DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23 and 25-53 of US Application No. 18/608,237 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1-3, 19-21, 25, 28-30, 32, 35, 37-44, 46, and 51 and canceled claims 24
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The previous rejections of claims 1-23 and 25-53 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claims 1, 19, and 38. However, new rejections of claims 1-23 and 25-53 under §102 and 103 are set forth below.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 16, 38-41 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jones et al. (US 2025/0228156 A1, “Jones”).
Regarding claims 1 and 38, Jones discloses a crop mower system and teaches:
one or more implement actuators configured to articulate an agricultural mower implement relative to a prime mover (swing actuator 72 interconnects drawbar 26 and traction unit 22 to control a lateral position of mower implement 24 relative to central longitudinal axis 38 of traction unit 22 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0043]); and
one or more processors configured to control actuation of the one or more implement actuators (controller 84 may communicate control signals to actuators – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0045]-[0046]), the one or more processors include:
a sensor interface configured for coupling with one or more vision sensors (controller 84 disposed in communication with various sensors – see at least ¶ [0046]), the one or more vision sensors directed toward standing crops and terrain proximate to the standing crops (object detection sensor 74 may identify standing crop edge 78 from sensed data – see at least ¶ [0045]; lift position sensor 58 may detect data related to a height 96 of mower implement 24 relative to a ground surface 28 – see at least ¶ [0039]), the one or more vision sensors configured to generate image data of the standing crops and terrain proximate to the standing crops (object detection sensor 74 may be an optical sensor, e.g., stereo camera or other imaged device operable to detect images – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0045]);
a controller in communication with the sensor interface (controller 84 disposed in communication with various sensors – see at least ¶ [0046]), the controller is configured to:
identify standing crops or terrain proximate to crops based on image data generated by the one or more vision sensors (object detection sensor 74 may identify standing crop edge 78 from sensed data – see at least ¶ [0045]);
determine one or more characteristics of the identified crops (distance to standing crop edge 78 – see at least ¶ [0059]; determination that crop edge 78 is within defined distance of leading edge 98 of mower implement 24 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0060]); and
generate implement instructions according to the determined one or more characteristics of the identified crops (when crop edge is within defined distance of leading edge 98, controller 84 may raise the height of mower implement 24 by communicating a control signal to lift actuator 60 – see at least ¶ [0060]; when crop edge is within defined distance of leading edge 98, controller 84 may swing mower implement 24 by communicating a control signal to swing actuator 72 – see at least ¶ [0062]); and
an actuator interface in communication with the controller, the actuator interface configured to couple with the one or more implement actuators, wherein the actuator interface is configured to relay the implement instructions to the one or more implement actuators for articulation of the agricultural mower implement (controller 84 may communicate control signals to actuators – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0045]-[0046]).
Regarding claims 2 and 39, Jones further teaches:
wherein the one or more vision sensors directed toward standing crops and terrain proximate to standing crops includes one or more vision sensors directed toward terrain beneath standing crops (lift position sensor 58 may detect data related to a height 96 of mower implement 24 relative to a ground surface 28 – see at least ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claims 3 and 40, Jones further teaches:
wherein the one or more vision sensors directed toward standing crops and terrain proximate to standing crops includes at least one of an optical sensor, a LiDAR sensor, a radar sensor, a laser sensor, or a camera (object detection sensor 74 may be an optical sensor, e.g., stereo camera or other imaged device operable to detect images – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0045]).
Regarding claim 4, Jones further teaches:
wherein at least one implement actuator of the one or more implement actuators includes an implement arm actuator coupled with an articulating arm, the implement arm actuator configured to move the agricultural mower implement relative to the prime mover with the articulating arm (swing actuator 72 interconnects drawbar 26 and traction unit 22 to control a lateral position of mower implement 24 relative to central longitudinal axis 38 of traction unit 22 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0043]).
Regarding claim 5, Jones further teaches:
the articulating arm configured for coupling between the agricultural mower implement and the prime mover (swing actuator 72 interconnects drawbar 26 and traction unit 22 to control a lateral position of mower implement 24 relative to central longitudinal axis 38 of traction unit 22 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0043]).
Regarding claim 8, Jones further teaches:
wherein the one or more implement actuators includes at least one of a sickle height actuator or a reel height actuator (mower implement 24 includes a cutter system 48, e.g., a rotary disc cutting bar 54 – see at least ¶ [0034]-[0035]; controller 84 may raise the height of mower implement 24 by communicating a control signal to lift actuator 60 – see at least ¶ [0060]).
Regarding claims 9 and 41, Jones further teaches:
wherein the one or more characteristics of the identified crops includes at least one of an average height of the crops, a terrain height, a variety of the crops, a variety of the terrain, a location of the terrain, or a location of the crops (distance to standing crop edge 78 – see at least ¶ [0059]; determination that crop edge 78 is within defined distance of leading edge 98 of mower implement 24 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0060]).
Regarding claim 16 and 50, Jones further teaches:
wherein the one or more vision sensors directed toward crops and terrain proximate to crops includes at least one of an implement arm sensor, a sickle height sensor, or a reel height sensor (lift position sensor 58 detects data related to height 96 of mower implement 24 and may include an optical sensor for capturing images that may be analyzed to determine height 96. – see at least ¶ [0039]).
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 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 6, 7, 12, 13, 19-23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 35-37, 42, 43, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Sathe et al. (US 2021/0120727 A1, “Sathe”).
Regarding claims 6 and 42, Jones further teaches:
wherein the one or more characteristics of the identified crops include a location of the crops, wherein the location of the crops comprises: determining a difference between the location of the crops and a location of the agricultural lower implement (distance to standing crop edge 78 – see at least ¶ [0059]; determination that crop edge 78 is within defined distance of leading edge 98 of mower implement 24 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0060]); and wherein the generated implement instructions include implement instructions for articulating the agricultural mower implement [ ] (when crop edge is within defined distance of leading edge 98, controller 84 may raise the height of mower implement 24 by communicating a control signal to lift actuator 60 – see at least ¶ [0060]; when crop edge is within defined distance of leading edge 98, controller 84 may swing mower implement 24 by communicating a control signal to swing actuator 72 – see at least ¶ [0062]).
Jones fails to teach but Sathe discloses an agricultural system and teaches:
to decrease the difference (computing device 66 may control steering based on the offset distance to maintain the mower implement at the relative position to crop edge 56 – see at least ¶ [0053]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crop mower system of Jones to provide instructions to decrease the difference, as taught by Sathe, with a reasonable expectation of success because the it would maintain the mower implement at the desired position relative to the crop edge (Sathe at ¶ [0053]).
Regarding claims 7 and 43, Jones further teaches:
wherein determining the difference includes determining a difference between a crop edge and a cutting end of the agricultural mower implement (distance to standing crop edge 78 – see at least ¶ [0059]; determination that crop edge 78 is within defined distance of leading edge 98 of mower implement 24 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0060]).
Regarding claims 12 and 46, Jones fails to teach but Sathe discloses an agricultural system and teaches:
wherein the one or more characteristics of the identified crops includes an alignment determination between a crop edge and a cutting end of the agricultural mower implement (distance sensor 50 may include an optical sensor combined with software to determine offset distance 64 difference between side edge 32 of body 26 and standing crop edge 56 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crop mower system of Jones to provide an alignment determination between a crop edge and a cutting end, as taught by Sathe, with a reasonable expectation of success because the combined system would provide for maintaining or returning the implement to a desired position relative to the crop (Sathe at ¶ [0053], Wilkening at ¶ [0014]).
Regarding claims 13 and 47, Sathe further teaches:
generate implement instructions based on the alignment determination (mower implement 20 that is controlled to maintain or return the mower implement to the desired position relative to the standing crop edge 56 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0053]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined crop mower system of Jones and Sathe to provide instructions based on the alignment determination, as further taught by Sathe, with a reasonable expectation of success because the combined system would provide for maintaining or returning the implement to a desired position relative to the crop (Sathe at ¶ [0053], Wilkening at ¶ [0014]).
Regarding claim 19, Jones discloses a crop mower system and teaches:
one or more implement actuators configured to articulate an agricultural mower implement relative to a prime mover (swing actuator 72 interconnects drawbar 26 and traction unit 22 to control a lateral position of mower implement 24 relative to central longitudinal axis 38 of traction unit 22 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0043]); and
one or more processors configured to control actuation of the one or more implement actuators (controller 84 may communicate control signals to actuators – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0045]-[0046]), the one or more processors include:
a sensor interface configured for coupling with one or more vision sensors directed toward crops (controller 84 disposed in communication with various sensors – see at least ¶ [0046]; object detection sensor 74 may identify standing crop edge 78 from sensed data – see at least ¶ [0045]; lift position sensor 58 may detect data related to a height 96 of mower implement 24 relative to a ground surface 28 – see at least ¶ [0039]; object detection sensor 74 may be an optical sensor, e.g., stereo camera or other imaged device operable to detect images – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0045]);
a controller in communication with the sensor interface (controller 84 disposed in communication with various sensors – see at least ¶ [0046]), the controller is configured to:
identify standing crop edge based on image data of the one or more vision sensors (object detection sensor 74 may identify standing crop edge 78 from sensed data – see at least ¶ [0045]);
determine a difference between a location of the identified standing crop edge and a location of a cutting end of the agricultural mower implement based on the image data of the one or more characteristics of the identified crops (distance to standing crop edge 78 – see at least ¶ [0059]; determination that crop edge 78 is within defined distance of leading edge 98 of mower implement 24 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0060]); and
generate implement instructions based on the determined difference [ ] (when crop edge is within defined distance of leading edge 98, controller 84 may raise the height of mower implement 24 by communicating a control signal to lift actuator 60 – see at least ¶ [0060]; when crop edge is within defined distance of leading edge 98, controller 84 may swing mower implement 24 by communicating a control signal to swing actuator 72 – see at least ¶ [0062]); and
an actuator interface in communication with the controller, the actuator interface configured to couple with the one or more implement actuators, wherein the actuator interface is configured to relay the implement instructions to the one or more implement actuators for articulation of the agricultural mower implement (controller 84 may communicate control signals to actuators – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0045]-[0046]).
Jones fails to teach but Sathe discloses an agricultural system and teaches:
to reduce a gap between the cutting end of the agricultural mower implement and the identified standing crop edge (computing device 66 may control steering based on an offset distance to maintain the mower implement at the relative position to crop edge 56 – see at least ¶ [0053]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crop mower system of Jones to provide instructions to reduce a gap, as taught by Sathe, with a reasonable expectation of success because the it would maintain the mower implement at the desired position relative to the crop edge (Sathe at ¶ [0053]).
Regarding claim 20, Jones further teaches:
wherein the one or more vision sensors directed toward crops and terrain proximate to crops includes at least one of an optical sensor, a LiDAR sensor, a radar sensor, a laser sensor, or a camera (object detection sensor 74 may be an optical sensor, e.g., stereo camera or other imaged device operable to detect images – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0045]).
Regarding claim 21, Jones further teaches:
wherein the one or more vision sensors directed toward crops and terrain proximate to crops includes one or more vision sensors directed toward terrain beneath crops (lift position sensor 58 may detect data related to a height 96 of mower implement 24 relative to a ground surface 28 – see at least ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 22, Jones further teaches:
wherein at least one implement actuator of the one or more implement actuators includes an implement arm actuator coupled with an articulating arm, the implement arm actuator configured to move the agricultural mower implement relative to the prime mover with the articulating arm (swing actuator 72 interconnects drawbar 26 and traction unit 22 to control a lateral position of mower implement 24 relative to central longitudinal axis 38 of traction unit 22 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0043]).
Regarding claim 23, Jones further teaches:
the articulating arm configured for coupling between the agricultural mower implement and the prime mover (swing actuator 72 interconnects drawbar 26 and traction unit 22 to control a lateral position of mower implement 24 relative to central longitudinal axis 38 of traction unit 22 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0043]).
Regarding claim 25, Jones further teaches:
wherein determining the difference includes determining a difference between a standing crop edge and a cutting end of the agricultural mower implement (distance to standing crop edge 78 – see at least ¶ [0059]; determination that crop edge 78 is within defined distance of leading edge 98 of mower implement 24 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0060]).
Regarding claim 26, Jones further teaches:
wherein the one or more implement actuators includes at least one of a sickle height actuator or a reel height actuator (mower implement 24 includes a cutter system 48, e.g., a rotary disc cutting bar 54 – see at least ¶ [0034]-[0035]; controller 84 may raise the height of mower implement 24 by communicating a control signal to lift actuator 60 – see at least ¶ [0060]).
Regarding claim 29, Jones further teaches:
wherein the controller, in communication with the sensor interface, is further configured to: identify one or more terrain proximate to standing crops (lift position sensor 58 may detect data related to a height 96 of mower implement 24 relative to a ground surface 28 – see at least ¶ [0039]; i.e., identify ground for detecting relative height 96); and determine one or more characteristics of the identified standing crops (distance to standing crop edge 78 – see at least ¶ [0059]; determination that crop edge 78 is within defined distance of leading edge 98 of mower implement 24 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0060]).
Regarding claim 30, Jones further teaches:
wherein the one or more characteristics of the identified crops includes at least one of an average height of the crops, a terrain height, a variety of the crops, a variety of the terrain, a location of the terrain, or a location of the crops (distance to standing crop edge 78 – see at least ¶ [0059]; determination that crop edge 78 is within defined distance of leading edge 98 of mower implement 24 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0060]).
Regarding claim 35, Sathe further teaches:
wherein the location of the identified crops includes an alignment determination between a standing crop edge and a cutting end of the agricultural mower implement (distance sensor 50 may include an optical sensor combined with software to determine offset distance 64 difference between side edge 32 of body 26 and standing crop edge 56 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined crop mower system of Jones and Sathe to provide an alignment determination between a crop edge and a cutting end, as further taught by Sathe, with a reasonable expectation of success because the combined system would provide for maintaining or returning the implement to a desired position relative to the crop (Sathe at ¶ [0053], Wilkening at ¶ [0014]).
Regarding claim 36, Sathe further teaches:
wherein the controller, in communication with the sensor interface, is further configured to: generate implement instructions based on the alignment determination (mower implement 20 that is controlled to maintain or return the mower implement to the desired position relative to the standing crop edge 56 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0053]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined crop mower system of Jones and Sathe to provide instructions based on the alignment determination, as further taught by Sathe, with a reasonable expectation of success because the combined system would provide for maintaining or returning the implement to a desired position relative to the crop (Sathe at ¶ [0053], Wilkening at ¶ [0014]).
Regarding claim 37, Jones further teaches:
wherein the one or more vision sensors directed toward crops and terrain proximate to crops includes at least one of an implement arm sensor, a sickle height sensor, or a reel height sensor (lift position sensor 58 detects data related to height 96 of mower implement 24 and may include an optical sensor for capturing images that may be analyzed to determine height 96. – see at least ¶ [0039]).
Claims 10, 11, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Dima et al. (US 2019/0021226 A1, “Dima”).
Regarding claims 10 and 44, Jones fails to teach but Dima discloses a system for optimizing platform settings based on crop state classification teaches:
wherein the sickle height actuator is configured to adjust the height of a sickle coupled to the implement based on at least one of an average height of the crops, a terrain height, a variety of the crops, or a variety of the terrain (reciprocating knife bar 50 height may be adjusted by adjusting header 18 height via actuator 70 to follow the ground contour – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0028], [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crop mower system of Jones to provide for adjusting the height of the sickle, as further taught by Dima, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide continuous automatic adjustment of the implement to make work easier for the operator to harvest the crop (Dima at ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claims 11 and 45, Jones fails to teach but Dima discloses a system for optimizing platform settings based on crop state classification and teaches:
wherein a remote operator may override the implement instructions (reel 52 height may be adjusted based on different classes of crop, e.g., standing, downed crop lateral, downed crop towards, downed crop away, stubble, etc. – see at least ¶ ]0042]-[0043]; signals received from user input unit 44 are used for overriding actuator settings which are adjusted automatically based on signals from sensor 48 – see at least ¶ [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crop mower system of Jones to provide for override by a remote operator, as taught by Dima, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for manual control of the machine cutting height when desired (Dima at ¶ [0037], [0004]).
Claims 14, 15, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Middelberg et al. (US 2017/0118915 A1, “Middelberg”).
Regarding claims 14 and 48, Jones fails to teach but Middelberg discloses surroundings detection device for agricultural work vehicles and teaches:
wherein identifying terrain proximate to crops includes an obstacle recognition (surrounding detection device 29 may detect ground feature 45, obstacle 65, and object 51 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0044]; obstacles may be identified as small obstacles 67 – see at least ¶ [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crop mower system of Jones to provide an obstacle recognition, as taught by Middelberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for raising a cutting unit of the working elements when small obstacles are detected to reduce the risk of damage (Middelberg at ¶ [0057], [0013], [0022]).
Regarding claims 15 and 49, Middelberg further teaches:
wherein the controller, in communication with the sensor interface, is further configured to: generate implement instructions based on the obstacle recognition, the implement instructions including instructions to autonomously adjust height of the implement (for small obstacles 67, signals 50 from detection device 29 may be evaluated for raising cutting unit 3 of working elements 30 – see at least ¶ [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined crop mower system of Jones and Middelberg to provide an obstacle recognition, as further taught by Middelberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for raising a cutting unit of the working elements when small obstacles are detected to reduce the risk of damage (Middelberg at ¶ [0057], [0013], [0022]).
Claims 17 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Wilkening (US 2017/0027101 A1, “Wilkening).
Regarding claims 17 and 51, Jones fails to teach but Wilkening discloses an agricultural system and teaches:
wherein at least one of the one or more vision sensors is directed forward of at least one of the prime mover or the implement (sensor arrangement 14, e.g., a camera arrangement, in front of baler – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crop mower system of Jones to provide the vision sensor directed forward, as taught by Wilkening, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide cross profile information of the crop which may be used to align the implement (Wilkening at ¶ [0031]).
Claims 18, 52, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Vandike et al. (US 2023/0292665 A1, “Vandike”).
Regarding claim 18 and 52, Jones fails to teach but Vandike discloses a system for predictive reel control and teaches:
wherein at least one of the one or more vision sensors is directed rearward of at least one of the prime mover or the implement (missed crop sensors 380, e.g., cameras, optical sensors, radar, lidar, etc., may observe behind the header – see at least ¶ [0121]; crop sensor 380 may be disposed rearward of harvester 100 – see at least ¶ [0121]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crop mower system of Jones to provide a sensor directed rearward of the implement or prime mover, as taught by Vandike, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for detecting missed crop (Vandike at ¶ [0121]).
Regarding claim 53, Vandike further teaches:
detecting, with the at least one of the one or more vision sensors directed rearward, crops mowed errantly located behind the agricultural mower implement (missed crop sensors 380, e.g., cameras, optical sensors, radar, lidar, etc., may observe behind the header – see at least ¶ [0121]; crop sensor 380 may be disposed rearward of harvester 100 – see at least ¶ [0121]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined crop mower system of Jones and Vandike to detect crops mowed errantly, as further taught by Vandike, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for predicting future missed crops and controlling subsystems accordingly (Vandike at ¶ [0175], [0418]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view Sathe, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Vandike.
Regarding claim 27, Jones fails to teach but Vandike discloses a system for predictive reel control and teaches:
wherein at least one of the one or more vision sensors is directed rearward of at least one of the prime mover or the implement (missed crop sensors 380, e.g., cameras, optical sensors, radar, lidar, etc., may observe behind the header – see at least ¶ [0121]; crop sensor 380 may be disposed rearward of harvester 100 – see at least ¶ [0121]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined crop mower system of Jones and Sathe to provide a sensor directed rearward of the implement or prime mover, as taught by Vandike, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for detecting missed crop (Vandike at ¶ [0121]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Sathe, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Wilkening.
Regarding claim 28, Jones and Sathe fails to teach but Wilkening discloses an agricultural system and teaches:
wherein at least one of the one or more vision sensors is directed forward of at least one of the prime mover or the implement (sensor arrangement 14, e.g., a camera arrangement, in front of baler – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined crop mower system of Jones and Sathe to provide the vision sensor directed forward, as taught by Wilkening, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide cross profile information of the crop which may be used to align the implement (Wilkening at ¶ [0031]).
Claims 31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Sathe, as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Dima.
Regarding claim 31, Jones further teaches:
wherein the one or more implement actuators includes at least one of a sickle height actuator (mower implement 24 includes a cutter system 48, e.g., a rotary disc cutting bar 54 – see at least ¶ [0034]-[0035]; controller 84 may raise the height of mower implement 24 by communicating a control signal to lift actuator 60 – see at least ¶ [0060]).
Jones and Sathe fail to teach but Dima discloses a system for optimizing platform settings based on crop state classification and teaches:
wherein the one or more implement actuators includes at least one of a sickle height actuator (reciprocating knife bar 50 height may be adjusted by adjusting header 18 height via actuator 70 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0028], [0039]); and wherein the sickle height actuator is configured to control a sickle height of a sickle coupled to the agricultural mower implement based on at least one of the average height of the crops, the terrain height, the variety of the crops, or the variety of the terrain (reciprocating knife bar 50 height may be adjusted by adjusting header 18 height via actuator 70 to follow the ground contour – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0028], [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined crop mower system of Jones and Sathe to provide for controlling the sickle height, as taught by Dima, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide continuous automatic adjustment of the implement to make work easier for the operator to harvest the crop (Dima at ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 34, Jones fails to teach but Dima discloses a system for optimizing platform settings based on crop state classification and teaches:
wherein a remote operator may override the implement instructions (reel 52 height may be adjusted based on different classes of crop, e.g., standing, downed crop lateral, downed crop towards, downed crop away, stubble, etc. – see at least ¶ ]0042]-[0043]; signals received from user input unit 44 are used for overriding actuator settings which are adjusted automatically based on signals from sensor 48 – see at least ¶ [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined crop mower system of Jones and Sathe to provide for override by a remote operator, as taught by Dima, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for manual control of the machine cutting height when desired (Dima at ¶ [0037], [0004]).
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Sathe, as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Middelberg.
Regarding claim 32, Jones and Sathe fail to teach but Middelberg discloses surroundings detection device for agricultural work vehicles and teaches:
wherein identifying terrain proximate to crops includes an obstacle recognition (surrounding detection device 29 may detect ground feature 45, obstacle 65, and object 51 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0044]; obstacles may be identified as small obstacles 67 – see at least ¶ [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined crop mower system of Jones and Sathe to provide an obstacle recognition, as taught by Middelberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for raising a cutting unit of the working elements when small obstacles are detected to reduce the risk of damage (Middelberg at ¶ [0057], [0013], [0022]).
Regarding claim 33, Middelberg further teaches:
wherein the controller, in communication with the sensor interface, is further configured to: generate implement instructions based on the obstacle recognition, the implement instructions including instructions to autonomously adjust height of the implement (for small obstacles 67, signals 50 from detection device 29 may be evaluated for raising cutting unit 3 of working elements 30 – see at least ¶ [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined crop mower system of Jones and Middelberg to provide an obstacle recognition, as further taught by Middelberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for raising a cutting unit of the working elements when small obstacles are detected to reduce the risk of damage (Middelberg at ¶ [0057], [0013], [0022]).
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 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 AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights