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 .
Status
This second Non-Final Rejection presents new grounds of rejection for Claims 9-10 and 14-17.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 11/03/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-17 and 21-23 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-9, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-11, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claims 1-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claims 1-8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, See Pages 10-14, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claims 9-10 and 14-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of: newly discovered prior art Zielke (US20120253611) in view of previously disclosed prior art Koch (US20160037720) and newly discovered prior art Phelan (US20150377690) for independent Claim 9; and newly discovered prior art Zielke (US20120253611) in view of previously disclosed prior art Koch (US20160037720), previously disclosed prior art Woodcock (US20240065156), and newly discovered prior art Phelan (US20150377690) for independent Claim 17.
On Page 10 Applicant argues “Koch receives a "transport vehicle communication including a weight of a crop material in a transport receptacle of the transport vehicle" and that such reference discloses a computing system that is "configured to determine a time rate of change of the weight, the computing system further configured to determine a yield sensor calibration update based on a time delay determination between the flow rate of the crop materials and the time rate of change of the weight." Office Action at 8. However, the "weight" data generated and used by Koch corresponds to the weight of the harvester itself, not the weight of crop material in a transport receptable of a separate transport vehicle into which the harvester discharges crop materials as recited by independent claim 1. In this regard, even assuming arguendo that Koch receives weight data and subsequently determines weight-related parameters, such weight data (and any resulting determinations) simply cannot correspond to the recited weight and "time rate of change of the weight" required by claim 1.” Applicant details the argument on Page 12 as well.
Examiner agrees that Koch teaches the weight as it applies to the harvester and not the transport vehicle. While Koch details the weight of the vehicle, the evaluation of the weight is that of changes in the weight, where the change in weight is due to the loading/unloading of the crop that is being harvested. Previously disclosed prior art Woodcock (US20240065156) teaches in [0072] the grain cart weighing system producing time series data.
On Pages 12-13 Applicant argues “Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that Koch fails to teach or suggest the determination of a yield sensor calibration update based on or derived from "a steady state time window", much less based on a steady state time window "associated with a steady state of the flow rate of the harvested crop material and the weight of the crop material in the transport receptacle" (as recited by claim 9) or derived from a steady state time window "associated with a steady state of the flow rate of the harvested crop material and a time rate of change of weight of the crop material in the transport receptacle" (as recited by claim 17). In the Office Action, paragraph [0035] of Koch is relied upon as teaching the above-referenced recitations. However, as noted above, paragraph [0035] of Koch simply discloses that the rate of change of mass flow can be compared to the range of change of the vehicle weight and, "if the signs indicating direction of the slopes are different or the absolute value of the slopes differ by more than a threshold percentage (e.g., 1 percent), then a new correction factor is calculated". Koch at [0035]. A determination that the rate of change (or slopes) of mass flow and vehicle weight are different (or that the absolute value of the slopes differ by more than a threshold) is not the same as a "steady state time window" as recited by independent claims 9 and 17. In fact, it is not clear how the comparison disclosed by Koch can provide any indication of a steady state of the mass flow or the vehicle weight being monitored by such reference.”
Examiner agrees with Applicant’s argument that Koch does not explicitly teach a steady state time window. Newly discovered prior art Phelan (US20150377690) teaches in [0073] the utilizing of time period where the flow rate is sufficiently constant for use with the calibration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zielke (US20120253611) in view of Koch (US20160037720) and Phelan (US20150377690).
In regards to Claim 9, Zielke teaches “a harvester that discharges a flow of harvested crop material through an unloading device to a transport vehicle (system 10 includes combine 12 with grain to be offloaded from the grain bin 14 by an auger 16 – [0030]; Grain from the bin 14 of the combine 12 offloaded through the auger 16 into the grain cart 50, i.e. transport vehicle – [0032], Figure 3);
a yield sensor provided in association with the harvester and in flow communication with the flow of harvested crop material, the yield sensor generates data indicative of a flow rate of the flow of harvested crop material discharged from the harvester (flow sensors are operatively connected to the intelligent control, where the flow sensors used to monitor flow of grain out of the unloading auger 16, i.e. flow of crop material discharged from the harvester – [0033]);
a wireless communication device that receives a transport vehicle communication from the transport vehicle, the transport vehicle communication including a weight of a crop material in a transport receptacle of the transport vehicle (sensors 52 used to weight the grain in the grain cart 14, and a wireless transceiver 54 used to convey the weight information to the wireless transceiver 30 associated with the combine 12 – [0032]); and
a computing system in data communication with the wireless communication device (intelligent control includes a computer with the wireless transceiver 30 – [0031]), the computing system applying the yield sensor calibration update to the yield sensor (system calibrates the unloading auger grain flow rate – [0016]).”
Zielke is silent with regards to the language of “the computing system determines a yield sensor calibration update based on a steady state time window associated with a steady state of the flow rate of the harvested crop material and the weight of the crop material in the transport receptacle, the computing system applying the yield sensor calibration update to adjust the data generated by the yield sensor”
Koch teaches “the computing system determines a yield sensor calibration update based the flow rate of the harvested crop material and the weight of the crop material in the transport receptacle (the rate of change of the mass flow over time is compared to the rate of change of the vehicle weight over time, and if the signs indicating direction of the slopes are different or the absolute value of the slopes differ by more than a threshold percentage [i.e. time delay determination between flow rate and time rate of change of the weight], then a new correction factor is calculated at step 264 – [0035]), the computing system applying the yield sensor calibration update to adjust the data generated by the yield sensor (calibration system processes the corrected mass flow data into yield data – [0054])”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielke to incorporate the teaching of Koch to utilize the evaluation of the rate of change of the mass flow over time compared to the rate of change of the vehicle weight over time to make a new correction factor for the calibration of the mass flow data. By monitoring the rate of change of the vehicle over time with the rate of change of the mass flow this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring of the monitoring of the crop level being harvested.
Zielke in view of Koch and Woodcock are silent with regards to the language of “a yield sensor calibration update based on a steady state time window associated with a steady state of the flow rate of the harvested crop material”
Phelan teaches “a yield sensor calibration update based on(“In one implementation, flow estimator 14 receives operational data comprising the sensed mass flow rate, based upon signals sensor 112 , over the period of time in which the harvested grain was deposited within grain tank 11 to determine if the sensed mass flow rate falls within predetermined limits. Flow estimator 14 evaluates the sensed flow rate in block 306 to determine if the sensed mass flow rates of grain into the grain tank vary to an extent greater than a predefined threshold. Per block 310 , if flow estimator 14 determines that the sensed mass flow rate is not constant enough such that the calculated calibration flow rate based in part upon the shape of the pile of grain may not provide acceptable accuracy, calibration of sensor 112 using the calibration flow rate is temporarily aborted or delayed until a later time. Alternatively, if flow estimator 14 determines that the sensed mass flow rate is sufficiently constant, having a determined variability less than a predefined threshold, flow estimator 14 proceeds with calibrating sensor 112 using the calibration flow rate” – [0073]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielke in view of Koch and Woodcock to incorporate the teaching of Phelan to utilize calibration during a time period where the flow rate is constant. By utilizing a constant flow rate for the calibration, this is an improvement that yields predictable results to the calibration of mass flow sensors.
In regards to Claim 10, Zielke in view of Koch and Phelan discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Zielke is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the computing system determines a time rate of change of weight based on the weight of the crop material.”
Koch further teaches “wherein the computing system determines a time rate of change of weight based on the weight of the crop material (the rate of change of the mass flow over time is compared to the rate of change of the vehicle weight over time [i.e. time rate of change of weight], and if the signs indicating direction of the slopes are different or the absolute value of the slopes differ by more than a threshold percentage, then a new correction factor is calculated at step 264 – [0035]; calibration system processes the corrected mass flow data into yield data – [0054]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielke in view of Koch and Phelan to incorporate the further teaching of Koch to utilize the evaluation of the rate of change of the mass flow over time compared to the rate of change of the vehicle weight over time to make a new correction factor for the calibration of the mass flow data. By monitoring the rate of change of the vehicle over time with the rate of change of the mass flow this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring of the monitoring of the crop level being harvested.
In regards to Claim 16, Zielke in view of Koch and Phelan discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Zielke is silent with regards to the language of “the computing system updates a calibration value for the yield sensor with the yield sensor calibration update”
Koch further teaches “the computing system updates a calibration value for the yield sensor with the yield sensor calibration update (the calculation of the new correction factor, i.e. calibration value, at step 264 is carried out – [0038]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielke in view of Koch and Phelan to incorporate the further teaching of Koch to update the calibration value. By updating the calibration of the sensor this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring of the monitoring of the crop level being harvested.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zielke in view of Koch and Phelan as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ambs (US7137759).
In regards to Claim 14, Zielke in view of Koch and Phelan discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Zielke in view of Koch and Phelan is silent with regards to the language of “the computing system numerically integrates the flow rate to produce a calculated weight.”
Ambs teaches “the computing system numerically integrates the flow rate to produce a calculated weight (numerically integrated the mass flow rate signal to determine the weight – Page 6, Right Column, Lines 53-61).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielke in view of Koch and Phelan to incorporate the teaching of Ambs to numerically integrate the mass flow to determine the weight. By numerically integrating the mass flow to determine the weight this is an improvement that produces predictable results with the conveying of bulk materials with poor flow characteristics.
In regards to Claim 15, Zielke in view of Koch, Phelan, and Ambs discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Zielke is silent with regards to the language of “the yield sensor calibration update is based on the calculated weight and data based on the weight”
Koch further teaches “the yield sensor calibration update is based on the calculated weight and data based on the weight (the rate of change of the mass flow over time is compared to the rate of change of the vehicle weight over time, and if the signs indicating direction of the slopes are different or the absolute value of the slopes differ by more than a threshold percentage, then a new correction factor is calculated at step 264 – [0035]; calibration system processes the corrected mass flow data into yield data – [0054]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielke in view of Koch, Phelan, and Ambs to incorporate the further teaching of Koch to update the calibration value. By updating the calibration of the sensor this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring of the monitoring of the crop level being harvested.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zielke (US20120253611) in view of Koch (US20160037720), Woodcock (US20240065156), and Phelan (US20150377690).
In regards to Claim 17, Zielke teaches “operating a harvester to harvest crop material within a field (harvesting in a field – [0003], Figure 1);
unloading the harvested crop material from the harvester to a transport receptacle separate from the harvester (system 10 includes combine 12 with grain to be offloaded from the grain bin 14 by an auger 16 – [0030]; Grain from the bin 14 of the combine 12 offloaded through the auger 16 into the grain cart 50, i.e. transport vehicle – [0032], Figure 3);
receiving, with a computing system, flow rate data indicative of a flow rate of harvested crop material discharged from the harvester (flow sensors are operatively connected to the intelligent control, where the flow sensors used to monitor flow of grain out of the unloading auger 16, i.e. flow of crop material discharged from the harvester – [0033]);
receiving, with the computing system, weight data indicative of a weight of the harvested crop material in the transport receptacle (sensors 52 used to weight the grain in the grain cart 14, and a wireless transceiver 54 used to convey the weight information to the wireless transceiver 30 associated with the combine 12 – [0032]); and
applying the yield sensor calibration update (system calibrates the unloading auger grain flow rate – [0016]).”
Zielke is silent with regards to the language of “determining, with the computing system, a yield sensor calibration update based on
Koch teaches “determining, with the computing system, a yield sensor calibration update based on (the rate of change of the mass flow over time is compared to the rate of change of the vehicle weight over time, and if the signs indicating direction of the slopes are different or the absolute value of the slopes differ by more than a threshold percentage [i.e. time delay determination between flow rate and time rate of change of the weight], then a new correction factor is calculated at step 264 – [0035]), applying, with the computing system, the yield sensor calibration update to adjust the flow rate data (calibration system processes the corrected mass flow data into yield data – [0054])”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielke to incorporate the teaching of Koch to utilize the evaluation of the rate of change of the mass flow over time compared to the rate of change of the vehicle weight over time to make a new correction factor for the calibration of the mass flow data. By monitoring the rate of change of the vehicle over time with the rate of change of the mass flow this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring of the monitoring of the crop level being harvested.
Zielke in view of Koch is silent with regards to the language of “a time rate of change of weight of the crop material in the transport receptacle.”
Woodcock teaches “a time rate of change of weight of the crop material in the transport receptacle (grain cart system, i.e. transport receptable, includes sensors for a grain cart weighing system that produces time-series data , i.e. time rate of change of weight, which include the weights over time of the grain cart – [0072]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielke in view of Koch to incorporate the teaching of Woodcock to use a grain cart system with sensors to measure the weight in the grain cart and to produce time series data of the weight. By using time series data to monitor the weight of the crop harvested in the grain cart, this is an improvement to the performance of the yield monitor to allow for accurate calibration of the components in the system.
Zielke in view of Koch and Woodcock are silent with regards to the language of “a yield sensor calibration update based on
Phelan teaches “a yield sensor calibration update based on(“In one implementation, flow estimator 14 receives operational data comprising the sensed mass flow rate, based upon signals sensor 112 , over the period of time in which the harvested grain was deposited within grain tank 11 to determine if the sensed mass flow rate falls within predetermined limits. Flow estimator 14 evaluates the sensed flow rate in block 306 to determine if the sensed mass flow rates of grain into the grain tank vary to an extent greater than a predefined threshold. Per block 310 , if flow estimator 14 determines that the sensed mass flow rate is not constant enough such that the calculated calibration flow rate based in part upon the shape of the pile of grain may not provide acceptable accuracy, calibration of sensor 112 using the calibration flow rate is temporarily aborted or delayed until a later time. Alternatively, if flow estimator 14 determines that the sensed mass flow rate is sufficiently constant, having a determined variability less than a predefined threshold, flow estimator 14 proceeds with calibrating sensor 112 using the calibration flow rate” – [0073]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielke in view of Koch and Woodcock to incorporate the teaching of Phelan to utilize calibration during a time period where the flow rate is constant. By utilizing a constant flow rate for the calibration, this is an improvement that yields predictable results to the calibration of mass flow sensors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to Claim 1, Zielke teaches “a harvester that discharges a flow of harvested crop material to a transport vehicle (system 10 includes combine 12 with grain to be offloaded from the grain bin 14 by an auger 16 – [0030]; Grain from the bin 14 of the combine 12 offloaded through the auger 16 into the grain cart 50, i.e. transport vehicle – [0032], Figure 3);
a yield sensor that detects the flow of crop material discharged from the harvester and outputs data indicative of a flow rate of the flow of crop material (flow sensors are operatively connected to the intelligent control, where the flow sensors used to monitor flow of grain out of the unloading auger 16, i.e. flow of crop material discharged from the harvester – [0033]);
a wireless communication device that receives a transport vehicle communication from the transport vehicle, the transport vehicle communication including a weight of a crop material in a transport receptacle of the transport vehicle (sensors 52 used to weight the grain in the grain cart 14, and a wireless transceiver 54 used to convey the weight information to the wireless transceiver 30 associated with the combine 12 – [0032]); and
a computing system in data communication with the wireless communication device (intelligent control includes a computer with the wireless transceiver 30 – [0031]), the computing system applying the yield sensor calibration update to the yield sensor (system calibrates the unloading auger grain flow rate – [0016]).”
Koch teaches “the computing system determines a time rate of change of the weight of the crop material, and further determines a yield sensor calibration update based the flow rate of the crop materials and the time rate of change of the weight (the rate of change of the mass flow over time is compared to the rate of change of the vehicle weight over time, and if the signs indicating direction of the slopes are different or the absolute value of the slopes differ by more than a threshold percentage [i.e. time delay determination between flow rate and time rate of change of the weight], then a new correction factor is calculated at step 264 – [0035]), the computing system applying the yield sensor calibration update to adjust the data output from the yield sensor (calibration system processes the corrected mass flow data into yield data – [0054])”. Koch further details in [0033] the concept of time-shifting which would be introducing a delay, but does not detail the time-shifting as being related to the flow rate of the crop materials and the time rate of change of the weight.
Woodcock teaches “determines a time rate of change of the weight of the crop material in the transport receptable of the transport vehicle (grain cart system, i.e. transport receptable, includes sensors for a grain cart weighing system that produces time-series data , i.e. time rate of change of weight, which include the weights over time of the grain cart – [0072]).”
Zielke in view of Koch and Woodcock are silent with regards to the language of “determines a yield sensor calibration update based on a time delay determination between the flow rate of the crop materials and the time rate of change of the weight”
Claims 11-13 and 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to Claim 11 and 21, Zielke, Koch, Woodcock, and Phelan are silent with regards to the language of “the steady state time window includes a first steady state time window associated with the flow rate and a second steady state time window based on the time rate of change of weight, wherein the computing system determines the first steady state time window based on a comparison of the flow rate of the harvested crop material with a flow rate threshold, and wherein the computing system determines the second steady state time window based on a comparison of the time rate of change of the weight with a time rate of change of weight threshold.”
The following prior arts are considered of interest towards the limitation of Claims 11 and 21, but are silent with regards to the language of the limitation of Claim 11:
Prior art Meier (US20230329148) teaches in [0022] the flow rate into the grain cart with details towards the windows of time. [0041] details a change in flow rate for a location is detected with respect to a fixed or dynamic threshold representation with the expected variation when the flow rate is not significantly changing.
Prior art Emerick (US20150219488) teaches in [0076] a DSP module with sensors that measure with time-sliced windows of low-pass filtered samples to provide weight measurements.
Claims 12-13 are dependent on Claim 11. Claims 22-23 are dependent on Claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3291. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/Examiner, Art Unit 2863