DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 01/25/2024 and 06/05/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
In fig. 1, reference number 28 does not appear; Examiner notes that reference number 32 appears twice, and the leftmost 32 may have intended to read 28 instead;
In fig. 1, reference number 54 does not appear; Examiner notes that reference number 60 appears twice, and the uppermost 60 may have intended to read 54 instead.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities:
In paragraph [0022], reference number 28 does not appear in the drawings;
In paragraph [0025], reference number 54 does not appear in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holt (WO 2022/076675 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Holt discloses an agricultural harvester (In paragraph [0025], Holt discloses an agricultural combine 20; see also paragraph [0028] where the harvesting operation is described), comprising:
a threshing and separating assembly including a rotor configured to thresh and separate harvested crop material (In paragraph [0027], Holt discloses a threshing system 24 that includes a rotatable, generally cylindrical rotor 46);
a feeder configured to convey the harvested crop material to the threshing and separating assembly (In paragraph [0026], Holt discloses that a feeder 22 includes a feeder housing 32 containing a feed conveyor 34 operable for conveying the crops and other plant material upwardly and rearwardly through housing 32 into an inlet region 36 of threshing system 24);
a hydraulic motor configured to rotationally drive the rotor (In paragraph [0030], Holt discloses that drive 64 includes a multiple speed transmission or gearbox 70 connected to rotor 46 for rotation therewith and a fluid motor 78, where fluid motor 78 is connected in a fluid loop with a variable displacement fluid pump 90 for receiving pressurized fluid therefrom);
a supply conduit through which hydraulic fluid is supplied to the hydraulic motor (In paragraph [0030], Holt discloses that fluid motor 78 is connected in a fluid loop with a variable displacement fluid pump 90 for receiving pressurized fluid therefrom);
a return conduit into which the hydraulic fluid from the hydraulic motor is discharged (In paragraph [0030], Holt discloses that fluid motor 78 is connected in a fluid loop with a variable displacement fluid pump 90 for receiving pressurized fluid therefrom);
a first pressure sensor configured to generate data indicative of a pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the supply conduit (In paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter);
a second pressure sensor configured to generate data indicative of a pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the return conduit (In paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter); and
a computing system communicatively coupled to the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor (In paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter; see also paragraph [0058] where Holt discloses that the operational steps are performed by the controller 68 upon loading and executing software code or instructions which are tangibly stored on a tangible computer readable medium, such as on a magnetic medium, e.g., a computer hard drive, an optical medium, e.g., an optical disc, solid-state memory, e.g., flash memory, or other storage media known in the art), the computing system configured to:
determine the pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the supply conduit based on the data generated by the first pressure sensor (In paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter);
determine the pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the return conduit based on the data generated by the second pressure sensor (In paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter); and
determine when the rotor is slugged based on the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the supply conduit and the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the return conduit (In paragraph [0007], Holt discloses sensing information representative of load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor above a pre-determined threshold, which indicates a slugging condition; in paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter, where these sensors are either individually or collectively utilized to sense load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor).
Regarding claim 4, Holt further discloses wherein the computing system is further configured to:
initiate a control action associated with de-slugging the rotor when it is determined that the rotor is slugged (In paragraph [0007], Holt discloses sensing information representative of load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor above a pre-determined threshold, which indicates a slugging condition; activating an actuator, which adjusts one or more de-awning plates connected to the concave from an initial position to a deslugging position, wherein the one or more de-awning plates are at least partially positioned between grates of the concave; rotating the rotor; and sensing information representative of load conditions opposing rotation to determine whether the slugging condition still exists).
Regarding claim 6, Holt discloses a system for detecting rotor slugging of an agricultural harvester (In paragraph [0025], Holt discloses an agricultural combine 20; see also paragraph [0028] where the harvesting operation is described), the system comprising:
a rotor configured to thresh and separate harvested crop material (In paragraph [0027], Holt discloses a threshing system 24 that includes a rotatable, generally cylindrical rotor 46);
a hydraulic motor configured to rotationally drive the rotor (In paragraph [0030], Holt discloses that drive 64 includes a multiple speed transmission or gearbox 70 connected to rotor 46 for rotation therewith and a fluid motor 78, where fluid motor 78 is connected in a fluid loop with a variable displacement fluid pump 90 for receiving pressurized fluid therefrom);
a supply conduit through which hydraulic fluid is supplied to the hydraulic motor (In paragraph [0030], Holt discloses that fluid motor 78 is connected in a fluid loop with a variable displacement fluid pump 90 for receiving pressurized fluid therefrom);
a return conduit into which the hydraulic fluid from the hydraulic motor is discharged (In paragraph [0030], Holt discloses that fluid motor 78 is connected in a fluid loop with a variable displacement fluid pump 90 for receiving pressurized fluid therefrom);
a first pressure sensor configured to generate data indicative of a pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the supply conduit (In paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter);
a second pressure sensor configured to generate data indicative of a pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the return conduit (In paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter); and
a computing system communicatively coupled to the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor (In paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter; see also paragraph [0058] where Holt discloses that the operational steps are performed by the controller 68 upon loading and executing software code or instructions which are tangibly stored on a tangible computer readable medium, such as on a magnetic medium, e.g., a computer hard drive, an optical medium, e.g., an optical disc, solid-state memory, e.g., flash memory, or other storage media known in the art), the computing system configured to:
determine the pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the supply conduit based on the data generated by the first pressure sensor (In paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter);
determine the pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the return conduit based on the data generated by the second pressure sensor (In paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter); and
determine when the rotor is slugged based on the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the supply conduit and the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the return conduit (In paragraph [0007], Holt discloses sensing information representative of load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor above a pre-determined threshold, which indicates a slugging condition; in paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter, where these sensors are either individually or collectively utilized to sense load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor).
Regarding claim 12, Holt further discloses wherein the computing system is further configured to:
initiate a control action associated with de-slugging the rotor when it is determined that the rotor is slugged (In paragraph [0007], Holt discloses sensing information representative of load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor above a pre-determined threshold, which indicates a slugging condition; activating an actuator, which adjusts one or more de-awning plates connected to the concave from an initial position to a deslugging position, wherein the one or more de-awning plates are at least partially positioned between grates of the concave; rotating the rotor; and sensing information representative of load conditions opposing rotation to determine whether the slugging condition still exists).
Regarding claim 15, Holt discloses a method for detecting rotor slugging of an agricultural harvester (In paragraph [0025], Holt discloses an agricultural combine 20; see also paragraph [0028] where the harvesting operation is described),
the agricultural harvester including a rotor configured to thresh and separate harvested crop material (In paragraph [0027], Holt discloses a threshing system 24 that includes a rotatable, generally cylindrical rotor 46) and
a hydraulic motor configured to rotationally drive the rotor (In paragraph [0030], Holt discloses that drive 64 includes a multiple speed transmission or gearbox 70 connected to rotor 46 for rotation therewith and a fluid motor 78, where fluid motor 78 is connected in a fluid loop with a variable displacement fluid pump 90 for receiving pressurized fluid therefrom), the method comprising:
receiving, with a computing system, first pressure sensor data indicative of a pressure of hydraulic fluid within a supply conduit through which the hydraulic fluid is supplied to the hydraulic motor (In paragraph [0030], Holt discloses that fluid motor 78 is connected in a fluid loop with a variable displacement fluid pump 90 for receiving pressurized fluid therefrom; in paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter);
determining, with the computing system, the pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the supply conduit based on the received first pressure sensor data (In paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter);
receiving, with the computing system, second pressure sensor data indicative of a pressure of the hydraulic fluid within a return conduit into which the hydraulic fluid from the hydraulic motor is discharged (In paragraph [0030], Holt discloses that fluid motor 78 is connected in a fluid loop with a variable displacement fluid pump 90 for receiving pressurized fluid therefrom; in paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter);
determining, with the computing system, the pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the return conduit based on the received second pressure sensor data (In paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter);
determining, with the computing system, when the rotor is slugged based on the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the supply conduit and the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the return conduit (In paragraph [0007], Holt discloses sensing information representative of load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor above a pre-determined threshold, which indicates a slugging condition; in paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter, where these sensors are either individually or collectively utilized to sense load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor); and
initiating, with the computing system, a control action associated with de-slugging the rotor when it is determined that the rotor is slugged (In paragraph [0007], Holt discloses sensing information representative of load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor above a pre-determined threshold, which indicates a slugging condition; activating an actuator, which adjusts one or more de-awning plates connected to the concave from an initial position to a deslugging position, wherein the one or more de-awning plates are at least partially positioned between grates of the concave; rotating the rotor; and sensing information representative of load conditions opposing rotation to determine whether the slugging condition still exists).
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 2-3, 7-8, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (WO 2022/076675 A1), in view of Ho (US 2003/0226707 A1).
Regarding claim 2, although in paragraph [0031] Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter, Holt does not explicitly disclose wherein, when determining when the rotor is slugged, the computing system is configured to:
determine a differential between the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the supply conduit and the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the return conduit; and
determine when the rotor is slugged based on the determined differential.
However, Ho teaches wherein, when determining when the rotor is slugged, the computing system is configured to:
determine a differential between the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the supply conduit and the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the return conduit (In paragraph [0069], Ho teaches that the system 108 estimates hydraulic system pressure (in the preferred embodiment, the pressure difference across the lines 222 that conduct hydraulic fluid to and from the motor) and uses that pressure to indicate to the operator that the rotor is slugged or that slugging is about to occur); and
determine when the rotor is slugged based on the determined differential (In paragraph [0069], Ho teaches that the system 108 estimates hydraulic system pressure (in the preferred embodiment, the pressure difference across the lines 222 that conduct hydraulic fluid to and from the motor) and uses that pressure to indicate to the operator that the rotor is slugged or that slugging is about to occur).
Ho is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to detecting slugging or burden on the rotor of an agricultural machine based on pressure differential. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Ho with the harvester as disclosed by Holt where doing so is well understood in the art, and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. Utilizing the pressure differential may advantageously improve the accuracy of the corresponding determinations, for example, where the relevant status of the fluid can be more contextually specific for determining the state of burden on the rotor.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Holt and Ho further discloses wherein, when determining when the rotor is slugged, the computing system is configured to:
compare the determined differential to a threshold value (In paragraph [0007], Holt discloses sensing information representative of load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor above a pre-determined threshold, which indicates a slugging condition; in paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter, where these sensors are either individually or collectively utilized to sense load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor; in paragraph [0069], Ho teaches that the system 108 estimates hydraulic system pressure (in the preferred embodiment, the pressure difference across the lines 222 that conduct hydraulic fluid to and from the motor) and uses that pressure to indicate to the operator that the rotor is slugged or that slugging is about to occur); and
determine that the rotor is slugged when the determined differential exceeds the threshold value (In paragraph [0007], Holt discloses sensing information representative of load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor above a pre-determined threshold, which indicates a slugging condition; in paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter, where these sensors are either individually or collectively utilized to sense load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor; in paragraph [0069], Ho teaches that the system 108 estimates hydraulic system pressure (in the preferred embodiment, the pressure difference across the lines 222 that conduct hydraulic fluid to and from the motor) and uses that pressure to indicate to the operator that the rotor is slugged or that slugging is about to occur).
Regarding claim 7, although in paragraph [0031] Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter, Holt does not explicitly disclose wherein, when determining when the rotor is slugged, the computing system is configured to:
determine a differential between the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the supply conduit and the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the return conduit; and
determine when the rotor is slugged based on the determined differential.
However, Ho teaches wherein, when determining when the rotor is slugged, the computing system is configured to:
determine a differential between the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the supply conduit and the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the return conduit (In paragraph [0069], Ho teaches that the system 108 estimates hydraulic system pressure (in the preferred embodiment, the pressure difference across the lines 222 that conduct hydraulic fluid to and from the motor) and uses that pressure to indicate to the operator that the rotor is slugged or that slugging is about to occur); and
determine when the rotor is slugged based on the determined differential (In paragraph [0069], Ho teaches that the system 108 estimates hydraulic system pressure (in the preferred embodiment, the pressure difference across the lines 222 that conduct hydraulic fluid to and from the motor) and uses that pressure to indicate to the operator that the rotor is slugged or that slugging is about to occur).
Ho is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to detecting slugging or burden on the rotor of an agricultural machine based on pressure differential. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Ho with the system as disclosed by Holt where doing so is well understood in the art, and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. Utilizing the pressure differential may advantageously improve the accuracy of the corresponding determinations, for example, where the relevant status of the fluid can be more contextually specific for determining the state of burden on the rotor.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Holt and Ho further discloses wherein, when determining when the rotor is slugged, the computing system is configured to:
compare the determined differential to a threshold value (In paragraph [0007], Holt discloses sensing information representative of load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor above a pre-determined threshold, which indicates a slugging condition; in paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter, where these sensors are either individually or collectively utilized to sense load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor; in paragraph [0069], Ho teaches that the system 108 estimates hydraulic system pressure (in the preferred embodiment, the pressure difference across the lines 222 that conduct hydraulic fluid to and from the motor) and uses that pressure to indicate to the operator that the rotor is slugged or that slugging is about to occur); and
determine that the rotor is slugged when the determined differential exceeds the threshold value (In paragraph [0007], Holt discloses sensing information representative of load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor above a pre-determined threshold, which indicates a slugging condition; in paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter, where these sensors are either individually or collectively utilized to sense load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor; in paragraph [0069], Ho teaches that the system 108 estimates hydraulic system pressure (in the preferred embodiment, the pressure difference across the lines 222 that conduct hydraulic fluid to and from the motor) and uses that pressure to indicate to the operator that the rotor is slugged or that slugging is about to occur).
Regarding claim 16, although in paragraph [0031] Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter, Holt does not explicitly disclose wherein determining when the rotor is slugged comprises:
determining, with the computing system, a differential between the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the supply conduit and the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the return conduit; and
determining, with the computing system, when the rotor is slugged based on the determined differential.
However, Ho teaches wherein determining when the rotor is slugged comprises:
determining, with the computing system, a differential between the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the supply conduit and the determined pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the return conduit (In paragraph [0069], Ho teaches that the system 108 estimates hydraulic system pressure (in the preferred embodiment, the pressure difference across the lines 222 that conduct hydraulic fluid to and from the motor) and uses that pressure to indicate to the operator that the rotor is slugged or that slugging is about to occur); and
determining, with the computing system, when the rotor is slugged based on the determined differential (In paragraph [0069], Ho teaches that the system 108 estimates hydraulic system pressure (in the preferred embodiment, the pressure difference across the lines 222 that conduct hydraulic fluid to and from the motor) and uses that pressure to indicate to the operator that the rotor is slugged or that slugging is about to occur).
Ho is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to detecting slugging or burden on the rotor of an agricultural machine based on pressure differential. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Ho with the method as disclosed by Holt where doing so is well understood in the art, and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. Utilizing the pressure differential may advantageously improve the accuracy of the corresponding determinations, for example, where the relevant status of the fluid can be more contextually specific for determining the state of burden on the rotor.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Holt and Ho further discloses wherein determining when the rotor is slugged comprises:
comparing, with the computing system, the determined differential to a threshold value (In paragraph [0007], Holt discloses sensing information representative of load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor above a pre-determined threshold, which indicates a slugging condition; in paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter, where these sensors are either individually or collectively utilized to sense load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor; in paragraph [0069], Ho teaches that the system 108 estimates hydraulic system pressure (in the preferred embodiment, the pressure difference across the lines 222 that conduct hydraulic fluid to and from the motor) and uses that pressure to indicate to the operator that the rotor is slugged or that slugging is about to occur); and
determining, with the computing system, that the rotor is slugged when the determined differential exceeds the threshold value (In paragraph [0007], Holt discloses sensing information representative of load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor above a pre-determined threshold, which indicates a slugging condition; in paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter, where these sensors are either individually or collectively utilized to sense load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor; in paragraph [0069], Ho teaches that the system 108 estimates hydraulic system pressure (in the preferred embodiment, the pressure difference across the lines 222 that conduct hydraulic fluid to and from the motor) and uses that pressure to indicate to the operator that the rotor is slugged or that slugging is about to occur).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (WO 2022/076675 A1) and Ho (US 2003/0226707 A1), in view of Trowbridge (US 2014/0290200 A1).
Regarding claim 5, although in paragraph [0040] Holt discloses that once a slug or slugging condition of a threshing system such as threshing system 24 is detected, a warning may be outputted to the operator, and the rotor will be brought to a halt, the combination of Holt and Ho does not explicitly disclose wherein the control action comprises halting operation of the feeder.
However, Trowbridge teaches wherein the control action comprises halting operation of the feeder (In paragraphs [0013-0014], Trowbridge teaches that in response to operation of the crop processing mechanism in the reverse direction, the operation the feed draper and the at least one side draper in the feed direction is automatically paused, and when the crop processing mechanism is operated in the reverse direction, the feed draper remains paused until the crop processing mechanism is operated in the feed direction for the first predetermined period of time, indicating the deslugging operation broke apart or compacted the slug sufficiently for normal crop processing to resume, in which case the feed draper resumes operation in the feed direction).
Trowbridge is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to halting the feeder of a harvester during a de-slugging operation. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Trowbridge with the harvester as disclosed by the combination of Holt and Ho, where doing so is well understood in the art, and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. Doing so is advantageous in that further blockage or burden to the rotor may be prevented until the current de-slugging operation is sufficiently carried out by halting the feeder and preventing further entry of fed material for example, thereby increasing effectiveness of the de-slugging operation and preventing further prevention of normal operations of or damage to the harvester.
Claims 9-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (WO 2022/076675 A1) and Ho (US 2003/0226707 A1), in view of Martin (WO 2021/188501 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Holt and Ho does not explicitly disclose wherein the threshold value is set based on a received operator input.
However, Martin teaches wherein the threshold value is set based on a received operator input (In paragraph [0033], Martin teaches that in some embodiments, the control system 300 may receive the threshold pressure for one or more of the actuators from a user).
Martin is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to setting a threshold pressure value of an agricultural harvester based on operator input. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Martin with the system as disclosed by the combination of Holt and Ho, where doing so may advantageously afford greater control of the system to the operator, improving usability and accuracy of control, for example.
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Holt and Ho does not explicitly disclose wherein the threshold value is set based on received crop condition sensor data.
However, Martin teaches wherein the threshold value is set based on received crop condition sensor data (In paragraph [0033], Martin teaches that in some embodiments, the processor 332 may use the set of soil conditions to determine the threshold pressure for at least one of the actuators, where in certain embodiments, the set of soil conditions may include a firmness of the soil, a composition of the soil, a humidity level of the soil, and/or any other suitable soil conditions).
Martin is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to setting a threshold pressure value of an agricultural harvester based on soil conditions. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Martin with the system as disclosed by the combination of Holt and Ho, where the Examiner understands that the conditions of soil such as firmness, etc., is well understood in the art, and implementing consideration of these conditions with pressure thresholds of an agricultural harvester as taught by Martin may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. Doing so may advantageously increase the accuracy of control, and the contextual sensitivity of use of the system in a various environments, for example.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Holt and Ho does not explicitly disclose wherein the threshold value is set based on a received operator input.
However, Martin teaches wherein the threshold value is set based on a received operator input (In paragraph [0033], Martin teaches that in some embodiments, the control system 300 may receive the threshold pressure for one or more of the actuators from a user).
Martin is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to setting a threshold pressure value of an agricultural harvester based on operator input. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Martin with the method as disclosed by the combination of Holt and Ho, where doing so may advantageously afford greater control of the system to the operator, improving usability and accuracy of control, for example.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (WO 2022/076675 A1) and Ho (US 2003/0226707 A1), in view of Pankaj (US 2020/0375092 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Holt and Ho further discloses wherein, when determining when the rotor is slugged, the computing system is configured to:
compare the determined differential to a threshold value (In paragraph [0007], Holt discloses sensing information representative of load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor above a pre-determined threshold, which indicates a slugging condition; in paragraph [0031], Holt discloses that a pressure transducer 104 is connected via a conductive path 94 to controller 68 and to filter 100, and is operable for sensing pressure conditions in fluid lines extending to and from motor 78 and outputting information representative thereof to the controller and filter, where these sensors are either individually or collectively utilized to sense load conditions opposing rotation of the rotor; in paragraph [0069], Ho teaches that the system 108 estimates hydraulic system pressure (in the preferred embodiment, the pressure difference across the lines 222 that conduct hydraulic fluid to and from the motor) and uses that pressure to indicate to the operator that the rotor is slugged or that slugging is about to occur).
The combination of Holt and Ho does not explicitly disclose determining a time period during which the determined differential exceeds the threshold value; and
determining that the rotor is slugged when the determined time period exceeds a threshold time period.
However, Pankaj teaches determining a time period during which the determined differential exceeds the threshold value (In paragraph [0047], Pankaj teaches “slug mode”, which is an undesired mode of operation wherein the header cannot achieve its desired set point speed, resulting in poor crop quality, where slug mode is sensed by the control system when the header speed is less than the header set point speed for a predetermined period of time); and
determining that the rotor is slugged when the determined time period exceeds a threshold time period (In paragraph [0047], Pankaj teaches “slug mode”, which is an undesired mode of operation wherein the header cannot achieve its desired set point speed, resulting in poor crop quality, where slug mode is sensed by the control system when the header speed is less than the header set point speed for a predetermined period of time).
Pankaj is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to the utilization of some predetermined period of time to detect a slugging condition in an agricultural harvester. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Pankaj with the system as disclosed by the combination of Holt and Ho, where doing so may further improve the accuracy of detections and efficiency of operations, for example, by filtering out false positives or other detections too short to warrant a de-slugging response.
Claims 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (WO 2022/076675 A1), in view of Trowbridge (US 2014/0290200 A1).
Regarding claim 13, although in paragraph [0040] Holt discloses that once a slug or slugging condition of a threshing system such as threshing system 24 is detected, a warning may be outputted to the operator, and the rotor will be brought to a halt, Holt does not explicitly disclose wherein the control action comprises halting operation of a feeder of the agricultural harvester.
However, Trowbridge teaches wherein the control action comprises halting operation of a feeder of the agricultural harvester (In paragraphs [0013-0014], Trowbridge teaches that in response to operation of the crop processing mechanism in the reverse direction, the operation the feed draper and the at least one side draper in the feed direction is automatically paused, and when the crop processing mechanism is operated in the reverse direction, the feed draper remains paused until the crop processing mechanism is operated in the feed direction for the first predetermined period of time, indicating the deslugging operation broke apart or compacted the slug sufficiently for normal crop processing to resume, in which case the feed draper resumes operation in the feed direction).
Trowbridge is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to halting the feeder of a harvester during a de-slugging operation. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Trowbridge with the system as disclosed by Holt, where doing so is well understood in the art, and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. Doing so is advantageous in that further blockage or burden to the rotor may be prevented until the current de-slugging operation is sufficiently carried out by halting the feeder and preventing further entry of fed material for example, thereby increasing effectiveness of the de-slugging operation and preventing further prevention of normal operations of or damage to the harvester.
Regarding claim 14, Holt further discloses wherein the control action comprises halting operation of the rotor (In paragraph [0040], Holt discloses that once a slug or slugging condition of a threshing system such as threshing system 24 is detected, a warning may be outputted to the operator, and the rotor will be brought to a halt).
Holt does not explicitly disclose wherein the control action comprises halting operation of a feeder of the agricultural harvester.
However, Trowbridge teaches wherein the control action comprises halting operation of a feeder of the agricultural harvester (In paragraphs [0013-0014], Trowbridge teaches that in response to operation of the crop processing mechanism in the reverse direction, the operation the feed draper and the at least one side draper in the feed direction is automatically paused, and when the crop processing mechanism is operated in the reverse direction, the feed draper remains paused until the crop processing mechanism is operated in the feed direction for the first predetermined period of time, indicating the deslugging operation broke apart or compacted the slug sufficiently for normal crop processing to resume, in which case the feed draper resumes operation in the feed direction).
Trowbridge is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to halting the feeder of a harvester during a de-slugging operation. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Trowbridge with the system as disclosed by Holt, where doing so is well understood in the art, and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. Doing so is advantageous in that further blockage or burden to the rotor may be prevented until the current de-slugging operation is sufficiently carried out by halting the feeder and preventing further entry of fed material for example, thereby increasing effectiveness of the de-slugging operation and preventing further prevention of normal operations of or damage to the harvester.
Regarding claim 19, although in paragraph [0040] Holt discloses that once a slug or slugging condition of a threshing system such as threshing system 24 is detected, a warning may be outputted to the operator, and the rotor will be brought to a halt, Holt does not explicitly disclose wherein the control action comprises halting operation of a feeder of the agricultural harvester.
However, Trowbridge teaches wherein the control action comprises halting operation of a feeder of the agricultural harvester (In paragraphs [0013-0014], Trowbridge teaches that in response to operation of the crop processing mechanism in the reverse direction, the operation the feed draper and the at least one side draper in the feed direction is automatically paused, and when the crop processing mechanism is operated in the reverse direction, the feed draper remains paused until the crop processing mechanism is operated in the feed direction for the first predetermined period of time, indicating the deslugging operation broke apart or compacted the slug sufficiently for normal crop processing to resume, in which case the feed draper resumes operation in the feed direction).
Trowbridge is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to halting the feeder of a harvester during a de-slugging operation. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Trowbridge with the harvester as disclosed by Holt, where doing so is well understood in the art, and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. Doing so is advantageous in that further blockage or burden to the rotor may be prevented until the current de-slugging operation is sufficiently carried out by halting the feeder and preventing further entry of fed material for example, thereby increasing effectiveness of the de-slugging operation and preventing further prevention of normal operations of or damage to the harvester.
Regarding claim 20, Holt further discloses wherein the control action comprises halting operation of the rotor (In paragraph [0040], Holt discloses that once a slug or slugging condition of a threshing system such as threshing system 24 is detected, a warning may be outputted to the operator, and the rotor will be brought to a halt).
Holt does not explicitly disclose wherein the control action comprises halting operation of a feeder of the agricultural harvester.
However, Trowbridge teaches wherein the control action comprises halting operation of a feeder of the agricultural harvester (In paragraphs [0013-0014], Trowbridge teaches that in response to operation of the crop processing mechanism in the reverse direction, the operation the feed draper and the at least one side draper in the feed direction is automatically paused, and when the crop processing mechanism is operated in the reverse direction, the feed draper remains paused until the crop processing mechanism is operated in the feed direction for the first predetermined period of time, indicating the deslugging operation broke apart or compacted the slug sufficiently for normal crop processing to resume, in which case the feed draper resumes operation in the feed direction).
Trowbridge is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to halting the feeder of a harvester during a de-slugging operation. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Trowbridge with the method as disclosed by Holt, where doing so is well understood in the art, and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. Doing so is advantageous in that further blockage or burden to the rotor may be prevented until the current de-slugging operation is sufficiently carried out by halting the feeder and preventing further entry of fed material for example, thereby increasing effectiveness of the de-slugging operation and preventing further prevention of normal operations of or damage to the harvester.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clauss (US 6,381,932 B1) teaches a harvesting machine, where in the event of a jam or the presence of metal occurring, the crop intake arrangement may be operated in reverse so as to expel the jam and/or sensed metal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harrison Heflin whose telephone number is (571)272-5629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 1:00PM - 10:00PM EST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/HARRISON HEFLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights