that Boyd does not expressly articulate in relationship form.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to apply Boyd’s reflected-wave crop-height determination and Hunt’s radar-orientation/distance relationship processing to Schlipf’s expressly disclosed corn-header environment, because the references address technically compatible agricultural-header control problems and their combination would have predictably improved determination of corn ear-layer height for more accurate corn-header control.
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf establishes the control system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 4.
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to:See at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses that the controller-side circuitry is configured to perform processing and control functions.
determine a distanceSee at least:“As can be seen, the waves 54 that are emitted and received by the sensor 52 have a sensor depth D1 that correlates to how large an area in front of the header 28 can be mapped.” (0043)“As can be seen, the mapped area will be between the sensor 52 and the ground 60 up to the sensor depth D1 away from the header 28.” (0043)“the agricultural harvester 50 can effectively produce a field map for any area that is within the effective sensor width W1 up to a distance from the header 28 that is equal to the sensor depth D1.” (0043)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses sensor-based distance-related determination through sensor depth D1 and mapped distance from the header. That supports the claimed distance determination.
between the ear layer and the radar sensorSee 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.’” (0043)“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.” (0044)“Such as the crop height H2, the stem height H3, and the grain height H4.” (0044)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the grain-height region and expressly discloses reflected-wave sensing from the sensor through the crop region. In the already-established Claim 1 corn context supplied by Schlipf, a PHOSITA would have understood the grain-height region to correspond to the ear layer, making the distance between the sensor and the ear layer at least obvious from Boyd.
determine the measured ear layer heightSee at least:“data can be collected that is sent to the EPC 58 as output signals from the sensor(s) 52.” (0044)“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. Such as the crop height H2, the stem height H3, and the grain height H4.” (0044)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses determining crop-region heights, including grain height H4, from returned-wave output signals. In the established corn-header environment, that renders obvious determining the measured ear-layer height.
based on the distanceSee at least:“the agricultural harvester 50 can effectively produce a field map for any area that is within the effective sensor width W1 up to a distance from the header 28 that is equal to the sensor depth D1.” (0043)“The various heights can be determined based on the travel time of the waves 54 through varying densities of the crops” (0044)Rationale: Boyd expressly ties crop-height determination to wave travel through a mapped distance region. A PHOSITA would have understood the measured crop-region height determination to be based on sensed distance-related information from the sensor.
between the ear layer and the radar sensor.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.’” (0043)“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.” (0044)Rationale: Boyd’s returned-wave sensing of the grain-height region renders obvious basing the measured ear-layer height on the distance between that region and the sensor in the established corn context.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
based on a threshold value;
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
based on a threshold value;See at least:“At block 416, a determination is made regarding whether the distance from each sensor to the soil surface is within a certain threshold range.” (0032)“In another embodiment, a determination is made regarding whether a single distance is greater than a threshold range value” (0032)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses determining a sensor-to-target distance based on a threshold range/threshold range value. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to apply the same threshold-based distance determination logic to Boyd’s reflected-wave distance determination for the ear-bearing crop region, because both references address agricultural header control using sensed distances and predictable threshold-based decision logic.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to apply Boyd’s reflected-wave determination of crop-region distance and height, together with Hunt’s threshold-value-based distance processing, to Schlipf’s expressly disclosed corn-header environment, because the references address technically compatible agricultural-header sensing and control problems and their combination would have predictably improved determination of corn ear-layer height for more accurate corn-header control.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf establishes the control system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 5.
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the radar sensor is configured to be angled upwardly
with respect to a longitudinal axis,
the radar sensor is configured to be angled inwardly
with respect to the longitudinal axis,
the radar sensor is configured to be positioned below an ear layer,
or a combination thereof.
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
wherein the radar sensor is configured to be angled upwardlySee at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may include any suitable type(s) of sensor(s) (e.g., light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor(s), radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor(s), etc.) configured to output one-dimensional (1D) distance data.” (0020)“Each sensor may be positioned ahead of the header along the direction of travel ... and oriented to point generally perpendicularly to the direction of travel ...” (0020)“Additionally, each sensor may be angled partially downward and partially horizontally toward the centerline of the header.” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a radar sensor whose angular orientation is selected relative to the machine axes. Although Hunt expressly states “partially downward,” not “upwardly,” a PHOSITA would have recognized upward angling as a predictable inverse mounting variation of the same disclosed sensor-orientation scheme, depending on desired field of view and target region.
with respect to a longitudinal axis,See at least:“Each sensor may be positioned ahead of the header along the direction of travel ... and oriented to point generally perpendicularly to the direction of travel ...” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly ties sensor orientation to the direction of travel, which is the agricultural system’s longitudinal axis.
the radar sensor is configured to be angled inwardlySee at least:“Additionally, each sensor may be angled partially downward and partially horizontally toward the centerline of the header.” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses angling the radar sensor horizontally toward the centerline of the header, which is an inward orientation.
with respect to the longitudinal axis,See at least:“Each sensor may be positioned ahead of the header along the direction of travel ... and oriented to point generally perpendicularly to the direction of travel ...” (0020)“Additionally, each sensor may be angled partially downward and partially horizontally toward the centerline of the header.” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly provides the angular reference frame relative to the direction of travel and the centerline, thereby disclosing the inward angle with respect to the longitudinal axis.
or a combination thereof.See at least:“Additionally, each sensor may be angled partially downward and partially horizontally toward the centerline of the header.” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a combined sensor orientation, namely a vertical angular component together with a horizontal inward component, which teaches the claimed “combination thereof” alternative.
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 radar-based crop sensing system using Hunt’s expressly disclosed radar-sensor orientation framework relative to the longitudinal axis, including inward angling toward the centerline and combined angular positioning, because doing so would have been a predictable use of known sensor-mounting geometry to improve sensing coverage, target acquisition, and control reliability in an agricultural header.
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:
the radar sensor is configured to be positioned below an ear layer,
Disclosure by Schlipf
Schlipf discloses:
the radar sensor is configured to be positioned below an ear layer,See at least:“FIG. 1 illustrates a conventional combine harvester indicated generally by reference numeral 10 having a corn header 12 mounted thereon ... A height sensor 16 ... is preferably mounted near the snout tip of the corn header 12.” ( 0017)“In operation when harvesting corn ... the ears are stripped from the stalks” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses a sensor mounted near the snout tip of a corn header and expressly discloses the corn-ear harvesting environment. A PHOSITA would have understood that a sensor mounted near the snout tip of the header would be positioned below the ear-bearing region of the corn stalks during harvesting.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to implement Boyd’s radar-based crop sensing system using Hunt’s radar-sensor orientation framework relative to the longitudinal axis and Schlipf’s corn-header sensor placement below the ear-bearing crop region, because Boyd provides the reflected-wave crop-sensing framework, Hunt provides the specific sensor-orientation geometry, and Schlipf provides the corn-header physical arrangement in which the sensor is mounted below the ear layer. This would have been a predictable combination of technically compatible agricultural-header teachings to improve ear-region detection and harvesting control in a corn header.
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf establishes the control system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 6.
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
and the controller is configured to determine the measured ear layer heightSee at least:“The present invention provides an agricultural harvester with one or more sensors that can be used to determine the height of crop heads relative to the ground based on density or the height and location of foreign objects that could potentially damage the agricultural harvester.” (0010)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses determining crop-head height. In the already-established Claim 1 corn-header environment, a PHOSITA would have understood the measured crop-head region to correspond to the measured ear layer height.
based on the return magnitude at the plurality of targetsSee at least:“the sensor is directed in front of the cutter and is configured to emit and receive sound and/or radio waves and produce a plurality of output signals” (0011)“The sensor 52 can be any type of sensor capable of emitting sound waves, radio waves, or both and receiving reflected sound waves, radio waves, or both off of objects to determine the relative density of the objects that the sound and/or radio waves have reflected off of.” (0039)“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. Such as the crop height H2, the stem height H3, and the grain height H4.” (0044)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses reflected-wave sensing that produces output signals from multiple objects in the sensing area and expressly discloses analyzing those outputs to determine crop-region heights. Although Boyd does not use the exact phrase “return magnitude,” a PHOSITA would have understood the reflected-wave output signals to embody return information corresponding to detected targets.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the controller is configured to receive a second signal
from a second radar sensor
indicative of a second return magnitude
at a second plurality of targets
along a second axis emanating from the second radar sensor,
the radar sensor is configured to be angled upwardly
with respect to a longitudinal axis,
the second radar sensor is configured to be angled downwardly
with respect to the longitudinal axis,
and the second return magnitude at the second plurality of targets.
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to receive a second signalSee at least:“At block 402, data from the 1D sensors described in FIG. 3 is received. For example, the left sensor and the right sensor may output 1D distance data to the controller.” (0025)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses that the controller receives data from both a left sensor and a right sensor. That teaches receipt of a second signal.
from a second radar sensorSee at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may include any suitable type(s) of sensor(s) (e.g., light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor(s), radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor(s), etc.) configured to output one-dimensional (1D) distance data.” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses left and right sensors and expressly includes radar sensors, thereby teaching a second radar sensor.
indicative of a second return magnitudeSee at least:“The 1D distance data may be indicative of the linear distance between each sensor and the nearest crop stalk, as well as the linear distance between the sensor and the soil surface.” (0025)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses second-sensor output data indicative of sensed object distances. Although Hunt does not use the exact phrase “second return magnitude,” a PHOSITA would have understood the radar sensor’s output distance data to be derived from and indicative of sensed returns from detected targets.
at a second plurality of targetsSee at least:“The 1D distance data may be indicative of the linear distance between each sensor and the nearest crop stalk, as well as the linear distance between the sensor and the soil surface.” (0025)“The sensor may measure a distance between the sensor and a stalk, as well as the distance between the sensor and the soil surface 314 at once.” (0025)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses that each sensor can detect at least two targets, namely a crop stalk and the soil surface. That teaches a second plurality of targets.
along a second axis emanating from the second radar sensor,See at least:“Each sensor may be positioned ahead of the header along the direction of travel ... and oriented to point generally perpendicularly to the direction of travel ...” (0020)“at least one sensor may be capable of sending data concerning two points at once in its line of sight.” (0025)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a sensor orientation and expressly discloses sensing targets in the sensor’s line of sight. A PHOSITA would have understood that line of sight to be a sensing axis emanating from the second radar sensor.
the second radar sensor is configured to be angled downwardlySee at least:“Additionally, each sensor may be angled partially downward and partially horizontally toward the centerline of the header.” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses downward angling of the sensor. In the two-sensor arrangement, that teaches the second radar sensor being angled downwardly.
with respect to the longitudinal axis,See at least:“Each sensor may be positioned ahead of the header along the direction of travel ... and oriented to point generally perpendicularly to the direction of travel ...” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly ties sensor orientation to the direction of travel, which is the agricultural system’s longitudinal axis.
and the second return magnitude at the second plurality of targets.See at least:“the left sensor and the right sensor may output 1D distance data to the controller.” (0025)“The sensor may measure a distance between the sensor and a stalk, as well as the distance between the sensor and the soil surface 314 at once.” (0025)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses second-sensor data from multiple targets being provided to the controller. In view of Boyd’s express teaching of determining crop-region height from reflected-wave output signals, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to determine the measured ear layer height using both the first return information and the second return information from the second plurality of targets for improved sensing coverage and reliability.
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 reflected-wave crop-height determination using Hunt’s expressly disclosed first-and-second-sensor arrangement, including receipt of second-sensor data from multiple targets along the second sensor’s line of sight and downward orientation relative to the longitudinal axis, because the references are technically compatible agricultural sensing systems and their combination would have predictably improved sensing coverage, redundancy, and accuracy in determining crop-region height from multiple radar returns.
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:
the radar sensor is configured to be angled upwardly
with respect to a longitudinal axis,
Disclosure by Schlipf
Schlipf discloses:
the radar sensor is configured to be angled upwardlySee at least:“A height sensor 16 ... is preferably mounted near the snout tip of the corn header 12.” (0017)“disposed below the header 12 and preferably mounted near the tip 32 of the snout 30 is the height sensor 16.” (0021)“In operation when harvesting corn ... the ears are stripped from the stalks” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses a sensor mounted near the snout tip and below the header in the corn-ear harvesting environment. In view of Boyd’s express need to determine crop-head height and Hunt’s express teaching of orienting radar sensors relative to the machine axes, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to angle the first radar sensor upwardly from that below-header position so that it senses the ear-bearing crop region above the sensor.
with respect to a longitudinal axis,See at least:“as the combine is driven forwardly as indicated by arrow 24 in FIG. 1” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly provides the forward travel direction of the combine, which defines the longitudinal axis of the corn-header system. In combination with Hunt’s express sensor-orientation teaching relative to direction of travel, this completes the upward-orientation limitation with respect to the longitudinal axis.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to implement Boyd’s reflected-wave crop-height determination using Hunt’s two-radar-sensor arrangement, with the second radar sensor angled downwardly relative to the longitudinal axis and the first radar sensor angled upwardly relative to the longitudinal axis in Schlipf’s corn-header environment, because Boyd provides the reflected-wave crop-height framework, Hunt provides the expressly disclosed dual-sensor radar geometry and multi-target sensing, and Schlipf provides the below-header corn-ear harvesting arrangement from which upward viewing toward the ear-bearing region would have been a predictable and technically compatible sensor-placement choice. This combination would have predictably improved ear-layer-height determination by using complementary upward and downward sensing perspectives and multiple target returns to improve detection coverage, reliability, and control accuracy in a corn header.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf establishes the control system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 7.
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
wherein the picking heightSee at least:“the header 28 has a height H1 relative to the ground of the field” (0038)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses header height H1. In the harvesting context of Claim 1, header height corresponds to the picking height.
below the measured ear layer height.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.’” (0043)“As shown in FIG.1, the header 28 height H1 is preselected so that the cutting surface 40 is located below the valuable crop material 46” (0038)“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. Such as the crop height H2, the stem height H3, and the grain height H4.” (0044)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses that the cutting height H1 is below the valuable crop material 46 and expressly discloses measuring grain height H4 from reflected-wave output signals. In the already-established Claim 1 corn-header environment, a PHOSITA would have understood the measured grain-height / valuable-crop region to correspond to the measured ear layer height.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
is located at a threshold distance
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
is located at a threshold distanceSee at least:“the controller 305 may determine that the left vertical distance 312 and right vertical distance 320 are below a certain height threshold value. In response, the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to raise the header so that it is in the threshold range value. In another example, the controller 305 may determine that the left vertical distance 312 and right vertical distance 320 are above the height threshold range value. In response, the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to lower the header so that it is within the threshold range value.” (0023)“At block 416, a determination is made regarding whether the distance from each sensor to the soil surface is within a certain threshold range. The threshold range may be a header height range” (0032)“At block 418, the height of the header is adjusted.” (0033)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses controlling header height so that it is within a threshold range / threshold value. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to apply Hunt’s threshold-based header-height placement to Boyd’s expressly disclosed below-grain-height picking arrangement so that the picking height is located at a threshold distance below the measured ear layer height, because this is a predictable application of threshold-based control to an already measured crop-region reference.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to implement Boyd’s below-grain-height picking arrangement using Hunt’s threshold-based header-height control in Schlipf’s corn-header environment, so that the picking height of the corn header would be located at a threshold distance below the measured ear layer height, because Boyd provides the reflected-wave measurement of the crop region and below-crop cutting relationship, Hunt provides the threshold-based placement/control framework, and Schlipf provides the expressly disclosed corn-header / ear-harvesting context. This combination would have been a predictable use of known agricultural sensing and control techniques to improve harvesting accuracy, control reliability, and corn-ear recovery.
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf establishes the control system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 8.
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to:See at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale:Boyd expressly discloses that the controller (EPC) is configured to perform processing and control functions based on sensor outputs, providing the basis for the further configured functions of Claim 8.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
control a sensor orientation actuator to adjust an orientation of the radar sensor to a plurality of orientations;
receive the signal from the radar sensor while the radar sensor is oriented at each of the plurality of orientations;
determine a plurality of measured ear layer heights based on the return magnitude at the plurality of targets for the plurality of orientations;
determine an aggregate ear layer height based on the plurality of measured ear layer heights;
and
control the header height actuator to adjust the picking height of the corn header based on the aggregate ear layer height.
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
control a sensor orientation actuator to adjust an orientation of the radar sensor to a plurality of orientations;See at least:“the height of the header may be rotated based on the left vertical distance and the right vertical distance.” (0031)“the header may be rotated until the header is substantially even with the soil surface.” (0031)Rationale:Hunt expressly discloses controlling header orientation (which involves actuation) based on sensor data. While Hunt does not explicitly disclose a "sensor orientation actuator" dedicated to adjusting the sensor itself, a PHOSITA would recognize that adjusting the orientation of the header (to which the sensor is mounted) necessarily adjusts the orientation of the sensor. Hunt's teaching of rotating the header based on sensor data renders obvious controlling an actuator to adjust sensor orientation to a plurality of orientations, as the header can be positioned at multiple angular orientations during operation.
receive the signal from the radar sensor while the radar sensor is oriented at each of the plurality of orientations;See at least:“The controller 305 may use the 1D distance data from the left sensor 302, along with a left angle 308, to determine a left horizontal distance 309 from the left sensor 302 to the left stalk 310.” (0022)Rationale:Hunt expressly discloses that the controller receives sensor data and uses the sensor's orientation (angle) in its determinations. A PHOSITA would understand that receiving data while the sensor is at different orientations is inherent in a system that uses orientation angles to calculate distances—the sensor must be at those orientations when the data is captured.
determine a plurality of measured ear layer heights based on the return magnitude at the plurality of targets for the plurality of orientations;See at least:“The controller 305 may use the 1D distance data from the left sensor 302, along with a left angle 308, to determine a left horizontal distance 309 from the left sensor 302 to the left stalk 310. In addition, the controller 305 may determine a left vertical distance 312 from the left sensor 302 to the soil surface 314 based on the 1D distance data from the left sensor 302 and a right angle 311.” (0022)Rationale:Hunt expressly teaches that the controller determines distances based on sensor data and the sensor's orientation angle. A PHOSITA would recognize that by changing the sensor's orientation (as taught in limitation 1 above), the controller could determine multiple distance/height measurements corresponding to different orientations. Determining ear layer height from return magnitude (as taught by Boyd) at multiple orientations would be a predictable extension of Hunt's orientation-based distance determination.
determine an aggregate ear layer height based on the plurality of measured ear layer heights;See at least:“the controller 305 may use the 1D distance data from the left sensor 302, along with a left angle 308, to determine a left horizontal distance 309 from the left sensor 302 to the left stalk 310.” (0022)“determine a left vertical distance 312 from the left sensor 302 to the soil surface 314” (0022)“determine a right horizontal distance 316 and a right vertical distance 318” (0022)Rationale:Hunt expressly teaches that the controller processes multiple measurements from sensors to determine various distances. A PHOSITA would recognize that combining multiple measurements into an aggregate value (e.g., average, weighted combination) is a fundamental data processing technique. Hunt's teaching of using multiple sensor readings to control header operation renders obvious determining an aggregate value from multiple height measurements to improve accuracy or reliability.
and control the header height actuator to adjust the picking height of the corn header based on the aggregate ear layer height.See at least:“The controller 305 may be communicatively coupled to the header height actuator 226 and may be configured to output control signals to the actuator to adjust the height of the header relative to the agricultural system chassis.” (0023)Rationale:Hunt expressly discloses controlling a header height actuator to adjust header height based on sensor data. A PHOSITA would recognize that using an aggregate height value (rather than a single measurement) to control header height is a predictable refinement to improve control accuracy and stability.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to implement Boyd's ear layer height determination using Hunt's teachings on sensor orientation, multi-angle measurements, and aggregate data processing, and to control header height based on the resulting aggregate height value, all within Schlipf's corn header environment, because doing so would have been a predictable use of known sensor positioning and data aggregation techniques to improve measurement accuracy, reliability, and control stability in corn harvesting. Hunt provides explicit guidance on using sensor orientation angles in distance determination and on controlling header actuators based on sensor data. Boyd provides the methodology for converting return signals into ear layer height measurements. Schlipf provides the corn header context for the claimed system. Their combination would yield the predictable result of enhanced ear layer detection through multiple measurements at different orientations and improved header control through aggregate height determination.
Regarding Claim 9,
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
A control systemSee at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses an electrical processing circuit (EPC) that receives sensor signals and controls harvester operation, which constitutes a control system.
comprising:See at least:“The invention in one form is directed to an agricultural harvester that includes a chassis; at least one ground engaging traction member held by the chassis; a cutter held by the chassis; a sensor held by the agricultural harvester ... and an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor” (0011)Rationale: Boyd's "includes" formulation corresponds to an open-ended comprising-style recitation.
a controllerSee at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses an electrical processing circuit, which is a controller.
comprising:See at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor” (0011)Rationale: Boyd discloses the controller as an electronic circuit structure, satisfying this structural connector.
one or more processors,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” (0042)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses that the EPC is, or includes, a processor.
wherein the controller is configured to:See at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly uses "configured to" to describe the controller's operative functions.
receive a first signalSee at least:“a sensor held by the agricultural harvester ... configured to emit and receive sound and/or radio waves and produce a plurality of output signals” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses that the sensor produces output signals. A PHOSITA would understand that the controller receives those signals for processing. The teaching is implicit.
indicative of a first return magnitudeSee at least:“The sensor 52 can be any type of sensor capable of emitting sound waves, radio waves, or both and receiving reflected sound waves, radio waves, or both off of objects to determine the relative density of the objects” (0039)Rationale: Boyd teaches that the sensor output is used to determine object density from reflected waves. A PHOSITA would understand that determining density from radar returns inherently relies on processing the return magnitude, as magnitude variations correspond to density changes. While Boyd does not expressly use the phrase "return magnitude," this teaching renders obvious that the signal is indicative of return magnitude.
at a first plurality of targetsSee at least:“the various heights can be determined based on the travel time of the waves 54 through varying densities of the crops” (0044)Rationale: Boyd teaches that waves travel through crops and reflect off different crop layers (ground, stem, grain). This inherently involves detecting multiple targets along the wave path. The teaching is implicit.
along an axis emanating from the first radar sensor,See at least:“the sensor is directed in front of the cutter and is configured to emit and receive sound and/or radio waves” (0011)Rationale: Boyd teaches that the sensor is "directed" and emits waves, which inherently emanate from the sensor along a sensing axis.
based on the first signal;See at least:“the sensor ... produce a plurality of output signals” (0011)“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.” (0044)Rationale: Boyd expressly teaches that the controller analyzes output signals to determine crop information. This inherently means determinations are based on the received signals.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
for a corn header
a first radar sensor
coupled to the corn header;
a second radar sensor
coupled to the corn header,
wherein a first vertical height
of the first radar sensor
relative to the corn header
is lower than
a second vertical height
of the second radar sensor
relative to the corn header; and
a memory
configured to store instructions; and
from the first radar sensor
and concurrently receive
a second signal
from the second radar sensor
indicative of a second return magnitude
at a second plurality of targets
along the axis emanating from the second radar sensor;
determine the first return magnitude (expressly—Boyd supports this implicitly/inherently but not expressly)
determine the second return magnitude
based on the second signal;
detect an ear layer
at the first vertical height
of the first radar sensor
based on the first return magnitude,
at the second vertical height
of the second radar sensor
based on the second return magnitude,
or a combination thereof;
control a header height actuator
to decrease a picking height
of the corn header
in response to detecting the ear layer
at the first vertical height
of the first radar sensor;
and control the header height actuator
to increase the picking height
of the corn header
in response to detecting the ear layer
at the second vertical height
of the second radar sensor.
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
a first radar sensorSee at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may include any suitable type(s) of sensor(s) (e.g., light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor(s), radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor(s), etc.)” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses left and right sensors and explicitly lists radar as an option. This teaches a first radar sensor.
coupled to the corn header;See at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304, each of which are mounted on an agricultural header” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses that the sensors are mounted on an agricultural header. While the header is not explicitly a corn header in Hunt, this teaches the concept of sensors coupled to a header, which in combination with Schlipf establishes the corn header context.
a second radar sensorSee at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may include any suitable type(s) of sensor(s) (e.g., light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor(s), radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor(s), etc.)” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses left and right sensors, with radar as an option. This teaches a second radar sensor.
coupled to the corn header,See at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304, each of which are mounted on an agricultural header” (0020)Rationale: Same as limitation 2—sensors mounted on a header.
a memorySee at least:“The controller 305 includes a memory 306 and a processor 307” (0021)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a memory as part of the controller.
configured to store instructions; andSee at least:“The memory 306 may store processor-executable instructions (e.g., firmware or software) for the processor 307 to execute” (0021)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses the exact functional role of storing instructions.
from the first radar sensorSee at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may include any suitable type(s) of sensor(s) (e.g., light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor(s), radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor(s), etc.)” (0020)Rationale: Hunt's left sensor can be a radar sensor, teaching that signals are received from a first radar sensor.
and concurrently receiveSee at least:“At block 402, data from the 1D sensors described in FIG. 3 is received. For example, the left sensor and the right sensor may output 1D distance data to the controller.” (0025)Rationale: Hunt teaches that the controller receives data from both left and right sensors. A PHOSITA would understand that in a real-time control system for header height adjustment, data from multiple sensors would be received and processed concurrently to enable responsive control. While Hunt does not expressly use the word "concurrently," this is a PHOSITA-obvious implementation of Hunt's dual-sensor architecture.
a second signalSee at least:“the left sensor and the right sensor may output 1D distance data to the controller.” (0025)Rationale: Hunt teaches that the controller receives data from the right sensor, which constitutes a second signal.
from the second radar sensorSee at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may include any suitable type(s) of sensor(s) (e.g., light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor(s), radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor(s), etc.)” (0020)Rationale: Hunt's right sensor can be a radar sensor, teaching that signals are received from a second radar sensor.
indicative of a second return magnitudeSee at least:“The 1D distance data may be indicative of the linear distance between each sensor and the nearest crop stalk, as well as the linear distance between the sensor and the soil surface.” (0025)Rationale: Hunt teaches that sensor output data is indicative of sensed target distances. A PHOSITA would understand that distance data is derived from return magnitudes, and thus the signal is indicative of return magnitude. This is an implicit teaching.
at a second plurality of targetsSee at least:“The 1D distance data may be indicative of the linear distance between each sensor and the nearest crop stalk, as well as the linear distance between the sensor and the soil surface.” (0025)“The sensor may measure a distance between the sensor and a stalk, as well as the distance between the sensor and the soil surface 314 at once.” (0025)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches that each sensor detects multiple targets—at least a stalk and the soil surface. This teaches a second plurality of targets for the second sensor.
along the axis emanating from the second radar sensor;See at least:“Each sensor may be positioned ahead of the header ... and oriented to point generally perpendicularly to the direction of travel ... Additionally, each sensor may be angled partially downward and partially horizontally toward the centerline of the header.” (0020)“at least one sensor may be capable of sending data concerning two points at once in its line of sight.” (0025)Rationale: Hunt teaches that sensors have a defined orientation and a "line of sight," which a PHOSITA would understand as a sensing axis along which waves are emitted and received. This axis emanates from the sensor.
determine the first return magnitudeSee at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may each output 1D distance data to the controller 305” (0022)Rationale: Hunt teaches that the controller receives and processes data from each sensor. A PHOSITA would understand that determining distance from radar returns inherently involves processing the return magnitude. While Hunt does not expressly use the phrase "return magnitude," this is an inherent aspect of radar-based distance measurement.
determine the second return magnitudeSee at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may each output 1D distance data to the controller 305” (0022)Rationale: Same as limitation 14—the controller processes data from the second sensor, inherently involving return magnitude.
based on the second signal;See at least:“The controller 305 may use the 1D distance data from the left sensor 302 ... In addition, the controller 305 may determine a left vertical distance 312 from the left sensor 302 to the soil surface 314 based on the 1D distance data” (0022)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches that determinations are "based on" sensor data. The same principle applies to the second sensor's data.
control a header height actuatorSee at least:“The controller 305 may be communicatively coupled to the header height actuator 226 and may be configured to output control signals to the actuator to adjust the height of the header” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses controlling a header height actuator.
to decrease a picking heightSee at least:“the controller 305 may determine that the left vertical distance 312 and right vertical distance 320 are above the height threshold range value. In response, the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to lower the header” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches controlling the header height actuator to lower the header, which decreases picking height.
in response to detecting the ear layerSee at least:“the controller 305 may determine that the left vertical distance 312 and right vertical distance 320 are above the height threshold range value. In response, the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to lower the header” (0023)Rationale: Hunt teaches conditional header height adjustment "in response to" sensor-detected conditions relative to threshold values. A PHOSITA would recognize that the ear layer functions as a threshold condition—detection by a sensor indicates the header is at a particular height relative to the ear layer.
and control the header height actuatorSee at least:“The controller 305 may be communicatively coupled to the header height actuator 226 and may be configured to output control signals to the actuator to adjust the height of the header” (0023)Rationale: Same as limitation 17—express disclosure.
to increase the picking heightSee at least:“the controller 305 may determine that the left vertical distance 312 and right vertical distance 320 are below a certain height threshold value. In response, the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to raise the header” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches controlling the header height actuator to raise the header, which increases picking height.
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 reflected-wave crop sensing and height determination methodology using Hunt's dual-radar-sensor architecture, memory/processor-based controller, and bi-directional header height control based on sensor-detected conditions relative to thresholds, because the references are technically compatible agricultural header control systems and their combination would have predictably improved responsiveness, accuracy, and control by using multiple sensors to trigger appropriate header adjustments.
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:
for a corn header
coupled to the corn header
wherein a first vertical height
of the first radar sensor
relative to the corn header
is lower than
a second vertical height
of the second radar sensor
relative to the corn header; and
detect an ear layer
at the first vertical height
of the first radar sensor
based on the first return magnitude,
at the second vertical height
of the second radar sensor
based on the second return magnitude,
or a combination thereof;
in response to detecting the ear layer
at the first vertical height
of the first radar sensor;
in response to detecting the ear layer
at the second vertical height
of the second radar sensor.
Disclosure by Schlipf
Schlipf discloses:
for a corn headerSee at least:“a conventional combine harvester indicated generally by reference numeral 10 having a corn header 12 mounted thereon” (0017)“FIG. 2 illustrates a typical corn header 12.” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses the corn header environment for agricultural systems.
coupled to the corn header;See at least:“A height sensor 16 ... is preferably mounted near the snout tip of the corn header 12.” (0017)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses a sensor mounted to the corn header, teaching the concept of coupling sensors to a corn header.
wherein a first vertical heightSee at least:“disposed below the header 12 and preferably mounted near the tip 32 of the snout 30 is the height sensor 16.” (0021)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses a sensor mounted near the snout tip, which establishes a first vertical height position on the corn header that is below the main header structure.
of the first radar sensorSee at least:“A height sensor 16 ... is preferably mounted near the snout tip of the corn header 12.” (0017)Rationale: Schlipf's height sensor 16 teaches a sensor at a specific lower location. In combination with Hunt's radar sensor disclosure, a PHOSITA would understand that a radar sensor could be positioned at this same lower location, rendering obvious a first radar sensor at that height.
relative to the corn headerSee at least:“disposed below the header 12 and preferably mounted near the tip 32 of the snout 30 is the height sensor 16.” (0021)Rationale: Schlipf expressly teaches sensor positioning relative to the corn header structure.
is lower thanSee at least:“disposed below the header 12 and preferably mounted near the tip 32 of the snout 30 is the height sensor 16.” (0021)Rationale: Schlipf's sensor is mounted "below the header" and "near the tip," which is a lower position. While Schlipf does not expressly teach a second higher sensor, a PHOSITA seeking to obtain different sensing perspectives of the crop would recognize the benefit of placing a second sensor at a higher position on the header (e.g., on the frame). The concept of one sensor being lower than another is an obvious design choice for achieving different detection zones.
a second vertical heightSee at least:“FIG. 2 illustrates a typical corn header 12. The corn header 12 has a frame 22 to which are mounted a plurality of row units 24” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf discloses the corn header frame, which is at a higher vertical position than the snout tip. This teaches a location for a second sensor at a second vertical height. A PHOSITA would recognize that mounting a sensor on the frame would place it at a higher position relative to the snout-tip mounted sensor.
of the second radar sensorSee at least:“The corn header 12 has a frame 22 to which are mounted a plurality of row units 24” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf's disclosure of the header frame provides a mounting location for a second sensor. In combination with Hunt's second radar sensor, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to place the second radar sensor at this higher frame location to obtain a different sensing perspective.
relative to the corn header; andSee at least:“The corn header 12 has a frame 22” (0019)Rationale: The frame is part of the corn header, so a sensor mounted there is positioned relative to the corn header.
detect an ear layerSee at least:“In operation when harvesting corn, the dividers 20 divide the rows of corn so that the stalks are guided between the gathering chains 24 and snapping rolls 26, and the ears are stripped from the stalks” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses the ear-stripping operation in corn harvesting, establishing that the ear layer is the target region for header height control. A PHOSITA would understand that sensors are used to detect this ear layer for proper header positioning.
at the first vertical heightSee at least:“disposed below the header 12 and preferably mounted near the tip 32 of the snout 30 is the height sensor 16.” (0021)Rationale: Schlipf's low-mounted sensor teaches detection at a first, lower vertical height.
of the first radar sensorSee at least:“A height sensor 16 ... is preferably mounted near the snout tip of the corn header 12.” (0017)Rationale: Schlipf's sensor at the snout tip teaches the concept of a sensor at that location. In combination with Hunt's radar sensor disclosure, a PHOSITA would understand that the first radar sensor at this lower height would detect the ear layer when the header is positioned such that the ear layer aligns with that sensor's field of view.
based on the first return magnitude,See at least:(Boyd and Hunt provide the return magnitude basis; Schlipf provides the corn header context)Rationale: Schlipf's corn header context, combined with Boyd's teaching of determining crop characteristics from return magnitudes and Hunt's teaching of processing radar returns, renders obvious detecting the ear layer based on return magnitude at the first sensor height.
at the second vertical heightSee at least:“The corn header 12 has a frame 22” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf's disclosure of the header frame provides a location for a second sensor at a second, higher vertical height where ear layer detection would occur under different header positioning conditions.
of the second radar sensorSee at least:“The corn header 12 has a frame 22 to which are mounted a plurality of row units 24” (0019)Rationale: The frame provides a mounting location for a second radar sensor. A PHOSITA would understand that this higher-positioned sensor would detect the ear layer when the header is positioned differently relative to the crop.
based on the second return magnitude,See at least:(Boyd and Hunt provide the return magnitude basis; Schlipf provides the corn header context)Rationale: The combination of references renders obvious detecting the ear layer based on return magnitude at the second sensor height.
or a combination thereof;See at least:“the controller 305 may determine that the left vertical distance 312 and right vertical distance 320 are below a certain height threshold value. In response, the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to raise the header ... the controller 305 may determine that the left vertical distance 312 and right vertical distance 320 are above the height threshold range value. In response, the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to lower the header” (0023)Rationale: Hunt teaches conditional responses based on sensor data relative to thresholds. A PHOSITA would recognize that detection at either sensor (or a combination of both) could trigger appropriate header adjustment. Hunt's dual-sensor framework supports detection at either sensor or a combination thereof.
of the corn headerSee at least:“a conventional combine harvester indicated generally by reference numeral 10 having a corn header 12 mounted thereon” (0017)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses the corn header, establishing that the picking height being adjusted is of the corn header.
in response to detecting the ear layerRationale: Hunt provides the "in response to" framework; Schlipf provides the ear layer context. Hunt's teaching of conditional header control "in response to" sensor-detected conditions, combined with Schlipf's corn header context where the ear layer is the target for detection, renders obvious the claimed response to ear layer detection.
at the first vertical heightSee at least:“disposed below the header 12 and preferably mounted near the tip 32 of the snout 30 is the height sensor 16.” (0021)Rationale: Schlipf's low-mounted sensor teaches a first vertical height at which detection occurs, triggering a conditional response.
of the first radar sensor;See at least:“A height sensor 16 ... is preferably mounted near the snout tip of the corn header 12.” (0017)Rationale: Schlipf's sensor at the snout tip teaches the concept of a sensor at that location. In combination with Hunt's radar sensor and conditional response framework, a PHOSITA would understand that detection at this lower sensor would trigger an appropriate header adjustment.
of the corn headerSee at least:“a conventional combine harvester indicated generally by reference numeral 10 having a corn header 12 mounted thereon” (0017)Rationale: Same as limitation 19—express disclosure of the corn header.
in response to detecting the ear layerRationale: Hunt provides the "in response to" framework; Schlipf provides the ear layer context. Hunt's teaching of conditional header control "in response to" sensor-detected conditions, combined with Schlipf's corn header context where the ear layer is the target for detection, renders obvious the claimed response to ear layer detection.
at the second vertical heightSee at least:“The corn header 12 has a frame 22” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf's disclosure of the header frame provides a second, higher vertical height at which detection can occur, triggering a different conditional response.
of the second radar sensor.See at least:“The corn header 12 has a frame 22 to which are mounted a plurality of row units 24” (0019)Rationale: The frame provides a mounting location for a second radar sensor. A PHOSITA would understand that detection at this higher sensor would trigger a different header adjustment (e.g., lowering) compared to detection at the lower sensor (e.g., raising), based on Hunt's teaching of bi-directional control in response to different threshold conditions.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to implement Boyd's reflected-wave crop sensing and ear layer detection methodology using Hunt's dual-radar-sensor architecture with concurrent signal reception, memory/processor-based controller, and bi-directional header height control based on sensor-detected conditions, and to position the sensors at different vertical heights—a first sensor at a lower position (e.g., near the snout tip) and a second sensor at a higher position (e.g., on the header frame)—as taught by Schlipf's corn header structure, to enable conditional header height adjustment: increasing the picking height when the ear layer is detected by the lower sensor (indicating the header is too high and needs to be raised) and decreasing the picking height when the ear layer is detected by the higher sensor (indicating the header is too low and needs to be lowered). This control logic is directly analogous to Hunt's teaching of raising the header when sensor data falls below a threshold and lowering the header when sensor data rises above a threshold—here, the threshold condition is the detection of the ear layer at different vertical sensor positions.
This combination leverages the complementary teachings of all three references to achieve improved responsiveness, accuracy, and control in corn header height adjustment relative to the ear layer. The references are technically compatible, address the same field of agricultural header control, and their combination yields the predictable result of enhanced ear layer detection through strategically positioned sensors and condition-based actuation. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve harvesting efficiency, prevent crop damage, and optimize header positioning.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf establishes the control system of Claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 10.
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to:See at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses a controller-side EPC configured to perform signal-processing and control functions.
determine a measured ear layer heightSee 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. Such as the crop height H2, the stem height H3, and the grain height H4.” (0044)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses determining grain height H4 from sensor output signals. In the already-established corn-header environment of Claim 9, a PHOSITA would have understood the measured grain-height region to correspond to a measured ear-layer height.
based on the first signalSee 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.” (0042)“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.” (0044)Rationale: Boyd expressly teaches that crop-height-related determinations are based on received output signals, satisfying the first-signal basis.
and a first orientation of 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, whereas in FIG. 3 the sensor 52 is directed at an angle relative to the ground in the path of the header 28.” (0039)“the combine harvester 50 (shown in FIGS. 5-6) collects data in differently shaped sensing areas in front of the combine harvester 50.” (0040)“when the combine harvester 50 has one or more sensors 52 that are mounted to the header 28 generally perpendicular to the ground, each sensor 52 tends to collect data in a circular area with a center defined by the sensor 52.” (0041)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses that sensor orientation affects the sensed area and resulting data collection. That supports determining measured crop/ear-layer height based on signal information and sensor orientation.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
the second signal
and a second orientation of the second radar sensor,
or a combination thereof;
determine a target picking height
such that the measured ear layer height is positioned above the first vertical height,
and the second vertical height is positioned above the measured ear layer height; and
control the header height actuator
to adjust the picking height of the corn header
to match the target picking height.
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
the second signalSee at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may each output 1D distance data to the controller 305” (0022)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses second-sensor data being output to and received by the controller, satisfying the second-signal limitation.
and a second orientation of the second radar sensor,See at least:“the left sensor 302 may be mounted near the left edge of the header 200 and angled 45 degrees below the lateral axis or direction 140 within the plane created by the lateral axis or direction 140 and the vertical axis or direction 144.” (0020)“The left sensor 302 and right sensor 304 may each output data indicative of the distance from the sensor to a target object” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses sensor orientation and target-object distance data for header-mounted sensors. In a two-sensor arrangement, a PHOSITA would understand the second sensor likewise has its own orientation used in processing its signal.
or a combination thereof;See at least:“If the left vertical distance 312, the right horizontal distance 320, both, an average, or any mathematical combination of the two are below the threshold range...” (0032)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches using both sensed values, an average, or another mathematical combination. That renders obvious determining measured ear-layer height from the first signal/orientation, the second signal/orientation, or a combination thereof.
determine a target picking heightSee at least:“The threshold range may be a header height range” (0032)“The threshold range may be determined by the controller 305, or manually input by a user.” (0032)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a controller-determined or user-input header-height range. A PHOSITA would have understood this to correspond to a target picking height.
control the header height actuatorSee at least:“The controller 305 may be communicatively coupled to the header height actuator 226 and may be configured to output control signals to the actuator to adjust the height of the header relative to the agricultural system chassis.” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses controller-based control of a header height actuator.
to match the target picking height.See at least:“the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to lower the header so that it is within the threshold range value.” (0023)“At block 418, the height of the header is adjusted.” (0033)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses actuator control that changes header height until it is within a target threshold range. A PHOSITA would have understood that as adjusting the picking height to match the target picking height.
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 reflected-wave ear-layer-height determination using Hunt’s two-sensor architecture and target-height control framework, including use of first and second sensor signals and their respective orientations, and combining multiple sensed values to derive a control-relevant height target, because the references are technically compatible agricultural sensing and control systems and their combination would have predictably improved robustness, coverage, and control precision in header-height adjustment.
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:
such that the measured ear layer height is positioned above the first vertical height,
and the second vertical height is positioned above the measured ear layer height; and
to adjust the picking height of the corn header
Disclosure by Schlipf
Schlipf discloses:
such that the measured ear layer height is positioned above the first vertical height,See at least:“disposed below the header12 and preferably mounted near the tip 32 of the snout 30 is the height sensor 16.” (0021)“In operation when harvesting corn ... the ears are stripped from the stalks” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses a lower sensor position near the snout tip and expressly discloses the ear-bearing region of corn stalks. A PHOSITA would have understood that the ear layer is positioned above that lower sensor location.
and the second vertical height is positioned above the measured ear layer height; andSee at least:“The corn header 12 has a frame 22” (0019)“disposed below the header12 and preferably mounted near the tip 32 of the snout 30 is the height sensor 16.” (0021)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses distinct lower and higher header structures, namely a lower snout-tip region and the higher header/frame structure. In view of the Claim 9 two-sensor arrangement, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to place the second sensor at a higher vertical position relative to the ear layer while the first sensor remains below it, thereby bracketing the ear layer between the two sensor heights.
to adjust the picking height of the corn headerSee at least:“by actuating the cylinders 20, the feeder house 14 and the header 12 mounted thereto may be raised and lowered substantially vertically” (0017)“In operation when harvesting corn ... the ears are stripped from the stalks” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses raising and lowering a corn header in the corn-harvesting environment, supplying the explicit corn-header picking-height context for the already-mapped Boyd/Hunt control logic.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to implement Boyd’s reflected-wave measured ear-layer-height determination using Hunt’s first-and-second sensor architecture, first/second sensor-orientation-based processing, and target-height actuator control, in Schlipf’s corn-header environment with a lower sensor position below the ear layer and a higher sensor position above the ear layer, because Boyd provides the signal-based crop/grain-height determination framework, Hunt provides multi-sensor processing and matching header height to a target height range, and Schlipf provides the corn-header geometry that makes it obvious to bracket the ear-bearing region between lower and higher sensor positions. This combination would have predictably improved picking-height accuracy and control reliability by establishing a target picking height between the two sensor heights while keeping the ear layer above the lower sensor and below the higher sensor.
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf establishes the control system of Claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 11.
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
wherein the controller is configuredSee at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses that the controller (EPC) is configured to perform processing and control functions based on sensor outputs, providing the basis for the further configured functions of Claim 11.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
to control the header height actuator
to adjust the picking height of the corn header
such that
a measured ear layer height is positioned above the first vertical height,
and
the second vertical height is positioned above the measured ear layer height.
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
to control the header height actuatorSee at least:“The controller 305 may be communicatively coupled to the header height actuator 226 and may be configured to output control signals to the actuator to adjust the height of the header” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses controlling a header height actuator.
to adjust the picking height of the corn headerSee at least:“the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to raise the header so that it is in the threshold range value.” (0023)“the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to lower the header so that it is within the threshold range value.” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches adjusting the header height (picking height) using the actuator to achieve a target condition—being within a threshold range. While Hunt does not use the term "picking height," a PHOSITA would understand that header height adjustment in a harvesting context is adjustment of picking height.
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:
such that a measured ear layer height is positioned above the first vertical height,
and
the second vertical height is positioned above the measured ear layer height.
Disclosure by Schlipf
Schlipf discloses:
such that a measured ear layer height is positioned above the first vertical height,See at least:“disposed below the header 12 and preferably mounted near the tip 32 of the snout 30 is the height sensor 16.” (0021)“In operation when harvesting corn ... the ears are stripped from the stalks” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses a sensor mounted at a lower vertical height (near the snout tip) on the corn header. In normal corn header operation, the ear layer is positioned above this lower sensor location. A PHOSITA would understand that for the lower sensor to detect the ear layer, the ear layer must be positioned above that sensor's height. This is an inherent geometric relationship in the corn header environment. The objective of positioning the ear layer above the first vertical height is thus inherent in the structure and operation of Schlipf's corn header with a low-mounted sensor.
and the second vertical height is positioned above the measured ear layer height.See at least:“FIG. 2 illustrates a typical corn header 12. The corn header 12 has a frame 22 to which are mounted a plurality of row units 24” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf discloses the header frame, which is at a higher vertical position than the snout tip. A PHOSITA seeking to position a second sensor at this higher location (as taught in Claim 9) would understand that for this higher sensor to detect the ear layer, the ear layer must be positioned below that sensor's height. Conversely, when the ear layer is at the proper height for harvesting, the higher sensor would be positioned above it. This positional relationship is an obvious geometric consequence of placing sensors at different heights on the header, and achieving the state where the second vertical height is above the measured ear layer height is a natural control objective for maintaining proper header positioning.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to implement Boyd's ear layer height determination methodology using Hunt's header height actuator control framework, and to apply the positional relationships taught by Schlipf's corn header structure—where a lower sensor (first vertical height) is positioned below the ear layer and a higher sensor (second vertical height) is positioned above the ear layer during proper header operation—as the control objective for adjusting the picking height. This combination would have predictably improved harvesting accuracy by using Hunt's actuator control to achieve the geometrically optimal header position defined by Schlipf's sensor placement, ensuring that the ear layer remains between the two sensor heights. The references are technically compatible, address the same field of agricultural header control, and their combination yields the predictable result of precise header positioning through feedback control to maintain a target spatial relationship between the ear layer and vertically separated sensors.
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf establishes the control system of Claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 12.
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to:See at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses controller-side EPC functionality configured to process sensor outputs and control harvester operation.
determine a first number of occurrencesSee 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.” (0042)“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. Such as the crop height H2, the stem height H3, and the grain height H4.” (0044)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses repeated analysis of output signals to determine crop-region information. A PHOSITA would have understood that repeated detections of the crop/grain region from sequential sensor outputs can be counted as occurrences.
of the first radar sensor detecting the ear layer,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. Such as the crop height H2, the stem height H3, and the grain height H4.” (0044)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses grain-height determination from returned-wave output signals. In the already-established corn-header environment of Claim 9, a PHOSITA would have understood grain-height detection to correspond to ear-layer detection by a radar-capable first sensor.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
a second number of occurrences
of the second radar sensor detecting the ear layer,
or a combination thereof; and
control one or more actuators
to control the first coupling height of the first radar sensor,
the second coupling height of the second radar sensor,
or the combination thereof,
based on the first number of occurrences,
the second number of occurrences,
or the combination thereof.
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
a second number of occurrencesSee at least:“At block 402, data from the 1D sensors described in FIG. 3 is received. For example, the left sensor and the right sensor may output 1D distance data to the controller.” (0025)“The method 400 may repeat the method 400 as the agricultural system 100 harvests crops.” (0033)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses repeated receipt of left- and right-sensor data during harvesting. A PHOSITA would have understood repeated detections by the second sensor to be countable as a second number of occurrences.
of the second radar sensor detecting the ear layer,See at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may include any suitable type(s) of sensor(s) (e.g., light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor(s), radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor(s), etc.) configured to output one-dimensional (1D) distance data.” (0020)“The 1D distance data may be indicative of the linear distance between each sensor and the nearest crop stalk, as well as the linear distance between the sensor and the soil surface.” (0025)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a second radar-capable sensor outputting crop-related distance data. In the Claim 9 corn-ear context, a PHOSITA would have understood repeated second-sensor detections of the crop/ear-bearing region.
or a combination thereof; andSee at least:“If the left vertical distance, the right vertical distance, both, or an average of the two are within the threshold range.” (0032)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches using both sensed values or an average/combination of the two, rendering obvious use of a combination of first and second occurrence counts.
control one or more actuatorsSee at least:“the controller 305 may control the one or more actuators of the agricultural system 100 to automatically adjust the row alignment of the header, the header height, the header angle, or a combination thereof.” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses controller-based control of one or more actuators.
based on the first number of occurrences,See at least:“the controller 305 may control the one or more actuators of the agricultural system 100 to automatically adjust the row alignment of the header, the header height, the header angle, or a combination thereof” (0023)“The method 400 may repeat the method 400 as the agricultural system 100 harvests crops.” (0033)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches repeated sensor-based control during harvesting. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to use the repeated first-sensor detections, i.e., a first number of occurrences, as a control input for actuator-based adjustment to improve robustness and reduce transient noise sensitivity.
the second number of occurrences,See at least:“the controller 305 may control the one or more actuators of the agricultural system 100...” (0023)“the left sensor and the right sensor may output 1D distance data to the controller.” (0025)Rationale: For the same reason, Hunt renders obvious using repeated second-sensor detections, i.e., a second number of occurrences, as a control input.
or the combination thereof.See at least:“both, or an average of the two” (0032)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches combining the two sensor-derived values, which renders obvious use of the combined occurrence counts.
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 radar-based crop/ear-layer detection framework using Hunt’s dual-sensor, repeated-sampling, and multi-actuator agricultural-header control architecture, and to use repeated first and second sensor detections, individually or in combination, as control criteria, because the references are technically compatible agricultural sensing and control systems and their combination would have predictably improved stability, noise rejection, and responsiveness by basing actuator decisions on repeated detection occurrences rather than a single instantaneous reading.
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:
to control the first coupling height of the first radar sensor,
the second coupling height of the second radar sensor,
or the combination thereof,
Disclosure by Schlipf
Schlipf discloses:
to control the first coupling height of the first radar sensor,See at least:“disposed below the header12 and preferably mounted near the tip 32 of the snout 30 is the height sensor 16.” (0021)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses a lower coupling location near the snout tip below the header. In the established Claim 9 two-sensor arrangement, a PHOSITA would have understood actuator-controlled header movement to control the effective first coupling height of a first radar sensor mounted at that lower location relative to the crop/ground environment.
the second coupling height of the second radar sensor,See at least:“FIG. 2 illustrates a typical corn header 12.” (0019)“The corn header 12 has a frame 22 to which are mounted a plurality of row units 24” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses the higher frame/header structure. In view of Hunt’s two-sensor architecture, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to place the second radar sensor at a higher coupling location on the header/frame, so that actuator-controlled movement of the header correspondingly controls the second coupling height relative to the crop.
or the combination thereof,See at least:“by actuating the cylinders 20, the feeder house 14 and the header 12 mounted thereto may be raised and lowered substantially vertically” (0017)“The two height sensors cooperate to effect header height changes and/or lateral tilt” (0018)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses actuator-driven header movement and cooperation of two sensors in effecting header-height changes. That renders obvious controlling the first coupling height, the second coupling height, or both together through the header/feeder-house actuating mechanism.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to implement Boyd’s repeated ear-layer detection framework using Hunt’s dual-sensor and multi-actuator control architecture in Schlipf’s corn-header geometry, with a first sensor coupled lower near the snout tip and a second sensor coupled higher on the header/frame, and to control the effective first and second coupling heights, individually or together, based on first and second numbers of detection occurrences, because Boyd provides the signal-based crop/ear-layer detection concept, Hunt provides repeated two-sensor control and combination logic, and Schlipf provides the corn-header structure with distinct lower and higher sensor-coupling regions and actuator-driven header-height adjustment. This combination would have predictably improved corn-header sensing reliability and header-position control by using repeated detection counts from vertically separated sensors to govern height-related control actions.
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf establishes the control system of Claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 13.
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to: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.” (0042)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses a controller configured to process received sensor outputs.
determine a measured ear layer heightSee 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. Such as the crop height H2, the stem height H3, and the grain height H4.” (0043)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses determining grain height H4 from returned-wave output signals. In the already-established corn-header environment of Claim 9, a PHOSITA would have understood the measured grain-height region to correspond to a measured ear-layer height.
based on the measured ear layer 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...” (0045)“The EPC 58 can also use the averaged values of the grain plane P3 to adjust the height H1 of the header 28...” (0045)Rationale: Boyd expressly links measured grain-plane information to determining and adjusting header height. In the corn-header context, that supports adjusting picking height based on measured ear-layer information.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
control the header height actuator
to translate the corn header along a vertical axis;
in response to the first radar sensor crossing the ear layer; and
control the header height actuator
to adjust the picking height of the corn header
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
control the header height actuatorSee at least:“The controller 305 may be communicatively coupled to the header height actuator 226 and may be configured to output control signals to the actuator to adjust the height of the header relative to the agricultural system chassis.” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses controller-based control of the header height actuator.
to translate the corn header along a vertical axis;See at least:“the right sensor 304 may be mounted near the right edge of the header 200 and angled 45 degrees below the lateral axis or direction 140 within the plane created by the lateral axis or direction 140 and the vertical axis or direction 144.” (0020)“The controller 305 may be communicatively coupled to the header height actuator 226 and may be configured to output control signals to the actuator to adjust the height of the header relative to the agricultural system chassis.” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly defines a vertical axis/direction 144 and expressly discloses actuator-driven header-height adjustment. A PHOSITA would have understood that adjusting header height relative to the chassis translates the header along the vertical axis.
control the header height actuatorSee at least:“The controller 305 may be communicatively coupled to the header height actuator 226 and may be configured to output control signals to the actuator to adjust the height of the header relative to the agricultural system chassis.” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses actuator control for header-height adjustment.
to adjust the picking height of the corn headerSee at least:“At block 418, the height of the header is adjusted. The height of the header may be raised or lowered...” (0033)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses raising and lowering header height. In the already-established corn-header environment of Claim 9, this corresponds to adjusting the picking height of the corn header.
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 reflected-wave ear-layer-height determination using Hunt’s expressly disclosed header-height actuator framework that translates the header along the vertical axis and adjusts header height based on sensor-derived information, because the references are technically compatible agricultural sensing and control systems and their combination would have predictably enabled actuator-driven vertical translation of the header to maintain a desired picking height based on measured ear-layer information.
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:
in response to the first radar sensor crossing the ear layer;
Disclosure by Schlipf
Schlipf discloses:
in response to the first radar sensor crossing the ear layer; andSee at least:“A height sensor 16 ... is preferably mounted near the snout tip of the corn header 12.” (0017)“It should be understood that each side of the header typically has a height sensor...” (0018)“In operation when harvesting corn... the ears are stripped from the stalks...” (0019)“disposed below the header12 and preferably mounted near the tip 32 of the snout 30 is the height sensor 16.” (0021)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses a lower sensor location near the snout tip in a corn-header environment and expressly discloses the ear-bearing region of the corn stalks. Schlipf does not expressly disclose a radar sensor crossing event or controller logic triggered by such crossing. However, in view of Hunt’s explicit vertical translation of the header and Boyd’s explicit radar-based crop/grain-height sensing, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious that as the header is translated vertically, a lower first radar sensor would pass through, i.e., cross, the ear-bearing region and that this crossing condition could be used as a control-relevant event for determining measured ear-layer height. This is a combination-based obviousness rationale, not an express disclosure by Schlipf alone.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to implement Boyd’s reflected-wave measured ear-layer-height determination using Hunt’s header-height actuator that translates the header along the vertical axis in Schlipf’s corn-header environment with a lower sensor location near the snout tip, so that measured ear-layer height could be determined in response to the lower sensor passing through the ear-bearing region and the header height then adjusted based on that measured ear-layer height, because Boyd provides the radar-based crop/grain-height determination framework, Hunt provides explicit actuator-driven vertical translation and header-height adjustment, and Schlipf provides the corn-header geometry in which a lower-mounted sensor encounters the ear layer during vertical movement. This combination would have predictably improved corn-header picking-height control by tying height adjustment to a sensor event associated with the ear-bearing crop region.
Regarding Claim 14,
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
A control systemSee at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses a sensor-based controller arrangement that receives sensor outputs and controls harvester operation, which discloses a control system.
comprising:See at least:“The invention in one form is directed to an agricultural harvester that includes a chassis; at least one ground engaging traction member held by the chassis; a cutter held by the chassis; a sensor held by the agricultural harvester so that the sensor is directed in front of the cutter and is configured to emit and receive sound and/or radio waves and produce a plurality of output signals; and an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor...” (0011)Rationale: Boyd’s open-ended “includes” formulation corresponds to a comprising-style recitation.
a controllerSee at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses an electrical processing circuit performing controller functions.
comprising:See at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor” (0011)Rationale: Boyd discloses the controller as an electronic circuit structure, satisfying this structural connector.
one or more processors,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...” (0042)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses that the EPC is, or includes, a processor.
wherein the controller is configured to:See at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly uses “configured to” for the controller’s operative functions.
receive a first signalSee at least:“the sensor is directed in front of the cutter and is configured to emit and receive sound and/or radio waves and produce a plurality of output signals” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses sensor-generated output signals. A PHOSITA would understand the controller receives those signals for processing.
indicative of a first return magnitudeSee at least:“The sensor 52 can be any type of sensor capable of emitting sound waves, radio waves, or both and receiving reflected sound waves, radio waves, or both off of objects to determine the relative density of the objects...” (0039)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses reflected-wave sensing used to determine object characteristics. While Boyd does not use the exact phrase “return magnitude,” a PHOSITA would understand the reflected-wave output signal to be indicative of return magnitude.
at a first plurality of targetsSee at least:“the various heights can be determined based on the travel time of the waves 54 through varying densities of the crops in the sensing area.” (0044)Rationale: Boyd teaches waves passing through and reflecting from multiple crop/ground regions, which implies a plurality of targets in the sensing area.
along a first axis emanating from the first radar sensor,See at least:“the sensor is directed in front of the cutter and is configured to emit and receive sound and/or radio waves” (0011)Rationale: Boyd teaches a directed sensor emitting and receiving waves, which inherently defines a sensing axis emanating from the sensor.
determine the first return magnitudeSee at least:“The sensor 52 can be any type of sensor capable of emitting sound waves, radio waves, or both and receiving reflected sound waves, radio waves, or both off of objects to determine the relative density of the objects...” (0039)Rationale: Boyd teaches using reflected returns to determine object density. A PHOSITA would understand that this entails determining return characteristics, including magnitude, from the first signal.
based on the first signal;See at least:“The EPC 58 is configured so that once it receives output signals, it produces a field map... based on the received output signals.” (0042)“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.” (0044)Rationale: Boyd expressly teaches determinations based on received output signals.
determine a measured ear layer heightSee 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. Such as the crop height H2, the stem height H3, and the grain height H4.” (0044)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses determining grain height H4 from returned-wave output signals. In the corn-header context, a PHOSITA would understand the measured grain-height region to correspond to a measured ear-layer height.
based on the first return magnitude,See at least:“receiving reflected sound waves, radio waves, or both off of objects to determine the relative density of the objects” (0039)“The output signals ... can be analyzed to determine information about the crops...” (0044)Rationale: Boyd teaches that crop-height-related determinations come from reflected-wave return information, rendering obvious a measured ear-layer-height determination based on first return magnitude.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
for a corn header
a first radar sensor
coupled to the corn header;
a second radar sensor
coupled to the corn header,
wherein a first vertical height
of the first radar sensor
relative to the corn header
is lower than
a second vertical height
of the second radar sensor
relative to the corn header; and
a memory
configured to store instructions; and
from the first radar sensor
and concurrently receive
a second signal
from the second radar sensor
indicative of a second return magnitude
at a second plurality of targets
along a second axis emanating from the second radar sensor;
determine the second return magnitude
based on the second signal;
the second return magnitude,
or a combination thereof; and
control a header height actuator
to adjust a picking height
of the corn header
based on the measured ear layer height.
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
a first radar sensorSee at least:“the control system 300 includes a left sensor 302 and a right sensor 304. The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may include any suitable type(s) of sensor(s) ... radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor(s) ...” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a first radar-capable sensor.
coupled to the corn header;See at least:“Each sensor may be positioned ahead of the header along the direction of travel...” (0020)“Each sensor mount may include a structure ... that holds one or more sensors in desired location(s) ... The sensor mounts may attach to any portion of the header 200...” (0019)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses sensors mounted on sensor mounts attached to the header. In combination with Schlipf’s corn-header context, this teaches a first radar sensor coupled to the corn header.
a second radar sensorSee at least:“the control system 300 includes a left sensor 302 and a right sensor 304. The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may include any suitable type(s) of sensor(s) ... radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor(s) ...” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a second radar-capable sensor.
coupled to the corn header,See at least:“Each sensor mount may include a structure ... that holds one or more sensors in desired location(s) ... The sensor mounts may attach to any portion of the header 200...” (0019)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses header-coupled sensor mounts, teaching the second radar sensor coupled to the header.
a memorySee at least:“The controller 305 includes a memory 306 and a processor 307...” (0021)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a memory.
configured to store instructions; andSee at least:“The memory 306 may store processor-executable instructions ... for the processor 307 to execute...” (0021)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses the memory storing instructions.
from the first radar sensorSee at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may each output 1D distance data to the controller 305...” (0022)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses first-sensor data output to the controller.
and concurrently receiveSee at least:“At block 402, data from the 1D sensors described in FIG. 3 is received.” (0025)“the left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may each output 1D distance data to the controller 305” (0022)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses the controller receiving data from both sensors in the same control loop. A PHOSITA would understand concurrent or substantially concurrent receipt as an obvious implementation of this dual-sensor real-time control architecture.
a second signalSee at least:“the left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may each output 1D distance data to the controller 305” (0022)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a second sensor output signal.
from the second radar sensorSee at least:“the control system 300 includes a left sensor 302 and a right sensor 304... radar sensor(s)...” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a second radar-capable sensor providing signal data.
indicative of a second return magnitudeSee at least:“The 1D distance data may be indicative of the linear distance between each sensor and the nearest crop stalk, as well as the linear distance between the sensor and the soil surface.” (0025)Rationale: Hunt teaches second-sensor output indicative of sensed distances. A PHOSITA would understand such radar-derived distance output to be based on and indicative of the corresponding second return information, including return magnitude.
at a second plurality of targetsSee at least:“The 1D distance data may be indicative of the linear distance between each sensor and the nearest crop stalk, as well as the linear distance between the sensor and the soil surface.” (0025)“the sensor may measure a distance between the sensor and a stalk, as well as the distance between the sensor and the soil surface 314 at once.” (0025)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches multiple targets for the second sensor, at least crop stalk and soil surface.
along a second axis emanating from the second radar sensor;See at least:“Each sensor may be positioned ahead of the header ... and oriented to point generally perpendicularly to the direction of travel...” (0020)“at least one sensor may be capable of sending data concerning two points at once in its line of sight.” (0025)Rationale: Hunt teaches a defined sensor orientation and line of sight, which a PHOSITA would understand as a second sensing axis emanating from the second radar sensor.
determine the second return magnitudeSee at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may each output 1D distance data to the controller 305” (0022)“The controller 305 may determine a right horizontal distance 316 and a right vertical distance 318 based on the 1D distance data from the right sensor 304.” (0022)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses controller processing of right-sensor data to derive measured quantities. A PHOSITA would understand this as involving determination of underlying second return information, including second return magnitude, from the second signal.
based on the second signal;See at least:“The controller 305 may determine a right horizontal distance 316 and a right vertical distance 318 based on the 1D distance data from the right sensor 304.” (0022)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches determination based on the second sensor’s data.
the second return magnitude,See at least:“If the left vertical distance 312, the right horizontal distance 320, both, an average, or any mathematical combination of the two are below the threshold range...” (0032)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches using both sensor-derived values or a mathematical combination of the two. In view of Boyd’s measured ear-layer-height determination from return information, Hunt renders obvious determining measured ear-layer height based on the first return magnitude, the second return magnitude, or a combination thereof.
or a combination thereof; andSee at least:“both, an average, or any mathematical combination of the two” (0032)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches combined use of the two sensor-derived values.
control a header height actuatorSee at least:“The controller 305 may be communicatively coupled to the header height actuator 226 and may be configured to output control signals to the actuator to adjust the height of the header...” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses controller-based control of the header height actuator.
to adjust a picking heightSee at least:“At block 418, the height of the header is adjusted. The height of the header may be raised or lowered...” (0033)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses adjustment of header height. In the harvesting context, that is adjustment of picking height.
based on the measured ear layer height.See at least:“the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to raise the header so that it is in the threshold range value” (0023)“both, an average, or any mathematical combination of the two” (0032)Rationale: Hunt teaches using combined sensor-derived values for control and expressly teaches header height adjustment based on processed sensor information. In view of Boyd’s measured ear-layer-height determination, this renders obvious adjusting picking height based on the measured ear-layer height.
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 reflected-wave crop/ear-layer sensing framework using Hunt’s explicit dual-radar-sensor architecture, memory/processor controller, dual-sensor signal receipt, two-target sensing geometry, and header height actuator control, because the references are technically compatible agricultural sensing and control systems and their combination would have predictably improved robustness, sensing coverage, and picking-height control accuracy by using two radar sensors and combined sensor-derived values rather than a single-sensor input.
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:
for a corn header
wherein a first vertical height
of the first radar sensor
relative to the corn header
is lower than
a second vertical height
of the second radar sensor
relative to the corn header; and
of the corn header
Disclosure by Schlipf
Schlipf discloses:
for a corn headerSee at least:“a conventional combine harvester indicated generally by reference numeral 10 having a corn header 12 mounted thereon” (0017)“FIG. 2 illustrates a typical corn header 12.” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses the corn-header environment.
wherein a first vertical heightSee at least:“disposed below the header 12 and preferably mounted near the tip 32 of the snout 30 is the height sensor 16.” (0021)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses a lower sensor position, establishing a first vertical height.
of the first radar sensorSee at least:“A height sensor 16 is preferably mounted near the snout tip of the corn header 12.” (0017)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses a first sensor at the snout-tip location. In view of Hunt’s radar-sensor teaching, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to use a radar sensor at that lower location.
relative to the corn headerSee at least:“disposed below the header 12...” (0021)Rationale: Schlipf expressly teaches the sensor location relative to the header.
is lower thanSee at least:“disposed below the header 12 and preferably mounted near the tip 32 of the snout 30...” (0021)“The corn header 12 has a frame 22...” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses a lower snout-tip region and a higher frame/header structure. A PHOSITA would have understood the lower first sensor position to be lower than a second sensor position on the higher header/frame structure.
a second vertical heightSee at least:“The corn header 12 has a frame 22...” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses a higher frame/header structure, supplying a second vertical height.
of the second radar sensorSee at least:“The corn header 12 has a frame 22...” (0019)Rationale: In view of Hunt’s second radar sensor, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to mount the second radar sensor at the higher header/frame location disclosed by Schlipf.
relative to the corn header; andSee at least:“The corn header 12 has a frame 22...” (0019)Rationale: The higher frame location is expressly relative to the corn header.
of the corn headerSee at least:“by actuating the cylinders 20, the feeder house 14 and the header 12 mounted thereto may be raised and lowered substantially vertically” (0017)“the ears are stripped from the stalks” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly provides the corn-header lifting and harvesting context, completing the “picking height of the corn header” limitation.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to implement Boyd’s ear-layer sensing framework using Hunt’s dual-radar-sensor architecture and combined-value control logic in Schlipf’s corn-header geometry, with a first radar sensor mounted lower near the snout tip and a second radar sensor mounted higher on the header/frame, because Boyd provides the reflected-wave crop-height determination framework, Hunt provides the dual-radar-sensor controller architecture and header height actuator control, and Schlipf provides the corn-header structure with distinct lower and higher mounting regions. This combination would have predictably improved ear-layer-height estimation and resulting picking-height control by using two vertically separated radar sensors on a corn header and adjusting header height based on the measured ear-layer height.
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf establishes the control system of Claim 14, which is the basis for Claim 15.
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to:See at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses a controller-side EPC configured to perform signal-based processing and control functions.
determine a target picking heightSee at least:“The described system includes a sensor mounted on the agricultural harvester for predicting ground contour of an area that is in front of the header. The predicted ground contour can be used to keep a header of the agricultural harvester a desired height above the ground contour or below the crop heads.” (0008)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses maintaining the header at a desired height relative to crop heads, which renders obvious determination of a target picking height.
wherein the target picking height is below the measured ear layer height; andSee at least:“As shown in FIG.1, the header 28 height H1 is preselected so that the cutting surface 40 is located below the valuable crop material 46…” (0038)“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.’” (0043)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses a preselected header height H1 below the valuable crop material 46 and expressly discloses grain height H4. In the already-established corn-header context of Claim 14, a PHOSITA would have understood the measured grain-height region to correspond to the measured ear layer height, thereby teaching a target picking height below the measured ear layer height.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
of the corn header,
control the header height actuator
to adjust the picking height of the corn header
to match the target picking height.
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
control the header height actuatorSee at least:“The controller 305 may be communicatively coupled to the header height actuator 226 and may be configured to output control signals to the actuator to adjust the height of the header relative to the agricultural system chassis.” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses controller-based control of a header height actuator.
to match the target picking height.See at least:“the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to raise the header so that it is in the threshold range value.” (0023)“At block 418, the height of the header is adjusted. The height of the header may be raised or lowered so that the distance from the one or more sensors to the soil surface is within the threshold range.” (0033)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses actuator control that raises or lowers the header so that it reaches a target threshold range. A PHOSITA would have understood that as adjusting the picking height to match the target picking height.
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 desired-below-crop-head target-height framework using Hunt’s expressly disclosed header-height actuator control so that the header is raised or lowered until it reaches the target height, because the references are technically compatible agricultural sensing and control systems and their combination would have predictably improved control precision and responsiveness by actuator-driving the header to a target picking height defined relative to the measured crop region.
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:
of the corn header,
to adjust the picking height of the corn header
Disclosure by Schlipf
Schlipf discloses:
of the corn header,See at least:“a conventional combine harvester indicated generally by reference numeral 10 having a corn header 12 mounted thereon” (0017)“FIG. 2 illustrates a typical corn header 12.” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses the corn-header environment.
to adjust the picking height of the corn headerSee at least:“by actuating the cylinders 20, the feeder house 14 and the header 12 mounted thereto may be raised and lowered substantially vertically” (0017)“In operation when harvesting corn … the ears are stripped from the stalks” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses raising and lowering the corn header in the corn-harvesting environment, supplying the explicit corn-header picking-height context for the already-mapped Boyd/Hunt control logic.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to implement Boyd’s target-below-ear-layer picking-height framework using Hunt’s header-height actuator control in Schlipf’s corn-header environment, so that the picking height of the corn header is adjusted to match a target picking height positioned below the measured ear layer height, because Boyd provides the target-height relationship relative to the measured crop/ear-bearing region, Hunt provides the actuator-based matching of header height to a target range, and Schlipf provides the expressly disclosed corn-header structure and picking-height environment. This combination would have predictably improved corn-harvesting accuracy and control reliability by actively maintaining the corn-header picking height at a target level below the measured ear layer.
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf establishes the control system of Claim 14, which is the basis for Claim 16.
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to:See at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses a controller-side EPC configured to perform signal-processing and control functions.
receive an inputSee 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.” (0046)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses receiving operator input commands at the EPC.
indicative of a corn header height guidance mode;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.” (0046)“The described system includes a sensor mounted on the agricultural harvester for predicting ground contour of an area that is in front of the header. The predicted ground contour can be used to keep a header of the agricultural harvester a desired height above the ground contour or below the crop heads.” (0008)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses operator input used to control operating parameters and expressly discloses header-height guidance behavior. A PHOSITA would have understood an input that selects or enables that header-height-guidance behavior to be indicative of a corn-header-height guidance mode.
set the corn header height guidance modeSee 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.” (0046)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses operator input commands changing how the EPC controls harvester operating parameters. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious that receipt of such an input sets the controller into the selected header-height-guidance operating mode.
in response to receiving the input,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.” (0046)Rationale: Boyd expressly links operator input to subsequent EPC control behavior, which teaches setting control behavior in response to receiving the input.
determining the first return magnitudeSee at least:“The sensor 52 can be any type of sensor capable of emitting sound waves, radio waves, or both and receiving reflected sound waves, radio waves, or both off of objects to determine the relative density of the objects...” (0039)“The EPC 58 is configured so that once it receives output signals, it produces a field map... based on the received output signals.” (0042)Rationale: Boyd teaches reflected-wave sensing and controller-side processing of the resulting output signals. While Boyd does not use the exact phrase “return magnitude,” a PHOSITA would have understood return information, including magnitude, to be determined from the first signal.
based on the first signal;See at least:“The EPC 58 is configured so that once it receives output signals, it produces a field map... based on the received output signals.” (0042)Rationale: Boyd expressly teaches controller determinations based on the received signal outputs.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
determining the second return magnitude
based on the second signal;
detecting an ear layer
at the first vertical height
of the first radar sensor
based on the first return magnitude,
the second vertical height
of the second radar sensor
based on the second return magnitude,
or the combination thereof;
controlling the header height actuator
to decrease the picking height
of the corn header
in response to detecting the ear layer
at the first vertical height
of the first radar sensor; and
controlling the header height actuator
to increase the picking height
of the corn header
in response to detecting the ear layer
at the second vertical height
of the second radar sensor.
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
determining the second return magnitudeSee at least:“The left sensor 302 and the right sensor 304 may each output 1D distance data to the controller 305...” (0022)“The controller 305 may determine a right horizontal distance 316 and a right vertical distance 318 based on the 1D distance data from the right sensor 304.” (0022)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses controller processing of second-sensor data to derive measured quantities. A PHOSITA would understand this as involving determination of second-return information, including second return magnitude, from the second signal.
based on the second signal;See at least:“The controller 305 may determine a right horizontal distance 316 and a right vertical distance 318 based on the 1D distance data from the right sensor 304.” (0022)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches determination based on the second sensor signal/data.
or the combination thereof;See at least:“If the left vertical distance 312, the right horizontal distance 320, both, an average, or any mathematical combination of the two are below the threshold range...” (0032)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches using both sensor-derived values or a mathematical combination of the two, which renders obvious detection/control based on either sensor or the combination thereof.
controlling the header height actuatorSee at least:“The controller 305 may be communicatively coupled to the header height actuator 226 and may be configured to output control signals to the actuator to adjust the height of the header...” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses controller-based control of the header height actuator.
to decrease the picking heightSee at least:“the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to lower the header so that it is within the threshold range value.” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches lowering the header, which decreases picking height.
of the corn headerSee at least:“the header may be raised or lowered so that the distance from the one or more sensors to the soil surface is within the threshold range.” (0033)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses header-height adjustment. In the already-established corn-header environment from the parent claim, this is adjustment of the corn header.
in response to detecting the ear layerSee at least:“If the left vertical distance 312, the right horizontal distance 320, both, an average, or any mathematical combination of the two are below the threshold range...” (0032)“the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to lower the header...” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches conditional actuator response to sensor-derived conditions. In view of Boyd’s crop/grain/ear-layer detection framework, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to use ear-layer detection as the control condition triggering the same kind of actuator response.
controlling the header height actuatorSee at least:“The controller 305 may be communicatively coupled to the header height actuator 226 and may be configured to output control signals to the actuator to adjust the height of the header...” (0023)Rationale: Hunt again expressly discloses controller-based actuator control.
to increase the picking heightSee at least:“the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to raise the header so that it is in the threshold range value.” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly teaches raising the header, which increases picking height.
of the corn headerSee at least:“At block 418, the height of the header is adjusted. The height of the header may be raised or lowered...” (0033)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses header-height adjustment. In the established corn-header context, this is adjustment of corn-header picking height.
in response to detecting the ear layerSee at least:“If the left vertical distance 312, the right horizontal distance 320, both, an average, or any mathematical combination of the two are below the threshold range...” (0032)“the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to raise the header...” (0023)Rationale: For the same reason, Hunt teaches conditional raising in response to a sensor-derived condition. In view of Boyd’s ear-layer determination framework, using ear-layer detection as the trigger would have been an obvious adaptation.
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:
detecting an ear layer
at the first vertical height
of the first radar sensor
based on the first return magnitude,
the second vertical height
of the second radar sensor
based on the second return magnitude,
at the first vertical height
of the first radar sensor; and
at the second vertical height
of the second radar sensor.
Disclosure by Schlipf
Schlipf discloses:
detecting an ear layerSee at least:“In operation when harvesting corn... the ears are stripped from the stalks...” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses the ear-bearing region in the corn-harvesting environment, supplying the corn-ear-layer context for the already-mapped Boyd/Hunt sensor processing.
at the first vertical heightSee at least:“disposed below the header12 and preferably mounted near the tip 32 of the snout 30 is the height sensor 16.” (0021)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses a lower first sensor location, establishing a first vertical height.
of the first radar sensorSee at least:“A height sensor 16... is preferably mounted near the snout tip of the corn header 12.” (0017)Rationale: In view of Hunt’s radar-sensor teaching, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to use the first radar sensor at this lower location.
based on the first return magnitude,See at least:“the ears are stripped from the stalks” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf supplies the corn-ear-layer context. Combined with Boyd’s first-return-based crop/grain-height sensing, this renders obvious detecting the ear layer at the first vertical height based on the first return magnitude.
the second vertical heightSee at least:“The corn header 12 has a frame 22...” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses a higher frame/header structure, supplying a second vertical height.
of the second radar sensorSee at least:“The corn header 12 has a frame 22...” (0019)Rationale: In view of Hunt’s second radar sensor, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to mount the second radar sensor at the higher frame/header location.
based on the second return magnitude,See at least:“the ears are stripped from the stalks” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf supplies the ear-layer context. Combined with Hunt’s second-sensor processing and Boyd’s return-based crop-region determination, this renders obvious second-height ear-layer detection based on the second return magnitude.
at the first vertical heightSee at least:“disposed below the header12 and preferably mounted near the tip 32 of the snout 30 is the height sensor 16.” (0021)Rationale: This expressly supplies the lower first vertical position for the first sensor-triggered response.
of the first radar sensor; andSee at least:“A height sensor 16... is preferably mounted near the snout tip of the corn header 12.” (0017)Rationale: In combination with Hunt’s first radar sensor, this teaches the first radar sensor at the lower location.
at the second vertical heightSee at least:“The corn header 12 has a frame 22...” (0019)Rationale: This supplies the higher second vertical position for the second sensor-triggered response.
of the second radar sensor.See at least:“The corn header 12 has a frame 22...” (0019)Rationale: In combination with Hunt’s second radar sensor, this teaches the second radar sensor at the higher location.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to implement a selectable corn-header-height guidance mode in which Boyd’s return-based ear-layer sensing framework is carried out using Hunt’s dual-sensor controller and header-height-actuator control logic in Schlipf’s corn-header geometry, so that the mode includes determining first and second return information, detecting the ear layer at lower and higher sensor heights, and then decreasing or increasing picking height in response to which sensor-level detection occurs, because Boyd provides the return-based crop/ear-layer determination framework, Hunt provides the dual-sensor controller logic and bi-directional actuator control, and Schlipf provides the corn-header structure with distinct lower and higher sensor-mounting regions and the ear-bearing crop context. This combination would have predictably improved corn-header guidance by allowing mode-based height control tied to ear-layer detection at different vertical sensor positions.
Regarding Claim 17,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf establishes the control system of Claim 16, which is the basis for Claim 17.
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
wherein the corn header height guidance mode comprisesSee 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.” (0046)“The described system includes a sensor mounted on the agricultural harvester for predicting ground contour of an area that is in front of the header. The predicted ground contour can be used to keep a header of the agricultural harvester a desired height above the ground contour or below the crop heads.” (0008)Rationale: Boyd does not expressly disclose the exact named “corn header height guidance mode.” However, Boyd expressly discloses operator-selectable control of harvester operating parameters and expressly discloses header-height guidance behavior relative to crop heads. Thus, Boyd supports configurable header-height-guidance functionality, which contributes to this limitation in combination.
such that the measured ear layer height is positioned above the first vertical height,See at least:“As can be seen, the header 28 has a height H1 relative to the ground of the field, with any crop material located above height H1 being chopped by the header 28...” (0038)“As shown in FIG.1, the header 28 height H1 is preselected so that the cutting surface 40 is located below the valuable crop material 46...” (0038)“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.’” (0043)Rationale: Boyd expressly supports maintaining valuable crop material/grain height above the cutting height. Boyd does not expressly disclose a first sensor vertical height or the complete claimed relationship. But Boyd does support the underlying crop-above-lower-control-height concept, which, in combination with the sensor-placement teachings of Claim 16 and Schlipf, supports the claimed arrangement.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
controlling the header height actuator
to adjust the picking height of the corn header
and the second vertical height is positioned above the measured ear layer height.
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
controlling the header height actuatorSee at least:“The controller 305 may be communicatively coupled to the header height actuator 226 and may be configured to output control signals to the actuator to adjust the height of the header relative to the agricultural system chassis.” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses controller-based control of the header height actuator.
to adjust the picking height of the corn headerSee at least:“At block 418, the height of the header is adjusted. The height of the header may be raised or lowered...” (0033)“The threshold range may be a header height range...” (0032)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses raising or lowering the header to achieve a target header-height range. In the already-established corn-header environment, this teaches adjusting the picking height of the corn header.
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 crop-layer-based header-height-guidance behavior using Hunt’s expressly disclosed header-height actuator control, because the references are technically compatible agricultural sensing and control systems and their combination would have predictably enabled actuator-driven adjustment of corn-header picking height in accordance with the measured crop/ear-bearing region.
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:
and the second vertical height is positioned above the measured ear layer height.
Disclosure by Schlipf
Schlipf discloses:
and the second vertical height is positioned above the measured ear layer height.See at least:“FIG. 1 illustrates a conventional combine with a corn header mounted thereon and showing a height sensor in the form of a height sensing arm mounted near a snout tip of the corn header.” (0005)“It should be understood that each side of the header typically has a height sensor...” (0018)“disposed below the header 12 and preferably mounted near the tip 32 of the snout 30 is the height sensor 16.” (0021)Rationale: Schlipf expressly teaches multiple height sensors on the corn header and expressly teaches at least one lower sensor location below the header near the snout tip. Schlipf does not expressly disclose a second sensor positioned above the measured ear layer. However, in view of the already-established two-sensor arrangement from Claim 16, Schlipf teaches the kind of multi-sensor corn-header geometry from which a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to place another sensor at a higher vertical location on the header so that the ear layer is bracketed between the lower first sensor height and the higher second sensor height. This is an obviousness rationale, not an express Schlipf disclosure of the full final spatial relationship.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to implement the corn-header-height guidance behavior of Claim 16 using Boyd’s crop/ear-layer-relative height guidance concept, Hunt’s header-height actuator control, and Schlipf’s multi-sensor corn-header geometry with at least one lower sensor near the snout tip, and to position another sensor at a higher vertical location on the header, because the references are technically compatible and their combination would have predictably improved corn-header guidance accuracy and control reliability by maintaining the ear-bearing region within a bracketed vertical zone relative to the lower and higher sensor positions.
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf establishes the control system of Claim 14, which is the basis for Claim 18.
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
wherein the first radar sensor is configured to be angledSee at least:“the sensor is directed in front of the cutter” (0011)“The sensor 52 can be angled in such a way that the sensor depth D1 is sufficient to predict the ground contour 60 in front of the header 28” (0040)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses that the sensor can be "directed" and "angled," teaching the general concept of an angled sensor configuration for an agricultural header. While Boyd does not specify the particular directions of upward or inward angling recited in the claim, this teaching provides a foundation for sensor angling that would have informed a PHOSITA's understanding of the system.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
upwardly with respect to a longitudinal axis,
inwardly with respect to the longitudinal axis,
or the combination thereof,
and the second radar sensor is configured to be angled upwardly with respect to the longitudinal axis,
inwardly with respect to the longitudinal axis,
or the combination thereof.
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
wherein the first radar sensor is configured to be angled inwardly with respect to the longitudinal axis,See at least:“Additionally, each sensor may be angled partially downward and partially horizontally toward the centerline of the header.” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses that sensors can be angled "horizontally toward the centerline of the header." A PHOSITA would understand that angling toward the centerline is angling inwardly with respect to the longitudinal axis (direction of travel). This teaching applies to both the left and right sensors, which can be radar sensors as disclosed in ¶0020. The teaching is express.
or the combination thereof,See at least:“Additionally, each sensor may be angled partially downward and partially horizontally toward the centerline of the header.” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a combination of angular orientations—angled both downward and horizontally inward. This teaches combining different angular configurations relative to the longitudinal axis, satisfying the "combination thereof" limitation. The teaching is express.
and the second radar sensor is configured to be angled inwardly with respect to the longitudinal axis,See at least:“Additionally, each sensor may be angled partially downward and partially horizontally toward the centerline of the header.” (0020)Rationale: Same as limitation 1—Hunt's teaching of inward angling applies to both the left and right sensors, which serve as first and second radar sensors. The teaching is express.
wherein the first radar sensor is configured to be angled upwardly with respect to a longitudinal axis,See at least:“Additionally, each sensor may be angled partially downward and partially horizontally toward the centerline of the header.” (0020)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses that sensors can be angled "partially downward." A PHOSITA would recognize that if a sensor can be angled downward, angling it upward is a predictable and routine design choice based on the desired field of view. Hunt's teaching of angling sensors relative to the longitudinal axis, combined with the common knowledge that sensors can be oriented in either direction to achieve different sensing perspectives, renders obvious the option of angling upwardly. This is a PHOSITA-obvious inference, not an express disclosure.
the second radar sensor is configured to be angled upwardly with respect to the longitudinal axis,See at least:“Additionally, each sensor may be angled partially downward and partially horizontally toward the centerline of the header.” (0020)Rationale: Same as limitation 5—the obviousness of upward angling applies equally to the second radar sensor based on Hunt's teaching of downward angling for sensors. A PHOSITA would understand that both sensors could be oriented upward if that provided better detection of the ear layer from below.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to implement Boyd's radar-based crop sensing system using Hunt's expressly disclosed sensor angling configurations—including inward angling toward the centerline and combinations of angular orientations—for both the first and second radar sensors within the corn header environment taught by Schlipf. A PHOSITA seeking to optimize sensor placement for ear layer detection in a corn header would have recognized that upward angling is a predictable variation of Hunt's downward angling teaching, particularly for a lower-mounted sensor (as taught by Schlipf) that needs to detect the ear layer above. This combination would have predictably improved detection accuracy and reliability by allowing the sensors to be oriented optimally relative to the ear layer and corn header structure. The references are technically compatible, address the same field of agricultural header control, and their combination yields the predictable result of enhanced sensor orientation options for corn header guidance.
Regarding Claim 19,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf establishes the control system of Claim 14, which is the basis for Claim 19.
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to:See at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses a controller-side EPC configured to perform signal-based processing and control functions.
receive an inputSee 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.” (0046)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses the controller receiving operator input commands.
indicative of a baseline target picking heightSee 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.” (0046)“The described system includes a sensor mounted on the agricultural harvester for predicting ground contour of an area that is in front of the header. The predicted ground contour can be used to keep a header of the agricultural harvester a desired height above the ground contour or below the crop heads.” (0008)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses operator input commands for controlling harvester operating parameters and expressly discloses a desired header height. A PHOSITA would have understood an operator input selecting or specifying that desired header height to be indicative of a baseline target picking height.
determine the baseline target picking heightSee 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...” (0045)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses determining what the header height should be. That is direct support for determining a target height value.
based on the input; andSee 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.” (0046)Rationale: Boyd expressly links received operator input commands to subsequent control behavior of the EPC, rendering obvious determination of the baseline target picking height based on the input.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
of the corn header
control the header height actuator
to adjust the picking height of the corn header
to match the baseline target picking height.
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
control the header height actuatorSee at least:“The controller 305 may be communicatively coupled to the header height actuator 226 and may be configured to output control signals to the actuator to adjust the height of the header relative to the agricultural system chassis.” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses controller-based control of a header height actuator.
to match the baseline target picking height.See at least:“the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to raise the header so that it is in the threshold range value.” (0023)“At block 418, the height of the header is adjusted. The height of the header may be raised or lowered...” (0033)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses actuator control that raises or lowers the header until it reaches a target threshold/header-height range. A PHOSITA would have understood that as matching the picking height to a target picking height.
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 operator-input-based target-height framework using Hunt’s expressly disclosed header-height actuator control so that the header is raised or lowered until it reaches the selected target height, because the references are technically compatible agricultural sensing and control systems and their combination would have predictably improved control precision and responsiveness by actuator-driving the header to a target picking height established by controller logic and operator input.
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:
of the corn header;
to adjust the picking height of the corn header
Disclosure by Schlipf
Schlipf discloses:
of the corn header;See at least:“FIG. 1 illustrates a conventional combine harvester indicated generally by reference numeral 10 having a corn header 12 mounted thereon...” (0017)“FIG. 2 illustrates a typical corn header 12.” (0019)“FIG. 1 illustrates a conventional combine harvester indicated generally by reference numeral 10 having a corn header 12 mounted thereon...” (0017)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses the corn-header environment. Schlipf expressly ties the relevant height-control environment to a corn header.
to adjust the picking height of the corn headerSee at least:“by actuating the cylinders 20, the feeder house 14 and the header 12 mounted thereto may be raised and lowered substantially vertically” (0017)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses raising and lowering the corn header in the corn-harvesting environment, supplying the explicit corn-header picking-height context for the already-mapped Boyd/Hunt control logic.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to implement Boyd’s operator-input-based baseline target-height framework using Hunt’s header-height actuator control in Schlipf’s corn-header environment, so that the picking height of the corn header is adjusted to match the baseline target picking height, because Boyd provides the operator-input and target-height determination framework, Hunt provides the actuator-based matching of header height to a target range, and Schlipf provides the expressly disclosed corn-header structure and picking-height environment. This combination would have predictably improved corn-harvesting accuracy and operator control by allowing the controller to receive an input indicative of a baseline target picking height and actively drive the corn header to that baseline target.
Regarding Claim 20,
The combination of Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf establishes the control system of Claim 19, which is the basis for Claim 20.
Disclosure by Boyd
Boyd discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to:See at least:“an electrical processing circuit coupled to the sensor that is configured to produce a field map from the plurality of output signals and adjust an operating parameter of the agricultural harvester based on the field map.” (0011)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses a controller-side EPC configured to perform signal-based processing and control functions.
adjust the baseline target picking heightSee 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...” (0045)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses determining what the header height should be based on measured crop information. That teaches adjusting a previously established target height when new crop-height information is available.
to establish an updated target picking heightSee at least:“The described system includes a sensor mounted on the agricultural harvester for predicting ground contour of an area that is in front of the header. The predicted ground contour can be used to keep a header of the agricultural harvester a desired height above the ground contour or below the crop heads.” (0008)“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...” (0045)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses a desired/target header height and expressly discloses determining what the header height should be from sensed crop information. A PHOSITA would have understood that recalculating what the height should be establishes an updated target picking height.
based on the measured ear layer heightSee 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.’” (0043)“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...” (0045)Rationale: Boyd expressly discloses measured grain-height/grain-plane information and expressly discloses using that information to determine header height. In the already-established corn-header context, a PHOSITA would have understood the measured grain-height region to correspond to the measured ear-layer height.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Boyd
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
and the baseline target picking height; and
control the header height actuator
to adjust the picking height of the corn header
to match the updated target picking height.
Disclosure by Hunt
Hunt discloses:
and the baseline target picking height; andSee at least:“The threshold range may be a header height range... The threshold range may be determined by the controller 305, or manually input by a user.” (0032)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses a controller-determined or manually input target header-height range. That is direct support for a baseline target picking height serving as an input/reference value in subsequent adjustment.
control the header height actuatorSee at least:“The controller 305 may be communicatively coupled to the header height actuator 226 and may be configured to output control signals to the actuator to adjust the height of the header relative to the agricultural system chassis.” (0023)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses controller-based control of the header height actuator.
to match the updated target picking height.See at least:“the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to raise the header so that it is in the threshold range value.” (0023)“the controller 305 may control the header height actuator 226 to lower the header so that it is within the threshold range value.” (0023)“At block 418, the height of the header is adjusted. The height of the header may be raised or lowered...” (0033)Rationale: Hunt expressly discloses actuator control that raises or lowers the header until it reaches a target threshold/header-height range. A PHOSITA would have understood that as matching the picking height to an updated target picking height.
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 update Boyd’s target header height based on newly measured crop/ear-layer information while using Hunt’s target-range header-control framework and actuator logic to drive the header to the resulting updated target height, because the references are technically compatible agricultural sensing and control systems and their combination would have predictably improved control precision, adaptability, and harvesting consistency by revising a baseline target height in view of sensed crop conditions and then actuator-matching the header to that revised target.
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:
to adjust the picking height of the corn header
Disclosure by Schlipf
Schlipf discloses:
to adjust the picking height of the corn headerSee at least:“FIG. 1 illustrates a conventional combine harvester indicated generally by reference numeral 10 having a corn header 12 mounted thereon...” (0017)“by actuating the cylinders 20, the feeder house 14 and the header 12 mounted thereto may be raised and lowered substantially vertically” (0017)“In operation when harvesting corn... the ears are stripped from the stalks...” (0019)Rationale: Schlipf expressly discloses raising and lowering the corn header in the corn-harvesting environment, supplying the explicit corn-header picking-height context for the already-mapped Boyd/Hunt target-height update and actuator-control logic.
Motivation to Combine Boyd, Hunt, and Schlipf
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 Schlipf before them, to update a baseline target picking height using Boyd’s measured crop/ear-layer-height information, apply Hunt’s controller-and-actuator framework to drive the header toward that updated target height, and do so in Schlipf’s corn-header picking-height environment, because Boyd provides the sensed-crop-based target-height recalculation, Hunt provides the target-range actuator-matching control logic, and Schlipf provides the explicit corn-header structure and vertical picking-height adjustment context. This combination would have predictably improved corn-header control by allowing a baseline target to be refined using measured ear-layer information and then actively matched by the header height actuator.
Conclusion
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