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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. §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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The limitation of “a row length versus a turn length” is recited a high level of generality, therefore, Nishii still reads on the claim as written. Applicant is encouraged to provide specific details regarding how the row length and the turn length are specifically utilized in the productivity index.
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 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180232674 A1, with an earliest priority date of 11/05/2015, hereinafter “Bilde”, in view of EP 2174537 A1 (see attached translation), published 04/14/2010, hereinafter “Diekhans”, and further in view of US 20220122197 A1, PCT filed 08/14/2019, hereinafter “Hanrieder”.
Regarding claim 14, Bilde teaches a computer-based system for improving harvest production performance, the system comprising a processor for processing instructions and data, and memory for storing the instructions and the data. See at least [0056]-[0057], [0072], [0121]-[0125], [0146]-[0147], figure 1, and figure 4, wherein combine 14 is configured to harvest crops based on path plans generated by a system 30 including a computer 32 comprising a memory, processor, and stored instructions.
wherein the instructions, when processed by the processor, configure the processor to: identify a crop transport availability characteristic for a harvesting operation performed by at least one harvester in a field, wherein the crop transport availability characteristic is identified using data representative of the availability of one or more crop transport vehicles to offload harvested crop from the at least one harvester during the harvesting operation. See at least [0056]-[0057], [0072], [0121]-[0125], [0146]-[0147], figure 1, and figure 4, wherein combine 14 is configured to harvest crops. See at least [0094]-[0106], wherein the system identifies parameters regarding transport vehicles. The parameters include data representing characteristics such as transport capacity and load for grain cart units 16. The grain carts include both in-field and on-road carts which transport the harvested grain out of field to a facility. See at least [0094]-[0106], [0139], [0179]-[0175] wherein the system identifies parameters regarding the current and simulated available capacity of the grain units. Additionally, see at least [0013] and [0095], wherein the grain cart units include in-field grain carts, and on-road grain cart units. The on-road grain cart units include highway trucks which transport the grain to an external facility.
identify a harvesting path for the at least one harvester during the operation, the harvesting path for the at least one harvester identified using a productivity index for at least a portion of a field. See at least [0128]-[0131], [0139]-[0140], and figure 3, wherein input parameters are used to generate an optimized path plan for the combine. The input parameters include a second set of parameters related to grain transport, including the transport capacity of the grain cart units. The input parameters additionally include a first set of parameters related to the crop field, including an estimated crop yield and crop quality of the field.
wherein the productivity index for the at least the portion of the field is representative of a predicted harvest rate for the crop. See at least [0058]-[0071] and figure 3, wherein the yield parameter represents the estimated crop yield for field 12. The yield parameter is variable, meaning that the yield estimate changes over time as the combine harvests (i.e., a rate).
and generate a control signal to guide the at least one harvester to one of the paths. See at least [0160]-[0164], and figures 6A-C, wherein the generated optimized path plan for the combine is output to the combine. The combine performs at least part of the path plans, or tasks, using auto-steering. See at least [0140]-[0142] and [0156], wherein the path plans are optimized to minimize costs associated with operation, the costs including a time to execute the harvest or an operational cost associated with the harvest.
Bilde remains silent on provide a predicted crop harvesting rate that complements the identified crop transport availability, the productivity index being representative of a harvest in a location in the field, identify a first section of the harvesting path having a first productivity index; identify a second section of the harvesting path having a second productivity index; determine a harvester travel time between the first section of the harvesting path and the second section of the harvesting path; determine a predicted change in the crop transport availability characteristic based on the harvester travel time, and generating the control signal based on the predicted change in the crop transport availability characteristic to guide the harvester to one of: the first section of the harvesting path or the second section of the harvesting path. As discussed above, Bilde’s crop yield is a single parameter (estimated yield) for an entire field, rather than a rate for different locations in the field.
Diekhans teaches provide a predicted crop harvesting rate that complements the identified crop transport availability. See at least [0010], [0022]-[0023], [0032]-[0034], [0037], and figure 5, wherein the planning process predicts a time and crop quantity for a harvester to process a sub-area of the field and predicts a time and capacity for field and road transporters to transport the harvester’s tank contents. The planned path for the harvesters is calculated so the transport capacity and harvest capacity are compatible.
the productivity index being representative of a harvest in a location in the field, , identify a first section of the harvesting path having a first productivity index; identify a second section of the harvesting path having a second productivity index; See at least [0011], [0034]-[0037], and figure 5, wherein data regarding an area yield of crops in the field is obtained for different sub-areas of the fields. Each sub-area has its own section 9 of the route traveled by the harvester.
determine a harvester travel time between the first section of the harvesting path and the second section of the harvesting path, See at least [0022]-[0023], [0026], and [0032]-[0034], wherein the distances between fields are used to estimate the travel times for the harvester to travel between fields. The travel time between one sub-area and the next is then compared to the available transport capacity to determine a path plan for the harvester.
guiding the harvester to one of: the first section of the harvesting path or the second section of the harvesting path. See at least [0035], wherein, based on the comparison, the path plan for the harvesters is calculated, where an order of the sub-areas (path sections) is determined.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Bilde with Diekhans’ technique of identifying a distance between two sections of the harvesting path having two different productivity indexes, comparing the distance to the transport capacity, and determining the harvester’s path based on the comparison. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables agricultural systems to more accurately estimate the resources needed to harvest a crop field. This allows planning systems to better plan for the number of agricultural machines deployed, increasing operational efficiency, as recognized by Diekhans (see at least [0004]-[0012]).
Hanrieder teaches determine a predicted change in the crop transport availability characteristic based on the harvester travel time, based on the predicted change in the crop transport availability characteristic. See at least [0032]-[0033], wherein the duration of time the harvester spends traveling in the headlands, i.e. travel time between harvesting times, is omitted from calculating the crop harvesting rate and the resulting transport capacity rate. In combination with Bilde and Diekhans’ teaching discussed above, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Bilde with Hanrieder’s estimated changes in crop transport capacity based on harvester travel times. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables agricultural operations to increase efficiency by coordinating timing between harvest vehicles and transport vehicles, as recognized by Hanrieder (see at least [0003]-[0005] and [0013]).
Regarding claim 15, Bilde, Diekhans, and Hanrieder in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above, and Bilde remains silent on wherein the first portion of the harvesting path for the harvester comprises a location in the field with a lower productivity index, and wherein the second portion of the harvesting path for the at least one harvester comprises a location in the field with a higher productivity index.
Diekhans teaches wherein the first portion of the harvesting path for the harvester comprises a location in the field with a lower productivity index, and wherein the second portion of the harvesting path for the at least one harvester comprises a location in the field with a higher productivity index. See at least [0042]-[0044], wherein the harvesters at a field are planned to harvest a sub-area of the field with a high crop yield. If the available transport capacity can match the high productivity, then the harvesters continue to harvest the high-productivity subarea. If the available transport capacity is lower, and insufficient to meet the amount of expected harvested grain, then one of the harvesters is redirected to instead harvest another sub-area of the field with lower estimated yield.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Bilde with Diekhans’ technique of directing a harvester to harvest a higher or lower productivity area of the field based on the available crop transport capacity. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables agricultural systems to more accurately estimate the resources needed to harvest a crop field. This allows planning systems to better plan for the number of agricultural machines deployed, increasing operational efficiency, as recognized by Diekhans (see at least [0004]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 16 Bilde, Diekhans, and Hanrieder in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above, and Bilde remains silent on wherein the instructions, when processed by the processor, configure the processor to: identify a travel time for the at least one harvester to travel from the first portion of the harvesting path to the second portion of the harvesting path; and generate the control signal based on the comparison and the travel time.
Diekhans teaches wherein the instructions, when processed by the processor, configure the processor to: identify a travel time for the at least one harvester to travel from the first portion of the harvesting path to the second portion of the harvesting path; and generate the control signal based on the comparison and the travel time. See at least [0011], [0034]-[0037], and figure 5, wherein data regarding an area yield of crops in the field is obtained for different sub-areas of the fields. Each sub-area has its own section 9 of the route traveled by the harvester. See at least [0022]-[0023], [0026], and [0032]-[0034], wherein the distances between fields are used to estimate the travel times for the harvester to travel between fields. The travel time between one sub-area and the next is then compared to the available transport capacity to determine a path plan for the harvester. See at least [0035], wherein, based on the comparison, the path plan for the harvesters is calculated, where an order of the sub-areas (path sections) is determined.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Bilde with Diekhans’ technique of identifying a distance and travel time between two sections of the harvesting path having two different productivity indexes, comparing the distance and travel time to the transport capacity, and determining the harvester’s path based on the comparison. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables agricultural systems to more accurately estimate the resources needed to harvest a crop field. This allows planning systems to better plan for the number of agricultural machines deployed, increasing operational efficiency, as recognized by Diekhans (see at least [0004]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 17, Bilde, Diekhans, and Hanrieder in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above, and Bilde additionally teaches wherein the identified crop transport availability comprises an availability of a grain truck transport to receive the harvested crop from a grain cart, the grain truck availability comprising a current availability and a predicted availability. See at least [0094]-[0106], [0139], [0179]-[0175] wherein the system identifies parameters regarding the current and simulated available capacity of the grain units. Additionally, see at least [0013] and [0095], wherein the grain cart units include in-field grain carts, and on-road grain cart units. The on-road grain cart units include highway trucks which transport the grain to an external facility.
Regarding claim 18, Bilde, Diekhans, and Hanrieder in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above, and Bilde remains silent on wherein the first productivity index is higher than the second productivity index.
Diekhans additionally teaches wherein the first productivity index is higher than the second productivity index. See at least [0042]-[0044], wherein the harvesters at a field are planned to harvest a sub-area of the field with a high crop yield. If the available transport capacity can match the high productivity, then the harvesters continue to harvest the high-productivity subarea. If the available transport capacity is lower, and insufficient to meet the amount of expected harvested grain, then one of the harvesters is redirected to instead harvest another sub-area of the field with lower estimated yield.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Bilde with Diekhans’ technique of directing a harvester to harvest a higher or lower productivity area of the field based on the available crop transport capacity. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables agricultural systems to more accurately estimate the resources needed to harvest a crop field. This allows planning systems to better plan for the number of agricultural machines deployed, increasing operational efficiency, as recognized by Diekhans (see at least [0004]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 19, Bilde, Diekhans, and Hanrieder in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above, and Bilde additionally teaches comprising a harvester control subsystem that controls the at least one harvester based on the identified harvesting path, the harvester control subsystem comprising one or more of: a harvester propulsion control and a harvester steering control. See at least [0162]-[0164], wherein tasks in the path plan are performed by the combine in an auto-steering control mode.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilde, Diekhans, and US 20220382277 A1, with an earliest priority date of 05/26/2021, hereinafter “Nishii”.
Regarding claim 20, Bilde teaches A system for improving harvest production performance, the system comprising: an agricultural harvester configured to harvest a crop in a field during a harvesting operation; a controller comprising a processor for processing instructions and data, and memory for storing the instructions and the data. See at least [0056]-[0057], [0072], [0121]-[0125], [0146]-[0147], figure 1, and figure 4, wherein combine 14 is configured to harvest crops based on path plans generated by a system 30 including a computer 32 comprising a memory, processor, and stored instructions.
the controller configured to: identify crop transport availability during a harvesting operation, wherein the crop transport availability comprises data representing an out of field transport system characteristic. See at least [0094]-[0106], wherein the system identifies parameters regarding transport vehicles. The parameters include data representing characteristics such as transport capacity and load for grain cart units 16. The grain carts include both in-field and on-road carts which transport the harvested grain out of field to a facility.
and identify a predictive harvesting path for the agricultural harvester based at least on the identified crop transport availability and a productivity index for at least a portion of the field in which the agricultural harvester is operating. See at least [0128]-[0131], [0139]-[0140], and figure 3, wherein input parameters are used to generate an optimized path plan for the combine. The input parameters include a second set of parameters related to grain transport, including the transport capacity of the grain cart units. The input parameters additionally include a first set of parameters related to the crop field, including an estimated crop yield and crop quality of the field.
and a harvester control module that guides the agricultural harvester to an area of the field that will provide the improved harvest production performance using the predictive harvesting path for the agricultural harvester. See at least [0160]-[0164], and figures 6A-C, wherein the generated optimized path plan for the combine is output to the combine. The combine performs at least part of the path plans, or tasks, using auto-steering. See at least [0140]-[0142] and [0156], wherein the path plans are optimized to minimize costs associated with operation, the costs including a time to execute the harvest or an operational cost associated with the harvest.
the harvester control module comprising one or more of: a mapping subsystem that generates a field map to guide the agricultural harvester based on the predictive harvesting path. See at least [0161]-[0162] and figures 6A-C, wherein a graphical representation of the field is generated to represent the optimized path plan. The map is used to guide the combine to perform tasks of the path plan.
and a harvester control subsystem that controls the harvester based on the predictive harvesting path. See at least [0162]-[0164], wherein tasks in the path plan are performed by the combine in an auto-steering control mode.
wherein the productivity index for the at least the portion of the field is representative of a predicted harvest rate for the crop and a turn of the agricultural harvester. See at least [0058]-[0071] and figure 3, wherein the yield parameter represents the estimated crop yield for field 12. The yield parameter is variable, meaning that the yield estimate changes over time as the combine harvests (i.e., a rate). See at least [0020], [0134], and [0141], wherein the path optimization is also dependent on a number and type of headland turns made by the harvester
Bilde remains silent on the productivity index being representative of a harvest in a location in the field and a row length versus a turn length of the harvester, and wherein the predictive harvesting path comprises a location in the field with a lower productivity index when the identified crop transport availability is lower, and the predictive harvesting path comprises a location in the field with a higher productivity index when the identified crop transport availability is higher. As discussed above, Bilde’s crop yield is a single parameter (estimated yield) for an entire field, rather than a rate for different locations in the field.
Diekhans teaches a harvest in a location in the field. See at least [0011], [0035]-[0036], and figure 4, wherein data regarding a surface yield of crops in the field is obtained. The yield is location-dependent and spatially resolving.
wherein the predictive harvesting path comprises a location in the field with a lower productivity index when the identified crop transport availability is lower, and the predictive harvesting path comprises a location in the field with a higher productivity index when the identified crop transport availability is higher. See at least [0042]-[0044], wherein the harvesters at a field are planned to harvest a sub-area of the field with a high crop yield. If the available transport capacity can match the high productivity, then the harvesters continue to harvest the high-productivity subarea. If the available transport capacity is lower, and insufficient to meet the amount of expected harvested grain, then one of the harvesters is redirected to instead harvest another sub-area of the field with lower estimated yield.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Bilde with Diekhans’ technique of utilizing a productivity index representing a predicted crop yield in a location in the field and directing a harvester to harvest a higher or lower productivity area of the field based on the available crop transport capacity. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables agricultural systems to more accurately estimate the resources needed to harvest a crop field. This allows planning systems to better plan for the number of agricultural machines deployed, increasing operational efficiency, as recognized by Diekhans (see at least [0004]-[0012]).
Nishii teaches a row length versus a turn length of the harvester. See at least [0049], [0058]-[0059], [0068], and figures 5 and 7, wherein a route for the harvester is determined, including calculating a turning distance between portions of the route. The turning portions of the route are considered “empty traveling”. The rows of the route are considered “harvesting traveling”. See at least [0105], wherein the work efficiency of the harvester is based on the empty traveling distance compared to the harvesting traveling distance.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Bilde with Nishii’s technique of identifying a length of a turn of the harvester. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables harvester to travel and perform work more efficiently, as recognized by Nishii (see at least [0005]-[0010]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, Bilde, Diekhans, Xu, Hanrieder, and Nishii, taken either individually or in combination with each other or any other prior art of record, fails to teach or render obvious the limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Selena M. Jin whose telephone number is (408)918-7588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/S.M.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights