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 is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement that was filed on 13 February 2025 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “with the one or computing devices” on line 7. As best understood by the examiner, this portion of claim 1 should be amended to instead recite “with the one or more computing devices”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "determine an initial overturn angle for the agricultural harvester based at least in part on the position-related data received from the position sensor” on lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “the position-related data” and “the position sensor” in the claim, because claim 20 does not previously recite a position sensor capable of receiving position-related data. While claim 20 does recite a plurality of actuators configured to adjust current positions of various components of an agricultural harvest, claim 20 does not provide an earlier limitation of recording data related to these positions prior to reciting “the position-related data”, not does claim 20 provide an earlier limitation of a sensor capable of recording position-related data prior to reciting “the position sensor”.
Similarly, claim 20 recites the limitation “adjust the initial overturn angle based at least in part on the speed-related data received from the speed sensor to generate a speed-adjusted overturn angle for the agricultural harvester". There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “the speed-related data” and “the speed sensor” in the claim, because claim 20 does not previously recite a speed sensor capable of receiving speed-related data. Claim 20 does not provide an earlier limitation of recording data related to speed prior to reciting “the speed-related data”, not does claim 20 provide an earlier limitation of a sensor capable of recording speed-related data prior to reciting “the speed sensor”.
Further, due to the lack of antecedent basis, it is unclear as to specifically what is considered to be “position-related data” and “speed-related data”. While claim 20 does recite a plurality of actuators configured to adjust a current position of various components of the agricultural harvester, the “position-related data” is not necessarily limited to data corresponding to these positions, and it is unclear whether the “position-related data” may include additional data such as the position and orientation of the agricultural harvester itself within a work environment. Claim 20 does not recite any type of speed data prior to reciting “the speed-related data”, so it is unclear as to what the speed-related data includes. For example, it is unclear as to whether the speed-related data may include the speed at which the various components of the harvester are being actuated, the translational and rotational speed of the agricultural vehicle itself as it traverses a work environment, or some combination of both of these types of speed data.
The examiner suggests amending claim 20 to clearly define a “position sensor” and a “speed sensor”, and to clearly define the type of data that is considered “position-related data” and “speed-related data” recorded by these sensors, prior to reciting the aforementioned limitations regarding “the position-related data”, “the position sensor”, “the speed-related data”, and “the speed sensor”.
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 (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 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 1-3, 7-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murphy (US Patent 8,275,516), hereinafter referred to as Murphy, as cited in the Applicant’s IDS filed 13 February 2025.
Regarding claim 1, Murphy teaches:
A method for monitoring the stability of an agricultural harvester ("The disclosure is generally related to the field of rollover warning systems and methods for autopilot-guided agricultural vehicles." – see at least Murphy: Column 1 lines 6-8) (The examiner notes that while Murphy is primarily directed towards controlling tractor systems, Murphy teaches that the same systems and methods are applicable to a variety of agricultural vehicles ("Further, the systems and methods are not restricted to tractors; they are also applicable to a wide range of agricultural vehicles and other vehicles." – see at least Murphy: Column 3 lines 3-6));
the method comprising: receiving, with one or more computing devices, position-related data associated with a current position of one or more actuatable components of the agricultural harvester ("First the system is defined in step 605 by the type of tractor, attached implements, and accessories. The position and weight of each of these components is determined in step 610." – see at least Murphy: Column 4 lines 50-53)
and speed-related data associated with a current speed of the agricultural harvester ("In object 1705 the processor determines the tractor's current attitude and velocity from: GNSS receiver 410; pitch, roll and yaw sensors (which may output angle and rate information) 425; and, accelerometers 430." – see at least Murphy: Column 8 lines 38-41);
determining, with the one or more computing devices, an initial overturn angle for the agricultural harvester based at least in part on the position-related data ("Here θ is the tractor's pitch angle and ɸ is its roll angle. The tractor's static pitch and roll overturn angles are θc and ɸc respectively." – see at least Murphy: Column 8 lines 1-3) (The examiner notes that the static pitch and roll overturn angles as taught by Murphy correspond to the claimed initial overturn angle);
adjusting, with the one or more computing devices, the initial overturn angle based at least in part on the speed-related data to generate a speed-adjusted overturn angle for the agricultural harvester ("The display includes a miniature tractor 1225 and tractor z-axis indicator 1235, a vertical indicator 1230 and horizon 1232, and a roll limit indicator 1240. The display gives a tractor operator an intuitive picture of the current roll angle of the tractor. Warning lines (e.g. 1240) indicate limits of safe operation. The warning lines may move depending on tractor speed. High roll angles may be tolerable at low speed, for example." – see at least Murphy: Column 6 lines 38-45) (The examiner notes that the roll angle display 1220 as illustrated in Fig. 12 of Murphy shown below includes a roll limit indicator 1240, which corresponds to the claimed speed-adjusted overturn angle, wherein Murphy teaches that the warning line associated with roll limit indicator 1240 may move depending on tractor speed);
PNG
media_image1.png
899
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comparing, with the one or more computing devices, a current stability angle of the agricultural harvester to at least one threshold angle determined based at least in part on the speed-adjusted overturn angle ("In object 1720 the processor uses the information obtained in objects 1705, 1710, and 1715, as available, to calculate the current static and dynamic stability indices, Sstat and Sdyn, described above. If either of these indices is less than a threshold value, the autopilot issues a warning to the tractor operator." – see at least Murphy: Column 8 lines 53-58) (The examiner notes that the stability indices as taught by Murphy are calculated using at least the current roll and pitch angle of the vehicle, as described at least by the equation recited in Column 7 line 65 of Murphy, wherein the current roll and pitch angle of the vehicle correspond to the claimed current stability angle);
and executing, with the one or more computing devices, a control action when it is determined that the current stability angle of the agricultural harvester exceeds the at least one threshold angle ("The warning may be an aural warning such as a bell or horn, or a visual warning such as a red light or warning message on a display. The threshold value for current stability indices is typically about 10 but may be anywhere between about 5 and about 50 based on operator preferences." – see at least Murphy: Column 8 lines 58-62).
Regarding claim 2, Murphy teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Murphy further teaches:
further comprising determining a correction factor based at least in part on the speed-related data, the correction factor varying as a function of the current speed of the agricultural harvester ("The display includes a miniature tractor 1225 and tractor z-axis indicator 1235, a vertical indicator 1230 and horizon 1232, and a roll limit indicator 1240. The display gives a tractor operator an intuitive picture of the current roll angle of the tractor. Warning lines (e.g. 1240) indicate limits of safe operation. The warning lines may move depending on tractor speed. High roll angles may be tolerable at low speed, for example." – see at least Murphy: Column 6 lines 38-45) (The examiner notes that the movement of the warning lines associated with the roll limit indicator 1240 depending on tractor speed as taught by Murphy corresponds to the claimed correction factor).
Regarding claim 3, Murphy teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Murphy further teaches:
wherein adjusting the initial overturn angle comprises applying the correction factor to the initial overturn angle to generate the speed-adjusted overturn angle ("The display includes a miniature tractor 1225 and tractor z-axis indicator 1235, a vertical indicator 1230 and horizon 1232, and a roll limit indicator 1240. The display gives a tractor operator an intuitive picture of the current roll angle of the tractor. Warning lines (e.g. 1240) indicate limits of safe operation. The warning lines may move depending on tractor speed. High roll angles may be tolerable at low speed, for example." – see at least Murphy: Column 6 lines 38-45) (The examiner notes that the angle of the roll limit indicator 1240 as displayed on roll angle display 1220 (as illustrated in Fig. 12 of Murphy shown above) corresponds to the claimed speed-adjusted overturn angle).
Regarding claim 7, Murphy teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Murphy further teaches:
wherein determining the at least one threshold angle comprises determining a first threshold angle ("In the Advance Terrain Warning mode the autopilot system provides operator warnings for conditions leading to increased rollover risk such as those listed in FIG. 10. The warnings include: CG near the limit of a stability baseline; high pitch or roll angle; and, planned turn dangerous at current speed or planned turn dangerous at any speed." – see at least Murphy: Column 6 lines 9-15) (The examiner notes that the pitch or roll angle which triggers the high pitch or roll angle warning as taught by Murphy corresponds to the claimed first threshold angle)
and a second threshold angle based at least in part on the speed-adjusted overturn angle, the first threshold angle differing from the second threshold angle ("FIG. 18 shows a rollover warning system automatically calling for help in the event of a rollover. The autopilot may send out a distress signal via a communications link (e.g. cell phone, radio, satellite link, wi-fi, wi-max, etc.) whenever a rollover event is detected; e.g. whenever the roll angle exceeds a critical angle." – see at least Murphy: Column 9 lines 15-20) (The examiner notes that the critical angle at which a rollover event is detected as taught by Murphy corresponds to the claimed second threshold angle, wherein the critical angle of Murphy which indicates an actual rollover event is different from the aforementioned high pitch or roll angle of Murphy which indicates an increased rollover risk);
and wherein executing the control action comprises executing a first control action when it is determined that the current stability angle exceeds the first threshold angle ("In the Advance Terrain Warning mode the autopilot system provides operator warnings for conditions leading to increased rollover risk such as those listed in FIG. 10. The warnings include: CG near the limit of a stability baseline; high pitch or roll angle; and, planned turn dangerous at current speed or planned turn dangerous at any speed." – see at least Murphy: Column 6 lines 9-15) (The examiner notes that providing operator warnings as taught by Murphy corresponds to the first control action)
and executing a second control action when it is determined that the current stability angle exceeds the second threshold angle, the first control action differing from the second control action ("FIG. 18 shows a rollover warning system automatically calling for help in the event of a rollover. The autopilot may send out a distress signal via a communications link (e.g. cell phone, radio, satellite link, wi-fi, wi-max, etc.) whenever a rollover event is detected; e.g. whenever the roll angle exceeds a critical angle." – see at least Murphy: Column 9 lines 15-20) (The examiner notes that automatically calling for help by sending distress signals as taught by Murphy corresponds to the claimed second control action).
Regarding claim 8, Murphy teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Murphy further teaches:
wherein executing the control action comprises generating a notification for an operator of the agricultural harvester ("The autopilot may provide a rollover warning to a local operator (e.g. tractor driver), a remote operator (e.g. a person monitoring an autonomous tractor from a remote location), or both. In this application "operator" may refer to either a local or a remote operator." – see at least Murphy: Column 3 lines 33-37).
Regarding claim 9, Murphy teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Murphy further teaches:
wherein executing the control action comprises automatically adjusting an operation of the agricultural harvester ("In addition to, or instead of, providing a warning the autopilot may take preventive action when present or future rollover risk exceeds an acceptable threshold. For example, based on a planned path of operation the autopilot may reduce the speed of tractor when reaching high-risk terrain or a high-risk maneuver." – see at least Murphy: Column 3 lines 37-42).
Regarding claim 10, Murphy teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Murphy further teaches:
wherein automatically adjusting the operation of the agricultural harvester comprises automatically adjusting the current position of at least one of the one or more actuatable components to adjust a center of gravity of the agricultural harvester or automatically reducing the current speed of the agricultural harvester ("In addition to, or instead of, providing a warning the autopilot may take preventive action when present or future rollover risk exceeds an acceptable threshold. For example, based on a planned path of operation the autopilot may reduce the speed of tractor when reaching high-risk terrain or a high-risk maneuver." – see at least Murphy: Column 3 lines 37-42).
Regarding claim 11, Murphy teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Murphy further teaches:
wherein the current stability angle is associated with at least one of a pitch angle or a roll angle of the agricultural harvester ("The display includes a miniature tractor 1225 and tractor z-axis indicator 1235, a vertical indicator 1230 and horizon 1232, and a roll limit indicator 1240. The display gives a tractor operator an intuitive picture of the current roll angle of the tractor. Warning lines (e.g. 1240) indicate limits of safe operation. The warning lines may move depending on tractor speed. High roll angles may be tolerable at low speed, for example. Although the display of FIG. 12 is limited to roll angle information, it could easily be extended to show pitch as well, much like an aircraft attitude indicator." – see at least Murphy: Column 6 lines 38-47).
Regarding claim 12, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 1 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is substantially similar to claim 2 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 2 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is substantially similar to claim 3 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 3 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 1 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, Murphy teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Murphy further teaches:
wherein the control action comprises at least one generating a notification for an operator of the agricultural harvester ("The autopilot may provide a rollover warning to a local operator (e.g. tractor driver), a remote operator (e.g. a person monitoring an autonomous tractor from a remote location), or both. In this application "operator" may refer to either a local or a remote operator." – see at least Murphy: Column 3 lines 33-37)
or automatically adjusting an operation of the agricultural harvester ("In addition to, or instead of, providing a warning the autopilot may take preventive action when present or future rollover risk exceeds an acceptable threshold. For example, based on a planned path of operation the autopilot may reduce the speed of tractor when reaching high-risk terrain or a high-risk maneuver." – see at least Murphy: Column 3 lines 37-42).
Regarding claim 19, this claim is substantially similar to claim 11 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 11 as has been set forth above.
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 4-6, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Dugas et al. (US 2020/0404842), hereinafter referred to as Dugas, and Hogan (US 2021/0189696), hereinafter referred to as Hogan, as cited in the Applicant’s IDS filed 13 February 2025. Dugas and Hogan are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of monitoring and controlling vehicle stability.
Regarding claim 4, Murphy teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Murphy does not explicitly disclose, but Dugas teaches:
wherein the position-related data is associated with a current position of an elevator assembly of the agricultural harvester ("In some embodiments, the disclosure provides a control system for a harvester including a vehicle body and a conveyor connected to the vehicle body for rotation with respect to the vehicle body. The control system includes a first sensor that senses a speed of the harvester, a second sensor that senses a pitch and a roll of the vehicle body, a third sensor that senses a position of the conveyor with respect to the vehicle body" – see at least Dugas: paragraph 0003) (The examiner notes that the conveyor as taught by Dugas corresponds to the claimed elevator assembly, because both the conveyor of Dugas and the claimed elevator assembly are configured to move material upward within the harvester ("In some embodiments, the illustrated conveyor 36 includes a plurality of slats to move crops up the conveyor." – see at least Dugas: paragraph 0021)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murphy with these above aforementioned teachings from Dugas such that the position-related data is associated with a current position of an elevator assembly of the agricultural harvester. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Dugas’s method of measuring a current position of a conveyor assembly (i.e., elevator assembly) with Murphy’s rollover risk assessment system in order to monitor how the position of the conveyor assembly affects the center of gravity of the harvester (“While operating on steep slopes or uneven terrain, the user has to judge vehicle stability according to the position of the conveyor 36 and the slope of the terrain. The center of gravity of the harvester 10 can shift to one side of harvester 10 based upon the position of the conveyor, the incline of the terrain and the uneven nature of the terrain. This change in center of gravity of the harvester 10 could lead to instability, such as capsizing or other downfalls, such as cutting the sugar cane at a non-ideal height above the ground surface.” – see at least Dugas: paragraph 0032). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing the harvester to be controlled based on the center of gravity which is calculated based on the position of the conveyor assembly (“The controller 50 sends a first signal at output 116 to the actuator 52 to move the conveyor 36 if the calculated center of gravity of the harvester 10 is outside of an acceptable center of gravity range. The controller 50 sends a second signal at output 118 to the engine 22 to reduce the power output of the engine 22 to thereby reduce the speed of the harvester 10 if the sensed speed is greater than an acceptable range of speeds based upon the calculated center of gravity of the harvester 10.” – see at least Dugas: paragraph 0037).
The examiner notes that Murphy already teaches calculating a center of gravity (CG) based on the position of various attachments on a vehicle (“FIG. 6 is a flow chart for calculating tractor CG position. First the system is defined in step 605 by the type of tractor, attached implements, and accessories. The position and weight of each of these components is determined in step 610. Positions and weights may be obtained from manufacturer's data, a model, or user input, or a combination of sources. Finally, center of gravity is calculated in step 615.” – see at least Murphy: Column 4 lines 49-55). As such, Dugas merely provides additional teachings regarding the use of a particular accessory (i.e., an elevator/conveyor assembly) which is commonly used in agricultural harvesters, and one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be readily able to combine the teachings of Murphy and Dugas to reach the claimed limitation.
Murphy does not explicitly disclose, but Hogan teaches:
wherein the position-related data is associated with… a current position of at least one of a topper assembly of the agricultural harvester, an extractor of the agricultural harvester, or a chassis of the agricultural harvester ("As another example, the controller 120 may obtain the positional information from the sensors 204. For example, a sensor 204 may be associated with a component of the machine 100 that is movable (e.g., that may be raised, lowered, or swung) in a manner that affects a center of gravity of the machine 100, and the sensor 204 may measure a position of the component. For example, the component may be a leg (e.g., a leveling leg), an arm (e.g., a horizontally extending arm, a boom, an excavator arm, and/or the like), an implement (e.g., a screed, a bucket, a dump, and/or the like), a counterweight, a tool, a fluid tank, a rotor, a conveyor, an anti-slab device, a ground engagement member 104, and/or the like, of the machine 100." – see at least Hogan: paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murphy with these above aforementioned teachings from Hogan such that the position-related data is associated with a current position of at least one of a topper assembly of the agricultural harvester, an extractor of the agricultural harvester, or a chassis of the agricultural harvester. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hogan’s method of sensing the positions of various moving parts of a work machine with Murphy’s rollover risk assessment system in order to determine a current configuration of the work machine based on the sensed positions (“The state may be associated with a configuration of the machine 100, a position of one or more implements or other components of the machine 100, a fluid level of one or more fluid tanks of the machine, and/or the like. Accordingly, the controller 120 may determine the state based on the configuration information 202, positional information, fluid level information, and/or the like.” – see at least Hogan: paragraph 0024). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing the system to calculate a dynamic center of gravity based on the current state of the work machine including the sensed positions, and to determine operational limits of the work machine based on the calculated dynamic center of gravity (“For example, the controller 120 may be configured to determine a center of gravity of the machine 100 based on a state of the machine 100, determine at least one of a slope limit or a pitch limit for the machine 100 based on the center of gravity” – see at least Hogan: paragraph 0020).
The examiner notes that a topper assembly, an extractor, and a chassis are all considered well-known and conventional components of a harvester. For example, the harvester vehicle taught by Dugas as set forth above includes each of these elements (“The illustrated harvester 10 includes a topper 14, … a cab 20,... a primary extractor 34, a conveyor 36, a secondary extractor 38, a first sensor 42, a second sensor 44, a third sensor 46, a user interface 48, a controller 50, and an actuator 52.” – see at least Dugas: paragraph 0015). While Hogan primarily uses a cold planer as an example of a work machine, Hogan teaches that the same system and methods are applicable to any type of work machine with movable components (“The disclosed control system may be used with any machine having different states that may affect a center of gravity of the machine. For example, the control system may be used with a machine that may have one of several configurations, that includes an implement or other component that is movable, that includes a fluid tank having a fluid level that may change over time, and/or the like.” – see at least Hogan: paragraph 0048). As such, the teachings of Hogan as set forth above may be readily applied to a conventional harvester system such as the one taught by Dugas which includes all of the claimed components.
Regarding claim 5, Murphy in view of Dugas and Hogan teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Murphy does not explicitly disclose, but Dugas teaches:
wherein the current position of the elevator assembly comprises at least one of a swing angle of the elevator assembly or an operating height of the elevator assembly ("The third sensor 46 can sense both an angular position about a vertical axis and an angular position about a horizontal axis (which corresponds to a height of the conveyor 36 above the ground surface) of the conveyor 36 with respect to the main body of the harvester 10." – see at least Dugas: paragraph 0025).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murphy with these above aforementioned teachings from Dugas such that the current position of the elevator assembly comprises at least one of a swing angle of the elevator assembly or an operating height of the elevator assembly. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Dugas’s method of measuring a current position of a conveyor assembly (i.e., elevator assembly) with Murphy’s rollover risk assessment system in order to monitor how the position of the conveyor assembly affects the center of gravity of the harvester (“While operating on steep slopes or uneven terrain, the user has to judge vehicle stability according to the position of the conveyor 36 and the slope of the terrain. The center of gravity of the harvester 10 can shift to one side of harvester 10 based upon the position of the conveyor, the incline of the terrain and the uneven nature of the terrain. This change in center of gravity of the harvester 10 could lead to instability, such as capsizing or other downfalls, such as cutting the sugar cane at a non-ideal height above the ground surface.” – see at least Dugas: paragraph 0032). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing the harvester to be controlled based on the center of gravity which is calculated based on the position of the conveyor assembly (“The controller 50 sends a first signal at output 116 to the actuator 52 to move the conveyor 36 if the calculated center of gravity of the harvester 10 is outside of an acceptable center of gravity range. The controller 50 sends a second signal at output 118 to the engine 22 to reduce the power output of the engine 22 to thereby reduce the speed of the harvester 10 if the sensed speed is greater than an acceptable range of speeds based upon the calculated center of gravity of the harvester 10.” – see at least Dugas: paragraph 0037).
Murphy does not explicitly disclose, but Hogan teaches:
the current position of the topper assembly comprises an operating height of the topper assembly, the current position of the extractor comprises a swing angle of the extractor, and the current position of the chassis comprises a suspension height of the agricultural harvester ("As an example, a hydraulic leg 110 may be associated with a sensor 204 (e.g., an in-cylinder sensor, a switch-to-ground sensor, and/or the like) that measures a height of the hydraulic leg 110, a conveyor system 126 may be associated with sensor 204 (e.g., an in-cylinder sensor, an angular sensor, and/or the like) that measures an amount of swing of a conveyor relative to a neutral position, an anti-slab device may be associated with a sensor 204 that measures a height of the anti-slab device, a rotor may be associated with a sensor 204 that measures a height of the rotor, a ground engagement member 104 may be associated with a sensor 204 that measures a steering angle of the ground engagement member 104, and/or the like. In this way, a sensor 204 may indicate a position of a component of the machine 100 that is different from a neutral position or a previous position." – see at least Hogan: paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murphy with these above aforementioned teachings from Hogan such that the current position of the topper assembly comprises an operating height of the topper assembly, the current position of the extractor comprises a swing angle of the extractor, and the current position of the chassis comprises a suspension height of the agricultural harvester. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hogan’s method of sensing the positions of various moving parts of a work machine with Murphy’s rollover risk assessment system in order to determine a current configuration of the work machine based on the sensed positions (“The state may be associated with a configuration of the machine 100, a position of one or more implements or other components of the machine 100, a fluid level of one or more fluid tanks of the machine, and/or the like. Accordingly, the controller 120 may determine the state based on the configuration information 202, positional information, fluid level information, and/or the like.” – see at least Hogan: paragraph 0024). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing the system to calculate a dynamic center of gravity based on the current state of the work machine including the sensed positions, and to determine operational limits of the work machine based on the calculated dynamic center of gravity (“For example, the controller 120 may be configured to determine a center of gravity of the machine 100 based on a state of the machine 100, determine at least one of a slope limit or a pitch limit for the machine 100 based on the center of gravity” – see at least Hogan: paragraph 0020).
The examiner notes that a topper assembly, an extractor, and a chassis are all considered well-known and conventional components of a harvester. For example, the harvester vehicle taught by Dugas as set forth above includes each of these elements (“The illustrated harvester 10 includes a topper 14, … a cab 20,... a primary extractor 34, a conveyor 36, a secondary extractor 38, a first sensor 42, a second sensor 44, a third sensor 46, a user interface 48, a controller 50, and an actuator 52.” – see at least Dugas: paragraph 0015). While Hogan primarily uses a cold planer as an example of a work machine, Hogan teaches that the same system and methods are applicable to any type of work machine with movable components (“The disclosed control system may be used with any machine having different states that may affect a center of gravity of the machine. For example, the control system may be used with a machine that may have one of several configurations, that includes an implement or other component that is movable, that includes a fluid tank having a fluid level that may change over time, and/or the like.” – see at least Hogan: paragraph 0048). As such, the teachings of Hogan as set forth above may be readily applied to a conventional harvester system such as the one taught by Dugas which includes all of the claimed components.
Regarding claim 6, Murphy in view of Dugas and Hogan teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Murphy further teaches:
wherein determining the initial overturn angle comprises determining the initial overturn angle based at least in part on the determined center of gravity of the agricultural harvester ("Static stability is a function of tractor attitude (pitch, roll, and yaw), center of gravity position and wheel geometry. Dynamic stability depends also on linear and angular tractor velocities." – see at least Murphy: Column 7 lines 56-59).
Murphy does not explicitly disclose, but Hogan teaches:
further comprising determining a center of gravity of the agricultural harvester based at least in part on the current position of the elevator assembly and the current position of the at least one of the topper assembly, the extractor, or the chassis ("The controller 120 may determine (e.g., calculate) a kinematic center of gravity (e.g., a weight distribution) of the machine 100 based on the state of the machine 100. That is, the center of gravity may be a dynamic center of gravity of the machine 100. For example, the controller 120 may determine the center of gravity based on a current state of the machine 100 when the center of gravity is determined." – see at least Hogan: paragraph 0028) (The examiner notes that the state of the machine as taught by Hogan is determined by at least positional information of components of the machine ("The state may be associated with a configuration of the machine 100, a position of one or more implements or other components of the machine 100, a fluid level of one or more fluid tanks of the machine, and/or the like. Accordingly, the controller 120 may determine the state based on the configuration information 202, positional information, fluid level information, and/or the like." – see at least Hogan: paragraph 0024)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murphy with these above aforementioned teachings from Hogan to include determining a center of gravity of the agricultural harvester based at least in part on the current position of the elevator assembly and the current position of the at least one of the topper assembly, the extractor, or the chassis. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hogan’s method of sensing the positions of various moving parts of a work machine with Murphy’s rollover risk assessment system in order to determine a current configuration of the work machine based on the sensed positions (“The state may be associated with a configuration of the machine 100, a position of one or more implements or other components of the machine 100, a fluid level of one or more fluid tanks of the machine, and/or the like. Accordingly, the controller 120 may determine the state based on the configuration information 202, positional information, fluid level information, and/or the like.” – see at least Hogan: paragraph 0024). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing the system to calculate a dynamic center of gravity based on the current state of the work machine including the sensed positions, and to determine operational limits of the work machine based on the calculated dynamic center of gravity (“For example, the controller 120 may be configured to determine a center of gravity of the machine 100 based on a state of the machine 100, determine at least one of a slope limit or a pitch limit for the machine 100 based on the center of gravity” – see at least Hogan: paragraph 0020).
The examiner notes that Murphy already teaches calculating a center of gravity (CG) based on the position of various attachments on a vehicle (“FIG. 6 is a flow chart for calculating tractor CG position. First the system is defined in step 605 by the type of tractor, attached implements, and accessories. The position and weight of each of these components is determined in step 610. Positions and weights may be obtained from manufacturer's data, a model, or user input, or a combination of sources. Finally, center of gravity is calculated in step 615.” – see at least Murphy: Column 4 lines 49-55). As such, Hogan merely provides additional teachings regarding dynamically sensing how these positions may change over time and thereby affect the center of gravity, and one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be readily able to combine the teachings of Murphy and Hogan to reach the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is substantially similar to claim 4 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 4 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is substantially similar to claim 6 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 6 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, Murphy in view of Dugas and Hogan teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Murphy further teaches:
An agricultural harvester ("The disclosure is generally related to the field of rollover warning systems and methods for autopilot-guided agricultural vehicles." – see at least Murphy: Column 1 lines 6-8) (The examiner notes that while Murphy is primarily directed towards controlling tractor systems, Murphy teaches that the same systems and methods are applicable to a variety of agricultural vehicles ("Further, the systems and methods are not restricted to tractors; they are also applicable to a wide range of agricultural vehicles and other vehicles." – see at least Murphy: Column 3 lines 3-6))
a computing system including a processor and associated memory ("Display, 3-D map and path processor 420 includes a microprocessor, volatile and non-volatile memory" – see at least Murphy: Column 3 lines 65-66)
the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the computing system to: determine an initial overturn angle for the agricultural harvester ("Here θ is the tractor's pitch angle and ɸ is its roll angle. The tractor's static pitch and roll overturn angles are θc and ɸc respectively." – see at least Murphy: Column 8 lines 1-3) (The examiner notes that the static pitch and roll overturn angles as taught by Murphy correspond to the claimed initial overturn angle)
based at least in part on the position-related data received from the position sensor ("In object 1705 the processor determines the tractor's current attitude and velocity from: GNSS receiver 410; pitch, roll and yaw sensors (which may output angle and rate information) 425; and, accelerometers 430." – see at least Murphy: Column 8 lines 38-41)
adjust the initial overturn angle based at least in part on the speed-related data received from the speed sensor to generate a speed-adjusted overturn angle for the agricultural harvester ("The display includes a miniature tractor 1225 and tractor z-axis indicator 1235, a vertical indicator 1230 and horizon 1232, and a roll limit indicator 1240. The display gives a tractor operator an intuitive picture of the current roll angle of the tractor. Warning lines (e.g. 1240) indicate limits of safe operation. The warning lines may move depending on tractor speed. High roll angles may be tolerable at low speed, for example." – see at least Murphy: Column 6 lines 38-45) (The examiner notes that the roll angle display 1220 as illustrated in Fig. 12 of Murphy includes a roll limit indicator 1240, which corresponds to the claimed speed-adjusted overturn angle, wherein Murphy teaches that the warning line associated with roll limit indicator 1240 may move depending on tractor speed);
determine at one threshold angle based at least in part on the speed-adjusted overturn angle; and compare a current stability angle of the agricultural harvester to the at least one threshold angle ("In object 1720 the processor uses the information obtained in objects 1705, 1710, and 1715, as available, to calculate the current static and dynamic stability indices, Sstat and Sdyn, described above. If either of these indices is less than a threshold value, the autopilot issues a warning to the tractor operator." – see at least Murphy: Column 8 lines 53-58) (The examiner notes that the stability indices as taught by Murphy are calculated using at least the current roll and pitch angle of the vehicle, as described at least by the equation recited in Column 7 line 65 of Murphy, wherein the current roll and pitch angle of the vehicle correspond to the claimed current stability angle).
Murphy does not explicitly disclose, but Dugas teaches:
comprising: a chassis ("In some embodiments, the disclosure provides a control system for a harvester including a vehicle body and a conveyor connected to the vehicle body for rotation with respect to the vehicle body." – see at least Dugas: paragraph 0002) (The examiner notes that the vehicle body of Dugas corresponds to the claimed chassis);
a topper assembly, an extractor, and an elevator assembly supported relative to the chassis ("The illustrated harvester 10 includes a topper 14, … a cab 20,... a primary extractor 34, a conveyor 36, a secondary extractor 38, a first sensor 42, a second sensor 44, a third sensor 46, a user interface 48, a controller 50, and an actuator 52." – see at least Dugas: paragraph 0015) (The examiner notes that the conveyor as taught by Dugas corresponds to the claimed elevator assembly, because both the conveyor of Dugas and the claimed elevator assembly are configured to move material upward within the harvester ("In some embodiments, the illustrated conveyor 36 includes a plurality of slats to move crops up the conveyor." – see at least Dugas: paragraph 0021)),
at least one topper actuator configured to adjust a current position of the topper assembly relative to the chassis ("The topper 14 cuts leaves off of the top of the crops. The illustrated topper 14 includes a center disk 14a, a left side disk 14b and a right side disk 14c. The center disk 14a rotates to discharge cut tops of the crops to the portion of the field that has already been harvested. In FIG. 2, the center disk 14a rotates clockwise to discharge cut crops onto the right of the harvester 10. The left side disk 14b and the right side disk 14c in FIG. 2 rotate counter clockwise to discharge cut crops to the right side of the harvester." – see at least Dugas: paragraph 0017),
at least one extractor actuator configured to adjust a current position of the extractor relative to the chassis ("The primary extractor 34 includes a hood and a fan to move leaves out of the hood such that the leaves are not directed into the basket 32. The primary extractor 34 can be pivoted to direct the leaves to the headland or previously-harvested portion of the field." – see at least Dugas: paragraph 0020),
and at least one elevator actuator configured to adjust a current position of the elevator assembly relative to the chassis ("The actuator 52 rotates the conveyor 36 with respect to the body of the harvester 10 in response to one or more signals from the controller 50. In some embodiments, the actuator 52 rotates the conveyor 36 with respect to the harvester 10 about a vertical axis. In some embodiments, the actuator 52 also rotates the conveyor 36 with respect to the harvester 10 about a horizontal axis. In some embodiments, a second actuator is used to rotate the conveyor 36 with respect to the harvester about the horizontal axis." – see at least Dugas: paragraph 0031).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murphy with these above aforementioned teachings from Dugas such that the vehicle includes a chassis, a topper assembly, an extractor, and an elevator assembly supported relative to the chassis, at least one topper actuator configured to adjust a current position of the topper assembly relative to the chassis, at least one extractor actuator configured to adjust a current position of the extractor relative to the chassis, and at least one elevator actuator configured to adjust a current position of the elevator assembly relative to the chassis. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Dugas’s use of various components and actuators for an agricultural vehicle with Murphy’s rollover risk assessment system in order to equip the agricultural vehicle with tools to aid in harvesting operations (“FIGS. 1 and 2 illustrate a sugar cane harvester 10 for harvesting sugar cane and a wagon 12 for retaining the harvested sugar cane. The illustrated harvester 10 includes a topper 14, crop dividers 16, a knockdown roller 18, a cab 20, an engine 22, side knives 24, base cutters 26, feed rollers 28, a chopper 30, a basket 32, a primary extractor 34, a conveyor 36, a secondary extractor 38, a first sensor 42, a second sensor 44, a third sensor 46, a user interface 48, a controller 50, and an actuator 52. In some embodiments, other harvesters can be utilized in place of the illustrated sugar cane harvester 10.” – see at least Dugas: paragraph 0015). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing the operation of the components of the harvester to be modified such that that harvester may navigate through an environment while stability of the harvester is maintained (“The disclosure provides, among other things, methods of automating a turning operation of a harvester 10 including sensing a vehicle speed and calculating a center of gravity of the harvester 10. The speed can be reduced, the position of the conveyor with respect to the vehicle body of the harvester 10 can be adjusted, the user can be instructed to reduce the vehicle speed and/or the user can be instructed to rotate the conveyor with respect to the vehicle body in response to the sensed speed being too fast for the calculated center of gravity.” – see at least Dugas: paragraph 0037).
The examiner notes that Murphy already teaches calculating a center of gravity (CG) based on the position of various attachments on a vehicle (“FIG. 6 is a flow chart for calculating tractor CG position. First the system is defined in step 605 by the type of tractor, attached implements, and accessories. The position and weight of each of these components is determined in step 610. Positions and weights may be obtained from manufacturer's data, a model, or user input, or a combination of sources. Finally, center of gravity is calculated in step 615.” – see at least Murphy: Column 4 lines 49-55). As such, Dugas merely provides additional teachings regarding the use of particular tools and components which are commonly used in agricultural harvesters, and one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be readily able to combine the teachings of Murphy and Dugas to reach the claimed limitations.
Murphy does not explicitly disclose, but Hogan teaches:
a plurality of actuators including at least one suspension actuator configured to adjust a current position of the chassis relative to the ground ("The plurality of ground engagement members 104 are connected to a frame 108 of the machine 100 through a plurality of hydraulic legs 110. Each hydraulic leg 110 is associated with an actuator (e.g., a solenoid actuator) that controls a position (e.g., a height) of the hydraulic leg 110." – see at least Hogan: paragraph 0014) (The examiner notes that the actuators associated with the hydraulic legs 110 for controlling the height of the frame of the machine as taught by Hogan correspond to the claimed suspension actuator).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murphy with these above aforementioned teachings from Hogan to include a plurality of actuators including at least one suspension actuator configured to adjust a current position of the chassis relative to the ground. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hogan’s use of actuators for hydraulic legs with Murphy’s rollover risk assessment system in order to control a position of the vehicle chassis by actuating the hydraulic legs (“For example, the actuator may control a valve (e.g., an electrohydraulic valve) that controls a flow of hydraulic fluid to the hydraulic leg 110, thereby expanding or contracting the hydraulic leg 110. Actuators for the hydraulic legs 110 may operate independently from each other. For example, hydraulic legs 110 on the left side of the machine 100 may extend further than hydraulic legs 110 on the right side of the machine 100, thereby causing a rightward tilt of the machine 100 relative to the road surface 106.” – see at least Hogan: paragraph 0014). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing the position of the vehicle chassis to be raised or lowered in a manner which maintains stability of the machine (“Conversely, based on a determination that the operation would cause the machine 100 to exceed the slope limit and/or the pitch limit, the controller 120 may not perform the operation, or may perform a portion of the operation that does not cause the machine 100 to exceed the slope limit and/or the pitch limit... Additionally, or alternatively, the controller 120 may cause a remedial action to be performed, such as reversing the commanded operation (e.g., swinging a conveyor leftward if the commanded operation was to swing the conveyor rightward) or performing a counterbalancing operation (e.g., also raising a left hydraulic leg 110 of the machine 100 if the commanded operation was to raise a right hydraulic leg 110).” – see at least Hogan: paragraph 0020).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Murray et al. (US 2023/0356554) teaches a combine harvester stability enhancer, including a stability control suspension system which actuates to maintain stability of the combine harvester when a risk of tipping is predicted based on inputs including turning angle, ground speed, angle of inclination, combine configuration, and configuration updates.
Kelber (US 2020/0062241) teaches an anti-rollover system for harvesters, including a dynamic stabilization with steering inputs (DSSI) functionality which includes a set of non-linear curves proportional to harvester speed to determine a dynamic steering input response to steer the harvester back to its stable position and avoid a rollover event.
Omohundro et al. (US 2023/0249674) teaches a vehicle rollover mitigation system, including determining a current rollover threat based upon a current state of a vehicle, its current orientation, speed/trajectory, as well as the current planned future orientation and speed/trajectory, and comparing the rollover threat against a predefined safety threshold to determine whether any mitigation efforts are to be implemented by a mitigation controller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK ANTHONY MULDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, RAMYA P BURGESS can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661