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 .
Restriction/Election of Species
Applicant's election without traverse of Species/Group I (Claims 1-10 and 15-19) in the reply filed on 06/11/2025 is acknowledged and is made FINAL.
Claims 24-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/11/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 06/13/2022, 07/24/2023, and 10/11/2023 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2019-237130, JP2019-237133, and JP2019-237134, filed on 12/26/2019.
Status of Application
Claims 1-10, 15-19 are pending.
Claims 24-31 are withdrawn from consideration
Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims.
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 09/26/2025.
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.
Claims 1-10 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it they use a generic placeholders (in bold) coupled with functional language (underlined) without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Threshing apparatus configured to thresh the reaped grain culms …
Conveying apparatus configured to convey the separated material …
Temporary storage section configured to to take out and store …
Image capture unit configured to capture an image …
Image analysis module configured to analyze the image …
Since Claims 1-10 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-10 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “Threshing apparatus” is a threshing unit, which includes a threshing cylinder in a threshing chamber, and a receiving net below the cylinder, and a separation unit, which includes a shaking separator, collecting sections, and a returning section. ([0152] – [0153]).
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “Conveying apparatus” is a grain elevator and a conveying device. ([0104]).
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “Temporary storage section” is a box that contains a upper lid portion and a bottom portion that are both openable and closeable. ([0108] and Fig. 4). Because claims 4-7 disclose the structure for the temporary storage section, it will not interpret temporary storage section under 112(f).
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “Image capture unit” is a camera. ([0185).
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “Image analysis module” is a generic computer (Fig. 9).
Claims 15-19 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it they use a generic placeholders (in bold) coupled with functional language (underlined) without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Threshing unit configured to thresh …
Separation unit configured to separate …
Image capture unit configured to acquire a captured image …
Distinguishing unit configured to distinguish …
Since Claims 15-19 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 15-19 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “Threshing unit” includes a threshing cylinder in a threshing chamber, and a receiving net below the cylinder, and a separation unit, which includes a shaking separator, collecting sections, and a returning section. ([0153]).
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “separation unit” is includes a shaking separator, collecting sections, and a returning section. ([0152]).
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “image capture unit” is a camera. ([0185]).
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “Distinguishing unit” is a generic computer. (Fig. 9).
Claim 16 further uses a generic placeholder “calculation unit” coupled with functional language “calculate a ratio …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since Claim 16 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 16 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “calculation unit” is a generic computer (Fig. 13).
Claim 17 further uses a generic placeholder “parameter change unit” coupled with functional language “change a threshing parameter … and a separation parameter …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since Claim 17 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 17 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “parameter change unit” is a generic computer (Fig. 13).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2019010075-A to Kimura et. al. (“Kimura”) in view of JP-2013027341-A (“Miyamoto”), further in view of US-20160073583-A1 to Reich et. al. (“Reich”).
Regarding claim 15, Kimura teaches a combine comprising (Kimura Fig. 1):
a threshing unit configured to thresh reaped grain culms and discharge threshed material (Kimura Fig. 5 and ref 7 “threshing device” and [0021] – [0025] “treatment room 40 extending along the anterior-posterior direction of the airframe, and the treatment room 40 is handled to have a cylindrical shape long in the conveying direction which is the longitudinal direction of the airframe And supports the body 41 rotatably … two treatment cylinders … Below the treatment room 40, a receiving net 43 having a plurality of holes is arranged along the treatment cylinder 41”);
a separation unit configured to separate gram as separated material from the discharged threshed material (Kimura [0024] – [0025]);
a grain tank in which the separated material conveyed thereto is storable (Kimura ref 9 “grain tank”);
an image capture unit configured to acquire a captured image by capturing an image of an inside of a conveying path through which the separated material is conveyable from the separation unit to the grain tank (Kimura Fig. 13 ref 66 “camera”);
and a distinguishing unit configured to distinguish, by means of image analysis, separated material included in the captured image into normal grain that meets a predetermined quality and foreign matter other than the normal grain, the foreign matter being mixed in the separated material (Kimura ref 100 “control unit”).
Kimura does not teach that the separation unit contains a screw conveyer (returning section). However, Miyamoto teaches a screw conveyer (Miyamoto ref 23 “screw conveyer”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the combine of Kimura to incorporate the teachings of Miyamoto such that the separation unit contains a screw conveyer. Doing so would allow grain to be conveyed into the grain tank (Miyamoto [0039]).
Kimura as modified by Miyamoto does not teach that the conveying path is disposed upstream of the grain tank and located outside of the grain tank. However, Reich teaches that the conveying path is disposed upstream of the grain tank and located outside of the grain tank (Reich Fig. 4a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Reich to Kimura as modified by Miyamoto such that the conveying path is disposed upstream of the grain tank and located outside of the grain tank. Doing so would allow for a system that can detect and monitor the amount and quality of material moving through the combine at any time (Reich [0007]).
Claim 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Miyamoto, further in view of Reich and US-6427128-B1 to Satake et. al. (“Satake”).
Regarding claim 16, Kimura as modified by Miyamoto and Reich teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 15. Kimura as modified by Miyamoto and Reich does not teach that the combine further comprises: a calculation unit configured to calculate a ratio between the normal grain and the foreign matter in the separated material included in the captured image, based on a result of the distinction by the distinguishing unit. However, Satake teaches that the combine further comprises: a calculation unit configured to calculate a ratio between the normal grain and the foreign matter in the separated material included in the captured image, based on a result of the distinction by the distinguishing unit (Satake Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Satake to Kimura as modified by Miyamoto and Reich such that the combine further comprises: a calculation unit configured to calculate a ratio between the normal grain and the foreign matter in the separated material included in the captured image, based on a result of the distinction by the distinguishing unit. Doing so would allow for the apparatus to evaluate the quality of a granular object (Satake col 1 lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 17, Kimura as modified by Miyamoto and Reich teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 16. Kimura further discloses that the combine further comprises: a parameter change unit configured to change a threshing parameter with which a threshing capability of the threshing unit is settable (Kimura [0035] and ref 83 “threshing capacity adjusting mechanism”) and a separation parameter with which a separation capability of the separation unit is settable, in accordance with the ratio between the normal grain and the foreign matter (Kimura [0035] and ref 85 “sorting ability adjusting mechanism”).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Miyamoto, further in view Reich and JP-2002312762-A to Hamaguchi et. al. (“Hamaguchi”).
Regarding claim 18, Kimura as modified by Miyamoto and Reich teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 15. Kimura as modified by Miyamoto and Reich does not teach that the distinguishing unit performs distinction by inputting image data generated based on the captured image, to a neural network trained to distinguish the normal grain in the separated material. However, Hamaguchi teaches that the distinguishing unit performs distinction by inputting image data generated based on the captured image (Hamaguchi [0023] & [0034] and “line sensor S”), to a neural network trained to distinguish the normal grain in the separated material (Hamaguchi [0001] “The present invention comprises a grain selecting device for color-selecting and shape-selecting brown rice among grains, by a selecting mechanism using a neural network.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Hamaguchi to Kimura as modified by Miyamoto and Reich such that the distinguishing unit performs distinction by inputting image data generated based on the captured image, to a neural network trained to distinguish the normal grain in the separated material. Doing so would allow grains to be sorted at a selection rate that is not dependent on the amount of grain handled (Hamaguchi [0001]).
Regarding claim 19, Kimura as modified by Miyamoto, Reich and Hamaguchi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 18. Hamaguchi further discloses that the neural network is trained to output a distinction result indicating that the separated material contains the normal grain if image data for training generated based on a captured image including the normal grain is input as training data, and is trained to output a distinction result indicating that the separated material contains the foreign matter if image data for training generated based on a captured image including the foreign matter is input as training data (Hamaguchi [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Hamaguchi to Kimura as modified by Miyamoto, Reich and Hamaguchi such that the neural network is trained to output a distinction result indicating that the separated material contains the normal grain if image data for training generated based on a captured image including the normal grain is input as training data, and is trained to output a distinction result indicating that the separated material contains the foreign matter if image data for training generated based on a captured image including the foreign matter is input as training data. Doing so would allow grains to be sorted at a selection rate that is not dependent on the amount of grain handled (Hamaguchi [0001]).
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Miyamoto and further in view of US-20090291723-A1 (“Missotten”) and Reich.
Regarding claim 1, Kimura teaches a combine comprising (Kimura Fig. 1):
a reaper configured to reap planted grain culms in a field (Kimura ref 6 “reaper”);
a threshing apparatus configured to thresh the reaped grain culms and separate the reaped grain culms into separated material containing normal grain and material to be discharged other than the separated material (Kimura Fig. 5 and ref 7 “threshing device” and [0021] – [0025]);
a grain tank in which the separated material is storable (Kimura ref 9 “grain tank”);
a conveying apparatus configured to convey the separated material from the threshing apparatus to the grain tank (Kimura ref 17 “grain straw conveying device” and [0019]);
a temporary storage section configured to take out and store some of the separated material that is being conveyed by the conveying apparatus (Kimura Fig. 13, ref 120 and [0057] “The inlet shutter 120 is supported by the temporary storage tank 163 so as to be rotatable between the open position and the closed position” and ref 69 and [0052] “shutter 69 capable of opening and closing”);
an image capture unit configured to capture an image of the separated material stored in the temporary storage section (Kimura ref 66 “camera”);
and an image analysis module configured to analyze the image captured by the image capture unit and perform distinguishing processing for distinguishing the normal grain in the separated material stored in the temporary storage section from foreign matter other than the normal grain, the foreign matter being mixed in the separated material (Kimura ref 100 “control unit” and [0041] & [0049]).
Kimura does not teach that the thrashing apparatus contains a screw conveyer (returning section). However, Miyamoto teaches a screw conveyer (Miyamoto ref 23 “screw conveyer”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the combine of Kimura to incorporate the teachings of Miyamoto such that the thrashing apparatus contains a screw conveyer. Doing so would allow grain to be conveyed into the grain tank (Miyamoto [0039]).
Kimura as modified by Miyamoto does not teach that the conveying apparatus contains a grain elevator. However, Missotten teaches a grain elevator (Missotten Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Missotten to Kimura as modified by Miyamoto such that the conveying apparatus contains a grain elevator. Doing so would ensure a constant and reliable supply of crops into the apparatus (Missotten [0004]).
Kimura as modified by Miyamoto and Missotten does not teach that the temporary storage section is disposed along the conveying apparatus at a location upstream of the grain tank and positioned outside of the grain tank, and that the image capture unit is configured to capture an image of the separated material stored in the temporary storage section before the separated material is conveyed to the grain tank. However, Reich teaches that the temporary storage section is disposed along the conveying apparatus at a location upstream of the grain tank and positioned outside of the grain tank (Reich Fig. 4a and ref 409 and [0157]), and that the image capture unit is configured to capture an image of the separated material stored in the temporary storage section before the separated material is conveyed to the grain tank (Reich Fig. 4a and ref 222). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Reich to Kimura as modified by Miyamoto and Missotten such that the temporary storage section is disposed along the conveying apparatus at a location upstream of the grain tank and positioned outside of the grain tank, and that the image capture unit is configured to capture an image of the separated material stored in the temporary storage section before the separated material is conveyed to the grain tank. Doing so would allow for a system that can detect and monitor the amount and quality of material moving through the combine at any time (Reich [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Kimura as modified by Miyamoto, Missotten, and Reich teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Missotten further discloses that the separated material whose image has been captured by the image capture unit is returned to a conveying path of the conveying apparatus (Missotten Fig. 1 and [0015] “The housing further comprises a return path comprising a return auger 13 for leading the crops back to the down-going path 2, through exit opening 14, after analysis.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Missotten to modified by Miyamoto, Missotten, and Reich such that the separated material whose image has been captured by the image capture unit is returned to a conveying path of the conveying apparatus. Doing so would ensure crops can be returned to storage after analysis (Missotten [0015]).
Regarding claim 3, Kimura as modified by Miyamoto, Missotten, and Reich teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2. Missotten further discloses that the conveying path includes a feeding path through which the separated material is conveyable (Missotten Fig. 1 and ref 1 “up-going path”) and a return path in which the separated material is no longer conveyed (Missotten Fig. 1 and ref 2 “down-going path”), and wherein the separated material whose image has been captured by the image capture unit is returned to the return path (Missotten Fig. 1 and [0015] “The housing further comprises a return path comprising a return auger 13 for leading the crops back to the down-going path 2, through exit opening 14, after analysis.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Missotten to Kimura as modified by Miyamoto, Missotten, and Reich such that the conveying path includes a feeding path through which the separated material is conveyable and a return path in which the separated material is no longer conveyed, and wherein the separated material whose image has been captured by the image capture unit is returned to the return path. Doing so would ensure a constant and reliable supply of crops into the apparatus (Missotten [0004]) and ensure crops can be returned to storage after analysis (Missotten [0015]).
Regarding claim 4, Kimura as modified by Miyamoto, Missotten, and Reich teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Kimura further discloses that the temporary storage section has a lid portion that is openable and closable and constitutes an upper face of the temporary storage section (Kimura Fig. 13, ref 120 and [0057] “The inlet shutter 120 is supported by the temporary storage tank 163 so as to be rotatable between the open position and the closed position”), and a bottom portion that is openable and closable and constitutes a bottom face of the temporary storage section (Kimura Fig. 13, ref 69 and [0052] “shutter 69 capable of opening and closing”), wherein the separated material is stored in the temporary storage section as a result of the lid portion being opened and the bottom portion being closed (Kimura Fig. 13), and wherein the separated material whose image has been captured by the image capture unit is discharged from the temporary storage section as a result of the bottom portion being opened (Kimura [0041] – [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, Kimura as modified by Miyamoto, Missotten, and Reich teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 4. Kimura further discloses that the image capture unit captures an image of the separated material in an image capture-ready state where the lid portion is closed (Kimura [0058] “the entrance shutter 120 is in the closed position when the camera 66 captures an image”) and the bottom portion is closed (Kimura [0040] – [0041]).
Regarding claim 6, Kimura as modified by Miyamoto, Missotten, and Reich teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5. Kimura further discloses that the combine further comprises: an actuator configured to operate (Kimura ref 70 “motor”), wherein the actuator switches the temporary storage section between a storing state where the lid portion is open and the bottom portion is closed such that the separated material is stored in the temporary storage section (Kimura Fig. 13), and a discharging state where the lid portion is closed and the bottom portion is open such that the stored separated material is discharged (Kimura [0042]), and wherein the image capture-ready state emerges during transition from the storing state to the discharging state (Kimura [0046] “That is, during the reaping work, the storage of the grains in the temporary storage tank 63, the measurement and the imaging of the properties of the grains, and the discharge of the grains into the grain tank 9 are repeated.”).
Kimura as modified by Miyamoto, Missotten, and Reich does not teach a link linked to the lid portion and the bottom portion such that the lid portion and the bottom portion move in conjunction with the link. Nevertheless, Kimura at least suggests the idea of the lid portion and the bottom portion moving in conjunction (Kimura [0028] and [0058] shutter and entrance shutter are controlled by the same motor). It is also the Office's stance that the specification of a link connected to the lid and bottom so both move in conjunction with the link, without any explanation of any well-known benefit compared to other methods of connecting the lid and bottom portion is a mere design choice. By choosing a link over any other conjunction option, without the recitation of a known and understood benefit, does not distinct the invention over the prior art. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of choosing any method of connecting the lid and bottom portion would have been obvious and the design choice would have produced predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Kimura as modified by Miyamoto, Missotten, and Reich teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 4. Missotten further discloses that the lid portion partially constitutes a lower part of a conveying path of the conveying apparatus (Missotten Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Missotten to Kimura as modified by Miyamoto, Missotten, and Reich such that the lid portion partially constitutes a lower part of a conveying path of the conveying apparatus. Doing so would ensure crops can be returned to storage after analysis (Missotten [0015]).
Regarding claim 10, Kimura as modified by Miyamoto, Missotten, and Reich teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Kimura further discloses that the foreign matter includes at least one of a foreign substance, damaged grain, dirty grain, a rachis branch, and bran (Kimura [0003] “damaged grain”).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Miyamoto and further in view of Missotten, Reich, and Hamaguchi.
Regarding claim 8, Kimura as modified by Miyamoto, Missotten, and Reich teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 4. Kimura as modified by Miyamoto, Missotten, and Reich does not teach that the combine has a neural network trained by machine learning, the neural network being stored in the combine, and wherein the image analysis module performs the distinguishing processing by inputting the image captured by the image capture unit to the neural network. However, Hamaguchi teaches that the combine has a neural network trained by machine learning, the neural network being stored in the combine (Hamaguchi [0001] “The present invention comprises a grain selecting device for color-selecting and shape-selecting brown rice among grains, by a selecting mechanism using a neural network.”), and wherein the image analysis module performs the distinguishing processing by inputting the image captured by the image capture unit (Hamaguchi “line sensor S”) to the neural network (Hamaguchi [0023] – [0024] & [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Hamaguchi to Kimura as modified by Miyamoto, Missotten, and Reich such that the combine has a neural network trained by machine learning, the neural network being stored in the combine, and wherein the image analysis module performs the distinguishing processing by inputting the image captured by the image capture unit to the neural network. Doing so would allow grains to be sorted at a selection rate that is not dependent on the amount of grain handled (Hamaguchi [0001]).
Regarding claim 9, Kimura as modified by Miyamoto, Missotten, and Reich teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8. Hamaguchi further discloses that the machine learning is performed by using, as input data, a plurality of the images captured by the image capture unit (Hamaguchi [0054] “A plurality of rice images are cut out from this constructed image for each grain, and are used as a target of the sorting system”), and using, as training data, information indicating whether or not each of the plurality of images is an image of the foreign matter (Hamaguchi [0035] “standard rice, damaged rice 1 (slight damage), damaged rice 2 (extreme damage), etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Hamaguchi to Kimura as modified by Miyamoto, Missotten, and Reich such that the machine learning is performed by using, as input data, a plurality of the images captured by the image capture unit, and using, as training data, information indicating whether or not each of the plurality of images is an image of the foreign matter. Doing so would allow grains to be sorted at a selection rate that is not dependent on the amount of grain handled (Hamaguchi [0001]).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 09/26/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot. Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights