DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 6, 7, 10 – 16, and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Seiders (US 11659785 B2), hereinafter referred to as Seiders.
Regarding Claim 1:
A height control system for an agricultural vehicle, the system comprising:
a harvesting implement;
Seiders discloses “Moreover, as shown in FIG. 1, a harvesting implement” (Seiders, Column 4 Line 15).
an actuator configured to adjust a vertical height of at least a portion of the harvesting implement relative to a ground surface;
Seiders discloses “the controller 202 may be configured to control the operation of one or more components that regulate the height of the header 32 relative to the ground 19. For example, the controller 202 may be communicatively coupled to one or more control valve(s) 218 configured to regulate the supply of fluid (e.g., hydraulic fluid or air) to one or more corresponding actuator(s) 220. In some embodiments, the actuators 220 may correspond to the height control cylinder 101,” (Seiders, Column 9 Lines 9-17).
a distance sensor supported relative to the harvesting implement, the distance sensor configured to generate distance data indicative of a distance from the distance sensor to a location on the ground surface positioned forward of the harvesting implement;
Seiders discloses “the inclination sensor(s) 70 can be configured to sense a first distance 124 between the inclination sensor(s) 70 and a first location 126 of the ground surface 19.” (Seiders, Column 7 Lines 15-18).
a sensor positioning assembly comprising first and second pose measurement devices, the first pose measurement device configured to generate pose data indicative of an absolute pose of the distance sensor, the second pose measurement device configured to generate pose data indicative of a relative pose of the distance sensor; and
Seiders discloses “As shown in FIG. 2A, a first height sensor 116 may be provided at or adjacent to the first lateral end 106 of the header 32, and a second height sensor 118 may be provided at or adjacent to the second lateral end 108 of the header 32. In some embodiments, a third height sensor 119 may be provided at or adjacent the center 110 of the header 32.” (Seiders, Column 6 Lines 22-27).
a computing system communicatively coupled to the distance sensor and the sensor positioning assembly, the computing system being configured to:
Seiders discloses “As shown, the control system 200 may generally include a controller 202 installed on and/or otherwise provided in operative association with the harvester 10. In general, the controller 202 of the disclosed system 200 may correspond to any suitable processor-based device(s), such as a computing device or any combination of computing devices.” (Seiders, Column 8 Lines 35-40).
determine an initial distance value associated with the distance from the distance sensor to the ground surface based on the distance data received from the distance sensor;
Seiders discloses “the inclination sensor(s) 70 can be configured to sense a first distance 124 between the inclination sensor(s) 70 and a first location 126 of the ground surface 19.” (Seiders, Column 7 Lines 15-18).
determine a pose of the distance sensor based on the pose data received from the first and second pose measurement devices;
Seiders discloses “In other embodiments, multiple inclination sensors 70 can be configured to detect the local inclination 66” (Seiders, Column 8 Lines 1-2) and “Thus, the respective distances between the multiple inclination sensors 70 and distinct locations on the ground surface 19 can be used to determine the local inclination 66.” (Seiders, Column 8 Lines 19-23).
determine a compensation value for adjusting the initial distance value based on the pose of the distance sensor;
Seiders discloses “Referring to FIG. 4, the method 300 may include, at (302), monitoring a height of the implement (e.g., header 32) relative to the ground surface 19.” (Seiders, Column 10 Lines 1-3).
calculate a compensated distance value as a function of the initial distance value and the compensation value; and
Seiders discloses “The implement height error can be determined by comparing the height of the implement with a predetermined target height.” (Seiders, Column 10 Lines 24-26).
control an operation of the actuator based at least in part on the compensated distance value to adjust the vertical height of the at least a portion of the harvesting implement relative to the ground surface.
Seiders discloses “The method 300 may include, at (310), adjusting the height of the implement 33 relative to the ground surface 19 based on the output signal, which can include the derivative signal (e.g., as described above with equation 1). The controller 202 may adjust one or more of the control valve(s) 218 to raise and lower the header 32 relative to the ground 19 using one or more of the actuator(s) 220, such as the height control cylinder 101 and/or the tilt cylinders 102, 104.” (Column 11 Lines 18-25).
Regarding Claim 2:
The system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is further configured to generate an estimated ground profile of the ground surface based at least in part on the compensated distance value.
Seiders discloses “The local inclination can be determined based on signals received from one or more inclination sensors that are configured to sense the local inclination of the ground surface. For example, the local inclination can be sensed at a portion of the ground surface that is at least partially forward of a location at which the implement height is detected and/or aft of a leading edge of the implement. The local inclination can be detected for a portion of the ground surface that is at least partially beneath the implement.” (Seiders, Column 3 Lines 35-44).
Regarding Claim 3:
The system of claim 2, wherein the control of the operation of the actuator is based at least in part on the estimated ground profile of the ground surface.
Seiders discloses “A PD or PID loop employing a derivative signal calculated based on the local inclination as described herein can provide improved system response. For example, the system can anticipate upcoming variations in the ground surface and thus provide smoother (e.g., reduced jitter or jerk) and/or more accurate control of the implement height.” (Seiders, Column 3 Lines 49-54).
Regarding Claim 4:
The system of claim 2, wherein the computing system is further configured to determine a target height setting for the harvesting implement based at least in part on the estimated ground profile.
Seiders discloses “A local inclination 66 of the ground surface 19 can be defined as an angle of the ground surface 19 with respect to the work vehicle 10.” (Seiders, Column 5 Lines 12-14).
Regarding Claim 5:
The system of claim 4, wherein the computing system is further configured to generate at least one control output for controlling the operation of the actuator based at least in part on the target height setting for the harvesting implement.
Seiders discloses “Moreover, in several embodiments, the harvester 10 may also include a hydraulic system 100 which is configured to adjust a height of the header 32 relative to the around 19 so as to maintain the desired cutting height between the header 32 and the ground 19.” (Seiders, Column 4 Lines 60-64).
Regarding Claim 6:
The system of claim 5, wherein:
the computing system is configured to estimate a current vertical height of the harvesting implement relative to the ground surface; and
Seiders discloses “Referring to FIG. 4, the method 300 may include, at (302), monitoring a height of the implement (e.g., header 32) relative to the ground surface 19.” (Seiders, Column 10 Lines 1-3).
the at least one control output is calculated as a function of a height error between the current vertical height of the harvesting implement relative to the ground surface and the target height setting for the harvesting implement.
Seiders discloses “The method 300 may include, at (304), determining a proportional signal by comparing the height of the implement with a predetermined target height.” (Seiders, Column 10 Lines 10-12).
Regarding Claim 8:
The system of claim 1, wherein the distance sensor comprises a non-contact sensor.
Seiders discloses “Additionally or alternatively, one or more of the height sensor(s) 68 can be configured to detect the height of the header 32 without physically contacting the ground surface 19.” (Seiders, Column 5 Lines 37-40).
Regarding Claim 10:
The system of claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises at least one of a height actuator configured to adjust a vertical position of the harvesting implement relative to the ground surface or a tilt actuator configured to adjust a tilt of the harvesting implement relative to the ground surface.
Seiders discloses “Moreover, in several embodiments, the harvester 10 may also include a hydraulic system 100 which is configured to adjust a height of the header 32 relative to the around 19 so as to maintain the desired cutting height between the header 32 and the ground 19.” (Seiders, Column 4 Lines 60-64).
Regarding Claim 11:
A method for automatically controlling a height of a harvesting implement of an agricultural work vehicle relative to a ground surface, the harvesting implement being provided in operative association with an actuator configured to adjust a vertical height of at least a portion of the harvesting implement relative to the ground surface, the method comprising:
Seiders discloses “As shown, the control system 200 may generally include a controller 202 installed on and/or otherwise provided in operative association with the harvester 10. In general, the controller 202 of the disclosed system 200 may correspond to any suitable processor-based device(s), such as a computing device or any combination of computing devices.” (Seiders, Column 8 Lines 35-40).
receiving, with a computing system, distance data from a distance sensor supported relative to the harvesting implement that is indicative of a measured distance from the distance sensor to a location on the ground surface positioned forward of the harvesting implement;
Seiders discloses “the inclination sensor(s) 70 can be configured to sense a first distance 124 between the inclination sensor(s) 70 and a first location 126 of the ground surface 19.” (Seiders, Column 7 Lines 15-18).
receiving, with the computing system, pose data indicative of both an absolute pose and a relative pose of the distance sensor;
Seiders discloses “As shown in FIG. 2A, a first height sensor 116 may be provided at or adjacent to the first lateral end 106 of the header 32, and a second height sensor 118 may be provided at or adjacent to the second lateral end 108 of the header 32. In some embodiments, a third height sensor 119 may be provided at or adjacent the center 110 of the header 32.” (Seiders, Column 6 Lines 22-27).
determining, with the computing system, a pose of the distance sensor based on the pose data;
Seiders discloses “In other embodiments, multiple inclination sensors 70 can be configured to detect the local inclination 66” (Seiders, Column 8 Lines 1-2) and “Thus, the respective distances between the multiple inclination sensors 70 and distinct locations on the ground surface 19 can be used to determine the local inclination 66.” (Seiders, Column 8 Lines 19-23).
determining, with the computing system, a compensation value for adjusting the measured distance based on the pose of the distance sensor
Seiders discloses “Referring to FIG. 4, the method 300 may include, at (302), monitoring a height of the implement (e.g., header 32) relative to the ground surface 19.” (Seiders, Column 10 Lines 1-3).
calculating, with the computing system, a compensated distance value as a function of the measured distance and the compensation value; and
Seiders discloses “The implement height error can be determined by comparing the height of the implement with a predetermined target height.” (Seiders, Column 10 Lines 24-26).
controlling, with the computing system, an operation of the actuator based at least in part on the compensated distance value to adjust the vertical height of the at least a portion of the harvesting implement relative to the ground surface.
Seiders discloses “The method 300 may include, at (310), adjusting the height of the implement 33 relative to the ground surface 19 based on the output signal, which can include the derivative signal (e.g., as described above with equation 1). The controller 202 may adjust one or more of the control valve(s) 218 to raise and lower the header 32 relative to the ground 19 using one or more of the actuator(s) 220, such as the height control cylinder 101 and/or the tilt cylinders 102, 104.” (Column 11 Lines 18-25).
Regarding Claim 12:
The method of claim 11, further comprising generating an estimated ground profile of the ground surface based at least in part on the compensated distance value.
Seiders discloses “The local inclination can be determined based on signals received from one or more inclination sensors that are configured to sense the local inclination of the ground surface. For example, the local inclination can be sensed at a portion of the ground surface that is at least partially forward of a location at which the implement height is detected and/or aft of a leading edge of the implement. The local inclination can be detected for a portion of the ground surface that is at least partially beneath the implement.” (Seiders, Column 3 Lines 35-44).
Regarding Claim 13:
The method of claim 12, wherein controlling the operation of the actuator comprises controlling the operation of the actuator based at least in part on the estimated ground profile of the ground surface.
Seiders discloses “A PD or PID loop employing a derivative signal calculated based on the local inclination as described herein can provide improved system response. For example, the system can anticipate upcoming variations in the ground surface and thus provide smoother (e.g., reduced jitter or jerk) and/or more accurate control of the implement height.” (Seiders, Column 3 Lines 49-54).
Regarding Claim 14:
The method of claim 12, further comprising determining a target height setting for the harvesting implement based at least in part on the estimated ground profile.
Seiders discloses “A local inclination 66 of the ground surface 19 can be defined as an angle of the ground surface 19 with respect to the work vehicle 10.” (Seiders, Column 5 Lines 12-14).
Regarding Claim 15:
The method of claim 14, further comprising generating at least one control output for controlling the operation of the actuator based at least in part on the target height setting for the harvesting implement.
Seiders discloses “Moreover, in several embodiments, the harvester 10 may also include a hydraulic system 100 which is configured to adjust a height of the header 32 relative to the around 19 so as to maintain the desired cutting height between the header 32 and the ground 19.” (Seiders, Column 4 Lines 60-64).
Regarding Claim 16:
The method of claim 14, further comprising estimating a current vertical height of the harvesting implement relative to the ground surface, wherein generating the at least one control output comprises calculating the at least one control output as a function of a height error between the current vertical height of the harvesting implement relative to the ground surface and the target height setting for the harvesting implement.
Seiders discloses “Referring to FIG. 4, the method 300 may include, at (302), monitoring a height of the implement (e.g., header 32) relative to the ground surface 19.” (Seiders, Column 10 Lines 1-3) and “The method 300 may include, at (304), determining a proportional signal by comparing the height of the implement with a predetermined target height.” (Seiders, Column 10 Lines 10-12).
Regarding Claim 18:
The method of claim 11, wherein receiving the pose data comprises receiving the pose data from first and second pose measurement devices supported by the harvesting implement at a location at or adjacent to the distance sensor.
Seiders discloses “In other embodiments, multiple inclination sensors 70 can be configured to detect the local inclination 66. The multiple inclination sensors 70 can generally be aligned in the direction of travel 21 such that the first and second distances 124,” (Seiders, Column 8 Lines 1-5).
Regarding Claim 19:
The method of claim 11, wherein the distance sensor comprises a non-contact sensor.
Seiders discloses “Additionally or alternatively, one or more of the height sensor(s) 68 can be configured to detect the height of the header 32 without physically contacting the ground surface 19.” (Seiders, Column 5 Lines 37-40).
Regarding Claim 20:
The method of claim 11, wherein controlling the operation of the actuator comprises controlling at least one of a height actuator configured to adjust a vertical position of the harvesting implement relative to the ground surface or a tilt actuator configured to adjust a tilt of the harvesting implement relative to the ground surface.
Seiders discloses “Moreover, in several embodiments, the harvester 10 may also include a hydraulic system 100 which is configured to adjust a height of the header 32 relative to the around 19 so as to maintain the desired cutting height between the header 32 and the ground 19.” (Seiders, Column 4 Lines 60-64).
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.
Claims 7, 9, and 17 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiders (US 11659785 B) in view of Vandike, et. al. (US 20220110236 A1), hereinafter referred to as Vandike.
Regarding Claim 7:
The system of claim 2, wherein the estimated ground profile comprises one of a plurality of estimated ground profile sections generated by the computing system, the computing system being further configured to generate a terrain map based on the plurality of estimated ground profile sections.
Although Seiders discloses “A PD or PID loop employing a derivative signal calculated based on the local inclination as described herein can provide improved system response. For example, the system can anticipate upcoming variations in the ground surface and thus provide smoother (e.g., reduced jitter or jerk) and/or more accurate control of the implement height.” (Seiders, Column 3 Lines 49-54), Seiders does not disclose the usage of this incoming data to generate a terrain map.
Vandike however, discloses “The in-situ sensors 208 generate values corresponding to the sensed characteristics. The agricultural harvester 100 also includes a predictive model or relationship generator (collectively referred to hereinafter as “predictive model generator 210”), predictive map generator 212, control zone generator 213, control system 214, one or more controllable subsystems 216, and an operator interface mechanism 218. The agricultural harvester 100 can also include a wide variety of other agricultural harvester functionality 220. The in-situ sensors 208 include, for example, on-board sensors 222, remote sensors 224, and other sensors 226 that sense characteristics of a field during the course of an agricultural operation.” (Vandike, [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the “local inclination” measurements with the map generation of Vandike because “The functional predictive machine map, generated during the harvesting operation, can be used in automatically controlling a harvester during the harvesting operation.” (Vandike, [0027]).
Regarding Claim 9:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first pose measurement device comprises a satellite-based positioning device and the second pose measurement device comprises an inertial measurement unit.
Although Seiders discloses “The inclination sensor(s) 70 can include a variety of sensor types and configurations. For example, the inclination sensor(s) 70 can include an electric eye sensor, infrared, ultrasonic, radar, laser, maser (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation), or any other suitable type of optical or non-optical distance and/or proximity sensors.” (Seiders, Column 6 Lines 49-54), Seiders does not disclose the specific usage of a “satellite-based positioning device” or an “inertial measurement unit”.
However, Vandike discloses “In-situ sensors 208 may be any of the sensors described above with respect to FIG. 1. In-situ sensors 208 include on-board sensors 222 that are mounted on-board agricultural harvester 100. Such sensors may include, for instance, a speed sensor (e.g., a GPS, speedometer, or compass)” (Vandike, [0048]) and “Examples of sensors used to detect or sense a pitch or roll of agricultural harvester 100 include accelerometers, gyroscopes, inertial measurement units, gravimetric sensors, magnetometers, etc. These sensors can also be indicative of the slope of the terrain that agricultural harvester 100 is currently on.” (Vandike, [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of “pose measurement devices” of Seiders with the “satellite-based positioning device” and the “inertial measurement unit” of Vandike because the usage of these types of sensors are simply “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 17:
The method of claim 12, wherein the estimated ground profile comprises one of a plurality of estimated ground profile sections generated by the computing system, further comprising generating a terrain map based on the plurality of estimated ground profile sections.
Although Seiders discloses “A PD or PID loop employing a derivative signal calculated based on the local inclination as described herein can provide improved system response. For example, the system can anticipate upcoming variations in the ground surface and thus provide smoother (e.g., reduced jitter or jerk) and/or more accurate control of the implement height.” (Seiders, Column 3 Lines 49-54), Seiders does not disclose the usage of this incoming data to generate a terrain map.
Vandike however, discloses “The in-situ sensors 208 generate values corresponding to the sensed characteristics. The agricultural harvester 100 also includes a predictive model or relationship generator (collectively referred to hereinafter as “predictive model generator 210”), predictive map generator 212, control zone generator 213, control system 214, one or more controllable subsystems 216, and an operator interface mechanism 218. The agricultural harvester 100 can also include a wide variety of other agricultural harvester functionality 220. The in-situ sensors 208 include, for example, on-board sensors 222, remote sensors 224, and other sensors 226 that sense characteristics of a field during the course of an agricultural operation.” (Vandike, [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the “local inclination” measurements with the map generation of Vandike because “The functional predictive machine map, generated during the harvesting operation, can be used in automatically controlling a harvester during the harvesting operation.” (Vandike, [0027]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schnaider, et. al. (US 20210329837 A1)
Schnaider discloses a system automatically of raising and lowering a harvesting implement, however, does not teach “a distance sensor... configured to generate distance data indicative of a distance from the distance sensor to a location on the ground surface positioned forward of the harvesting implement”, and was therefore not used as prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES B CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday | 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/J.B.C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656