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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “evaluation device configured to perform” and “adjustment assistant configured to adjust” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-3, 5, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Berger et al. (EP2466238, utilizing a machine translation) and Bollin et al. (US 2015/0046043).
Regarding claim 1, Berger et al. discloses an agricultural harvester comprising:
a control assembly including an optical sensor device configured to record one or more images of a flow of harvested material (“This control arrangement 2 comprises a camera 3 for recording image series of a passing crop flow” at paragraph 0017, line 3);
an evaluation device configured to perform image analysis on the one or more images in order to determine, for the flow of harvested material, one or both of a value of broken grain fraction for display or a value of non-grain fraction for display (“evaluation device 4 for determining a broken grain fraction and/or a non-grain fraction of the crop flow based on the analysis of a recorded image series” at paragraph 0017, line 4);
a display configured to display the one or both of the value of the broken grain fraction for display or the value of the non-grain fraction for display (“The control arrangement 2 also includes a visualization device 5 for displaying the crop parameter "broken grain fraction" BKA and/or the crop parameter "non-grain fraction" NKA or the respective parameter value” at paragraph 0018, line 1); and
a driver assistance system (“visualization unit 5” at paragraph 0019, line 1) comprising:
an input unit (“The monitor 5a of the visualization device 5 is here, and preferably, a touchscreen monitor” at paragraph 0028, line 1); and
an adjustment assistant configured to adjust a correction factor (“The third display area A<sub>3</sub>or the camera parameter change module 9 is here and preferably configured for making and/or displaying settings and/or changes to the respective camera parameter, which can be entered and/or changed by the operator via the camera setting device 6” at paragraph 0031, line 2; the module is way to assist the operator in visualizing how the camera parameter is changed);
wherein the evaluation device is configured to determine the one or both of the value of the broken grain fraction for display or the value of the non-grain fraction for display using the correction factor that is adjusted (“In principle, it is also conceivable to allow an adjustment of a camera parameter via a virtual slider or circular control (curved slider) displayed on the monitor 5a. The settings are adjusted here independently for the crop parameter "broken grain fraction" BKA and the crop parameter "non-grain fraction" NKA. The selected setting is then displayed in the second display area A<sub>2</sub> for each of the harvested crop parameters "Broken grain share" BKA and "Non-grain share"” at paragraph 0031, line 12).
Berger et al. does not explicitly disclose that the adjustment assistant is configured to determine the correction factor in a dialog with a plurality of dialog steps.
Bollin et al. teaches an agricultural harvester comprising:
a driver assistance system (“driver assistance system 200” at paragraph 0057, line 1) comprising:
an input unit (“The display 208 includes an input-output device, such as a touchscreen with which the operator can interact to communicate instructions to the ALU 202 (shown below in FIGS. 4-16)” at paragraph 0057, last sentence); and
an adjustment assistant configured to adjust a correction factor (“FIG. 6 illustrates the screen 600. The screen 600 permits the operator to select one or more general areas of improvement that he wishes the driver assistance system 200 to make as part of its optimization process” at paragraph 0075, line 1; “In FIG. 10, the screen 1000 indicates its most preferred control action as a recommendation in a screen region 1002” at paragraph 0092, line 1; see also paragraph 0082 for discussion of correcting areas of improvement);
wherein the adjustment assistant is configured to determine the correction factor in a dialog with a plurality of dialog steps (“Returning back to FIG. 6, if the operator selects screen region 602, the screen region indicative of grain quality as a general operatorarea of improvement, the ALU 202 will responsively generate a screen 800 shown in FIG. 8” at paragraph 0081; “The operator can select any number of these individual areas of improvement by selecting the corresponding selectable screen region 802, 804, 806, 808, and/or 810 located just to the left of the text labels on screen 800” at paragraph 0083; “When the operator has finished selecting all of his desired individual areas of improvement (which may include selecting none of them) he selects screen region 812. When the operator selects screen region 812, the ALU 202 is configured to redisplay screen 600 shown in FIG. 6. The ALU 202 is also configured to indicate that the operator has selected one or more of these individual areas of improvement by placing a visual indicator (e.g. a check mark) in screen region 602 of screen 600” at paragraph 0084).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the multi-dialogue module as taught by Bollin et al. in the assistance system of Berger et al. to further assist the operator by providing recommendations for correcting the behavior of the harvester.
Regarding claim 2, Berger et al. discloses a harvester wherein the agricultural harvester comprises a self-propelled combine harvester (“The agricultural harvesting machine 1 shown in Fig. 1, which is here by way of example a combine harvester 1” at paragraph 0017, line 1).
Regarding claim 3, Berger et al. discloses a harvester wherein the evaluation device is configured to:
determine, from the one or more images, one or both of a raw broken grain fraction or a raw non-grain fraction (“evaluation device 4 for determining a broken grain fraction and/or a non-grain fraction of the crop flow based on the analysis of a recorded image series” at paragraph 0017, line 4); and
calculate, using the one or both of the raw broken grain fraction or the raw non-grain fraction, one or both of the value of the broken grain fraction for display or the value of non-grain fraction for display (“The proposed harvesting machine 1 is characterized in that the camera parameter(s) can be changed in such a way that the visualization device 5 simultaneously displays the real image 10 of the harvested crop stream recorded by the camera 3, which is part of the recorded image series, the harvested crop parameter(s) "broken grain fraction" BKA and/or "non-grain fraction" (purity level) NKA actually determined by the evaluation device 4, and finally a camera parameter change module 9 of the camera adjustment device 6” at paragraph 0025, line 1; “The display is shown here, preferably as a percentage, where the crop parameter "broken grain percentage" BKA is, for example, 15% and the crop parameter "non-grain percentage" NKA is, for example, 20%” at paragraph 0030, line 4; implied that the raw value is determined and then converted to percentage for display).
Regarding claim 5, Berger et al. discloses a harvester wherein the display is configured to display a bar chart; and wherein the bar chart is a representation of the one or both of the value of the broken grain fraction for display or the value of the non-grain fraction for display (“The display is shown here, preferably as a percentage, where the crop parameter "broken grain percentage" BKA is, for example, 15% and the crop parameter "non-grain percentage" NKA is, for example, 20%. In this embodiment, the display is in the form of a bar graph” at paragraph 0030, line 4).
Regarding claim 19, the Berger et al. and Bollin et al. combination discloses a harvester wherein the optical sensor device includes a transparent housing piece which is part of a wall surface of a tubular harvested material guide (“The camera in question, also called Grain Quality Camera, is located, for example, on the grain elevator” Berger et al. at paragraph 0004, line 9; “The grain quality sensor 158 is coupled to the elevator 136 and generates one or more signals. These signals indicate the quality of the grain” Bollin et al. at paragraph 0051, line 1; the transparent housing piece is implied to allow the sensor to see within the elevator).
Regarding claim 20, the Berger et al. and Bollin et al. combination discloses a harvester wherein the tubular harvested material guide comprises a grain elevator (“The camera in question, also called Grain Quality Camera, is located, for example, on the grain elevator” Berger et al. at paragraph 0004, line 9; “The grain quality sensor 158 is coupled to the elevator 136 and generates one or more signals. These signals indicate the quality of the grain” Bollin et al. at paragraph 0051, line 1).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Berger et al. and Bollin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eggenhaus et al. (EP2826356, utilizing a machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, the Berger et al. and Bollin et al. combination discloses a harvester as described in claim 1 above.
The Berger et al. and Bollin et al. combination does not explicitly disclose that the one or both of the raw broken grain fraction or the raw non-grain fraction corresponds to one or both of an area of the broken grain fraction or an area of the non-grain fraction of the one or more images; and wherein one or both of the value of the broken grain fraction for display or the value of the non-grain fraction for display corresponds to one or both of a volume non-grain fraction or a volume broken grain fraction related to throughput of the flow of harvested material.
Eggenhaus et al. teaches an agriculture harvester wherein the one or both of the raw broken grain fraction or the raw non-grain fraction corresponds to one or both of an area of the broken grain fraction or an area of the non-grain fraction of the one or more images; and wherein one or both of the value of the broken grain fraction for display or the value of the non-grain fraction for display corresponds to one or both of a volume non-grain fraction or a volume broken grain fraction related to throughput of the flow of harvested material (“Preferably, the broken grain fraction and/or the non-grain fraction is extrapolated to a throughput of the main harvested crop stream by relating a measured area broken grain fraction and/or area non-grain fraction of at least one image of the image series to a volume broken grain fraction and/or a volume non-grain fraction using a respective correction factor.” at paragraph 0032, line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the percentage display as taught by Eggenhaus et al. in the assistant of the Berger et al. and Bollin et al. combination as an additional way to quantify and convey the fractions in relation to the overall flow (see Eggenhaus et al. at paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 6, the Berger et al. and Bollin et al. combination discloses a harvester as described in claim 1 above.
The Berger et al. and Bollin et al. combination does not explicitly disclose that the display is configured to display both: the one or both of the value of the broken grain fraction for display or the value of the non-grain fraction for display; and the bar chart.
Eggenhaus et al. teaches an agriculture harvester wherein the display is configured to display both: the one or both of the value of the broken grain fraction for display or the value of the non-grain fraction for display; and the bar chart (“For display purposes, it is further preferably provided that the visualization device 5 displays a funnel diagram 21 and/or a bar chart 22, wherein the funnel diagram 21 and/or the bar chart 22 represents the current fraction of broken grains and/or the current non-grain fraction. The funnel diagram 21 and/or the bar chart may in particular each include a percentage representation, especially in relation to the total of the main crop flow.” at paragraph 0035; see figure 4 where both the bar chart and percentages are displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the percentage display as taught by Eggenhaus et al. in the assistant of the Berger et al. and Bollin et al. combination as an additional way to quantify and convey the fractions in relation to the overall flow (see Eggenhaus et al. at paragraph 0035).
Claim(s) 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Berger et al. and Bollin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leenknegt et al. (US 20210378176).
Regarding claim 7, the Berger et al. and Bollin et al. combination discloses a harvester as described in claim 1 above.
The Berger et al. and Bollin et al. combination does not explicitly disclose that the dialog of the adjustment assistant comprises an input of one or both of a target broken grain fraction or a target non-grain fraction.
Leenknegt et al. teaches an agricultural harvester wherein the dialog of the adjustment assistant comprises an input of one or both of a target broken grain fraction or a target non-grain fraction (“The operator may command adjustment of the target values if the controller takes too long to bring the quality parameters to acceptable levels with respect to current/default target values” at paragraph 0018, last sentence; “Specifically, FIG. 6 shows three funnels 110, 112, 114: the first funnel 110 relates to a threshing losses quality parameter 116 in the left half and a broken grain quality parameter 118 in the right half; the second funnel 112 relates to a cleaning losses quality parameter 120 in the left half and to a sample cleanliness quality parameter 122 in the right half; and, the third funnel 114 relates to a returns or tailings quality parameter 124. In addition, FIG. 6 shows a target value 126 of each of the quality parameters. Not that, although the target values of each of the quality parameters are shown as being equal, these target values are relative and adjustable and so the scale of each half-funnel changes if the associated target value changes” at paragraph 0060, line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the target value input as taught by Leenknegt et al. in the assistant of the Berger et al. and Bollin et al. combination to allow the operator to change the target set points to accommodate for varying harvesting conditions (see Leenknegt et al. at paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 8, Leenknegt et al. discloses a harvester wherein the dialog of the adjustment assistant comprises the input of both of the target broken grain fraction and the target non-grain fraction (“Specifically, FIG. 6 shows three funnels 110, 112, 114: the first funnel 110 relates to a threshing losses quality parameter 116 in the left half and a broken grain quality parameter 118 in the right half; the second funnel 112 relates to a cleaning losses quality parameter 120 in the left half and to a sample cleanliness quality parameter 122 in the right half; and, the third funnel 114 relates to a returns or tailings quality parameter 124. In addition, FIG. 6 shows a target value 126 of each of the quality parameters. Not that, although the target values of each of the quality parameters are shown as being equal, these target values are relative and adjustable and so the scale of each half-funnel changes if the associated target value changes” at paragraph 0060, line 5; the cleanliness quality parameter is interpreted as the non-grain fraction).
Regarding claim 9, the Berger et al., Bollin et al. and Leeknegt et al. combination discloses a harvester wherein the dialog of the adjustment assistant further comprises a query for selection of at least one target variable to be optimized; and wherein the at least one target variable comprises one or both of an actual broken grain fraction or an actual non-grain fraction (“Specifically, FIG. 6 shows three funnels 110, 112, 114: the first funnel 110 relates to a threshing losses quality parameter 116 in the left half and a broken grain quality parameter 118 in the right half; the second funnel 112 relates to a cleaning losses quality parameter 120 in the left half and to a sample cleanliness quality parameter 122 in the right half; and, the third funnel 114 relates to a returns or tailings quality parameter 124. In addition, FIG. 6 shows a target value 126 of each of the quality parameters. Not that, although the target values of each of the quality parameters are shown as being equal, these target values are relative and adjustable and so the scale of each half-funnel changes if the associated target value changes” Leenknegt et al. at paragraph 0060, line 5; “Referring to FIG. 8, the screen 800 includes a list of individual areas of improvement that fall within the general area of improvement called "grain damage". These individual areas of improvement include broken grain, chaff/husks, straw pieces/cobs, unthreshed material, and excess tailings. The operator selects broken grain when he wishes to reduce the proportion of grain broken in the threshing process. The operator selects chaff/husks when he wishes to reduce the amount of chaff and/or husks (i.e. small MOG pieces) that is mixed with the clean grain after threshing. The operator selects straw pieces/cobs when he wishes to reduce the amount of broken straw and or corn cobs (e.g. large MOG pieces) that are mixed with the clean grain after threshing. The operator selects unthreshed material when he wishes to reduce the amount of unthreshed material (e.g. MOG with grain attached) after the threshing process. The operator selects excess tailings when he wishes to reduce the volume of tailings produced by the threshing process” Bollin et al. at paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 10, the Berger et al., Bollin et al. and Leeknegt et al. combination discloses a harvester wherein the at least one target variable comprises both of the actual broken grain fraction and the actual non-grain fraction (“Specifically, FIG. 6 shows three funnels 110, 112, 114: the first funnel 110 relates to a threshing losses quality parameter 116 in the left half and a broken grain quality parameter 118 in the right half; the second funnel 112 relates to a cleaning losses quality parameter 120 in the left half and to a sample cleanliness quality parameter 122 in the right half; and, the third funnel 114 relates to a returns or tailings quality parameter 124. In addition, FIG. 6 shows a target value 126 of each of the quality parameters. Not that, although the target values of each of the quality parameters are shown as being equal, these target values are relative and adjustable and so the scale of each half-funnel changes if the associated target value changes” Leenknegt et al. at paragraph 0060, line 5; “Referring to FIG. 8, the screen 800 includes a list of individual areas of improvement that fall within the general area of improvement called "grain damage". These individual areas of improvement include broken grain, chaff/husks, straw pieces/cobs, unthreshed material, and excess tailings. The operator selects broken grain when he wishes to reduce the proportion of grain broken in the threshing process. The operator selects chaff/husks when he wishes to reduce the amount of chaff and/or husks (i.e. small MOG pieces) that is mixed with the clean grain after threshing. The operator selects straw pieces/cobs when he wishes to reduce the amount of broken straw and or corn cobs (e.g. large MOG pieces) that are mixed with the clean grain after threshing. The operator selects unthreshed material when he wishes to reduce the amount of unthreshed material (e.g. MOG with grain attached) after the threshing process. The operator selects excess tailings when he wishes to reduce the volume of tailings produced by the threshing process” Bollin et al. at paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 11, Berger et al. discloses a harvester wherein the dialog of the adjustment assistant further comprises an evaluation of one or both of the actual broken grain fraction or the actual non-grain fraction of at least a part of the harvested material located in a grain tank (“The display is shown here, preferably as a percentage, where the crop parameter "broken grain percentage" BKA is, for example, 15% and the crop parameter "non-grain percentage" NKA is, for example, 20%” at paragraph 0030, line 4; “Camera 3 is located here, preferably at the point where the harvested crop E enters the grain tank 8.” at paragraph 0022, line 5; therefore the image analysis contains an evaluation of the fractions of the resulting crop that is now contained in the grain tank).
Regarding claim 12, Berger et al. discloses a harvester wherein the dialog of the adjustment assistant comprises the evaluation of both of the actual broken grain fraction or the actual non-grain fraction of the at least a part of the harvested material located in the grain tank (“The display is shown here, preferably as a percentage, where the crop parameter "broken grain percentage" BKA is, for example, 15% and the crop parameter "non-grain percentage" NKA is, for example, 20%” at paragraph 0030, line 4; “Camera 3 is located here, preferably at the point where the harvested crop E enters the grain tank 8.” at paragraph 0022, line 5; therefore the image analysis contains an evaluation of the fractions of the resulting crop that is now contained in the grain tank).
Regarding claim 13, Bollin et al. discloses a harvester wherein the dialog of the adjustment assistant further comprises the dialog step indicative of a suggestion for the correction factor to be adjusted (“In FIG. 10, the screen 1000 indicates its most preferred control action as a recommendation in a screen region 1002” at paragraph 0092, line 1).
Regarding claim 14, Bollin et al. discloses a harvester wherein the suggestion for the correction factor to be adjusted is based on an assessment of one or both of the actual broken grain fraction or the actual non-grain fraction of the at least a part of the harvested material located in the grain tank (“The operator can select any number of these individual areas of improvement by selecting the corresponding selectable screen region 802, 804, 806, 808, and/or 810 located just to the left of the text labels on screen 800” at paragraph 0083; “When the operator has finished selecting all of his desired individual areas of improvement (which may include selecting none of them) he selects screen region 812. When the operator selects screen region 812, the ALU 202 is configured to redisplay screen 600 shown in FIG. 6. The ALU 202 is also configured to indicate that the operator has selected one or more of these individual areas of improvement by placing a visual indicator (e.g. a check mark) in screen region 602 of screen 600” at paragraph 0084).
Regarding claim 15, Bollin et al. discloses a harvester wherein the suggestion for the correction factor to be adjusted is based on the assessment of both of the actual broken grain fraction and the actual non-grain fraction of the at least a part of the harvested material located in the grain tank (“The operator can select any number of these individual areas of improvement by selecting the corresponding selectable screen region 802, 804, 806, 808, and/or 810 located just to the left of the text labels on screen 800” at paragraph 0083; “When the operator has finished selecting all of his desired individual areas of improvement (which may include selecting none of them) he selects screen region 812. When the operator selects screen region 812, the ALU 202 is configured to redisplay screen 600 shown in FIG. 6. The ALU 202 is also configured to indicate that the operator has selected one or more of these individual areas of improvement by placing a visual indicator (e.g. a check mark) in screen region 602 of screen 600” at paragraph 0084).
Regarding claim 16, Bollin et al. discloses a harvester wherein the dialog of the adjustment assistant further comprises the dialog step in which an operator confirms the suggestion displayed for the correction factor to be adjusted (“The operator can select any number of these individual areas of improvement by selecting the corresponding selectable screen region 802, 804, 806, 808, and/or 810 located just to the left of the text labels on screen 800” at paragraph 0083);
wherein, responsive to the operator confirming the suggestion, the evaluation device is configured to use the suggestion for the correction factor to calculate the one or both of the value of the broken grain fraction for display or the value of the non-grain fraction for display (“The operator can choose the control action identified in screen region 1002 by selecting a screen region 1006 labeled "AUTO"” at paragraph 0096, line 1; the system adjusts by changing the desired parameter for subsequent crop evaluation); and
wherein, responsive to the operator rejecting the suggestion, the evaluation device is configured to reject using the suggested correction factor to calculate the one or both of the value of the broken grain fraction for display or the value of the non-grain fraction for display (“In the event the operator selects screen region 1008, the ALU 202 is configured to generate a new screen 1000, in which the second most preferred control action in screen region 1004 is presented in screen region 1002, and the next control action on the prioritized list of control actions is placed in screen region 1004. This process can be repeated numerous times until the operator has viewed all of the control actions in the prioritized list of control actions, or alternatively has chosen a particular control action and selected the screen region 1006” at paragraph 0097; when the operator opts to view a second recommendation, the system in effect rejects the recommendation by not commencing with the adjusted parameter).
Regarding claim 17, Bollin et al. discloses a harvester further comprising at least one control device and a plurality of implements (see Figure 1);
wherein the plurality of implements comprise one or more of: at least one threshing unit; a separating device; or a cleaning device (“The combine harvester 102 receives cut crop material from the agricultural harvesting head 104, which is carried up the feederhouse 108 and conveyed into a threshing system 118. The threshing system 118 includes a rotor 120 that rotates against a concave 122. This relative movement separates the grain from the material other than grain (MOG) in the cut crop material. The grain falls downward into a cleaning system 124” at paragraph 0031; “A beater 130 is provided at the rear of the threshing system 118 to receive the MOG separated from the grain in the threshing system 118. Grain that is further separated from the MOG in the beater 130 falls into the cleaning system 124” at paragraph 0033, line 1); and
wherein the control device is configured to perform one or both of control or regulation of the plurality of implements so that the one or both of the value of the broken grain fraction for display or the value of the non-grain fraction for display is approximated to one or both of the target broken grain fraction or the target non-grain fraction (“The control actions that the ALU 202 can recommend and make include the rotor speed, the rotor-to-concave clearance, the position of the separator vanes 133, the position of the chaffer 126, the position of the sieve 125, the speed of the fan 128, and the forward speed of the combine harvester 102, and the height of the agricultural harvesting head 104 above the ground.” at paragraph 0093; “Referring to FIG. 8, the screen 800 includes a list of individual areas of improvement that fall within the general area of improvement called "grain damage". These individual areas of improvement include broken grain, chaff/husks, straw pieces/cobs, unthreshed material, and excess tailings. The operator selects broken grain when he wishes to reduce the proportion of grain broken in the threshing process. The operator selects chaff/husks when he wishes to reduce the amount of chaff and/or husks (i.e. small MOG pieces) that is mixed with the clean grain after threshing. The operator selects straw pieces/cobs when he wishes to reduce the amount of broken straw and or corn cobs (e.g. large MOG pieces) that are mixed with the clean grain after threshing. The operator selects unthreshed material when he wishes to reduce the amount of unthreshed material (e.g. MOG with grain attached) after the threshing process. The operator selects excess tailings when he wishes to reduce the volume of tailings produced by the threshing process” at paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 18, Bollin et al. discloses a harvester wherein the control device is configured to perform the one or both of control or regulation of the plurality of implements so that the both of the value of the broken grain fraction for display and the value of the non-grain fraction for display is, respectively, approximated both of the target broken grain fraction and the target non-grain fraction (“The control actions that the ALU 202 can recommend and make include the rotor speed, the rotor-to-concave clearance, the position of the separator vanes 133, the position of the chaffer 126, the position of the sieve 125, the speed of the fan 128, and the forward speed of the combine harvester 102, and the height of the agricultural harvesting head 104 above the ground.” at paragraph 0093; “Referring to FIG. 8, the screen 800 includes a list of individual areas of improvement that fall within the general area of improvement called "grain damage". These individual areas of improvement include broken grain, chaff/husks, straw pieces/cobs, unthreshed material, and excess tailings. The operator selects broken grain when he wishes to reduce the proportion of grain broken in the threshing process. The operator selects chaff/husks when he wishes to reduce the amount of chaff and/or husks (i.e. small MOG pieces) that is mixed with the clean grain after threshing. The operator selects straw pieces/cobs when he wishes to reduce the amount of broken straw and or corn cobs (e.g. large MOG pieces) that are mixed with the clean grain after threshing. The operator selects unthreshed material when he wishes to reduce the amount of unthreshed material (e.g. MOG with grain attached) after the threshing process. The operator selects excess tailings when he wishes to reduce the volume of tailings produced by the threshing process” at paragraph 0082).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATRINA R FUJITA whose telephone number is (571)270-1574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-5:30 pm ET.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 5712723638. 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.
/KATRINA R FUJITA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights