DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the aforementioned Application filed December 26, 2024. Claims 1-14 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Japanese Patent Application No. JP2022-103747, filed June 28, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 26, 2024, and December 30, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, 5-9, and 11-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Hansen (US 20230143718), in view of Van Mill et al. (US 20210294337; hereinafter Mill).
Regarding Claim 1,
Hansen teaches
A control system (Hansen: Paragraph [0102]; “The present description proceeds with respect to a harvesting machine control system configured to coordinate operation of the harvesting machine with a haulage vehicle or other support machine.”) for controlling a harvesting operation performed by an agricultural machine, which harvests a crop while traveling in a field by automated driving, (Hansen: Paragraph [0151], FIG. 4A; Agricultural Harvesting Machine 200) and a transport vehicle, which receives a harvested crop discharged from the agricultural machine while traveling alongside the agricultural machine by automated driving, (Hansen: Paragraph [0151], FIG. 4A; Support Machine 292) the control system comprising:
a first controller configured or programmed to perform an operation of discharging the harvested crop of the agricultural machine; (Hansen: Paragraph [0151]; “...support machine 292 (illustratively a haulage vehicle) is positioned next to agricultural harvesting machine 200 and travelling in the same direction of travel 330 such that a transfer mechanism 332 (e.g., a spout having an auger) of agricultural harvesting machine 200 can unload agricultural material into support machine 292.”) and
a second controller configured or programmed to perform an operation of the transport vehicle so that the transport vehicle travels by automated driving; (Hansen: Paragraph [0060], [0062]-[0063]) wherein
...
Hansen does not teach increasing the distance between the agricultural machine and the transport machine while the agricultural machine performs a turning operation.
However in the same field of endeavor, Mill teaches
...
the second controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to increase a distance between the agricultural machine and the transport vehicle while the agricultural machine makes a turn, compared to when the agricultural machine is traveling while harvesting the crop. (Mill: Paragraph [0068]: “In some embodiments, if contact (or the potential for contact) is detected, the cart 100 (and/or the vehicle 200) may cause the vehicle controller 614 to move the cart 100 and/or vehicle 200 relative to the harvester 400 (e.g., by slowing, stopping, and/or steering away the cart 100 and/or vehicle 200).”; [0069]; “In some embodiments, after material offloading has been halted, the cart 100 (and/or the vehicle 200) may cause the vehicle controller 614 to control one or more of the one or more vehicle components 634 to return the cart 100 to the offset position (relative to the combine harvester 400) at which point the hopper 118 of the cart 100 is positioned below the discharge end of the offloading conveyor of the combine harvester 400 so that material offloading may resume. In some embodiments, the cart 100 and/or vehicle 200 may convey a cart ready indication to the combine harvester 400 when the cart 100 is in position and ready to receive material (e.g., grain) again.”)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the agricultural machine and transport vehicle control system of Hansen with the transport machine considerations of Mill for the benefit of enhanced efficiency and versatility of crop harvesting systems. (Mill: Paragraph [0003])
Regarding Claim 2,
Hansen, in view of Mill, teaches
The control system according to claim 1, wherein
the first controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to stop the discharge of the harvested crop from the agricultural machine while the agricultural machine is making a turn; (Mill: Paragraph [0069]; “In some embodiments, the material offloading may be halted when the combine harvester 400 has reached (or is about to reach) the end of the field or the end of a row and has to change direction (e.g., turn around) to continue harvesting.”) and
the second controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to increase the distance between the agricultural machine and the transport vehicle after the first controller performs a control to stop the discharge of the harvested crop from the agricultural machine. (Mill: Paragraph [0068]: “In some embodiments, if contact (or the potential for contact) is detected, the cart 100 (and/or the vehicle 200) may cause the vehicle controller 614 to move the cart 100 and/or vehicle 200 relative to the harvester 400 (e.g., by slowing, stopping, and/or steering away the cart 100 and/or vehicle 200).”; [0069]; “In some embodiments, after material offloading has been halted, the cart 100 (and/or the vehicle 200) may cause the vehicle controller 614 to control one or more of the one or more vehicle components 634 to return the cart 100 to the offset position (relative to the combine harvester 400) at which point the hopper 118 of the cart 100 is positioned below the discharge end of the offloading conveyor of the combine harvester 400 so that material offloading may resume. In some embodiments, the cart 100 and/or vehicle 200 may convey a cart ready indication to the combine harvester 400 when the cart 100 is in position and ready to receive material (e.g., grain) again.”)
The motivation to combine Hansen and Mill is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3,
Hansen, in view of Mill, teaches
The control system according to claim 1, wherein when the agricultural machine completes the turn, the second controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to move the transport vehicle to a position where the transport vehicle can receive the harvested crop discharged from the agricultural machine. (Mill: Paragraph [0069])
The motivation to combine Hansen and Mill is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5,
Hansen, in view of Mill, teaches
The control system according to claim 1, wherein
when the harvested crop accumulated in the transport vehicle has become equal to or greater than the second predetermined amount:
the first controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to stop the discharge of the harvested crop from the agricultural machine; (Mill: Paragraph [0076]; “In some embodiments, the combine harvester 400 may receive the cart full indication and terminate offloading of material from the combine harvester 400 to the cart 100.”) and
the second controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to move the transport vehicle to a building to store the harvested crop. (Mill: Paragraph [0018], [0079]-[0080])
The motivation to combine Hansen and Mill is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 6,
Hansen, in view of Mill, teaches
The control system according to claim 1, further comprising a sensor to sense at least one of the agricultural machine and the transport vehicle to output sensor data; (Hansen: Paragraph [0108]-[0111], [0162]-[0163]) wherein
when the agricultural machine discharges the harvested crop to the transport vehicle, the second controller is configured or programmed to control, based on the sensor data, travel of the transport vehicle to maintain a positional relationship between the transport vehicle and the agricultural machine such that the transport vehicle can receive the harvested crop discharged from the agricultural machine. (Hansen: Paragraph [0176]-[0177]; “For example, agricultural machine 200 can detect the position of support machine 292, relative to the transfer mechanism (e.g., mechanism 332 shown in FIG. 4A), and generate a nudge signal to move support machine 292 so that the transfer mechanism is located over a particular area of the repository of support machine 292.”)
Regarding Claim 7, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations with the following additional limitations:
A transport vehicle for transporting a harvested crop that is harvested in a field, (Hansen: Paragraph [0102], [0123], [0174]; Support Machine/Vehicle (e.g. Haulage Vehicle 292)) the transport vehicle comprising:
a container to receive and store the harvested crop discharged from an agricultural machine that harvests the crop in the field; (Hansen: Paragraph [0151], FIG. 4A (Element 338); Storage Portion 338)
and
...
Therefore the claim is rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim is analogous to Claim 2 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim is analogous to Claim 3 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim is analogous to Claim 5 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim is analogous to Claim 6 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is analogous to Claim 7 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 7.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen, in view of Mill, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-14, above, and further in view of Laird (US 20240375572).
Regarding Claim 4,
Hansen, in view of Mill, teaches
The control system according to claim 1, wherein
...
Hansen, in view of Mill, does not teach monitoring the fill level of the agricultural machine in order to unload the harvested crops when the fill level passes a certain threshold.
However in the same field of endeavor, Laird teaches
...
when the harvested crop accumulated in the agricultural machine is less than a first predetermined amount, the second controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to cause the transport vehicle to wait at a predetermined position; (Laird: Paragraph [0110]) and
when the harvested crop accumulated in the agricultural machine has become equal to or greater than the first predetermined amount, the second controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to move the transport vehicle to a position where the transport vehicle can receive the harvested crop discharged from the agricultural machine. (Laird: Paragraph [0111])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the agricultural machine and transport vehicle control system of Hansen, in view of Mill, with the transport vehicle operations of Laird for the benefit of reducing wait times and improving overall efficiency of harvesting operations. (Laird: Paragraph [0002])
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is analogous to Claim 4 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663