12/03/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 .
Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings has been addressed and is removed.
Specification
The objections to the specification have been addressed and are removed.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 6 has been addressed and is removed.
It is noted that there is a duplicate “one or more sensors” in line 3 of amended claim 11. It is assumed that this is an error.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 8-10 and 16 under §112b have been addressed and are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Independent claims 1 and 11 have been modified:
(Claim 1): “…one or more sensors positioned to monitor a condition of a plurality of header components, and configured to transmit sensor data to the one or more processors.”
In the submitted remarks, applicant states that this amendment is sufficient to avoid the prior art.
However, the piece of art used in the 103 rejection (Sorenson) has multiple knives in the knife assembly sickle section (see Figure 2, which shows alternating knife assemblies (60) and knife guards(50)) together with sensors to monitor conditions: “As shown in Fig. 4, sensors 80 are mounted to the guards 50. Each sensor 80 detects the condition, presence or absence of the knife section 62 as the knife section 62 passes within the slot 48 of a respective guard 50.” (Col. 4, lines 24-27) The sensors talk to a controller or processor: “ …each sensor 80 continuously transmits signals that are representative of the condition of the knife section 62 to a processor or controller 92 as the knife section 62 moves through the slot 48 that is associated with the sensor 80.” Col 4, lines 51-55. Figure 4 shows this, talking to what looks to be a central controller 92.
Hence, the material in the above amendment still seems to be covered by the prior art, particularly under a Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. If the meaning of the above amendment is that there is a set of sensors, each of which is mounted to monitor more than one header component, then support for such needs to be found in the specification and the claim should be rewritten more narrower to reflect such an interpretation.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 11-13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,324,164 B2 (Sorensen) in light of US 7,721,515 (Pollklas et al., hence Pollklas).
As for claim 1, Sorensen teaches a system for monitoring a header of an agricultural work machine, the system comprising: one or more processors (Sorensen: Figs.4 and 5; processor mentioned in Col. 1, lines 54-62);
one or more sensors positioned to monitor a condition of a plurality of header components, and configured to transmit sensor data to the one or more processors (Sorensen: “As shown in Fig. 4, sensors 80 are mounted to the guards 50. Each sensor 80 detects the condition, presence or absence of the knife section 62 as the knife section 62 passes within the slot 48 of a respective guard 50.” (Col. 4, lines 24-27); that the sensors talk to a controller or processor: “ …each sensor 80 continuously transmits signals that are representative of the condition of the knife section 62 to a processor or controller 92 as the knife section 62 moves through the slot 48 that is associated with the sensor 80.” Col 4, lines 51-55. Figure 4 shows this, talking to what looks to be a central controller 92);
a memory device coupled to the one or more processors, the memory device including instructions that when executed by the at least one or more processors cause the one or more processors to: (Sorensen: "It is to be understood that the operational steps are performed by the controller 92 upon loading and executing software code or instructions which are tangibly stored on a tangible computer readable medium, such as on a magnetic medium, e.g., a computer hard drive, an optical medium, e.g., an optical disc, solid-state memory, e.g., flash memory, or other storage media known in the art." (Col. 5, lines 24-30))
determine one or more features of one or more combine header components (Sorensen: "...The sensed condition of the knife section 62 may comprise the presence, absence, sharpness, dullness, shape, and/or planarity of the knife section 62." (Col. 5, lines 17-19));
determine a condition of the one or more combine header components based at least in part on the one or more features of the one or more combine header components (Sorensen: “absence, sharpness, dullness, shape, and/or planarity of the knife section 62." (Col. 5, lines 17-19).
Sorsensen teaches transmit[ting] instructions to one or more systems (Sorensen communicates error messages containing information about irregular conditions to an end user. See Col. 5, lines 19-23) but does not specifically teach transmit[ting] instructions to one or more systems to adjust performance of the work machine based at least in part on the one or more health characteristics. However, Pollklas teaches transmit[ting] instructions to one or more systems to adjust performance of the work machine based at least in part on the one or more health characteristics. (Pollklas: "Given that, when a foreign object is detected in the crop material flow, the intake device-a pick-up, in particular-is automatically moved from a working and operating position close to the ground into an at least partially raised turnaround position, crop material jams may be effectively prevented, in particular when the crop material has been laid down in swaths." "In the simplest case, it may be provided that, when a foreign object has been detected, control device 25 automatically actuates the foot brake using suitable, not-shown means, thereby making it possible to easily brake harvesting machine 1 and to therefore avoid crop material 5 from becoming jammed." (underlining added) (Col. 7 lines 30-36))
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine automatic performance adjustments, as taught by Pollklas, into the system of Sorensen, monitoring and determining the condition of parts of a header on an agricultural machine. The motivation would be to build on something like an error report (as in Sorensen) and use it to fix whatever problem exists, thus solving the problem automatically and closing the loop.
As for claim 2, Sorsensen, as modified by Pollklas, teaches wherein the one or more processors is further configured to classify one or more features of the one or more combine header components. (Sorensen: The list of the sensors (Col 4, lines 24-34) include magnetic sensors, camera, a Hall-Effect sensor, and a proximity sensor, among others. Also: "More particularly, each sensor 80 continuously transmits signals that are representative of the condition of the knife section 62 to a processer or controller 92 as the knife section 62 moves through the slot 48 that is 55 associated with the sensor 80....The controller 92 is configured to detect the impaired condition of the knife section 62 based upon the received signal and using an algorithm." (Col. 4, lines 51-62))
As for claim 3, Sorensen, as modified by Pollklas, teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprises an optical sensor. (Sorensen: "a miniature camera" is mentioned as one of the possible sensors (Col. 4 line 28)).
As for claim 11, Sorensen teaches a method for monitoring a header of an agricultural work machine, the method comprising: (Sorensen: Figs.4 and 5; processor mentioned in Col. 1, lines 54-62)
receiving data from one or more sensors positioned to monitor a condition of a plurality of header components (Sorensen: “As shown in Fig. 4, sensors 80 are mounted to the guards 50. Each sensor 80 detects the condition, presence or absence of the knife section 62 as the knife section 62 passes within the slot 48 of a respective guard 50.” (Col. 4, lines 24-27); that the sensors talk to a controller or processor: “ …each sensor 80 continuously transmits signals that are representative of the condition of the knife section 62 to a processor or controller 92 as the knife section 62 moves through the slot 48 that is associated with the sensor 80.” Col 4, lines 51-55. Figure 4 shows this, talking to what looks to be a central controller 92));
determining one or more features of one or more combine header components based at least in part on the data from the one or more sensors (Sorensen: "...The sensed condition of the knife section 62 may comprise the presence, absence, sharpness, dullness, shape, and/or planarity of the knife section 62." (Col. 5, lines 17-19) The features here are e.g. whether the knife blade is there at all (presence/absence), its shape (how worn down it is), blade condition (sharpness/dullness));
determining a condition of the one or more combine header components based at least in part on the one or more features of the one or more combine header components (Sorensen: "...The sensed condition of the knife section 62 may comprise the presence, absence, sharpness, dullness, shape, and/or planarity of the knife section 62." (Col. 5, lines 17-19));
determining one or more health characteristics of the one or more combine header components based at least in part on the condition of the one or more combine header components (Sorensen: "... At step 104, the method comprises identifying that the sensed 15 condition is an irregular condition by comparing the signal against a threshold value."(Col. 5, lines 14-17);
Sorsensen teaches transmitting instructions to one or more systems (Sorensen communicates error messages containing information about irregular conditions to an end user. See Col. 5, lines 19-23) but does not specifically teach transmitting instructions to one or more systems to adjust performance of the work machine based at least in part on the one or more health characteristics. However, Pollklas teaches transmit[ting] instructions to one or more systems to adjust performance of the work machine based at least in part on the one or more health characteristics. (Pollklas: "Given that, when a foreign object is detected in the crop material flow, the intake device-a pick-up, in particular-is automatically moved from a working and operating position close to the ground into an at least partially raised turnaround position, crop material jams may be effectively prevented, in particular when the crop material has been laid down in swaths." "In the simplest case, it may be provided that, when a foreign object has been detected, control device 25 automatically actuates the foot brake using suitable, not-shown means, thereby making it possible to easily brake harvesting machine 1 and to therefore avoid crop material 5 from becoming jammed." (underlining added) (Col. 7 lines 30-36))
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine automatic performance adjustments, as taught by Pollklas, into the system of Sorensen, monitoring and determining the condition of parts of a header on an agricultural machine. The motivation would be to build on something like an error report (as in Sorensen) and use it to fix whatever problem exists, thus solving the problem automatically and closing the loop.
As for claim 12, Sorsensen, as modified by Pollklas, teaches classifying one or more features of the one or more combine header components. (Sorensen: The list of the sensors (Col 4, lines 24-34) include magnetic sensors, camera, a Hall-Effect sensor, and a proximity sensor, among others. Also: "More particularly, each sensor 80 continuously transmits signals that are representative of the condition of the knife section 62 to a processer or controller 92 as the knife section 62 moves through the slot 48 that is 55 associated with the sensor 80....The controller 92 is configured to detect the impaired condition of the knife section 62 based upon the received signal and using an algorithm." (Col. 4, lines 51-62))
As for claim 13, Sorensen, as modified by Pollklas, teaches wherein the data from the one or more sensors comprises optical sensor data.. (Sorensen: "a miniature camera" is mentioned as one of the possible sensors (Col. 4 line 28). Data from such a camera would be “optical sensor data”).
As for claim 16, Sorensen, as modified by Pollklas, teaches wherein the data from the one or more sensors comprises a plurality of data types from a plurality of sensor types, and wherein a processor is configured to determine the health characteristics based at least in part on the plurality of data types. (Sorensen: "As shown in FIG. 4, sensors 80 are mounted to the guards 25 50. Each sensor 80 detects the condition, presence or absence of the knife section 62 as the knife section 62 passes within the slot 48 of a respective guard 50. The sensor 80 could be, for example, an electric eye, a miniature camera, a Hall-Effect sensor, a magnetic sensor, a proximity sensor, 30 or a movable contact, by way of example, or any other known sensor that is configured to detect the presence or absence of an object. Every guard 50 of the header 22 (FIG.1) could have its own sensor 80, or alternatively, every other 1) could have its own sensor 80, or alternatively, every other guard 50 in a row of guards 50 may have a sensor 80." (Col. 4, lines 24-34) Note that each of the above provides a different type of signal, and that a system able to interpret the data from such sensors would be involving processors which were configured to determine the health characteristics based on any plurality of the data types. That Sorensen has processors able to carry out the described system configurations, see Col. 5, lines 24-38.)
As for claim 18, Sorensen, as modified by Pollklas, teaches determining a condition of a combine header blade based at least in part on blade health data. (Sorensen: "FIG. 5 is a flow chart depicting the operational steps for monitoring the condition of the sickle, according to one exemplary method. At step 100, the method comprises sensing the condition of the knife section 62 of the sickle 30 using the sensor 80. At step 102, the method comprises transmitting a signal indicative of the sensed condition of the knife section 80 to either the controller 92 or a processor." (Col. 5, lines 8-14))
Claims 4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen in light of Pollklas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0345873 Al (Goossens et al., now Goossens.)
As for claim 4, Sorensen does not specifically teach wherein the one or more sensors comprises a vibration sensor. However, Goossens teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprises a vibration sensor. (Goossens: "...it is recapitulated that a header and a harvester according to the invention are characterized by the presence of one or more vibration sensors in the header's knife drivetrain (preferably in all knife drivetrains if there is more than one), the sensors being mounted so as to measure vibration in the direction of the reciprocating knife movement." [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine a vibration sensor into the system of Sorensen, as modified by Pollklas. The motivation would be to add to the type of sensors used.
As for claim 6, Sorensen does not specifically teach wherein the one or more sensors comprise two or more of a vibration sensor and an optical sensor, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the health characteristics based at least in part on output from the two or more sensors. However, Goossens teaches the use of vibration sensors. (Goossens: see [0025]) As for the rest, Sorensen teaches both optical sensors (Sorensen: camera, Col. 4 line 28) and the use of signals from multiple sensors to diagnose situations (Sorensen: Col. 4, lines 24-64). Vibration sensors are used to identify the early stages of mechanical failure in moving equipment. (See Goossens, [0009])
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the use of a vibration sensor, as explained by Goossens, to the sensors in the system of Sorensen, and use it as one of the multiple sensors in determining the condition of a header element, as discussed by Sorensen. The motivation would be to add further information from a different type of sensor.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen in light of Pollklas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of above, and further in view of EP 4104661 A1 (Missotten).
As for claim 5, neither Sorensen nor Pollklas specifically teach wherein the one or more sensors comprises a temperature sensor. However, Missotten teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprises a temperature sensor. (Missotten: "According to an embodiment, the system further includes a temperature sensor mounted adjacent to the sensing device described above. This may be an infra-red photodiode sensor for example or a thermal camera, also called infrared camera, possibly incorporated in a common housing with the sensor 26 or the camera 35, and configured to measure the temperature of the knife 2 as it passes before said sensor or camera. The temperature signal is transmitted also to the processing unit 28 and processed there to thereby provide additional information on the condition of the knife. The processing of the temperature signal might include deducting the ambient temperature." [0030])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine a temperature sensor, as mentioned by Missotten into the system of Sorensen, as modified by Pollklas. The motivation would be to add to the type of sensors used.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen in light of Pollklas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of "The path of the Kernel explained! See how a combine works!", attached as NPL-ZKMasterTech.pdf, henceforth “MasterTech”.
As for claim 7, neither Sorensen for Pollklas specifically teach wherein the processor is configured to determine a condition of one or more work machine components based at least in part on predetermined work machine health data. However, MasterTech teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine a condition of one or more work machine components based at least in part on predetermined work machine health data. (MasterTech explains the parts of a Deere harvester combine, how they all work, and the path a kernel of corn would take through the complex machinery, all the way from the ear on the cornstalk to ending up in a granary truck. Initial settings of parts of the combine can be preset (see 33.:09-33:51), then run to see how good the performance is (31:49-31:02), while automation allows for keeping the same performance (31:36)-(32:06). The “predetermined work machine health data” can be whatever parameters are initially existing when the performance target is set, and then the “condition of the work machine components” are being tracked during the auto-maintain phase.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to add the stored initial memory and auto-maintain ability of MasterTech to the system of Sorensen, as modified by Pollklas. The motivation would be to provide a higher automation level and not require repeated manual input.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen in light of Pollklas as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Goossens.
As for claim 14, Sorensen does not specifically teach wherein the one or more sensors comprises a vibration sensor. However, Goossens teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprises a vibration sensor. (Goossens: "...it is recapitulated that a header and a harvester according to the invention are characterized by the presence of one or more vibration sensors in the header's knife drivetrain (preferably in all knife drivetrains if there is more than one), the sensors being mounted so as to measure vibration in the direction of the reciprocating knife movement." [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine a vibration sensor into the system of Sorensen, as modified by Pollklas. The motivation would be to add to the type of sensors used.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen in light of Pollklas as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of above, and further in view of Missotten.
As for claim 15, neither Sorensen nor Pollklas specifically teach wherein the one or more sensors comprises a temperature sensor. However, Missotten teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprises a temperature sensor. (Missotten: "According to an embodiment, the system further includes a temperature sensor mounted adjacent to the sensing device described above. This may be an infra-red photodiode sensor for example or a thermal camera, also called infrared camera, possibly incorporated in a common housing with the sensor 26 or the camera 35, and configured to measure the temperature of the knife 2 as it passes before said sensor or camera. The temperature signal is transmitted also to the processing unit 28 and processed there to thereby provide additional information on the condition of the knife. The processing of the temperature signal might include deducting the ambient temperature." [0030])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine a temperature sensor, as mentioned by Missotten into the system of Sorensen, as modified by Pollklas. The motivation would be to add to the type of sensors used.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen in light of Pollklas as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of MasterTech.
As for claim 17, neither Sorensen for Pollklas specifically teach determining a condition of one or more work machine components based at least in part on predetermined work machine condition data. However, MasterTech teaches determining a condition of one or more work machine components based at least in part on predetermined work machine condition data. (MasterTech explains the parts of a Deere harvester combine, how they all work, and the path a kernel of corn would take through the complex machinery, all the way from the ear on the cornstalk to ending up in a granary truck. Initial settings of parts of the combine can be preset (see 33.:09-33:51), then run to see how good the performance is (31:49-31:02), while automation allows for keeping the same performance (31:36)-(32:06). The “predetermined work machine health data” can be whatever parameters are initially existing when the performance target is set, and then the “condition of the work machine components” are being tracked during the auto-maintain phase.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to add the stored initial memory and auto-maintain ability of MasterTech to the system of Sorensen, as modified by Pollklas. The motivation would be to provide a higher automation level and not require repeated manual input.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 TANYA CHRISTINE SIENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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 571-270-3912. 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.
/TANYA C SIENKO/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664