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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 15, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on December 15, 2025 amends claims 1, 8, 12, 16, 19 and cancels claims 7 and 15. Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the newly presented amendments to the independent claims, the Applicant's arguments in the Remarks filed on December 15, 2025 have been fully considered and are moot. The newly presented claim limitations in the independent claims are taught by previously cited reference, Blank, as explained in the rejections that follow.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 11-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Blank et al. (US 2019/0146426).
Regarding claim 1, Blank teaches a harvester comprising: (see Blank at Fig. 1 which illustratively discloses a combine harvester; see Blank at [0021], for example, which discloses a combine harvester.)
a display; (see Blank, at Fig. 2 elements 208, 250, which depict Operator Control Interface Displays and Display Device(s); see Blank at [0037] which discloses that combine harvester 100 can generate operator interface displays 208; see Blank at [0039], which discloses that user interface mechanisms 236 can include one or more display devices 250.)
and processing circuitry configured to cause the harvester to, display, on the display, a plurality of selectable machine settings, (see Blank at Fig. 2, for example, at elements 240, 244, which illustratively depicts processor(s) and display generator logic in harvester 100; see Blank at [0036] which discloses that there are various configurable settings on combine 100; see Blank at [0039] which discloses display generator logic 224; see Blank at [0041] which discloses display generator logic 244 that illustratively generates a control interface display for operator 212; see Blank at [0042-0045], for example, which discloses machine settings of harvester 100, and that an interface display is updated that shows the settings.)
each selectable machine setting of the plurality of selectable machine settings being automatically selected when initially displayed on the display, (see Blank at [0045] which discloses that control recommendation and learning engine 243 may operate at different levels of autonomy, and that for example, it may operate at a low level of automation such that it offers a set of machine setting alternatives (or other control operations) for operator 212 to manually select. Also, see Blank at [0045] which discloses that as another example, engine 243 may use control automation logic 245 to operate at a higher level of automation, such that it will automatically implement new machine settings (or control operations), while giving operator 212 a given time to veto the change, before automatically implementing the settings change. Examiner notes that being able to select or veto a change corresponds to the machine setting being selectable. Blank at [0045] further discloses that as another example, engine 243 can use control automation logic 245 to automatically implement new machine settings (or other control operation) and only inform operator 212 under certain circumstances (e.g., such as when a major change to machine settings is executed) or without specifically notifying operator 212 other than to update an interface display that shows the settings. Examiner notes that updating an interface display that shows the machine settings based on automatically implemented new machine settings corresponds to each selectable machine setting of the plurality of selectable machine settings being automatically selected when initially displayed on the display. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of what is written in the specification.)
receive an input from a user selecting or deselecting at least one particular
machine setting of the plurality of selectable machine settings, (see Blank at [0037] which discloses that operator 212 is illustratively a local operator of combine 100, in the operator's compartment of combine 100, and can interact with user input mechanisms 210 in order to control and manipulate combine harvester 100 and that in addition, as is described below, operator 212 can interact directly with other user interface mechanisms on combine harvester 100, and that this is indicated by arrow 214. Examiner notes that an operator interacting with user input mechanisms corresponds to receiving an input from a user selecting or deselecting at least one particular machine setting. See Blank at [0041] which discloses that display can be an interactive display with user input mechanisms 210 for interaction by operator 212; see Blank at [0042] which discloses that control automation logic 245 can automatically change machine settings of harvester 100 based on choices made by operator 212 during their interaction with operation priority logic 247. Further, see Blank at [0045], for example, which discloses that operator may manually select machine setting alternatives. Also, see Blank at [0055] which discloses user interface mechanisms 236 are provided and each mechanism represents a performance category or metric from which the user can select their top priority.)
and automatically monitor and adjust a corresponding function of the harvester of only selected particular machine settings of the plurality of selectable machine settings (see Blank at [0028] which discloses that the present description is directed to one or more systems to perform automated self-monitoring and learning so the control rules can be modified, so that new control rules can be deployed and/or ineffective control rules can be eliminated; see Blank at [0041] which discloses that operation priority logic 247 (as is described in greater detail below with respect to FIG. 3) illustratively allows operator 212 to choose, with user input mechanisms 210, a priority of performance metrics relative to one another, that in one example, operation priority logic 247 allows an operator 212 to choose a single performance metric as a top priority and that in another example, operation priority logic 247 allows operator 212 to choose and weight multiple different performance metrics, each having different priorities relative to one another; see Blank at [0042] which discloses that control automation logic 245 can automatically change machine settings of harvester 100 based on choices made by operator 212 during their interaction with operation priority logic 247; see Blank at [0043] which discloses that control recommendation and learning engine 243 can receive control rules 233 from remote analytics computing system 202 that are generated based on machine information, machine settings, environment and conditions, crop conditions, etc. and the metric results they produced, for a number of other similarly situated machines, to determine which settings should be implemented to achieve the priorities of operator 212 or a farm manager, etc. See Blank at [0045], for example, which further discloses that control commendation and learning engine 243 may operate at different levels of autonomy, that as another example, it may operate at a higher level of automation, such that it suggests one set of machine settings (or other recommended control operations) for operator 212, and that as another example, engine 243 can use control automation logic 245 to automatically implement new machine settings (or other control operation) and only inform operator 212 under certain circumstances (e.g., such as when a major change to machine settings is executed) or without specifically notifying operator 212 other than to update an interface display that shows the settings.)
Regarding claim 2, Blank teaches the harvester of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the harvester to display the plurality of selectable machine settings divided into a plurality of categories (see Blank at [0041] which discloses that display generator logic 244 illustratively generates a control interface display for operator 212 and that the display can be an interactive display with user input mechanisms 210 for interaction by operator 212; see Blank at [0055] which discloses that top priority logic 251 illustratively generates an interface with an input mechanism for operator 212 to select a performance metric as a top priority and this can be generated on a display device 250 or can be a button or other user interface mechanisms 236. Blank at [0055] further discloses that, for example, a list of priorities (e.g., performance metrics) can be displayed on display device 250 and the user can select one of the list items as their top priority. Examiner maps list of priorities and/or performance metrics to plurality of categories.)
Regarding claim 4, Blank teaches the harvester of claim 2, wherein the plurality of categories includes at least a harvest settings category and a terrain settings category (see Blank at [0003] which discloses providing various control inputs by an operator of a combine in a harvesting operation which include inputs such as threshing clearance and sieve and chafffer settings, rotor and fan speed settings, and a wide variety of other settings and control inputs; also see Blank at [0036] which discloses sensor and measurement mechanisms that include a chaffer clearance sensor that senses the size of openings in chaffer; also see Blank at [0041] which discloses that display generator logic 244 illustratively generates a control interface display for operator 212 and that the display can be an interactive display with user input mechanisms 210 for interaction by operator 212. Blank at [0041] further discloses that operation priority logic 247 (as is described in greater detail below with respect to FIG. 3) illustratively allows operator 212 to choose, with user input mechanisms 210, a priority of performance metrics relative to one another and that in one example, operation priority logic 247 allows an operator 212 to choose a single performance metric as a top priority. Blank at [0041] further discloses that in another example, operation priority logic 247 allows operator 212 to choose and weight multiple different performance metrics, each having different priorities relative to one another. Examiner maps threshing clearance settings to harvest settings category. Examiner maps sieve and/or chaffer settings to terrain settings category. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of what is disclosed in the specification.)
Regarding claim 5, the modified blank teaches the harvester of claim 4, wherein the harvest settings category includes at least a threshing subcategory and a first cleaning subcategory, and the terrain settings category includes at least a second cleaning subcategory (see Blank at [0055] which discloses user interface mechanisms 236 are provided and each mechanism represents a performance category or metric from which the user can select their top priority; see Blank at [0003] which discloses providing various control inputs by an operator of a combine in a harvesting operation which include inputs such as threshing clearance and sieve and chafffer settings, rotor and fan speed settings, and a wide variety of other settings and control inputs; see Blank at [0036] which discloses that sensor and measurement mechanisms can include machine setting sensors on combine 100 and that they can include a machine orientation sensor that can be any of a wide variety of different types of sensors that sense the orientation of combine 100; see Blank at [0070] which discloses that rule evaluation logic 322 then evaluates the information received (e.g., the performance metrics, sensor signals, and other data) against the control rules 233, that the evaluation will determine whether any of the control rules is triggered, meaning that the information against which it is evaluated fulfills the rule so that a corresponding performance operation is to be recommended or taken, that for instance, if a grain loss metric is too high, this may trigger a rule which calls for the cleaning fan speed to be reduced, and that this is just one example. Examiner notes that the cleaning fan speed may be controlled by way of fan speed settings. Examiner maps fan speed settings to at least a first cleaning subcategory and/or at least a second cleaning subcategory. Examiner maps threshing clearance settings to the harvest settings category. Examiner notes that the presence of threshing clearance settings corresponds to at least a threshing subcategory. Examiner maps sieve settings or chaffer settings to the terrain settings. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of the specification.)
Regarding claim 11, Blank teaches the harvester of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the harvester to: allow the user to monitor and adjust functions of the harvester that the harvester is automatically monitoring and adjusting (see Blank at [0045] which discloses that control recommendation and learning engine 243 may operate at different levels of autonomy and that for example, it may operate at a low level of automation such that it offers a set of machine setting alternatives (or other control operations) for operator 212 to manually select; see Blank at [0045] which disclose that as another example, it may operate at a higher level of automation, such that it suggests one set of machine settings (or other recommended control operations) for operator 212; see Blank at [0045] which discloses that as another example, engine 243 may operate at a higher level of automation, such that it will use control automation logic 245 to control machine 100 to execute a change in machine settings (or other control operation) that it identifies, if operator 212 approves the change.)
Independent claim 12 recites a method that performs the steps recited in the harvester of claim 1. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the method of claim 12. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Claim 13 is directed toward method claims that performs the steps recited in harvester of claim 2. The cited portions of the cited references used in the rejections of claim 2 teach the steps performed by claim 13. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 2.
Independent claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that performs the steps recited in the harvester of claim 1. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank et al. (US 2019/0146426) in view of Derscheid (US 2022/0230478).
Regarding claim 3, Blank does not expressly disclose the harvester of claim 2, wherein the plurality of categories includes a plurality of subcategories which in a related art Derscheid teaches (see Derscheid at Fig. 9 element 182 (first section) and element 192 (third section); see Derscheid at [0083] in conjunction with Fig. 9 which discloses a screen display that includes a plurality of sections, each of which is dedicated to a particular grouping of information; see Derscheid at [0085] in conjunction with Fig. 9 which discloses that a third section 192 is dedicated to illustrate system status including status of a bale chamber 194, a feed system 196, and a net wrap system 198 and that each subsection identifies the status of parts location in the identified system by part number, location; i.e. left (L) or right (R), and a status of the left or right part by a color code. Examiner notes that the subsections depicted in Fig. 9 disclose a plurality of subsections. Examiner maps sections to categories and subsections to subcategories.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blank to include wherein the plurality of categories includes a plurality of subcategories, as taught by Derscheid.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to illustrate a system status among other things, as suggested by Derscheid at [0085].
Regarding claim 14, Blank does not expressly disclose the method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of categories includes a plurality of subcategories, which in a related art Derscheid teaches (see Derscheid at Fig. 9 element 182 (first section) and element 192 (third section); see Derscheid at [0083] in conjunction with Fig. 9 which discloses a screen display that includes a plurality of sections, each of which is dedicated to a particular grouping of information; see Derscheid at [0085] in conjunction with Fig. 9 which discloses that a third section 192 is dedicated to illustrate system status including status of a bale chamber 194, a feed system 196, and a net wrap system 198 and that each subsection identifies the status of parts location in the identified system by part number, location; i.e. left (L) or right (R), and a status of the left or right part by a color code. Examiner notes that the subsections depicted in Fig. 9 disclose a plurality of subsections. Examiner maps sections to categories and subsections to subcategories.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blank to include wherein the plurality of categories includes a plurality of subcategories, as taught by Derscheid.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to illustrate a system status among other things, as suggested by Derscheid at [0085].
Regarding claim 20, Blank teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the displaying includes displaying the plurality of selectable machine settings divided into a plurality of categories (see Blank at [0041] which discloses that display generator logic 244 illustratively generates a control interface display for operator 212 and that the display can be an interactive display with user input mechanisms 210 for interaction by operator 212; see Blank at [0055] which discloses that top priority logic 251 illustratively generates an interface with an input mechanism for operator 212 to select a performance metric as a top priority and this can be generated on a display device 250 or can be a button or other user interface mechanisms 236. Blank at [0055] further discloses that, for example, a list of priorities (e.g., performance metrics) can be displayed on display device 250 and the user can select one of the list items as their top priority. Examiner maps list of priorities and/or performance metrics to plurality of categories.)
However, Blank does not expressly disclose and the plurality of categories is divided into a plurality of subcategories which in a related art Derscheid teaches (see Derscheid at Fig. 9 element 182 (first section) and element 192 (third section); see Derscheid at [0083] in conjunction with Fig. 9 which discloses a screen display that includes a plurality of sections, each of which is dedicated to a particular grouping of information; see Derscheid at [0085] in conjunction with Fig. 9 which discloses that a third section 192 is dedicated to illustrate system status including status of a bale chamber 194, a feed system 196, and a net wrap system 198 and that each subsection identifies the status of parts location in the identified system by part number, location; i.e. left (L) or right (R), and a status of the left or right part by a color code. Examiner notes that the subsections depicted in Fig. 9 disclose a plurality of subsections. Examiner maps sections to categories and subsections to subcategories.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blank to include and the plurality of categories includes a plurality of subcategories, as taught by Derscheid.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to illustrate a system status among other things, as suggested by Derscheid at [0085].
Claims 8-10 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank et al. (US 2019/0146426) in view of Derscheid (US 2022/0230478) and further in view of Baumgarten et al. (US 2012/0004812).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Blank does not expressly disclose the harvester of claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the harvester to: receive a number of deselections of the automatically selected selectable machine settings of the plurality of selectable machine settings included in a particular subcategory of the plurality of subcategories; and disallow a deselection of remaining other machine settings of the particular subcategory in response to receiving the number of deselections which in a related art Baumgarten teaches (see Baumgarten at [0049] which discloses that operator 24 activates the selection field and that activatable selection criteria 45 are visualized in display area 36 as shown in Fig. 4. Examiner notes that activatable selection criteria corresponds to being able to select one or more settings. Baumgarten at [0049] further discloses that a further selection field 54 can be provided, which, when activated, prevents a selection criterium 45a-d from being determined and that this can be the case when the correct selection criterium 45a-d has already been activated, or when a selection criterium 45a-d is not supposed to be determined. Examiner notes that when a selection field 54 is activated (that prevents (or deselects) selection criterium 45a-d from being determined), that this corresponds to disallowing a deselection of the correct selection criterium 45a-d (or remaining other machine settings of the particular subcategory) which has already been determined. Examiner maps the activation of a selection field 54 to a deselection of one or more selectable machine settings of the plurality of selectable machine settings because the activation of the selection field deselects one or more machine settings that previously allowed making selections for selection criterium 45a-d. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blank to include receiving a number of deselections of selectable machine settings of the plurality of selectable machine settings included in a particular subcategory of the plurality of subcategories; and disallowing a deselection of remaining other machine settings of the particular subcategory in response to receiving the number of deselections, as taught by Baumgarten.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to prevent a selection from being determined when the correct selection has already been activated or determined or is not supposed to be determined, as suggested by Baumgarten at [0049].
Regarding claim 9, the modified Blank teaches the harvester of claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the harvester to: receive a selection of a deselected machine setting of the number of deselected machine settings; and allow the deselection of the remaining other machine settings of the particular subcategory in response to the received selection (see Baumgarten at [0049] which discloses that operator 24 activates the selection field and that activatable selection criteria 45 are visualized in display area 36 as shown in Fig. 4. Baumgarten at [0049] further discloses that a further selection field 54 can be provided, which, when activated, prevents a selection criterium 45a-d from being determined and that this can be the case when the correct selection criterium 45a-d has already been activated, or when a selection criterium 45a-d is not supposed to be determined. Examiner notes that when the selection field 54 is not activated or disabled, the deselected selection criterium 45a-d may be allowed. In other words, the previously deselected one or more machine settings associated with the selection criterium 45a-d are now allowed to be selected or determined. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
Regarding claim 10, the modified Blank teaches the harvester of claim 8, wherein the number of deselections is one deselection (see Baumgarten at [0049] which discloses that a further selection field 54 can be provided, which, when activated, prevents a selection criterium 45a-d from being determined and that this can be the case when the correct selection criterium 45a-d has already been activated, or when a selection criterium 45a-d is not supposed to be determined. Examiner maps the activation of the selection field 54 that prevents (or deselects) the selection criterium from being determined to the one deselection.)
Claims 16-18 are directed toward method claims that performs the steps recited in harvester of claims 8-10. The cited portions of the cited references used in the rejections of claims 8-10 teach the steps performed by claims 16-18. Therefore, claims 16-18 are rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 8-10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664