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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendment filed on 01/20/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 16 are amended.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 12-15, 17-20 are previously presented.
Claims 3, 8-9, 11 are cancelled.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190037770 A1 Dugas; Bryan E. et al. (hereinafter Dugas), in view of AU 1039592 A MOLLER GEOFFREY et al. (hereinafter Moller), further in view of US 20200015417 A1 Linde; Karl Robert et al. (hereinafter Linde), further in view of US 20190274253 A1 Wold; Matthew T. et al. (hereinafter Wold), further in view of US 20230243761 A1 Somarowthu; Mahesh et al. (hereinafter Somarowthu ‘761), and further in view of US 20220217908 A1 Cazenave; Blain J. (hereinafter Cazenave).
Regarding claim 1, Dugas discloses: A system for an agricultural harvester (see Dugas at least [0002] cane harvester), the system comprising:
a chopper assembly that separates a harvested material into debris and stalk (see Dugas at least [0030] a chopper 28 and a separator 55. The chopper 28 cuts the crop and the separator 55 receives the cut crop from the chopper 28 and generally separates the cut crop by way of a crop cleaner, which will be described in greater detail below);
a primary extractor that removes debris from the harvester (see Dugas at least [0030] The crop cleaner may include any suitable mechanism for cleaning the cut crop, such as a fan);
a sensor system downstream of the primary extractor (see Dugas at least [0042] The yield monitoring sensor 72 is coupled to the conveyor 56 and sends a crop yield signal to the control unit 68 corresponding to an amount (e.g., a mass or a volume) of crop being discharged from the discharge opening 58); and
obtaining the data associated with the harvested material conditions downstream of the primary extractor (see Dugas at least [0042] The yield monitoring sensor 72 is coupled to the conveyor 56 and sends a crop yield signal to the control unit 68 corresponding to an amount (e.g., a mass or a volume) of crop being discharged from the discharge opening 58);
determining a current foliage ratio based on the data (see Dugas at least [0061] the controlled cleaning system 90 may calculate the percentage of trash in the crop discharged from the discharge opening 58 (instead of percentage of billet B) by comparing the signals from the trash sensor 82 and the yield monitoring sensor 72);
determining an error between the current foliage ratio to a desired foliage ratio (see Dugas at least [0005] monitor an error between the desired cleaning level and the actual cleaning level during control of the primary crop cleaner);
generating a first operational setpoint of a motor of the secondary extractor based at least in part on the error (see Dugas at least [0067] the control unit 68 may be further programmed to control the speed of the secondary fan 61 based at least in part on an error between the desired cleaning level and the actual cleaning level during control of the primary fan 40. Thus, the control unit 68 is also programmed to monitor the error between the desired cleaning level and the actual cleaning level, e.g., continuously or periodically. The error may be quantified as a difference, and the speed of the secondary fan 61 may be controlled based upon a magnitude of the error/difference); and
estimating a change in the current foliage ratio at least partially based on a variation in harvested material inputted into the agricultural harvester (see Dugas at least [0063] Changes in the ground speed may affect the cleaning level of the crop. The faster the harvester 10 moves through the field, the higher the rate of crop intake and, conversely, the slower the harvester 10 moves through the field, the lower the rate of crop intake. Raising the rate of crop intake (i.e., increasing ground speed) without changing the parameters of the crop cleaner will cause the crop cleaning level to go down, i.e., the crop ejected from the discharge 58 will be less clean, having more trash by percentage. Conversely, lowering the rate of crop intake (i.e., decreasing the ground speed) without changing the parameters of the crop cleaner will cause the crop cleaning level to go up, i.e., the crop ejected from the discharge 58 will be more clean, having less trash by percentage).
Dugas does not teach: a power source operably coupled to a hydraulic pump, the hydraulic pump operably coupled with the chopper assembly, the primary extractor, and a driveline assembly in parallel; a sensor system including a first sensor capturing data associated with upcoming harvested material mass positioned forward of a knockdown roller upstream of the chopper assembly, a computing system including one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, enable the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: determining a second operational setpoint of a fan of the primary extractor based at least in part on the variation in harvested material inputted into the agricultural harvester; and determining a change in power load of the power source between a first power load when the fan operates at the first operational setpoint and a second power load when the fan operates at the second operational setpoint to maintain operation of the power source within a defined efficiency range.
However, Moller teaches: a power source operably coupled to a hydraulic pump (see Moller at least [pg. 3, line 34] A diesel engine 15 drives a hydraulic pump), the hydraulic pump operably coupled with the chopper assembly (see Moller at least [pg. 4, line 35 – pg. 5, line 2] The cane stalks are thus fed to a pair of counter-rotating chopping cutters 27, driven by hydraulic motors), the primary extractor (see Moller at least [pg. 5, lines 7-9] The extractor has a cowl 32 which may be swung to either side and a hydraulic motor 33 drives the extractor fan), and a driveline assembly in parallel (see Moller at least [pg. 3, line 34-pg. 4, line 1] A diesel engine 15 drives a hydraulic pump (not shown) which is connected to respective hydrostatic motors (not shown) in the hubs of wheels 12, 13 or 16).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring system disclosed by Dugas to include the hydraulic pump and various hydraulically powered harvester features of Moller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because using consistent power sources for many systems of the harvester simplifies the design and manufacture of the machine overall, as suggested by Moller (see Moller at least [pg. 2, lines 7-10] A broad object of the present invention is to provide a cane harvester which is very efficient in operation though particularly compact in size and may be simple and economical to manufacture and to operate).
Dugas and Moller do not teach: a sensor system including a first sensor capturing data associated with upcoming harvested material mass positioned forward of a knockdown roller upstream of the chopper assembly, a computing system including one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, enable the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: determining a second operational setpoint of a fan of the primary extractor based at least in part on the variation in harvested material inputted into the agricultural harvester; and determining a change in power load of the power source between a first power load when the fan operates at the first operational setpoint and a second power load when the fan operates at the second operational setpoint to maintain operation of the power source within a defined efficiency range.
However, Linde teaches: a computing system including one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, enable the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising (see Linde at least [0054] Steps 451-460 shown in FIG. 4B are performed by controller 310 upon loading and executing software code or instructions which are tangibly stored on a tangible computer readable medium 316, 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):
determining a change in power load of the power source between a first power load when the fan operates at the first operational setpoint and a second power load when the fan operates at the second operational setpoint (see Linde at least [0027] The load of the fan drive is the amount of power (e.g., hydraulic, electric, torque, etc.) the fan drive requires in order to drive the cleaning fan at the set speed… the load on the fan drive (e.g., the power required by the fan drive to drive the fan at the set speed) actually increases with a decrease in aeronautical backpressure (e.g., in low MOG volume situations) and [Fig. 4B] After each time the fan speed is set, the load is reassessed for further analysis and control).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring system disclosed by Dugas and Moller to include the fan speed-dependent power load monitoring of Linde. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because continual monitoring of the torque of the mechanism driving the cleaning fan allows for subsequent altering of system parameters as necessary, as suggested by Linde (see Linde at least [0053] This process may be periodically repeated by controller 310 to ensure that the speed of fan 126 is set according to the current torque required for driving fan 126).
Dugas, Moller, and Linde do not teach: a sensor system including a first sensor capturing data associated with upcoming harvested material mass positioned forward of a knockdown roller upstream of the chopper assembly, determining a second operational setpoint of a fan of the primary extractor based at least in part on the variation in harvested material inputted into the agricultural harvester; considering fan setpoints to maintain operation of the power source within a defined efficiency range.
However, Wold teaches: determining a second operational setpoint of a fan of the primary extractor based at least in part on the variation in harvested material inputted into the agricultural harvester (see Wold at least [0028] In response to the predicted chaffer load exceeding a second threshold greater than the first threshold, the speed of fan 34 may be increased to a second greater speed).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring system disclosed by Dugas, Moller, and Linde to include the crop material throughput-dependent extractor fan speed adjustment of Wold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such adjustment minimizes system costs through efficient fan usage and even the possibility of less costly materials, as suggested by Wold (see Wold at least [0023] the enhanced efficiency of fan 34 due to the dynamic adjustment of its speed based upon forthcoming estimated chaffer loading may facilitate the use of smaller and/or less expensive fans, facilitating compactness and reducing cost).
Dugas, Moller, Linde, and Wold do not teach: a sensor system including a first sensor capturing data associated with upcoming harvested material mass positioned forward of a knockdown roller upstream of the chopper assembly, considering fan setpoints to maintain operation of the power source within a defined efficiency range.
However, Somarowthu ‘761 teaches: a sensor system including a first sensor capturing data associated with upcoming harvested material mass positioned forward of a knockdown roller upstream of the chopper assembly (see Somarowthu ‘761 at least [0108] a THz-based sensor 250-7 may be mounted in a forward looking posture on the front of sugarcane harvester 350, such as on the front of cab 352).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring system disclosed by Dugas, Moller, Linde, and Wold to include the sensor used to monitor the status of sugarcane before it is harvested of Somarowthu ‘761. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because assessments of the quality of the crop can be performed before processing, in order to make necessary changes or take precautions, as suggested by Somarowthu ‘761 (see Somarowthu ‘761 at least [0108] Thus, sensor 250-7 can sense objects or other characteristics of the sugarcane (harvest-related parameters) ahead of harvester 350).
Dugas, Moller, Linde, and Wold, and Somarowthu ‘761 do not teach: considering fan setpoints to maintain operation of the power source within a defined efficiency range.
However, Cazenave teaches: considering fan setpoints to maintain operation of the power source within a defined efficiency range (see Cazenave at least [0054] Based on this cleaning feedback signal, the fan speed is changed according to the fan speed determined by the automatic cleaning adjustment at block 218. In block 218, the blade angle of incidence and fan speed are adjusted to match fan airflow and fan loading, i.e. power consumption. The angle of incidence and fan speed (fan rpm) are adjusted based on the auto clean limits and power consumption requirements).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring system disclosed by Dugas, Moller, Linde, Wold, and Somarowthu ‘761 to include the power consumption-based adjustment of harvesting system parameters of Cazenave. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because various system conditions such as fan load associated with crop flow affect system efficiency, and power consumption may be optimized for such system variables, as suggested by Cazenave (see Cazenave at least [0054] recommended or predetermined airflow and power consumption ranges for a specific amount of sugarcane being harvested, also identified as a specific tonnage).
Regarding claim 4, Dugas, Moller, Linde, Wold, Somarowthu ‘761, and Cazenave disclose: The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
decreasing the primary extractor operational setpoint if the power load is greater than a predefined threshold (see Linde at least [0032] when controller 120 determines that the load of the fan drive is greater than a load threshold (e.g., a low volume of MOG is present), controller 120 decreases power output by the fan drive to decrease the fan speed resulting in a decrease in the power of airflow 202 and [0036] For example, the fan drive could be the combustion engine of the combine connected to the fan via belts and pulleys).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring system disclosed by Dugas, Moller, Linde, Wold, Somarowthu ‘761, and Cazenave to include the load-dependent fan speed adjustment of Linde. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the load relates to the crop throughput, and adjusting the fan speed according to these values ensures that the fan speed responds appropriately to changing environmental conditions, as suggested by Linde (see Linde at least [0032] This ensures that the airflow is not too strong to accidentally propel grain into the residue system).
Regarding claim 5, Dugas, Moller, Linde, Wold, Somarowthu ‘761, and Cazenave disclose: The system of claim 1, further comprising: an input device that provides the desired foliage ratio to the computing system (see Dugas at least [0040] the harvester 10 also includes an operator interface 66 (e.g., including a display 91 (FIG. 10) and input members 93 (FIG. 10), for example including any combination of one or more of buttons, dials, joysticks, mouse pads, a touch screen, a graphical user interface, or the like) with which a user can input settings, preferences, commands, etc. to control the harvester 10 and [0058] The operator may input a desired level of cleaning as an absolute or a relative amount of clean, e.g., as a numerical input (e.g., percentage, ratio, number of billets per residue quantity, distance, field area, etc.).
Regarding claim 6, Dugas, Moller, Linde, Wold, Somarowthu ‘761, and Cazenave disclose: The system of claim 5, wherein the operations further comprise: altering the first operational setpoint of the primary extractor to a second operational setpoint of the primary extractor when the error deviates from a defined threshold (see Dugas at least [0061] To achieve the desired cleaning level, the control unit 68 may continuously or periodically adjust the fan speed until the percentage of billet B achieves (e.g., is approximately equal to, or within a threshold close to) the desired cleaning level).
Regarding claim 7, Dugas, Moller, Linde, Wold, Somarowthu ‘761, and Cazenave disclose: The system of claim 6, wherein the operations further comprise: determining a change of the current foliage ratio based on the altering of the first operational setpoint of the primary extractor to the second operational setpoint of the primary extractor (see Dugas at least [0060] In a feedback loop (FIG. 6), the control unit 68 continuously or periodically monitors the billet loss signals from the billet loss sensor 74 and the delta P to determine a measured, or actual, cleaning level and controls the fan speed, based on the signal from the fan sensor 76 , to adjust the actual cleaning level to achieve the desired cleaning level inputted by the operator).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugas, in view of Moller, further in view of Linde, further in view of Wold, further in view of Somarowthu '761, further in view of Cazenave, and further in view of US 20150124054 A1 DARR; MATTHEW J. et al. (hereinafter Darr).
Regarding claim 2, Dugas, Moller, Linde, Wold, Somarowthu ‘761, and Cazenave disclose: The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor system includes a vision-based sensor (see Dugas at least [0048] The trash sensor 82 may include vision technology (e.g., a camera) disposed proximate the conveyor 56 and/or the discharge opening 58).
Dugas, Moller, Linde, Wold, Somarowthu ‘761, and Cazenave do not teach: wherein the data associated with the harvested material is image data (see Darr at least [0029] The yield measurement system can analyze captured images of the portion of the elevator viewable by the cameras. The captured images can capture the surface area of the material on the elevator).
However, Darr teaches: wherein the data associated with the harvested material is image data.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring system disclosed by Dugas, Moller, Linde, Wold, Somarowthu ‘761, and Cazenave to include the image data collection of Darr. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because image data can be processed in order to determine harvester operating parameters such as foliage ratio, as suggested by Darr (see Darr at least [0029] Based on the captured images, the yield measurement system can estimate that 80% of the surface area of the material includes sugar cane and 20% of the surface area of the material includes trash).
Claim(s) 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugas, in view of US 20240013363 A1 SOMAROWTHU; Mahesh et al. (hereinafter Somarowthu '363), further in view of EP 3326446 A1 MÜNCH DR PHILIPP et al. (hereinafter Münch), and further in view of Somarowthu ‘761.
Regarding claim 10, Dugas discloses: A computer-implemented method for agricultural harvesting (see Dugas at least [0002] a method of controlling cane cleaning in a cane harvester), the computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, data associated with one or more operation-related conditions for an agricultural harvester (see Dugas at least [0042] The yield monitoring sensor 72 is coupled to the conveyor 56 and sends a crop yield signal to the control unit 68 corresponding to an amount (e.g., a mass or a volume) of crop being discharged from the discharge opening 58), (see Dugas at least [0063] Changes in the ground speed may affect the cleaning level of the crop. The faster the harvester 10 moves through the field, the higher the rate of crop intake and, conversely, the slower the harvester 10 moves through the field, the lower the rate of crop intake. Raising the rate of crop intake (i.e., increasing ground speed) without changing the parameters of the crop cleaner will cause the crop cleaning level to go down, i.e., the crop ejected from the discharge 58 will be less clean, having more trash by percentage. Conversely, lowering the rate of crop intake (i.e., decreasing the ground speed) without changing the parameters of the crop cleaner will cause the crop cleaning level to go up, i.e., the crop ejected from the discharge 58 will be more clean, having less trash by percentage),
determining, by the computing system, an operation parameter of a primary extractor based on a desired foliage ratio and the current foliage ratio (see Dugas at least [0006] the control includes adjusting a speed of the primary crop cleaner to move the actual cleaning level of the crop during harvester operation towards the desired cleaning level of the crop).
Dugas does not teach: wherein the data includes harvest infeed data associated with a variation in harvested material inputted into the agricultural harvester, the infeed data collected prior to a knockdown roller contacting the harvested material; inputting, by the computing system, the data into a model that receives and process the data to determine a current foliage ratio; and generating a control command to alter a hydraulic pressure supplied to a driveline assembly based at least on the operation parameter of the primary extractor to operate a power source operably coupled with the primary extractor and the driveline assembly in parallel within a defined efficiency range.
However, Somarowthu ‘363 teaches: inputting, by the computing system, the data into a model that receives and process the data to determine a current foliage ratio (see Somarowthu ‘363 at least [0024] The crop analysis system 110 and/or the remote system 150 may pre-process the image data in anticipation of further imaging processing to calculate a leaf-to-stem ratio… In some implementation, machine learning may be employed to identify leaves and stems. For instance, a machine learning algorithm may be trained using training data where leaves and stems are marked. After training, the algorithm may be executed with live image data to detect leaves and stems in image data).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the -----agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring method disclosed by Dugas to include the computer model-based determination of crop parameter ratios of Somarowthu ‘363. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such processing allows automated real-time information about processed crops, as suggested by Somarowthu ‘363 (see Somarowthu ‘363 at least [0017] Conventionally, leaf-to-stem ratio is measured manually and [0018] Automated techniques to determine leaf-to-stem ratio are described herein. These techniques enable the leaf-to-stem ratio to be determined on-the-go, for example on an agricultural vehicle).
Dugas and Somarowthu ‘363 do not teach: wherein the data includes harvest infeed data associated with a variation in harvested material inputted into the agricultural harvester, the infeed data collected prior to a knockdown roller contacting the harvested material; generating a control command to alter a hydraulic pressure supplied to a driveline assembly based at least on the operation parameter of the primary extractor to operate a power source operably coupled with the primary extractor and the driveline assembly in parallel within a defined efficiency range.
However, Münch teaches: generating a control command to alter a hydraulic pressure supplied to a driveline assembly based at least on the operation parameter of the primary extractor to operate a power source operably coupled with the primary extractor and the driveline assembly in parallel within a defined efficiency range (see Münch at least [pg. 5, para. 3, beginning with “The FIG. 3”] The controller 80 may be analog or digital. It comprises a first subtracter 48, the positive input value an input is supplied from the operator interface 88 which defines a desired value of the power of the engine 42. This setpoint can be entered in absolute numbers (power in kW) or as a percentage of maximum power or rated power. The first subtractor 46 is supplied with the actual output from the internal combustion engine 42 as a negative input value. The difference between the setpoint and actual value of the power of the internal combustion engine 42 is supplied by the first subtractor 48 to an external controller 92, which may be designed as a PID controller in a manner known per se. The outer regulator 92 outputs, as an initial value, a crop flow rate setpoint, which in the illustrated embodiment is represented by the pressure of the hydraulic cylinder 66 measured with the hydraulic pressure sensor 86).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the -----agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring method disclosed by Dugas and Somarowthu ‘363 to include the hydraulic pressure alteration used to maintain optimal engine conditions of Münch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because variation of some machine parameters in order to maintain others in their optimal zones allows for ideal overall performance of the harvester, as suggested by Münch (see Münch at least [pg. 2, para. 1, beginning with “To ensure that”] To ensure that at least approximately optimal utilization of the harvester is achieved, it has been proposed to detect a representative of the crop throughput measured variable and to control the propulsion speed of the harvester by varying the gear ratio of the first drive train in terms of compliance with a desired crop throughput).
Dugas, Somarowthu ‘363, and Münch do not teach: wherein the data includes harvest infeed data associated with a variation in harvested material inputted into the agricultural harvester, the infeed data collected prior to a knockdown roller contacting the harvested material.
However, Somarowthu ‘761 teaches: wherein the data includes harvest infeed data associated with a variation in harvested material inputted into the agricultural harvester, the infeed data collected prior to a knockdown roller contacting the harvested material (see Somarowthu ‘761 at least [0108] a THz-based sensor 250-7 may be mounted in a forward looking posture on the front of sugarcane harvester 350, such as on the front of cab 352. Thus, sensor 250-7 can sense objects or other characteristics of the sugarcane (harvest-related parameters) ahead of harvester 350 and [0109] FIG. 11 also shows that a THz-based sensor can be disposed to sense the material just prior to, or just after, it is cut by base cutters 364. Sensor 250-8 can therefore detect objects or characteristics of the crop before they are engaged by based cutter 364 or objects or characteristics of the severed material).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the -----agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring method disclosed by Dugas, Somarowthu ‘363, and Münch to include the sensor used to monitor the status of sugarcane before it is harvested of Somarowthu ‘761. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because assessments of the quality of the crop can be performed before processing, in order to make necessary changes or take precautions, as suggested by Somarowthu ‘761 (see Somarowthu ‘761 at least [0108] Thus, sensor 250-7 can sense objects or other characteristics of the sugarcane (harvest-related parameters) ahead of harvester 350).
Regarding claim 12, Dugas, Somarowthu ‘363, Münch, and Somarowthu '761 disclose: The computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising:
receiving, through an input device, a desired foliage ratio (see Dugas at least [0058] The operator may input a desired level of cleaning as an absolute or a relative amount of clean, e.g., as a numerical input (e.g., percentage, ratio, number of billets per residue quantity, distance, field area, etc.); and
determining, with the computing system, an error between the current foliage ratio and the desired foliage ratio (see Dugas at least [0005] monitor an error between the desired cleaning level and the actual cleaning level during control of the primary crop cleaner).
Regarding claim 13, Dugas, Somarowthu ‘363, Münch, and Somarowthu '761 disclose: The computer-implemented method of claim 12, further comprising:
determining an absolute value of the error (see Dugas at least [0068] the magnitude of the error); and
generating the control command when the absolute value deviates from a defined threshold (see Dugas at least [0068] the speed of the secondary fan 61 may be decreased… when there is no error, and/or when the actual cleaning level is better than the desired cleaning level, and/or when a target cleaning level is reached… The target cleaning level may be… within a predetermined percentage of the desired cleaning level, such as 2% better than the desired cleaning level, or any other desired target. The speed of the secondary fan 61 may be further decreased (if variable speed) based on the magnitude of the error).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugas, in view of Somarowthu ‘363, further in view of Münch, further in view of Somarowthu '761, and further in view of US 20190202378 A1 Hartman; Brian A. et al. (hereinafter Hartman).
Regarding claim 14, Dugas, Somarowthu ‘363, Münch, and Somarowthu '761 disclose: The computer-implemented method of claim 13.
Dugas, Somarowthu ‘363, Münch, and Somarowthu '761 do not appear to explicitly disclose: estimating, with the computing system, a change in a power source load based on the control command.
Hartman teaches: estimating, with the computing system, a change in a power source load based on the control command (see Hartman at least [0023] the controller may be configured to estimate a parasitic power loss value for each candidate setting that is associated with the consumed engine power of one or more power-consuming components of the work vehicle. For example, in one embodiment, the controller may estimate a parasitic power loss associated with each candidate transmission/engine setting that takes into account engine-related power losses, transmission-related power losses, fan power losses, alternator power losses, tire-related power losses, power take-off losses, and/or any other parasitic power losses associated with any power-consuming subsystems of the work vehicle).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the----- -agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring method disclosed by Dugas, Somarowthu ‘363, Münch, and Somarowthu '761 to include the estimation of parasitic power loss associated with different vehicle control settings of Hartman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because estimating these values allows for further calculations to ultimately achieve desired fuel efficiency goals, as suggested by Hartman (see Hartman at least [0023] The estimated parasitic power loss value for each candidate setting may then be used to calculate the associated engine torque requirement for achieving the desired ground speed, which may then be used to determine which of the identified candidate settings results in the lowest fuel consumption while still allowing the desired ground speed to be maintained constant).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugas, in view of Somarowthu ‘363, further in view of Münch, further in view of Somarowthu '761, and further in view of Darr.
Regarding claim 15, Dugas, Somarowthu ‘363, Münch, and Somarowthu '761 disclose: The computer implemented method of claim 13, wherein the control command comprises at least one of altering an operational setpoint of a fan of the secondary extractor (see Dugas at least [0068] The speed of the secondary fan 61 may be further decreased (if variable speed) based on the magnitude of the error) or altering the hydraulic pressure supplied to a chopper assembly.
Dugas, Somarowthu ‘363, Münch, and Somarowthu '761 do not teach: wherein the control command comprises at least one of altering an operational setpoint of a fan of the primary extractor.
However, Darr teaches: wherein the control command comprises at least one of altering an operational setpoint of a fan of the primary extractor (see Darr at least [0041] based on the amount of trash in the material on the elevator 104, the computing device can change the rate of speed with which the extractor fan spins).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ----------agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring method disclosed by Dugas, Somarowthu ‘363, Münch, and Somarowthu '761 to include the fan speed adjustment of Darr. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the fan can be part of either a primary or a secondary extractor in the system, and either helps clean the crop, as suggested by Darr (see Darr at least [0041] The extractor fan can be part of a primary extractor or a secondary extractor in a crop cleaning system associated with the harvester).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugas, in view of Linde, further in view of JP 2010059839 A WADA ATSUSHI et al. (hereinafter Wada), and further in view of RU 2536050 C2 VOL'FKARIUS Niko Dzh.M. et al. (hereinafter Vol’fkarius).
Regarding claim 16, Dugas discloses: A system for an agricultural harvester (see Dugas at least [0002] cane harvester), the system comprising:
a chopper assembly that separates a harvested material into debris and stalk (see Dugas at least [0030] a chopper 28 and a separator 55. The chopper 28 cuts the crop and the separator 55 receives the cut crop from the chopper 28 and generally separates the cut crop by way of a crop cleaner, which will be described in greater detail below);
a primary extractor including a motor operably coupled with a fan, the primary extractor that removes debris from the harvester (see Dugas at least [0030] The crop cleaner may include any suitable mechanism for cleaning the cut crop, such as a fan… a motor 50 driving the fan 40);
a power source operably coupled with the chopper assembly and the primary extractor (see Dugas at least [0039] For example, the hydraulic circuits 62, 69 are closed-loop hydraulic circuits, which are powered by a pump 64a, 64b, respectively. Each pump 64a, 64b may be driven by the prime mover (not shown) of the harvester 10 or other power source and [0038] a first hydraulic circuit 62 for powering the motor 50 is operatively coupled thereto and [0034] The motor 50, such as a hydraulic motor, includes a drive shaft 52 operatively coupled to drive the fan 40 and [0041] a chopper pressure sensor 87 for detecting a hydraulic pressure driving the chopper 28);
a sensor system that captures data associated with one or more operation-related conditions for the agricultural harvester (see Dugas at least [0042] The yield monitoring sensor 72 is coupled to the conveyor 56 and sends a crop yield signal to the control unit 68 corresponding to an amount (e.g., a mass or a volume) of crop being discharged from the discharge opening 58); and
obtaining the data associated with one or more operation-related conditions (see Dugas at least [0042] The yield monitoring sensor 72 is coupled to the conveyor 56 and sends a crop yield signal to the control unit 68 corresponding to an amount (e.g., a mass or a volume) of crop being discharged from the discharge opening 58);
determining a current foliage ratio based on the data (see Dugas at least [0061] the controlled cleaning system 90 may calculate the percentage of trash in the crop discharged from the discharge opening 58 (instead of percentage of billet B) by comparing the signals from the trash sensor 82 and the yield monitoring sensor 72);
determining a first operational setpoint of the fan based on the current foliage ratio (see Dugas at least [0006] control the primary crop cleaner based at least in part on feedback from monitoring the actual cleaning level);
generating a control action based on the first operational setpoint (see Dugas at least [0006] the control includes adjusting a speed of the primary crop cleaner to move the actual cleaning level of the crop during harvester operation towards the desired cleaning level of the crop).
Dugas does not disclose: a computing system including one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, enable the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: altering a hydraulic pressure to an additional component to maintain operation of the power source within a defined operation range, wherein the defined efficiency range is between 1,500-2,500 revolutions per minute (RPM).
However, Linde teaches: a computing system including one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, enable the computing system to perform operations (see Linde at least [0054] Steps 451-460 shown in FIG. 4B are performed by controller 310 upon loading and executing software code or instructions which are tangibly stored on a tangible computer readable medium 316, 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).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring system disclosed by Dugas to include the computer processing system of Linde. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because computing systems including processors and memory are well-known means to perform methods for vehicle systems, as suggested by Linde (see Linde at least [0054] Upon loading and executing such software code or instructions by the controller 310, the controller 310 may perform any of the functionality of the controller 310 described herein).
Dugas and Linde do not teach: altering a hydraulic pressure to an additional component to maintain operation of the power source within a defined operation range, wherein the defined efficiency range is between 1,500-2,500 revolutions per minute (RPM).
However, Wada teaches: altering a hydraulic pressure to an additional component to maintain operation of the power source within a defined operation range (see Wada at least [pg. 3, para. 4, beginning with “According to the invention”] the engine speed can be maintained at the target speed by increasing the suction side pressure of the hydraulic pump).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring system disclosed by Dugas and Linde to include the system hydraulic pressure adjustment to maintain target engine speed of Wada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so allows for efficient engine output under a variety of loads, as suggested by Wada (see Wada at least [pg. 3, para. 4, beginning with “According to the invention”] the operability is improved and the work can be efficiently performed even at a high load exceeding the maximum output of the engine).
Dugas, Linde, and Wada do not teach: wherein the defined efficiency range is between 1,500-2,500 revolutions per minute (RPM).
However, Vol’fkarius teaches: wherein the defined efficiency range is between 1,500-2,500 revolutions per minute (RPM) (see Vol’fkarius at least [pg. 6, para. 11, beginning with “According to a preferred”] A preferred embodiment of this type of control is shown in FIG. 6 with reference to range 21 in FIG. 4. In the range of 21, the target rpm increases from 1850 rpm to 1900 rpm for a load between 43% and 73%. Figure 6 shows the speed at which the target number of revolutions per minute n .sub.s varies in the range 21 according to the applied load and the current engine speed per minute n .sub.i).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring system disclosed by Dugas, Linde, and Wada to include the agricultural machine harvesting range of Vol’fkarius. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a range offers the optimal use of a motor in an agricultural machine, as suggested by Vol’fkarius (see Vol’fkarius at least [pg. 1, para. 3, beginning with “EFFECT”] group of inventions provides the operation of the agricultural machine in a flexible mode and efficient use of the motor).
Regarding claim 17, Dugas, Linde, Wada, and Vol’fkarius disclose: The system of claim 16, wherein the operations further comprise: estimating a change in the current foliage ratio at least partially based on a variation in harvested material inputted into the agricultural harvester (see Dugas at least [0063] lowering the rate of crop intake (i.e., decreasing the ground speed) without changing the parameters of the crop cleaner will cause the crop cleaning level to go up, i.e., the crop ejected from the discharge 58 will be more clean, having less trash by percentage).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugas, in view of Linde, further in view of Wada, further in view of Vol’fkarius, and further in view of Wold.
Regarding claim 18, Dugas, Linde, Wada, and Vol’fkarius disclose: The system of claim 17.
Dugas, Linde, Wada, and Vol’fkarius do not teach: wherein the operations further comprise: determining a second operational setpoint of the fan based at least in part on the variation in harvested material inputted into the agricultural harvester.
However, Wold teaches: wherein the operations further comprise: determining a second operational setpoint of the fan based at least in part on the variation in harvested material inputted into the agricultural harvester (see Wold at least [0028] In response to the predicted chaffer load exceeding a second threshold greater than the first threshold, the speed of fan 34 may be increased to a second greater speed).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring system disclosed by Dugas, Linde, Wada, and Vol’fkarius to include the crop material throughput-dependent extractor fan speed adjustment of Wold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such adjustment minimizes system costs through efficient fan usage and even the possibility of less costly materials, as suggested by Wold (see Wold at least [0023] the enhanced efficiency of fan 34 due to the dynamic adjustment of its speed based upon forthcoming estimated chaffer loading may facilitate the use of smaller and/or less expensive fans, facilitating compactness and reducing cost).
Regarding claim 19, Dugas, Linde, Wada, Vol’fkarius, and Wold disclose: The system of claim 18, wherein the operations further comprise: determining a change in power load of a power source between a first power load when the fan operates at the first operational setpoint and a second power load when the fan operates at the second operational setpoint (see Linde at least [0027] The load of the fan drive is the amount of power (e.g., hydraulic, electric, torque, etc.) the fan drive requires in order to drive the cleaning fan at the set speed… the load on the fan drive (e.g., the power required by the fan drive to drive the fan at the set speed) actually increases with a decrease in aeronautical backpressure (e.g., in low MOG volume situations) and [Fig. 4B] After each time the fan speed is set, the load is reassessed for further analysis and control).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring system disclosed by Dugas, Linde, Wada, Vol’fkarius, and Wold to include the fan speed-dependent power load monitoring of Linde. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because continual monitoring of the torque of the mechanism driving the cleaning fan allows for subsequent altering of system parameters as necessary, as suggested by Linde (see Linde at least [0053] This process may be periodically repeated by controller 310 to ensure that the speed of fan 126 is set according to the current torque required for driving fan 126).
Regarding claim 20, Dugas, Linde, Wada, Vol’fkarius, and Wold disclose: The system of claim 19, wherein the operations further comprise: generating the control action when a difference between the first power load and the second power load deviates from a defined threshold (see Linde at least Fig. 4B Fig. 4B shows the steps of monitoring and adjusting harvester parameters based on power load and fan speed. After completing the step of changing the fan setpoint (steps 455, 457, 459, and 460), the process returns to the step of determining the power load (step 451). The power load may differ from its load before adjusting the fan speed. For example, if after adjusting the fan speed the torque changed from T1 to T3 or from T4 to T2, it may be necessary to again perform a control action of changing the fan speed appropriately based on the various torque thresholds).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural harvester crop cleaning monitoring system disclosed by Dugas, Linde, Wada, Vol’fkarius, and Wold to include the regular checking of fan speed and power load of Linde. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such repeated consideration allows system parameters to be adjusted as needed in view of other conditions, as suggested by Linde (see Linde at least [0053] This process may be periodically repeated by controller 310 to ensure that the speed of fan 126 is set according to the current torque required for driving fan 126).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's amendments overcome the objections to the claim(s).
Applicant's amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection for the claim(s).
Applicant states in remarks after final office action that "These amendments do not necessitate any new search by the Examiner." However, Examiner notes that the amendments being considered in this continued examination do change the scope of the claimed invention and do necessitate further searching.
Regarding the arguments provided for the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claim 1 (remarks pages 9-13), the applicant's arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues, "Dugas et al. fails to disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious a sensor system… as set forth in amended claim 1." (from remarks page 9-10)
As to point (A), Examiner agrees in part. Examiner agrees that Dugas does not teach some of the amendments as claimed, including the newly introduced first sensor. However, Dugas does teach the second sensor, the yield monitoring sensor which monitors crop downstream of the primary extractor and before being discharged, as explained in the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claim 1 above.
(B) Applicant argues, “Moller et al. is generally directed to a sugar cane harvester… Thus, Moller et al. fails to remedy the shortcomings of Dugas et al.” (remarks page 10)
As to point (B), the applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot because of new grounds of rejection and because Moller is not relied upon as teaching any of the amended claims argued.
(C) Applicant argues, “Like Dugas et al. and Moller et al., Linde et al. does not disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious… Thus, Linde et al. fails to remedy the shortcomings of Dugas et al. and Moller et al.” (remarks page 10-11)
As to point (C), the applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot because of new grounds of rejection and because Linde is not relied upon as teaching any of the amended claims argued.
(D) Applicant argues, “Like Dugas et al., Moller et al., and Linde et al., Wold et al. does not disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious… Thus, Linde et al. fails to remedy the shortcomings of Dugas et al., Moller et al., and Linde et al.” (remarks page 11)
As to point (D), the applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot because of new grounds of rejection and because Wold is not relied upon as teaching any of the amended claims argued. Additionally, though not explicitly disclosing that upstream sensor 38 senses harvested material forward of a knockdown roller, Wold recites the benefit of upstream sensing in order to proactively adjust fan speed (see Wold at least [0023] Because controller 50 estimates a forthcoming load upon chaffer 30 based upon signals from the upstream sensor 38, the speed of fan 34 may be more timely and proactively adjusted based upon the forthcoming load).
(E) Applicant argues, “In addition to showing that the prior art discloses or suggests all the elements recited in the claim… the Office should withdraw the§ 103 rejection for at least this second, independent reason.” (remarks page 11-13)
As to point (E), Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Examiner notes that the prior art cited in the final office action, when viewed in combination with one another, discloses each element of the claimed invention. For each subsequent combination, rationale for combining are described, as disclosed in the teachings, suggestions, and motivations of the prior art. Such rationales include but are not limited to: efficient operation of the harvester and its subcomponents, adaptive control of vehicle systems, and proactive action related to material input conditions. The incorporation of a sensor monitoring upstream material conditions is supported as specified in the rejections above and in response to point (D) above.
Regarding the arguments provided for the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claim 10, 12-15 (remarks page 13-16), the applicant's arguments have been considered and are partially persuasive.
(F) Applicant argues, “Dugas et al. is generally directed to a control system for a harvester having a primary crop cleaner... as set forth in amended claim 10.” (remarks page 14)
As to point (F), Examiner respectfully partially disagrees. With regard to the estimation step, as set forth in the claim rejections above, Dugas describes a sugarcane harvester crop cleaning control method and system that considers the effects of variation in harvested material on crop cleaning ratios. Regarding the other method steps mentioned in this argument, Dugas is not cited as teaching such limitations.
(G) Applicant argues, “Somarowthu et al. is generally directed to a system for determining a leaf-to-stem ratio of a crop… Thus, Somarowthu et al. fails to remedy the shortcomings of Dugas et al.” (remarks page 14-15)
As to point (G), the applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot because of new grounds of rejection and because Somarowthu ‘363 is not relied upon as teaching any of the amended claims argued.
(H) Applicant argues, “Münch is generally directed to an arrangement for control of the drive speed of a harvester… Thus, Münch fails to remedy the shortcomings of Dugas et al. and Somarowthu et al.” (remarks page 15)
As to point (H), Examiner agrees with the argument as written, but understands that the Applicant may have intended to argue against Münch rather than Somarowthu toward the end of the argument. Assuming this is the correct interpretation, Examiner notes that Münch’s control method relates to operating in desired operation ranges by detecting crop throughput and controlling the harvester as necessary, in addition to the control method considering driveline power operation ranges. These desires of efficient operation ranges for harvester performance, in combination with the modified invention of Dugas, as described above, render obvious the claimed invention of claim 10.
(I) Applicant argues, “In addition, as the elements set forth in amended claim 10 are not disclosed, suggested, or otherwise rendered obvious… A notice to this effect is earnestly solicited.” (remarks page 15)
As to point (I), Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Examiner notes that the prior art cited in the final office action, when viewed in combination with one another, discloses each element of the claimed invention. For each subsequent combination, rationale for combining are described, as disclosed in the teachings, suggestions, and motivations of the prior art. Such rationales include but are not limited to: optimal operation of the harvester and its subcomponents, adaptive “on-the-go” control of vehicle systems, and proactive action related to material input conditions.
Regarding the arguments provided for the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claim 16 (remarks pages 16-19), the applicant's arguments have been considered and are partially persuasive.
(J) Applicant argues, “Dugas et al. is generally directed to a control system for a harvester having a primary crop cleaner… as set forth in amended claim 16.” (remarks page 17)
As to point (J)¸ Examiner partially agrees. Examiner agrees that Dugas does not teach the limitations for which Dugas was not cited. However, Examiner disagrees regarding the determination of foliage ratio and determination of operational setpoint based on the current foliage ratio as clearly taught in Dugas and cited in the prior art rejections set forth above.
(K) Applicant argues, “Linde et al. is generally directed to a combine having a feeder housing for receiving harvested crop… Thus, Linde et al. fails to remedy the shortcomings of Dugas et al.” (remarks page 17)
As to point (K)¸ Linde is not cited as teaching any of the specific limitations as argued, and thus the argument is moot.
(L) Applicant argues, “Wada et al. is generally directed to an accumulator that is connected to the suction line of the hydraulic pump… Thus, Wada et al. fails to remedy the shortcomings of Dugas et al. and Linde et al” (remarks page 17-18)
As to point (L), Examiner partially agrees. Examiner agrees that Wada does not teach the efficiency range as amended in the claims. However, new art has been cited which renders obvious the specification of an efficiency range within 1500-2500 rpm for an agricultural vehicle’s power source. As such, the argument is moot.
(M) Applicant argues, “In addition to showing that the prior art discloses or suggests all the elements recited in the claim… the Office should withdraw the § 103 rejection for at least this second, independent reason.” (remarks page 18-19)
As to point (M), see (I).
(N) Applicant argues, “Applicant also respectfully asserts that for at least the reasons indicated above relating to corresponding independent claims… it is believed that some or all of these claims may possess features that are independently patentable, regardless of the patentability of the independent claims.” (remarks page 20)
As to point (N), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that all claims depending on rejected independent claims have additionally been rejected due to their respective content being taught in the cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190261560 A1 Jelenkovic; Bojan discloses a system for adjusting operating parameters of an agricultural harvester based on estimated crop volume values may include an image capture device configured to capture one or more images of the crop materials standing within the field prior to the crop materials being harvested by a harvester.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLE ROSE KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1742. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1700 ET M-F.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ELLE ROSE KNUDSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/29/26
Prosecution Insights