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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, “the crop standing state” lacks proper antecedent basis; also “the difficulty data” lacks proper antecedent basis; also “the one or more harvester parameters” lacks proper antecedent basis;
Claim 5, “for each one or more operational component” in line 7, the word component should be plural; and
Claim 6, “modifying each one or more operational components” should be “modifying each of the one or more operational components”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claim is directed to a computer program product comprising computer program code means, but is not limited to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Therefore, the claim can be reasonably and broadly interpreted to encompass a transitory signal which is not a statutory category of invention.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDERSON, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0007277 A1 (‘277), in view of Farley, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0209878 A1 (‘878).
As per claim 1, ‘277 in view of ‘878 discloses a computer-implemented method for a combine harvester harvesting crop in a terrain (e.g., See ‘277; [0004], [0016] and [0031] – [0033], which disclose a combine harvester having controllable subsystems and harvesting crop in a terrain), the computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining crop standing data indicating a standing state of the crop (e.g., See ‘277; [0026], which discloses collecting crop data indicating a crop standing state, such as whether the crop is downed);
obtaining terrain data, the terrain data including a respective value or values for one or more properties of the terrain (e.g., See ‘277; [0066], which discloses collecting terrain data indicating terrain properties, such as terrain topology, soil type, or soil moisture);
obtaining a difficulty indicator, indicating a likely level of difficulty for cutting the crop and/or separating harvested crop using the combine harvester (e.g., See ‘277; [0068] and [0101], which disclose collecting a condition indicator indicating that the crop is downed, which corresponds to the difficulty indicator, since downed crop is difficult for the header to pick); and
processing at least the crop standing data, the terrain data and the difficulty indicator to generate at least one capacity indicator, each capacity indicator indicating a predicted maximum available capacity of a respective portion of the combine harvester (e.g., Although ‘277 discloses processing the crop data indicating the crop standing state, the terrain data indicating the terrain properties, and the difficulty indicator indicating the likely difficulty level for cutting the crop to identify machine capabilities and to evaluate machine setting adjustments (e.g., See ‘277; [0069] – [0073]), ‘277 does not specifically disclose generating a capacity indicator that indicates a predicted maximum available capacity of a combine subsystem. ‘878 discloses the missing feature by disclosing a maximum available engine power limit based on the configuration of combine subsystems, with power being reduced to keep too much crop from entering a thresher (e.g., See ‘878; [0012] – [0013] and [0078]).
It is noted that under BRI, the claimed capacity indicator may be interpreted to include a maximum available engine power limit for the configured combine subsystems, because the limit indicates the predicted maximum available capacity available under the current subsystem configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘878 into ‘277 for the purpose of using a maximum available engine power limit to keep too much crop from entering a thresher and protect the configured combine subsystems.
As per claim 2, ‘277 in view of ‘878 further discloses that the at least one portion of the combine harvester comprises a feeder of the combine harvester, a threshing unit of the combine harvester, a separating unit of the combine harvester, a grain cleaning unit of the combine harvester, a tailings processing unit of the combine harvester, and/or the entire combine harvester (e.g., See ‘277; [0032], which discloses combine subsystems that include a feeder, a thresher, a separator, and a cleaning subsystem).
As per claim 4, ‘277 in view of ‘878 further discloses modifying one or more operational components of the combine harvester responsive to the at least one capacity indicator (e.g., See ‘277; [0075]-[0076], which disclose applying control signals to modify the controllable subsystems; also see ‘878; [0066], [0078] and [0083], which disclose modifying engine operation by limiting engine output power based on the subsystem configuration to prevent excess crop from entering the thresher).
As per claim 7, ‘277 in view of ‘878 further discloses that each of the one or more operational components is an operational component that controls a throughput of the combine harvester (e.g., See ‘277; [0069], which discloses the use of operational components that control throughput, such as harvester speed, header configuration, and thresher speed; also see ‘878; [0005] and [0078], which disclose that limiting engine output limits crop entering the thresher).
As per claim 8, ‘277 in view of ‘878 further discloses that the one or more operational components comprises a power applied by a drive unit of the combine harvester, a rotor speed of a threshing unit of the combine harvester, a clearance between a threshing cylinder and a concave of a threshing unit of the combine harvester, a fan speed of a grain cleaning unit of the combine harvester, and/or a mesh size of a sieve of a grain cleaning unit of the combine harvester (e.g., See ‘277; [0028] and [0039], which disclose controllable subsystem settings including rotor speed, concave clearance, fan speed, and sieve clearance).
As per claim 12, ‘277 in view of ‘878 further discloses the use of a computer program product comprising a computer program code means which when executed on a computing device that has a processing system, causes the processing system to perform the steps of claim 1 (e.g., See ‘277; [0119] and [0124], which discloses software loaded into memory and computer readable instructions executed by a processor to perform computer implemented steps).
As per claim 13, the rejection rationale set forth above with respect to claim 1, is incorporated herein. Claim 13 further recites a processing system to perform the claimed obtaining and processing steps and ‘277 in view of ‘878 adequately discloses this feature (e.g., See ‘277; [0024] and [0103]-[0104], which disclose processors, memory, hardware, software, and logic for performing the steps).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDERSON, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0007277 A1 (‘277), in view of Farley, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0209878 A1 (‘878), as applied to 1, from above, in further view of Behnke, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0259610 A1 (‘610).
As per claim 3, ‘277 in view of ‘878 does not specifically disclose that the processing step further comprises:
(1) processing at least the crop standing state, the terrain data and the difficulty data to generate a harvesting difficulty indicator, indicating a likely level of difficulty for performing combine harvesting using the combine harvester; and
(2) processing at least the harvesting difficulty indicator and the one or more harvester parameters to generate the at least one capacity indicator.
‘610 discloses the missing features by disclosing:
with respect to (1), processing crop condition information and ground condition information to recognize restrictive harvesting conditions and a deviation of actual crop throughput from nominal crop throughput (e.g., See ‘610; [0008] and [0043]); and
with respect to (2), processing the restrictive harvesting conditions and harvester parameters, including threshing drum rotary speed and threshing concave distance, to generate a throughput based capacity indicator for the respective subsystem of the combine harvester (e.g., See ‘610; [0015], [0025] and [0047]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘610 into ‘277 in view of ‘878 for the purpose of using difficult harvesting conditions to generate a safer throughput related capacity indicator, thereby improving harvesting in difficult field conditions.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDERSON, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0007277 A1 (‘277), in view of Farley, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0209878 A1 (‘878), as applied to 4, from above, in further view of MUENCH, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0264863 A1 (‘863).
As per claim 5, ‘277 in view of ‘878 does not specifically disclose that the step of modifying the one or more operational components comprises:
(1) obtaining at least one target capacity indicator, each target capacity indicator indicating a desired capacity of a respective portion of the combine harvester; and
(2) processing the at least one target capacity indicator and the at least one capacity indicator to determine, for each one or more operational component, an operating range for the operational component.
‘863 discloses the missing features by disclosing:
with respect to (1), collecting a target capacity indicator indicating a desired capacity value, in the form of a desired throughput value, for the harvester (e.g., See ‘863; [0014]); and
with respect to (2), processing the target capacity indicator and a capacity limit corresponding to the capacity indicator to determine a speed operating range for the harvester (e.g., See ‘863; [0014] and [0016]-[0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘863 into ‘277 in view of ‘878 for the purpose of using a desired capacity to set an operating range, thereby helping the combine maintain target crop flow without exceeding a capacity limit.
As per claim 6, ‘277 in view of ‘878, and further view of ‘863, discloses that the step of modifying the one or more operational components further comprises:
monitoring a throughput of the combine harvester (e.g., See ‘863; [0044], which discloses monitoring expected mass throughput in the harvester); and
modifying each one or more operational components responsive to the monitored throughput and the determined operating range for the operational component (e.g., See ‘863; [0043], [0050] and [0057], which disclose modifying the driving speed responsive to the expected mass throughput and the speed operating range).
It is noted that under BRI, monitoring a throughput of the combine harvester includes monitoring an expected mass throughput of the harvester.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDERSON, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0007277 A1 (‘277), in view of Farley, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0209878 A1 (‘878), as applied to 1, from above, in further view of Blank, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0364698 A1 (‘698).
As per claim 9, ‘277 in view of ‘878 does not specifically disclose providing, at a user interface, a visual representation of the one or more capacity indicators.
‘698 discloses these missing features (e.g., See ‘698; [0051] and [0059], which discloses generating display elements corresponding to power utilization metrics for a combine harvester).
It is noted that under BRI, a visual representation of one or more capacity indicators includes a displayed graph or numeric display corresponding to the one or more capacity indicators.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘698 into ‘277 in view of ‘878 for the purpose of displaying capacity information to an operator, thereby helping the operator understand machine capacity during harvesting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As per claims 10-11, specifically with respect to claim 10, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest obtaining the difficulty indicator by weighting crop condition parameter values based on contextual parameter values, and then processing the weighted crop condition parameter values to generate the difficulty indicator. This weighting step, in combination with the other claimed features and limitations, is not adequately taught or rendered obvious in the prior art of record.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 11,240961 B2, which discloses controlling a harvesting machine using a field map showing where the machine is likely to reach capacity;
(2) US 2019/0069470 A1, which discloses optimizing combine settings and ground speed using field zones, crop sensing, topography, machine data, and performance information;
(3) US 2014/0215984 A1, which discloses setting harvester work parameters from an electronic field map, expected crop through, topography, and sensor feedback;
(4) US 2023/0320272 A1, which discloses controlling combine working units by estimating cop material load from fan drive pressure in the cleaning system;
(5) US 10,448,576 B2, which discloses controlling cleaning fan speed by computing grain throughput or loss to stored threshold values; and
(6) US 11,083135 B2, which discloses measuring crop feed height in the feeder to estimate mass flow and adjust downstream combine working elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 June 26, 2026;
/RDH/
Prosecution Insights