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 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 13-15 are amended.
Claims 5 and 12 are canceled
Claims 1- 4, 6-11 and 13-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive based on Amendments. The 35 USC § 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive based on Amendments. The 35 USC § 101 has been withdrawn.
II. Rejections under § 102
Applicant argues:
Independent Claims 1 and 6
As provided above, Applicant amended independent claims 1 and 6 to recite that the computing system "determines the width of the bar based on the data generated by the sensor" and "determines when the basket assembly is plugged based on the determined width."
However, Paxinos fails to disclose the above-quoted claim limitation. In general, Paxinos discloses a system for monitoring basket plugging for agricultural implements. More specifically, the system includes a plugging sensor positioned relative to a basket assembly such that the plugging sensor is configured to transmit detection signals across a field of detection towards an interior of the basket assembly and receive return signals based on reflection of the detection signals off at least one surface. In this respect, the field of detection extends across a portion of the lateral width of the basket assembly such that the detection signals are transmitted towards multiple locations along the portion of the lateral width.
For example, in an exemplary embodiment described in Paragraph [0045], such signals may be used to determine when material has accumulated within the basket assembly. More specifically, the detection signals 108 may be transmitted through the interior of the basket assembly 54 towards the basket center 105. During a non-plugging condition, when the field of view 104 for the plugging sensor 102 is aligned with the open space between adjacent bars 76 (e.g., as shown in FIG. 4B), the detection signals 108 have nothing to reflect off, e.g., no accumulation at the basket center 105, such that the return signals received by the sensor 102 are indicative of the ground surface or bars on the lower side of the basket assembly 54. Conversely, when the field of view 104 for the plugging sensor 102 is aligned with the open space between adjacent bars 76 (e.g., as shown in FIG. 4B), but the detection signals bounce off surfaces at or above the inner surface of the bar 76 opposite the sensor 102, such as at or above the basket center 105, the received return signals are indicative of a plugging condition.
However, it is unclear from the record how transmitting detection signals toward multiple locations along the lateral width of the basket assembly as a whole is equivalent to determining the width of an individual bar of the basket assembly. Thus, independent claims 1 and 6 are patentable over Paxinos.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims taken in their broadest reasonable interpretation are taught by Paxinos. The only feature not covered by Paxinos and the ART of record in the conclusion, (Cozza et al. [US20210045274], A similar application from the same assignee; Connell et al. [US20160088787], an application from John Deer; and James Henry [US20210131856], another application dealing with the same plugging issue but determining by weight by the same assignee; is the camera/image that is taught in Prechtl (obvious to combine since sensor in agricultural machine). Paxinos teaches “given lateral width of the basket [¶ 0025] and “The disclosed system may include one or more plugging sensors supported relative to a given basket assembly such that each plugging sensor is configured to transmit detection signals towards an interior of the basket assembly. In addition, each plugging sensor may be configured to detect return signals corresponding to the detection signals as reflected off a detected surface(s). By analyzing the return signals received by each plugging sensor and/or any data associated with the signals, a controller or computing device of the system may infer or determine that the corresponding basket assembly is currently plugged or experiencing a plugged condition. For instance, in one embodiment, the controller may be configured to assess the data trace or profile of the sensor data received from each plugging sensor to identify the existence of material accumulation on and/or within the basket assembly. Once it is determined that the basket assembly is experiencing a plugged condition, an appropriate control action may then be executed, such as by notifying the operator of the plugged condition or by performing an automated control action [¶ 0024]”.
Note that under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. 2111.01 (I). See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'"2111.01 (II)
With respect to the interpretation of claim terms, MPEP 2111 states:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).(see MPEP 2111.01).
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (see PMEP 2111).
Accordingly, the claims herein will be interpreted in accordance with the MPEP 2111.
See 35 USC § 103 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a)(1)” and “(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paxinos et al. [US 20210105942, now Paxinos]. Note that the priority date of Paxinos is 04/15/2021 which is more than one year prior to the priority date of the instant application.
Examiners note: Note that most of the figures and much of the Specification in Paxinos correlates closely or is identical to the Figures and Specification in the Instant application.
Claim 1
Paxinos discloses an agricultural implement, comprising: a frame [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0009, (“frame”); 0028-0029];
a basket assembly supported on the frame such that the basket assembly is configured to roll relative to a surface of a field as the agricultural implement travels across the field, the basket assembly including a plurality of bars spaced circumferentially about an outer perimeter of the basket assembly [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0003; 0034 (“ In several embodiments, each basket assembly 54 includes a plurality of support plates 70, 72, 74 configured to support a plurality of blades or bars 76 (hereinafter referred to simply as “bars 76” for the sake of simplicity and without intent to limit) spaced circumferentially about the outer perimeter of the basket. For instance, as shown in FIG. 3, each basket assembly 54 includes first and second end plates 70, 72 positioned at the opposed lateral ends of the basket assembly 54 and a plurality of inner support plates 74 spaced apart laterally from one another between the end plates 70, 72. Lateral basket sections 78 are generally defined between each pair of adjacent support plates 70, 72, 74, with each basket section 78 being generally characterized by a hollow or substantially hollow interior area surrounded by the lateral portions of the bars 76 extending between the respective pair of adjacent support plates 70, 72, 74. As is generally understood, the end plates 70, 72 may be rotatably coupled to the corresponding basket hanger 64 (which, in turn, is coupled to the associated bracket support arm(s) 62) via bearings to allow the basket assembly 54 to rotate relative to the hanger/arm 64, 62 as implement 10 is being moved across the field. Additionally, in the illustrated embodiment, the bars 76 of each basket assembly 54 are configured as formed bars. However, in other embodiments, the bars 76 may have any other suitable configuration, such as flat bars, round bars, and/or the like.”)];
a sensor configured to generate data indicative of a width of a bar of the plurality of the bars [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0006 (“width of the basket assembly” is similar to and easily calculates the width of the bar and plurality of bars that hold the baskets); 0024 - 0025 (“In general, the present subject matter is directed to systems and methods for monitoring plugging of one or more basket assemblies of an agricultural implement. Specifically, in several embodiments, the disclosed system may include one or more plugging sensors supported relative to a given basket assembly such that each plugging sensor is configured to transmit detection signals towards an interior of the basket assembly. In addition, each plugging sensor may be configured to detect return signals corresponding to the detection signals as reflected off a detected surface(s). By analyzing the return signals received by each plugging sensor and/or any data associated with the signals, a controller or computing device of the system may infer or determine that the corresponding basket assembly is currently plugged or experiencing a plugged condition. For instance, in one embodiment, the controller may be configured to assess the data trace or profile of the sensor data received from each plugging sensor to identify the existence of material accumulation on and/or within the basket assembly. Once it is determined that the basket assembly is experiencing a plugged condition, an appropriate control action may then be executed, such as by notifying the operator of the plugged condition or by performing an automated control action. [0025] In accordance with aspects of the present subject matter, each plugging sensor may be capable of transmitting multiple detection signals and detecting multiple return signals across a given lateral width of the basket. For instance, each plugging sensor may be configured as an array or multi-point sensor (e.g., a LIDAR device or multi-ray LED sensor) that has a field of detection extending across a two-dimensional plane, thereby allowing the sensor to generate plugging-related data associated with multiple different locations across such two-dimensional plane. As such, a single plugging sensor may monitor plugging across all or a significant portion of the basket width, which may reduce the costs and the complexity associated with detecting plugging of basket assemblies.”)];
and a computing system communicatively coupled to the sensor, wherein the computing system s the width of the bar based on the data generated by the sensor[see at least Paxinos, abstract];
determines when the basket assembly is plugged based on the determined width [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0006 (“the present subject matter is directed to a system for monitoring basket plugging for agricultural implements. The system includes a basket assembly configured to be supported by an agricultural implement, where the basket assembly defines a lateral width between opposed lateral ends of the basket assembly. The system further includes a plugging sensor positioned relative to the basket assembly such that the plugging sensor is configured to transmit detection signals across a field of detection towards an interior of the basket assembly and receive return signals based on reflection of the detection signals off at least one surface. The field of detection extends laterally across at least a portion of the lateral width of the basket assembly such that the plugging sensor transmits the detection signals towards multiple locations defined along the at least a portion of the lateral width of the basket assembly. The system also includes a controller communicatively coupled to the plugging sensor. The controller is configured to analyze data received from the plugging sensor as the basket assembly rotates relative to the plugging sensor to determine when the basket assembly is experiencing a plugged condition.”)]; and
initiates a control action associated with de-plugging the basket assembly when it is determined that the basket assembly is plugged [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0056 (“As indicated above, in several embodiments, the system 100 may include one or more plugging sensors 102 installed relative to a basket assembly 54 such that each plugging sensor(s) 102 is configured to provide data indicative of a plugged condition of the basket assembly 54. Additionally, as indicated above, the system 100 may also include a controller 106 communicatively coupled to the plugging sensor(s) 102. As will be described in greater detail below, the controller 106 may be configured to analyze the return signals received by the plugging sensor(s) 102 and/or related data associated with such signals to infer or estimate the existence of material accumulation on and/or within the associated basket assembly 54. Additionally, the controller 106 may also be configured to execute one or more control actions in response to the determination that the basket assembly 54 is likely plugged or in the process of becoming plugged. For instance, in one embodiment, the controller 106 may notify the operator that the basket assembly 54 is plugged or is likely to become plugged in the near future. In addition to notifying the operator (or as an alternative thereto), the controller 106 may be configured to execute one or more automated control actions adapted to de-plug the basket assembly 54 or otherwise reduce the amount of material accumulation on and/or within the basket assembly 54, such as by automatically adjusting the speed of the implement 10 and/or the down force applied to the basket assembly 54 and/or by automatically raising and lowering the basket assembly 54 relative to the ground.”)].
Claim 2
Paxinos discloses the implement of claim 1.
Paxinos further discloses wherein, when determining when the basket assembly is plugged, the computing system s the determined width to a threshold value; and when the determined width exceeds the threshold value, determines that the basket assembly is plugged. [see at least Paxinos, 0062 (“The analysis module 122 may be configured to analyze the distance data associated with the return signals received by the plugging sensor(s) 102 by calculating a detection range metric for the associated plugging sensor 102. In one embodiment, the detection range metric may be indicative of a percentage of the detection signals transmitted from a given plugging sensor 102 that reach a given location within the interior of the basket assembly 54 (or that are within a given range of locations defined relative to such location within the interior of the basket assembly 54). In another embodiment, the detection range metric may be indicative of a corrected distance that the detection signals reach within the interior of the basket assembly 54 relative to a location within the interior of the basket assembly 54. The analysis module 122 may then be configured to determine when the basket assembly 54 is experiencing a plugged condition based at least in part on the detection range metric. For instance, the analysis module 122 may be configured to compare the calculated detection range metric to a predetermined threshold. In such an embodiment, it may be inferred or estimated that the basket assembly 54 is experiencing a plugged condition when the detection range metric crosses such predetermined threshold (e.g., by exceeding the threshold).”)].
Claim 3
Paxinos discloses the implement of claim 1.
Paxinos further discloses the sensor comprises a transceiver-based sensor configured to emit output signals directed at the basket assembly and receive return signals based on reflections of the output signals off of the basket assembly. [see at least Paxinos, Fig. 6A-7B; ¶ 0016-0019 (“FIG. 6A illustrates an exemplary plot showing an example data trace or profile associated with the sensor data collected across the basket assembly by a plugging sensor of the disclosed system when a basket assembly is in a non-plugged state in accordance with aspects of the present subject matter: [0017] FIG. 6B illustrates an exemplary plot showing an example data trace or profile associated with the sensor data collected across the basket assembly by a plugging sensor of the disclosed system when a basket assembly is in a plugged state in accordance with aspects of the present subject matter; [0018] FIG. 7A illustrates another exemplary plot showing an example data trace or profile associated with the sensor data collected over a period of time for a section of the basket assembly by a plugging sensor of the disclosed system when the basket assembly is in a non-plugged state in accordance with aspects of the present subject matter; [0019] FIG. 7B illustrates another exemplary plot showing an example data trace or profile associated with the sensor data collected over a period of time for a section of the basket assembly by a plugging sensor of the disclosed system when a section of the basket assembly becomes plugged in accordance with aspects of the present subject matter:“)].
Claim 5 (cancelled)
Claim 6
Claim 6 has similar limitations to claim 1, therefore claim 6 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 7
Claim 7 has similar limitations to claim 2, therefore claim 8 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 8
Claim 8 has similar limitations to claim 3, therefore claim 7 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 9
Paxinos discloses the system of claim 8.
Paxinos further discloses when determining the width of the bar, the computing system is configured to determine the width of the bar based on a time period across which the return signals are received [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0056].
Claim 12 (cancelled)
Claim 13
Paxinos discloses the implement of claim 12.
Paxinos further discloses the control action comprises providing a notification to an operator of the agricultural implement that the basket assembly is plugged [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0037 (“For instance, the return signals received by each plugging sensor 102 may be indicative of the distance defined between the sensor 102 and the corresponding reflection surface. In this regard, as the basket assembly 54 is rotated relative to its respective plugging sensor 102, the detection signals transmitted from such plugging sensor 102 at any given point in time will either be directed towards one of the bars 76 surrounding the interior of the basket assembly 54 or the open space defined between adjacent bars 76, depending on the rotational orientation of the basket assembly 54 relative to the plugging sensor 102 at such point in time. As a result, when the adjacent basket assembly 54 is in a normal, un-plugged state (e.g., the interior of the basket assembly 54 is not occupied by field materials), the distance-related data associated with the return signals received by each plugging sensor 102 will generally correspond to return signals being reflected off of the spaced apart bars 76 and return signals being reflected off of a bottom of the basket assembly 54 or the ground surface below a center of the basket assembly 54. However, as field materials accumulate within the interior of the basket assembly 54, the detection signals directed from each plugging sensor 102 towards the open areas defined between adjacent bars 76 will bounce or reflect off the accumulated materials, thereby altering the data trace or profile of the distance-related data associated with the return signals received by the plugging sensor 102. Similarly, as field materials accumulate around the outer perimeter of the basket assembly 54 (e.g. on the bars 76), the detection signals directed from each plugging sensor 102 will bounce or reflect off the accumulated materials as opposed to reflecting off the bars 76 or being transmitted into the interior of the basket assembly 54, thereby altering the data profile of the distance-related data associated with the return signals received by the plugging sensor 102. Accordingly, by recognizing variations in the data profile (particularly variations indicative of a reduction in the distance detected between the sensor 102 and an associated reflection surface), the controller 106 may infer or estimate that the basket assembly 54 is experiencing a plugged condition. Once a plugged condition is detected, an appropriate control action may then be executed, such as by notifying the operator of the plugged condition or by performing an automated control action.”)].
Claim 14
Paxinos discloses the implement of claim 12.
Paxinos further discloses the control action comprises adjusting a ground speed of the agricultural implement [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0056].
Claim 15
Paxinos discloses the implement of claim 12.
Paxinos further discloses the control action comprises adjusting a force being applied to the basket assembly [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0056].
Claim 16
Claim 16 has similar limitations to claim 1, therefore claim 16 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 1.
One additional limitation was added to this independent claim.
Paxinos further discloses and initiating, with the computing system, a control action associated with de- plugging the basket assembly when it is determined that the basket assembly is plugged [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0056 (“ore automated control actions adapted to de-plug the basket assembly 54 or otherwise reduce the amount of material accumulation on and/or within the basket assembly 54, such as by automatically adjusting the speed of the implement 10 and/or the down force applied to the basket assembly 54 and/or by automatically raising and lowering the basket assembly 54 relative to the ground.].
Claim 17
Claim 17 has similar limitations to claim 2, therefore claim 17 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 18
Claim 18 has similar limitations to claim 3, therefore claim 18 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 19
Claim 19 has similar limitations to claim 9, therefore claim 19 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 9.
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 4, 10, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paxinos et al. [US 20210105942, now Paxinos], in view of Prechtl et al. [DE 102018121997, now Prechtl].
Claim 4
Paxinos discloses the implement of Claim 1.
Paxinos does not specifically disclose/teach but Prechtl does teach/suggest the sensor comprises an imaging device configured to generate image data depicting the basket assembly [see at least Prechtl, ¶ 0008-0011 (“[0008]The mobile terminal can in particular be a mobile phone, for example in the form of a smartphone, which has a camera for capturing the actual image of the component, wherein a tablet computer or a camera capable of transmitting data can also be used to capture the actual image of the respective component and to transmit said image to the evaluation device. Instead of or in addition to a camera, the mobile terminal can also have an imaging sensor system. [0009]Said evaluation unit can be a separate, in particular also stationary computer or server, on which image evaluation means, for example in the form of software, are provided in order to carry out the image comparison between the actual image and the at least one stored reference image and to determine the wear state on the basis of the comparison. The transmission of the image data of the captured actual image to such a server or stationary computer takes into account the usually limited computing capacity of mobile terminals and allows even more complex image evaluation algorithms to be carried out and/or artificial intelligence to be used without requiring longer processing times for this purpose. [0010]In principle, however, it would also be possible to implement an evaluation module in the mobile terminal, for example in the form of a software app, in order to at least partially evaluate the captured actual image and/or to compare it with said reference image. For example, such an evaluation module implemented in the mobile terminal can pre-evaluate the actual image of the component, for example as to which component it is. Such a component identification module can evaluate the mentioned image data of the captured actual image and identify the component, for example on the basis of its shape and/or its color and/or its size and/or its orientation in space, and/or assign it to a group of possible components. [0011]However, the identification of the component from which the actual image was captured can also utilize other information. For example, said identification component can use component data input to the mobile terminal for identification, wherein such component information can comprise, for example, a device identification number or identification and/or a component identification number or component identifier or both. The mobile terminal can comprise, for example, a touchscreen and/or a keyboard for inputting said component information, but also other input means, such as a speech recognition module. Alternatively or additionally, the identification module can also have code detection means by means of which a code attached to the component, for example in the form of a bar code of the one HR code, can be read in in order to identify the component on the basis of the read-in code.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the “system for monitoring basket plugging for agricultural implements [Abstract]” of Paxinos, with the more specific imaging abilities of Prechtl. Providing a more effective “tilling of the soil [¶ 30]” and process to automatically de-plug an agricultural implement.
Claim 10
Claim 10 has similar limitations to claim 4, therefore claim 10 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 11
Paxinos discloses the implement of Claim 1.
Paxinos does not specifically disclose/teach but Prechtl does teach/suggest when determining the width of the bar, the computing system is configured to: identify the bar depicted within the generated image data; and determine the width of the identified bar depicted within the generated image data [see at least Prechtl, ¶ 0008-0011; 0018-0021 (“[0018]The recording guide module can basically provide the instruction for capturing the actual image in various ways, for example by displaying the reference image of the component on a display or a display device of the mobile terminal. Alternatively or additionally, the instructions of the recording guide can also be output from the mobile terminal acoustically and/or in text form. [0019]Said image evaluation device can in principle be designed differently for detecting the damage patterns. In order, for example, to detect material removal or bending of the component by the ground or crop material engagement and associated thickenings and dilutions in the component contour, the image evaluation device can comprise contour evaluation means which, on the basis of an image comparison, can determine component thickenings and/or dilutions in regions in which a component jacket or component section is worn and/or is missing, and/or other contour changes such as undulations which occur with respect to the target state of the component contour. [0020]In this case, an image comparison to a reference image does not necessarily have to take place, but it is also possible to deduce damage from a specific contour profile per se, for example special irregularities such as bulges or indentations or undulations, which signals a replacement state. This is based on the idea that an undamaged component—depending on the component—often has a uniform contour profile and in that respect irregularities such as undulations can be regarded as an indication of damage to the component, in particular if the component has previously been identified as a component which has a harmonic contour profile, in particular a harmonic outer contour.
[0021]Alternatively or additionally, the image evaluation device can comprise color pattern and/or grayscale evaluation means which can determine, on the basis of an image comparison, changes in the color pattern and/or grayscale pattern which the component points in the captured image In particular, such a color pattern may include the sequence of predetermined colors and/or an arrangement pattern of predetermined colors or corresponding gray levels, for example in that red, white and green (or light gray, dark gray and black) strips or a checkerboard pattern are alternately present along the rope when the component is undamaged. If this target color sequence changes, for example, by disappearance of the white strips into a red-green stripe pattern, said color pattern evaluation means can determine damage on the basis of such a deviation In this case, a corresponding grayscale pattern can also be regarded in the sense of a color pattern, for example in that a light gray/dark gray checkerboard pattern is provided or black, anthracite-colored and light gray strips are arranged alternately along the rope and are detected and evaluated by the image evaluation device. If, for example, the anthracite-colored strips disappear, so that the grayscale pattern becomes a black-and-white pattern, this can recognize said color pattern evaluation device and interpret it as component damage. Black, white and intermediate steps such as gray can thus also be regarded as colors.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the “system for monitoring basket plugging for agricultural implements [Abstract]” of Paxinos, with the more specific imaging abilities of Prechtl. Providing a more effective “tilling of the soil [¶ 30]” and process to automatically de-plug an agricultural implement.
Claim 20
Claim 20 has similar limitations to claim 4, therefore claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 4.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOAN T GOODBODY whose telephone number is (571) 270-7952. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7-3 (US Eastern time).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RACHID BENDIDI can be reached at (571) 272-4896. The Fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspot.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from the USPTO Customer Serie Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOAN T GOODBODY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
(571) 270-7952