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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 25 June 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
2. Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose the limitations of the independent claims because Huenink does not “constitute an affirmative determination of the position of the elevator discharge opening relative to the vehicle centerline as claimed. Huenink et al. merely reacts to camera input rather than determining the actual position of the discharge opening as a distinct, usable data point for controlling what information is displayed on each screen. Moreover, Huenink et al. does not teach or suggest switching two different sets of information between the displays based on elevator position. Instead, Huenink et al. appears limited to displaying camera video of the chute itself on the corresponding display”.
This argument is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (underlined above) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
More specifically, the claims do not require “an affirmative determination of the position of the elevator discharge opening relative to the vehicle centerline”, using the “position of the discharge opening as a distinct, usable data point for controlling what information is displayed on each screen”, or “switching two different sets of information between the displays based on elevator position” as argued by the Applicant.
The claims require only “determining a position of the elevator discharge opening relative to the vehicle centerline” and separately (or even independently) displaying information on the first display or second display when the elevator discharge opening is positioned on the first side or second side of the vehicle centerline. The claims do not require active selection or switching of a display based on the position of elevator discharge opening, or even any selection or switching of a display at all.
For example, Huenink discloses a left camera and left display for capturing and displaying the left side of a vehicle centerline, and a right camera and right display for capturing and displaying the right side of a vehicle centerline. By automatically displaying the left side of the centerline on the left display and the right side of the centerline on the right display, Huenink “displays a first set of information [camera footage of the elevator discharge opening] on the first display when the elevator discharge opening is positioned on the first side of the vehicle centerline, and displays the first set of information [camera footage of the elevator discharge opening] on the second display when the elevator discharge opening is positioned on the second side of the vehicle centerline” as required by the claim.
3. The independent claims could be amended to overcome the current rejection by clearly computing the position of the elevator discharge opening and basing the displayed information on the computed position of the elevator discharge opening. For example, by changing “determine/determining a position” to “compute/computing a position”, and inserting “and based on the computed position of the elevator discharge opening relative to the vehicle centerline:” after the limitation “compute/computing a position of the elevator discharge opening relative to the vehicle centerline;”.
4. Applicant argues that the Office “fails to explain why a POSITA at the time of the invention would have been motivated to modify Huenink in view of Wang” because “there is no teaching or suggestion in Huenink et al. that would lead a POSITA to determine elevator position as a distinct data point and then use that position to switch between two different categories of information (e.g., operational information and vehicle/status information) across dual displays”, and that “there is no teaching or suggestion in Wang et al. that would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to use position data from an elevator discharge opening to control the switching of information between two displays positioned on opposite sides of a vehicle centerline”.
This argument is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (underlined above) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
More specifically, the claims do not require “use[ing] that position to switch between two different categories of information (e.g., operational information and vehicle/status information)” or “us[ing] position data from an elevator discharge opening to control the switching of information between two displays positioned on opposite sides of a vehicle centerline”.
The claims require only “determining a position of the elevator discharge opening relative to the vehicle centerline” and separately (or even independently) displaying information on the first display or second display when the elevator discharge opening is positioned on the first side or second side of the vehicle centerline. The claims do not require using the position to switch between two different categories of information or to control the switching of information between two displays. The claims do not even require any switching between categories of information or any switching between displays at all.
Further, the Applicant has misunderstood the modification of Huenink in view of Wang. Wang is used only to teach “determining a position of the elevator discharge opening relative to the vehicle centerline” (col 7: 39-43, etc), and is NOT relied upon to teach any other limitation of the independent claims (such as any part of the display limitations). The other limitations of the independent claims have already been disclosed by Huenink.
5. Applicant further argues that the motivation to combine provided in the Office Action is insufficient because the Examiner states that it would have been obvious to modify Huenink with Wang "to provide more accurate control over the elevator discharge." However, original claim 1 is not directed to controlling the physical discharge of agricultural products.
This argument is not found persuasive. The motivation for a modification can be any improvement to the invention to be modified. The motivation is not required to match the objective of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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 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.
7. Claims 1-4 and 7-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huenink et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2022/0305999) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Patent # 9,002,591).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Huenink discloses a system for an agricultural harvester (figs, etc), the system comprising:
an elevator assembly defining an elevator discharge opening (fig 2, P46, etc: chute with camera 208h attached on end);
a first display positioned at least partially on a first side of a vehicle centerline of the agricultural vehicle (figs 3A-4, 6, etc: left 140a or right 140b side display);
a second display positioned at least partially on a second side of a vehicle centerline of the agricultural vehicle (figs 3A-4, 6, etc: other of left 140a or right 140b side display); and
a computing system communicatively coupled to the first display and the second display (fig 4: 104, etc), the computing system being configured to:
display a first set of information (camera footage of the elevator discharge opening) on the first display when the elevator discharge opening is positioned on the first side of the vehicle centerline (figs 1B, 2, 3A-4, 5A-B, 5D, 6, etc: chute would automatically be displayed on first display when the chute opening is positioned on the first side of the vehicle centerline, due to the position of multiple sets of cameras on the first and second sides of the vehicle centerline); and
display the first set of information (camera footage of the elevator discharge opening) on the second display when the elevator discharge opening is positioned on the second side of the vehicle centerline (figs 1B, 2, 3A-4, 5A-B, 5D, 6, etc: chute would automatically be displayed on second display when the chute opening is positioned on the second side of the vehicle centerline, due to the position of multiple sets of cameras on the first and second sides of the vehicle centerline).
Huenink does not explicitly disclose determining a position of the elevator discharge opening relative to the vehicle centerline.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses determining a position of the elevator discharge opening relative to the vehicle centerline (col 7: 39-43, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huenink to determine a position of the elevator discharge opening, as taught by Wang, in order to provide more accurate control over the elevator position and/or discharge (Wang col 7: 39-43, etc), with predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, see the rejection for claim 1 above.
Huenink further discloses that the first set of information includes operational information related to at least one of an elevator position, an agricultural product flow rate, or an external storage device position (figs 1B, 2, 3A-4, 5A-B, 5D, 6, etc: displays from camera feed first set of information including operational information related to an elevator position and an agricultural product flow rate).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Huenink further discloses that the first set of information includes operational information related to at least one of an elevator position, an agricultural product flow rate, or an external storage device position (P46, figs 1B, 2, 3A-4, 5A-B, 5D, 6, etc: displayed camera video would include operational information related to an elevator position and/or an agricultural product flow rate would be displayed).
Regarding claim 3, Huenink further discloses that the computing system is further configured to: display a second set of information on the second display when the elevator discharge opening is positioned on the first side of the vehicle centerline (figs 1B, 2, 3A-4, 5A-B, 5D, 6, etc: whatever is displayed on second display would qualify as a second set of information).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Huenink further discloses that the second set of information includes vehicle information related to at least one of a ground speed, an oil pressure, or an engine temperature of the vehicle (figs 1B, 2, 3A-4, 5A-B, 5D, 6, etc: displayed camera video would include information related to ground speed through motion or lack of motion of camera/vehicle).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Huenink in view of Wang further discloses that the position of the elevator discharge opening relative to the vehicle centerline is determined based on a received input from an input device (Wang col 7: 39-43, etc).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Huenink in view of Wang further discloses that the position of the elevator discharge opening relative to the vehicle centerline is determined based on data provided from a position sensor (Wang col 7: 39-43, etc).
Regarding claim 9, Huenink further discloses that the first set of information includes image data of at least a portion of the elevator assembly (P46, figs 1B, 2, 3A-4, 5A-B, 5D, 6, etc: displayed camera video would include at least a portion of the elevator assembly).
Regarding claim 10, see the rejection of claim 1 above. Huenink further discloses providing a second set of information on a second display positioned at least partially on a second side of the vehicle centerline when the elevator discharge opening is positioned on the first side of the vehicle centerline (figs 1B, 2, 3A-4, 5A-B, 5D, 6, etc: whatever is displayed on second display would qualify as a second set of information, such as camera video showing ground speed through motion or lack of motion of camera/vehicle); and
providing the second set of information on the first display when the elevator discharge opening is positioned on the second side of the vehicle centerline (figs 1B, 2, 3A-4, 5A-B, 5D, 6, etc: whatever is displayed on first display in this scenario would qualify as the second set of information, such as camera video showing ground speed through motion or lack of motion of camera/vehicle).
Regarding claim 11, Huenink in view of Wang further discloses receiving an input from one or more input devices to move the elevator discharge opening to one of the first side or the second side of the vehicle centerline, wherein determining the position of the elevator discharge opening relative to the vehicle centerline is based on the input (Wang col 7: 39-43, etc).
Regarding claim 12, Huenink in view of Wang further discloses that receiving data from a position sensor operably coupled with an elevator assembly defining the elevator discharge opening, wherein determining the position of the elevator discharge opening relative to the vehicle centerline is based on the data received from the position sensor (Wang col 7: 39-43, etc).
Regarding claim 15, Huenink in view of Wang further discloses that determining a presence of an external storage device based on data provided from one or more operational information sensors (fig 6: 172, etc; or Wang figs 1-7, etc).
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection for claim 1 above. Huenink further discloses providing the first set of information on the second side of the vehicle centerline when the elevator discharge opening is positioned on a second side of the vehicle centerline (figs 1B, 2, 3A-4, 5A-B, 5D, 6, etc: chute would automatically be displayed on second display when the chute opening is positioned on the second side of the vehicle centerline, due to the position of multiple sets of cameras on the first and second sides of the vehicle centerline).
Regarding claim 17, Huenink further discloses that a second display positioned at least partially on a second side of a vehicle centerline of the agricultural vehicle (figs 3A-4, 6, etc: other of left 140a or right 140b side display),
wherein the first set of information provided on the first side of the vehicle centerline is displayed on the first display and the first set of information provided on the second side of the vehicle centerline is displayed on the second display (figs 1B, 2, 3A-4, 5A-B, 5D, 6, etc: chute would automatically be displayed on the side matching the chute opening position, due to the position of multiple sets of cameras on the first and second sides of the vehicle centerline).
Regarding claim 18, Huenink fails to discloses that a track assembly operably coupled with the first display, wherein the first display is positioned on the first side of the vehicle centerline along the track assembly when the elevator discharge opening is positioned on the first side of the vehicle centerline and the first display is positioned on the second side of the vehicle centerline along the track assembly when the elevator discharge opening is positioned on the second side of the vehicle centerline.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to put a movable display on a track. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Huenink to put a display on a track, as well known in the art, in order to decrease costs, improve efficiency, and/or decrease computational load by using a single display on a track rather than multiple fixed displays, with predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
September 1, 2026
