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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/16/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanke, et al. US12022772 in view of Gessel, et al. US2015/0305240 .
Regarding claim 1, Yanke, et al. teaches an agricultural system 100, comprising:
a header 108 comprising:
a feed roller (Column 8: 49-50, wherein a stalk roller is the same as the claimed feed roller, since both are rollers that convey crop) configured to engage a crop 104 and to drive material other than grain (MOG) (Column 4: 66-Column 5: 2 “ sensor 114/206s 114 are positioned on the combine harvester 100 or header 108 to detect crop material, such as EHP or material other than grain (“MOG”)”) of the crop toward a field 102; and
a chopper (Column 8: 49-51 “Rotary actuators 244 include, for example, actuators operable to operate stalk rolls (e.g., stalk rolls of a corn head), augers (e.g., cross-augers), stalk choppers”); and
a control system 200 configured to output a control signal (Column 5: 58-59, “The processor 202 is operable to execute programs and software”, wherein the control signal includes the processor 202, and programs and software are considered the signal since a program provides control commands such as step 312 in Figure 3) to adjust a speed (Figure 15b-15c row 1514, with “distribution parameter: material other than grain (“MOG”) entering combine” indicates at least a minimal size of MOG due to the presence of the MOG; “Mitigation action: increase stalk roll speed” indicates changing speed of stalk roll relative to a chopper) of the feed roller (Column 8: 49-50) based on a size of the MOG discharged from the agricultural system 100.
It is noted that Yanke, et al. teaches detecting an MOG size above a threshold in the detecting the presence of the MOG, wherein the threshold size is anything above 0.
Yanke, et al. is silent as to whether the choppers are configured to cut the MOG driven toward the field by the feed roller for discharge from the agricultural system; the control signal is to adjust a speed of the chopper relative to a speed of the feed roller) based on a size of the MOG discharged from the agricultural system.
Gessel, et al. teaches that it is known in the art for a header 10 of an agricultural system (Figure 1) to have a chopper 34 with controllable speed and discharging the MOG downward towards a field ¶30 (“mechanically drives each of the chopping units 34 at a second operating speed (FIG. 2)… Each chopping unit 34 can be operated at a desired operating speed to provide adequate cutting of the MOG conveyed downwardly by an associated feed/snapping unit 26”. It is noted that Figure 2 shows the downward position under the chopper 34 is the field/ground. Therefore, MOG that is processed through the chopper 34 is discharged onto the field).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yanke, et al.’s control system to be configured to output a control signal to adjust the speed of the chopper relative to the speed of the roller based on the MOG size and presence of MOG wherein the chopper has a controllable speed as taught by Gessel, et al., in order to provide the predictable results of providing adequate cutting of the MOG that is conveyed downwardly to remove the MOG.
Regarding claim 2, Yanke, et al. teaches that the control system 200 is configured to output the control signal (Column 5: 58-59) to increase the speed of the chopper relative to the speed of the feed roller (Column 8: 49-50) in response to determining the size of the MOG discharged from the agricultural system 100 is above a threshold value.
Regarding claim 3, Yanke, et al. teaches at least one sensor 114/206, wherein the control system 200 is communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor 114/206, the at least one sensor 114/206 is configured to transmit sensor data (Figure 2: 206 links to controller 200) to the control system 200, and the sensor data (Figure 2: 206) is indicative of the size/presence of the MOG discharged from the agricultural system 100.
Regarding claim 4, Yanke, et al. teaches the at least one sensor 114/206 comprises an optical sensor, a radar sensor, a lidar sensor, or a combination thereof (Column 4: 53-55 “the sensor include, for example, an optical sensor (e.g., camera, a stereo camera), an infrared sensor, lidar, or radar”).
Regarding claim 7, Yanke, et al. teaches that the control system 200 is configured to:
receive an indication of a congestion at the feed roller (Column 8: 49-50); and
output an additional control signal (Column 5: 58-59) to increase the speed of the feed roller (Column 8: 49-50) in response to receiving the indication of the congestion at the feed roller (Column 8: 49-50).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanke, et al. in view of Gessel, et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Missotten, et al. US2022/0394925.
Regarding claim 5, Yanke, et al. in view of Gessel, et al. teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach that the header 108 comprises a counter knife configured to support the MOG being cut by the chopper, and the control system 200 is configured to output an additional control signal (Column 5: 58-59) to adjust a position of the counter knife based on the size of the MOG discharged from the agricultural system 100.
It is noted that Yanke, et al. teaches detecting an MOG size above a threshold in the detecting the presence of the MOG, wherein the threshold size is anything above 0.
Missotten, et al. teaches that a chopper 72 can have its speed changed to affect the angle of the MOG/chaff dispersal on the field ¶0063 (“a rotational speed of operation of the chopper 72 may influence the direction of the flow path 88”), where counter knives 80 positions can be changed/lowered so the crop is not chopped in as fine pieces ¶0006 (“ the user may not want the crop material that passes through the chopper arrangement to be cut into finer pieces. In such instances, the user can switch the chopper arrangement from a chopping mode where the counter knives are raised to cooperate with the moving knives to chop the crop material and a disengaged mode where the counter knives are lowered”. ¶0052 “The counter knives 80 may be movable axially relative to the chopper axis 78 to adjust a level of engagement between the rotating knives 76 and counter knives 80 which in turn adjusts a level of chopping performed on the crop material”). Sensors, such as cameras, are used to monitor crop material as it is processed ¶0007 (“An agricultural harvester may include one or more sensors, e.g. cameras, to monitor various aspects of crop material as it is processed by the harvester. For instance, a camera may be used to monitor a quality of chopping performed by the chopper arrangement to ensure the chopping is at a desired level.”). The collected sensor data can be analysed to determine chopped material size length, thickness, etc. of MOG/chopped straw/ chaff (wherein the three are interchangeable terms). ¶0054 “The collected (image) sensor data may then be analysed to determine one or more factors associated with the crop material. For instance, the crop material may be analysed to determine a quality or intensity of the chopping performed by the chopper 72. The intensity or quality of the chopped crop residue may be a measure of any suitable characteristics of the chopped material, for example a length, density, thickness, etc. of the chopped straw or chaff”). The agricultural system/combine may include a controller to send actuator control signals ¶0021.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yanke, et al. of the combination’s chopper to include the counter knife of Missotten, et al. such that the counter knife has an adjustable position to adjust the fineness of the MOG being chopped based on detected MOG/chaff size, to enable the predictable results of controlling how fine the MOG that is being chopped and deposited onto the field is. This changes the speed that MOG will break down into compost for soil enrichment.
Therefore, it also would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yanke, et al. of the combination’s controller to output a signal to move the counter knife of Missotten, et al. such that the fineness of the MOG being chopped can be controlled based on the size (or presence) of the MOG in the header.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the claim, as described above, but does not teach that the control system is configured to output the additional control signal to increase extension of the counter knife toward a front end of the header in response to determining the size of the MOG discharged from the agricultural system is above a threshold value.
Missotten, et al. teaches a counter knife, as described above, where an increase in the extension of the counter knife toward a front end of the header 18 to change the fineness of the crop being chopped (as recited above).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the to modify Yanke, et al.’s chopper to include Missotten, et al.’s counter knife to control the fineness of chopping, and to modify Yanke, et al. of the combination’s controller to output a signal to move the counter knife of Missotten, et al. such that the fineness of the MOG being chopped can be controlled based on the size (or presence) of the MOG in the header.
Claim(s) 15-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanke, et al. in view of Gessel, et al. and Missotten, et al. US2022/0394925.
Regarding claim 15, Yanke, et al. teaches an agricultural system 100, comprising:
a header 108 comprising a chopper (Column 8: 49-51) configured to cut material other than grain (MOG) (Column 4: 66-Column 5: 2) of a crop 104; and
a control system 200 configured to:
determine a size of the MOG (as recited above) discharged from the header 108 onto the field 102.
Yanke, et al. does not teach the chopper configured for discharge of the MOG onto a field/ground; the header including a counter knife configured to support the MOG being cut by the chopper; the control system configured to output a control signal (Column 5: 58-59) to adjust a position of the counter knife based on the size of the MOG discharged from the header 108 onto the field 102.
Gessel, et al. teaches that it is known in the art for a header 10 of an agricultural system (Figure 1) to have a chopper 34 discharging the MOG downward towards a field ¶30 (“mechanically drives each of the chopping units 34 at a second operating speed (FIG. 2)… Each chopping unit 34 can be operated at a desired operating speed to provide adequate cutting of the MOG conveyed downwardly by an associated feed/snapping unit 26”. It is noted that Figure 2 shows the downward position under the chopper 34 is the field/ground. Therefore, MOG that is processed through the chopper 34 is discharged onto the field).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yanke, et al.’s chopper to be configured to discharge MOG towards a field, as taught by Gessel, et al., in order to provide the predictable results of providing adequate cutting of the MOG that is conveyed downwardly to the field for disposal.
Missotten, et al. teaches a chopper 72 with a counter knife 80 that are configured to be moved to change the fineness of chopping the MOG/straw/chaff (as recited above)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the to modify Yanke, et al.’s chopper to include Missotten, et al.’s counter knife to control the fineness of chopping, and to modify Yanke, et al.’s controller to output a signal to move the counter knife of Missotten, et al. such that the fineness of the MOG being chopped can be controlled based on the size (or presence) of the MOG in the header.
Regarding claim 16, Yanke, et al. teaches that the chopper is configured to cut the crop from the field 102, and the control system 200 is configured to:
determine a height of additional MOG remaining on the field 102 (in region 120 Column 4: 66-Column 5: 3 “one or more sensors 114 are positioned on the combine harvester 100 or header 108 to detect crop material, such as EHP or material other than grain (“MOG”), at different regions 116, 118, and 120 relative to the header 108”, wherein region 120 is behind the header, thus is considered the MOG remaining on the field. Wherein the presence of MOG at this region is considered to be at least a minimum height above a threshold of 0, wherein a height of 0 would be no MOG present) as a result of the crop being cut by the chopper (since region 120 is behind the header); and
output an additional control signal (via speed control actuator 250) to reduce a travel speed of the agricultural system 100 (Column 9: 4-7 “Speed control actuator 250 also includes an actuator used to alter a speed of the agricultural vehicle, e.g., combine harvester, through a field in response to a signal from the controller 200”) in response to determining the height of the additional MOG is above a threshold value (Column 9: 8-13 “a speed of a combine harvester may be related to a stalk roll speed. If a speed of the stalk rolls is decreased, a speed through the field of the combine harvester may also be decreased in order improve crop material flow through or along the header, for example, to prevent build-up of crop material on the header or decrease intake of MOG”) wherein the speed of the combine harvester/agricultural vehicle is affected by the stalk roll speed, thus is also affected by detection of presence of MOG, which is interpreted to be a height over a threshold value selected to be 0. The control of the roller speed is described above, as it relates to detected presence of MOG).
Regarding claim 17, Yanke, et al. does not teach a thresher configured to receive crop material from the header to separate desirable crop material from additional MOG; the control system 200 is communicatively coupled to the thresher, and the control system 200 is configured to:
determine an amount of the crop material received from the thresher; and
output an additional control signal to adjust operation of the thresher based on the amount of the crop material.
Missotten, et al. teaches that the agricultural system 10 comprises a thresher 24 (wherein a threshing and separating system is the same as the claimed thresher) configured to receive crop material from the header 18 and to separate desirable crop material from additional MOG (¶0047 “cut crops are threshed and separated by the rotation of the rotor 40 within the concave 42, and larger elements, such as stalks, leaves and the like are discharged”, wherein the larger elements, such as stalks and leaves are the same as the claimed MOG since they are not the harvested grain crop). ¶0024 teaches “a crop material sensor configured to monitor crop material downstream of the threshing and separating system”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date. to modify Yanke, et al.’s agricultural system to include Missotten, et al.’s thresher to separate desirable crop from MOG in order to discharge the MOG from the agricultural system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yanke, et al.’s controller in view of Missotten, et al.’s sensor system configured to monitor crop material downstream of the thresher. Such a modification would be obvious to also have the controller control the operation of the thresher, since the thresher affects the MOG that is deposited onto the field for purposes of controlling the speed that cut and deposited MOG can break down into compost.
Regarding claim 19, Yanke, et al. teaches that the header 108 comprises a feed roller (Column 8: 49-50) configured to drive the MOG toward the field 102, and the chopper is configured to cut the MOG driven toward the field 102 by the feed roller (Column 8: 49-50).
Regarding claim 20, Yanke, et al. teaches that the control system 200 is configured to output an additional control signal (Column 5: 58-59) to reduce a speed of the roller (Column 22: 21-26 “The distribution parameter is ears on the deck plates with a selected amount of movement thereon (e.g., a selected rate of movement or a selected amount of displacement). In this example, when the distribution parameter criterion is satisfied, the mitigation action is to reduce a speed of a stalk roll of the associated row unit”) in response to undesirable behavior being detected (Column 22: 19-21 “At row 1512, the image analysis results identify the undesirable behavior as being ear wedged on deck plates of a header”).
Yanke, et al. does not teach the control system is configured to reduce a speed of the chopper in response to determining the size of the MOG discharged from the header 108 is below a threshold value However, Yanke, et al. does teach that a mitigation action to detecting MOG entering (the same as the claimed MOG being above a threshold value of 0) is to increase a speed of the stalk roll (Column 22: 34-38 “the associated distribution parameter criterion is detection of MOG entering the combine harvester coupled to the header. The mitigation action is to increase a speed of the stalk roll when a selected amount of MOG enters the combine harvester”).
Gessel, et al. teaches that it is known in the art for a header 10 of an agricultural system (Figure 1) to have a chopper 34 with controllable speed and discharging the MOG downward towards a field ¶30 (“mechanically drives each of the chopping units 34 at a second operating speed (FIG. 2)… Each chopping unit 34 can be operated at a desired operating speed to provide adequate cutting of the MOG conveyed downwardly by an associated feed/snapping unit 26”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yanke, et al.’s control system to be configured to output a control signal to adjust the speed of the chopper relative to the speed of the roller based on the MOG size and presence of MOG wherein the chopper has a controllable speed as taught by Gessel, et al., in order to provide the predictable results of providing adequate cutting of the MOG that is conveyed downwardly to remove the MOG.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date. to modify the combination’s Yanke, et al.’s control system to reduce a speed of the chopper in response to determining the size of the MOG discharged from the header is below a threshold value, since an oppositely detected situation (in this case, the lack of MOG, equivalent to MOG size below a threshold value of any presence of MOG) would present one of only 3 options: increase speed, reduce speed, or stop speed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 18, Yanke, et al. of the combination does not teach that the control system 200 is configured to: determine the amount of the crop material is above a threshold value; and output the additional control signal (Column 5: 58-59) to increase a processing speed of the thresher to increase operation of the thresher to separate the desirable crop material from the additional MOG. Instead, Yanke, et al., as described above, determines the presence of MOG and outputs a control signal to change the roller speed. This is not the same as outputting a control increase operation of a thresher. The combination with Missotten, et al.’s thresher 24 does not provide the control system configured to determine the amount of the crop material above a threshold value and output additional control signals to increase processing speed of the thresher. Modification would have required impermissible hindsight reasoning to further modify Missotten, et al.’s system to control thresher speed to control a non-measured value of the amount of crop, in combination with the requirements of the independent and parent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Long, et al. US3739559 teaches that the length of crop segments is controlled by speed of rotation of chopper 36 relative to rollers 80, 86, 96, 106 speed (Column 6: 28-32 “By varying the rotative speeds of the feed rolls through the transmission 10 while maintaining the chopper 36 at a constant rotational speed, the size of the crop segments can be correspondingly controlled”).
Vandike, et al. US2020/0128731 teaches in ¶17 machine settings include straw chopper speed, position of stationary knife.
Yanke, et al. US2022/0232770 is the PG Publication of the above Yanke, et al. reference. The written description lacks references to the chart in Figures 15b-c.
Missotten, et al. EP4101285 teaches that the length of crop leaving chopper 72 can be monitored for control algorithm to adjust chopper speed and knife bar position to obtain a better chopping quality. The chopper is mounted separately from the header 18 on the agricultural system 10. However, the MOG size is not monitored. While the instant claims do not require the chopper being mounted below the header, Missotten, et al. ‘285’s chopper is different than the instant invention’s figures that show the chopper mounted below the header.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 3/9/2026