DETAILED ACTION
In view of the Pre-Appeal Brief filed on March 2, 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 C.F.R. § 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 C.F.R. § 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/ANISS CHAD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
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
Claims 18, 25-29, 35, and 36 are pending, of which claims 29, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and claims 18, 25-29, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because elements 62 and 64 in Fig. 3 appear to be switched. Specification ¶ 51 assigns element number 62 to the sensors and while element 64 is assigned to the detection surface. However, Fig. 3 shows what appears to be the sensor labeled as element 64, while what appears to be the detection surface is labeled as elements 62. Further, this error in Fig. 3 appears to be corroborated by the remaining drawings, which depict sensors 62 in a manner similar to element 64 of Fig. 3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 C.F.R. § 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
Claims 18 and 29 recite the limitation “the acoustic sensor being positioned on a rear wall of the table behind the auger relative to the cutter bar such that crop material that is not conveyed transversely towards the center of the header but passes over and behind the auger is incident on the acoustic sensor,” or similar. (Emphasis added). The plain and ordinary meaning of “such that” is synonymous with “to the extent that” and the like. Thus, the claim does not require and crop material to fail to be conveyed towards the center of the header and/or pass over and behind the auger. Instead, this claim merely requires that the sensor is placed in a position that if those actions were to occur, the crop material would fall or strike (i.e., is incident on1) the sensor’s area.
Claims 25 and 35 recite the generation of a control signal, where “the control signal generated to control an operation of the header or a farming machine coupled with the header,” or similar. (Emphasis added). This appears to recite that the intended use of the control signal is to control the operation of the header or farming machine, but does not actually require the control of the header or farming machine. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains an extraneous comma (‘,’) before the period (‘.’) in the final line of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the acoustic sensor” lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, this shall be interpreted as “the piezoelectric sensor.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 29, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 29, this claim twice refers to “the sensor” at lines 9-10. This claim previously introduced both a “piezoelectric sensor” and an “acoustic sensor” at lines 4 and 8, respectively. Thus the examiner cannot determine to which “sensor” the reference to “the sensor” refers. Therefore, this claim is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the examiner shall interpret the sensor as the piezoelectric sensor.
Regarding claims 35 and 36, these claims depend from claim 29 and, therefore, inherit the rejection of that claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 18, 25, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bohman et al., US Patent 4,275,546 (hereinafter Bohman) in view of Hoskinson et al., US Patent 8,469,784 (hereinafter Hoskinson).
Regarding claim 18, Bohman discloses a system, comprising “a cutter bar of a header” (Bohman col. 3, l. 66-col. 4, l. 23 and Fig. 2) where “header 22 has a reel 50 and a sickle or cutter bar 52.” Additionally, Bohman discloses “an auger configured to convey cut crop material inwardly towards a center of the header” (Bohman col. 3, l. 66-col. 4, l. 23 and Fig. 2, see also Fig. 9) where transverse auger 56 “consolidate[s] the harvested material and deliver it towards entrance 58 of the crop elevator 24.” As can be seen in Fig. 2, entrance 58 and crop elevator 24 are in the center of the header 22, at least in the depth direction as shown in Figs. 2 and 9. Further, Bohman discloses “a table beneath the auger and configured to receive crop material cut by the cutter bar and not conveyed by the auger” (Bohman col. 4, l. 25-col. 5, l. 40 and Fig. 2) where the floor of crop elevator 24 is shown to run under auger 56. The present specification explicitly states that a table is also called a “floor” (Spec. ¶ 43) and, therefore, the floor of Bohman is the claimed table within the bounds set by Applicant’s specification. Moreover, Bohman discloses “an acoustic sensor, positioned within a flow path of crop material cut by the cutter bar and downstream of the cutter bar” (Bohman col. 4, l. 25-col. 5, l. 40 and Fig. 2) where “acoustic sensing device 70,” including a piezoelectric crystal, is shown by Fig. 2 to be positioned within the flow path of crop material cut by the cutter bar and downstream of the cutter bar. Likewise, Bohman discloses “the acoustic sensor being positioned on a rear wall of the table behind the auger relative to the cutter bar such that crop material that is not conveyed transversely towards the center of the header but passes over and behind the auger is incident on the acoustic sensor” (Bohman col. 8, ll. 17-52 and Figs. 2, 10) where the acoustic sensor is shown by Fig. 2 to be positioned on the rear wall of the floor (i.e., table) and behind the cutter bar in a manner similar to that of Applicant’s Fig. 3. Bohman further describes that the crop flows “transversely” through the crop elevator but material that is “deflected off the idler drum 62” and is shown in Figs. 2 and 10 to be behind the auger with a crop flow that goes over auger 56. Finally, Bohman discloses “the sensor configured to measure an impact parameter indicative of a force of stones incident on a detection surface of the sensor” (Bohman col. 8, ll. 17-52) where the stones strike the acoustic sensor that measures the impact of the stones.
Although Bohman discloses the presence of the sensor, it does not explicitly disclose that the sensor is used to measure the force of cut crop material and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “the sensor configured to measure an impact parameter indicative of a force of cut crop material incident on a detection surface of the sensor.”
However, Reinecke discloses a crop processing agricultural vehicle that uses an acoustic sensor to measure grain loss, wherein “the sensor configured to measure an impact parameter indicative of a force of cut crop material incident on a detection surface of the sensor” (Hoskinson col. 6, ll. 51-5) where a piezoelectric sensor, which are known to those of ordinary skill in the art to be acoustic sensors, measures the impacts per second of grain on the sensor in order to measure grain loss.
Bohman and Hoskinson are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of agricultural machines for processing grain.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bohman and Hoskinson before him or her to modify the acoustic sensor of Bohman to include the acoustic sensor of Hoskinson.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Bohman differs from the claimed invention by including a piezoelectric sensor for measuring stones in place of a piezoelectric sensor for measuring grain loss. Further, Hoskinson teaches that piezoelectric sensors for measuring grain loss were well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the use assigned to the piezoelectric sensor of Bohman for the use assigned to the piezoelectric sensor of Hoskinson because no structural changes to the machine of Bohman would be required, but merely recalibrating the piezoelectric sensor to measure smaller material in the form of grain instead of stones.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Bohman and Hoskinson discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 18 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bohman and Hoskinson discloses “a controller, configured to: receive an impact signal from the sensor, the impact signal indicative of a force of material incident on the detection surface of the sensor.” (Bohman col. 8, ll. 17-52). Further, the combination of Bohman and Hoskinson discloses “determine, according to the impact signal, an amount of grain loss.” (Hoskinson col. 6, ll. 5-15). Finally, the combination of Bohman and Hoskinson discloses “generate a control signal according to the determined amount of grain loss, the control signal generated to control an operation of the header or a farming machine coupled with the header” (Hoskinson col. 6, ll. 52-60) where parameters of the combine are adjusted, such as rotor/cylinder speed, concave setting, and engine load target.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Bohman and Hoskinson discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 25 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bohman and Hoskinson discloses “operable to control operation of a user interface associated with the machine to provide an indication to the operator of the machine of the determined grain loss associated with the measured impact parameter.” (Hoskinson col. 5, l. 59-col. 6, l. 4).
Regarding claim 29, Bohman discloses a system, comprising “a cutter bar of a header” (Bohman col. 3, l. 66-col. 4, l. 23 and Fig. 2) where “header 22 has a reel 50 and a sickle or cutter bar 52.” Additionally, Bohman discloses “an auger configured to convey cut crop material inwardly towards a center of the header” (Bohman col. 3, l. 66-col. 4, l. 23 and Fig. 2, see also Fig. 9) where transverse auger 56 “consolidate[s] the harvested material and deliver it towards entrance 58 of the crop elevator 24.” As can be seen in Fig. 2, entrance 58 and crop elevator 24 are in the center of the header 22, at least in the depth direction as shown in Figs. 2 and 9. Further, Bohman discloses “an piezoelectric sensor, positioned within a flow path of crop material cut by the cutter bar and downstream of the cutter bar” ” (Bohman col. 4, l. 25-col. 5, l. 40 and Fig. 2) where “acoustic sensing device 70,” including a piezoelectric crystal (i.e., a piezoelectric sensor), is shown by Fig. 2 to be positioned within the flow path of crop material cut by the cutter bar and downstream of the cutter bar. Moreover, Bohman discloses “the piezoelectric sensor being positioned on a rear wall of the table behind the auger relative to the cutter bar such that crop material that is not conveyed transversely towards the center of the header but passes over and behind the auger is incident on the acoustic sensor” (Bohman col. 8, ll. 17-52 and Figs. 2, 10) where the acoustic sensor is shown by Fig. 2 to be positioned on the rear wall of the floor (i.e., table) and behind the cutter bar in a manner similar to that of Applicant’s Fig. 3. Bohman further describes that the crop flows “transversely” through the crop elevator but material that is “deflected off the idler drum 62” and is shown in Figs. 2 and 10 to be behind the auger with a crop flow that goes over auger 56. Finally, Bohman discloses “the sensor operable to output an electric signal proportional to impact force of stones incident on a detection surface of the sensor” (Bohman col. 8, ll. 17-52) where the stones strike the piezoelectric sensor that measures the impact of the stones. Because “the frequency and amplitude of the electrical signals vary as a function of the characteristic of the acoustic vibrations in the bar as a result of crop material and/or stone impact,” this means that the components of the signal such as frequency or amplitude are proportional to the impact forces by being “a function of” the vibrations created by the force of the stone.
Although Bohman discloses the presence of the sensor, it does not explicitly disclose that the sensor is used to measure the force of cut crop material and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “the sensor operable to output an electric signal proportional to impact force of cut crop material incident on a detection surface of the sensor.”
However, Reinecke discloses a crop processing agricultural vehicle that uses an acoustic sensor to measure grain loss, wherein “the sensor operable to output an electric signal proportional to impact force of cut crop material incident on a detection surface of the sensor” (Hoskinson col. 6, ll. 51-5) where a piezoelectric sensor measures the impacts per second of grain on the sensor in order to measure grain loss.
Bohman and Hoskinson are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of agricultural machines for processing grain.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bohman and Hoskinson before him or her to modify the acoustic sensor of Bohman to include the acoustic sensor of Hoskinson.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Bohman differs from the claimed invention by including a piezoelectric sensor for measuring stones in place of a piezoelectric sensor for measuring grain loss. Further, Hoskinson teaches that piezoelectric sensors for measuring grain loss were well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the use assigned to the piezoelectric sensor of Bohman for the use assigned to the piezoelectric sensor of Hoskinson because no structural changes to the machine of Bohman would be required, but merely recalibrating the piezoelectric sensor to measure smaller material in the form of grain instead of stones.
Claims 27, 28, 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bohman in view of Hoskinson, as applied to claims 25 and 29 above, and in further view of Farley et al., US Publication 2019/0343048 (hereinafter Farley), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated April 4, 2024.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Bohman and Hoskinson discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 25 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bohman and Hoskinson does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the operation controlled by the control signal comprises an operational speed of the header, and wherein the operational speed comprises speed of a reel, an auger, a conveyor(s), or a belt of the header.”
However, Farley discloses a harvester that sends control signals “wherein the operation controlled by the control signal comprises an operational speed of the header.” (Farley ¶ 24). Additionally, Farley discloses “wherein the operational speed comprises speed of a reel, an auger, a conveyor(s), or a belt of the header” (Farley ¶ 56) where the operation speed of the conveyor is controlled.
Bohman, Hoskinson, and Farley are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of harvesting machines.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bohman, Hoskinson, and Farley before him or her to modify the control signal of Bohman and Hoskinson to include the specific control signals of Farley.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Bohman and Hoskinson teaches the “base device” for issuing a control signal in response to detecting grain loss. Further, Farley teaches the “known technique” for sending alternate control signals, such as controlling operational speed, that is applicable to the base device of Bohman and Hoskinson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by providing increased control for managing grain loss.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Bohman and Hoskinson discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 25 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bohman and Hoskinson discloses “wherein the operation controlled by the control signal comprises a position or an orientation of the header or of a component of the header.”
However, Farley discloses a harvester that sends control signals “wherein the operation controlled by the control signal comprises a position or an orientation of the header or of a component of the header” (Farley ¶ 56) where the height of the header, which is a position, is controlled.
Bohman, Hoskinson, and Farley are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of harvesting machines.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bohman, Hoskinson, and Farley before him or her to modify the control signal of Bohman and Hoskinson to include the specific control signals of Farley.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Bohman and Hoskinson teaches the “base device” for issuing a control signal in response to detecting grain loss. Further, Farley teaches the “known technique” for sending alternate control signals, such as controlling position, that is applicable to the base device of Bohman and Hoskinson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by providing increased control for managing grain loss.
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Bohman and Hoskinson discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 29 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bohman and Hoskinson discloses “further comprising a controller, configured to: receive an impact signal from the sensor, the impact signal indicative of a force of material incident on the detection surface of the sensor.” (Bohman col. 8, ll. 17-52). Further, the combination of Bohman and Hoskinson discloses “determine, according to the impact signal, an amount of grain loss ” (Hoskinson col. 6, ll. 5-15). Finally, the combination of Bohman and Hoskinson discloses “generate a control signal according to the determined amount of grain loss, the control signal generated to control an operation of the header or a farming machine coupled with the header ” (Hoskinson col. 6, ll. 52-60) where parameters of the combine are adjusted, such as rotor/cylinder speed, concave setting, and engine load target.
The combination of Bohman and Hoskinson does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the operation controlled by the control signal comprises an operational speed, position, or orientation of the header or a part of the header.”
However, Farley discloses a harvester that sends control signals “wherein the operation controlled by the control signal comprises an operational speed, position, or orientation of the header or a part of the header” (Farley ¶ 56) where the height of the header, which is a position, and operational speed are controlled.
Bohman, Hoskinson, and Farley are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of harvesting machines.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bohman, Hoskinson, and Farley before him or her to modify the control signal of Bohman, Hoskinson, to include the specific control signals of Farley.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Bohman and Hoskinson teaches the “base device” for issuing a control signal in response to detecting grain loss. Further, Farley teaches the “known technique” for sending alternate control signals, such as controlling operational speed, that is applicable to the base device of Bohman and Hoskinson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by providing increased control for managing grain loss.
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Bohman, Hoskinson, and Farley discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 35 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bohman, Hoskinson, and Farley discloses “further comprising a user interface to provide an indication to the operator of the machine of the determined amount of grain loss.” (Hoskinson col. 5, l. 59-col. 6, l. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 2, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 18, 25-29, 35, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, respectively have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made using Bohman in view of Hoskinson.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Dybro et al., US Publication 2016/0029558, Agricultural machine using an acoustic sensor to measure grain loss.
Schleusner et al., US Publication 2018/0000011, Agricultural machine using a piezoelectric sensor to measure grain loss.
Reinecke, US Publication 2020/0245557, Agricultural machine using a piezoelectric sensor to measure grain loss.
Hale, US Patent 6,119,442, Agricultural machine using a piezoelectric sensor to measure grain loss.
Coers et al., US Patent 6,591,591, Agricultural machine using a piezoelectric sensor to measure grain loss.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
1 “incident,” Merriam Webster Online, November 9, 2020, Page 1.
Prosecution Insights