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
This office action is in response to application number 18/626,134 filed on 12/19/2025, in which Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Applicant amends Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-11, 16, and 18-20.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for Application No. EP24162747.0.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 4/6/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE10 2023 108 956.0 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/3/2024 and the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/10/2024 were received and considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the claim for foreign priority and missing certified copy have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner recognizes that Applicant provides a new access code for the certified copy, however, no certified copy is provided or included in the file wrapper. The acknowledgement, as written above, and set forth in the office action of 9/24/2024 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 2-3 and 11, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the objections to the abstract and specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The of 9/24/2024 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 4-9 and 11, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the claims set forth in the office action of 9/24/2024 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 4-9 and 11, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 7, 9, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 7, 9, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the office action of 9/24/2024 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see pgs. 4-9 and 11-12, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in the office action of 9/24/2024 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see pgs. , filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the has been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant explains that independent Claim 1 describes a method for identifying a first time a harvesting machine crosses a crop edge to enter a second part of the field. Applicant argues that Moore describes continually recording GPS position during “the delay for yield time period” and adjusting the yield data based on the GPS recordings. And further, that Moore discloses a static time delay with a predetermined length and does not discuss dynamically computing a time delay as described by independent Claim 1. Applicant further argues that Redenius describes adjusting data by accounting for “the runtime of the crop,” and, as with Moore, discloses a static time delay.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are based on a required frequency of performing the method steps, however, independent Claim 1 does not define this. Instead the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 1 includes identifying a time delay between a first time, when a harvester crosses a crop edge, and a second time, when a sensor of the harvester identifies crop. The claim only describes identifying these times, identifying a delay, and correcting a map based on the delay. The claim does not explicitly state or require that the steps be performed at a certain frequency during harvesting operations, such as different times the harvester crosses a crop edge. Although Moore does not explicitly state “identifying” or “calculating” a time delay, it does describe that a time delay is as a “delay for yield,” [pg. 3, para 0066-0067] where there is an optimum delay for yield based on harvesting conditions. Moore, [pg. 3, paras 0061-0065], explains that the delay for yield is a delay between a time a crop is cut and a time it passes a yield meter in a combine. And further, that a flow of grain measured by the yield meter is linked to a position of the combine to ensure that yield calculation is correct and more importantly for yield mapping purposes because the “calculated yield must be related to and recorded with the actual position of where the crop was cut” because using an incorrect delay will off-set the readings. Therefore, Moore does describe how a time delay is determined and how it is used. Similar to application Claim 1, Moore does not explicitly cite at what frequency or at what time, or times, during harvesting operations this determination is made as part of its invention, however, it does explain, as stated above, [pg. 3, para 0066-0067] that an optimum delay exists based on the harvesting conditions. And further, how this determination could be accomplished by explaining that [pg. 3, paras 0069-0070] a GPS can be used to measure position data and [pgs. 3-4, para 0073] a yield meter can be used to measure the crop within the combine, or harvester. Finally, Examiner does agree that Redenius does not disclose a “dynamic time delay” as described by Applicant.
Based on the analysis above, the of 9/24/2024 is maintained. In light of the amendments, an updated rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made. Further details are provided below.
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 (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 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 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, PG Pub US-2002/0091458-A1 (herein "Moore") in view of Redenius et al., EP-3772269-A1 (herein "Redenius") and Anderson et al., PG Pub US-2020/0128737-A1 (herein “Anderson”).
Regarding Claim 1, Moore discloses: (Currently Amended) A method for preparing an electronic yield map. See [Moore, Abstract], which describes the method for collecting yield data and filtering the data, “A method of collecting yield data from a harvesting machine includes the steps of establishing a first data set comprising raw data by continuously recording yield and position data periodically at data points when the harvesting machine is in a harvesting area. Each data point is tagged with a code indicative of a harvesting parameter of the said harvesting machine. A filtering process is applied to the first data set to create a second data set, wherein invalid data is removed by the filtering process. The filtering process includes the step of identifying all data points in the filtering process where the status of at least one harvesting parameter indicates that the harvester is not harvesting.” See also [Moore, pg. 1, para 0001], which explains that the method is used for yield mapping, “This invention relates to yield mapping, and is particularly concerned with improving the accuracy of yield maps.”
Moore further discloses: the method comprising: identifying, using a computer device and based on position data, a location of a crop edge that separates a first part of a field from a second part of the field, the second part of the field containing crop to be harvested; identifying, using the computer device and based on the position data, a first time at which a harvesting machine crossed the crop edge to enter the second part of the field. See again [Moore, Abstract], which explains that yield data and position data are continuously recorded for generating a dataset. See also [Moore, pg. 3, paras 0069-0071], which explain that as the harvester cuts crop and the position and yield is recorded by a computer of the combine, including the position and time when the crop is cut, “[0069] Position data is recorded prior to that of yield data, and hence the second function of delay for yield is to correctly match each position and yield measurement within the actual field. [0070] As the harvester cuts the crop, the GPS position of the machine is continually recorded in WGS-84 co-ordinates. These co-ordinates are stored in a buffer inside the combine's computer for the duration of the "delay for yield" time period. At the end of the time period, the yield value measured at the yield meter is attached to the already recorded position. Therefore, if an incorrect delay for yield is used, the yield data will not be matched with its true position within the field, resulting in the yield measurements being off-set. [0071] FIG. 9 illustrates the effect of an incorrect delay for yield on the positioning of yield measurements within a field. When traversing the combine backwards and forwards across the field, the yield data becomes incorrectly positioned. This introduces an error into the yield map, with yield values in each harvest run not being aligned with the values in adjacent runs.” Finally, see [Moore pgs. 3-4, para 0073], which explains that as the harvester enters the crop, the time period is identified by a specific type of crop edge, “FIG. 10 illustrates the time taken for the yield meter to properly register crop yield. […]. The time period of 33 seconds assumes that the cutter bar is lowered 3 seconds prior to entering the crop. It has been found that the time period between lowering the cutter bar and entering the crop is subject to significant variation. This would introduce an error into the recorded yield. The time period of 33 seconds also assumes that the combine is entering a square edged crop. Where the combine is entering a triangular edged crop the combine will take longer to fill with grain and as such the correct yield data will not be recorded after 33 seconds.”
Examiner’s Note: For the Claim 1 limitation, above, the prior art teaches that the harvester lowers the cutter bar and enters the crop, which can have various edges. By the definition provided in the specification, a crop edge can be identified, among other methods, by an increasing or decreasing yield or the start or end of picking crop [pgs. 4-5, paras 0012-0014], which defines the two field parts: one containing no crop and one containing crop. Therefore, the harvester entering a portion of the field containing crop, with an edge, serves as the crop edge and two field parts.
Moore further discloses: identifying, using the computer device and based on a throughput value generated from a sensor, a second time when the sensor started to identify the crop. See [Moore, pg. 1 para 0014], a “delay for yield,” which is the time delay from the time crop is cut and the time the flow is measured, “2. Delay for yield--this is the true position related to the measured grain flow. This represents the time delay from the crop being cut (true position), and travelling through the combine to the point where the grain flow is measured by the yield meter.” See also [Moore, pg. 3, paras 0061-0064], which further explains the “delay for yield,” which is measured by the yield meter and linked to the position, “[0061] Delay for Yield [0062] The delay for yield describes the true position where the crop was cut with the measured yield represented by the delay in time from the crop cut (true position) and the time taken to pass through the combine to the point where the yield is measured by the yield meter. [0063] The flow of grain (kg/sec) through a combine is measured in the elevator by the yield meter and is recorded after the grain has been threshed and cleaned. The measure grain flow at the yield meter must be linked with the position of the combine when the crop was cut at the cutter bar. This relationship is required for two reasons: [0064] (1) the grain flow measured at the yield meter is integrated with the calculated area (cutter bar width x forward speed), at the position where the crop was cut to convert grain flow into yield (t/ha). An incorrect delay for yield will result in yield calculation errors in the combine's computer during periods when the harvester is accelerating or decelerating, and either very high or very low yields will be recorded in the raw data set.”
Examiner’s Note: For the Claim 1 limitation, above, the flow serves as the throughput and the yield meter serves as the sensor.
Moore further discloses: identifying, using the computer device, a time delay between the first time and the second time. See [Moore, pgs. 3-4, paras 0072-0073], which explains the “lead time,” which is the time it takes for the yield meter to register crop and level off, “[0072] Lead Time [0073] FIG. 10 illustrates the time taken for the yield meter to properly register crop yield. The yield meter only begins to register after 15 seconds, and grain flow then increases rapidly until it levels off. It can be seen that the yield data recorded in the fill period is potentially erroneous. The graph in FIG. 10 suggests that a period of about 36 seconds is required from lowering the cutter bar to maximum recorded yield being recorded by the yield meter. This would suggest that if data recorded in the first 33 seconds were rejected then only valid data would remain. However, lowering the cutter bar below 50 cm above the ground activates the yield meter. The time period of 33 seconds assumes that the cutter bar is lowered 3 seconds prior to entering the crop. It has been found that the time period between lowering the cutter bar and entering the crop is subject to significant variation. This would introduce an error into the recorded yield. The time period of 33 seconds also assumes that the combine is entering a square edged crop. Where the combine is entering a triangular edged crop the combine will take longer to fill with grain and as such the correct yield data will not be recorded after 33 seconds.” See also [Moore, pg. 4, paras 0074-0078], which further explain that the time between reaching the edge of the crop and the time to register grain at the yield meter and level off as the grains fills the combine, is the lead time and yield data is not logged, “[0074] The Stages Required to Fill a Combine with Grain [0075] FIG. 11 illustrates the stages required to fill a combine with grain. The four stages shown in the Figure will be described below: [0076] Stage 1--Time between lowering the cutter bar below a pre-determined limit to the cutting height, for example 50 cm, and reaching the edge of the standing crop. The operator lowers the cutter bar as the combine harvester approaches the edge of the standing crop. As soon as the cutter-bar falls below the pre-determined limit, the start of the lead time, or time delay before yield data is recorded, is activated. The operator drives the combine harvester up to the edge of the crop and the cutter bar begins to cut. [0077] Stage 2--Time for first grain to register at yield meter. As soon as the cutter bar cuts the crop the combine harvester begins to fill with grain. The period of time required for the first grains to be transported through the combine and be registered at the yield meter. [0078] Stage 3--Time for the combine harvester to register correct yield at the yield meter. As the grain cut at a given instant will not pass through the combine as a single unit, there is a gradual increase in grain flow at the yield meter. This is a result of the redistribution of grain within the combine as it flows through the machine. For example, some grain may pass through the system rapidly, being separated at the concave, transported by the grain pan to the shaker shoe falling straight through the sieves; whereas other grain may remain unseparated at the concave, only to be separated later by the straw walkers. However, the grain flow eventually stabilises and it is assumed that the yield meter indicates the yield level. At this point the lead time ends. Yield data is therefore not logged for the period of the lead time.”
Moore does not explicitly disclose: correcting, using the computer device, a yield map based on the time delay; and controlling, using the computer device and based on the corrected yield map, a speed of the harvesting machine during subsequent operations. However, Moore does disclose logging the yield data. See [Moore, pg. 4, paras 0078-0079], that after the “lead time,” yield data is logged, “[0078] Stage 3--Time for the combine harvester to register correct yield at the yield meter. As the grain cut at a given instant will not pass through the combine as a single unit, there is a gradual increase in grain flow at the yield meter. […]. […], the grain flow eventually stabilises and it is assumed that the yield meter indicates the yield level. At this point the lead time ends. Yield data is therefore not logged for the period of the lead time. [0079] Stage 4--Yield data is logged as the combine grain transport mechanism is assumed to be full and giving a true reading of yield.” Further, [Moore, pg. 3, para 0066] also discusses the relationship between using an accurate, or optimum, time delay and the speed of the harvester which impacts the grain flow and area calculation, “FIG. 6 illustrates the optimum delay for yield time period. Forward speed is increased from 2 km/h to 6 km/h, thus affecting both the grain flow and the area calculation. At the point where the combine travelled three times faster, both grain flow and area trebled. However, if a correct time delay was introduced, for example 15 seconds, between cutting the crop and measuring the grain flow at the yield meter, the calculated yield would retain its accuracy because of the correct matching of grain flow with area.”
However, Redenius teaches: correcting, using the computer device, a yield map based on the time delay. See [Redenius, pg. 7, paras 0045-0047], which explain that the system stores crop measurements of the measurement system for quantity to determine georeferenced yield data, which is calculated from the georeferenced crop parameters, the machine trajectory, and the transit time of the crop stream to synchronize the parameters and yield data in time and space, using the time delay. Finally, the yield map is updated, “[0045] In step 104, measurements, for example the measurement of a volume flow or a mass flow, are carried out by the at least one measurement system 42, 48 in order to determine the quantity of crop material picked up. In step 106, the signals of the measurements are evaluated in the course of the data processing in order to determine yield data from the collected crop material quantity. […]. In the subsequent step 108, the yield data are stored georeferenced in the course of data keeping. [0046] In step 110, the yield data georeferenced in steps 102 and 108 are calculated with the georeferenced crop inventory parameters with respect to at least one trajectory 86 traveled by the harvesting machine 1 during the harvesting process to generate a yield map. In step 110, the environment data and operating parameters are taken into account, which describe the transit time of the crop streams through the attachment 16 and the harvesting machine 1. In this way, the crop inventory parameters and the yield data can be synchronized in time and space. Thus, with reference to a fixed point in time at which the environmental data were captured in a predictive manner, it is possible to assign one of the sections […], spaced apart from the harvesting machine 1. The yield data can be determined only with a time delay due to the loading and processing process by the working units 14 of the harvesting machine 1. Thus, the yield data can be assigned to only one section 78, 80 located behind the harvesting machine 1. Taking into account the running time of the crop streams makes it possible in step 110 to synchronize this assignment of crop inventory parameters and yield data. [0047] In step 112, documentation takes place, i.e. the creation of a yield map or the updating of an already existing yield map.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moore with Redenius to specify correcting the yield map using the time delay. Doing so allows the yield data to be assigned to a section that the harvester has just passed and allows the map to be updated, which provides a higher resolution of data [Redenius, pg. 7, para 0047]. Further, a higher resolution yield map counters the decreased resolution of using larger attachments, to increase throughput and meet demand, and improves future yield by providing data for subsequent harvesting steps, such as fertilization [Redenius, pg. 1, para 0002].
However, Anderson teaches: controlling, using the computer device and based on the corrected yield map, a speed of the harvesting machine during subsequent operations. See [Anderson, pgs. 1-2, para 0020], which explains that the system receives a yield estimate for the field currently being harvested which includes an error estimate indicative of a likely error in the yield estimate, where the yield and error are used to generate a georeferenced probability distribution, or map of where in the field a harvester will likely be full, and finally, control the harvester, where the control includes speed, “The present description thus proceeds with respect to a system in which a yield estimate is received for a field being harvested. The yield estimate can also include an error estimate indicative of a likely error in the yield estimate. The yield estimate and its corresponding error are used to generate a georeferenced probability distribution indicative of different locations where the grain tank on the harvester will likely be full. A control system generates control signals to control different portions of the harvester, based upon the georeferenced probability distribution. This greatly enhances the operation of the harvester, in that it reduces the time that the harvester may be idle and waiting to unload. In addition, the harvester can be automatically controlled to take a path, or to travel at a ground speed, based on a desired rendezvous point with a haulage unit.” See also [Anderson, pgs. 3-4, paras 0033-0034], which further explains the yield and error estimation system and using the yield and error to generate georeferenced yield estimates using a map, “[0033] Yield estimation system 160 illustratively generates an estimate of yield at different geographic locations in the field being harvested by machine 100. The yield estimation system 160 can take a wide variety of different forms and illustratively provides a georeferenced a priori estimate of yield. […]. Yield estimation system 160 can also include real time yield sensors, which sense the current yield (such as the mass flow rate of grain through machine 100, or other sensors indicative of yield) and correct the forward-looking yield estimates in the field, and particularly in the path over which machine 100 is traveling. […]. [0034] Error estimation system 162 illustratively estimates an error corresponding to the yield estimate generated by system 160. […]. [0039] Yield and corresponding error map generation logic 168 illustratively generates a georeferenced yield estimate, along with a georeferenced error estimate. This is illustratively a georeferenced predicted yield map for at least a portion of the field over which harvester 100 is traveling, along with an error estimate corresponding to the georeferenced predicted yield. In one example, the georeferenced yield and corresponding error map is generated with a resolution that corresponds to segments along a travel path of harvesting machine 100. […].” Finally see [Anderson, pg. 4, paras 0046-0048], which explains that the measured yield identifier is used to correct the estimate or error and update the yield map and, in response, the control signal generator is used to control the speed of the harvester, “[0046] Measured yield identifier logic 192 measures the actual yield encountered by harvester 100. This value can be fed back to yield estimation system 160, or error estimation system 162 in order to correct the yield estimate, or the error estimate. These corrected values can then be used by logic 168 to generate an updated yield and corresponding error map. [0047] […]. [0048] Based on the various information generated by path processing system 174, control signal generator 176 generates control signals that are applied to controllable subsystems 178. For instance, control signal generator 176 can generate control signals to control propulsion subsystem 198 to control the speed of harvesting machine 100.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moore with Anderson to include controlling the machine speed based on the updated yield map. Doing so allows for managing coordination between a harvester and haulage units, or receiving vehicles, to maximize harvested crop, or yield, and minimize grain loss, which depends on timing a location of the harvester to availability of a haulage unit using the harvester speed and yield [Anderson, pg. 4, paras 0046-0048]. Further, updating the yield map estimates with actual values is important for more accurately predicting this time and location for a rendezvous point, where yield may be lower or higher than predicted, and the harvester must increase or decrease its speed, respectively [Anderson, pg. 7, para 0077].
Regarding Claim 2, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Moore further discloses: (Original) […] wherein the harvesting machine is a combine harvester. See [Moore, pg. 1, para 0005], which explains that an example of yield monitoring on a harvester can be a combine harvester, “Precision farming often involves the farmer in equipping his harvesting machine (such as a combine harvester) with a yield monitor and a positioning system so that the crop yield at any given position can be established. The farmer can then use this information to establish a yield map, and in turn an application map. Inputs are then applied to the crop at varying rates according to the application map.” See also [Moore, FIG. 22 and pg. 6, para 0116], which shows “a schematic representation of a combine harvester.”
Regarding Claim 3, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 2.
Moore further discloses: (Currently Amended) […] the time delay is caused by difference in time between when a harvesting header of the combine harvester picks the crop and when the crop reaches the sensor. See again [Moore, pg. 1 para 0014], a “delay for yield,” which is the time delay from the time crop is cut by the cutter bar and the time the flow is measured and [Moore, pg. 3, paras 0061-0064], which further explains the “delay for yield,” which is measured by the yield meter and linked to the position. See also [Moore, FIG. 22 and pg. 6, para 0121], which shows that, “The harvester 1 comprises a table 2 having a reel 3, a cutter bar 4, and a feed auger 5,” as part of the front attachment.
Examiner’s Note: For the Claim 3 limitation, above, the cutter bar serves as the header, as shown by [Moore, FIG. 22] and known to one ordinary skill the art, a cutter bar is part of a header. Further, as stated for Claim 1, the yield meter serves as the sensor.
Moore does not explicitly disclose: correcting the yield map
However, Redenius teaches: correcting the yield map See [Redenius, pg. 5, para 0031], which explains that a combine harvester has a front attachment with a cutter for picking up crop, “The combine harvester 10 has a plurality of working units 14 for picking up and processing crop 12. In the combine harvester 10 illustrated here, the working units 14 include a front attachment 16 designed as a cutting unit for receiving crop material 12 and an inclined conveyor 18, to which the front attachment 16 is connected, for the further transport of the crop material 12 into the combine harvester 10,” and [Redenius, pg. 6, para 0041], which explains that system determines when the crop is picked up by the header and the measurement system determines the yield, “The environment detection device 60 furthermore detects the partial sections 82, 84 of the header 16 in order to determine the crop flow of the picked up crop in the header 16. Crop material 12 which is picked up in the outer edge regions of the header 16 has a greater dwell time in the header 16 than crop material 12 which is picked up in the central region of the header 16. As already explained above, yield determination takes place in the harvesting machine 1. Whereas in a harvesting machine 1 designed as a combine 10, the yield is found in the portion of the grain separated from the picked-up crop 12, in a harvesting machine 1 designed as a forage harvester, the total picked-up crop quantity is determined as yield. The yield determined by means of the at least one measurement system 42, 48 of the harvesting machine 1 is likewise stored in georeferenced form.” See again [Redenius, pg. 1, para 0002], which describes known methods for mapping yield of a harvester, which includes determining the quantity of crop picked up using sensors which measure throughput and [Redenius, pg. 4, para 0025], which explains that the crop material is picked up and measured by the measurement system using flow and duration to determine yield. Also see again [Redenius, pg. 5, paras 0033-0034], which further explain that the measurement system uses the throughput, dwell time, and sensors for measuring crop properties. Also see again [Redenius, pg. 7, paras 0045-0047], which explain that the system stores crop measurements of the measurement system for quantity to determine georeferenced yield data, which is calculated from the georeferenced crop parameters, the machine trajectory, the transit time of the crop stream to synchronize the parameters and yield data in time and space, using the time delay. Finally, the yield map is updated. See also [Redenius, pg. 8, para 0048], which explains that the yield map updates can include the operating and crop parameters, “In step 112, the operating parameters and crop material parameters already mentioned above can also be stored in georeferenced form in the yield map to be produced.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify Moore with Redenius to specify correcting the yield map using the time delay and throughput. Doing so allows the yield data to be assigned to a section that the harvester has just passed and allows the map to be updated, which provides a higher resolution of data [Redenius, pg. 7, para 0047]. Further, a higher resolution yield map counters the decreased resolution of using larger attachments, to increase throughput and meet demand, and improves future yield by providing data for subsequent harvesting steps, such as fertilization [Redenius, pg. 1, para 0002].
Regarding Claim 4, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Moore further discloses: (Original) […] wherein determining, with the computer device, the time delay comprises one or more of determining a time delay as a whole for the field, separately for individual tracks on the field, […]. See [Moore, pg. 6, para 0127], which explains that the harvesting area is a field or part of a field, “When the operator takes the combine harvester 1 into a crop harvesting area (which may be a field or a part of a field), before beginning to harvest the crop he switches the yield monitor 20 on. The data recording means begins to record data periodically at data points, for example at one second intervals.” See also [Moore, pg. 7, para 0143], which explains that the data can be marked using a yield for each harvesting run, “The second solution avoids the problem of driver fatigue by processing the data collected during harvesting. First the average yield / unit area for each harvesting run is calculated. Harvesting runs are simple to identify in the data set because the raising and lowering of the header is recorded. In general there will not be significant differences between the average yields from adjacent harvesting runs. However, if the cutter bar is not cutting at or close to its fill width a low yield will show up. Where low yielding harvesting runs are identified, these can be removed from the first data set by the filtering process.”
Examiner’s Note: For Claim 4, above, the harvesting run serves as the individual track.
Moore does not disclose: or separately for segments of the individual tracks.
However, Redenius teaches: or separately for segments of the individual tracks. See [Redenius, pg. 2, para 0008], which explains that the data can be adapted to trajectories or partial areas, “Merging the georeferenced yield data and the georeferenced crop inventory parameters, which were determined in front of the harvesting machine by predictive capture of environmental data, enables a more precise mapping of the yields on a processed agricultural surface. The calculation of the georeferenced yield data with the georeferenced crop inventory parameters with respect to at least one trajectory covered by the harvesting machine during the harvesting process specifies the spatial relationship. […]. It is likewise possible to infer partial areas of the yield-marked field at which the crop material has come to storage.” See [Redenius, pg. 7, para 0043], which explains that the spatial and temporal relationship of dwell time and parameters are associated to sections, “The respective data determined on the basis of the signals 90, 92, 94, 96 are stored in the storage device 68 in a georeferenced manner. The control and regulating device 52 is configured to determine the dwell time of the crop 12 to be processed in the harvesting machine 1 on the basis of the operating parameters detected by sensors. In this way, a spatial and temporal relationship can be produced between the crop material 12 picked up in section 74 a, 76 a, which has been processed by harvesting machine 1 for example only when section 74 c, 76 cis reached, and the yield determined therefrom,” and [Redenius, pg. 7, paras 0047-0047], which further define assigning yield data to the sections, “[0046] In step 110, the yield data georeferenced in steps 102 and 108 are calculated with the georeferenced crop inventory parameters with respect to at least one trajectory 86 traveled by the harvesting machine 1 during the harvesting process to generate a yield map. […]. Thus, with reference to a fixed point in time at which the environmental data were captured in a predictive manner, it is possible to assign one of the sections 74 a, 76 a, 74 b, 76 b, 74 c, 76 c, 74 d, 76 d, spaced apart from the harvesting machine 1. The yield data can be determined only with a time delay due to the loading and processing process by the working units 14 of the harvesting machine 1. Thus, the yield data can be assigned to only one section 78, 80 located behind the harvesting machine 1. […]. [0047] In step 112, documentation takes place, i.e. the creation of a yield map or the updating of an already existing yield map. In this case, a significantly higher resolution in yield mapping is achieved by the data fusion in step 110 and the subdivision of the area to be detected in anticipation into sections […], which are located next to one another as seen in the direction of travel of the harvesting machine 1 and the width of which is in each case smaller than the working width of the harvesting machine 1.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moore with Redenius to include determining the time delay for individual trajectories or partial areas. Doing so provides a higher precision measurement that accounts for differing crop density due to the influence of environment or weather [Redenius, pg. 2, para 008], such as parts of the field damaged due to fouling [Redenius, pg. 3, para 0016] or partial header load [Redenius, pg. 3, para 0020].
Regarding Claim 6, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Moore further discloses: (Currently Amended) […] including identifying the second time when the throughput value from the sensor exceeds a threshold value. See [Moore, pg. 4, para 0078], which explains that the yield meter registers flow but does not begin storing yield data until the flow reaches a certain point of stabilization, “Stage 3--Time for the combine harvester to register correct yield at the yield meter. As the grain cut at a given instant will not pass through the combine as a single unit, there is a gradual increase in grain flow at the yield meter. This is a result of the redistribution of grain within the combine as it flows through the machine. For example, some grain may pass through the system rapidly, being separated at the concave, transported by the grain pan to the shaker shoe falling straight through the sieves; whereas other grain may remain unseparated at the concave, only to be separated later by the straw walkers. However, the grain flow eventually stabilises and it is assumed that the yield meter indicates the yield level. At this point the lead time ends. Yield data is therefore not logged for the period of the lead time.”
Examiner’s Note: For the Claim 6 limitation, above, the flow serves as the throughput and the yield meter serves as the sensor.
Regarding Claim 7, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Moore does not explicitly disclose: (Currently Amended) […] measuring, using the computer device and with the sensor, a moisture value of the crop; and identifying, using the computer device, the throughput value based on However, Moore does disclose storing a second time based on the threshold value and accounting for harvest conditions, such as moisture content, which can impact crop flow, or finishing crop flow. See again [Moore, pg. 4, para 0078], which explains that the yield meter registers flow but does not begin storing yield data until the flow reaches a certain point of stabilization. See also [Moore, pg. 4, para 0091], which explains that the flow is impacted by moisture, “Lag time is also influenced by a large number of factors, which are similar to those affecting both the lead time and the flow of crop through the combine. Fixed factors which give consistent lag time for the whole field include the crop type and its moisture content,” and [Moore, pg. 4, para 0092], which explains that, specifically, “lag time” can be adjusted and fixed to suit harvest conditions, “[…] some systems do allow the operator to adjust the lag time to suit individual requirements and harvest conditions. This enables the lag time to be adjusted for individual fields and crops, but remains fixed until further adjusted. No account is taken for dynamic circumstances which influence the length of lag time within the field.”
However, Redenius teaches: (Currently Amended) […] measuring, using the computer device and with the sensor, a moisture value of the crop; and identifying, using the computer device, the throughput value based on See [Redenius, pg. 3, para 0019], which explains that the harvester sensors detect crop properties, including moisture, and stores them with the yield data, “Furthermore, during the processing or processing of the crop by working units of the harvesting machine, parameters relating to crop properties can be detected by sensors. Such parameters can include, for example, the moisture and/or ingredients of the crop. In addition, crop losses are also to be regarded as parameters which are detected by a sensor. These parameters of the crop can be stored together with the yield data and the crop inventory data in georeferenced form in the yield map produced according to the invention.” See also [Redenius, pg. 5, pars 0032-0034], which explain that the moisture sensor, which contributes to the determination of the throughput and the dwell time, is used for determining the yield, “[0032] […]. Furthermore, the control and regulating device 52 is connected by a bus system to a plurality of sensors or sensor arrangements […]. The sensor arrangements installed on or in the combine harvester 10 can be, inter alia, a position locating sensor 40, a moisture sensor 44 for determining the moisture content of the, in particular cleaned, crop 12, […]. […]. [0033] The arrangement of additional sensors, which detect further operating or crop parameters, by means of which in particular the throughput and the dwell time of the picked up crop 12 in the harvesting machine 1 can be determined, is conceivable. Reference numerals 42 and 48 denote, by way of example, a measuring system which serves for detecting crop yield. In this case, the measuring system 42 arranged in the top region of the conveying device 30 can be configured to determine a mass flow or a volume flow, the determination of which is carried out in conjunction with the detected moisture of the crop 12. […]. [0034] Furthermore, at least one sensor 36 can be arranged along the crop flow path through the harvesting machine 1, which sensor serves for detecting crop properties, in particular for detecting the ingredients, but which can also serve for detecting moisture and/or the crop quality. This can be, for example, an NIR sensor (near infrared sensor). By way of example, the NIR sensor 36 is arranged on the outlet pipe 38 of the conveying device 30.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moore with Redenius to specify measuring and storing the moisture value. Doing so allows the throughput, dwell time, and subsequently yield to be properly determined [Redenius, pg. 5, para 0033].
Regarding Claim 8, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Moore does not disclose: (Original) […] further including correcting the yield map while the harvesting machine harvests the crop.
However, Redenius teaches: (Original) […] further including correcting the yield map while the harvesting machine harvests the crop. See [Redenius, pg. 7, para 0043], which explains that after the harvester collects the crop in each section, the spatial and temporal relationship is generated by the control and regulating device, “The control and regulating device 52 comprises at least one arithmetic unit 66, a storage device 68 and a transceiver 116. Position signals 88, environment data signals 90, operating and crop parameter signals 92, 94 and signals 96 of the at least one measuring system 42, 48 are transmitted to the control and regulating device 52 by the bus system for evaluation purposes. The respective data determined on the basis of the signals 90, 92, 94, 96 are stored in the storage device 68 in a georeferenced manner. The control and regulating device 52 is configured to determine the dwell time of the crop 12 to be processed in the harvesting machine 1 on the basis of the operating parameters detected by sensors. In this way, a spatial and temporal relationship can be produced between the crop material 12 picked up in section 74 a, 76 a, which has been processed by harvesting machine 1 for example only when section 74 c, 76 cis reached, and the yield determined therefrom.” See again [Redenius, pg. 7, paras 0045-0047], which explain that the system stores crop measurements of the measurement system for quantity to determine georeferenced yield data, which is calculated from the georeferenced crop parameters, the machine trajectory, the transit time of the crop stream to synchronize the parameters and yield data in time and space, using the time delay. Finally, the yield map is updated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moore with Redenius to specify correcting the yield map during harvesting. Doing so allows the yield data to be assigned to a section that the harvester has just passed and allows the map to be updated, which provides a higher resolution of data [Redenius, pg. 7, para 0047]. Further, a higher resolution yield map counters the decreased resolution of using larger attachments, to increase throughput and meet demand, and improves future yield by providing data for subsequent harvesting steps, such as fertilization [Redenius, pg. 1, para 0002].
Regarding Claim 9, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Moore further discloses: (Currently Amended) […] the time delay is a first delay; and the method further includes: identifying, using the computer device and based on the position data, a third time at which the harvesting machine crossed the crop edge to exit the second part of the field; identifying, using the computer device and based on a throughput value generated from the sensor, a fourth time when the sensor stopped identifying the crop; identifying, using the computer device, a second time delay between the third time and the fourth time. See [Moore, pg. 1, para 0018], which explains that turning in a headland results in no crop being cut, “6. Turing on headlands without cutting any crop--errors are recorded in raw data when the combine is turning on the headland with no grain being cut. In this instance 0 t/ha (zero) will be recorded in the data string which will influence the processed yield map.” See also [Moore, pg. 4, paras 0085-0089], which explains that the “lag time” is the period of time between the harvester stopping gathering crop and the harvester to stop registering flow, which is broken up into three stages including the time when harvester leaves the crop, the time of the first reduction in flow, and flow drops below a threshold, “[0085] The lag time is the period required by the combine harvester to empty of grain once it has stopped cutting crop at the cutter bar. Lag time represents the time that true yield data can be logged once the combine's cutter bar has left the crop. [0086] […]. [0087] […]. [0088] Stage 1--Time between the combine leaving the crop and the operator raising the cutter bar above a pre-determined height, for example 50 cm. The combine operator raises the cutter bar as soon as the harvester leaves the crop. The operation of raising the cutter bar above 50 cm activates the start of the lag time. [0089] Stage 2--Time between the raising of the cutter bar and the first reduction in grain flow to register at the yield meter. As the combine operator drives the harvester out of the crop and begins to carry out a headland turn, there is a period of time when full grain flow is still being registered at the yield meter. This is valid data and should be included in the raw data set. However, there is a point when grain flow begins to drop as the combine empties in the grain flow measuring area. At this point, the lag time ends and data logging is stopped.
Examiner’s Note: For the Claim 9 limitations, above, the prior art teaches that the harvester lowers the cutter bar and enters the crop, which can have various edges. By the definition provided in the specification, a crop edge can be identified, among other methods, by an increasing or decreasing yield or the start or end of picking crop [pgs. 4-5, paras 0012-0014], which defines the two field parts: one containing no crop and one containing crop. Therefore, the harvester entering a portion of the field containing crop, with an edge, serves as the crop edge and two field parts. Further, the flow serves as the throughput and the yield meter serves as the sensor.
Moore does not explicitly disclose: correcting, using the computer device, the yield map based on the second time delay. However, Moore does disclose logging the yield data. See again [Moore, pg. 4, paras 0078-0079], that after the “lead time,” yield data is logged.
However, Redenius teaches: correcting, using the computer device, the yield map based on the second time delay. See again [Redenius, pg. 7, paras 0045-0047], which explain that the system stores crop measurements of the measurement system for quantity to determine georeferenced yield data, which is calculated from the georeferenced crop parameters, the machine trajectory, the transit time of the crop stream to synchronize the parameters and yield data in time and space, using the time delay. Finally, the yield map is updated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify Moore with Redenius to specify correcting the yield map using the time delay. Doing so allows the yield data to be assigned to a section that the harvester has just passed and allows the map to be updated, which provides a higher resolution of data [Redenius, pg. 7, para 0047]. Further, a higher resolution yield map counters the decreased resolution of using larger attachments, to increase throughput and meet demand, and improves future yield by providing data for subsequent harvesting steps, such as fertilization [Redenius, pg. 1, para 0002].
Regarding Claim 10, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Moore does not disclose: (Currently Amended) […] identifying, based on the yield map, a first position where the harvesting machine crossed the crop edge to enter the second part of the field; identifying, based on the throughput value generated from the sensor and the position data, a second position where the sensor started to identify the crop; identifying a spatial offset between the first position and the second position; and correcting the yield map based on the spatial offset.
However, Redenius teaches: identifying, based on the yield map, a first position where the harvesting machine crossed the crop edge to enter the second part of the field; identifying, based on the throughput value generated from the sensor and the position data, a second position where the sensor started to identify the crop; identifying a spatial offset between the first position and the second position; and correcting the yield map based on the spatial offset. See [Redenius, pg. 3, para 0017], which explains that the georeferenced yield data and georeferenced crop parameters are synchronized in time and space, where the yield is spatially offset using the known travel distance and speed and spatially matched to the crop parameters, “Furthermore, the calculation of the georeferenced yield data with respect to the georeferenced crop material parameters can be synchronized in time and space. In this way, the situation can be taken into account that crop material picked up by the front attachment, the predictively recorded environmental data thereof, from which the crop material inventory parameters are determined, is recorded and determined as yield in a temporally and spatially offset manner for this purpose. Knowing a travel distance travelled by the harvesting machine, which travel distance can be determined by evaluating the at least one operating parameter, such as the travel speed, the travel distance travelled or the like, and the duration of the processing and processing of the crop material until the yield determination, the determined crop material inventory parameters can be spatially matched to the yield data. The crop material picked up by the harvesting machine can be assigned to the associated section lying behind the harvesting machine, taking into account the travel times of the individual crop material streams within the harvesting machine and at least the travel speed or the distance travelled derived from the travel speed. This allows a further increase in the precision of yield mapping to be achieved.” See also [Redenius, FIG. 2 and pg. 6, para 0037], which explains that the harvester moves from a harvested area to an area with crop to be harvested defined by multiple adjacent sections, “In the rear region of the harvesting machine 1, sections 78, 80 lying next to one another are shown, which have already been harvested. The environment detection device 64 arranged on the rear side of the harvesting machine 1 detects the working result within the adjacent sections 78, 80. The number and width of the adjacent sections 78, 80 behind the harvesting machine 1 corresponds to the number and width of the adjacent sections […] in front of the harvesting machine 1.” Finally see [Redenius, pg. 7, paras 0045-0047], which explains in more detail the spatial offset determination. It explains that the flow measurement is determined and used to calculate the yield. Further, the yield is synchronized by using the georeferenced data and the trajectory by assigning positions, or sections, and using this to update the yield map, “[0045] In step 104, measurements, for example the measurement of a volume flow or a mass flow, are carried out by the at least one measurement system 42, 48 in order to determine the quantity of crop material picked up. In step 106, the signals of the measurements are evaluated in the course of the data processing in order to determine yield data from the collected crop material quantity. […]. In the subsequent step 108, the yield data are stored georeferenced in the course of data keeping. [0046] In step 110, the yield data georeferenced in steps 102 and 108 are calculated with the georeferenced crop inventory parameters with respect to at least one trajectory 86 traveled by the harvesting machine 1 during the harvesting process to generate a yield map. In step 110, the environment data and operating parameters are taken into account, which describe the transit time of the crop streams through the attachment 16 and the harvesting machine 1. In this way, the crop inventory parameters and the yield data can be synchronized in time and space. Thus, with reference to a fixed point in time at which the environmental data were captured in a predictive manner, it is possible to assign one of the sections […]. […]. Thus, the yield data can be assigned to only one section 78, 80 located behind the harvesting machine 1. Taking into account the running time of the crop streams makes it possible in step 110 to synchronize this assignment of crop inventory parameters and yield data. [0047] In step 112, documentation takes place, i.e. the creation of a yield map or the updating of an already existing yield map. In this case, a significantly higher resolution in yield mapping is achieved by the data fusion in step 110 and the subdivision of the area to be detected in anticipation into sections […], which are located next to one another as seen in the direction of travel of the harvesting machine 1 and the width of which is in each case smaller than the working width of the harvesting machine 1.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moore with Redenius to specify correcting the yield map using a spatial offset. Doing so allows the yield data to be assigned to a section that the harvester has just passed and allows the map to be updated, which provides a higher resolution of data [Redenius, pg. 7, para 0047]. Further, a higher resolution yield map counters the decreased resolution of using larger attachments, to increase throughput and meet demand, and improves future yield by providing data for subsequent harvesting steps, such as fertilization [Redenius, pg. 1, para 0002].
Examiner’s Note: For the Claim 10 limitations, above, the prior art teaches that the harvester moves from a harvested area to an area with crop to be harvested defined by multiple adjacent sections. By the definition provided in the specification, a crop edge can be identified, among other methods, by an increasing or decreasing yield or the start or end of picking crop [pgs. 4-5, paras 0012-0014], which defines two field parts: one containing no crop and one containing crop. Therefore, the harvester moving through different sections, from a harvested area to an area with crop to be harvested, serves as the crop edge and two field parts.
Regarding Claim 11, Moore discloses: (Currently Amended) […] A harvesting machine comprising: a harvesting header to pick crop in a field; one or more sensors to generate signals corresponding to the crop. See [Moore, pg. 1, para 0005], which explains that an example of yield monitoring on a harvester can be a combine harvester and [Moore, FIG. 22 and pg. 6, para 0116], which shows “a schematic representation of a combine harvester.” See also [Moore, pg. 6, paras 0121-0123], which explains that the harvester comprises front attachment components and sensors for sensing yield, “[0121] The harvester 1 comprises a table 2 having a reel 3, a cutter bar 4, and a feed auger 5. […]. [0122] The combine harvester 1 further comprises a plurality of sensors arranged to sense crop yield, the position of the combine harvester, and also the status of various elements of the combine harvester. [0123] The combine harvester 1 is equipped with a yield monitor 20 comprising a yield meter 21, data recording means 22, speed sensor 23 which measures the speed of rotation of one of the front wheels 10, a table status sensor 24 which senses whether the table 2 is above or below a threshold height above the ground and whether the cutter bar 4 is operative or inoperative, […], and a DGPS means 28, outputs of which are connected to a data recording means 22, as is illustrated in FIG. 23.”
Examiner’s Note: For Claim 11, above, the cutter bar serves as the header, as shown by [Moore, FIG. 22] and known to one ordinary skill the art, a cutter bar is part of a header.
Moore further discloses: a computer device configured to: identify, based on position data, a location of a crop edge that separates a first part of a field from a second part of the field, the second part of the field containing crop to be harvested; identify, based on the position data, a first time at which the harvesting machine crossed the crop edge to enter the second part of the field. See [Moore, pg. 1, para 0013], which explains that the combine computer stores the combine parameters ,”1. Measured area--the measured area is calculated by multiplying the cutter bar width by the distance travelled by the combine wheels. The width of the cutter bar and the rolling circumference of the wheel are entered into the combine's computer by the operator,” see [Moore, pg. 3, para 0064], which further explains that the computer calculates yield, “(1) the grain flow measured at the yield meter is integrated with the calculated area (cutter bar width x forward speed), at the position where the crop was cut to convert grain flow into yield (t/ha). An incorrect delay for yield will result in yield calculation errors in the combine's computer during periods when the harvester is accelerating or decelerating, and either very high or very low yields will be recorded in the raw data set,” and finally see [Moore, pg. 3, para 0070], which explains that the combine computer records the position with the “delay for yield,” “As the harvester cuts the crop, the GPS position of the machine is continually recorded in WGS-84 co-ordinates. These co-ordinates are stored in a buffer inside the combine's computer for the duration of the "delay for yield" time period. At the end of the time period, the yield value measured at the yield meter is attached to the already recorded position. Therefore, if an incorrect delay for yield is used, the yield data will not be matched with its true position within the field, resulting in the yield measurements being off-set.” See again [Moore, Abstract], which explains that yield data and position data are continuously recorded for generating a dataset. See also [Moore, pg. 3, paras 0069-0071], which explains that as the harvester cuts crop, the position and yield is recorded by a computer of the combine. Finally, see [Moore pgs. 3-4, para 0073], which explains that as the harvester enters the crop it is identified by a specific type of crop edge.
Examiner’s Note: For the Claim 11 limitations, above, the prior art teaches the harvester lowers the cutter bar and enters the crop, which can have various edges. By the definition provided in the specification, a crop edge can be identified, among other methods, by an increasing or decreasing yield or the start or end of picking crop [pgs. 4-5, paras 0012-0014], which defines two field parts: one containing no crop and one containing crop. Therefore, the harvester entering a portion of the field containing crop, with an edge, serves as the crop edge and two field parts.
Moore further discloses: identify, based on a throughput value generated from a sensor, a second time when the sensor started to identify the crop. See again [Moore, pg. 1 para 0014], a “delay for yield,” which is the time delay from the time crop is cut and the time the flow is measured and [Moore, pg. 3, paras 0061-0064], which further explains the “delay for yield,” which is measured by the yield meter and linked to the position.
Examiner’s Note: For the Claim 11 limitation, above, the flow serves as the throughput and the yield meter serves as the sensor.
Moore further discloses: identify a time delay between the first time and the second time. See again [Moore, pgs. 3-4, paras 0072-0073], which explains the “lead time,” which is the time it takes for the yield meter to register crop and level off. Also see again [Moore, pg. 4, paras 0074-0078], which further explain that the time between reaching the edge of the crop and the time to register grain at the yield meter and level off as the grains fills the combine, is the lead time and yield data is not logged.
Moore does not explicitly disclose: correct a yield map based on the time delay; and control, based on the corrected yield map, a speed of the harvesting machine during subsequent operations. However, Moore does disclose logging the yield data. See again [Moore, pg. 4, paras 0078-0079], that after the “lead time,” yield data is logged.
However, Redenius teaches: correct a yield map based on the time delay. See again [Redenius, pg. 7, paras 0045-0047], which explain that the system stores crop measurements of the measurement system for quantity to determine georeferenced yield data, which is calculated from the georeferenced crop parameters, the machine trajectory, the transit time of the crop stream to synchronize the parameters and yield data in time and space, using the time delay. Finally, the yield map is updated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moore with Redenius to specify correcting the yield map using the time delay. Doing so allows the yield data to be assigned to a section that the harvester has just passed and allows the map to be updated, which provides a higher resolution of data [Redenius, pg. 7, para 0047]. Further, a higher resolution yield map counters the decreased resolution of using larger attachments, to increase throughput and meet demand, and improves future yield by providing data for subsequent harvesting steps, such as fertilization [Redenius, pg. 1, para 0002].
However, Anderson teaches: […] and control, based on the corrected yield map, a speed of the harvesting machine during subsequent operations. See again [Anderson, pgs. 1-2, para 0020], which explains that the system receives a yield estimate for the field currently being harvested which includes an error estimate indicative of a likely error in the yield estimate, where the yield and error are used to generate a georeferenced probability distribution, or map of where in the field a harvester will likely be full, and finally, control the harvester, where the control includes speed. Also see again [Anderson, pgs. 3-4, paras 0033-0034], which further explains the yield and error estimation system and using the yield and error to generate georeferenced yield estimates using a map. Finally see again [Anderson, pg. 4, paras 0046-0048], which explains that the measured yield identifier is used to correct the estimate or error and update the yield map and, in response, the control signal generator is used to control the speed of the harvester.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moore with Anderson to include controlling the machine speed based on the updated yield map. Doing so allows for managing coordination between a harvester and haulage units, or receiving vehicles, to maximize harvested crop, or yield, and minimize grain loss, which depends on timing a location of the harvester to availability of a haulage unit using the harvester speed and yield [Anderson, pg. 4, paras 0046-0048]. Further, updating the yield map estimates with actual values is important for more accurately predicting this time and location for a rendezvous point, where yield may be lower or higher than predicted, and the harvester must increase or decrease its speed, respectively [Anderson, pg. 7, para 0077].
Regarding Claim 12, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 11.
Moore further discloses: (Original) […] the time delay is caused by difference in time between when the harvesting header picks the crop and when the crop reaches the one or more sensors. See again [Moore, pg. 1 para 0014], a “delay for yield,” which is the time delay from the time crop is cut by the cutter bar and the time the flow is measured and [Moore, pg. 3, paras 0061-0064], which further explains the “delay for yield,” which is measured by the yield meter and linked to the position. Also see again [Moore, FIG. 22 and pg. 6, para 0121], which shows that, “The harvester 1 comprises a table 2 having a reel 3, a cutter bar 4, and a feed auger 5,” as part of the front attachment.
Examiner’s Note: For Claim 12 limitation, above, the cutter bar serves as the header, as shown by [Moore, FIG. 22] and known to one ordinary skill the art, a cutter bar is part of a header. Further, as stated for Claim 11, the yield meter serves as the sensor.
Moore does not explicitly disclose: the computer device is further configured to correct the yield map by compensating for the time delay such that the yield map contains throughput values from the one or more sensors that correspond to where the crop was picked by the harvesting machine.
However, Redenius teaches: the computer device is further configured to correct the yield map by compensating for the time delay such that the yield map contains throughput values from the one or more sensors that correspond to where the crop was picked by the harvesting machine. See again [Redenius, pg. 5, para 0031], which explains that a combine harvester has a front attachment with a cutter for picking up crop and [Redenius, pg. 6, para 0041], which explains that system determines when the crop is picked up by the header and the measurement system determines the yield. Also see again [Redenius, pg. 1, para 0002], which describes known methods for mapping yield of a harvester, which includes determining the quantity of crop picked up using sensors which measure throughput and [Redenius, pg. 4, para 0025], which explains that the crop material is picked up and measured by the measurement system using flow and duration to determine yield. Finally see again [Redenius, pg. 5, paras 0033-0034], which further explain that the measurement system uses the throughput, dwell time, and sensors for measuring crop properties and [Redenius, pg. 7, paras 0045-0047], which explain that the system stores crop measurements of the measurement system for quantity to determine georeferenced yield data, which is calculated from the georeferenced crop parameters, the machine trajectory, the transit time of the crop stream to synchronize the parameters and yield data in time and space, using the time delay. Finally, the yield map is updated. See also [Redenius, pg. 8, para 0048], which explains that the yield map updates can include the operating and crop parameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify Moore with Redenius to specify correcting the yield map using the time delay and throughput. Doing so allows the yield data to be assigned to a section that the harvester has just passed and allows the map to be updated, which provides a higher resolution of data [Redenius, pg. 7, para 0047]. Further, a higher resolution yield map counters the decreased resolution of using larger attachments, to increase throughput and meet demand, and improves future yield by providing data for subsequent harvesting steps, such as fertilization [Redenius, pg. 1, para 0002].
Regarding Claim 13, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 11.
Moore further discloses: (Original) […] wherein the computer device is configured to determine the time delay: as a whole for the field; or separately for individual tracks on the field. See again [Moore, pg. 6, para 0127], which explains that the harvesting area is a field or part of a field and [Moore, pg. 7, para 0143], which explains that the data can be marked using a yield for each harvesting run.
Examiner’s Note: For Claim 13, above, the harvesting run serves as the individual track.
Moore does not disclose: separately for segments of the individual tracks.
However, Redenius teaches: separately for segments of the individual tracks. See again [Redenius, pg. 2, para 0008], which explains that the data can be adapted to trajectories or partial areas. Also see again [Redenius, pg. 7, para 0043], which explains that the spatial and temporal relationship of dwell time and parameters are associated to sections and [Redenius, pg. 7, paras 0047-0047], which further define assigning yield data to the sections.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moore with Redenius to include determining the time delay for individual trajectories or partial areas. Doing so provides a higher precision measurement that accounts for differing crop density due to the influence of environment or weather [Redenius, pg. 2, para 008], such as parts of the field damaged due to fouling [Redenius, pg. 3, para 0016] or partial header load [Redenius, pg. 3, para 0020].
Regarding Claim 15, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 11.
Moore further discloses: (Original) […] wherein the computer device is configured to identify the second time when the throughput value from the sensor exceeds a threshold value. See [Moore, pg. 4, para 0078], which explains that the yield meter registers flow but does not begin storing yield data until the flow reaches a certain point of stabilization.
Examiner’s Note: For Claim 15, above, the flow serves as the throughput and the yield meter serves as the sensor.
Regarding Claim 16, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 11.
Moore discloses: (Currently Amended) […] wherein the one or more sensors are configured to measure throughput of the crop […]. See again [Moore, pg. 1 para 0014], a “delay for yield,” which is the time delay from the time crop is cut and the time the flow is measured and [Moore, pg. 3, paras 0061-0064], which further explains the “delay for yield,” which is measured by the yield meter. Also see again [Moore, pg. 6, paras 0121-0123], which explains that the harvester comprises additional sensors for measuring yield and other parameters, “[0121] The harvester 1 comprises a table 2 having a reel 3, a cutter bar 4, and a feed auger 5. […]. [0122] The combine harvester 1 further comprises a plurality of sensors arranged to sense crop yield, the position of the combine harvester, and also the status of various elements of the combine harvester. [0123] The combine harvester 1 is equipped with a yield monitor 20 comprising a yield meter 21, data recording means 22, speed sensor 23 which measures the speed of rotation of one of the front wheels 10, a table status sensor 24 which senses whether the table 2 is above or below a threshold height above the ground and whether the cutter bar 4 is operative or inoperative, […], and a DGPS means 28, outputs of which are connected to a data recording means 22, as is illustrated in FIG. 23.”
Examiner’s Note: For the Claim 16 limitation, above, the flow serves as the throughput and the yield meter serves as the sensor.
Moore does not disclose: or moisture of the crop.
However, Redenius teaches: or moisture of the crop. See again [Redenius, pg. 3, para 0019], which explains that the harvester sensors detect crop properties, including moisture, and stores them with the yield data and [Redenius, pg. 5, pars 0032-0034], which explain that the moisture sensor, which contributes to the determination of the throughput and the dwell time, is used for determining the yield.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moore with Redenius to specify measuring and storing the moisture value. Doing so allows the throughput, dwell time, and subsequently yield to be properly determined [Redenius, pg. 5, para 0033].
Regarding Claim 17, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 11.
Moore further discloses: (Original) […] wherein the computer device is configured to correct the yield [map] after the harvesting machine harvests the crop. See [Moore, pg. 5, paras 0101-0105], which explains that the raw data is collected during harvesting and filtered after the harvesting is complete, "[0101] The invention provides a method of collecting yield data from a harvesting machine comprising the steps of: [0102] a) establishing a first data set comprising raw data by recording yield and position data periodically at data points when the harvesting machine is in a harvesting area; [0103] b) tagging each data point with a code indicative of a harvesting status of the said harvesting machine; [0104] c) applying a filter to the first data set to create a second data set, wherein invalid data is removed by the filter. [0105] Advantageously, the invention records all data whilst the combine harvester is in the harvesting area, for example a field, and subsequently applies a filter to the data set in order to filter out erroneous data."
Moore does not disclose: [correct the yield] map.
However, Redenius teaches: [correct the yield] map. See [Redenius, pg. 7, paras 0045-0047], which explain that the system stores crop measurements of the measurement system for quantity to determine georeferenced yield data, which is calculated from the georeferenced crop parameters, the machine trajectory, the transit time of the crop stream to synchronize the parameters and yield data in time and space, using the time delay. Finally, the yield map is updated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moore with Redenius to specify correcting the yield map using the time delay. Doing so allows the yield data to be assigned to a section that the harvester has just passed and allows the map to be updated, which provides a higher resolution of data [Redenius, pg. 7, para 0047]. Further, a higher resolution yield map counters the decreased resolution of using larger attachments, to increase throughput and meet demand, and improves future yield by providing data for subsequent harvesting steps, such as fertilization [Redenius, pg. 1, para 0002].
Regarding Claim 18, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 11.
Moore does not disclose: (Currently Amended) […] wherein the computer device is further configured to: identify, based on the yield map, a first position where the harvesting machine crossed the crop edge to enter the second part of the field; identify, based on the signals generated from the one or more sensors, a second position where the sensor started to identify the crop; identify a spatial offset between the first position and the second position; and correct the yield map based on the spatial offset.
However, Redenius teaches: (Currently Amended) […] wherein the computer device is further configured to: identify, based on the yield map, a first position where the harvesting machine crossed the crop edge to enter the second part of the field; identify, based on the signals generated from the one or more sensors, a second position where the sensor started to identify the crop; identify a spatial offset between the first position and the second position; and correct the yield map based on the spatial offset. See [Redenius, pg. 3, para 0017], which explains that the georeferenced yield data and georeferenced crop parameters are synchronized in time and space, where the yield is spatially offset using the known travel distance and speed and spatially matched to the crop parameters. See also [Redenius, FIG. 2 and pg. 6, para 0037], which explains that the harvester moves from a harvested area to an area with crop to be harvested defined by multiple adjacent sections. Finally see [Redenius, pg. 7, paras 0045-0047], which explains in more detail the spatial offset determination. It explains that the flow measurement is determined and used to calculate the yield. Further, the yield is synchronized by using the georeferenced data and the trajectory by assigning positions, or sections, and using this to update the yield map.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moore with Redenius to specify correcting the yield map using a spatial offset. Doing so allows the yield data to be assigned to a section that the harvester has just passed and allows the map to be updated, which provides a higher resolution of data [Redenius, pg. 7, para 0047]. Further, a higher resolution yield map counters the decreased resolution of using larger attachments, to increase throughput and meet demand, and improves future yield by providing data for subsequent harvesting steps, such as fertilization [Redenius, pg. 1, para 0002].
Examiner’s Note: For the Claim 18 limitations, above, the prior art teaches that the harvester moves from a harvested area to an area with crop to be harvested defined by multiple adjacent sections. By the definition provided in the specification, a crop edge can be identified, among other methods, by an increasing or decreasing yield or the start or end of picking crop [pgs. 4-5, paras 0012-0014], which defines two field parts: one containing no crop and one containing crop. Therefore, the harvester moving through different sections, from a harvested area to an area with crop to be harvested, serves as the crop edge and two field parts.
Regarding Claim 19, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 11.
Moore further discloses: (Currently Amended) […] wherein the computer device is configured to: obtain the position data from a Global Navigation Satellite (GNS) system; and store the position data See [Moore, pg. 3, para 0070], which explains that the GPS collects the position data and the combine’s computer stores the position data with the yield data, or flow, measured by the yield meter, “As the harvester cuts the crop, the GPS position of the machine is continually recorded in WGS-84 co-ordinates. These co-ordinates are stored in a buffer inside the combine's computer for the duration of the "delay for yield" time period. At the end of the time period, the yield value measured at the yield meter is attached to the already recorded position. Therefore, if an incorrect delay for yield is used, the yield data will not be matched with its true position within the field, resulting in the yield measurements being off-set.”
Examiner’s Note: For Claim 19, above, the GPS serves as the GNS, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art, GPS is a specific type of GNS. Further, the yield data, containing the flow, serves as the throughput.
Regarding Claim 20, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 11.
Moore further discloses: (Currently Amended) […] the time delay is a first delay; and the computer device is further configured to: identify, based on the position data, a third time at which the harvesting machine crossed the crop edge to exit the second part of the field; identify, based on a throughput value generated from the sensors, a fourth time when the sensors stopped identifying the crop; identify, a second time delay between the third time and the fourth time. See [Moore, pg. 1, para 0018], which explains that turning in a headland results in no crop being cut. See also [Moore, pg. 4, paras 0085-0089], which explains that the “lag time” is the period of time between the harvester stopping gathering crop and the harvester to stop registering flow, which is broken up into three stages including the time when harvester leaves the crop, the time of the first reduction in flow, and flow drops below a threshold.
Examiner’s Note: For the Claim 20 limitations, above, the prior art teaches that the harvester lowers the cutter bar and enters the crop, which can have various edges. By the definition provided in the specification, a crop edge can be identified, among other methods, by an increasing or decreasing yield or the start or end of picking crop [pgs. 4-5, paras 0012-0014], which defines the two field parts: one containing no crop and one containing crop. Therefore, the harvester entering a portion of the field containing crop, with an edge, serves as the crop edge and two field parts.
Moore does not explicitly disclose: correct the yield map based on the second time delay. However, Moore does disclose logging the yield data. See again [Moore, pg. 4, paras 0078-0079], that after the “lead time,” yield data is logged.
However, Redenius teaches: correct the yield map based on the second time delay. See again [Redenius, pg. 7, paras 0045-0047], which explain that the system stores crop measurements of the measurement system for quantity to determine georeferenced yield data, which is calculated from the georeferenced crop parameters, the machine trajectory, the transit time of the crop stream to synchronize the parameters and yield data in time and space, using the time delay. Finally, the yield map is updated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify Moore with Redenius to specify correcting the yield map using the time delay. Doing so allows the yield data to be assigned to a section that the harvester has just passed and allows the map to be updated, which provides a higher resolution of data [Redenius, pg. 7, para 0047]. Further, a higher resolution yield map counters the decreased resolution of using larger attachments, to increase throughput and meet demand, and improves future yield by providing data for subsequent harvesting steps, such as fertilization [Redenius, pg. 1, para 0002].
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Redenius and further in view of Fjelstad et al., US-2021/0267115-A1 (herein "Fjelstad").
Regarding Claim 5, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Moore does not explicitly disclose: (Original) […] wherein the first part of the field is a headland. However, Moore does disclose that the field can include a headland where the harvester can turn, which results in no crop gathering and introduces a “lag time,” as the harvester continues travelling and crop flow finishes. See [Moore, pg. 1, para 0018], which explains that turning in a headland results in no crop being cut, “6. Turing on headlands without cutting any crop--errors are recorded in raw data when the combine is turning on the headland with no grain being cut. In this instance 0 t/ha (zero) will be recorded in the data string which will influence the processed yield map,” and [Moore, pg. 4, para 0089], which explains the “lag time,” due to finishing crop flow in a headland, “Stage 2--Time between the raising of the cutter bar and the first reduction in grain flow to register at the yield meter. As the combine operator drives the harvester out of the crop and begins to carry out a headland turn, there is a period of time when full grain flow is still being registered at the yield meter. This is valid data and should be included in the raw data set. However, there is a point when grain flow begins to drop as the combine empties in the grain flow measuring area. At this point, the lag time ends and data logging is stopped.”
However, Fjelstad teaches: (Original) […] wherein the first part of the field is a headland. See [Fjelstad, FIGs. 1A and 2A and pg. 3, para 0035], which show swaths, broken into field zones, including a headland, “[0035] FIG. 1A is a schematic view of an example field 100 including a plurality of example swaths 110, 112, 114. As shown the field 100 includes a plurality of swaths 110 arranged in a generally similar orientation in an example first field zone 102. For instance, the first field zone 102 in this example includes one or more of the interior portion of the field 100, a zone including crops planted in a generally similar orientation or alignment. As further provided herein, in other examples, field zones include crops planted in a perimeter extending around one or more obstacles or as headlands (e.g., surrounding another field zone). In the example shown in FIG. 1A a plurality of field zones 102, 104 are provided,” and [Fjelstad, pgs. 3-4, para 0038], which further explains that the swaths, which the harvester travels along, passes in and out of the headland, “[0038] Additional field zones 104, 108 are shown in the example field 100. The second field zone 104 corresponds to a headland or head row extending around the first field zone 102. As shown, the second field zone 104 includes one or more associated swaths 112. As provided in the detailed offset to FIG. 1A, the swath 112 includes a first swath edge 111 extending along the first field zone 102 and a boundary 122, another example of a swath edge 111, extending along the border of the field 100. In an example, the boundary 122 corresponds to a fence line, fence line offset or the like configured to minimize collision of the vehicle with one or more surrounding obstacles or features (e.g., such as a fence, pole, tree, building or the like).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moore with Fjelstad to specify parts of the field, including a headland. A headland, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art, is an area of the field which does not contain crops. Further, breaking the field into parts, including the headland provides sectioning, and swaths, to overlay with a field map to assist the operator in driving [Fjelstad, pg. 1, para 0003]. This provides the operator a safe location to turn around, and enter the crop [Fjelstad, pg. 1, paras 0007-0009], maximizing yield [Fjelstad, pg. 4, para 0014].
Regarding Claim 14, Moore as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 11.
Moore does not explicitly disclose: (Original) […] wherein the first part of the field is a headland. However, Moore does disclose that the field can include a headland where the harvester can turn, which results in no crop gathering and introduces a “lag time,” as the harvester continues travelling and crop flow finishes. See [Moore, pg. 1, para 0018], which explains that turning in a headland results in no crop being cut and [Moore, pg. 4, para 0089], which explains the “lag time,” due to finishing crop flow in a headland.
However, Fjelstad teaches: (Original) […] wherein the first part of the field is a headland. See again [Fjelstad, FIGs. 1A and 2A and pg. 3, para 0035], which show swaths, broken into field zones, including a headland and [Fjelstad, pgs. 3-4, para 0038], which further explains that the swaths, which the harvester travels along, passes in and out of the headland.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moore with Fjelstad to specify parts of the field, including a headland. A headland, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art, is an area of the field which does not contain crops. Further, breaking the field into parts, including the headland provides sectioning, and swaths, to overlay with a field map to assist the operator in driving [Fjelstad, pg. 1, para 0003]. This provides the operator a safe location to turn around, and enter the crop [Fjelstad, pg. 1, paras 0007-0009], maximizing yield [Fjelstad, pg. 4, para 0014].
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 ERIN MARIE HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5309. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664