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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Intellectual Property Office of Great Britain on 09/29/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Introduction
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendment of claims 2-17; cancelation of claim 20 in the preliminary amendment filed by Applicant on 03/04/2025. Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending in this application and are subject to examination herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 20 (Fig. 1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that Applicants have used the phrase “and/or” in claims 4, 8 and 18. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has held that use of the phrase "and/or” within a claim is not indefinite per se. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811 (Jan. 2014). Nevertheless, “[d]uring patent examination, the pending claims must be ‘given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’” MPEP § 2111; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Based upon this guidance from the MPEP and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the Examiner interprets the phrase "and/or" under its broadest reasonable interpretation of "or" for purposes of examination of the instant Application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 12, 15-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by European Pat. Pub. No. EP 3 338 529 A1 to Judaschke et al. (hereinafter Judaschke) (cited by Applicant in IDS filed on 05/06/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Judaschke discloses a control system for a sensing arrangement of an agricultural machine (agricultural harvesting machine 1) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 4-7; p. 4, lines 15-17; p. 4, line 33 to p. 5, line 8; p. 5, lines 12-41), the control system comprising one or more controllers (controller 18) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50; p. 4, lines 40-45), configured to:
receive operational data indicative of the working of a working environment (e.g., no crop stream flow) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50) by the agricultural machine (agricultural harvesting machine 1) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 4-7; p. 4, lines 15-17; p. 4, line 33 to p. 5, line 8; p. 5, lines 12-41); and
generate and output one or more control signals (P. 3, lines 38-50; p. 4, lines 40-45) for controlling operation of a cleaning system (cleaning device 8) (Abstract; Figs. 1-2; P. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 11) associated with a sensor arrangement (sensor device 3 comprising sensor 7, protective pane 5 and/or housing 4) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, lines 9-28; p. 4, lines 33-38; p. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 24; p. 5, lines 28-31) of the agricultural machine (agricultural harvesting machine 1) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 4-7; p. 4, lines 15-17; p. 4, line 33 to p. 5, line 8; p. 5, lines 12-41) in dependence on the operational data (e.g., no crop stream flow) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50).
Regarding claim 4, Judaschke discloses the control system of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Judaschke discloses a control system wherein the operational data (e.g., no crop stream flow) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50) comprises yield data from a yield sensor (sensor 7) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 13), the yield data being indicative of a measure of material within and/or flowing through (e.g., no crop stream flow) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50) the agricultural machine (agricultural harvesting machine 1) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 4-7; p. 4, lines 15-17; p. 4, line 33 to p. 5, line 8; p. 5, lines 12-41).
Regarding claim 5, Judaschke discloses the control system of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Judaschke discloses a control system (controller 18) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50; p. 4, lines 40-45) wherein the operational data is indicative of an operational state of a selectable operational function (e.g., no crop stream flow) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50) of the agricultural machine (agricultural harvesting machine 1) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 4-7; p. 4, lines 15-17; p. 4, line 33 to p. 5, line 8; p. 5, lines 12-41), and the control system (controller 18) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50; p. 4, lines 40-45) is configured to control operation of the cleaning system (cleaning device 8) (Abstract; Figs. 1-2; P. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 11) in dependence on the operational state of the selectable operational function (e.g., no crop stream flow) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50).
Regarding claim 12, Judaschke discloses the control system of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Judaschke discloses a control system (controller 18) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50; p. 4, lines 40-45) configured to determine a control strategy for the cleaning system in dependence on the operational data (e.g., no crop stream flow) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50).
Regarding claim 15, Judaschke discloses the control system of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Judaschke discloses a control system (controller 18) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50; p. 4, lines 40-45) configured to control release of a cleaning fluid (cleaning fluid 12) (Fig. 2; P. 2, lines 23-37; p. 2, line 46 to p. 3, line 50; p. 4, lines 19-45) from the cleaning system (cleaning device 8) (Abstract; Figs. 1-2; P. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 11) onto one or more components (protective pane 5) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, lines 9-28; p. 4, lines 33-38; p. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 24; p. 5, lines 28-31) of the sensor arrangement (sensor device 3 comprising sensor 7, protective pane 5 and/or housing 4) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, lines 9-28; p. 4, lines 33-38; p. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 24; p. 5, lines 28-31) in dependence on the operational data (e.g., no crop stream flow) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50).
Regarding claim 16, Judaschke discloses the control system of claim 15 (see above). Furthermore, Judaschke discloses a control system (controller 18) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50; p. 4, lines 40-45) wherein the one or more components (protective pane 5) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, lines 9-28; p. 4, lines 33-38; p. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 24; p. 5, lines 28-31) of the sensor arrangement (sensor device 3 comprising sensor 7, protective pane 5 and/or housing 4) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, lines 9-28; p. 4, lines 33-38; p. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 24; p. 5, lines 28-31) comprises a sensing surface (surface of protective pane 5) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, lines 9-28; p. 4, lines 33-38; p. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 24; p. 5, lines 28-31) of the sensor arrangement (sensor device 3 comprising sensor 7, protective pane 5 and/or housing 4) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, lines 9-28; p. 4, lines 33-38; p. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 24; p. 5, lines 28-31).
Regarding claim 17, Judaschke discloses the control system of claim 16 (see above). Furthermore, Judaschke discloses a control system (controller 18) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50; p. 4, lines 40-45) wherein the sensing surface (surface of protective pane 5) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, lines 9-28; p. 4, lines 33-38; p. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 24; p. 5, lines 28-31) comprises a substantially transparent panel (protective pane 5) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, lines 9-28; p. 4, lines 33-38; p. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 24; p. 5, lines 28-31) positioned between a material flow (see Fig. 1) associated with the agricultural machine (agricultural harvesting machine 1) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 4-7; p. 4, lines 15-17; p. 4, line 33 to p. 5, line 8; p. 5, lines 12-41) and an optical sensor (sensor 7) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, lines 9-28; p. 4, lines 33-38; p. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 24; p. 5, lines 28-31) for monitoring one or more properties (P. 2, lines 39-44) of the material flow.
Regarding claim 18, Judaschke discloses the control system of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Judaschke discloses a cleaning system (cleaning device 8) (Abstract; Figs. 1-2; P. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 11) for a sensor arrangement (sensor device 3 comprising sensor 7, protective pane 5 and/or housing 4) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, lines 9-28; p. 4, lines 33-38; p. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 24; p. 5, lines 28-31) of an agricultural machine (agricultural harvesting machine 1) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 4-7; p. 4, lines 15-17; p. 4, line 33 to p. 5, line 8; p. 5, lines 12-41), the cleaning system (cleaning device 8) (Abstract; Figs. 1-2; P. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 11) comprising:
a cleaning fluid reservoir (storage container 14 holding cleaning fluid 12) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 33-45);
a dispensing arrangement (outlet nozzle 11) (Figs. 1-2; P. 4, lines 15-45) for releasing the cleaning fluid (cleaning fluid 12) (Fig. 2; P. 2, lines 23-37; p. 2, line 46 to p. 3, line 50; p. 4, lines 19-45) onto a surface (surface of protective pane 5) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, lines 9-28; p. 4, lines 33-38; p. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 24; p. 5, lines 28-31) of the sensor arrangement (sensor device 3 comprising sensor 7, protective pane 5 and/or housing 4) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, lines 9-28; p. 4, lines 33-38; p. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 24; p. 5, lines 28-31); and
wherein the cleaning system (cleaning device 8) (Abstract; Figs. 1-2; P. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 11) comprises and/or is controllable under operation of the control system (controller 18) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50; p. 4, lines 40-45) of claim 1 for controlling the release of the cleaning fluid (cleaning fluid 12) (Fig. 2; P. 2, lines 23-37; p. 2, line 46 to p. 3, line 50; p. 4, lines 19-45) in dependence on operational data indicative of the working of a working environment (e.g., no crop stream flow) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50) by the agricultural machine (agricultural harvesting machine 1) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 4-7; p. 4, lines 15-17; p. 4, line 33 to p. 5, line 8; p. 5, lines 12-41).
Regarding claim 19, Judaschke discloses the cleaning system of claim 18 (see above). Furthermore, Judaschke discloses a sensor arrangement (sensor device 3 comprising sensor 7, protective pane 5 and/or housing 4) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, lines 9-28; p. 4, lines 33-38; p. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 24; p. 5, lines 28-31), comprising: an image sensor (sensor 7) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, lines 9-28; p. 4, lines 33-38; p. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 24; p. 5, lines 28-31); a sensor surface (surface of protective pane 5) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, lines 9-28; p. 4, lines 33-38; p. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 24; p. 5, lines 28-31); and the cleaning system (cleaning device 8) (Abstract; Figs. 1-2; P. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 11) of claim 18.
Regarding claim 21, Judaschke discloses a method for controlling operation of a cleaning system (cleaning device 8) (Abstract; Figs. 1-2; P. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 11) for a sensor arrangement (sensor device 3 comprising sensor 7, protective pane 5 and/or housing 4) (Abstract; Fig. 2; P. 4, lines 9-28; p. 4, lines 33-38; p. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 24; p. 5, lines 28-31) of an agricultural machine (agricultural harvesting machine 1) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 4-7; p. 4, lines 15-17; p. 4, line 33 to p. 5, line 8; p. 5, lines 12-41), the method comprising:
receiving operational data indicative of the working of a working environment (e.g., no crop stream flow) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50) by the agricultural machine (agricultural harvesting machine 1) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 4-7; p. 4, lines 15-17; p. 4, line 33 to p. 5, line 8; p. 5, lines 12-41);
determining, in dependence on the received operational data (e.g., no crop stream flow) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50), an operation of the agricultural machine (agricultural harvesting machine 1) (Abstract; Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 4-7; p. 4, lines 15-17; p. 4, line 33 to p. 5, line 8; p. 5, lines 12-41) within the working environment; and
controlling operation of the cleaning system (cleaning device 8) (Abstract; Figs. 1-2; P. 4, line 49 to p. 5, line 11) in dependence on the determined operation (e.g., no crop stream flow) (Fig. 1; P. 3, lines 38-50).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judaschke in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0287218 to Yuasa et al. (hereinafter Yuasa).
Regarding claim 2, Judaschke discloses the control system of claim 1 (see above). However, Judaschke does not disclose that the operational data comprises positional data indicative of a location of the agricultural machine within the working environment. Nevertheless, Yuasa teaches a control system for an agricultural machine (work vehicle 100) (Figs. 1-4, 6A-6C, 7, 8A-8F, 10A-10D, 13A-13B, 14A-14B, 15, 22-25, 31; Paras. [0085]-[0097], [0100]-[0103], [0112]-[0125], [0127]-[0138], [0141]-[0153]) that utilizes operational data that comprises positional data (positional GNSS data, such as GPS data, from data positioning device 120 or LiDAR or camera image sensor of positioning device 120) (Figs. 1-4; Paras. [0088]-[0089]) indicative of a location (e.g., in work area 70 or headlands 80) (Fig. 7; Paras. [0114]-[0123]) of the agricultural machine (work vehicle 100) (Figs. 1-4, 6A-6C, 7, 8A-8F, 10A-10D, 13A-13B, 14A-14B, 15, 22-25, 31; Paras. [0085]-[0097], [0100]-[0103], [0112]-[0125], [0127]-[0138], [0141]-[0153]) within the working environment (see, e.g., Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control system disclosed in Judashke with the control system taught in Yuasa with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the cleaning function disclosed in Judashke that allows better sensor data to be recorded by cleaning the sensor window to be added to operations conducted during the second operation of the Headland Management System taught in Yuasa (Para. [0123]) because it would be known that the material flow through the agricultural machine would be stopped or at least minimized after the first operation of raising the implement and just before the second operation that occurs just before leaving the headland area and dropping the implement to continue operations in the work area 70) (Fig. 7; Para. [0123]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control system disclosed in Judashke with the control system taught in Yuasa with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Judaschke in view of Yuasa teaches the control system of claim 2 (see above). Furthermore, Yuasa teaches the control system configured to determine, from the positional data (positional GNSS data, such as GPS data, from data positioning device 120 or LiDAR or camera image sensor of positioning device 120) (Figs. 1-4; Paras. [0088]-[0089]), the location (e.g., in work area 70 or headlands 80) (Fig. 7; Paras. [0114]-[0123]) of the agricultural machine (work vehicle 100) (Figs. 1-4, 6A-6C, 7, 8A-8F, 10A-10D, 13A-13B, 14A-14B, 15, 22-25, 31; Paras. [0085]-[0097], [0100]-[0103], [0112]-[0125], [0127]-[0138], [0141]-[0153]) within the working environment.
Regarding claim 6, Judaschke discloses the control system of claim 1 (see above). However, Judaschke does not disclose that wherein the selectable operational function comprises a headland mode for the agricultural machine. Nevertheless, Yuasa teaches a control system with a selectable operational function that comprises a headland mode (e.g., with control operations when entering headlands 80 and leaving headlands 80 back to work area 70) (Fig. 7; Paras. [0114]-[0123]) for the agricultural vehicle (work vehicle 100) (Figs. 1-4, 6A-6C, 7, 8A-8F, 10A-10D, 13A-13B, 14A-14B, 15, 22-25, 31; Paras. [0085]-[0097], [0100]-[0103], [0112]-[0125], [0127]-[0138], [0141]-[0153]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control system disclosed in Judashke with the control system having a headland mode taught in Yuasa with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the cleaning function disclosed in Judashke that allows better sensor data to be recorded by cleaning the sensor window to be added to operations conducted during the second operation of the Headland Management System taught in Yuasa (Para. [0123]) because it would be known that the material flow through the agricultural machine would be stopped or at least minimized after the first operation of raising the implement and just before the second operation that occurs just before leaving the headland area and dropping the implement to continue operations in the work area 70) (Fig. 7; Para. [0123]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control system disclosed in Judashke with the control system having a headland mode taught in Yuasa with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, Judaschke discloses the control system of claim 1 (see above). However, Judaschke does not disclose a control system configured to determine, from the operational data, whether the agricultural machine is located within a working region or a non-working region of the working environment. Nevertheless, Yuasa teaches a control system configured to determine, from the operational data, whether the agricultural machine (work vehicle 100) (Figs. 1-4, 6A-6C, 7, 8A-8F, 10A-10D, 13A-13B, 14A-14B, 15, 22-25, 31; Paras. [0085]-[0097], [0100]-[0103], [0112]-[0125], [0127]-[0138], [0141]-[0153]) is located within a working region (e.g., work area 70) (Fig. 7; Paras. [0114]-[0123]) or a non-working region (e.g., headlands 80) (Fig. 7; Paras. [0114]-[0123]) of the working environment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control system disclosed in Judashke with the control system taught in Yuasa with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the cleaning function disclosed in Judashke that allows better sensor data to be recorded by cleaning the sensor window to be added to operations conducted during the second operation of the Headland Management System taught in Yuasa (Para. [0123]) because it would be known that the material flow through the agricultural machine would be stopped or at least minimized after the first operation of raising the implement and just before the second operation that occurs just before leaving the headland area and dropping the implement to continue operations in the work area 70) (Fig. 7; Para. [0123]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control system disclosed in Judashke with the control system taught in Yuasa with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, Judaschke discloses the control system of claim 1 (see above). However, Judaschke does not disclose the control system configured to:
determine, from the positional data, the location of the agricultural machine within the working environment;
determine, from the operational data, whether the agricultural machine is located within a working region or a non-working region of the working environment determine from the positional data, the location of the agricultural machine with respect to the working region and/or the non-working region of the working environment.
Nevertheless, Yuasa teaches a control system configured to:
determine, from the positional data (positional GNSS data, such as GPS data, from data positioning device 120 or LiDAR or camera image sensor of positioning device 120) (Figs. 1-4; Paras. [0088]-[0089]), the location of the agricultural machine (work vehicle 100) (Figs. 1-4, 6A-6C, 7, 8A-8F, 10A-10D, 13A-13B, 14A-14B, 15, 22-25, 31; Paras. [0085]-[0097], [0100]-[0103], [0112]-[0125], [0127]-[0138], [0141]-[0153]) within the working environment;
determine, from the operational data, whether the agricultural machine (work vehicle 100) (Figs. 1-4, 6A-6C, 7, 8A-8F, 10A-10D, 13A-13B, 14A-14B, 15, 22-25, 31; Paras. [0085]-[0097], [0100]-[0103], [0112]-[0125], [0127]-[0138], [0141]-[0153]) is located within a working region (e.g., work area 70) (Fig. 7; Paras. [0114]-[0123]) or a non-working region (e.g., headlands 80) (Fig. 7; Paras. [0114]-[0123]) of the working environment determine from the positional data (positional GNSS data, such as GPS data, from data positioning device 120 or LiDAR or camera image sensor of positioning device 120) (Figs. 1-4; Paras. [0088]-[0089]), the location of the agricultural machine (work vehicle 100) (Figs. 1-4, 6A-6C, 7, 8A-8F, 10A-10D, 13A-13B, 14A-14B, 15, 22-25, 31; Paras. [0085]-[0097], [0100]-[0103], [0112]-[0125], [0127]-[0138], [0141]-[0153]) with respect to the working region (e.g., work area 70) (Fig. 7; Paras. [0114]-[0123]) and/or the non-working region (e.g., headlands 80) (Fig. 7; Paras. [0114]-[0123]) of the working environment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control system disclosed in Judashke with the control system taught in Yuasa with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the cleaning function disclosed in Judashke that allows better sensor data to be recorded by cleaning the sensor window to be added to operations conducted during the second operation of the Headland Management System taught in Yuasa (Para. [0123]) because it would be known that the material flow through the agricultural machine would be stopped or at least minimized after the first operation of raising the implement and just before the second operation that occurs just before leaving the headland area and dropping the implement to continue operations in the work area 70) (Fig. 7; Para. [0123]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control system disclosed in Judashke with the control system taught in Yuasa with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, Judaschke in view of Yuasa discloses the control system of claim 7 (see above). Furthermore, Yuasa teaches a control system wherein the non-working region (e.g., headlands 80) (Fig. 7; Paras. [0114]-[0123]) of the working environment comprises a headland region (e.g., headlands 80) (Fig. 7; Paras. [0114]-[0123]).
Regarding claim 10, Judaschke in view of Yuasa discloses the control system of claim 7 (see above). Furthermore, Yuasa teaches a control system configured to determine that the agricultural machine being positioned within a non-working region (e.g., headlands 80) (Fig. 7; Paras. [0114]-[0123]) of the working environment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Judaschke in view of Yuasa to cause performance of a cleaning operation by the cleaning system, as disclosed in Judaschke, in dependence on a determination of the agricultural machine being positioned within a non-working region of the working environment, as taught in Yuasa, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the cleaning function disclosed in Judashke that allows better sensor data to be recorded by cleaning the sensor window to be added to operations conducted during the second operation of the Headland Management System taught in Yuasa (Para. [0123]) because it would be known that the material flow through the agricultural machine would be stopped or at least minimized after the first operation of raising the implement and just before the second operation that occurs just before leaving the headland area and dropping the implement to continue operations in the work area 70) (Fig. 7; Para. [0123]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Judaschke in view of Yuasa to cause performance of a cleaning operation by the cleaning system, as disclosed in Judaschke, in dependence on a determination of the agricultural machine being positioned within a non-working region of the working environment, as taught in Yuasa, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, Judaschke in view of Yuasa discloses the control system of claim 7 (see above). Furthermore, Yuasa teaches a control system configured to determine that the agricultural machine being positioned within a non-working region (e.g., headlands 80) (Fig. 7; Paras. [0114]-[0123]) of the working environment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Judaschke in view of Yuasa to cause performance of a cleaning operation by the cleaning system, as taught in Judaschke, in dependence on a determination of the agricultural machine entering a non-working region of the working environment, as taught in Yuasa, because it would be known that the material flow through the agricultural machine would be stopped or at least minimized after the first operation of raising the implement before the second operation that occurs just before leaving the headland area and dropping the implement to continue operations in the work area 70) (Fig. 7; Para. [0123]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Judaschke in view of Yuasa to cause performance of a cleaning operation by the cleaning system, as disclosed in Judaschke, in dependence on a determination of the agricultural machine being positioned within a non-working region of the working environment, as taught in Yuasa, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judaschke in view of European Pat. Pub. No. EP 4 101 284 A1 to Missotten et al. (hereinafter Missotten) (cited by Applicant in IDS filed on 05/06/2025).
Regarding claim 13, Judaschke discloses the control system of claim 12 (see above). However, Judaschke does not expressly disclose that the control strategy comprises an actuation timing for the cleaning system. Nevertheless, Missotten teaches a control system wherein the control strategy comprises an actuation timing for the cleaning system (Paras. [0052]-[0054], [0057]-[0058]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Judaschke in view of Missotten to cause performance of a cleaning operation by the cleaning system, as taught in Judaschke, wherein the control strategy comprises an actuation timing for the cleaning system, as taught in Missotten, in order to have a cleaning system that cleans the sensor plate after a set amount of time in addition to, or in lieu of, a sensed level of debris. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Judaschke in view of Missotten to cause performance of a cleaning operation by the cleaning system, as disclosed in Judaschke, wherein the control strategy comprises an actuation timing for the cleaning system, as taught in Missotten, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, Judaschke discloses the control system of claim 12 (see above). However, Judaschke does not expressly disclose that the control strategy comprises a cycle duration for the cleaning system. Nevertheless, Missotten teaches a control system wherein the control strategy comprises a cycle duration for the cleaning system (Paras. [0057]-[0058]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Judaschke in view of Missotten to cause performance of a cleaning operation by the cleaning system, as taught in Judaschke, wherein the control strategy comprises a cycle duration for the cleaning system, as taught in Missotten, in order to have a cleaning system that cleans the sensor plate through a cleaning cycle of a set duration in addition to, or in lieu of, a sensed level of debris. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Judaschke in view of Missotten to cause performance of a cleaning operation by the cleaning system, as disclosed in Judaschke, wherein the control strategy comprises a cycle duration for the cleaning system, as taught in Missotten, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Canadian Pat. Pub. No. CA 3050663 to Sporrer et al. relates to an agricultural machine with a controller that provides automatic control, such as raising and lowering depth of engagement during transition from the work are to the headland area and vice-versa. Int’l. Pat. Pub. No. WO 2022/194601 A1 to Baumker relates to an agricultural machine that has automatic control to avoid over- or under-fertilization in the headland areas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAUDE J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. 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.
/CLAUDE J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
