DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on 05/28/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1, 8, 12, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 7, 13, and 20 have been canceled.
Claims 21-23 have been newly added.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-19, and 21-23 are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 102 rejection: Applicant argues that McKinnis, JR fails to teach the claimed feature of "wherein the controller is configured to automatically adjust the desired operating speed as part of the response", recited in claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is reminded that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The limitation merely recites that the desired operating speed, of the belt, see previous limitations of claim 1, is automatically changed (adjusted) based on a provided input (response). With that being said, Examiner would like to point to paragraph [0062] of the McKinnis, JR reference where it states that “the controller 180 automatically adjusts the belt 170 speed to match the input belt speed. In some embodiments, the controller 180 can adjust the belt 170 speed if there is any difference between the desired and measured belt 170 speeds”. This indicates that the controller will automatically adjust the belt speed based on the desired belt speed. Therefore, McKinnis, JR does teach "wherein the controller is configured to automatically adjust the desired operating speed as part of the response" and as such meets the scope of the claimed subject matter. Applicant argues that McKinnis, JR fails to teach the claimed feature of "wherein the automatic response is one or more of modifying a header speed, reducing a vehicle speed, and adjusting a roll gap" and "wherein the operating conditions comprise a header speed, a vehicle speed, and a roll gap and the automatic response comprises modifying one or more of the operating conditions", recited in claims 12 and 19. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is reminded that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The limitations merely recite that the one of the following header speed, reducing vehicle speed, or adjusting a roll gap is adjusted (modified) based on the response (input). With that being said, Examiner would like to point to paragraph [0062] of the McKinnis, JR reference where it states that “the controller 180 automatically adjusts the belt 170 speed to match the input belt speed” and “if the belt 170 speed is measured to be about 5% less or about 5% greater than the set desired speed, the controller 180 can automatically adjust the belt 170 speed to match the input belt speed”. Also, paragraph [0047] where it states that “the harvester can include a system that monitors and regulates/adjusts the speed of both the header and crop merger system belts based on the input belt speeds by the operator in a synchronized or substantially synchronized manner”. This indicates that both the belt speed AND the speed of the header will be adjusted (modified) based on the input (response) the operator gave. Once the operator has given an input, the controller will automatically adjust the belt speed to the desired belt speed and the speed of the header based on the system and controller monitoring the belt speed. Therefore, McKinnis, JR does teach "wherein the automatic response is one or more of modifying a header speed, reducing a vehicle speed, and adjusting a roll gap" and "wherein the operating conditions comprise a header speed, a vehicle speed, and a roll gap and the automatic response comprises modifying one or more of the operating conditions" and as such meets the scope of the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 8, 12, 15-16, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McKinnis, JR. et al. (USPGPub 2019/0327897). As per claim 1, McKinnis, JR. discloses a system for controlling an agricultural machine, comprising: a merger belt assembly comprising a merger belt (see at least Figure 1; item 104); a controller configure to selectively control the merger belt assembly (see at least paragraph 0045; wherein one or more controllers associated with the crop merger system); and a user input configured to provide a desired belt speed command to the controller indicating a desired operating speed of the merger belt (see at least paragraph 0053; wherein the GUI 116 can be configured to receive input from the operator (e.g., the desired crop merger belt speed) for operating the harvester 100 and the crop merger system 104); wherein the controller is configured to provide instructions to the merger belt assembly of the agricultural machine to operate the merger belt at the desired operating speed (see at least paragraph 0061; wherein the controller 180 is electronically coupled to the GUI 116 at which the desired speed of the belt 170 has been input by the operator of the harvester 100); wherein the controller is configured to monitor an actual merger belt speed of the merger belt assembly and provide a response when the actual merger belt speed is outside of a desired operating speed threshold established by the desired belt speed command (see at least paragraph 0062; wherein the controller 180 can adjust the belt 170 speed if the difference between the desired and measured belt 170 speeds is above a predetermined threshold); wherein the controller is configured to automatically adjust the desired operating speed as part of the response (see at least paragraph 0062; wherein the controller 180 automatically adjusts the belt 170 speed to match the input belt speed. In some embodiments, the controller 180 can adjust the belt 170 speed if there is any difference between the desired and measured belt 170 speeds). As per claim 2, McKinnis, JR. discloses wherein the controller is configured to provide one or more of decreasing a header speed, increasing a merger belt speed, reducing a vehicle speed, and adjusting a roll gap as the response (see at least paragraph 0062; wherein if the belt 170 speed is measured to be about 5% less or about 5% greater than the set desired speed, the controller 180 can automatically adjust the belt 170 speed to match the input belt speed).
As per claim 3, McKinnis, JR. discloses wherein the controller is configured to automatically execute the response (see at least paragraph 0062; wherein the controller 180 automatically adjusts the belt 170 speed to match the input belt speed). As per claim 8, McKinnis, JR. discloses wherein the controller is configured to automatically adjust the desired operating speed based on operating conditions of the agricultural machine (see at least paragraph 0062; wherein the controller 180 automatically adjusts the belt 170 speed to match the input belt speed). As per claim 12, McKinnis, JR. discloses a method for managing a merger belt speed of a merger belt assembly on an agricultural machine, the method comprising: evaluating operating conditions of the agricultural machine with a controller (see at least paragraph 0061; wherein the sensors 176, 178 can monitor and detect the rotational speed of the belt 170 in substantially real-time, and electronically transmit signals corresponding with the detected rotational speed of the belt 170 to the controller 180); determining a desired belt speed of a belt of the merger belt assembly with the controller based on the operating conditions (see at least paragraph 0053; wherein the GUI 116 can be configured to receive input from the operator (e.g., the desired crop merger belt speed) for operating the harvester 100 and the crop merger system 104); instructing the merger belt assembly to operate the belt at the desired belt speed with the controller (see at least paragraph 0061; wherein the controller 180 is electronically coupled to the GUI 116 at which the desired speed of the belt 170 has been input by the operator of the harvester 100); monitoring an actual belt speed of the belt of the merger belt assembly with the controller through a sensor (see at least paragraph 0061; wherein the controller 180 can determine the rotational speed of the belt 170…the sensors 176, 178 can monitor and detect the rotational speed of the belt 170 in substantially real-time); identifying when the actual belt speed is not within a threshold established by the desired belt speed with the controller (see at least paragraph 0062; wherein the controller 180 can adjust the belt 170 speed if the difference between the desired and measured belt 170 speeds is above a predetermined threshold); and generating an automatic response on the agricultural machine with the controller when the desired belt speed is not within the threshold (see at least paragraph 0062; wherein the controller 180 can adjust the belt 170 speed if the difference between the desired and measured belt 170 speeds is above a predetermined threshold); wherein the automatic response is one or more of modifying a header speed, reducing a vehicle speed, and adjusting a roll gap (see at least paragraph 0062; wherein the controller 180 automatically adjusts the belt 170 speed to match the input belt speed…if the belt 170 speed is measured to be about 5% less or about 5% greater than the set desired speed, the controller 180 can automatically adjust the belt 170 speed to match the input belt speed…see at least paragraph 0047; wherein the harvester can include a system that monitors and regulates/adjusts the speed of both the header and crop merger system belts based on the input belt speeds by the operator in a synchronized or substantially synchronized manner). As per claim 15, McKinnis, JR. discloses wherein evaluating the operating conditions comprises considering at least one input provided from a user input configured to identify a desired speed of the belt of the merger belt assembly (see at least paragraph 0053; wherein the GUI 116 can be configured to receive input from the operator (e.g., the desired crop merger belt speed) for operating the harvester 100 and the crop merger system 104). As per claim 16, McKinnis, JR. discloses wherein the desired belt speed is a user-selected belt speed selected by a user through a user-interface (see at least paragraph 0053; wherein the GUI 116 can be configured to receive input from the operator (e.g., the desired crop merger belt speed) for operating the harvester 100 and the crop merger system 104). As per claim 19, McKinnis, JR. discloses a method for controlling a merger belt assembly of an agricultural machine, comprising: monitoring operating conditions of the agricultural machine with a controller (see at least paragraph 0061; wherein the controller 180 can determine the rotational speed of the belt 170…the sensors 176, 178 can monitor and detect the rotational speed of the belt 170 in substantially real-time); setting a desired belt speed of a merger belt of the merger belt assembly based on the operating conditions (see at least paragraph 0046; wherein the crop merger system compares the estimated or measured speed (or range of speeds) of the crop merger belt with the desired speed of the belt set by the operator); comparing an actual belt speed of the merger belt assembly with the desired belt speed (see at least paragraph 0062; wherein the controller 180 can adjust the belt 170 speed if the difference between the desired and measured belt 170 speeds is above a predetermined threshold); and providing an automatic response when the actual belt speed is outside of a belt speed threshold established by the desired belt speed (see at least paragraph 0062; wherein the controller 180 automatically adjusts the belt 170 speed to match the input belt speed); wherein the operating conditions comprise a header speed, a vehicle speed, and a roll gap and the automatic response comprises modifying one or more of the operating conditions (see at least paragraph 0062; wherein the controller 180 automatically adjusts the belt 170 speed to match the input belt speed…if the belt 170 speed is measured to be about 5% less or about 5% greater than the set desired speed, the controller 180 can automatically adjust the belt 170 speed to match the input belt speed…see at least paragraph 0047; wherein the harvester can include a system that monitors and regulates/adjusts the speed of both the header and crop merger system belts based on the input belt speeds by the operator in a synchronized or substantially synchronized manner). As per claim 21, McKinnis, JR. discloses wherein the desired belt speed is an adjusted belt speed based on a user-selected belt speed selected by a user through a user-interface and the operating conditions, wherein the adjusted belt speed is different from the user-selected belt speed (see at least paragraph 0062; wherein the controller 180 automatically adjusts the belt 170 speed to match the input belt speed…if the belt 170 speed is measured to be about 5% less or about 5% greater than the set desired speed, the controller 180 can automatically adjust the belt 170 speed to match the input belt speed…see at least paragraph 0047; wherein the harvester can include a system that monitors and regulates/adjusts the speed of both the header and crop merger system belts based on the input belt speeds by the operator in a synchronized or substantially synchronized manner).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 4-5 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinnis, JR. et al. (USPGPub 2019/0327897) in view of Bezanilla et al. (USPGPub 2025/0214783). As per claim 4, McKinnis, JR. does not explicitly mention wherein the controller is configured to provide a recommended belt speed to a user via a display. However Bezanilla does disclose: wherein the controller is configured to provide a recommended belt speed to a user via a display (see at least paragraph 0048; wherein the UI may include an interface element for monitoring and adjusting the speed of the conveyor belt 120. The UI may also display the recommended belt speed for various weights or types of items being transported). Therefore 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 Bezanilla with the teachings as in McKinnis, JR. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the safe transportation of items, see Bezanilla paragraph 0011. As per claim 5, Bezanilla discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine the recommended belt speed based on operating conditions of the agricultural machine (see at least paragraph 0048; wherein the UI may include an interface element for monitoring and adjusting the speed of the conveyor belt 120. The UI may also display the recommended belt speed for various weights or types of items being transported). As per claim 17, McKinnis, JR. does not explicitly mention wherein the user-selected belt speed is a recommended belt speed generated by the controller based on operating conditions. However Bezanilla does disclose: wherein the user-selected belt speed is a recommended belt speed generated by the controller based on operating conditions (see at least paragraph 0048; wherein the UI may include an interface element for monitoring and adjusting the speed of the conveyor belt 120. The UI may also display the recommended belt speed for various weights or types of items being transported). Therefore 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 Bezanilla with the teachings as in McKinnis, JR. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the safe transportation of items, see Bezanilla paragraph 0011. As per claim 18, McKinnis, JR. does not explicitly mention wherein the automatic response is to shut down the merger belt assembly when the actual belt speed is not within a shutdown threshold established by the desired belt speed with the controller. However Bezanilla does disclose: wherein the automatic response is to shut down the merger belt assembly when the actual belt speed is not within a shutdown threshold established by the desired belt speed with the controller (see at least paragraph 0045; wherein the control system 150 may incorporate one or more safety mechanisms including, e.g., emergency stop buttons, overload alerts, and automatic shutdown protocols in case of malfunctions or excessive strain on the conveyor system 100). Therefore 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 Bezanilla with the teachings as in McKinnis, JR. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the safe transportation of items, see Bezanilla paragraph 0011.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinnis, JR. et al. (USPGPub 2019/0327897), in view of Bezanilla et al. (USPGPub 2025/0214783), and further in view of Trowbridge et al. (USPGPub 2021/0237982). As per claim 6, McKinnis, JR. and Bezanilla do not explicitly mention wherein the controller is configured to consider one or more of a header speed, a vehicle speed, and a roll gap as operating conditions of the agricultural machine. However Trowbridge does disclose: wherein the controller is configured to consider one or more of a header speed, a vehicle speed, and a roll gap as operating conditions of the agricultural machine (see at least paragraph 0050; wherein adjusting one or more operational parameters of the roller 330, the header 200, and/or the agricultural harvester 100 via the controller 350 (e.g., to adjust the ground speed of the agricultural harvester 100). Therefore 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 Trowbridge with the teachings as in McKinnis, JR. and Bezanilla. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase flexibility, see Trowbridge paragraph 0021.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinnis, JR. et al. (USPGPub 2019/0327897) in view of Trowbridge et al. (USPGPub 2021/0237982). As per claim 9, McKinnis, JR. does not explicitly mention wherein the controller is configured to consider one or more of a header speed, a belt slip, a vehicle speed, and a roll gap for the operating conditions. However Trowbridge does disclose: wherein the controller is configured to consider one or more of a header speed, a belt slip, a vehicle speed, and a roll gap for the operating conditions (see at least paragraph 0050; wherein adjusting one or more operational parameters of the roller 330, the header 200, and/or the agricultural harvester 100 via the controller 350 (e.g., to adjust the ground speed of the agricultural harvester 100). Therefore 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 Trowbridge with the teachings as in McKinnis, JR. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase flexibility, see Trowbridge paragraph 0021.
Claims 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinnis, JR. et al. (USPGPub 2019/0327897) in view of Babler et al. (USPGPub 2021/0045292). As per claim 10, McKinnis, JR. does not explicitly mention wherein the controller is configured to determine the desired belt speed command from data from the agricultural machine, the data comprising one or more of a header speed, a throw distance, and a header load. However Babler does disclose: wherein the controller is configured to determine the desired belt speed command from data from the agricultural machine, the data comprising one or more of a header speed, a throw distance, and a header load (see at least paragraph 0203; wherein the merger control system 1100 increases or decrease the speed of the first belt 306 to vary the deposition of the material 114, which achieves a desired or final location of the material 114). Therefore 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 Babler with the teachings as in McKinnis, JR. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve feed quality by running the pickup nearest the discharge at a slower rotational speed than would be necessary if they all ran at the same speed, see Babler paragraph 0010. As per claim 11, Babler discloses wherein the data comprises the throw distance and the throw distance is input by a user through the user input (see at least paragraph 0203; wherein the merger control system 1100 increases or decrease the speed of the first belt 306 to vary the deposition of the material 114, which achieves a desired or final location of the material 114).
As per claim 14, McKinnis, JR. does not explicitly mention wherein evaluating the operating conditions comprises considering one or more of a header speed, a throw distance, and a header load. However Babler does disclose: wherein evaluating the operating conditions comprises considering one or more of a header speed, a throw distance, and a header load (see at least paragraph 0203; wherein the merger control system 1100 increases or decrease the speed of the first belt 306 to vary the deposition of the material 114, which achieves a desired or final location of the material 114). Therefore 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 Babler with the teachings as in McKinnis, JR. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve feed quality by running the pickup nearest the discharge at a slower rotational speed than would be necessary if they all ran at the same speed, see Babler paragraph 0010.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to consider a header speed, a vehicle speed, and a roll gap and the response comprises adjusting one or more of the header speed, vehicle speed, or roll gap.
Claim(s) 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the automatic response comprises modifying each of the operating conditions.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2025/0127078 – Provides a header and a crop merger for a work machine, and in particular to controlling the raising and lowering of the header and the crop merger. USPGPub 2019/0261554 – Provide a harvesting machine including a controller which is arranged to automatically identify an identity of an agricultural header supported on the harvesting machine, and more particularly, the present invention relates to features on the controller for performing various autonomous actions based on the automatically identified identity of the header.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights