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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed July 20th, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-9 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103. Examiner notes in the Applicant-Initiated interview held on July 16th, 2026, Examiner explained the broadness of the claims and suggested the Applicant to clarify the necessity of a tilt sensor for determining signals in specific adjustments to a harvesting plan, with further detail required to define the harvesting plan so that the Examiner cannot interpret the limitation as simply executing the harvesting process in the manner disclosed in the prior art. Instead of providing additional clarity, the Applicant simply canceled dependent claims 3 and 13 while amending independent claim 1 (along with newly independent claims 11 and 14) with the same subject matter. Examiner noted previously that these limitations were mere recitations of the commonly understood function of a tilt sensor (or gyroscope, as cited in the prior art), thus requiring additional claim language to support potentially novel improvements that result from incorporating such a common concept into the rest of the system. Examiner respectfully asserts that the Applicant has failed to do so; as a result, although the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been overcome, the claims are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, 14 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Phelan et al. (EP Patent Pub. No. 2 960 634 B1). herein “Phelan”, published April 22nd, 2020, in view of Koch et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2016/0037720 A1), herein “Koch”.
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 14, Phelan discloses a crop measurement system for an agricultural machine, comprising:
a tank configured to store harvested crop (See 0008, “[…] grain tank 11 comprises a grain receptacle to receive grain as or while it is being harvested […] incorporated as part of a machine or harvester harvesting the grain, such as a combine […]”);
a crop conveyer configured to provide the harvested crop to the tank (See 0022, “[…] the grain exits chute 26 and falls toward floor 142 of grain tank […]”);
at least one weight sensor configured to measure the weight of a portion of the harvested crop stored in the tank, the portion being that which is positioned above the at least one weight sensor (See 0029-0030, “[…] the weight and the mass of the grain above surface 140 may be determined […] provide a pressure reading from the grain located above a portion of the sensor […] each of sensors 126, 130, 134 is in direct contact with a portion of the grain within grain tank […] senses the weight of the volume or columnar portion of grain vertically above the sensing surfaces 140, 164, 165 within grain tank […] ”);
at least one image sensor configured to capture one or more images indicative of the dimensions of the harvested crop stored in the tank and the location of the harvested crop stored in the tank (See Claim 5, “[…] at least one sensor (13, 113, 126, 170) is a camera (170) capturing a contour of an upper surface of the pile (154, 160) of the grain within the grain tank (11).” See also 0041, “[…] signals of the first sensor and second sensor are fit to the predicted shape of the pile of grain there by determining the position of the pile of grain within the grain tank […]”); and
a controller configured to:
receive one or more signals from the at least one weight sensor indicative of the weight of the portion of the harvested crop measured by the at least one weight sensor (See 0029-0030 as referenced above and 0004, “[…] determining a change of mass of at least a first portion of grain in a grain tank over a period of time as a function of signals received from at least one sensor […]”);
receive one or more signals from the at least one image sensor indicative of the dimensions of the harvested crop stored in the tank and the location of the harvested crop stored in the tank (See Claim 5 and 0041 as referenced above. See also 0056, “[…] flow estimator 14 receives signals from sensor 170 and determines a volume of a particular portion of the pile of grain.” Examiner notes sensor 170 is defined as a camera sensor); and
determine the mass of the harvested crop stored in the tank based on the one or more signals received from the at least one weight sensor and the one or more signals received from the at least one image sensor (See 0004 as referenced above and 0057, “[…] based upon changes in the weight of the individual portions of the pile of grain extending above sensing elements 126, 130, 134 and the shape of the pile of grain accumulating within grain tank […]”); and
(per Claims 11 and 14 only) wherein the harvesting plan includes at least one of speed of the agricultural machine, direction of the agricultural machine, and height of a cutting head of the agricultural machine (See 0064, “[…] steepness of the terrain where the grain is being harvested, the vibrations of the grain tank 11, the extent to which the grain tank is turned sharply or rapidly the extent to which the grain tank is subject to rapid accelerations and decelerations, and the ground speed of the harvester and/or grain tank 11 during harvesting of the grain will impact the shape of the grain pile collected […]”).
But does not explicitly disclose at least one tilt sensor configured to measure the tilt of the agricultural machine relative to the direction of gravity;
receive one or more signals from the at least one tilt sensor indicative of the tilt of the agricultural machine relative to the direction of gravity; and
determine the mass of the harvested crop stored in the tank based on the one or more signals received from the at least one tilt sensor.
Koch, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches at least one tilt sensor configured to measure the tilt of the agricultural machine relative to the direction of gravity (See 0040, “[…] one or more gyroscopes 345 […]”);
receive one or more signals from the at least one tilt sensor indicative of the tilt of the agricultural machine relative to the direction of gravity (See 0056, “[…] sum of the signals multiplied by their individual multipliers is substantially proportional to the weight of the combine […]” See also 0073, “[…] the gyroscope 345 is preferably oriented and configured to send signals to the yield monitor board 310, which signals are related to the pitch and roll of the combine […]”); and
determine the mass of the harvested crop stored in the tank further based on the one or more signals received from the at least one tilt sensor (See 0056, “[…] sum of the signals multiplied by their individual multipliers is substantially proportional to the weight of the combine […]” See also 0073, “[…] the gyroscope 345 is preferably oriented and configured to send signals to the yield monitor board 310, which signals are related to the pitch and roll of the combine […]”).
In view of Koch’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the crop calibration system using various sensors to detect mass, volume and weight of harvested crop in a tank as disclosed by Phelan, a gyroscope or other tilt sensor to determine relative tilt of the agricultural machine, with a reasonable expectation of success, since compensating for machine orientation effects on sensed crop weight improves mass determination accuracy under varying terrain conditions.
Regarding Claim 2, Phelan further discloses the crop measurement system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine the mass of the harvested crop stored in the tank further based on the location of the at least one weight sensor (See 0029-0030 as referenced above and 0037, “[…] the location of the sensors 126, 130 and 134 and any additional sensors within grain tank 11 are known and/or determined prior to grain being deposited into grain tank […]”).
Regarding Claim 4, Phelan further discloses the crop measurement system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine the mass of a remaining portion of harvested crop stored in the tank based on the dimensions of the harvested crop stored in the tank, the location of the harvested crop stored in the tank relative to the location of the at least one weight sensor, and the one or more signals received from the at least one weight sensor (See 0037-0038, “[…] the ratio of the volume and mass of the portion of grain located directly above a given sensor relative to the entire pile of grain is known, the mass of the entire volume of the pile of grain is determined based at least in part on the mass detected by a given sensor. Signals from multiple sensors provides enhanced accuracy to the total mass of the entire pile of grain.”);
wherein the remaining portion of harvested crop stored in the tank is the harvested crop stored in the tank excluding the portion of harvested crop measured by the at least one weight sensor (See 0037-0038 as referenced above. Examiner notes the grain not included in the volume and mass measurements of the grain directly above a given weight sensor is the remaining portion of the grain); and
Regarding Claim 5, Phelan further discloses the crop measurement system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine the dimensions of the portion of harvested crop stored in the tank and the dimensions of a remaining portion of harvested crop stored in the tank based on the location of the harvested crop stored in the tank relative to the location of the at least one weight sensor (See 0024, “[…] there may be more than one region of the grain pile that is higher than other regions […] the pile of grain includes a first portion having a greater height from the ground than other portions of the pile of grain within the grain tank.” See also 0028, “[…] general shape of the grain pile may be determined based on the known shape of grain tank 11, the location of chute 26 relative to grain tank.”); and
wherein the remaining portion of harvested crop stored in the tank is the harvested crop stored in the tank excluding the portion of harvested crop measured by the at least one weight sensor (See 0037-0038 as referenced above).
Regarding Claim 6, Phelan further discloses the crop measurement system of claim 5, wherein the controller is configured to determine the mass of a remaining portion of harvested crop stored in the tank based on the dimensions of the portion of harvested crop stored in the tank, the dimensions of the remaining portion of harvested crop stored in the tank, and the one or more signals received from the at least one weight sensor (See 0059, “[…] change of mass and/or volume of at least a first portion of the pile of grain in grain tank 11 over a period of time as a function of signals received from at least one sensor […]” See also Claim 6, “[…] determining the change of mass of the grain within the grain tank (11) over the period of time is further a function of the change of mass of a second portion of grain within the grain tank (11) over the period of time.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Phelan further discloses the crop measurement system of claim 6, wherein the controller is configured to determine the mass of the harvested crop stored in the tank based on the mass of the portion of harvested crop stored in the tank and the mass of the remaining portion of harvested crop stored in the tank (See 0037-0038 as referenced above and 0004, “[…] estimate of the change of mass of at least substantially all of the grain within the grain tank […]”).
Regarding Claim 8, Phelan further discloses the crop measurement system of claim 1, wherein the at least one weight sensor includes a first weight sensor and a second weight sensor (See 0079, “[…] multiple sensors 126, 130, 134 are used and in different locations within grain tank 11 […]”); and
wherein the first weight sensor is located at a different height than the second weight sensor (See 0037-0038 and 0079 as referenced above. Examiner notes multiple sensors are located in different positions within the grain tank, thus allowing multiple measurements of different portions of the grain pile at varying heights).
Regarding Claim 9, Phelan further discloses the crop measurement system of claim 1, wherein the crop conveyer includes an outlet from which harvested crop is provided to the tank (See 0021-0022, “[…] grain mass flow sensor 112 is located proximate an exit 25 of a chute 26 such that harvested grain exiting the chute 26 impacts upon surface 124 of mass flow sensor […] the grain exits chute 26 and falls toward floor 142 of grain tank 11 to form a pile 154 of grain. Pile 154 has a known geometric shape based in part on the geometry of grain tank 11 and the position of chute 26 and the impact surface 124 of mass flow sensor […]”); and
wherein the outlet of the crop conveyer is located at a greater height than the at least one weight sensor (See 0021-0022 as referenced above. Examiner notes grain exits the chute and then falls towards the floor of the tank, making an impact with at least one mass sensor, thus meaning the outlet of the conveyer must be at a greater height than the sensor).
Regarding Claim 12, Phelan further discloses the crop measurement system of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to:
receive an additional yield measurement (See 0008 and 0083-0086 as referenced above. See also 0019, “Calibration of the grain mass flow sensor 112 is based upon additional information obtained from grain accumulation sensor […]”);
determine a yield output that is different from the additional yield measurement based on the additional yield measurement and the yield calibration curve (See 0008, 0019 and 0083-0086 as referenced above. See also 0010, “[…] signals output by sensor 13 are alternatively or additionally based upon a detected weight of the grain being accumulated within grain tank […] sensor 13 outputs signals continuously or periodically as the grain is being accumulated […]” Examiner notes determining yield output through a continuous or periodic signal updated as grain is accumulated in the tank is the same as different yield measurements); and
provide the yield output to a user display (See 0015, “[…] output 15 comprises a display or monitor by which the estimated grain flow is presented for viewing by an operator of the harvester, by an off-site manager or other person.”).
Regarding Claim 21, Phelan does not explicitly disclose the crop measurement system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine the mass the harvested crop stored in the tank by making an adjustment to a determined value associated with the weight of the portion of the harvested crop in view of the tilt of the agricultural machine.
Koch, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the controller is configured to determine the mass the harvested crop stored in the tank by making an adjustment to a determined value associated with the weight of the portion of the harvested crop in view of the tilt of the agricultural machine (See 0056 and 0073 as referenced above).
In view of Koch’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the crop calibration system using various sensors to detect mass, volume and weight of harvested crop in a tank as disclosed by Phelan, a gyroscope or other tilt sensor to determine relative tilt of the agricultural machine, with a reasonable expectation of success, since compensating for machine orientation effects on sensed crop weight improves mass determination accuracy under varying terrain conditions.
Regarding Claims 22 and 23, Phelan does not explicitly disclose the crop measurement system of claims 11 and 14, further comprising at least one tilt sensor configured to measure the tilt of the agricultural machine relative to the direction of gravity;
wherein the controller is configured to receive one or more signals from the at least one tilt sensor indicative of the tilt of the agricultural machine relative to the direction of gravity and determine the mass of the harvested crop stored in the tank further based on the one or more signals received from the at least one tilt sensor.
Koch, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches at least one tilt sensor configured to measure the tilt of the agricultural machine relative to the direction of gravity (See 0040 as referenced above);
wherein the controller is configured to receive one or more signals from the at least one tilt sensor indicative of the tilt of the agricultural machine relative to the direction of gravity and determine the mass of the harvested crop stored in the tank further based on the one or more signals received from the at least one tilt sensor (See 0056 and 0073 as referenced above).
In view of Koch’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the crop calibration system using various sensors to detect mass, volume and weight of harvested crop in a tank as disclosed by Phelan, a gyroscope or other tilt sensor to determine relative tilt of the agricultural machine, with a reasonable expectation of success, since compensating for machine orientation effects on sensed crop weight improves mass determination accuracy under varying terrain conditions.
Regarding Claim 24, Phelan further discloses the crop measurement system of claim 14, wherein the harvesting plan includes speed of the agricultural machine (See 0064 as referenced above).
Regarding Claim 25, Phelan further discloses the crop measurement system of claim 14, wherein the harvesting plan includes direction of the agricultural machine (See 0033, “[…] surfaces 140, 164 and 165 are horizontal such that the direction of gravity is perpendicular to a plane defined by floor 142 when grain tank 11 is in a neutral non-slanted orientation. In one embodiment, the term horizontal is defined by a plane perpendicular to the direction of gravity. In other implementations, surfaces 140, 164, 165 have other orientations depending upon the orientation of the corresponding underlying or overlying portions of floor 142 of tank […]”).
Regarding Claim 26, Phelan further discloses the crop measurement system of claim 14, wherein the harvesting plan includes height of a cutting head of the agricultural machine (See 0028, “[…] predetermined distances as measured horizontally and perpendicular from a vertical vector extending downwardly in the direction of gravity from the apex.” Examiner notes where the general conditions of a claim are taught in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Phelan et al. (EP Patent Pub. No. 2 960 634 B1) in view of Koch et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2016/0037720 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Fischer et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2022/0053692 A1), herein “Fischer”.
Regarding Claim 10, Phelan in view of Koch teaches the crop measurement system of claim 9, but does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one image sensor includes at least one of a first image sensor positioned on the crop conveyor at a greater height than the outlet of the crop conveyor and a second image sensor positioned on the crop conveyor at a lesser height than the outlet of the crop conveyor.
Fischer, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the at least one image sensor includes at least one of a first image sensor positioned on the crop conveyor at a greater height than the outlet of the crop conveyor and a second image sensor positioned on the crop conveyor at a lesser height than the outlet of the crop conveyor (See 0005, “[…] measuring system at least partly arranged or positioned on the harvested material transport path to analyze the composition and/or contents of the harvested material.” See also 0012, “[…] multiple optical measurements, such as a passive optical measurement from a first, passive optical sensor with another measurement from a second, non-passive optical sensor, are combined […]” See also 0063, “[…] optical sensor 10 may be designed as a line scan camera or area scan camera with sensor elements. The sensor elements may each record locally different pixels of the first field of vision 11 that are, in particular, at a distance from each other […]”).
In view of Fischer’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the crop calibration system using various sensors to detect mass, volume and weight of harvested crop in a tank as disclosed by Phelan, the multiple sensors displaced at varying heights relative to an outlet of the crop conveyer, with a reasonable expectation of success, since placement of multiple optical sensors at different positions along the crop conveyer improves monitoring coverage and increases robustness of harvested crop parameter detection.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Phelan et al. (EP Patent Pub. No. 2 960 634 B1) in view of Koch et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2016/0037720 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heitmann et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2016/0286722 A1), herein “Heitmann”.
Regarding Claim 15, Phelan in view of Koch teaches the crop measurement system of claim 1, wherein the crop conveyer is configured to provide harvested crop processed by the threshing assembly to the tank (See 0021-0022 as referenced above).
But does not explicitly teach the crop measurement system further comprising a threshing assembly configured to process the harvested crop.
Heitmann, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a threshing assembly configured to process the harvested crop (See 0002, “[…] combine harvester with a threshing unit for threshing picked-up crop to obtain grain […]”).
In view of Heitmann’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the crop calibration system using various sensors to detect mass, volume and weight of harvested crop in a tank as disclosed by Phelan, a threshing assembly for processing the harvested crop, with a reasonable expectation of success, since both are directed towards processing and monitoring harvested grain with a combine, and combining known compatible grain processing and sensing components would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryant Tang whose telephone number is (571)270-0145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PST.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/BRYANT TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
