DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/833,590 filed on July 22, 2026 in which claims 1, 5, 6, 16, and 19 were amended and claims 8, 9, and 21 were cancelled.
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
Claims 1-7, 10-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 22 are pending, of which claims 1-5, 10-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) and claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 1-5, 10-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yanke et al., US Publication 2022/0232770 (hereinafter Yanke), as cited on the Information Disclosure Statement dated September 2, 2024.
Regarding claim 1, Yanke discloses a control system for monitoring operation of an agricultural machine performing an agricultural operation, the control system comprising one or more controllers, and being configured to “receive image data from one or more image sensors mounted on or otherwise coupled to the agricultural machine and configured to capture image data representative of the operation of a crop-engaging component of the machine” (Yanke ¶ 27) where images are obtained from image sensors mounted on an agricultural machine that capture images of regions around the header to detect information about the crop harvesting process (i.e., representative of the operation of a crop-engaging component). Additionally, Yanke discloses “determine, from the image data, a crop parameter for each of one or more crop constituents indicative of position and motion of the respective crop constituent with respect to the crop-engaging component” (Yanke ¶ 23) by detecting position or movement of the crop material relative (i.e., with respect to) to the header. Further, Yanke discloses “determine a performance metric for the agricultural operation in dependence on the determined crop parameter(s)” (Yanke ¶ 72) by comparing a measured distribution of crop data to a target distribution of crop data do determine if the agricultural machine is operating correctly. Moreover, Yanke discloses “generate and output control signals for controlling one or more operable components associated with the agricultural machine in dependence on the determined performance metric” (Yanke ¶¶ 73-74) where the measurements are used to change or control settings of the header. Likewise, Yanke discloses “wherein the crop parameter comprises a size of the crop constituent(s)” (Yanke ¶ 37, see also ¶ 48) where the size of the harvested grain may be detected.
Finally, Yanke discloses “wherein the control system is configured to analyze the image data and determine or identify therefrom a change in size of the crop constituent(s) during the collection/harvesting of the crop constituent(s) by the agricultural machine and compare the identified change in size with a threshold and determine an anomalous constituent in dependence on the comparison.” (Yanke ¶¶ 37, 72). Specifically, Yanke discloses that a “measured distribution of each parameter” is compared to “a target distribution for that parameter,” which may be a “threshold,” in order to generate a signal indicating the detection of an anomaly. (Yanke ¶ 72). As discussed above, Yanke disclosed that the parameters include a size of the crop constituents based on analyzed image data. (Yanke ¶ 37). A “distribution” is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art to be a range of values of a variable. Thus, a distribution of the crop constituent sizes is a range of values of the sizes of the crops. These values are an “identified change” in the values; for example having a first size of 5 and a second size of 6 in the distribution indicates a change in size of 1 between the values of those components. Therefore, by comparing the “measured distribution of each parameter” to the “target distribution for that parameter,” the “identified change in size” is being compared to a threshold value.
Regarding claim 2, Yanke discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Yanke discloses “configured to analyze the image data from the one or more image sensors and identify therein one or more individual crop constituents” (Yanke ¶ 70) where the images may be categorized by individual kernels, ears of corn, partial ears of corn, husk materials, or other MOG, which are each crop constituents.
Regarding claim 3, Yanke discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Yanke discloses “wherein the crop parameter comprises a position of the crop constituent(s)” (Yanke ¶ 69) where the position and movement of the crop material is identified.
Regarding claim 4, Yanke discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Yanke discloses “wherein the crop parameter comprises a measure of a movement of the crop constituent(s)” (Yanke ¶ 69) where the position and movement of the crop material is identified.
Regarding claim 5, Yanke discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Yanke discloses “wherein the measure of the movement of the crop constituent(s) comprises a measure of the direction, speed or distance of travel of the crop constituent(s)” (Yanke ¶ 70) where the direction and speed of the crop material may further be detected.
Regarding claim 10, Yanke discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Yanke discloses “wherein the performance metric corresponds to a measure of ground loss for the agricultural operation” (Yanke ¶ 27) where the performance metric may be the amount of material loss onto the ground (i.e., ground loss).
Regarding claim 11, Yanke discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Yanke discloses “operable to utilize a computer implemented method for analyzing the image data to identify crop constituents therein, the computer implemented method comprising a learned model for image data obtained from the image sensor(s).” (Yanke ¶ 45).
Regarding claim 12, Yanke discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Yanke discloses “wherein the one or more operable components comprise one or more functional components of the crop engaging component including one or more of: a skid plate, a row unit, an auger, and a conveyor” (Yanke ¶ 41) where the functional component may be at least a row unit, an auger, or a conveyer.
Regarding claim 14, Yanke discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 12 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Yanke discloses “operable to control one or more functions of said functional components, including one or more of: the operation of the component(s); an operational speed of said component(s); and a relative position of features of the component(s)” (Yanke ¶ 41) where the speed of the components may be controlled.
Regarding claim 15, Yanke discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 12 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Yanke discloses “operable to control a cutting speed or chain speed associated with one or more row units of the crop engaging component” (Yanke ¶ 92, see also Fig. 15c) by adjusting the speed of the stalk roll.
Regarding claim 16, Yanke discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Yanke discloses “wherein the one or more operable components comprise one or more functional components of the agricultural machine comprising one or more of: a steering system, a braking system or a propulsion system of the agricultural machine for controlling motion of the machine in dependence on the determined performance metric” (Yanke ¶ 41) where the speed of the agricultural vehicle may be adjusted in response to the signals, meaning that a propulsion system is controlled.
Regarding claim 18, Yanke discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Yanke discloses “wherein the one or more operable components comprise a user interface of or otherwise associated with the agricultural machine.” (Yanke ¶ 33).
Regarding claim 19, Yanke discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Yanke discloses “[a] header for a harvesting machine comprising or being controllable under operation of the control system of claim 1.” (Yanke ¶ 23).
Regarding claim 20, Yanke discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Yanke discloses “[a]n agricultural machine comprising or being operably coupleable to the header of claim 19.” (Yanke ¶ 24).
Regarding claim 22, Yanke discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Yanke discloses “[a]n agricultural machine comprising or being operably coupleable to the control system of claim 1.” (Yanke ¶ 24).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yanke in view of Anderson et al., US Publication 2022/0138987 (hereinafter Anderson), as cited on the Information Disclosure Statement dated September 2, 2024.
Regarding claim 6, Yanke discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Yanke does not appear to explicitly disclose “configured to determine whether a path travelled by a crop constituent follows an expected path for at least one of the operation and the particular crop engaging component.”
However, Anderson discloses a crop harvesting system “configured to determine whether a path travelled by a crop constituent follows an expected path for at least one of the operation and the particular crop engaging component” (Anderson ¶ 147) by measuring the path linearity of the crop in header.
Yanke and Anderson are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of crop detection systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yanke and Anderson before him or her to modify the crop recognition of Yanke to include the path tracking of Anderson.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the effectiveness and precision of the harvester.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yanke and Anderson discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Yanke and Anderson discloses “ configured to identify an anomalous crop constituent in dependence on a measure of movement for that constituent deviating from the expected path for the monitored agricultural operation or crop engaging component” (Anderson ¶ 147) by adjusting the header based on how well the crop follows a linear path. This means that when the crop does not following a linear path, it is an anomalous crop constituent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 22, 2026, with respect to the objections to claims 1, 6, 116, 19, and 21 and the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 5) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1, 6, 116, 19, and 21 and the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “the invention of claim 1 involves not just determining a size of a crop constituent, but determining ‘a change in size of the crop constituent.” (Remarks 6). Applicant continues that the subject matter of Yanke “is fundamentally different than determining a change in size of the crop constituent over time and determining that its size has changed during the harvesting process.” (Remarks 5). Applicant continues that “[w]hile paragraph 0072 of Yanke does disclose using ‘threshold values for each parameter’, none of the parameters disclosed in Yanke is a change in size of a crop constituent” and “[b]ecause Yanke does not disclose determining a change in size at all, Yanke cannot disclose comparing such a change in size to a threshold, as recited in claim 1.” (Remarks 6). The examiner disagrees.
It is the examiner’s duty to give claims “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP § 2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, if the specification is silent to the meaning of claim terminology, “words of the claim must be given their plain meaning.” See MPEP § 2111.01.
As discussed above, Yanke discloses that a “measured distribution of each parameter” is compared to “a target distribution for that parameter,” which may be a “threshold,” in order to generate a signal indicating the detection of an anomaly. (Yanke ¶ 72). Yanke previously disclosed that the parameters include a size of the crop constituents based on analyzed image data. (Yanke ¶ 37). A “distribution” is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art to be a range of values of a variable. Thus, a distribution of the crop constituent sizes is a range of values of the sizes of the crops. These values are an “identified change” in the values because the reflect the individual sizes of the distribution. By comparing the “measured distribution of each parameter” to the “target distribution for that parameter,” the “identified change in size” is being compared to a threshold value. Therefore, Yanke does disclose “determining a change is size of the crop constituents” as argued and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Should Applicant believe that the point of novelty of the claimed invention is in the determining a change in size of the crop constituents, the examiner recommends amending the claim with further detail about how this is specifically performed, instead of merely stating that the function occurs.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights