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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (11,464,154) in view of Repas (5,177,470).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Gelinske et al. discloses an agricultural system and method comprising:
An agricultural machine including a seeding tool/application tool (132) configured to perform an agricultural operation applying material to a field, a first material tank (22) configured to hold a first material, and a material delivery system (30) configured to deliver the first material from the first material tank to a field
An acoustic/vibration sensor (38; column 6 lines 60-63) configured to sense a parameter responsive to delivery of the first material and to generate a sensor signal responsive to the sensed parameter (column 7 lines 35-39)
A processing system (48) configured to identify a flow characteristic based on the sensor signal (zero flow indicates blockage)
A control signal generator configured to generate a control signal to control the agricultural machine based on the identified characteristic (flow rate) (column 7 lines 35-49)
While Thompson discloses the invention as described above, it fails to specifically disclose that the flow characteristic monitored by the signal processing system is a blockage characteristic. Like Thompson, Repas also discloses a seed meter that utilizes a sensor to monitor flow characteristics. Unlike Thompson, Repas discloses that a sharply reduced flow rate is indicative of a blockage and that when blockages are detected by the processing system, a signal is generated based on the blockage detected (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the processor of Thompson to send a control signal based on a blockage characteristic as taught by Repas as it would be applying a known technique to a known device to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claims 4-5, 7-9 and 13, the combination discloses that the sensor can identify a blockage characteristic (flow rate) and differentiate what type and what amount of material is flowing through the conduit and can determine multiple types of material at the same type thereby determining which material is blocked based on a reduced flow of one of the types (column 4 lines 32-38).
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses a second material tank (24) configured to hold a second material, the material delivery system being configured to deliver the second material from the second material tank to the field.
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses first and second metering systems wherein the processing system can determine which material is reduced flow and thereby determine which metering system needs adjustment (column 4 lines 32-38).
Regarding claim 11, the combination discloses a delivery system comprising a delivery conduit (30) configured to simultaneously deliver the first material and the second material through the delivery conduit (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 12, the combination disclose that the acoustic/vibration sensor (38) is disposed relative to the delivery conduit (30) to sense sound or vibration generated in the delivery conduit and is configured to generate the sensor signal based on the sensed sound or vibration (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, the combination discloses the invention as described above, but fails to specifically disclose displaying sensor readings as a ratio of the first quantity to the second quantity. Thompson does disclose differentiating between products flowing simultaneously through the same conduit and counting them individually to determine flow of different products simultaneously. The examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the results as a ratio as an obvious matter of design choice to allow the operator to easily see if one product is flowing better than the other or if one product is experiencing significantly more blockage.
Regarding claim 15, the combination discloses an alert/control signal that causes the controller to adjust the metering of whichever material has reduced flow (Thompson -column 7 lines 35-49).
Regarding claim 20, the combination discloses that processing the sensor signal comprises processing the sensor signal to identify a material blockage characteristic (flow rate reduced indicates blockage).
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (11,464,154) in view of Repas (5,177,470) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Honkanen (2022/0391644).
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 16, the combination of Thompson et al. and Repas discloses the invention as described above but fails to specifically disclose machine learning, AI and/or a neural network related to the processing system. Like the combination of Thompson and Repas, Honkanen discloses an agricultural machine that utilizes sensors and a processing system to control the work of the machine. Unlike the combination, Honkanen disclose the use of a data interpretation unit that uses machine learning/AI/neural networks (pgph 0021) such that control improves over time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize machine learning/AI/neural networks in the processor of Thompson as taught by Honkanen to provide a control system that learns over time for peak performance.
Regarding claims 17-18, the combination discloses that the sensor can identify a blockage characteristic (flow rate) and differentiate what type and what amount of material is flowing through the conduit and can determine multiple types of material at the same type thereby determining which material is blocked based on a reduced flow of one of the types (column 4 lines 32-38).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner maintains that a reduction in flow would indicate a blockage that the processing system of Thompson would be capable of monitoring, Repas has been added for clear teaching that a reduction in flow can be monitored by a sensor and analyzed by the processing system as an indicator of blockage. Thompson discloses that the processing system monitors the sensors and identifies system characteristics such that control signals can be generated to control the system based on the sensor information. Repas discloses that the sensors can monitor for blockage. The combination therefore discloses that blockage can be monitored by the system and controlled based on the signals.
Regarding claim 14, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamie L McGowan whose telephone number is (571)272-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:00 CST.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671