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 1-11 and 13-21 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 7/16/26.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/16/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s arguments, see Applicant Remarks Claim Rejections filed on 7/16/26, regarding 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 rejections are persuasive in view of amendments filed 7/16/26.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of further citations to the art of record, Dima et al. (US 2019/0021226), and Boddy et al. (US 2023/0176025) below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by VANDIKE et al. (US 2022/0113734), herein “Vandike”.
Regarding claim 9, Vandike discloses a crop state map generation and control system including a computer implemented method of controlling a harvester, the computer implemented method comprising (Abstract):
obtaining harvest readiness sensor data, indicative of one or more harvest readiness attributes corresponding to a worksite, from one or more harvest readiness sensors remote from a harvester (¶69 – in-situ sensor data corresponding to the recited harvest readiness sensor data for determining harvest readiness attributes of specific crops corresponding to the recited a worksite where sensors include remote in-situ sensors 224, such as UAV-based sensors flown at a time to gather in-situ data as well as other sensors for gathering the appropriate data),
wherein the one or more harvest readiness attributes include commodity exposure that indicates whether a commodity to be harvested by the harvester from a plant stalk is exposed to the environment (¶41 and ¶96 – in-situ crop state data includes identification of stalk damage as well as grain quality such as broken grain corresponding to the recited commodity exposure);
determining one or more harvest readiness values corresponding to the worksite, indicative of a readiness for harvesting, based on the harvest readiness sensor data (¶46 and ¶69 – agricultural characteristics corresponding to the recited one or more harvest readiness values based on the sensor data); and
controlling one or more controllable subsystems of the harvester based on the one or more harvest readiness values (¶69-76 and Fig. 3A – element 310 corresponding to the recited controlling subsystems based on controls derived from the agricultural characteristics corresponding to the recited harvest readiness values).
Regarding claim 10, Vandike further discloses wherein obtaining the harvest readiness sensor data comprises obtaining the harvest readiness sensor data from one or more harvest readiness sensors remote from the worksite (¶54 – sensor data may come from locations across the field or from different fields corresponding to the recited remote from the worksite for providing contextual information).
Regarding claim 11, Vandike further discloses wherein obtaining the harvest readiness sensor data comprises obtaining the harvest readiness sensor data from one or more harvest readiness sensor disposed on a drone (¶69 - remote in-situ sensors 224, such as UAV-based sensors flown at a time to gather in-situ data).
Regarding claim 13, Vandike further discloses wherein the one or more harvest readiness attributes further include one or more of: (i) presence and location of free- standing water: (ii) worksite accessibility: (iii) worksite traversability; (iv) one or more attributes of a worksite entrance; and (vi) one or more attributes of a worksite exit (¶44-46 - agricultural characteristics includes characteristics of the field corresponding to the recited worksite readiness attributes including the presence and location of standing water corresponding to the recited (i) where standing water on a field also indicates its accessibility and traversability corresponding to the recited (ii) and (iii), the “one or more of” claim element requires at least one of the following to be present to disclose the invention as claimed).
Regarding claim 14, Vandike further discloses controlling a propulsion subsystem of the harvester to control a travel speed of the harvester (¶46 and ¶133 - the settings controller 232 controls propulsion subsystem 250 (shown as one of the controllable subsystems 216 in FIG. 2) to control the speed of agricultural harvester).
Regarding claim 15, Vandike further discloses controlling a steering subsystem of the harvester to control a heading of the harvester (¶46 and ¶64 - control steering subsystem 252 to steer agricultural harvester 100 according to a desired path).
Regarding claim 16, Vandike further discloses the one or more controllable subsystems include one or more of (¶46 and ¶64 – the “one or more” claim element only requires one of the following to be present to disclose the claim as written):
a first actuator controllable to move a first component of the harvester (¶46 and ¶64 -header actuator corresponding to the recited first actuator to move a first component of the harvester); or
a second actuator controllable to adjust a movement speed of a second component of the harvester (¶32, ¶46, and ¶64 – propulsion subsystem that includes an engine that drives ground engaging components to control the ground speed of the harvester corresponding to the recited movement speed of a second component of the harvester); and
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: control one or more of: the first actuator to move the first component of the harvester (¶46 and ¶64 -header actuator corresponding to the recited first actuator to move a first component of the harvester as controlled by the settings controller); or
the second actuator to adjust a movement speed of the second component of the harvester (¶32, ¶46, and ¶64 – propulsion subsystem that includes an engine that drives ground engaging components to control the ground speed of the harvester corresponding to the recited movement speed of a second component of the harvester).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VANDIKE et al. (US 2022/0113734), herein “Vandike”, in view of Dima et al. (US 2019/0021226).
Regarding claim 1, Vandike further discloses an agricultural system comprising (Abstract):
one or more processors; and memory storing instruction, executable by the one or more processors, that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (¶46 and ¶209):
obtain harvest readiness sensor data, indicative of one or more harvest readiness attributes corresponding to a worksite, from one or more harvest readiness sensors remote from a harvester (¶69 – in-situ sensor data corresponding to the recited harvest readiness sensor data for determining harvest readiness attributes of specific crops corresponding to the recited a worksite where sensors include remote in-situ sensors 224, such as UAV-based sensors flown at a time to gather in-situ data as well as other sensors for gathering the appropriate data),
wherein the one or more harvest readiness attributes include commodity orientation ... (¶24, ¶77, and ¶93 – in-situ sensor data includes crop state data including whether or not a crop has a downed condition and the magnitude/orientation of the downed crop);
determine one or more harvest readiness values corresponding to the worksite, indicative of a readiness for harvesting, based on at least the commodity orientation (¶46 and ¶69 – agricultural characteristics corresponding to the recited one or more harvest readiness values based on the sensor data); and
control one or more controllable subsystems of the harvester based on the one or more harvest readiness values (¶69-76 and Fig. 3A – element 310 corresponding to the recited controlling subsystems based on controls derived from the agricultural characteristics corresponding to the recited harvest readiness values).
While Vandike does disclosing identifying a downed crop condition, it does not explicitly disclose identifying an orientation of a commodity to be harvested by the harvester relative to a corresponding crop plant stalk on which the commodity is supported.
However, Dima discloses a crop state classification system including commodity orientation indicative of an orientation of a commodity to be harvested by the harvester relative to a corresponding crop plant stalk on which the commodity is supported (¶30 and ¶45-50 - the image processing system 74 can identify in the images the single stalks and corresponding ears of the single plants of crop 76 based on their shape, and derive therefrom the direction of the crop including both the identification of the direction of the stalk and corresponding ears of the single plant crop).
The combination of the crop state map generation and control system of Vandike with the downed crop component based analysis of Dima fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the crop state map generation and control system of Vandike with the downed crop component based analysis of Dima in order to accurately determine the difficulty in gathering downed crops (Dima - ¶52).
Regarding claim 2, Vandike further discloses wherein obtaining the harvest readiness sensor data comprises obtaining the harvest readiness sensor data from one or more harvest readiness sensors remote from the worksite (¶54 – sensor data may come from locations across the field or from different fields corresponding to the recited remote from the worksite for providing contextual information).
Regarding claim 3, Vandike further discloses wherein obtaining the harvest readiness sensor data comprises obtaining the harvest readiness sensor data from one or more harvest readiness sensor disposed on a drone (¶69 - remote in-situ sensors 224, such as UAV-based sensors flown at a time to gather in-situ data).
Regarding claim 4, Vandike further discloses wherein the one or more harvest readiness attributes further include one or more of: (i) presence and location of free- standing water: (ii) worksite accessibility: (iii) worksite traversability; (iv) one or more attributes of a worksite entrance; and (vi) one or more attributes of a worksite exit (¶44-46 - agricultural characteristics includes characteristics of the field corresponding to the recited worksite readiness attributes including the presence and location of standing water corresponding to the recited (i) where standing water on a field also indicates its accessibility and traversability corresponding to the recited (ii) and (iii), the “one or more of” claim element requires at least one of the following to be present to disclose the invention as claimed).
Regarding claim 5, Vandike further discloses wherein commodity orientation indicates whether a commodity is upright or hanging down (¶24, ¶77, and ¶93 – in-situ sensor data includes crop state data including whether or not a crop has a downed condition and the magnitude/orientation of the downed crop corresponding to the recited upright or hanging down orientations).
Regarding claim 6, Vandike further discloses controlling a propulsion subsystem of the harvester to control a travel speed of the harvester (¶46 and ¶133 - the settings controller 232 controls propulsion subsystem 250 (shown as one of the controllable subsystems 216 in FIG. 2) to control the speed of agricultural harvester).
Regarding claim 7, Vandike further discloses controlling a steering subsystem of the harvester to control a heading of the harvester (¶46 and ¶64 - control steering subsystem 252 to steer agricultural harvester 100 according to a desired path).
Regarding claim 8, Vandike further discloses the one or more controllable subsystems include one or more of (¶46 and ¶64 – the “one or more” claim element only requires one of the following to be present to disclose the claim as written):
a first actuator controllable to move a first component of the harvester (¶46 and ¶64 -header actuator corresponding to the recited first actuator to move a first component of the harvester); or
a second actuator controllable to adjust a movement speed of a second component of the harvester (¶32, ¶46, and ¶64 – propulsion subsystem that includes an engine that drives ground engaging components to control the ground speed of the harvester corresponding to the recited movement speed of a second component of the harvester); and
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: control one or more of: the first actuator to move the first component of the harvester (¶46 and ¶64 -header actuator corresponding to the recited first actuator to move a first component of the harvester as controlled by the settings controller); or
the second actuator to adjust a movement speed of the second component of the harvester (¶32, ¶46, and ¶64 – propulsion subsystem that includes an engine that drives ground engaging components to control the ground speed of the harvester corresponding to the recited movement speed of a second component of the harvester).
Regarding claim 21, Vandike further discloses wherein the commodity comprises grain (¶26 - For instance, the fields 104a-f may be populated with one or more different crops (or plants) such as (without limitation) corn (or maize), wheat, beans (e.g., soybeans, etc.), peppers, tomatoes, tobacco, eggplant, corn or maize, rice, rye, sorghum, sunflower, potatoes, cotton, sweet potato, coffee, coconut, pineapple, citrus trees, prunes, cocoa, banana, avocado, fig, guava, mango, olive, papaya, cashew, almond, sugar beets, sugarcane, oats, barley, vegetables, or other suitable crops or products or combinations thereof, etc.).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VANDIKE et al. (US 2022/0113734), herein “Vandike”, in view of Boddy et al. (US 2023/0176025).
Regarding claim 17, Vandike further discloses an agricultural system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instruction, executable by the one or more processors, that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (Abstract, ¶46, and ¶209):
identify a monitoring location at a worksite to be monitored for one or more harvest readiness attributes ... (¶69 – in-situ sensor data including crop characteristics such as a vegetative index, seeing characteristics, etc. corresponding to the recited one or more crop plant readiness attributes for determining harvest readiness attributes of specific crops corresponding to the recited a worksite where sensors include remote in-situ sensors 224, such as UAV-based sensors flown at a time to gather in-situ data as well as other sensors for gathering the appropriate data),
determine one or more crop plant readiness values corresponding to the worksite, indicative of a readiness of crop plants for harvesting, based on the crop plant [readiness attribute] (¶46-47 – crop characteristics such as a vegetative index, seeing characteristics, etc. corresponding to the recited one or more crop plant readiness attributes); and
control one or more controllable subsystems of the harvester based on the one or more crop plant readiness values (¶46, ¶69-76, and Fig. 3A – element 310 corresponding to the recited controlling subsystems based on controls derived from the crop characteristics such as a vegetative index, seeing characteristics, etc. corresponding to the recited one or more crop plant readiness attributes).
While Vandike does disclose identifying a significant amount of crop factors including grain quality such as broken grain (¶41) as well as seed characteristics (¶89) via in-situ sensors located on a drone (¶69), it does not explicitly disclose identifying “shatterability” via exerting a force on a crop plant.
However, Boddy discloses a system for automated phenotyping of seed shattering including control a drone to exert force on a crop plant at the monitoring location; obtain, after the drone exerts the force on the crop plant, crop plant readiness sensor data, indicative of the crop plant shatterability, from one or more sensors remote from a harvester (¶34-36 – shatter test system utilizing a plant engaging head corresponding to the recited exert force on a crop plant at the monitoring location to collect phenotypic and/or genotypic information about the plants corresponding to the recited crop plant readiness sensor data, indicative of the crop plant shatterability);
The combination of the crop state map generation and control system including UAV based in-situ crop testing of Vandike with the specific shatter test system of Boddy fully discloses the invention as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the crop state map generation and control system including UAV based in-situ crop testing of Vandike with the specific shatter test system of Boddy in order to measure the amount of pod shattering caused in one or more plants by the pod shatter test system to determine whether the plants should be used as a parent in future commercial plant products (Boddy - ¶5).
Regarding claim 18, Vandike further discloses obtain worksite readiness sensor data, indicative of one or more worksite readiness attributes corresponding to the worksite, from the one or more sensors remote from the harvester, wherein the one or more worksite readiness attributes include one or more of: (i) presence and location of free-standing water; (ii) worksite accessibility; (iii) worksite traversability; (iv) one or more attributes of a worksite entrance; and (vi) one or more attributes of a worksite exit; determine one or more worksite readiness values corresponding to the worksite, indicative of a readiness of the worksite for harvesting, based on the worksite readiness sensor data (¶44-46 and ¶69 – in-situ sensor data including agricultural characteristics such as characteristics of the field corresponding to the recited worksite readiness attributes where sensors include remote in-situ sensors 224, such as UAV-based sensors flown at a time to gather in-situ data as well as other sensors for gathering the appropriate data including characteristics of the field corresponding to the recited worksite readiness attributes including the presence and location of standing water corresponding to the recited (i) where standing water on a field also indicates its accessibility and traversability corresponding to the recited (ii) and (iii), the “one or more of” claim element requires at least one of the following to be present to disclose the invention as claimed); and
control one or more controllable subsystems of the harvester based further on the worksite readiness values (¶46, ¶69-76, and Fig. 3A – element 310 corresponding to the recited controlling subsystems based on controls derived from the agricultural characteristics includes characteristics of the field corresponding to the recited worksite readiness attributes).
Regarding claim 19, Vandike further discloses wherein the one or more sensors include at least one sensor disposed on a drone (¶69 - remote in-situ sensors 224, such as UAV-based sensors flown at a time to gather in-situ data).
Regarding claim 20, Vandike further discloses wherein the one or more sensors include at least one sensor remote from the worksite (¶54 – sensor data may come from locations across the field or from different fields corresponding to the recited remote from the worksite for providing contextual information).
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mesquita et al. (US 2002/0004418) discloses a grain harvesting device in which a dehiscence characteristic of soybean pods led most of the initial research carried out to improve combine header components to reduce the majority of seed losses resulting from pod shattering (¶6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-4 ET.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights