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 .
Response to Arguments
The claims as amended overcome the objections of record, and the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “As acknowledged in the Office Action, Gresch does not disclose "intervals" as provided in the claim (see Office Action; page 6). Kirk is relied on to cure this deficiency. Kirk, however, does not describe "an interval length of harvested crop in a direction of travel of the agricultural machine". Rather, Kirk describes a distance between adjacent windrows to calculate a yield estimate (see Kirk; paragraphs [0034] and [0126]).
Accordingly, claim 1 is allowable over Gresch and Kirk. Claim 13 recites similar features as claim 1. Thus, claim 13 is also allowable over the cited references.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The 10/24/2025 office action concedes that Gresch does not explicitly teach “determining an interval, and instead [Gresch] generally maps the windrows without reference to their separation.” 10/24/2025 Office Action Page 6 (emphasis added). The office action goes on to rely on Kirk for teaching “intervals” as spacing or separation between windrows. Id.
However, the amended claim recites “a plurality of interval location within the area, each interval location of the plurality of interval locations corresponds to an interval length of harvested crop in a direction of travel of the agricultural machine, the map indicates an associated quantity of crop for each interval location” (emphasis added).
In that context, Gresch teaches mapping the amount of crop deposited in windrows, georeferencing the windrow mass, length, width, height, cross section. See paragraphs [0017]-[0020], [0028]-[0029], and [0048]-[0049]. In particular, paragraphs [0048]-[0049] describe detecting “data about the position of the windrow 64 and the associated amounts of straw during the harvesting operation by means of the signals of the position determining device 90 and one or more of the sensors 68, 70, 72, 74, 78, 86, 84, and/or 82. Since the sensors 68, 70, 72, 74, 78, 86, 84, and/or 82 interact with the crop at points that are offset with respect to the ultimate position of deposition of the windrow 64 and are also offset with respect to the position determining device 90, in each case here, a recalculation takes place of the position determined by means of the position determining device 90 to the positions of the sensors 68, 70, 72, 74, 78, 86, 84, and/or 82, along with a recalculation of the position of the sensors 68, 70, 72, 74, 78, 86, 84, and/or 82 to the position at which the crop or straw interacting with the sensor 68, 70, 72, 74, 78, 86, 84, and/or 82 is in fact deposited in windrow 64. …Accordingly, after the end of a harvesting operation, a map of the field, in which the positions of the windrow 64 and the amounts of straw are deposited site-specifically and georeferenced, is entered into the memory device 88” (emphasis added). That is, Gresch measures the harvested crop amount, then keeps track of (georeferences) how much is output onto the field by offsetting the crop’s travel time through the harvester.
However, Gresch does not explicitly teach “intervals” that are discrete units of measurement, e.g. crop per foot of windrow (see applicant’s published specification paragraph [0025]).
Kirk does teach measuring crop yield per unit length interval, however. See for example paragraphs [0074], [0077]-[0079], [0101]-[0102] (“mass flow determined in pounds per point…(i.e., per each 16 inch length measurement)”, [0082] (“mass per unit travel distance”), and [0120] (“windrow mass density in kilograms per meter of windrow length”), as well as Figure 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-2, 4-9, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180317388 by Gresch et al. (hereinafter “Gresch”), and further in view of US20170013772 by Kirk et al. (hereinafter “Kirk”).
Regarding claim 1, Gresch teaches A system for an agricultural machine, comprising: a controller that operably receives input data indicative of location-dependent quantities of crop and a position of the agricultural machine, wherein the controller includes: see for example paragraph [0017], or paragraphs [0039]-[0049], where the harvester creates windrows and records their locations in a GPS for use by a baler. Then see for example paragraphs [0059]-[0060], where the baler receives the map of windrows, and in at least paragraph [0029] the baler determines its own position.
at least one processor; and a memory that stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to: see again paragraph [0059], where the harvester provides a map via memory, and the tractor/baler reads the map from memory.
acquire an estimated quantity of crop based on the position of the agricultural machine and the location-dependent quantities of crop; see again paragraphs [0059]-[0060], where the baler receives the amount of crop in the windrow from the map.
wherein the location-dependent quantities of crop comprises a map of an area having a plurality of ; Gresch teaches mapping the amount of crop deposited in windrows, georeferencing the windrow mass, length, width, height, cross section. See paragraphs [0017]-[0020], [0028]-[0029], and [0048]-[0049]. In particular, paragraphs [0048]-[0049] describe detecting “data about the position of the windrow 64 and the associated amounts of straw during the harvesting operation by means of the signals of the position determining device 90 and one or more of the sensors 68, 70, 72, 74, 78, 86, 84, and/or 82. Since the sensors 68, 70, 72, 74, 78, 86, 84, and/or 82 interact with the crop at points that are offset with respect to the ultimate position of deposition of the windrow 64 and are also offset with respect to the position determining device 90, in each case here, a recalculation takes place of the position determined by means of the position determining device 90 to the positions of the sensors 68, 70, 72, 74, 78, 86, 84, and/or 82, along with a recalculation of the position of the sensors 68, 70, 72, 74, 78, 86, 84, and/or 82 to the position at which the crop or straw interacting with the sensor 68, 70, 72, 74, 78, 86, 84, and/or 82 is in fact deposited in windrow 64. …Accordingly, after the end of a harvesting operation, a map of the field, in which the positions of the windrow 64 and the amounts of straw are deposited site-specifically and georeferenced, is entered into the memory device 88” (emphasis added). That is, Gresch measures the harvested crop amount, then keeps track of (georeferences) how much is output onto the field by offsetting the crop’s travel time through the harvester.
and generate adjustment data indicative of an adjustment to a speed of the agricultural machine based on the estimated quantity of crop; in paragraph [0060], “[a] speed of tractor 110 that corresponds to a desired throughput of straw at pickup 148 of baler 114 is determined in step 304 by means of the thus determined amount of straw.”
and a drive system that adjusts the speed of the agricultural machine based on the adjustment data. The next sentence in paragraph [0060] reads “The actuators 200 and/or 202 are correspondingly adjusted. In this way a speed of the baler 114 that is suitable for pickup of the relevant amount of straw is predictively reached.”
Gresch does not explicitly teach determining an interval that is based on discrete units of measurement, e.g. crop per foot of windrow (see applicant’s published specification paragraph [0025]).
However, Kirk teaches a system that maps windrow interval[s]. See for example paragraphs [0074], [0077]-[0079], [0101]-[0102] (“mass flow determined in pounds per point…(i.e., per each 16 inch length measurement)”, [0082] (“mass per unit travel distance”), and [0120] (“windrow mass density in kilograms per meter of windrow length”), as well as Figure 6.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the windrow-mapping system of Gresch with the interval determination system of Kirk with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so gives the system a simple way to, for instance, calculate the yield estimate per acre (see Kirk [0126]).
Claim 13 is directed towards A method with similar limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Gresch teaches further comprising a communication interface configured to communicatively couple the controller with one or more external systems, wherein the memory further stores instructions that configure the at least one processor to receive the input data indicative of the location-dependent quantities of crop from a remote system. See again paragraph [0059], where the baler receives the windrow map which originated from the harvester.
Regarding claim 4, Gresch teaches further comprising a positioning module configured to receive positioning signals, wherein the memory further stores instructions that configure the at least one processor to determine the position of the agricultural machine based on the positioning signals. See again paragraph [0059], where the baler can have a position sensor “which can be of the same kind as the position determining device 90 of the combine harvester”, which is described in paragraph [0039].
Regarding claim 5, Gresch teaches wherein the input data is further indicative of crop constituents, and wherein the memory further includes instructions that configure the at least one processor to generate the adjustment data based on the estimate quantity of crop and the crop constituents. See for example paragraph [0028], where crop/windrow parameters are georeferenced and transmitted to the baler. Such data is used in paragraphs [0060]-[0061] to adjust the speed of the baler.
Regarding claim 6, Gresch teaches wherein the crop constituents include at least one of a moisture content or a stem thickness. See for example paragraphs [0022] and [0061] discussing measurement of moisture content. See also paragraphs [0040]-[0043] discussing measurement of straw thickness.
Regarding claim 7, Gresch teaches wherein the estimated quantity of crop represents an estimate of an absolute quantity of crop. See for example paragraph [0047], where the system calculates the amount of the crop based on sensor measurements.
Regarding claim 8, Gresch teaches wherein the estimated quantity of crop represents an estimate of a . See for example paragraph [0047], where the system calculates the amount of the crop based on sensor measurements.
Gresch does not explicitly teach an estimate of a relative quantity of crop, wherein the relative quantity of crop is relative to a previously acquired estimate.
However, Kirk teaches an estimate of a relative quantity of crop, wherein the relative quantity of crop is relative to a previously acquired estimate. See for example paragraph [0065], where the system stores “historic yield maps” for comparison with other yield maps, reading on the relative quantity of crop is relative to a previously acquired estimate. See also paragraph [0062], where gathered sensor data of the crop volume or weight is used to predict a crop yield.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the windrow-mapping system of Gresch with the interval determination system of Kirk with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so gives the system a simple way to, for instance, calculate the yield estimate per acre (see Kirk [0126]).
Regarding claim 9, Gresch teaches wherein the adjustment data indicates a relative adjustment to the speed of the agricultural machine. See again paragraph [0060], where the system sets the speed of the baler based on the predicted amount of straw in the windrow.
Regarding claim 12, Gresch teaches wherein the memory further includes instructions that configure the at least one processor to: generate a control signal based on the adjustment data; and send the control signal to at least one actuator of the drive system to effectuate a change to the speed of the agricultural machine. See again paragraph [0060], where the system adjusts its speed according to the windrow map.
Regarding claim 14, Gresch teaches a system further comprising: receiving sensor data from at least one sensor indicative of a quantity of crop processed by a second agricultural machine at a plurality of . See again paragraph [0059], where the baler receives the windrow map which originated from the harvester. See also paragraphs [0048]-[0049] where the system maps/georeferences windrow volume and cross section.
Gresch does not explicitly teach determining an interval that is based on discrete units of measurement, e.g. crop per foot of windrow (see applicant’s published specification paragraph [0025]).
However, Kirk teaches a system that maps windrow interval[s]. See for example paragraphs [0074], [0077]-[0079], [0101]-[0102] (“mass flow determined in pounds per point…(i.e., per each 16 inch length measurement)”, [0082] (“mass per unit travel distance”), and [0120] (“windrow mass density in kilograms per meter of windrow length”), as well as Figure 6.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the windrow-mapping system of Gresch with the interval determination system of Kirk with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so gives the system a simple way to, for instance, calculate the yield estimate per acre (see Kirk [0126]).
Regarding claim 15, Gresch teaches wherein acquiring the estimated quantity of crop includes obtaining the estimated quantity of crop from the set of estimated values corresponding to the position of the agricultural machine. See again paragraph [0060] for example, where the system maps the windrows and their crop amounts.
Regarding claim 16, Gresch teaches a system further comprising: receiving further sensor data from additional sensors, the further sensor data being indicative of a thickness of crop stems and a moisture content of crop processed by the second agricultural machine at the plurality of . See for example paragraphs [0022] and [0061] discussing measurement of moisture content. See also paragraphs [0040]-[0043] discussing measurement of straw thickness. See also paragraphs [0048]-[0049] where the system maps/georeferences windrow volume and cross section.
Gresch does not explicitly teach determining an interval that is based on discrete units of measurement, e.g. crop per foot of windrow (see applicant’s published specification paragraph [0025]).
However, Kirk teaches a system that maps windrow interval[s]. See for example paragraphs [0074], [0077]-[0079], [0101]-[0102] (“mass flow determined in pounds per point…(i.e., per each 16 inch length measurement)”, [0082] (“mass per unit travel distance”), and [0120] (“windrow mass density in kilograms per meter of windrow length”), as well as Figure 6.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the windrow-mapping system of Gresch with the interval determination system of Kirk with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so gives the system a simple way to, for instance, calculate the yield estimate per acre (see Kirk [0126]).
Claim 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gresch in view of US20170118918 by Chaney et al. (hereinafter “Chaney”), and further in view of US20240407286 by Bird et al. (hereinafter “Bird”).
Regarding claim 18, Gresch teaches A system, comprising: a set of sensors configured to sense a set of attributes related to crop processing by a first agricultural machine at a plurality of see paragraphs [0039]-[0047], where the combine harvester (first agricultural machine) includes a set of sensors to determine the amount of grain. See also paragraphs [0048]-[0049] where the system maps/georeferences windrow volume and cross section.
a first position sensor configured to determine a position of the first agricultural machine for each see paragraph [0039], where the combine includes a GPS sensor to map the windrows and their amount as it works. See also paragraphs [0048]-[0049] where the system maps/georeferences windrow volume and cross section.
a second position sensor configured to determine a position of a second agricultural machine; see paragraph [0059] where the baler includes its own GPS to determine its position on the field.
any of one or more processors being configured to: receive sensor data from the set of sensors at the plurality of see for example paragraph [0048] where the combine detects the straw/windrow locations and amounts as it works to create windrows. See again paragraphs [0048]-[0049] where the system maps/georeferences windrow volume and cross section.
receive first position data from the first position sensor, the first position data being indicative of a location of the first agricultural machine at each see for example paragraph [0048] where the combine detects the straw/windrow locations and amounts as it works to create windrows, based on the GPS sensor described in [0039].
generate a set of values indicative of an estimated quantity of crop processed by the first agricultural machine for each see for example paragraph [0048] where the combine detects the straw/windrow locations and amounts as it works to create windrows, based on the GPS sensor described in [0039].
receive second position data from the second position sensor, the second position data being indicative of a location of the second agricultural machine; see paragraph [0059] where the baler includes its own GPS to determine its position on the field.
acquire an estimated quantity of crop corresponding to the location of the second agricultural machine; see paragraph [0060], where the system acquires the mapped data from the combine for use in determining the speed the baler should use.
and generate adjustment data indicative of an adjustment to a speed of the second agricultural machine based on the estimated quantity of crop. See again paragraph [0060], where the system acquires the mapped data from the combine for use in determining the speed the baler should use.
Gresch does not explicitly teach determining an interval that is based on discrete units of measurement, e.g. crop per foot of windrow (see applicant’s published specification paragraph [0025]). Likewise, Gresch does not explicitly teach wherein the set of sensors includes at least one of a header load sensor associated with a header motor and configured to sense a load on a header of the first agricultural machine.
However, Chaney teaches a system that maps windrow interval[s]. See for example paragraphs [0074]-[0075], where the system determines a “material volume per windrow length unit at a particular location within the field” and can therefore create a yield map. See also paragraph [0031] where the system shows “a yield map that shows the expected volume of windrows 112 at a plurality of points along the windrows.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the windrow-mapping system of Gresch with the speed and map display of Chaney with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the operator to determine at what speed the baler should be moving, as well as the windrow location.
Neither Gresch nor Chaney explicitly teach wherein the set of sensors includes at least one of a header load sensor associated with a header motor and configured to sense a load on a header of the first agricultural machine.
However, Bird teaches wherein the set of sensors includes at least one of a header load sensor associated with a header motor and configured to sense a load on a header of the first agricultural machine. See for example paragraph [0051], where the system includes a header load sensor that determines a load on the header based on power required, operating speed, flow rate of fluid, force required.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the windrow-mapping system of Gresch, modified by the speed and map display of Chaney, with the header load sensor of Bird with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to determine a crop yield corresponding to the field location (see Bird [0016]).
Regarding claim 19, Gresch teaches wherein any of the one or more processors are further configured to communicate a control signal to a drive system of the second agricultural machine to effectuate a change to the speed of the second agricultural machine based on the adjustment data. See paragraph [0060], “[a] speed of tractor 110 that corresponds to a desired throughput of straw at pickup 148 of baler 114 is determined in step 304 by means of the thus determined amount of straw. The actuators 200 and/or 202 are correspondingly adjusted. In this way a speed of the baler 114 that is suitable for pickup of the relevant amount of straw is predictively reached.”
Regarding claim 20, Gresch does not explicitly teach, but Chaney does teach wherein any of the one or more processors are further configured to generate an indication of the adjustment to the speed of the second agricultural machine for display on a user interface of the second agricultural machine. See again paragraphs [0077] and [0084], where the system outputs and displays maps and suggested speeds either locally (directly to the operator), or remotely.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the windrow-mapping system of Gresch with the speed and map display of Chaney with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the operator to determine at what speed the baler should be moving, as well as the windrow location.
Claims 10-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gresch in view of Kirk as applied to claims 1, and 13 above, and further in view of Chaney.
Regarding claim 10, Gresch does not explicitly teach, but Chaney teaches a system further comprising a user interface, wherein the memory further includes instructions that configure the at least one processor to display a status to an operator. See for example paragraphs [0077] and [0084], where the system outputs and displays maps and suggested speeds either locally (directly to the operator), or remotely.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the windrow-mapping system of Gresch, modified by the interval measurements of Kirk, with the speed and map display of Chaney with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the operator to determine at what speed the baler should be moving, as well as the windrow location.
Regarding claim 11, Gresch does not explicitly teach, but Chaney teaches wherein the status is indicative of at least one of the adjustment to the speed of the agricultural machine or an operational state of the system. See again paragraphs [0077] and [0084], where the system outputs and displays maps and suggested speeds either locally (directly to the operator), or remotely.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the windrow-mapping system of Gresch, modified by the interval measurements of Kirk, with the speed and map display of Chaney with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the operator to determine at what speed the baler should be moving, as well as the windrow location.
Regarding claim 17, Gresch does not explicitly teach, but Chaney teaches a system further comprising: outputting a status to a user interface of the agricultural machine based on the adjustment data, wherein the status indicates a recommended change to the speed of the agricultural machine; receiving a user input via the user interface; and generating the control signal for the drive system based on the user input. See again paragraphs [0077] and [0084], where the system outputs and displays maps and suggested speeds either locally (directly to the operator), or remotely.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the windrow-mapping system of Gresch, modified by the interval measurements of Kirk, with the speed and map display of Chaney with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the operator to determine at what speed the baler should be moving, as well as the windrow location.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20250081881 by Fay, II et al. teaching header load sensors; see [0058]-[0059].
(previously cited) US20200141784 by Lange et al. teaching per unit windrow volume; see e.g. [0080].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666