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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 7, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brubaker (Patent No.: US 10,357,062 B2) in view of Vandike et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0084820 A1).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Brubaker discloses a computer implemented method for adjusting settings of a harvester (100, FIG. 1 and Control harvester 504, FIG. 5) comprising:
capturing, with at least one image capture device (sensors on aerial vehicle 121, FIG. 2), images from an unharvested region (Similarly, “...the aerial vehicle 120 may be moved about the harvester 110 and/or other aerial vehicles 120 may be provided to monitor a proximity of the header 116 to a crop edge 305, to monitor a density of a region of crops 306 in front of the harvester 110.” Front of the harvester being the unharvested region, col. 13, lines 25-30);
analyzing the captured images to determine crop (receive and process data obtained by the one or more sensors of the aerial vehicle 503, FIG. 5) information including at least one value (residue map data col. 14, lines 57-59) chosen from a level or amount of residue crop (images or data related to crops and residue col. 4, lines 4-9), residue crop effectiveness, 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; and
adjusting settings or operating parameters of the harvester for the unharvested region based on the crop information for the crop of a harvested region (Control a harvester and/or a component of the harvester based on the data 504, FIG. 5).
Brubaker is silent to capturing, with at least one image capture device that is located on the harvester. However, in the same field endeavor, Vandike teaches a residue vision system for a harvesting machine configured to traverse a field and harvest agricultural material (See Abstract). More specifically, Vandike teaches cameras 74 and 78 on the harvester itself to be used in the residue system for capturing images of harvested areas (¶ 19). Vandike further teaches that a field 114 includes an uncut/unharvested area of crops that is differentiated between harvested areas (¶ 24).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image capturing device and harvester taught by Brubaker to be at least one image capture device that is located on the harvester as taught by Vandike to enhance the residue system by improving residue distribution (¶ 1).
Regarding claim 2, Brubaker discloses the computer implemented method, wherein adjusting settings or operating parameters comprises adjusting one or more of angle of header, header height 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 (“…the controller may control the harvester 110 and/or various components of the harvester 110 (e.g., header 116, residue spreader 117, feeder tube 119, crop-processing tools 209, and related systems 213-216, etc.) based on the data obtained by the one or more sensors 121. For example, the controller may automatically raise the header 116 vertically away from the ground if the harvester 110 is approaching an obstacle. In step 505, the controller may provide an output, such as the image or map generated at step 503, an alarm, a control signal, and/or another indication, as discussed above.” Col. 14, lines 63-67-col. 15, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 3, Brubaker 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 (Sensor 121 of AV 120 is configured to sense images in a downward direction toward the ground, FIG. 1 and FIGS. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 4, Brubaker discloses the computer implemented method, further comprising: displaying images or video captured by the at least one image capture device to a display device (404, FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Brubaker discloses the computer implemented method, further comprising: displaying the crop information to a display device (Crop Density: Normal, FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Brubaker 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 components of the harvester based on the data obtained by the aerial vehicle col. 4, lines 31-33).
Regarding claim 7, Brubaker discloses the computer implemented method, wherein the crop information includes at least two of the values (images showing lateral distance between crop edge and header and crop density in front of harvester col. 10, lines 45-67-col. 11, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 11, Vandike teaches 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).
It would have been obvious to modify Brubaker to wherein the at least one image capturing device is mounted on the header in a looking forward or downward direction as taught by Vandike to enhance the residue system by improving residue distribution (¶ 1).
Regarding claim 12, Vandike teaches 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).
It would have been obvious to modify Brubaker to wherein a chassis to support the harvester with at least image capturing device being mounted on the chassis as taught by Vandike to enhance the residue system by improving residue distribution (¶ 1).
Claims 8 - 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brubaker (Patent No.: US 10,357,062 B2) in view of 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 Brubaker and 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 Brubaker and 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 Brubaker and 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).
It would have been obvious to modify Brubaker to at least have 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 as taught by Vandike to enhance the residue system by improving residue distribution (¶ 1).
Brubaker and 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 Brubaker and 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 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 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
Prosecution Insights