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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandike, et al. US2021/0015039 in view of Yanke, et al. US2022/0232770.
Regarding claim 1, Vandike, et al. teaches a residue deflection assembly (Figure 7) for a crop loss monitoring system 410 (wherein 410 monitors crop residue, thus is considered to include crop loss monitoring ¶49, since crop loss can occur thru residue disposal), the residue deflection assembly comprising:
a residue deflector 447 configured to be positioned rearward (as shown in Figure 6) of a row unit (¶0050 “other types of headers 416, such as transverse frame supporting individual row units, are utilized”) relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural harvester 422, wherein the residue deflector 447 is configured to direct residue CR away from a field of view of a camera 424-3 of the crop loss monitoring system (¶0057 “ Deflector 447 comprises a ramp or other structure that directs the flow of crop residue over and above camera 424-3, reducing direct impacts with the camera and protecting camera 424-3 from the potentially camera damaging flow of crop residue CR”) and to enable crop material to be present within the field of view of the camera 424-3 (wherein at least some of the residue is deflected away from the field of view, and at least some of the residue is in the field of view of the camera. The residue can include some of the crop material, since the harvester is cutting and processing the crop material through the crop harvesting operation, in which crop residue is a byproduct of this operation ¶0001 “Crop residue is a byproduct of a crop harvesting operation. Crop residue may include straw, chaff or other unwanted portions of a crop plant following threshing and/or separation processes by a harvester” and ¶0052 “the rotary chopper 444 which chops the straw and other residue”. Therefore, at least part of the crop residue includes the crop material).
Vandike, et al. additionally teaches a header 416 and a row unit 418.
Vandike, et al. does not teach that the residue deflector is supported on the header at a location rearward of a row unit relative to a direction of travel.
Yanke, et al. teaches that it is known in the art for a crop monitoring system (including camera 114. The camera is positioned at the rear of 108, as indicated in annotated Figure A below) to be supported on header 108 with a row unit 110. The camera 114 is supported on the header at a location rearward of the row unit relative to a direction of travel (towards rows 106). ¶0027 “one or more sensors 114 are positioned on the combine harvester 100 or header 108 to detect crop material, such as EHP or material other than grain (“MOG”), at different regions 116, 118, and 120 relative to the header 108”.
PNG
media_image1.png
441
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: annotated Figure 1, Yanke, et al.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Vandike, et al.’s residue deflection assembly to be duplicated and supported on the header, rear of row units, as taught by Yanke, et al., to provide monitoring or crop material or MOG immediately behind the header.
Regarding claim 6, Vandike, et al. teaches that the residue deflector 447 comprises a body (wherein 447 is wedge shaped, and thus has at least dimensional features making it a body) configured to engage the residue to direct the residue away from the field of view of the camera 424-3.
Regarding claim 7, Vandike, et al. teaches a reel 444 (wherein chopper 444 is considered a reel because it is wheel-shaped and rotates (¶0052 “the rotary chopper 444 which chops the straw and other residue”). Figure 7 shows paddles within 444) configured to cooperate with the body (wherein reel 444 is disposed immediately to the right of deflector 447) to direct the residue away from the field of view of the camera.
Regarding claim 8, Vandike, et al. teaches a crop loss monitoring system 410, comprising: a camera 424-3 directed toward a region (as shown in Figure 7) behind a header 416 of an agricultural harvester 422 (wherein the region is behind 416, since camera 424-3 is located towards the rear of harvester 422) relative to a direction of travel (to the left of Figure 6) of the agricultural harvester; and
a residue deflection assembly (as recited above) comprising a residue deflector 447 configured to be positioned rearward of a row unit (as recited above) of the header (wherein 447 is located to the right of 416, thus is positioned rearward of 416) relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural harvester (to the left of Figure 6), wherein the residue deflector is configured to direct residue away from a field of view ¶0057 of the camera and to enable crop material to be present within the field of view of the camera (as recited above).
Vandike, et al. additionally teaches a row unit 418.
Vandike, et al. does not teach that the camera has a field of view directed towards a region behind the header; the residue deflector is supported on the header at a location rearward of a row unit relative to a direction of travel.
Yanke, et al. teaches that it is known in the art for a crop monitoring system (including camera 114) to be supported on header 108 with a row unit 110. The camera 114 is supported on the header at a location rearward of the row unit relative to a direction of travel (towards rows 106). ¶0027 “one or more sensors 114 are positioned on the combine harvester 100 or header 108 to detect crop material, such as EHP or material other than grain (“MOG”), at different regions 116, 118, and 120 relative to the header 108”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Vandike, et al.’s residue deflection assembly, including camera, to be duplicated and supported on the header, rear of row units, with the camera’s field of view to be directed towards the rear of the header, as taught by Yanke, et al., to provide monitoring or crop material or MOG immediately behind the header.
Regarding claim 9, Vandike, et al. teaches that the residue deflector 447 comprises a body (wherein 447 is wedge shaped) configured to engage the residue to direct the residue away from the field of view of the camera 424-3, and the camera 424-3 is positioned on a bottom (lower right side of 447) of the body.
Regarding claim 10, Vandike, et al. teaches that the residue deflection assembly (Figure 7) comprises a reel 444 (as recited above) configured to cooperate with the body to direct the residue away from the field of view of the camera 424-3.
Regarding claim 15, Vandike, et al. teaches a header 416 of an agricultural harvester 422, comprising:
a row unit (as recited above);
a crop loss monitoring system 410 (as recited above) comprising a camera 424-3 directed toward a region (shown in Figure 7) behind the header 416 relative to a direction of travel (to the left of Figure 6) of the agricultural harvester 422; and
a residue deflection assembly (Figure 7) comprising a residue deflector 447 positioned rearward of the row unit 418 relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural harvester 422, wherein the residue deflector 447 is configured to direct residue away from a field of view of the camera 424-3 and to enable crop material to be present within the field of view of the camera 424-3 (as recited above).
Vandike, et al. additionally teaches a row unit 418.
Vandike, et al. does not teach that the camera has a field of view directed towards a region behind the header; the residue deflector is supported on the header at a location rearward of a row unit relative to a direction of travel.
Yanke, et al. teaches that it is known in the art for a crop monitoring system (including camera 114) to be supported on header 108 with a row unit 110. The camera 114 is supported on the header at a location rearward of the row unit relative to a direction of travel (towards rows 106). ¶0027 “one or more sensors 114 are positioned on the combine harvester 100 or header 108 to detect crop material, such as EHP or material other than grain (“MOG”), at different regions 116, 118, and 120 relative to the header 108”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Vandike, et al.’s residue deflection assembly, including camera, to be duplicated and supported on the header, rear of row units, with the camera’s field of view to be directed towards the rear of the header, as taught by Yanke, et al., to provide monitoring or crop material or MOG immediately behind the header.
Regarding claim 16, Vandike, et al. teaches that the residue deflector 447 comprises a body (wherein 447 is wedge shaped) configured to engage the residue to direct the residue away from the field of view of the camera 424-3, and the camera 424-3 is positioned on a bottom (lower right side of 447) of the body.
Regarding claim 17, Vandike, et al. teaches that the residue deflection assembly (Figure 7) comprises a reel 444 (as recited above) configured to cooperate with the body to direct the residue away from the field of view of the camera 424-3 (as recited above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims, see remarks, filed 5/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 6-10, and 15-17 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Vandike have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Vandike in view of Yanke, et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 7/14/2026
Prosecution Insights