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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 6, 7, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vandike et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0084820 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vandike discloses a computer implemented method for adjusting settings of a harvester (motor speed adjustment ¶ 15) comprising:
capturing, with at least one image capture device that is located on the harvester (Cameras 74, 78; FIG. 1);
analyzing the captured images to determine crop (Analyze image of the harvested area 122 and assess residue distribution 216, FIG. 4) information including at least one value chosen from a level or amount of residue crop, residue crop effectiveness (image analysis and assessment can detect issues in chop quality of the residue ¶ 37), crop header
loss, soybean percentage of stalk uncut or length stalk uncut, a level or percentage of
soybean cut quality, percentage of surface area viewed that has kernels, percentage of
yield loss of crop based on bushel acre estimate or cost per acre estimate, and bushels of
crop lost per acre based on cost per acre estimate;
adjusting settings or operating parameters of the harvester based on the crop information for the crop of the harvested region (Adjust residue distribution system 46, FIG. 4 and ¶¶ 38-39 “adjust trajectory, direction and spread distance of the residue discharge of the harvester”).
Regarding claim 2, Vandike discloses the computer implemented method, wherein adjusting settings or operating parameters comprises adjusting one or more of angle of header, header height (Similarly, system can responsively adjust a position of the harvesting platform 26, or harvesting head 26, at step 224 to modify the stubble height to be closer to the target stubble height ¶ 41), header speed, reel speed, reel tine angle, deck plate spacing, adjusting fan speed, cylinder speed, concave clearance, vehicle speed, precleaner, chaffer, extension, sieve, draper belt speed of the harvester for the unharvested region based on the crop information.
Regarding claim 3, Vandike discloses the computer implemented method, wherein the at least one image capturing device comprises a downward viewing device to view crops and a ground surface of the region after the header (74, FIG. 1 and 74, 78; FIG. 2. Images included standing crop, stubble residue and open areas of the field ¶ 32).
Regarding claim 6, Vandike discloses the computer implemented method, wherein adjusting settings or operating parameters comprises automatically without user input adjusting settings or operating parameters of the harvester for the unharvested region based on the crop information (automatically adjust residue distribution in the current harvesting path ¶ 43 and 224, FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Vandike discloses the computer implemented method, wherein the crop information includes at least two of the values (chop quality ¶ 36 and stubble height ¶ 41).
Regarding claim 11, Vandike discloses the computer implemented method, wherein the at least one image capturing device is mounted on the header in a looking forward or downward direction (74, FIG. 1 and ¶ 20).
Regarding claim 12, Vandike discloses the computer implemented method, further comprising: a chassis to support the harvester with at least image capturing device being mounted on the chassis (78, FIG. 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandike et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0084820 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vandike et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0015039 A1)[hereinafter Vandike 039].
Regarding claim 4, Vandike is silent to the computer implemented method, further comprising: displaying images or video captured by the at least one image capture device to a display device. However, in the same field endeavor, Vandike 039 teaches a crop residue based field operation adjustment for a harvester with camera that provide images used for deriving crop residue parameters values and subsequently displayed on a output display (¶¶ 63-64 and Display 462, FIG. 6).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vandike to comprise displaying images or video captured by the at least one image capture device to a display device as taught by Vandike 039 in order to enhance dynamic harvester adjustments in real-time (¶ 65).
Regarding claim 5, Vandike 039 teaches the computer implemented method, further comprising: displaying the crop information to a display device (¶¶ 63-65).
It would have been obvious to modify Vandike to display the crop information to a display device as taught by Vandike 039 to enhance dynamic harvester adjustments in real-time (¶ 65).
Claims 8 - 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandike et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0084820 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Acheson et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0293068 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Acheson teaches the computer implemented method, wherein the header includes a plurality of snouts (Snouts 106, FIG. 1) and at least one snout includes the at least one image capturing device that is integrated with a tip of the snout (camera may be installed for instance in the snouts along the section gap 302 ¶ 96).
It would have been obvious to modify Vandike to wherein the header includes a plurality of snouts and at least one snout includes the at least one image capturing device that is integrated with a tip of the snout as taught by Acheson to enhance the ability to measure crop characteristics (¶ 96).
Regarding claim 9, Acheson teaches the computer implemented method, wherein at least one of three outer most snouts of the header includes a looking forward image capturing device (¶ 96).
It would have been obvious to modify Vandike to wherein at least one of three outer most snouts of the header includes a looking forward image capturing device as taught by Acheson to enhance the ability to measure crop characteristics (¶ 96).
Regarding claim 10, Acheson teaches the computer implemented method, wherein at least one image capturing device is positioned underneath a snout in a downward looking direction (¶ 96 and FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to modify Vandike to wherein at least one image capturing device is positioned underneath a snout in a downward looking direction as taught by Acheson to enhance the ability to measure crop characteristics (¶ 96).
Regarding claim 13, Vandike teaches the computer implemented method, wherein the at least one image capturing device comprises a looking forward image capturing device positioned on a first outer edge of the header, an image capturing device positioned to view behind the header (74, 78; FIG. 1). Vandike is silent to a looking forward image capturing device positioned on a second outer edge of the header, and an image capturing device positioned on a frontal region of a frame of the harvester. However, Acheson teaches a camera that may be installed for instance in the snouts along the section gap 302 (¶ 96) which is equivalent to the second image capturing device position on the outer edge of the header.
It would have been obvious to modify Vankdike to include a looking forward image capturing device positioned on a second outer edge of the header, and an image capturing device positioned on a frontal region of a frame of the harvester as taught by Acheson to enhance the ability to measure crop characteristics (¶ 96).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663