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 . This office action is in response to an application filed on 12/10/24. Claims 1-6 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 1/13/25 & 6/6/25 have been considered by the
Examiner and made of record in the application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-20 of Application No. 18/975,355. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Claims 1 are provisionally rejected on the ground of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of copending Application No. 18/612,833. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the functions performed by the mower of application 18/975,650 encompass the mower claimed in the application 18/975,355 (see below for correspondence).
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Application No. 18/612,833 in view of Taniguchi et al. (JP7645293B2) and in further in view of Mortazavi et al. (US 2018/0096597 Al) .
Claim 1 of Application No. 18/975,650
Claim 1 of Application No. 18/975,355
“A mower (1),
comprising a plurality of mowing elements positioned next to one another to form a mower bar (2), and comprising a roller conditioner (4), which is arranged behind the mower bar (2), as seen in the material flow direction of mowed crop (3),
and which has an upper conditioning roller (5) and a lower conditioning roller (6),
wherein a gap (s) between the conditioning rollers (5, 6) through which the crop (3) is transported is variable depending on an amount of the crop (3),
characterized by means for determining a width of the gap (s) and means for determining a travelling speed (V) or harvesting speed (V) and also a control device (9)
configured to calculate a volumetric flow rate of the crop (3) from the width of the gap (s), a width (b) of the conditioning rollers (5, 6) and the travelling speed (V) or the harvesting speed (V).
mower (1),
comprising a plurality of mowing elements
positioned next to one another to form a mower bar (2), and comprising a roller conditioner (4), which is arranged behind the mower bar (2), as seen in the material flow direction of mowed crop (3),
and which has an upper conditioning roller (5) and a lower conditioning roller (6),
wherein a gap between the conditioning rollers (5, 6) through which the crop (3) is transported is variable depending on an amount of the crop (3),
X
X
Application No. 18/975,355 fails to mention characterized by means for determining a width of the gap (s) and means for determining a travelling speed (V) or harvesting speed (V) and also a control device (9)
configured to calculate a volumetric flow rate of the crop (3) from the width of the gap (s), a width (b) of the conditioning rollers (5, 6) and the travelling speed (V) or the harvesting speed (V).
Rotole teaches characterized by means for determining a width of the gap (s) (Pg. 16 - [0062] -" As such the gap-adjustment actuator 175 may selectively vary the dimension of the roll gap 152 at the neutral position of the first and second conditioner rollers 148, 150. ") and means for determining a travelling speed (V) or harvesting speed (V) (Pg. 19 - [0072] - " For example, the fourth sensor 192 may be configured as a speedometer that detects the ground speed of the tractor 102. " (equates to and means for determining a travelling speed (V) or harvesting speed (V) as the quote shows the ground speed or travelling speed of the vehicle being attained via sensor)) width of the gap (s), (Pg. 22 - [0109] - " Next, at 604, the processor 202 may calculate the yield based on the inputs received at 602. In some embodiments, the processor 202 may include one or more algorithms that calculate yield based on the inputs received at 602 of the method 600. In some embodiments, the processor 202 may determine "crop flow" using the algorithm and the detected ground speed may factor in to determine both if the windrower 100 is harvesting and from where the crop is being harvested. " & See Also Pg. 22 – [0108] – “The method 600 may begin at 602, wherein the processor 202 receives one or more inputs. In some embodiments, the position of the second conditioner roller 150 may be detected by the sensor 185, and a corresponding signal may be provided to the processor 202.” (equates to width of the gap (s), as the quote shows the yield being calculated from the harvesting done by the vehicle wherein the position of the roller and thus the width of the gap between the roller is measured.)) and the travelling speed (V) or the harvesting speed (V). (Pg. 19 - [0072] - " For example, the fourth sensor 192 may be configured as a speedometer that detects the ground speed of the tractor 102. ")
Yet Rotole fails to teach and also a control device (9) configured to calculate a volumetric flow rate of the crop (3) , a width (b) of the conditioning rollers (5, 6)
Lucca teaches and also a control device (9) configured to calculate a volumetric flow rate of the crop (3) (Pg. 10 – “displacement sensor(s) 124 may be used to determine a volumetric flow rate of the harvested materials through the feeder assembly 46,”) a width (b) of the conditioning rollers (5, 6) (Pg. 10 – [0049] –“ corresponds to the width of the feeder assembly 46 in meters (m)… rollers 48, 50 of the feeder assembly 46” (equates to a width (b) of the conditioning rollers (5, 6) as the width of the feeder assembly is taken in account wherein the feeder assembly comprises the rollers) )
It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Rotole to include and also a control device (9) configured to calculate a volumetric flow rate of the crop (3), a width (b) of the conditioning rollers (5, 6) as this allows for a simple calculation to be attained as an intermediate step in the calculation of the yield of the crop.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include and also a control device (9) configured to calculate a volumetric flow rate of the crop (3), a width (b) of the conditioning rollers (5, 6) as this limitation allows for a simple rate calculation of material passing through the rollers to be attained based on the variety of the inputs from the system.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rotole et al. (US 2018/0325031 Al) and in view of Lucca et al. (WO 2024/044830 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 Rotole teaches A mower (1), (Pg. 12- [0003] - " This disclosure relates to the control of work vehicles configured for processing material and, more particularly, to control systems and methods for operating a work vehicle for conditioning crop material, windrowing crop material, and/or measuring crop yield using components of the work vehicle." ) comprising a plurality of mowing elements positioned next to one another to form a mower bar (2), (Pg. 15 - [0048] - " In some embodiments, the cutting arrangement 140 may include one or more blades 142 that are supported by a support structure 141" (equates to comprising a plurality of mowing elements positioned next to one another to form a mower bar as the mowing elements include blades.) ) and comprising a roller conditioner (4), (Pg. 15 - [0050] - " includes a first conditioner roller 148 and a second conditioner roller 150" ) which is arranged behind the mower bar (2) (Pg. 3- Fig. 2 (equates to which is arranged behind the mower bar as the figure shows the conditioner roller located after the blades.)), as seen in the material flow direction of mowed crop (3), and which has an upper conditioning roller (5) and a lower conditioning roller (6), (Pg. 15 - [0050] - " includes a first conditioner roller 148 and a second conditioner roller 150"& See Also Pg. 15 - [0043] - " The windrower 100 may form a windrow 112 as it moves along a travel direction indicated by the arrow 113. " (equates to as seen in the material flow direction of mowed crop (3), and which has an upper conditioning roller (5) and a lower conditioning roller (6), as the quotes show the upper and lower conditioning rollers respectively and the travel direction of the material by fig. 4 and the quote showing the windrow formed along the travel direction.) ) wherein a gap (s) between the conditioning rollers (5, 6) through which the crop (3) is transported is variable depending on an amount of the crop (3), (Pg. 16 - [0062] -" As such the gap-adjustment actuator 175 may selectively vary the dimension of the roll gap 152 at the neutral position of the first and second conditioner rollers 148, 150. " & See Also -Pg. 16 - [0052] - " In the illustrated embodiment of FIGS. 2 and 3, the first and second conditioner rollers 148, 150 are shown at a neutral position relative to each other. The second conditioner roller 150 may be supported to move away from this neutral position (to a displaced position) to thereby increase the gap 152. In some embodiments, the conditioning arrangement 146 may further include at least one biasing member 154 (shown schematically)… [0054] - However, a large slug of crop material 136, rocks, or other objects may force the second conditioner roller 150 away from the first conditioner roller 148 against the biasing force of the biasing member 154" (equates to wherein a gap (s) between the conditioning rollers (5, 6) through which the crop (3) is transported is variable depending on an amount of the crop (3) as the quote shows the adjustment actuator controlling the conditioning rollers of the vehicle.)) characterized by means for determining a width of the gap (s) (Pg. 16 - [0062] -" As such the gap-adjustment actuator 175 may selectively vary the dimension of the roll gap 152 at the neutral position of the first and second conditioner rollers 148, 150. ") and means for determining a travelling speed (V) or harvesting speed (V) (Pg. 19 - [0072] - " For example, the fourth sensor 192 may be configured as a speedometer that detects the ground speed of the tractor 102. " (equates to and means for determining a travelling speed (V) or harvesting speed (V) as the quote shows the ground speed or travelling speed of the vehicle being attained via sensor)) width of the gap (s), (Pg. 22 - [0109] - " Next, at 604, the processor 202 may calculate the yield based on the inputs received at 602. In some embodiments, the processor 202 may include one or more algorithms that calculate yield based on the inputs received at 602 of the method 600. In some embodiments, the processor 202 may determine "crop flow" using the algorithm and the detected ground speed may factor in to determine both if the windrower 100 is harvesting and from where the crop is being harvested. " & See Also Pg. 22 – [0108] – “The method 600 may begin at 602, wherein the processor 202 receives one or more inputs. In some embodiments, the position of the second conditioner roller 150 may be detected by the sensor 185, and a corresponding signal may be provided to the processor 202.” (equates to width of the gap (s), as the quote shows the yield being calculated from the harvesting done by the vehicle wherein the position of the roller and thus the width of the gap between the roller is measured.)) a width (b) of the conditioning rollers (5, 6) and the travelling speed (V) or the harvesting speed (V). (Pg. 19 - [0072] - " For example, the fourth sensor 192 may be configured as a speedometer that detects the ground speed of the tractor 102. ")
Yet Rotole fails to teach and also a control device (9) configured to calculate a volumetric flow rate of the crop (3) , a width (b) of the conditioning rollers (5, 6)
Lucca teaches and also a control device (9) configured to calculate a volumetric flow rate of the crop (3) (Pg. 10 – “displacement sensor(s) 124 may be used to determine a volumetric flow rate of the harvested materials through the feeder assembly 46,”) a width (b) of the conditioning rollers (5, 6) (Pg. 10 – [0049] –“ corresponds to the width of the feeder assembly 46 in meters (m)… rollers 48, 50 of the feeder assembly 46” (equates to a width (b) of the conditioning rollers (5, 6) as the width of the feeder assembly is taken in account wherein the feeder assembly comprises the rollers) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Rotole to include and also a control device (9) configured to calculate a volumetric flow rate of the crop (3), a width (b) of the conditioning rollers (5, 6) as this allows for a simple calculation to be attained as an intermediate step in the calculation of the yield of the crop.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include and also a control device (9) configured to calculate a volumetric flow rate of the crop (3), a width (b) of the conditioning rollers (5, 6) as this limitation allows for a simple rate calculation of material passing through the rollers to be attained based on the variety of the inputs from the system.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rotole- Lucca as mapped above and in view of Digman (EP4159024A1)
Regarding Claim 2 Rotole- Lucca teaches (Rotole discloses the following limitation:) The mower (1) according to Claim 1, characterized in that the lower conditioning roller (6) is rotatable about a lower, positionally fixed axis of rotation (7) and the upper conditioning roller (5), in order to adapt the gap (s) to the amount of crop (3), is rotatable about an upper, shiftable axis of rotation (8), such that the upper axis of rotation (8) is shiftable relative to the lower axis of rotation (7), (Pg. 16 - (0053) - "In addition to rotation about the axis 151, the second conditioner roller 150 may be supported for movement (linear or angular) relative to the first conditioner roller 148 to vary the dimension of the gap 152. In some embodiments, the second conditioner roller 150 may move at least partially along the vertical axis 118 relative to the first conditioner roller 148."(equates to characterized in that the lower conditioning roller (6) is rotatable about a lower, positionally fixed axis of rotation (7) and the upper conditioning roller (5), in order to adapt the gap (s) to the amount of crop (3), is rotatable about an upper, shiftable axis of rotation (8), such that the upper axis of rotation (8) is shiftable relative to the lower axis of rotation (7) as the quote shows the roller each being pivotable around an axis wherein the end of the quote shows the upper roller vertically translatable relative to the lower one.) )
Yet Rotole- Lucca fails to teach wherein the upper axis of rotation (8) is arranged pivotably with respect thereto on levers (10) and an angle sensor (11) is provided, which continuously captures the deflection of a lever (10) and communicates the captured measurement signals to the control device (9).
Digman teaches wherein the upper axis of rotation (8) is arranged pivotably with respect thereto on levers (10) and an angle sensor (11) is provided, which continuously captures the deflection of a lever (10) and communicates the captured measurement signals to the control device (9). (Pg. 10 – [0027] – “The roller gap actuators 232A are independently movable for tilting the upper roller 232B in a non-parallel configuration relative to the lower roller. In 5 other words, the roller gap actuator 232A can set the roller gap to be at different positions on the left-hand side and the right-hand side of the lower and upper rollers of mower-conditioner 211. Thus, the roller gap actuators 232A may accommodate an uneven wear on one or both 10 of the lower and upper rollers of mower-conditioner 211. Each roller gap actuator 232A may be in the form of any desired actuator, as mentioned above, such as a hydraulic cylinder.” & See Also Pg. 7 – [0018] – “232A, 233A, 234A, 235A, at least one input device (not specifically shown but understood to be a way to input information into controller 213), and a controller 213, each of these sensors and actuators being operable coupled with controller 213.” (equates to wherein the upper axis of rotation (8) is arranged pivotably with respect thereto on levers (10) and an angle sensor (11) is provided, which continuously captures the deflection of a lever (10) and communicates the captured measurement signals to the control device (9) as the quote shows the tilting of the upper roller with respect to the lower roller be actualized and the angle of the deflection being communicated to the controller for determining the width of the opening between the roller in the second quote.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by ) to include wherein the upper axis of rotation (8) is arranged pivotably with respect thereto on levers (10) and an angle sensor (11) is provided, which continuously captures the deflection of a lever (10) and communicates the captured measurement signals to the control device (9) as this allows for a simple means of actuating the upper conditioning roller to increase the gap between each roller.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the upper axis of rotation (8) is arranged pivotably with respect thereto on levers (10) and an angle sensor (11) is provided, which continuously captures the deflection of a lever (10) and communicates the captured measurement signals to the control device (9) as this allows for a simple means of moving the upper roller and sending the feedback data to the controller to optimally adjust the gap between each roller.
Regarding Claim 3 Rotole- Lucca- Digman teaches The mower (1) according to Claim 2, as previously mapped above.
Yet Rotole fails to teach teaches characterized in that the upper conditioning roller (5) is mounted pivotably on a lever (10) at both ends of said roller and an angle sensor (11) is provided on each lever (10), both of which angle sensors communicate the captured measurement signals to the control device (9), from which said control device determines a possible tilting or inclination of the upper conditioning roller (5) and takes it into account in the calculation of the volumetric flow rate of the crop (3).
Lucca teaches and takes it into account in the calculation of the volumetric flow rate of the crop (3). and takes it into account in the calculation of the volumetric flow rate of the crop (3). ((Pg. 10 – “displacement sensor(s) 124 may be used to determine a volumetric flow rate of the harvested materials through the feeder assembly 46,”))
Yet Rotole- Lucca fails to teach characterized in that the upper conditioning roller (5) is mounted pivotably on a lever (10) at both ends of said roller and an angle sensor (11) is provided on each lever (10), both of which angle sensors communicate the captured measurement signals to the control device (9), from which said control device determines a possible tilting or inclination of the upper conditioning roller (5).
Digman teaches characterized in that the upper conditioning roller (5) is mounted pivotably on a lever (10) at both ends of said roller and an angle sensor (11) is provided on each lever (10), both of which angle sensors communicate the captured measurement signals to the control device (9) (Pg. 10 – [0027]- “The roller gap actuators 232A are independently movable for tilting the upper roller 232B in a non-parallel configuration relative to the lower roller.” & See Also. Pg. 7 – [0018] – “232A, 233A, 234A, 235A, at least one input device (not specifically shown but understood to be a way to input information into controller 213), and a controller 213, each of these sensors and actuators being operable coupled with controller 213.” (equates to characterized in that the upper conditioning roller (5) is mounted pivotably on a lever (10) at both ends of said roller and an angle sensor (11) is provided on each lever (10), both of which angle sensors communicate the captured measurement signals to the control device (9) as the first quote shows the actuator being independently actuated about each side of the upper roller wherein the tilt angle from either actuator is communicated to the controller as shown in the second quote.) ) from which said control device determines a possible tilting or inclination of the upper conditioning roller (5) (Pg. 10 – [0027] – “The roller gap actuators 232A are independently movable for tilting the upper roller 232B in a non-parallel configuration relative to the lower roller. In 5 other words, the roller gap actuator 232A can set the roller gap to be at different positions on the left-hand side and the right-hand side of the lower and upper rollers of mower-conditioner 211. Thus, the roller gap actuators 232A may accommodate an uneven wear on one or both 10 of the lower and upper rollers of mower-conditioner 211. Each roller gap actuator 232A may be in the form of any desired actuator, as mentioned above, such as a hydraulic cylinder.” & See Also Pg. 7 – [0018] – “232A, 233A, 234A, 235A, at least one input device (not specifically shown but understood to be a way to input information into controller 213), and a controller 213, each of these sensors and actuators being operable coupled with controller 213.” & ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by _ to include characterized in that the upper conditioning roller (5) is mounted pivotably on a lever (10) at both ends of said roller and an angle sensor (11) is provided on each lever (10), both of which angle sensors communicate the captured measurement signals to the control device (9), from which said control device determines a possible tilting or inclination of the upper conditioning roller (5) as these limitation allow for precise positioning and understanding of positing of the upper roller to be attained to best understand the yield coming from the mower.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include characterized in that the upper conditioning roller (5) is mounted pivotably on a lever (10) at both ends of said roller and an angle sensor (11) is provided on each lever (10), both of which angle sensors communicate the captured measurement signals to the control device (9), from which said control device determines a possible tilting or inclination of the upper conditioning roller (5) as these limitation allow for angling and understanding of how the angling of the upper roller influences the yield.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rotole- Lucca as mapped above and in view of Hamilton (US 2024/0164250 Al)
Regarding Claim 4 Rotole- Lucca teaches (Rotole discloses the following limitations:) The mower (1) according to claim 1, characterized in that a moisture sensor (12) is provided, which captures the moisture content of the crop (3) and continuously communicates the moisture contents to the control device (9) (Pg. 19 - [0081] - " Moreover, the sensor system 184 may include a sixth sensor 196. The sixth sensor 196 may be configured to detect a condition of the crop material 136. For example, in some embodiments, the sixth sensor 196 may detect conditions relating to the uncut crop material 136 (e.g., the type of crop being harvested, the density of the crop material 136, areas within the field that are particularly wet," (equates to characterized in that a moisture sensor (12) is provided, which captures the moisture content of the crop (3) and continuously communicates the moisture contents to the control device (9) as the sensor determining crop conditions includes functionality for the detection of a wet field/area.) ),
Yet Rotole- Lucca fails to teach from which said control device determines a dry mass of the harvested crop (3) in conjunction with the volumetric flow rate.
Hamilton teaches from which said control device determines a dry mass of the harvested crop (3) in conjunction with the volumetric flow rate. (Pg. 9 – [0030] – “In some embodiments, the corrected yield Ye at a point in the field 60 may correspond to a dry organic mass, and may be calculated by the formula: Ye=m(l-MC)(lAC), where m is the mass of the hay, MC is the moisture content of the hay, and AC is the ash content of dry hay. The mass m may be expressed per unit area, or on any other convenient basis. The moisture content MC and ash content AC are typically unitless (i.e., the fraction of the total mass that is moisture, and the fraction of the dry mass that is ash, respectively), and thus, the mass m has the same units as the corrected yield Ye· Therefore, if the mass m is expressed per unit area (e.g., kg/m2 or lb/fi:2), the corrected yield Ye may have the same units.” (equates to which said control device determines a dry mass of the harvested crop (3) in conjunction with the volumetric flow rate. As the quote shows the corrected yield being calculated based on the calculation of the dry mass content within the yield, a wherein this application uses the volume flow rate to determine a yield of crops similarly this art cited used the dry mass content to calculate an improved yield.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Rotole- Lucca to include from which said control device determines a dry mass of the harvested crop (3) in conjunction with the volumetric flow rate as this allows for a different term to be calculated within the crop yield and thus more accurately determine what is being harvested within the given pass.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include from which said control device determines a dry mass of the harvested crop (3) in conjunction with the volumetric flow rate as this limitation allows for a moisture content of the crop to be determined and understood when being processed through the mower allowing a differentiation to be immediately attributed to the yield.
Regarding Claim 6 Rotole-Lucca teaches The mower (1) according to claim 1, as previously mapped above.
Yet Rotole-Lucca fails to teach characterized in that the control device (9) receives position data of a GPS system (13) and combines them with the current volumetric flow rate or a dry mass of the crop (3) and thus creates a yield map.
Hamilton teaches characterized in that the control device (9) receives position data of a GPS system (13) and combines them with the current volumetric flow rate or a dry mass of the crop (3) and thus creates a yield map. (Pg. 9 – [0029] – “FIG. 3 is a simplified top view of a portion of an agricultural field 60 in which the windrower 10 or another agricultural machine (e.g., a mower) may cut hay. The field 60 may have areas 62a-62e with different properties. Though depicted in FIG. 3 as five distinct areas, those skilled in the art will appreciate that properties of crops may vary continuously across the field 60. Even if each of the areas 62a-62e have a property (e.g., moisture content) within a selected range, that property may vary within that range at different parts of each area 62a-62e. The boundaries between the areas 62a-62e may be known before harvest (e.g., from data collected by a drone, satellite, or other sensor), or may be determined by the data processor 17 using data from the sensor 28 and/or another source (e.g., a drone, satellite, yield map from a prior season, etc.). For example, the boundaries between the areas 62a-6e may correspond to a corrected yield calculated by the data processor 17, based on the mass of hay, the moisture content, the ash content, and/or the protein content” (equates to characterized in that the control device (9) receives position data of a GPS system (13) and combines them with the current volumetric flow rate or a dry mass of the crop (3) and thus creates a yield map as the quote shows the dry mass being determined as one of the crop regions wherein the yield map is determined via the use of positioning sensors. And a corrected yield is shown to be considered based on moisture connect from which a map can be known before harvest or determine via sensing.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by _ to include characterized in that the control device (9) receives position data of a GPS system (13) and combines them with the current volumetric flow rate or a dry mass of the crop (3) and thus creates a yield map as this allows for sensor data regarding the crop moisture to be used to attain a map of the field in which the yield can be derived.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include characterized in that the control device (9) receives position data of a GPS system (13) and combines them with the current volumetric flow rate or a dry mass of the crop (3) and thus creates a yield map as these limitations allow for moisture content to influence the creation of the yield map allowing for a more accurate yield map to be attained.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rotole- Lucca-Hamilton as mapped above and in view of Shinners (US 6,431,981 Bl)
Regarding Claim 5 Rotole-Lucca - Hamilton teaches The mower (1) according to Claim 4, as previously mapped above.
Yet Rotole-Lucca fail to teach characterized in that calibration characteristic curves for calibrating the moisture sensor (12) are stored in the control device (9), and the control device (9) calculates a correction of the moisture contents depending on the volumetric flow rate of the crop (3).
Hamilton teaches ((Pg. 9 – [0030] – “In some embodiments, the corrected yield Ye at a point in the field 60 may correspond to a dry organic mass, and may be calculated by the formula: Ye=m(l-MC)(lAC), where m is the mass of the hay, MC is the moisture content of the hay, and AC is the ash content of dry hay. The mass m may be expressed per unit area, or on any other convenient basis. The moisture content MC and ash content AC are typically unitless (i.e., the fraction of the total mass that is moisture, and the fraction of the dry mass that is ash, respectively), and thus, the mass m has the same units as the corrected yield Ye· Therefore, if the mass m is expressed per unit area (e.g., kg/m2 or lb/fi:2), the corrected yield Ye may have the same units.” (equates to and the control device (9) calculates a correction of the moisture contents depending on the volumetric flow rate of the crop (3). As the quote shows the calculation of the dry mass or moisture contents being used in conjunction with the calculation of the yield or volume flow rate of the crop through the mower.))
Yet all fail to teach characterized in that calibration characteristic curves for calibrating the moisture sensor (12) are stored in the control device (9),
Shinners teaches characterized in that calibration characteristic curves for calibrating the moisture sensor (12) are stored in the control device (9), (Pg. 18 – [Co. 8 – lines 51-60] – “In addition, the measurement accuracy may be calibrated by using a calibration table, a calibration curve, or other calibration data to more reliably correlate a sensor output to a yield amount. For example, a plurality of tables could contain data for a plurality of forages, at a plurality of moisture contents, for a plurality of forage processing machinery types. Such calibration data may therefore relate a measured force to a forage mass flow rate while taking into account variables 60 such as moisture content” (equates to characterized in that calibration characteristic curves for calibrating the moisture sensor (12) are stored in the control device (9), as the quote shows the calibration curve of the sensor being actualized wherein the calibration may include the moisture content of the field and thus an accurate selection for the moisture content coincides with the curve selected to accurately attain crop yield.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Rotole- Lucca- Hamilton to include characterized in that calibration characteristic curves for calibrating the moisture sensor (12) are stored in the control device (9), as this allows for a simple means of looking up a moisture curve for accurate sensor calibration.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include characterized in that calibration characteristic curves for calibrating the moisture sensor (12) are stored in the control device (9), as this allows for a simple means for accurately calibrating a sensor and better determining the corresponding crop yield based on the calibration done to the sensor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US 2025/0072327 Al) - One or more techniques and/or systems are disclosed for determining appropriate settings and controlling windrower performance based on the constituents of the target crop. Crop condition and constituents can be identified in the field using sensors in/at the windrower implement, such as constituent sensors and/or imaging sensors. An implement controller can receive sensor data from the sensor array and generate crop condition data indicative of a condition of the target crop. The controller can also generate actuator adjustment data indicative of an adjustment to the roller assembly in the windrower implement to meet a target crop dry-down characteristic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REECE ANTHONY WAKELY whose telephone number is (571)272-3783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-6:00pm 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/R.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/14/26
Prosecution Insights