DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
2. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 02/23/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
5. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/25/2022 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
6. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all of part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Response to Arguments
7. Regarding 103 rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that the amended limitations are not taught by prior art. Examiner agrees and brings forth a new reference, Anderson (US 20150177736), in which a new rejection can be found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “a cutting width of a header assembly of the agricultural harvester” in claim 17 renders the claim indefinite. Is the speed changing based on an adjustment of a cutting width of a header assembly? The specification is not clear how the speed of the agricultural harvester is changed by adjusting a configuration of the agricultural harvester related to a cutting width of a header assembly of the agricultural harvester.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 non-obviousness.
11. Claims 1, 3-5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leenknegt (US 20210378176) in view of McClelland (US 20190268417) in further view of Anderson (US 20150177736).
Regarding Claim 1, Leenknegt discloses receive crop flow sensor output data from a plurality of on-board harvester sensors; (Leenknegt, see at least [0027] wherein crop sensor output data is received from a pluralrity of on-board harvest sensors.)
determining a current value of each of one or more harvesting performance parameters depending on the received crop flow sensor output data; (Leenknegt, see at least [0026] “determining a current value of each of the plurality of quality parameters in dependence on the received crop sensor output data”)
generating an output signal depending on the determined ground speed. (Leenknegt, see at least [0058] the controller 28 outputs a control signal to increase the throughput by controlling the ground speed of the combine 20.)
controlling a ground speed of the agricultural harvester based on the generated output signal in accordance with the determined ground speed for the agricultural harvester. (Leenknegt, see at least [0011], [0064] “the controller 28 sends a signal to control the combine 20 to stop increasing its ground speed and instead to maintain a constant ground speed.”)
Leenknegt does not explicitly disclose A controller of an agricultural harvester in a fleet of agricultural harvesters, the controller configured to:
receiving fleet data indicative of one or more operational parameters of at least one further agricultural harvester in the fleet;
However, McClelland in which is directed to a control system for coordinating communication between agricultural vehicles to facilitate coordination further discloses A controller for an agricultural harvester in a fleet of agricultural harvesters, the controller configured to: (McClelland, see at least [0014] “a base station controller may coordinate the operations of the agricultural vehicles to accomplish any number of suitable tasks.”)
receiving fleet data indicative of one or more operational parameters of at least one further agricultural harvester in the fleet; (McClelland, see at least [0019] Fig. 6 in which showcases data from different agricultural harvesters being shared to other agricultural vehicles in which the data consists of positions and their current capabilities such harvester, graincart, etc.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Leenknegt with the teachings of McClelland to include the capability of utilizing more than one agricultural vehicle to work together as a team. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle platoon and ensure that the work that needs to be completed is done in a timely manner as more than one agricultural vehicle is working on the field simultaneously.
Modified Leenknegt does not explicitly disclose determining a ground speed of the agricultural harvester that maximizes harvesting performance of the fleet, the determined ground speed depending on the current value of the one or more harvesting performance parameters relative to respective target values and the received fleet data;
However, Anderson in which is directed to a method for machine coordination in which facilitates operation of autonomous equipment in which further discloses determining a ground speed of the agricultural harvester that maximizes harvesting performance of the fleet, the determined ground speed depending on the current value of the one or more harvesting performance parameters relative to respective target values and the received fleet data; (Anderson, see at least [0045] wherein vehicle 206 may adjust its speed based upon the detection range available. Vehicle 206 and vehicle 200, as shown in Figs. 2A and 2B, are working in different areas of the same worksite. The vehicles may adjust their speed based on shared sensor data. Also see [0084] wherein groups of vehicles may be working on the field together and have goals such as not skipping any crop for harvesting, perform efficiently with minimum overlap between passes, and perform efficiently with optimal coordination between vehicles.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Leenknegt with the teachings of Anderson to include the capability of utilizing more than one agricultural vehicle to work together as a team and adjusting vehicle speeds to ensure vehicles are performing efficiently. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle platoon and ensure that the work that needs to be completed is done in a timely manner as more than one agricultural vehicle is working on the field simultaneously.
Regarding Claim 3, Leenknegt in view of McClelland in further view of Anderson discloses The controller according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
McClelland further discloses wherein the output signal includes a fleet notification signal transmitted to the at least one further agricultural harvester. (McClelland, see at least [0032] wherein role of the agricultural vehicle relative to other agricultural vehicles in a network/team may be presented to an agricultural vehicle)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Leenknegt with the teachings of McClelland to include the capability of utilizing more than one agricultural vehicle to work together as a team. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle platoon and ensure that the work that needs to be completed is done in a timely manner as more than one agricultural vehicle is working on the field simultaneously.
Regarding Claim 4 Leenknegt in view of McClelland in further view of Anderson discloses The controller according to claim 3, wherein the controller
McClelland further discloses receives a fleet response signal from the at least one further agricultural harvester, the fleet response signal including information on control actions taken by the at least one further agricultural harvester in response to the transmitted fleet notification signal. (McClelland, see at least [0022-0028] wherein the first agricultural vehicle is the team leader, and after creating the team, the agricultural vehicle control system is configured to compare the orientation of the first agricultural vehicle to the orientation of the second agricultural vehicle, and coordinate operations between the first and second agricultural vehicles.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Leenknegt with the teachings of McClelland to include the capability of utilizing more than one agricultural vehicle to work together as a team. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle platoon and ensure that the work that needs to be completed is done in a timely manner as more than one agricultural vehicle is working on the field simultaneously.
Regarding Claim 5, Leenknegt in view of McClelland in further view of Anderson discloses The controller according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
Leenknegt further discloses wherein the output signal includes an operator notification signal transmitted to an operator interface of the agricultural harvester. (Leenknegt, see at least [0027] “The method may comprise sending a signal to the operator-input device to output the target values and the current values of the plurality of quality parameters.”)
Regarding Claim 12, Leenknegt in view of McClelland in further view of Anderson discloses The controller according to claim 1, wherein the one or more operational parameters includes (see rejection above)
Leenknegt further discloses a ground speed parameter of the at least one further agricultural harvester in the fleet relative to that of the agricultural harvester; and wherein the controller determines the ground speed based on the ground speed parameter. (Leenknegt, see at least [0012] “The processor may be configured to determine the ground speed setting so that the throughput of the agricultural harvester remains substantially constant, with each of the plurality of current values differing by less than the acceptable amount from the associated target value, for a given amount of time, or a given distance of travel of the agricultural harvester, prior to the ground speed setting being determined so that the throughput increases.”)
Regarding Claim 13, Leenknegt in view of McClelland in further view of Anderson discloses The controller according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
McClelland further discloses wherein the one or more operational parameters comprises an orientation parameter of the at least one further agricultural harvester; and wherein the controller determines the ground speed based on the fleet data associated with the at least one further agricultural harvester if the orientation is the same as that of the agricultural harvester. (McClelland, see at least [0022-0028] wherein the first agricultural vehicle is the team leader, and after creating the team, the agricultural vehicle control system is configured to compare the orientation of the first agricultural vehicle to the orientation of the second agricultural vehicle, and coordinate operations between the first and second agricultural vehicles. The automated steering and automated speed control system fort he vehicles are controlled based on the spatial locating device, so that the vehicles may work together as a team.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Leenknegt with the teachings of McClelland to include the capability of utilizing more than one agricultural vehicle to work together as a team by utilizing their coordinate operations and comparing the orientations to determine steering and speed controls so that the vehicles may work together. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle platoon and ensure that the work that needs to be completed is done in a timely manner as more than one agricultural vehicle is working on the field simultaneously.
Regarding Claim 14, Leenknegt in view of McClelland in further view of Anderson discloses An agricultural harvester comprising a controller according to claim 1. (Leenknegt, see at least [Abstract] “A controller for controlling a harvesting performance of an agricultural harvester.”)
As per claim 15, the claim is directed towards a method for an agricultural harvester in a fleet of agricultural harvesters that recites similar limitations performed by the controller for an agricultural harvester in a fleet of agricultural harvesters of claim 1. The cited portions of Leenknegt and McClelland and Anderson used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Regarding Claim 16, Leenknegt in view of McClelland in further view of Anderson discloses The controller according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
Leenknegt further discloses wherein the one or more harvesting performance parameters comprises crop throughput, crop loss, and quality. (Leenknegt, see at least [0004] and [0052] “automated process should follow when harvesting, the options in the present embodiment being ‘maximum throughput’, ‘best grain quality’, ‘limited loss’ and ‘fixed throughput’.”)
Regarding Claim 17, Leenknegt in view of McClelland in further view of Anderson discloses The controller according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
Leenknegt further discloses wherein the ground speed of the agricultural harvester is changed by adjusting a configuration of the agricultural harvester related to a cutting width of a header assembly of the agricultural harvester. (Leenknegt, see at least [0063] and [0064] “The current value of the cleaning losses quality parameter is now at an unacceptable level and so the controller 28 acts to rectify this to get it back to an acceptable level. Firstly, at step 74 the controller 28 sends a signal to control the combine 20 to stop increasing its ground speed and instead to maintain a constant ground speed. This ensures that the crop throughput does not increase further.”)
Regarding Claim 18, Leenknegt in view of McClelland in further view of Anderson discloses The controller according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
Leenknegt further discloses wherein the ground speed of the agricultural harvester does not correspond to maximizing a harvesting performance of the agricultural harvester. (Leenknegt, see at least [0053] “The operator selects a maximum ground speed 96 that the combine 20 may reach during automated harvesting: for certain crop types, e.g. corn and canola, operating above a certain ground speed can result in feeder or header issues.”)
Regarding Claim 19, Leenknegt in view of McClelland in further view of Anderson discloses The agricultural harvester according to claim 14, (see rejection above)
McClelland further discloses wherein the agricultural harvester is being operated in formation as part of the fleet. (McClelland, see at least [0004] wherein the method enables communication between a plurality of agricultural vehicles.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Leenknegt with the teachings of McClelland to include the capability of utilizing more than one agricultural vehicle to work together as a team and ensuring there is a distance between the vehicles to eliminate the possibility of interference between more than one vehicle. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle platoon and ensure that the work that needs to be completed is done in a timely manner as more than one agricultural vehicle is working on the field simultaneously.
Regarding Claim 20, Leenknegt in view of McClelland in further view of Anderson discloses The agricultural harvester according to claim 18, (see rejection above)
Leenknegt further discloses wherein the agricultural harvester is being operated pursuant to an automation control algorithm. (Leenknegt, see at least Fig. 4 in which discloses a process of a method performed by the controller of Fig. 2)
12. Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leenknegt (US 20210378176) in view of McClelland (US 20190268417) in further view of Anderson (US 20150177736) in an even further view of Bang (US 20210110720).
Regarding Claim 6, Leenknegt in view of McClelland in further view of Anderson discloses The controller according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
McClelland further discloses wherein the one or more operational parameters includes a position parameter of the at least one further agricultural harvester in the fleet relative to the agricultural harvester; (McClelland, see at least [0019] wherein data communicated between the agricultural vehicles may include the position of each agricultural vehicle)
and wherein the controller determines a current distance relative to a (McClelland, see at least [0019] wherein the agricultural vehicles may use the position information to maintain a distance from other agricultural vehicles to substantially reduce or eliminate the possibility of interference with the other agricultural vehicles. Also see at least Fig. 6 in which showcases element 306 in which showcases the distance from the current agricultural vehicle to another agricultural vehicle and the direction)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Leenknegt with the teachings of McClelland to include the capability of utilizing more than one agricultural vehicle to work together as a team and ensuring there is a distance between the vehicles to eliminate the possibility of interference between more than one vehicle. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle platoon and ensure that the work that needs to be completed is done in a timely manner as more than one agricultural vehicle is working on the field simultaneously.
Modified Leenknegt does not explicitly disclose a threshold distance
However, Bang discloses a threshold distance (Bang, see at least [0020-0021] wherein the processor may determine whether a distance between a first and second vehicle is greater or less than a predetermined threshold distance.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Leenknegt with the teachings of Bang to include the capability of utilizing a threshold distance to determine if the distance between two vehicles is greater or less than a predetermined threshold. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicles within a fleet and that the vehicles on the field are capable of working simultaneously without interfering with one another to further improve safety.
13. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leenknegt (US 20210378176) in view of McClelland (US 20190268417) in further view of Anderson (US 20150177736) in an even further view of Bang (US 20210110720) in even furthest view of XU (US 20210303001).
Regarding Claim 7, Leenknegt in view of McClelland in further view of Anderson in an even further view of Bang discloses The controller according to claim 6, (see rejection above)
Modified Leenknegt does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller determines the ground speed such that the current distance does not breach the threshold distance.
However, XU discloses wherein the controller determines the ground speed such that the current distance does not breach the threshold distance. (XU, see at least [0027-0028] wherein the speed of a vehicle can be controlled based on a received distance in order to maintain the distance between vehicles.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Leenknegt with the teachings of XU to include the capability of determining a current distance of a harvester and the distances between more than one agricultural harvester to adjust the speed of the vehicle to increase the inter-vehicle distance when the vehicles are close together. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle platoon and ensure the safety of the vehicles as they work simultaneously.
Regarding Claim 8, Leenknegt in view of McClelland in further view of Anderson in an even further view of Bang discloses The controller according to claim 6, (see rejection above)
Modified Leenknegt does not explicitly disclose wherein when the current distance will not breach the threshold distance the output signal controls the agricultural harvester to operate in accordance with the determined ground speed.
However, XU discloses wherein when the current distance will not breach the threshold distance the output signal controls the agricultural harvester to operate in accordance with the determined ground speed. (XU, see at least [0027-0028] wherein the speed of a vehicle can be controlled based on a received distance in order to maintain the determined distance between vehicles.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Leenknegt with the teachings of XU to include the capability of determining a current distance of a harvester and the distances between more than one agricultural harvester to adjust the speed of the vehicle to increase the inter-vehicle distance when the vehicles are close together. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle platoon and ensure the safety of the vehicles as they work simultaneously.
Regarding Claim 9, Leenknegt in view of McClelland in further view of Anderson in an even further view of Bang discloses The controller according to claim 8, wherein (see rejection above)
Modified Leenknegt does not explicitly disclose when the current distance will breach the threshold distance, determine an adjustment to the ground speed based on the current distance, and wherein the output signal controls the agricultural harvester to operate in accordance with adjusted ground speed.
However, XU discloses when the current distance breaches the threshold distance, the controller determines an adjustment to the ground speed based on the current distance, and wherein the output signal controls the agricultural harvester to operate in accordance with adjusted ground speed. (XU, see at least [0064-0067] wherein the vehicle can adjust the speed in order to increase an inter-vehicle distance based on the vehicle’s reported distance and location information.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Leenknegt with the teachings of XU to include the capability of determining a current distance of a harvester and the distances between more than one agricultural harvester to adjust the speed of the vehicle to increase the inter-vehicle distance when the vehicles are close together. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle platoon and ensure the safety of the vehicles as they work simultaneously.
Regarding Claim 10, Leenknegt in view of McClelland in further view of Anderson in an even further view of Bang discloses The controller according to claim 6, (see rejection above)
McClelland further discloses wherein the fleet data comprises a positional parameter from each of a plurality of further agricultural harvesters in the fleet; (McClelland, see at least [0032] wherein role of the agricultural vehicle relative to other agricultural vehicles in a network/team may be presented to an agricultural vehicle)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Leenknegt with the teachings of McClelland to include the capability of utilizing more than one agricultural vehicle to work together as a team. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle platoon and ensure that the work that needs to be completed is done in a timely manner as more than one agricultural vehicle is working on the field simultaneously.
Modified Leenknegt does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller determines a current distance in a direction of harvester operation between each of the plurality of further agricultural harvesters and the agricultural harvester depending on the received positional parameters; and wherein the controller is configured to determine the ground speed depending on the fleet data corresponding to the further agricultural harvester having a smallest current distance to the agricultural harvester.
However, XU discloses wherein the controller determines a current distance in a direction of harvester operation between each of the plurality of further agricultural harvesters and the agricultural harvester depending on the received positional parameters; and wherein the controller is configured to determine the ground speed depending on the fleet data corresponding to the further agricultural harvester having a smallest current distance to the agricultural harvester. (XU, see at least [0064-0067] wherein the vehicle can adjust the speed in order to increase an inter-vehicle distance based on the vehicle’s reported distance and location information.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Leenknegt with the teachings of XU to include the capability of determining a current distance of a harvester and the distances between more than one agricultural harvester to adjust the speed of the vehicle to increase the inter-vehicle distance when the vehicles are close together. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle platoon and ensure the safety of the vehicles as they work simultaneously.
14. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leenknegt (US 20210378176) in view of McClelland (US 20190268417) in further view of Anderson (US 20150177736) in an even further view of Bang (US 20210110720) in an even furthest view of Sujan (US 20200387167).
Regarding Claim 11, Leenknegt in view of McClelland in further view of Anderson in an even further view of Bang discloses The controller according to claim 6, wherein the controller (see rejection above)
Modified Leenknegt does not explicitly disclose receives visibility or meteorological data indicative of operator visibility or meteorological conditions in a vicinity of the agricultural harvester, and to adjust a value of the threshold distance depending on the received visibility or meteorological data.
However, Sujan discloses receives visibility or meteorological data indicative of operator visibility or meteorological conditions in a vicinity of the agricultural harvester, and to adjust a value of the threshold distance depending on the received visibility or meteorological data. (Sujan, see at least [0048] wherein the road-grade information or other information pertaining to the conditions over a look-ahead horizon for a vehicle is utilized to execute a control process in which adjusts vehicle speed and following distance)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Leenknegt with the teachings of Sujan to include the capability of determining visibility data indicative of what is on the horizon of the vehicle to adjust the vehicle’s speed and following distance. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle platoon and ensure the safety of the vehicle to protect the vehicle from conditions on the road.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200163277 – The system has a harvesting implement defining a longitudinal axis extending between a forward end of the harvesting implement and an aft end of the harvesting implement. The harvesting implement is configured to be coupled to the agricultural harvester in a manner that permits a fore/aft tilt angle defined between the longitudinal axis of the harvesting implement and a field surface, to be adjusted.
US 10109024 B2– A method begins by a drive unit affiliated with farm equipment receiving data from the farm equipment to produce agricultural data. The method continues with the drive unit determining a filtering constraint based on one or more parameters selected from a plurality of lists of agricultural parameters and filtering the agricultural data based on the filtering constraint to produce filtered agricultural data. The method continues with the drive unit determining processing of the filtered agricultural data and executing the processing of the filtered agricultural data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights