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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (Claims 1-3) in the reply filed on 16 July 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such limitations include:
“image capture unit …”, “parameter determination unit …”, and “threshing control unit…”throughout the claims.
These claim limitations use the generic placeholder “device” and “system” and are further modified by functional language. These claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure to perform the functions of
“to capture an image of threshed material threshed by the threshing apparatus”, “determine a relative position and/or a relative orientation between the pulling vehicle and the pulled vehicle”, “to determine a control parameter of the threshing apparatus based on the threshing processing state”, and “to control the threshing apparatus based on the control parameter” and so on.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to an “an image capture unit” are a camera (see Paragraph 0026). Therefore, the interpretation of an “image capture unit” is a camera and the equivalents thereof.
In light of the specification and what would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, a parameter determination unit is interpreted to be a processor or computer or equivalents thereof. Therefore, the interpretation of a “parameter determination unit” and “threshing control unit” is a general purpose processor or computer and the equivalents thereof (see Paragraph 0030, 0131).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “a captured image” in line 7. It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring to the limitation “capture an image” previously recited in line 4 or not.
Claims 2-3 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A threshing state management system configured to manage a state of a threshing apparatus for performing threshing processing on grain culms reaped while traveling, the threshing state management system comprising:
an image capture unit configured to capture an image of threshed material threshed by the threshing apparatus;
a state detection neural network configured to output a threshing processing state in the threshing apparatus based on image input data generated based on a captured image from the image capture unit;
a parameter determination unit configured to determine a control parameter of the threshing apparatus based on the threshing processing state; and
a threshing control unit configured to control the threshing apparatus based on the control parameter
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, determine … in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, outputted, captured, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A threshing state management system configured to manage a state of a threshing apparatus for performing threshing processing on grain culms reaped while traveling, the threshing state management system comprising:
an image capture unit configured to capture an image of threshed material threshed by the threshing apparatus;
a state detection neural network configured to output a threshing processing state in the threshing apparatus based on image input data generated based on a captured image from the image capture unit;
a parameter determination unit configured to determine a control parameter of the threshing apparatus based on the threshing processing state; and
a threshing control unit configured to control the threshing apparatus based on the control parameter
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of capture ..., output ..., and control ..., the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the capturing step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of detecting data for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The outputting and controlling steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting data from some of the previous steps), and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, regarding the “control ...” limitation, Examiner notes that due to the broad recitation of merely “control the threshing apparatus based on the control parameter” without entailing (without positively reciting) what the control actually comprises, under BRI and in light of Applicant’s specification (e.g. paragraphs 0131 and 0187), the control limitation can be merely taken as generating a control signal and/or sending the control signal which both amount to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, in other words, the claims are not currently limiting the control limitation to positively recite an actual adjustment/action and therefore the control limitation cannot under BRI be taken as integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Lastly, claim 1 further recites “A threshing state management system configured to manage a state of a threshing apparatus for performing threshing processing on grain culms reaped while traveling, the threshing state management system comprising: an image capture unit configured to ...; a state detection neural network configured to ...; a parameter determination unit configured to ...; and a threshing control unit configured to ...” which merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of capture ... is well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitations of output and control ... are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performances are well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-3 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Wang (US 20210120737 A1) in view of Redden (US 20180271015 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a threshing state management system (e.g. see Fig 1) configured to manage a state of a threshing apparatus for performing threshing processing on grain culms reaped while traveling (e.g. see Paragraph 0014-0016), the threshing state management system comprising:
an image capture unit configured to capture an image of threshed material threshed by the threshing apparatus (e.g. see Paragraph 0014 – “thresher camera”);
a parameter determination unit (e.g. see Fig 4) configured to determine a control parameter of the threshing apparatus based on the threshing processing state (e.g. see Paragraph 0040 – “Harvester state adjustment module 493 adjusts the state of parameters of harvester 100”, the thresher speed, thresher height are some of the parameters determined for control); and
a threshing control unit (e.g. see Fig 5a – “intelligent controller”) configured to control the threshing apparatus based on the control parameter (e.g. see Fig 5a – “thresher control”, “threshing sensor”, Paragraph 0042 – “Intelligent controller 502 may also receive other signals, also described above with respect to FIGS. 1-4”).
Wang differs from the present invention in that although it discloses a machine learning model, it fails to particularly disclose a state detection neural network configured to output a threshing processing state in the threshing apparatus based on image input data generated based on a captured image from the image capture unit;
However Redden teaches a state detection neural network (e.g. see Redden Paragraph 0006-0007 – “artificial neural network”) configured to output a threshing processing state in the threshing apparatus (e.g. see Redden Paragraph 0054-56 –“determine a state of the combine”) based on image input data generated based on a captured image from the image capture unit (e.g. see Redden Paragraph 0055 – “can include any other sensor”, Paragraph 0064-66 – “the tailings sensor 366 and the grain quality sensor 370 each include a digital camera configured to capture an image of a grain sample”).
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 Wang to incorporate the teachings of Redden which teaches a state detection neural network configured to output a threshing processing state in the threshing apparatus based on image input data generated based on a captured image from the image capture unit since they are directed to threshing process(es) and incorporation of the teachings of Redden would work to improve the performance of the machine (Redden e.g. see Paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 2, Wang differs from the present invention in that is fails to particularly disclose further comprising a travel state sensor configured to detect a travel state, wherein state input data indicating the travel state generated based on a detection signal from the travel state sensor is input to the state detection neural network.
However, Redden teaches further comprising a travel state sensor configured to detect a travel state (e.g. see Redden Paragraph 0046 – “sensors 330 are configured to generate data (i.e., measurements) representing a configuration or capability of the machine 100”), wherein state input data indicating the travel state generated based on a detection signal from the travel state sensor (e.g. see Redden Paragraph 0046 – “a “configuration” of the machine 100, as referred to herein, is, in broad terms, a current speed, position, setting, actuation level, angle, etc., of a component 120 as the machine 100 takes actions”) is input to the state detection neural network (e.g. see Redden Fig 7 and paragraphs 0006-0007, 0046, 0141-0143).
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 Wang to incorporate the teachings of Redden which teaches further comprising a travel state sensor configured to detect a travel state, wherein state input data indicating the travel state generated based on a detection signal from the travel state sensor is input to the state detection neural network since they are directed to threshing process(es) and incorporation of the teachings of Redden would work to improve the performance of the machine (Redden e.g. see Paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 3, Wang differs from the present invention in that is fails to particularly disclose wherein the state detection neural network is trained using, as training data, a training captured image captured during the threshing processing and an estimated threshing processing state estimated based on the training captured image.
However, Redden teaches wherein the state detection neural network is trained (e.g. see Redden Paragraph 0018 – “the machine learned model is trained using a reinforcement learning technique”) using, as training data, a training captured image captured during the threshing processing and an estimated threshing processing state estimated based on the training captured image (e.g. see Redden Fig 5e, the state of the system is included in the training of the model, the state includes the threshing images and the processing state, see Paragraph 0045-47).
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 Wang to incorporate the teachings of Redden which teaches wherein the state detection neural network is trained using, as training data, a training captured image captured during the threshing processing and an estimated threshing processing state estimated based on the training captured image since they are directed to threshing process(es) and incorporation of the teachings of Redden would work to improve the performance of the machine (Redden e.g. see Paragraph 0018).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHABEER SALAAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Faris S Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/K.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667