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 communication is in response to application 18/662,800 filed on 02/23/2026.
Claims 2, 4 and 9 have been canceled. Claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 13 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 10-20 are pending and examined in the instant office action. The rejections are as stated below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to claims objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims objections of claim 13 and drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to Claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nathan Risius, US 20220071093A1, in view of Vellidus et al., US 6525276B1.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claim 1,
Applicant argues the claims recite specific sensor arrangements and processor-implemented timing calibrations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The sensors and processors are recited at a high level of generality – “one or more sensors,” “a yield sensor” “a processor” – performing their generic sensing and computing functions, without reciting any particular sensor configuration or specific technical mechanism for how the offset is computed or applied. A claim that merely uses generic computing/sensor components as tools to implement an otherwise abstract calculation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor does it amount to significantly more under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the recited steps cannot reasonably be performed mentally or with pen and paper, since they require physical sensors and processor-based analysis in real time.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites determining when crop enters a harvester head and when it reaches a yield sensor using sensors, which amounts to insignificantly extra-solution data-gathering activity (MPEP2106.05(g)); the use of a sensor to acquire an event timestamp does not by itself confer eligibility. Once the timestamps are obtained, the remaining steps-measuring a time delay between two timestamps, applying a corresponding offset to sensor data, and adjusting/allocating yield data to a subset of rows are mathematical calculations and data organizations steps falling within the mathematical and mental process steps (MPEP 2106.04(a). Since the inquiry is whether the type of function performed (calculating an offset, filtering data) falls within the abstract idea groupings, not whether the claims overall real-world application is convenient to perform by the mind.
Applicant’s arguments that claim 11 is directed to a “particular machine” is not persuasive.
Claim 11 recites a sensor, a yield sensor, a storage device, and a processor performing their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of sensing, storing and calculating. Arranging generic components to carry out an abstract idea does not transform the claim into eligible subject matter.
For at least the above, the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
35 USC §101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III)
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 1. A method for mapping yield in real time or near real-time comprising:
determining when crop enters a harvester head via one or more sensors [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
determining when the crop reaches a yield sensor [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
measuring the time delay between the crop entering the harvester head and when the crop reaches a yield sensor [mental process/step];
applying, by a processor, a time offset corresponding to the time delay to data from the yield sensor; [insignificant extra post solution activity {data gathering}] and
determining an actual number of rows being harvested [mental process/step] by signals from the one or more sensors and adjusting yield data from the yield to only apply yield to rows actually being harvested [insignificant extra post solution activity.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation/steps of measuring the time delay between the crop entering the harvester head and when the crop reaches a yield sensor and determining an actual number of rows being harvested. This limitation, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the “a storage device in communication with the at least one sensor” and the “a processor in communication with the at least one storage device” in base claim 11. That is, other than reciting “storage device” & “processor” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the storage/processor language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation by a computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Base claim 1 recites no other additional elements. On the other hand, base claim 11 recites additional elements or steps of (c) a storage device in communication with the at least one sensor configured to receive signals from the at least one stalk sensor and the yield sensor; and (d) a processor in communication with the at least one storage device configured to processes the signals from the at least one sensor and the yield sensor.
The “storage device” and the “processor” merely describes how to generally and merely automates the steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea and/or “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processor, i.e. a computer. The system of the processor/instruction storage medium is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, claim 1 has no additional elements, however, the processor/instruction storage device elements were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The Specification does not provide any indication that the “computer” is anything other than a conventional computer within an agricultural vehicle (See at least ¶47 of applicant’s specification).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “storage device” and the “computer” elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent system claim 11, respectively, recites similar limitations performed by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Dependent claims 3, 5-8, 10 and 12-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounts to mere input and/or output data manipulation. Therefore, dependent claims 3, 5-8, 10 and 12-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
Thus, claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 10-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan Risius, US 20220071093A1, in view of Vellidus et al., US 6525276B1, hereinafter referred to as Risius and Vellidus, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Risius discloses a method for mapping yield in real time or near real-time comprising (methods are constructed and arranged to collect row-by-row data during harvest operations to create detailed and high-resolution yield and harvest data maps. In various implementations, the devices, systems, and methods can detect plugged row units in real-time or near real-time – See at least ¶5):
determining when crop enters a harvester head via one or more sensors (A FIG. 6 shows an exemplary graph of motor current data over time. In various implementations, as a stalk is fed through the row unit there is a spike in the motor current, as would be understood. That is, additional torque/effort is required to harvest a stalk and as such the row unit draws addition power when harvesting a stalk, as would be readily appreciated in light of this disclosure. As can be seen from FIG. 6 slight fluctuations of motor current over time are expected, while a large spike can be seen when a stalk and/or ear are stripped/pass through the row unit – See at least ¶70);
determining when the crop reaches a yield sensor (Traditional yield data is often measured using mass flow sensors located on or associated with the combine, but these types of yield sensors often do not accurately map overall yield. That is, these known yield sensors measure yield across the entire swath of the corn head, and the data is delayed due to the inherent distance the crop must travel from the row unit to the yield sensor – See at least ¶73 and 75); and
measuring the time delay between the crop entering the harvester head and when the crop reaches a yield sensor (As would be understood, these traditional methods of yield mapping have various inaccuracies including gaps and staggered edges due to mapping delays. That is, various prior known systems use a header height sensor and an artificial time delay to map yield data. By incorporating the row-by-row or plant-by-plant distribution data, the system can more accurately place yield data on a map. For example, the time delay can be accurately calculated by correlating the motor current spikes with the mass flow sensor data. In various implementations, the system can calculate the time difference between when a motor current spike occurs and when a mass flow sensor first detects the presence of crop – See at least ¶75); and
determining an actual number of rows being harvested by signals from the one or more sensors and adjusting yield data from the yield to only apply yield to rows actually being harvested (Motor current data gathered by the system can indicate when an ear is harvested on a row-by-row, and in some implementations plant-by-plant, basis. That is, because with the system each row has its own motor driver and motor, motor current data can be gathered for each row unit. This row-by-row distribution data may be used to quantify the distribution of ears/yield across each row, as shown in FIG. 7. In various implementations, the traditional yield data gathered by mass flow or other sensors can be combined with the row-by-row distribution data to generate high-resolution yield data. This high-resolution yield data is more granular and therefore more precise than the traditional yield data, for example by showing yields on a row-by-row basis – See at least ¶74).
Risius fails to disclose applying, by a processor, a time offset corresponding to the time delay to data from the yield sensor.
However, Vellidus teaches applying, by a processor, a time offset corresponding to the time delay to data from the yield sensor (The monitoring system software includes a simple correction algorithm to adjust load cell output by a constant time lag resulting from the problem of delay, or lag, between the moment that the crop enters the combine and the moment that it is sensed. The constant time lag correction involves shifting the calculated yield values by a lag value between 11 and 15 seconds dependent upon the combine used so that the yield values are paired with the appropriate latitude and longitude coordinates – See at least column 9, lines 12-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Risius and include the feature of applying, by a processor, a time offset corresponding to the time delay to data from the yield sensor, as taught by Vellidus, to correct or minimize a problem of delay, or lag, between the moment that the crop enters the combine and the moment that it is sensed.
Regarding claim 3, Risius fails to disclose geographically shifting recorded yield values to recorded stalk locations from the one or more sensors based on the time delay.
However, Vellidus teaches geographically shifting recorded yield values to recorded stalk locations from the one or more sensors based on the time delay (The constant time lag correction involves shifting the calculated yield values by a lag value between 11 and 15 seconds dependent upon the combine used so that the yield values are paired with the appropriate latitude and longitude coordinates – See at least column 9, lines 12-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Risius and include the feature of geographically shifting recorded yield values to recorded stalk locations from the one or more sensors based on the time delay, as taught by Vellidus, to provide improvements in agricultural science by determining yield values based on stalk-specific measurements collected by an agricultural harvester.
Regarding claim 5, Risius fails to disclose display time delay adjusted yield maps to an operator on a display.
However, Vellidus teaches display time delay adjusted yield maps to an operator on a display (The CPU calculates the area harvested and the yield rate from the merged and transmitted data and displays the yield rate, total yield, and total area harvested on the HP360LX display/storage unit in the tractor cab, FIG. 1 to provide visual feedback of the DAS via the computer Screen to the tractor operator. – See at least Column 10, lines 8-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Risius and include the feature of display time delay adjusted yield maps to an operator on a display, as taught by Vellidus, to decrease inaccuracy data of yield measurements in harvesters.
Regarding claim 8, Risius fails to disclose mapping harvested rows and eliminating reading from the one or more sensors of already harvested rows.
However, Vellidus teaches mapping harvested rows and eliminating reading from the one or more sensors of already harvested rows (The CPU calculates the area harvested and the yield rate from the merged and transmitted data and displays the yield rate, total yield, and total area harvested on the HP360LX display/storage unit in the tractor cab, FIG. 1 to provide visual feedback of the DAS via the computer Screen to the tractor operator. – See at least Column 10, lines 8-14)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Risius and include the feature of mapping harvested rows and eliminating reading from the one or more sensors of already harvested rows, as taught by Vellidus, to provide one or more harvesting yield instruments and a matching module that accounts for time discrepancies between reaping from a field and yield measurements.
Regarding claim 11, Risius discloses an agricultural harvesting system, comprising (methods are constructed and arranged to collect row-by-row data during harvest operations to create detailed and high-resolution yield and harvest data maps. In various implementations, the devices, systems, and methods can detect plugged row units in real-time or near real-time – See at least ¶5):
at least one sensor disposed on a harvester head configured to detect when crop enter the harvester head (A FIG. 6 shows an exemplary graph of motor current data over time. In various implementations, as a stalk is fed through the row unit there is a spike in the motor current, as would be understood. That is, additional torque/effort is required to harvest a stalk and as such the row unit draws addition power when harvesting a stalk, as would be readily appreciated in light of this disclosure. As can be seen from FIG. 6 slight fluctuations of motor current over time are expected, while a large spike can be seen when a stalk and/or ear are stripped/pass through the row unit – See at least ¶70);
a yield sensor disposed on the harvester configured to measure crop flow (Traditional yield data is often measured using mass flow sensors located on or associated with the combine, but these types of yield sensors often do not accurately map overall yield. That is, these known yield sensors measure yield across the entire swath of the corn head, and the data is delayed due to the inherent distance the crop must travel from the row unit to the yield sensor – See at least ¶73 and 75);
a storage device in communication with and configured to receive signals from the at least one sensor and the yield sensor (Traditional yield data is often measured using mass flow sensors located on or associated with the combine, but these types of yield sensors often do not accurately map overall yield. That is, these known yield sensors measure yield across the entire swath of the corn head, and the data is delayed due to the inherent distance the crop must travel from the row unit to the yield sensor – See at least ¶73 and 75).
Risius fails to disclose a processor in communication with the at least one storage device configured to processes the signals from the at least one sensor and the yield sensor to determine a harvest delay, wherein the harvest delay is a time period between when crop is detected by the at least one sensor entering the harvester head and when the yield sensor detects crop flow and align data from the at least one sensor and the yield sensor to map yields at locations where crop entered the harvester head.
However, Vellidus teaches a processor in communication with the at least one storage device configured to processes the signals from the at least one sensor and the yield sensor to determine a harvest delay, wherein the harvest delay is a time period between when crop is detected by the at least one sensor entering the harvester head and when the yield sensor detects crop flow and align data from the at least one sensor and the yield sensor to map yields at locations where crop entered the harvester head (The monitoring system software includes a simple correction algorithm to adjust load cell output by a constant time lag resulting from the problem of delay, or lag, between the moment that the crop enters the combine and the moment that it is sensed. The constant time lag correction involves shifting the calculated yield values by a lag value between 11 and 15 seconds dependent upon the combine used so that the yield values are paired with the appropriate latitude and longitude coordinates – See at least column 9, lines 12-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Risius and include the feature of a processor in communication with the at least one storage device configured to processes the signals from the at least one sensor and the yield sensor to determine a harvest delay, wherein the harvest delay is a time period between when crop is detected by the at least one sensor entering the harvester head and when the yield sensor detects crop flow and align data from the at least one sensor and the yield sensor to map yields at locations where crop entered the harvester head, as taught by Vellidus, to correct or minimize a problem of delay, or lag, between the moment that the crop enters the combine and the moment that it is sensed.
Regarding claim 12, Risius fails to explicitly disclose a display in communication with the storage device and the processor configured to display harvest delay adjusted yield maps to an operator in real time or near real-time.
However, Vellidus teaches a display in communication with the storage device and the processor configured to display harvest delay adjusted yield maps to an operator in real time or near real-time (The CPU calculates the area harvested and the yield rate from the merged and transmitted data and displays the yield rate, total yield, and total area harvested on the HP360LX display/storage unit in the tractor cab, FIG. 1 to provide visual feedback of the DAS via the computer Screen to the tractor operator. – See at least Column 10, lines 8-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Risius and include the feature of a display in communication with the storage device and the processor configured to display harvest delay adjusted yield maps to an operator in real time or near real-time, as taught by Vellidus, to decrease inaccuracy data of yield measurements in harvesters.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan Risius, US 20220071093A1, in view of Vellidus et al., US 6525276B1, and in view of Anderson et al., US 20160084813A1.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Risius and Vellidus fail to disclose wherein the one or more sensors are contact sensors.
However, Anderson teaches wherein the one or more sensors are contact sensors (Sensor comprises a sensor that interacts, engages or contacts the plants as the plants are being harvested, wherein such interaction results in signals indicating one or more characteristics of the plants being harvested – See at least ¶108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Risius and Vellidus and include the feature of wherein the one or more sensors are contact sensors, as taught by Anderson, to decrease inaccuracy data of yield measurements in harvesters.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Risius and Vellidus fail to disclose wherein the one or more sensors are non-contact sensors.
However, Anderson teaches wherein the one or more sensors are non-contact sensors (Sensor comprises a sensor that detects one or more characteristics of the plants being harvested without contacting, i.e. non-contact sensors, the plants being harvested – See at least ¶108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Risius and Vellidus and include the feature of wherein the one or more sensors are non-contact sensors, as taught by Anderson, to decrease inaccuracy data of yield measurements in harvesters.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Risius and Vellidus fail to disclose a GNSS device configured to determine geographic locations for data from the at least one sensor and the yield sensor and wherein the processor is further configured to geographically adjust the data from the signals from the at least one sensor and the yield sensor.
However, Anderson teaches a GNSS device configured to determine geographic locations for data from the at least one sensor and the yield sensor and wherein the processor is further configured to geographically adjust the data from the signals from the at least one sensor and the yield sensor (GNSS or other positioning system reporting rate and spatial accuracy, combined with row crops of known separation, facilitates the allocation of aggregate yield to individual plants – See at least ¶100), and
wherein the processor is further configured to geographically adjust the data from the signals from the at least one sensor and the yield sensor (processor outputs crop attribute data to yield mapper. Yield mapper comprises a computing module that combines crop attribute data and geo-referencing data from geo-referencing system to generate maps depicting biomass yield and/or grain mass yield across regions of a field – See at least ¶153).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Risius and Vellidus and include the feature of a GNSS device configured to determine geographic locations for data from the at least one sensor and the yield sensor and wherein the processor is further configured to geographically adjust the data from the signals from the at least one sensor and the yield sensor, as taught by Anderson, to decrease inaccuracy data of yield measurements in harvesters.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Risius and Vellidus fail to disclose wherein the harvest delay is calculated for each harvest pass.
However, Anderson teaches wherein the harvest delay is calculated for each harvest pass (Yield allocation a control unit identifies delays between crop harvest and aggregate yield measurement for each row as harvested by each row unit – See at least ¶106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Risius and Vellidus and include the feature of wherein the harvest delay is calculated for each harvest pass, as taught by Anderson, to decrease inaccuracy data of yield measurements in harvesters.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Risius and Velldius fail to disclose wherein the harvester head is a row crop harvester.
However, Anderson teaches wherein the harvester head is a row crop harvester (Crop removal portions are located at different transverse locations across a harvester head – See at least ¶34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Risius and Vellidus and include the feature of wherein the harvester head is a row crop harvester, as taught by Anderson, to decrease inaccuracy data of yield measurements in harvesters.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Risius and Vellidus fail to disclose wherein the harvester head is a draper head.
However, Anderson teaches wherein the harvester head is a draper head (Harvesting head comprises auger, i.e. draper – See at least ¶79. Examiner notes the claimed draper head is construed to be the same as an auger as defined in applicant’s specification – See at least ¶68 of applicant’s specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Risius and Vellidus and include the feature of wherein the harvester head is a draper head, as taught by Anderson, to decrease inaccuracy data of yield measurements in harvesters.
Regarding claim 17, Risius fails to disclose wherein the harvest delay is a time between then the at least one sensor detects crop entering the draper head at a cutting edge and the time when crop flow is detected by the yield sensor.
However, Vellidus teaches wherein the harvest delay is a time between then the at least one sensor detects crop entering the draper head at a cutting edge and the time when crop flow is detected by the yield sensor (The monitoring system software includes a simple correction algorithm to adjust load cell output by a constant time lag resulting from the problem of delay, or lag, between the moment that the crop enters the combine and the moment that it is sensed. The constant time lag correction involves shifting the calculated yield values by a lag value between 11 and 15 seconds dependent upon the combine used so that the yield values are paired with the appropriate latitude and longitude coordinates – See at least column 9, lines 12-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Risius and include the feature of wherein the harvest delay is a time between then the at least one sensor detects crop entering the draper head at a cutting edge and the time when crop flow is detected by the yield sensor, as taught by Vellidus, to correct or minimize a problem of delay, or lag, between the moment that the crop enters the combine and the moment that it is sensed.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Risius and Vellidus fail to disclose wherein the at least one sensor is further configured to determine a work width of the draper head.
However, Anderson teaches wherein the at least one sensor is further configured to determine a work width of the draper head (Frame extends across the physical width of harvesting head and supports row units – See at least ¶79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Risius and Vellidus and include the feature of wherein the at least one sensor is further configured to determine a work width of the draper head, as taught by Anderson, to decrease inaccuracy data of yield measurements in harvesters.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Risius and Vellidus fail to disclose wherein the at least one sensor is a non-contact sensor.
However, Anderson teaches wherein the at least one sensor is a non-contact sensor (Sensor comprises a sensor that detects one or more characteristics of the plants being harvested without contacting, i.e. non-contact sensor, the plants being harvested – See at least ¶108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Risius and Vellidus and include the feature of wherein the at least one sensor is a non-contact sensor, as taught by Anderson, to decrease inaccuracy data of yield measurements in harvesters.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Risius and Vellidus fail to disclose wherein the at least one sensor is a contact sensor.
However, Anderson teaches wherein the at least one sensor is a contact sensor (Sensor comprises a sensor that interacts, engages or contacts the plants as the plants are being harvested, wherein such interaction results in signals indicating one or more characteristics of the plants being harvested – See at least ¶108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Risius and Vellidus and include the feature of wherein the at least one sensor is a contact sensor, as taught by Anderson, to decrease inaccuracy data of yield measurements in harvesters.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan Risius, US 20220071093A1, in view of Vellidus et al., US 6525276B1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Li et al., US 20200344948A1, hereinafter referred to as Risius, Vellidus and Li, respectively.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Risius and Vellidus fail to disclose determining ramp up and ramp down periods at the yield monitor and adjusting the yield data to account for ramp up and ramp down periods.
However, Li teaches determining ramp up and ramp down periods at the yield monitor and adjusting the yield data to account for ramp up and ramp down periods (Li determines a start-pass period during which the measured crop mass flow has not yet reached steady state and an end-pass period during which the measured crop mass flow leaves steady state and diminishes, based on derivatives of the mass-flow observations and corresponding threshold values, and automatically flags, removes and redistributes yield observations associated with the determined start pass and end pass periods – See at least ¶148, 150, 182-188).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Risius and Vellidus and include the feature of determining ramp up and ramp down periods at the yield monitor and adjusting the yield data to account for ramp up and ramp down periods, as taught by Li, to provide a system which reduces or eliminates lower machine productivity because of delays.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xiangdong Fu et al., (US 20140237685 A1) discloses “a method of identifying alleles in rice plants or rice germplasm that are associated with improved grain quality and/or increased yield, the method includes the steps of obtaining a population of rice plants, wherein one or more plants exhibit improved grain quality and/or increased yield.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
Respectfully submitted
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights