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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 06/15/2026.
Claims 1, 3-14, and 16-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 3, and 15 are amended.
Claims 2 and 15 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-14, and 16-20 are currently rejected.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light to the amendments to the drawings the drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the art rejections have been considered and appear to be directed solely to the instant amendments to the claims. Accordingly, the claims are addressed in the body of the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 13-14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brokaw et. al. (US 2023/0062392), herein Brokaw in view of Rice et. al. (US 7,526,908), herein Rice, and Hunt et. al. (US 2022/0087101), herein Hunt.
Regarding claim 1:
Brokaw teaches:
A method for operating a harvester machine (a method of controllably operating an agricultural harvester [0009]), the method comprising:
Determining, via a controller (fig. 1, controller 8), whether a header operably attached to the harvester machine is approaching a headland (at angle 356 controller 108 can determine that combine 100 has neared headland 210 when sensor 107 senses a sudden predetermined increase in distance corresponding to a drop in height to level ground [0031]);
in response to the header approaching the headland (Controller is now “preparing” to raise header 110 to headland position 352, which it can do based upon a known position of combine 100 and a sensed position of dividing line 211 (knowing the position of the last of crop material 206 before headland 210), and can raise header 110 to headland position 352 at dividing line 211 [0031]), determining, via the controller, whether a [crop merger] operably attached to the harvester is in a low position (Controller 108 can form an adjustment module 406 to adjust header 110 from crop removal position 351 to headland position 352, or vice versa, based at least partly on this input information, as well as on an algorithm and data 404 stored in memory 403 such as the current actual position of combine 100 and header 110 [0035]);
determining a time period required for dispersion of the crop material from the crop belt of the crop merger (controller 108 does not move header 110 from crop removal position 351 to headland position 352, or vice versa, at inappropriate times, a threshold distance can be set in controller 108, which can correspond to an estimated or actual average crop height, which can be referred to as a threshold crop height. The threshold crop height can, for example, be according to the operator's estimate of the average crop height, or some lesser height which would not otherwise trigger moving header 110 at inappropriate times [0029]).
commanding via the controller a crop [merger] actuator (Feeder housing 120 conveys the cut crop to threshing and separating system 130, and is selectively vertically movable using appropriate actuators, such as hydraulic cylinders (not shown) [0020]) to move the crop [merger] to a raised position (outputting 510, by controller, an adjustment signal to header 110 and thereby raising header 110, based at least partially on the field condition signal, when combine 100 reaches an end of a plurality of crop rows 203 [0037])
Brokaw does not explicitly teach, however Rice teaches:
commanding via the controller a crop merger actuator to move the crop merger to a raised position (The lift mechanism 30 comprises a lift shaft 32 for actuating the lift mechanism which is rotationally connected to chassis 11. Actuator 39, typically a double-acting hydraulic cylinder, is connected to lift shaft 32 by a lever arm 38 such that extension and retraction of actuator 39 causes rotation of lift shaft 32 about rotational axis 33 between opposing first and second positions corresponding to merger working and non-working positions, respectively. In the embodiment shown, extension of actuator 39 rotates lift shaft toward the second position which corresponds to the non-working or raised position of the merger apparatus 20 [col 4, lines 6-17]) when the crop merger does not contain the crop material (the movable merger apparatus 20 is positioned in a non-working position for windrowing operating in which windrow merging operation is not desired [col 3, lines 43-45]; while Rice does not explicitly teach that the adjustment is made when the merger is clear it would be obvious for one motivated to move the merger due to not wanting to use it anymore to apply the detection methods of Hunt at taught below to limit possibility of jamming or other undesirable effects of adjusting the merger while crops are still on it.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brokaw to include the teachings as taught by Rice with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of harvesting machines. Rice teaches the benefit of “flexibility in harvesting operations is provided by lift mechanisms which enable the merger apparatus to be selectively positioned for merging or non-merging operation thus eliminating machine down-time required to install/remove a fixed-position merger apparatus to switch between windrowing operational modes [Rice, col 1, lines 28-33]”.
Brokaw in view of Rice does not explicitly teach, however Hunt teaches:
in response to the crop merger being in the low position, determining, via the controller, an amount of crop material on the crop merger (the control system can monitor the output of the load sensors, and issue a command to suppress raising the draper arms 610 from a lowered arm position to a raised arm position upon determining that the draper arms 610 are experiencing an excessive load [0062]) using one or more of a merger belt speed provided by a belt speed sensor associated with a crop belt of the crop merger (examiner is interpreting the limitation in the alternative.), a maximum crop flow distance (examiner is interpreting the limitation in the alternative.), and a merger belt motor pressure provided by a merger belt motor pressure sensor associated with a motor of the crop merger (the gravitational load may be determined by evaluating the operating properties of a motor driving the conveyor. For example, an electric conveyor belt or auger motor may be monitored to evaluate back electromotive force or current draw to evaluate changes in load caused by an influx of material onto the belt or auger, and similar techniques may be used by monitoring pressure required to operate a hydraulic motor at a constant speed. Other alternatives and variations will be apparent to persons of ordinary skill in the art in view of the present disclosure. [0065]);
determining, via the controller, whether a crop material remains on the crop merger by the merger belt motor pressure provided by the merger belt motor pressure sensor associated with the motor of the crop merge (the gravitational load may be determined by evaluating the operating properties of a motor driving the conveyor. For example, an electric conveyor belt or auger motor may be monitored to evaluate back electromotive force or current draw to evaluate changes in load caused by an influx of material onto the belt or auger, and similar techniques may be used by monitoring pressure required to operate a hydraulic motor at a constant speed. Other alternatives and variations will be apparent to persons of ordinary skill in the art in view of the present disclosure. [0065]);
determining a time period required for dispersion of the crop material from the crop belt of the crop merger (if the threshold load value is determined to have been exceeded, the control system 300 may proceed to process step 410, in which the control system 300 issues a control signal to suppress actuator control. This control signal prevents or limits the ability of the operator or an automated control system to operate the actuator 126 to raise the wing section 112 that has experienced the overload condition [0046]) based on any of the merger belt speed provided by the belt speed sensor (examiner is interpreting the limitation in the alternative.), the maximum crop flow distance (examiner is interpreting the limitation in the alternative.), and the merger belt motor pressure provided by the merger belt motor pressure sensor (the load sensors 306 comprise pressure sensors that are operatively connected to a respective actuator 126, and configured to detect changes in pressure in the respective actuator 126 and/or control line 304 [0037]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brokaw and Rice to include the teachings as taught by Hunt with a reasonable expectation of success. All references are in the same field of endeavor of harvesting machines. Hunt teaches the benefit of “acquire load sensor data from the load sensor to evaluate a magnitude of a gravitational load on the header wing section, and prevent the actuator from moving the header wing section towards the wing raised position if the magnitude of the gravitational load exceeds a predetermined threshold load value. [Hunt, 0009]”.
Regarding claim 3:
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Brokaw further teaches:
after the time period has passed (controller 108 does not move header 110 from crop removal position 351 to headland position 352, or vice versa, at inappropriate times, a threshold distance can be set in controller 108, which can correspond to an estimated or actual average crop height, which can be referred to as a threshold crop height. The threshold crop height can, for example, be according to the operator's estimate of the average crop height, or some lesser height which would not otherwise trigger moving header 110 at inappropriate times [0029]),
Hunt further teaches:
then the determining via the controller whether the crop material remains on the crop merger (an electric conveyor belt or auger motor may be monitored to evaluate back electromotive force or current draw to evaluate changes in load caused by an influx of material onto the belt or auger [0065]).
Regarding claim 4:
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Brokaw further teaches:
receiving a user command from an operator via a user interface operably connected with the controller (Control system 106 includes, for example, lidar sensor 107, an operator input device 401 (such as a laptop, handheld computer device, or onboard computer device in cab) [0033]) to enable the controller to perform automatically (So that controller 108 does not move header 110 from crop removal position 351 to headland position 352, or vice versa, at inappropriate times, a threshold distance can be set in controller 108 [0029]).
Regarding claim 5:
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Brokaw further teaches:
receiving one or more operational inputs from the operator via the user interface (controller 108 may delay this lowering until header 110 is within a short, predetermined distance of crop material 206, for example, three meters, or some other desirable distance. Such a distance can be preset in controller 108 [0030]) that includes any of a maximum ground speed of the harvester (examiner notes that the speed of the harvester inherently has an operating input defining the ground speed of the vehicle.), a minimum ground speed of the harvester (examiner notes that the speed of the harvester inherently has an operating input defining the ground speed of the vehicle.), a maximum delay time between raising the header and raising the crop merger (examiner notes that it would be obvious to apply basic dynamics equations to convert the distance delay to a time delay based on the known speed of the vehicle.), a minimum delay time between raising the header and raising the crop merger (examiner notes that it would be obvious to apply basic dynamics equations to convert the distance delay to a time delay based on the known speed of the vehicle.), a maximum delay time between lowering the header and lowering the crop merger (examiner notes that it would be obvious to apply basic dynamics equations to convert the distance delay to a time delay based on the known speed of the vehicle.), a minimum delay time between lowering the header and lowering the crop merger (examiner notes that it would be obvious to apply basic dynamics equations to convert the distance delay to a time delay based on the known speed of the vehicle.).
Regarding claim 6:
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Brokaw further teaches:
wherein the commanding via the controller the crop merger actuator to move the crop merger to a raised position is performed automatically (a control system for automatically raising the header at the end of a row of crop material [0007]).
Regarding claim 7:
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Brokaw further teaches:
wherein the determining, via the controller, whether the header operably attached to the harvester machine is approaching the headland includes receiving one or more harvester system inputs that identify the headland (lidar sensor 107 is configured for sensing a first field condition—that is, an absence of crop material 206 in forward path of travel 202, as in headland 210 and associated with angles 353, 356—in forward path of travel 202 and thereby for outputting a first field condition signal (indicated in FIG. 4 by connecting lines) corresponding thereto [0032]).
Regarding claim 8:
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt teaches all the limitations of claim 7, upon which this claim is dependent.
Brokaw further teaches:
wherein the harvester system inputs include any of a power drop in engine load input of the header (examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative.), a perception based crop height input (sensor 107 can pre-scan standing crop material 206 from headland 210, with actual measurements of the height of crop material 206 being taken, which can be used to develop a threshold crop height [0029]), a header load input (examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative.), a swath flap load input (examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative.), a manual scouting input (examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative.), a predictive map boundary input (examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative.), a geographical map input (examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative.), a field boundary input (At angle 356, sensor 107 “sees” beyond crop material 206 and into headland 210, having sensed the known distance to ground, which is too long for there to be crop material 206 [0031]), a cultivation direction input (examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative.), a cutter width of the header (examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative.), and a vehicle speed input (examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative.).
Regarding claim 9:
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Brokaw further teaches:
wherein in response to the header approaching the headland, commanding via the controller one or more header actuators to raise the header to a raised position (That adjustment signal can be, for example, to raise header 110 when combine 100 reaches an end of a first plurality of crop rows 203A [0024]).
Regarding claim 10:
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Brokaw further teaches:
determining via the controller whether crop is present on the ground for harvesting by an imaging unit that detects crop (With light pulses 207 radiating from lidar sensor 107 into headland 210, lidar sensor 107 has already sensed an end to crop material 206 at the juxtaposition or dividing line 211 of the rows 203A of crop material 206 and headland 210 [0026]), the imaging unit mounted on the header and/or the crop merger and operably connected to the controller (Though two sensors 107 are shown, it will be appreciated that only one sensor 107 need be attached to combine 100, or, alternatively, more than two sensors 107 can be employed, in an array across header 110 and/or on or near cab 104, or at other suitable locations on combine 100. In terms of location, sensor 107 needs to be able to sense what is in front of combine 100 in a forward path of travel 202 of combine 100 [0024]); and
commanding via the controller a header actuator to lower the header to a harvesting mode of operation to cut the crop in response to determining crop is present on the ground (That adjustment signal can be, for example, to raise header 110 when combine 100 reaches an end of a first plurality of crop rows 203A, or to lower header 110 when combine 100 is about to begin traversing the field at a second plurality of crop rows 203B. [0024]).
Regarding claim 13:
Brokaw teaches:
A harvester machine (an agricultural harvester [0009]), comprising:
a header operably attached to the harvester machine (a header assembly configured for removing a crop material from a field [0009]);
a controller operably connected with the header and the crop merger, the controller configured to determine if the header is approaching a headland (at angle 356 controller 108 can determine that combine 100 has neared headland 210 when sensor 107 senses a sudden predetermined increase in distance corresponding to a drop in height to level ground [0031]);
wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the crop merger is in a low position (Controller 108 can form an adjustment module 406 to adjust header 110 from crop removal position 351 to headland position 352, or vice versa, based at least partly on this input information, as well as on an algorithm and data 404 stored in memory 403 such as the current actual position of combine 100 and header 110 [0035]) in response to the header approaching the headland (Controller is now “preparing” to raise header 110 to headland position 352, which it can do based upon a known position of combine 100 and a sensed position of dividing line 211 (knowing the position of the last of crop material 206 before headland 210), and can raise header 110 to headland position 352 at dividing line 211 [0031]);
wherein the controller determines a time period required for dispersion of the crop material from the crop belt of the crop merger (controller 108 does not move header 110 from crop removal position 351 to headland position 352, or vice versa, at inappropriate times, a threshold distance can be set in controller 108, which can correspond to an estimated or actual average crop height, which can be referred to as a threshold crop height. The threshold crop height can, for example, be according to the operator's estimate of the average crop height, or some lesser height which would not otherwise trigger moving header 110 at inappropriate times [0029]).
the controller is configured to command a crop merger actuator (Feeder housing 120 conveys the cut crop to threshing and separating system 130, and is selectively vertically movable using appropriate actuators, such as hydraulic cylinders (not shown) [0020]) to move the crop merger to a raised position (outputting 510, by controller, an adjustment signal to header 110 and thereby raising header 110, based at least partially on the field condition signal, when combine 100 reaches an end of a plurality of crop rows 203 [0037]).
Brokaw does not explicitly teach, however Rice teaches:
a crop merger operably attached to the harvester machine, the crop merger configured to receive cut crop from the header (fig. 2, the merger apparatus 20);
in response to substantially no crop material remaining on the crop merger (the movable merger apparatus 20 is positioned in a non-working position for windrowing operating in which windrow merging operation is not desired [col 3, lines 43-45]; while Rice does not explicitly teach that the adjustment is made when the merger is clear it would be obvious for one motivated to move the merger due to not wanting to use it anymore to apply the detection methods of Hunt at taught below to limit possibility of jamming or other undesirable effects of adjusting the merger while crops are still on it.), the controller is configured to command a crop merger actuator to move the crop merger to a raised position (The lift mechanism 30 comprises a lift shaft 32 for actuating the lift mechanism which is rotationally connected to chassis 11. Actuator 39, typically a double-acting hydraulic cylinder, is connected to lift shaft 32 by a lever arm 38 such that extension and retraction of actuator 39 causes rotation of lift shaft 32 about rotational axis 33 between opposing first and second positions corresponding to merger working and non-working positions, respectively. In the embodiment shown, extension of actuator 39 rotates lift shaft toward the second position which corresponds to the non-working or raised position of the merger apparatus 20 [col 4, lines 6-17]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brokaw to include the teachings as taught by Rice with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of harvesting machines. Rice teaches the benefit of “flexibility in harvesting operations is provided by lift mechanisms which enable the merger apparatus to be selectively positioned for merging or non-merging operation thus eliminating machine down-time required to install/remove a fixed-position merger apparatus to switch between windrowing operational modes [Rice, col 1, lines 28-33]”.
Brokaw in view of Rice does not explicitly teach, however Hunt teaches:
in response to the crop merger being in the low position, the controller is configured to determine if a crop material is present on the crop merger (the control system can monitor the output of the load sensors, and issue a command to suppress raising the draper arms 610 from a lowered arm position to a raised arm position upon determining that the draper arms 610 are experiencing an excessive load [0062]) using one or more of a merger belt speed provided by a belt speed sensor associated with a crop belt of the crop merger (examiner is interpreting the limitation in the alternative.), a maximum crop flow distance (examiner is interpreting the limitation in the alternative.), and a merger belt motor pressure provided by a merger belt motor pressure sensor associated with a motor of the crop merger (the gravitational load may be determined by evaluating the operating properties of a motor driving the conveyor. For example, an electric conveyor belt or auger motor may be monitored to evaluate back electromotive force or current draw to evaluate changes in load caused by an influx of material onto the belt or auger, and similar techniques may be used by monitoring pressure required to operate a hydraulic motor at a constant speed. Other alternatives and variations will be apparent to persons of ordinary skill in the art in view of the present disclosure. [0065]); and
wherein the controller determines a time period required for dispersion of the crop material from the crop belt of the crop merger based (if the threshold load value is determined to have been exceeded, the control system 300 may proceed to process step 410, in which the control system 300 issues a control signal to suppress actuator control. This control signal prevents or limits the ability of the operator or an automated control system to operate the actuator 126 to raise the wing section 112 that has experienced the overload condition [0046]) based on any of the merger belt speed provided by the belt speed sensor (examiner is interpreting the limitation in the alternative.), the maximum crop flow distance (examiner is interpreting the limitation in the alternative.), and the merger belt motor pressure provided by the merger belt motor pressure sensor (the load sensors 306 comprise pressure sensors that are operatively connected to a respective actuator 126, and configured to detect changes in pressure in the respective actuator 126 and/or control line 304 [0037]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brokaw and Rice to include the teachings as taught by Hunt with a reasonable expectation of success. All references are in the same field of endeavor of harvesting machines. Hunt teaches the benefit of “acquire load sensor data from the load sensor to evaluate a magnitude of a gravitational load on the header wing section, and prevent the actuator from moving the header wing section towards the wing raised position if the magnitude of the gravitational load exceeds a predetermined threshold load value. [Hunt, 0009]”.
Regarding claim 14:
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt teaches all the limitations of claim 13, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hunt further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to receive the merger belt motor pressure provided by the merger belt motor pressure sensor associated with the motor of the crop merger to determine whether the crop material remains on the crop merger (the gravitational load may be determined by evaluating the operating properties of a motor driving the conveyor. For example, an electric conveyor belt or auger motor may be monitored to evaluate back electromotive force or current draw to evaluate changes in load caused by an influx of material onto the belt or auger, and similar techniques may be used by monitoring pressure required to operate a hydraulic motor at a constant speed. Other alternatives and variations will be apparent to persons of ordinary skill in the art in view of the present disclosure. [0065]).
Regarding claim 16:
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt teaches all the limitations of claim 13, upon which this claim is dependent.
Brokaw further teaches:
a user command received from an operator via a user interface operably connected with the controller (Control system 106 includes, for example, lidar sensor 107, an operator input device 401 (such as a laptop, handheld computer device, or onboard computer device in cab) [0033]) to enable the controller to perform automatically (So that controller 108 does not move header 110 from crop removal position 351 to headland position 352, or vice versa, at inappropriate times, a threshold distance can be set in controller 108 [0029]).
Regarding claim 17:
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt teaches all the limitations of claim 13, upon which this claim is dependent.
Brokaw further teaches:
wherein in response to the header approaching the headland, the controller is configured to command one or more header actuators to raise the header to a raised position (That adjustment signal can be, for example, to raise header 110 when combine 100 reaches an end of a first plurality of crop rows 203A [0024]).
Regarding claim 18:
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt teaches all the limitations of claim 13, upon which this claim is dependent.
Brokaw further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to determine if there is crop in a field for harvesting by an imaging unit that detects crop (With light pulses 207 radiating from lidar sensor 107 into headland 210, lidar sensor 107 has already sensed an end to crop material 206 at the juxtaposition or dividing line 211 of the rows 203A of crop material 206 and headland 210 [0026]), the imaging unit mounted on the header and/or the crop merger and operably connected to the controller (Though two sensors 107 are shown, it will be appreciated that only one sensor 107 need be attached to combine 100, or, alternatively, more than two sensors 107 can be employed, in an array across header 110 and/or on or near cab 104, or at other suitable locations on combine 100. In terms of location, sensor 107 needs to be able to sense what is in front of combine 100 in a forward path of travel 202 of combine 100 [0024]); and
the controller is configured to command a header actuator to lower the header to a harvesting mode of operation to cut the crop in response to crop being present for harvesting (That adjustment signal can be, for example, to raise header 110 when combine 100 reaches an end of a first plurality of crop rows 203A, or to lower header 110 when combine 100 is about to begin traversing the field at a second plurality of crop rows 203B. [0024]).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brokaw et. al. (US 2023/0062392), herein Brokaw in view of Rice et. al. (US 7,526,908), herein Rice, and Hunt et. al. (US 2022/0087101), herein Hunt in further view of Babler et. al. (US 2021/0045292), herein Babler.
Regarding claim 11:
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt teaches all the limitations of claim 10, upon which this claim is dependent.
Rice further teaches:
determining via the controller whether merging of the cut crop is required (the present windrower includes a lift mechanism 30 for selectively positioning movable frame 22 thereby enabling merger apparatus 20 to be positioned in a working position for windrow merging operation, and also in a non-working position for forming windrows that trail behind generally along the windrower longitudinal centerline [col 3, lines 37-42]);
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt do not explicitly teach, however Babler teaches:
detecting the cut crop (e.g., via the sensor interface 1110 and/or the database 1116) a location of the fourth windrow 124 and/or a location of the fifth windrow 126 based on at least some (e.g., GPS data or coordinates) of the sensor data 1126. In such examples the merger control system 1100 determines (e.g., repeatedly or continuously) the location(s) of the respective windrow(s) 124, 126 via the sensor(s) 150 and stores the location(s) in the database 1116 [0188]) from the imaging unit (the merger control system 1100 records (That is, in such examples, the merger control system 1100 determines the same parameter(s) using at least two different sensor(s) (e.g., two LiDAR sensors) [0187]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brokaw, Rice, and Hunt to include the teachings as taught by Babler with a reasonable expectation of success. All references are in the same field of endeavor of harvesting machines. Babler teaches the benefit of “an assembly of mergers with increased functional belt capacity, the ability to incorporate sensors and software to limit the downtime of the following operations by forming even windrows, free of foreign objects, as well as the ability to monitor and record the parameters and position of the material being deposited, without some of the adverse effects on cost and weight mentioned above is desired [Babler, 0007]”.
Regarding claim 12:
Brokaw in view of Rice, Hunt, and Babler teaches all the limitations of claim 11, upon which this claim is dependent.
Rice further teaches:
to lower the crop merger belt to a lowered position (Retraction of actuator 39 rotates lift shaft 32 toward the first position which corresponds to the working or lowered position of the merger apparatus 20 [col 4, lines 16-19]).
Babler further teaches:
wherein the determining whether merging of the cut crop is required includes detecting a windrow of cut crop on the ground or detecting a predefined merging strategy (detecting an operating mode associated with a merger via an input device (block 1202) [0181]); and
in response to detecting the windrow, commanding via the controller actuating a crop merger actuator (at block 1204, the merger control system 1100 determines the adjustment(s) based on the detected operating mode in connection with block 1202 or 1215. In such examples, the merger control system 1100 uses at least a portion of the reference data 1123 (e.g., any of the predetermined pickup speeds. the predetermine belt speeds, and/or the predetermine wind guard angles) to determine the adjustment(s). Additionally or alternatively, in some examples, the merger control system 1100 determines the adjustments based on the detected material parameter(s) (e.g., a shape such as the first shape 516 of FIG. 5) in connection with block 1208 [0183])
Regarding claim 19:
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt teaches all the limitations of claim 18, upon which this claim is dependent.
Rice further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the cut crop should be merged (the present windrower includes a lift mechanism 30 for selectively positioning movable frame 22 thereby enabling merger apparatus 20 to be positioned in a working position for windrow merging operation, and also in a non-working position for forming windrows that trail behind generally along the windrower longitudinal centerline [col 3, lines 37-42]);
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt do not explicitly teach, however Babler teaches:
and wherein the controller is configured to detect the cut crop from an imaging unit (e.g., via the sensor interface 1110 and/or the database 1116) a location of the fourth windrow 124 and/or a location of the fifth windrow 126 based on at least some (e.g., GPS data or coordinates) of the sensor data 1126. In such examples the merger control system 1100 determines (e.g., repeatedly or continuously) the location(s) of the respective windrow(s) 124, 126 via the sensor(s) 150 and stores the location(s) in the database 1116 [0188]) mounted on the header and/or the crop merger (the merger control system 1100 records (That is, in such examples, the merger control system 1100 determines the same parameter(s) using at least two different sensor(s) (e.g., two LiDAR sensors) [0187]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brokaw, Rice, and Hunt to include the teachings as taught by Babler with a reasonable expectation of success. All references are in the same field of endeavor of harvesting machines. Babler teaches the benefit of “an assembly of mergers with increased functional belt capacity, the ability to incorporate sensors and software to limit the downtime of the following operations by forming even windrows, free of foreign objects, as well as the ability to monitor and record the parameters and position of the material being deposited, without some of the adverse effects on cost and weight mentioned above is desired [Babler, 0007]”.
Regarding claim 20:
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt teaches all the limitations of claim 18, upon which this claim is dependent.
Rice further teaches:
the controller is configured to actuate a crop merger actuator to lower the crop merger belt to a lowered position (Retraction of actuator 39 rotates lift shaft 32 toward the first position which corresponds to the working or lowered position of the merger apparatus 20 [col 4, lines 16-19]).
Brokaw in view of Rice and Hunt do not explicitly teach, however Babler teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to detect a windrow of cut crop on the ground (detecting an operating mode associated with a merger via an input device (block 1202) [0181]); and
in response to the detected windrow, the controller is configured to actuate a crop merger actuator (at block 1204, the merger control system 1100 determines the adjustment(s) based on the detected operating mode in connection with block 1202 or 1215. In such examples, the merger control system 1100 uses at least a portion of the reference data 1123 (e.g., any of the predetermined pickup speeds. the predetermine belt speeds, and/or the predetermine wind guard angles) to determine the adjustment(s). Additionally or alternatively, in some examples, the merger control system 1100 determines the adjustments based on the detected material parameter(s) (e.g., a shape such as the first shape 516 of FIG. 5) in connection with block 1208 [0183])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brokaw, Rice, and Hunt to include the teachings as taught by Babler with a reasonable expectation of success. All references are in the same field of endeavor of harvesting machines. Babler teaches the benefit of “an assembly of mergers with increased functional belt capacity, the ability to incorporate sensors and software to limit the downtime of the following operations by forming even windrows, free of foreign objects, as well as the ability to monitor and record the parameters and position of the material being deposited, without some of the adverse effects on cost and weight mentioned above is desired [Babler, 0007]”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roberge (US 2019/0254227) discloses the method is performed by a harvester comprising a crop supply chamber, a crop gating system, and one or more sensors. In some embodiments, the one or more sensors are capable of determining a range of information. In some embodiments, the one or more sensors are in electronic communication with one or more controllers. In some embodiments, the one or more sensors can be a tine position sensor, a rotary potentiometer, an optical sensor, or the like. In some embodiments, additional sensors can be used to assist in field function of the windrower by sensing, e.g., loads on the cutterbar, speed of discs/conditioner rolls on disc heads, speed of reels, sickles, and draper belts on draper units, and merger belt speed and/or merger position (if a crop merger is in use), lift arm height, header tilt, ground clearance, combinations thereof, or the like.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights