DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 received on 07/09/2026 are considered in this office action.
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are pending for examination.
Claim 14 is cancelled.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
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 .
Response to Arguments
Specification was previously objected to due to the title of the invention being not descriptive. In response to the amendment of the title, the objection is withdrawn.
In response to the amendments to claims 2, 6, 10, 11 and 16, the objection is withdrawn.
Claims 6-7 and 10-20 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). In response to the amendment to claims 6, 10 and 16, the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: the parameter should read the measured parameter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
Claims 1, 5, 16 and 20: a cleaning system (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 1 and 6: a computing system (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “a cleaning system”, it is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of nozzle or wiper and equivalents thereof as supported by a portion of paragraph 0061 of the specification reproduced below:
[0061] The pumped liquid is exhausted from the nozzles 122 toward the panel 144. It will be appreciated that the nozzles 122 may be placed in any practicable location. For example, the nozzle 122 may be operably coupled with a wiper assembly 152 and movable with the wiper assembly 152 and/or otherwise positioned to practicably clean the panel 144. The wiper assembly 152 can include an arm 154, a wiper 156 operably coupled with the arm 154, and an actuator 158 configured to alter a position of the arm 154 and the wiper 156..
Regarding “computing system”, it is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of processor or electronic control unit (ECU) and equivalents thereof as supported by FIG. 11 and a portion of paragraph 0007 of the specification reproduced below:
[0007] A computing system includes one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the computing system to perform operations. The operations include determining a detected percentage of pixels within the data indicating debris on the panel on the panel and initiating a cleaning routine to remove at least a portion of the debris from the panel.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corban (US20200084967A1), in view of Loukili (US20170112057A1), and further in view of Zielke (US20200267899A1), and further in view of KOCH (US20250222902A1), and further in view of YAMAUCHI (US 20200139936 A1).
Corban, Loukili, Zielke and YAMAUCHI are cited in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Corban teaches a system for an agricultural harvester (FIG. 2; para. [0003]: “This disclosure generally relates to agricultural combine harvesters, and more specifically to systems”), the system comprising:
a support structure configured to be operably coupled with an elevator housing (FIG. 4; para. [0038]: “The housing 136 may be open at the side facing the grain tailings elevator 70 […] The housing 136 is mounted directly to the side wall 90 of the tailings elevator housing 76 such that the open side or side wall 138, […] In the illustrated example, the housing 136 is mounted to the grain tailings elevator side wall 90 with a latch 142 and a hinge 144 providing a pivotal connection to the grain tailings elevator 70, such as for replacing and/or cleaning the camera 132. Alternatively, the housing 136 may be mounted to the tailings elevator side wall 90 using one or more screws or any other suitable fastening mechanisms.”, wherein connection and suitable fastening mechanism indicates a support structure);
a carrier operably coupled with the support structure (FIG. 4; para. [0038]: “The housing 136 may be open at the side facing the grain tailings elevator 70 […] The housing 136 is mounted directly to the side wall 90 of the tailings elevator housing 76”, wherein housing corresponds to a carrier);
a vision-based sensor operably coupled with the carrier (FIG. 4; para. [0038]: “an imaging system 130 includes a camera 132 with an image sensor 134 and a housing 136. The camera 132 may be have its own housing contained within the housing 136 or instead be housed only by the housing 136.”);
one or more light sources (para. [0038]: “The housing 136 may be open at the side facing the grain tailings elevator 70 or it may have a side wall 138 with an opening or be made of a translucent material to allow light in sufficient for the camera 132 to image the interior of the grain tailings elevator 70.”);
a panel positioned along a portion of the carrier (FIG. 4; para. [0038]: “an imaging system 130 includes a camera 132 with an image sensor 134 and a housing 136. The camera 132 may be have its own housing contained within the housing 136 or instead be housed only by the housing 136. The housing 136 may be open at the side facing the grain tailings elevator 70 or it may have a side wall 138 with an opening or be made of a translucent material to allow light in sufficient for the camera 132 to image the interior of the grain tailings elevator 70.”, wherein side wall corresponds to an example of a panel), but fails to specifically teach one or more light sources operably coupled with the carrier, a cleaning system configured to remove debris from the panel positioned between at least one of the vision-based sensor and the one or more light sources and a computing system operably coupled with the vision-based sensor, the one or more light sources, and the cleaning system, the computing system being configured to: determine a detected interval since a previous cleaning routine; measure a parameter of the agricultural harvester; and initiate a cleaning routine when the detected interval is equal to or greater than a predefined interval and when the measured parameter of the agricultural harvester is less than a predefined parameter threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Loukili teaches one or more light sources operably coupled with the carrier (FIG. 7; para. [0047]: “As illustrated in FIG. 7, the image sensor 704 and associated primary lens 702 are mounted on a circuit board 706. Further, one or more light sources 708, such as light-emitting diodes may be mounted on or adjacent to the circuit board 706 for illuminating the agricultural material in the passage 104. The light sources 708 may comprise light sources that output one or more of the following electromagnetic radiation: visible light (e.g., white, red, blue, or green frequency bands) […]”; para. [0052]: “the imaging device 116 is housed in an enclosure 152 with a lens 118 or translucent plate that can face the passage 104”) and a computing system operably coupled with the vision-based sensor, the one or more light sources (FIG. 6 Controller 603 and Imaging Device 116; para. [0047]: “FIG. 7 shows a top view of the imaging device 116 or camera […] The light sources 708”).
Corban and Loukili are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in field of monitoring agricultural material using vision-based sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Corban and incorporate the lighting source of Loukili. Doing so will result in the same predictable result of using translucent material to allow light in sufficient for the camera (Corban, para. [0038]) by allowing illuminating the agricultural material in the passage (Loukili, para. [0047]), thus enhancing image quality. Corbanin view of Loukili fails to specifically teach a cleaning system configured to remove debris from the panel positioned between at least one of the vision-based sensor and the one or more light sources and a computing system operably coupled with the cleaning system, the computing system being configured to: determine a detected interval since a previous cleaning routine; measure a parameter of the agricultural harvester; and initiate a cleaning routine when the detected interval is equal to or greater than a predefined interval and when the measured parameter of the agricultural harvester is less than a predefined parameter threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zielke teaches a cleaning system configured to remove debris from (FIG. 12; para. [0089]: “an automatic camera lens cleaning apparatus 38 is used to prevent the buildup of excessive dust and debris on the camera lens 36. In various implementations the cleaning apparatus 38 has a small rotational servo 44 with a bristled brush 40 mounted to an arm 42. When the servo 44 is activated, the brush 40 is rotated, in the direction of reference arrow C, via the arm 42 such that it brushes across the camera lens 36 to remove any dust and/or debris that has built up”) and a computing system operably coupled with the vision-based sensor and the cleaning system (FIG. 1; para. [0090]: “The processing unit 16, by analyzing the captured images 26 from the camera 14, can estimate the amount of dust or debris on the camera lens 36. For example, if the processing unit 16 detects that dust and/or debris is immediately obscuring the lens 36, the servo 44 and brush 40 are immediately activated. In some implementations”), the computing system being configured to: determine a detected interval since a previous cleaning routine (para. [0090]: “activation of the servo 44 can be controlled by the processing unit 16. The processing unit 16, by analyzing the captured images 26 from the camera 14, can estimate the amount of dust or debris on the camera lens 36. For example, if the processing unit 16 detects that dust and/or debris is immediately obscuring the lens 36, the servo 44 and brush 40 are immediately activated. In some implementations, the cleaning apparatus 38 may operate on an automatic schedule, such as every 1-5 minutes.”, wherein “automatic schedule, such as every 1-5 minutes” indicates determine a detected interval since a previous cleaning routine);
initiate a cleaning routine when the detected interval is equal to or greater than a predefined interval (para. [0090]: “the cleaning apparatus 38 may operate on an automatic schedule, such as every 1-5 minutes.”)
Zielke is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of cleaning sensors in response to debris obscuring vision sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Corbanin view of Loukili and incorporate the cleaning system of Zielke. Doing so will enhance image quality by removing dirt/debris from building up which degrades images and obscure the field of view (Zielke, para. [0088]-[0089]). Corbanin view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke fails to specifically teach cleaning a panel and the computing system being configured to: measure a parameter of the agricultural harvester; and initiate a cleaning routine when the detected interval is equal to or greater than a predefined interval and when the measured parameter of the agricultural harvester is less than a predefined parameter threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, KOCH teaches the computing system being configured to: determine a detected interval since a previous cleaning routine (para. [0025]: “the control system may be configured to periodically perform, or at least recommend performance of, the cleaning strategy.”); measure a parameter of the agricultural harvester (para. [0058]: “the operational parameter for the combine 50 includes a measure of a throughput of material in one or more material flowpaths within the combine”); and initiate a cleaning routine when the detected interval is equal to or greater than a predefined interval and when the measured parameter of the agricultural harvester is less than a predefined parameter threshold (para. [0025]: “the control system may be configured to periodically perform […] cleaning”; para. [0058]: “performance of a cleaning operation may be initiated based on the monitored flow rate being less than, or upon the monitored flow rate dropping below, a threshold flow rate, indicating the combine 50 being located within, or passing into, a headland of the working environment”; para. [0036]: “it should be understood that the various aspects, embodiments, examples and alternatives set out herein, and individual features thereof may be taken independently or in any possible and compatible combination”; para. [0011]: “The cleaning strategy may comprise controlling operation of the one or more operable components in a manner so as to reduce a build-up of material on a surface of the sensing arrangement, such as a lens”; para. [0003]: “cameras or other vision based sensors to monitor the crop flow”, wherein condition for cleaning strategy can be combined thus indicating initiate a cleaning routine when the detected interval is equal to or greater than a predefined interval and when the measured parameter of the agricultural harvester is less than a predefined parameter threshold).
KOCH is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of cleaning sensors in response to debris obscuring vision sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Corbanin view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and incorporate the timing of cleaning operation of KOCH and initiate cleaning based on a schedule and operational parameter. Doing so will initiate a cleaning strategy without negatively impacting the overall working operation of the machine (KOCH, para. [0014]). Corbanin view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH fails to specifically teach cleaning a panel.
However, in the same field of endeavor, YAMAUCHI teaches a cleaning routine when the detected percentage of pixels within the data indicating debris on the panel (FIG. 1; FIG. 4; para. [0094]: “In cases in which a water droplet or a foreign object such as dirt has been determined to be present on the surface of the windshield glass 1 at step 404”; para. [0097]: “At step 410, a command signal to drive the washer device 70 so as to spray washer fluid for a predetermined duration, and at step 412, a command signal to drive the wiper device such that the wiper blades 28, 30 perform a predetermined number of to-and-fro wiping actions between the lower return position P2 and the upper return position P1”; para. [0115]: “in the present exemplary embodiment, in cases in which a foreign object such as dirt has been detected on the surface of the windshield glass 1, the functional area 98 close to the lens of the on-board camera 92 is cleaned as a priority in order to secure the field of sight of the on-board camera 92 that acquires information related to automated driving and advanced driver-assistance by the vehicle”; para. [0093]: “cases in which a brightness difference AB, this being the difference between the maximum and the minimum pixel values that include a predetermined pixel quantity N or greater, is a predetermined threshold value or greater, a foreign object such as dirt is determined to be present on the surface of the windshield glass 1”, wherein windshield glass corresponds to an example of a panel).
YAMAUCHI is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of cleaning in response to debris obscuring vision sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and incorporate cleaning of the windshield or side panel of YAMAUCHI as cameras are often installed for image capture ahead of the vehicle through the windshield glass (YAMAUCHI, para. [0003]). Doing so will enhance accuracy by securing the field of sight of the on-board camera that acquires information (YAMAUCHI, para. [0115]).
Regarding claim 2, Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and further in view of YAMAUCHI teaches the system of claim 1. Zielke further teaches wherein the cleaning system further comprises rotating brush (FIG. 12; para. [0089]: “an automatic camera lens cleaning apparatus 38 is used to prevent the buildup of excessive dust and debris on the camera lens 36. In various implementations the cleaning apparatus 38 has a small rotational servo 44 with a bristled brush 40 mounted to an arm 42. When the servo 44 is activated, the brush 40 is rotated, in the direction of reference arrow C, via the arm 42 such that it brushes across the camera lens 36 to remove any dust and/or debris that has built up.”), but fails to specifically teach a nozzle configured to direct at least one or a fluid or pressurized air at the panel.
However, YAMAUCHI further teaches wherein the cleaning system further comprises: a nozzle configured to direct at least one or a fluid or pressurized air at the panel (FIG. 1; FIG. 4 410-412; para. [0064]: “While the washer switch 62 is ON, rotation of the washer motor 64 provided to the washer device 70 drives the washer pump 66. The washer pump 66 conveys washer fluid under pressure from the washer tank 68 to a driver's seat side hose 72A and a front passenger seat side hose 72B. The driver's seat side hose 72A is connected to a driver's seat side nozzle 74A provided beneath the windshield glass 1 on the driver's seat side. The front passenger seat side hose 72B is connected to a front passenger seat side nozzle 74B provided beneath the windshield glass 1 on the front passenger seat side.”; para. [0097]: “At step 410, a command signal to drive the washer device 70 so as to spray washer fluid for a predetermined duration”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a simple substitution of the rotating brush of Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and further in view of YAMAUCHI with the washer device of YAMAUCHI because both mechanisms are known to remove foreign object attached to a surface and would obtained the predictable result of securing the field of sight of the on-board camera that acquires information (YAMAUCHI, para. [0115]).
Regarding claim 3, Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and further in view of YAMAUCHI teaches the system of claim 2. Zielke and YAMAUCHI further teaches wherein the cleaning system further comprises: a wiper assembly configured to contact the panel and remove debris therefrom (Zielke FIG. 12; YAMAUCHI FIG. 1; YAMAUCHI FIG. 4 410-412; YAMAUCHI para. [0067]: “The foreign object removal switch 78 is a switch used to set the foreign object removal mode in which washer fluid is automatically sprayed and a wiping action is performed by the wiper blades 28, 30 when the foreign object removal switch 78 is in an ON state and a water droplet or a foreign object such as dirt has been detected on the surface of the windshield glass 1.”).
Regarding claim 4, Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and further in view of YAMAUCHI teaches the system of claim 3. YAMAUCHI further teaches wherein the nozzle is positioned on a wiper of the wiper assembly and is movable with the wiper (FIG. 9; para. [0118]: “exemplary embodiment differs from that of the first exemplary embodiment in the provision of washer fluid spray nozzles to the wiper arms 24, 26”; para. [0119]: “The opening spray hoses 172A are connected to opening spray nozzles 174A respectively provided close to the leading ends of the wiper arms 24, 26. The closing spray hoses 172B are connected to closing spray nozzles 174B respectively provided close to the leading ends of the wiper arms 24, 26”).
Regarding claim 5, Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and further in view of YAMAUCHI teaches the system of claim 2. YAMAUCHI further teaches wherein the cleaning system further comprises: a reservoir configured to retain a liquid for use by the cleaning system, wherein the liquid is received from an HVAC system (FIG. 1; para. [0064: “The washer pump 66 conveys washer fluid under pressure from the washer tank 68 to a driver's seat side hose 72A and a front passenger seat side hose 72B”; para. [0119]: “In the present exemplary embodiment, a washer pump 166 is driven by rotation of the washer motor 64. The washer pump 166 conveys washer fluid under pressure from the washer tank 68 to either opening spray hoses 172A or closing spray hoses 172B.”, wherein waster tank is part of an HVAC system).
Regarding claim 7, Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and further in view of YAMAUCHI teaches the system of claim 1. Zielke and YAMAUCHI further teaches wherein the cleaning routine removes at least a portion of the debris that is within a light source focal region of the panel or a vision-based sensor focal region of the panel (Zielke FIG. 12; YAMAUCHI para. [0111]: “in cases in which a foreign object such as dirt is present on the surface of the windshield glass 1, washer fluid is only sprayed from the functional area nozzle 74C for a predetermined duration in order to prioritize securing the field of sight of the on-board camera 92 that acquires information necessary for automated driving and advanced driver-assistance by the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 8, Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and further in view of YAMAUCHI teaches the system of claim 1. Corban further comprising: a cover positioned on an opposing side of the support structure from the carrier (FIG. 4; para. [0038]: “an imaging system 130 includes a camera 132 with an image sensor 134 and a housing 136. The camera 132 may be have its own housing contained within the housing 136 or instead be housed only by the housing 136. The housing 136 may be open at the side facing the grain tailings elevator 70 or it may have a side wall 138 with an opening or be made of a translucent material to allow light in sufficient for the camera 132 to image the interior of the grain tailings elevator 70”; wherein as shown in FIG. 4, the enclosed housing shows a cover positioned on an opposing side of the support structure from the carrier).
Regarding claim 9, Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and further in view of YAMAUCHI teaches the system of claim 5. YAMAUCHI further teaches further comprising: a pump fluidly coupled between the reservoir and the nozzle (para. [0064]: “The washer pump 66 conveys washer fluid under pressure from the washer tank 68 to a driver's seat side hose 72A and a front passenger seat side hose 72B. The driver's seat side hose 72A is connected to a driver's seat side nozzle 74A provided beneath the windshield glass 1 on the driver's seat side”); and
a valve positioned between the nozzle and the pump (para. [0111]: “Note that the solenoid valve 84A is disposed between the washer pump 66 and the driver's seat side nozzle 74A, the solenoid valve 84B is disposed between the washer pump 66 and the front passenger seat side nozzle 74B, and the solenoid valve 84C is disposed between the washer pump 66 and the functional area nozzle 74C.”).
Claims 6 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corban, in view of Loukili, and further in view of Zielke, and further in view of KOCH, and further in view of YAMAUCHI, and further in view of Ferrari (US 20190379847 A1).
Ferrari is cited in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 6, Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and further in view of YAMAUCHI teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein the computing system is further configured to determine a detected percentage of pixels within data indicating debris on the panel; and initiate the cleaning routine to remove at least a portion of the debris from the panel based on the percentage of pixels within the data indicating debris on the panel.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ferrari further teaches wherein the computing system is further configured to determine a detected percentage of pixels within data indicating debris on the panel (para. [0048]: “when the vision-based sensor is effectively obscured or inoperative based on a number or a density of individual pixels of the plurality of pixels that have been identified as being obscured or inoperative […] configured to identify one or more of the vision-based sensors 104 as being effectively obscured or inoperative when the density of pixels identified as being obscured or inoperative within one or more pixel groups exceeds a predetermined density threshold value”, wherein density indicates percentage); and
initiate the cleaning routine to remove at least a portion of the debris from the panel based on the percentage of pixels within the data indicating debris on the panel (FIG. 6; para. [0049]: “Additionally, at (212), the method 200 may include initiating, with the computing device, a control action when it is determined that the vision-based sensor is obscured or inoperative. […], the controller 122 may be configured to automatically initiate a control action that results in the ground speed of the implement 14 and/or the work vehicle 12 being adjusted, such as by automatically controlling the operation of the vehicle's engine 23 and/or transmission 25. Moreover, the controller 122 may also be configured to automatically control the operation of a cleaning system(s) 110 of the vision-based sensor(s) 104 to remove particulates from the associated lens(es) 106”).
Ferrari is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of cleaning in response to debris obscuring vision sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and further in view of YAMAUCHI and incorporate the cleaning system of Ferrari. Doing so will enhance image quality by removing dirt/debris which obscures portion of the lens (Ferrari, para. [0037]: “Specifically, when a number of pixels of the associated image sensor 108 of a vision-based sensor 104 are determined to be obscured or inoperative, the images captured by such vision-based sensor 104 may be of low quality. In such instances, the vision-based sensor 104 as a whole may be considered obscured or inoperative.”).
Regarding claim 16, it recites a system comprising a computing system including one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the computing system to perform operations (Ferrari para. [0028]: “controller 122 may generally comprise memory element(s) including, but not limited to, a computer readable medium (e.g., random access memory (RAM)), a computer readable non-volatile medium […] configured to store suitable computer-readable instructions that, when implemented by the processor(s) 124, configure the controller 122 to perform various computer-implemented functions, such as one or more aspects of the method 200 described below with reference to FIG. 6.”) claim limitations similar to those of the system of claim 6, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 17, Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and further in view of YAMAUCHI and further in view of Ferrari teaches the system of claim 16. YAMAUCHI further teaches wherein the cleaning system further comprises: a nozzle configured to direct at least one or a fluid or pressurized air at the panel (FIG. 1; FIG. 4 410-412; para. [0064]: “While the washer switch 62 is ON, rotation of the washer motor 64 provided to the washer device 70 drives the washer pump 66. The washer pump 66 conveys washer fluid under pressure from the washer tank 68 to a driver's seat side hose 72A and a front passenger seat side hose 72B. The driver's seat side hose 72A is connected to a driver's seat side nozzle 74A provided beneath the windshield glass 1 on the driver's seat side. The front passenger seat side hose 72B is connected to a front passenger seat side nozzle 74B provided beneath the windshield glass 1 on the front passenger seat side.”; para. [0097]: “At step 410, a command signal to drive the washer device 70 so as to spray washer fluid for a predetermined duration”).
Regarding claim 18, Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and further in view of YAMAUCHI and further in view of Ferrari teaches the system of claim 17. Ferrari and YAMAUCHI further teaches wherein the cleaning system further comprises: a wiper assembly configured to contact the panel and remove debris therefrom (Ferrari para. [0025]: “the cleaning system 110 may include a wiper arm 112 pivotally coupled to a vision-based sensor housing 114. As such, the wiper arm 112 may be configured to pivot relative to the sensor housing 114 (e.g., as indicated by arrow 116 in FIG. 2) in a manner that permits the wiper arm 112 to sweep across at least a portion of the lens 106, thereby removing the accumulated particulate matter from the lens 106”; YAMAUCHI FIG. 1; YAMAUCHI FIG. 4 410-412; YAMAUCHI para. [0067]: “The foreign object removal switch 78 is a switch used to set the foreign object removal mode in which washer fluid is automatically sprayed and a wiping action is performed by the wiper blades 28, 30 when the foreign object removal switch 78 is in an ON state and a water droplet or a foreign object such as dirt has been detected on the surface of the windshield glass 1.”).
Regarding claim 19, Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and further in view of YAMAUCHI and further in view of Ferrari teaches the system of claim 18. YAMAUCHI further teaches wherein the nozzle is positioned on a wiper of the wiper assembly and is movable with the wiper (FIG. 9; para. [0118]: “exemplary embodiment differs from that of the first exemplary embodiment in the provision of washer fluid spray nozzles to the wiper arms 24, 26”; para. [0119]: “The opening spray hoses 172A are connected to opening spray nozzles 174A respectively provided close to the leading ends of the wiper arms 24, 26. The closing spray hoses 172B are connected to closing spray nozzles 174B respectively provided close to the leading ends of the wiper arms 24, 26”).
Regarding claim 20, Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and further in view of YAMAUCHI and further in view of Ferrari teaches the system of claim 17. YAMAUCHI further teaches wherein the cleaning system further comprises: a reservoir configured to retain a liquid for use by the cleaning system, wherein the liquid is received from an HVAC system (FIG. 1; para. [0064: “The washer pump 66 conveys washer fluid under pressure from the washer tank 68 to a driver's seat side hose 72A and a front passenger seat side hose 72B”; para. [0119]: “In the present exemplary embodiment, a washer pump 166 is driven by rotation of the washer motor 64. The washer pump 166 conveys washer fluid under pressure from the washer tank 68 to either opening spray hoses 172A or closing spray hoses 172B.”, wherein water tank is part of an HVAC system).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrari in view of Zielke, and further in view of KOCH, and further in view of YAMAUCHI.
Regarding claim 10, Ferrari teaches a computer-implemented method for agricultural harvesting (FIG. 1; para. [0018]-[0019]: “present subject matter is directed to systems and methods for monitoring sensor performance on an agricultural machine […] the work vehicle 12 may be configured as any other suitable type of vehicle, such as an agricultural harvester”;), the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a sensor system, data indicative of a percentage of pixels within the data indicating debris on lens of a sensor (FIG. 6 202-210; para. [0048]: “As shown in FIG. 6, at (210), the method 200 may also include determining, with the computing device, when the vision-based sensor is effectively obscured or inoperative based on a number or a density of individual pixels of the plurality of pixels that have been identified as being obscured or inoperative.”; para. [0035]: “For example, dust or another particulate may be present on the lens(es) 106 of the vision-based sensor(s) 104 that obscures one or more of the pixels associated image sensor 108. In general, a pixel may be obscured when a translucent or opaque particulate (e.g., dust, dirt, plant matter, and/or the like)”);
determining, with a computing system, a detected percentage of pixels within the data indicating debris on the lens (para. [0048]: “when the vision-based sensor is effectively obscured or inoperative based on a number or a density of individual pixels of the plurality of pixels that have been identified as being obscured or inoperative […] configured to identify one or more of the vision-based sensors 104 as being effectively obscured or inoperative when the density of pixels identified as being obscured or inoperative within one or more pixel groups exceeds a predetermined density threshold value”, wherein density indicates percentage);
comparing, with the computing system, the detected percentage of pixels within the data indicating debris on the panel to a threshold amount (para. [0048]: “In another embodiment, the controller 122 may be configured to identify one or more of the vision-based sensors 104 as being effectively obscured or inoperative when the density of pixels identified as being obscured or inoperative within one or more pixel groups exceeds a predetermined density threshold value.”);
initiating, with a cleaning system, a cleaning routine when the detected percentage of pixels within the data indicating debris on the lens is greater than or equal to a threshold amount (FIG. 6; para. [0049]: “Additionally, at (212), the method 200 may include initiating, with the computing device, a control action when it is determined that the vision-based sensor is obscured or inoperative. […], the controller 122 may be configured to automatically initiate a control action that results in the ground speed of the implement 14 and/or the work vehicle 12 being adjusted, such as by automatically controlling the operation of the vehicle's engine 23 and/or transmission 25. Moreover, the controller 122 may also be configured to automatically control the operation of a cleaning system(s) 110 of the vision-based sensor(s) 104 to remove particulates from the associated lens(es) 106”), but fails to specifically teach a panel and determining, with the computing system, a detected interval since a previous cleaning routine; measuring, with the computing system, a parameter of an agricultural harvester; initiating, with the cleaning system, the cleaning routine when the detected interval is equal to or greater than a predefined interval and when the measured parameter of the agricultural harvester is less than a predefined parameter threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zielke teaches determining, with the computing system, a detected interval since a previous cleaning routine (para. [0090]: “activation of the servo 44 can be controlled by the processing unit 16. The processing unit 16, by analyzing the captured images 26 from the camera 14, can estimate the amount of dust or debris on the camera lens 36. For example, if the processing unit 16 detects that dust and/or debris is immediately obscuring the lens 36, the servo 44 and brush 40 are immediately activated. In some implementations, the cleaning apparatus 38 may operate on an automatic schedule, such as every 1-5 minutes.”, wherein “automatic schedule, such as every 1-5 minutes” indicates determine a detected interval since a previous cleaning routine);
initiating, with the cleaning system, the cleaning routine when the detected interval is equal to or greater than a predefined interval (para. [0090]: “the cleaning apparatus 38 may operate on an automatic schedule, such as every 1-5 minutes.”)
Ferrari and Zielke are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cleaning sensors in response to debris obscuring vision sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ferrari and incorporate the cleaning timings of Zielke. Doing so will enhance image quality by removing dirt/debris from building up which degrades images and obscure the field of view (Zielke, para. [0088]-[0089]). Ferrari in view of Zielke fails to specifically teach cleaning a panel and measure a parameter of the agricultural harvester; and initiate a cleaning routine when the detected interval is equal to or greater than a predefined interval and when the measured parameter of the agricultural harvester is less than a predefined parameter threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, KOCH teaches determining, with the computing system, a detected interval since a previous cleaning routine (para. [0025]: “the control system may be configured to periodically perform, or at least recommend performance of, the cleaning strategy.”); measuring, with the computing system, a parameter of an agricultural harvester (para. [0058]: “the operational parameter for the combine 50 includes a measure of a throughput of material in one or more material flowpaths within the combine”); and initiating, with the cleaning system, the cleaning routine when the detected interval is equal to or greater than a predefined interval and when the measured parameter of the agricultural harvester is less than a predefined parameter threshold (para. [0025]: “the control system may be configured to periodically perform […] cleaning”; para. [0058]: “performance of a cleaning operation may be initiated based on the monitored flow rate being less than, or upon the monitored flow rate dropping below, a threshold flow rate, indicating the combine 50 being located within, or passing into, a headland of the working environment”; para. [0036]: “it should be understood that the various aspects, embodiments, examples and alternatives set out herein, and individual features thereof may be taken independently or in any possible and compatible combination”; para. [0011]: “The cleaning strategy may comprise controlling operation of the one or more operable components in a manner so as to reduce a build-up of material on a surface of the sensing arrangement, such as a lens”; para. [0003]: “cameras or other vision based sensors to monitor the crop flow”, wherein condition for cleaning strategy can be combined thus indicating initiate a cleaning routine when the detected interval is equal to or greater than a predefined interval and when the measured parameter of the agricultural harvester is less than a predefined parameter threshold).
KOCH is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of cleaning sensors in response to debris obscuring vision sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ferrari in view of Zielke and incorporate the timing of cleaning operation of KOCH and initiate cleaning based on a schedule and operational parameter. Doing so will initiate a cleaning strategy without negatively impacting the overall working operation of the machine (KOCH, para. [0014]). Corbanin view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH fails to specifically teach cleaning a panel.
However, in the same field of endeavor, YAMAUCHI teaches a cleaning routine when the detected percentage of pixels within the data indicating debris on the panel (FIG. 1; FIG. 4; para. [0094]: “In cases in which a water droplet or a foreign object such as dirt has been determined to be present on the surface of the windshield glass 1 at step 404”; para. [0097]: “At step 410, a command signal to drive the washer device 70 so as to spray washer fluid for a predetermined duration, and at step 412, a command signal to drive the wiper device such that the wiper blades 28, 30 perform a predetermined number of to-and-fro wiping actions between the lower return position P2 and the upper return position P1”; para. [0115]: “in the present exemplary embodiment, in cases in which a foreign object such as dirt has been detected on the surface of the windshield glass 1, the functional area 98 close to the lens of the on-board camera 92 is cleaned as a priority in order to secure the field of sight of the on-board camera 92 that acquires information related to automated driving and advanced driver-assistance by the vehicle”; para. [0093]: “cases in which a brightness difference AB, this being the difference between the maximum and the minimum pixel values that include a predetermined pixel quantity N or greater, is a predetermined threshold value or greater, a foreign object such as dirt is determined to be present on the surface of the windshield glass 1”, wherein windshield glass corresponds to an example of a panel).
YAMAUCHI is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of cleaning in response to debris obscuring vision sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and incorporate cleaning of the windshield or side panel of YAMAUCHI as cameras are often installed for image capture ahead of the vehicle through the windshield glass (YAMAUCHI, para. [0003]). Doing so will enhance accuracy by securing the field of sight of the on-board camera that acquires information (YAMAUCHI, para. [0115]).
Regarding claim 11, Ferrari in view of Zielke, and further in view of KOCH, and further in view of YAMAUCHI teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 10. Ferrari and YAMAUCHI further teach wherein determining, with the computing system, a detected percentage of pixels within the data indicating debris on the panel comprises utilizing an image processing algorithm to determine the detected percentage of pixels within the data indicating debris adhered to the panel (Ferrari FIG. 5; Ferrari para. [0007]: “Furthermore, the method may include, when the variance associated with the image parameter values for a given pixel of the plurality of pixels falls outside of a predetermined range, identifying, with the computing device, the given pixel as being at least one of obscured or inoperative. The method may further include determining, with the computing device, when the vision-based sensor is obscured or inoperative based on a number or a density of individual pixels of the plurality of pixels that have been identified as being obscured or inoperative”; Ferrari para. [0031]: “the controller 122 may include any suitable image processing algorithms stored within its memory 126 or may otherwise use any suitable image processing techniques to determine the image parameter values associated with the pixels contained within the received images”; Ferrari para. [0038]: “the controller 122 may be configured to determine the density of the pixels (i.e., the number of obscured or inoperative pixels per unit of area) within each pixel group and compare the determined density to a predetermined threshold density value. In the event that the determined density of one or more of the pixel groups exceeds the predetermined threshold density value, the controller 122 may be configured to identify the associated vision-based sensor 104 as being effectively obscured or inoperative”; YAMAUCHI FIG. 5-6; YAMAUCHI para. [0093]: “In the present exemplary embodiment, in cases in which a brightness difference AB, this being the difference between the maximum and the minimum pixel values that include a predetermined pixel quantity N or greater, is a predetermined threshold value or greater, a foreign object such as dirt is determined to be present on the surface of the windshield glass 1.).
Regarding claim 12, Ferrari in view of Zielke, and further in view of KOCH, and further in view of YAMAUCHI computer-implemented method of claim 10. Ferrari further teaches wherein the cleaning routine comprises activating, with the computing system, a wiper towards the panel of the sensor (para. [0025]: “the cleaning system 110 may include a wiper arm 112 pivotally coupled to a vision-based sensor housing 114. As such, the wiper arm 112 may be configured to pivot relative to the sensor housing 114 (e.g., as indicated by arrow 116 in FIG. 2) in a manner that permits the wiper arm 112 to sweep across at least a portion of the lens 106, thereby removing the accumulated particulate matter from the lens 106”).
However, YAMAUCHI further teaches wherein the cleaning routine comprises activating, with the computing system, a pump to direct fluid from a reservoir through a nozzle and towards the panel of the sensor (FIG. 1; FIG. 4 410-412; para. [0064]: “While the washer switch 62 is ON, rotation of the washer motor 64 provided to the washer device 70 drives the washer pump 66. The washer pump 66 conveys washer fluid under pressure from the washer tank 68 to a driver's seat side hose 72A and a front passenger seat side hose 72B. The driver's seat side hose 72A is connected to a driver's seat side nozzle 74A provided beneath the windshield glass 1 on the driver's seat side. The front passenger seat side hose 72B is connected to a front passenger seat side nozzle 74B provided beneath the windshield glass 1 on the front passenger seat side.”; para. [0097]: “At step 410, a command signal to drive the washer device 70 so as to spray washer fluid for a predetermined duration”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ferrari in view of YAMAUCHI and incorporate the washer of YAMAUCHI because using washer is known to clean surfaces and would have obtained the predictable result of removal of debris, thus providing an accurate and enhanced accuracy by securing the field of sight of the on-board camera that acquires information related to automated driving and advanced driver-assistance by the vehicle (YAMAUCHI, para. [0115]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrari in view of Zielke, and further in view of KOCH, and further in view of YAMAUCHI, and further in view of OBA (US20150202663A1).
OBA is cited in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 13, Ferrari in view of Zielke, and further in view of KOCH, and further in view of YAMAUCHI teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 10. YAMAUCHI further teaches wherein the cleaning routine comprises activating, with the computing system, (para. [0004]: “a cleaning device that detects a foreign object adhering to an optical image capture system and automatically removes the foreign object with blown air”), but fails to specifically teach an air pump to direct air through an air nozzle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, OBA teaches wherein the cleaning routine comprises activating, with the computing system, an air pump to direct air through an air nozzle and towards the panel (para. [0046]: “The foreign material removal processing unit 33 includes an air injection adjusting unit 331 and an air injecting unit 332. The air injection adjusting unit 331 allows the air injecting unit 332 to inject the air at the pressure”; para. [0058]: “inject the air from the nozzle the closest to the adhering foreign material to remove the same”; para. [0003]: “a foreign material such as a droplet and dust adheres to a lens portion and the like”).
OBA is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of cleaning in response to debris obscuring vision sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cleaning system of Ferrari in view of Zielke, and further in view of KOCH, and further in view of YAMAUCHI and incorporate air injection of OBA. Doing so will remove the adhered foreign material by giving a water-repellent property to the surface to which the foreign material adheres in the imaging optical system (OBA, para. [0012]), thus enhancing accuracy of the imaging optical system.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrari in view of Zielke, and further in view of KOCH, and further in view of YAMAUCHI and further in view of SHINNOSUKE (JP 4605667 B2).
A PE2E English translation of SHINNOSUKE (JP 4605667 B2) cited by the Examiner is attached.
Regarding claim 15, Ferrari in view of Zielke, and further in view of KOCH, and further in view of YAMAUCHI computer-implemented method of claim 10. KOCH further teaches wherein the parameter indicates overall working operation of the machine (para. [0057]: “within a headland of the environment, or is otherwise not engaging crop within the environment, and as such a cleaning strategy may be performed without negatively impacting the overall working operation of the machine […] monitored flow rate dropping below, a threshold flow rate, indicating the combine 50 being located within, or passing into, a headland of the working environment”), but fails to specifically teach including at least one of a ground speed, a chopper pressure, a primary extractor revolutions per minute (RPM), a secondary extractor RPM, an elevator RPM, or a combination thereof.
However, SHINNOSUKE teaches the parameter including at least one of a ground speed, a chopper pressure, a primary extractor revolutions per minute (RPM), a secondary extractor RPM, an elevator RPM, or a combination thereof (pg 3 para. 2-3: “vehicle speed increases, the threshold value is increased to make it difficult to switch the vehicle body state to the non-working state […] when turning a headland (turning about 180 degrees at the shore), the vehicle is often driven at a relatively low speed, and the steering handle is often operated relatively quickly. In such a case, by changing the threshold value to make it easier to switch the vehicle body state to the non-working state).
SHINNOSUKE is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of identifying a working environment of a harvester. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified operational parameters of detecting whether harvester is in headland of Ferrari in view of Zielke, and further in view of KOCH, and further in view of YAMAUCHI and incorporate the teachings of SHINNOSUKE and include speed, as speed is reduced in the headland. Doing so will result in a work vehicle that can switch the state of a vehicle body from a working state to a non-working state with high accuracy (SHINNOSUKE, pg 2, para. 3), thus cleaning strategy may be performed without negatively impacting the overall working operation of the machine (KOCH, para. [0057]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corban, in view of Loukili, and further in view of Zielke, and further in view of KOCH, and further in view of YAMAUCHI, and further in view of SHINNOSUKE.
Regarding claim 21, Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and further in view of YAMAUCHI teaches the system of claim 1. KOCH further teaches wherein the parameter indicates overall working operation of the machine (para. [0057]: “within a headland of the environment, or is otherwise not engaging crop within the environment, and as such a cleaning strategy may be performed without negatively impacting the overall working operation of the machine […] monitored flow rate dropping below, a threshold flow rate, indicating the combine 50 being located within, or passing into, a headland of the working environment”), but fails to specifically teach including at least one of a ground speed, a chopper pressure, a primary extractor revolutions per minute (RPM), a secondary extractor RPM, an elevator RPM, or a combination thereof.
However, SHINNOSUKE teaches the parameter including at least one of a ground speed, a chopper pressure, a primary extractor revolutions per minute (RPM), a secondary extractor RPM, an elevator RPM, or a combination thereof (pg 3 para. 2-3: “vehicle speed increases, the threshold value is increased to make it difficult to switch the vehicle body state to the non-working state […] when turning a headland (turning about 180 degrees at the shore), the vehicle is often driven at a relatively low speed, and the steering handle is often operated relatively quickly. In such a case, by changing the threshold value to make it easier to switch the vehicle body state to the non-working state).
SHINNOSUKE is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of identifying a working environment of a harvester. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified operational parameters of detecting whether harvester is in headland of Corban in view of Loukili and further in view of Zielke and further in view of KOCH and further in view of YAMAUCHI and incorporate the teachings of SHINNOSUKE and include speed, as speed is reduced in the headland. Doing so will result in a work vehicle that can switch the state of a vehicle body from a working state to a non-working state with high accuracy (SHINNOSUKE, pg 2, para. 3), thus cleaning strategy may be performed without negatively impacting the overall working operation of the machine (KOCH, para. [0057]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kanitz (US 20220132004 A1) teaches implementing different cleaning mechanism based on speed of vehicle.
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 ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/ANDREW SANG KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
