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 .
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.
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 claim limitation(s) is/are: the processing and imaging devices in claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, and 19.
The processing device(s) are described at least in Par. [0007-0025; 0045-0047; 0055; 0061; 0065; 0066; 0069; 0071] of the specification – the disclosed multiple harvester apparatuses configured to process crop material, especially Par. [0061]; threshing basket, sieve, deck assembly, chopper, etc.
The imaging devices are described at least in Par. [0007-0025; 0048; 0052-0061; 0063-0069; 0071; 0072] of the specification – the disclosed multiple imaging apparatuses configured to image non-grain material, especially Par. [0051]; LiDAR, thermal imaging devices, infrared imaging devices, cameras (still image and video), etc.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/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 § 102
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.
Claims 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. PG Pub. 2022/0232770 to Yanke et al.
Regarding claim 16, Yanke discloses a method of adjusting processing devices of an agricultural machine to separate and clean crop material from a harvested crop comprising: imaging crop material comprising grain material and non-grain material (At least at Par. [0005; 0023-0031; 0070]; image sensors, 114; EHP/MOG); identifying characteristics of the non-grain material to identify the non-grain material elements (At least at Par. [0005; 0023-0031; 0070]; image sensors, 114; EHP/MOG, grains, ears, husk material, etc.); determining a position of the one or more of the processing devices of the agricultural machine (At least at Par. [0005]; “Determining a vector of the crop material relative to the agricultural header may include: identifying a feature of the crop material; identifying a boundary of the harvester header; generating a line from the feature to a location along the boundary; and detecting how the position of the feature changes over time relative to the location along the boundary of the agricultural header based on how a length and position of the line change relative to the location. Analyzing the one or more images containing at least a portion of the agricultural header to detect crop material present in the one or more images may include predicting whether the trajectory represents a loss of the crop material from the header.”; Par. [0031]; having region sensors capturing images of a region relative to the header); and adjusting the position of at least one of the one or more processing devices based on the identified non-grain material elements (At least at Par. [0005, 0023, 0027; 0035-0038]; adjusting the agricultural header based on MOG data and detected crop material trajectories and loss thresholds).
Regarding claim 17, Yanke discloses that the identified non-grain material elements comprise identified carrier elements (At least at Par. [0068]; image analyzer discerning grains from an ear, head, or pod).
Regarding claim 19, Yanke discloses an agricultural machine comprising: one or more processing devices for separating and cleaning grain (At least at Par. [102]); an actuator coupled to at least one of the one or more processing devices (At least at Par. [0036]; actuators of the header); an imaging device disposed at one of the one or more processing devices, the imaging device configured to image crop material comprising grain material and non-grain material (At least at Par. [0005; 0023-0031; 0070]; image sensors, 114; EHP/MOG); a controller operatively connected to the imaging device and to the actuator (At least at Par. [0024-0036]; control system, 112), wherein the controller is configured to: identify characteristics of the imaged grain material to identify grain material elements and the imaged non-grain material to identify non-grain material elements (At least at Par. [0005; 0023-0031; 0070]; image sensors, 114; EHP/MOG); determine a position of the one or more processing devices (At least at Par. [0005]; “Determining a vector of the crop material relative to the agricultural header may include: identifying a feature of the crop material; identifying a boundary of the harvester header; generating a line from the feature to a location along the boundary; and detecting how the position of the feature changes over time relative to the location along the boundary of the agricultural header based on how a length and position of the line change relative to the location. Analyzing the one or more images containing at least a portion of the agricultural header to detect crop material present in the one or more images may include predicting whether the trajectory represents a loss of the crop material from the header.”; Par. [0031]; having region sensors capturing images of a region relative to the header); and adjust the position of the one or more processing devices based on the identified grain material elements or the identified non-grain material elements (At least at Par. [0005, 0023, 0027; 0035-0038]; adjusting the agricultural header based on MOG data and detected crop material trajectories and loss thresholds).
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. 2022/0232770 to Yanke et al.
Regarding claim 1, Yanke discloses an agricultural machine comprising: a plurality of processing devices, wherein each of the processing devices is configured to process crop material including non-grain material (At least the combine harvester, 100/ agricultural header, 108/ row units, 110); one or more imaging devices each configured to image the non-grain material at one or more of the plurality of processing devices (At least at Par. [0024-0031]; image sensors, 114; MOG); a controller operatively connected to the one or more imaging devices (At least at Par. [0024-0031]; control system, 112), the controller comprising a processor and a memory (At least at Par. [0029]; processor, 202; memory, 204), wherein the memory is configured to store program instructions (At least at Par. [0151]; programming instructions) and the processor is configured to execute the stored program instructions to: image the non-grain material with the one or more imaging devices (At least at Par. [0026-0031]; sensors 114 to detect material other than grain (“MOG”)); identify a characteristic of the imaged non-grain material to identify non-grain material elements (At least at Par. [0005; 0070]; detecting a type of crop material present in the one or more images may include detecting at least one of a crop grain component (CGC”) of (“MOG”) of the crop being harvested; partial ears of corn, husk material, or other MOG); determine a position of one of the plurality of processing devices (At least at Par. [0005]; “Determining a vector of the crop material relative to the agricultural header may include: identifying a feature of the crop material; identifying a boundary of the harvester header; generating a line from the feature to a location along the boundary; and detecting how the position of the feature changes over time relative to the location along the boundary of the agricultural header based on how a length and position of the line change relative to the location. Analyzing the one or more images containing at least a portion of the agricultural header to detect crop material present in the one or more images may include predicting whether the trajectory represents a loss of the crop material from the header.”; Par. [0031]; having region sensors capturing images of a region relative to the header); and adjust the position of the one of the plurality of processing devices based on the identified non-grain material elements and the determined position of one of the plurality of processing devices (At least at Par. [0005, 0023, 0027; 0035-0038]; adjusting the agricultural header based on MOG data and detected crop material trajectories and loss thresholds).
It is noted that the above-relied upon portions of the disclosure of Yanke that disclose a majority of the claim elements (especially Par. [0024-0031]) discuss the use of a controller having a processor and memory for executing programs related to operation of the harvester. While those specific portions of the specification of Yanke do not expressly use the word “instructions,” it would have been readily understood by a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing that a controller having a processor and memory which operates programs would necessarily require instructions.
Nevertheless, later-relied upon portions of the Yanke reference which discuss additional implementations of the invention do expressly disclose “instructions” for imaging the non-grain data (At least at Par. [0151]). It is noted that, while not discussed in the same paragraphs/discussions of the invention, the separately described ‘implementations’ of Yanke being combined in this rejection do not contradict or interfere with each other in a manner that would not allow them to be used together.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have adopted the “instructions” for imaging in the later described implementations of Yanke at least at Par. [0151] in coordination with the programs processed in Par. [0024-0031] of Yanke in order to provide the disclosed processor with step-by-step tasks for managing the imaging captured by the sensors that sends data to the control system for the obvious benefit of adjustment of the header to reduce grain loss. Further, it is understood by those skilled in the art that a processor with a memory would necessarily use ‘instructions’ to render the disclosed processor operable for performing control functions of the harvester to perform the disclosed control functions of the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the primary reference, Yanke, discloses that the imaged non-grain material elements comprise grain carriers (At least at Par. [0068]; image analyzer discerning grains from an ear, head, or pod).
Regarding claim 3, the primary reference, Yanke, discloses that the grain carriers comprise at least one of a cob, a pod, or a hull (At least at Par. [0068]; image analyzer discerning grains from an ear, head, or pod).
Regarding claim 4, the primary reference, Yanke, discloses that the processor is configured to execute the stored program instructions to identify at least one of a color or shades of gray ranging from black to white or to identify dimensions of the grain carriers including at least one of length, width, or diameter (At least at Par. [0070]; crop material characterized by kernels, ears, partial ears (determined by a length of ear less being than a selected length), husk material or other MOG).
Regarding claim 5, the primary reference, Yanke, discloses that processing devices comprise at least one of deck plates, a threshing basket, a sieve, or a crop residue processing device (At least at Par. [0038]; deck plate).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. 2022/0232770 to Yanke et al. in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0072773 to Schroeder et al.
Regarding claim 6, the primary reference, Yanke, disclose the claimed invention except that the one or more imaging devices comprises a sieve imaging device configured to image grain carriers.
Nevertheless, Schroeder discloses that the one or more imaging devices comprises a sieve imaging device configured to image the grain carriers at the sieve (At least at Par. [0020-0024).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the harvester of Yanke to have a sieve accompanied by a sieve imaging device, as taught by Schroeder, in order to provide a means for separation of grain material from stalks for processing of the harvested grain.
Furthermore, though a sieve and thresher is not expressly discussed within Yanke, it is more than likely that Yanke utilizes a sieve and thresher since these are common elements in the harvesting arts. Additionally, Yanke discloses that the controller of Yanke can be programmed to control a grain cleaning and separation function at Par. [0102], which a PHOSITA would readily recognize as equating to a function typically performed at a sieve.
Claims 7-11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. 2022/0232770 to Yanke et al. in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2022/0394926 to Missotten et al., hereafter referred to as Missotten ‘926.
Regarding claim 7, the primary reference, Yanke, discloses that the processor is configured to execute the stored program instructions to identify elements (At least at Par. [0070]; crop material characterized by kernels, ears, partial ears (determined by a length of ear less being than a selected length), husk material or other MOG) of the identified grain carriers, but does not expressly disclose identification of corn cobs.
Nevertheless, Missotten ‘926 discloses identification of corn cobs (At least at Par. [0010]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the imaging apparatus of Yanke to being able to identify corn cobs, as taught by Missotten ‘926, to further detect the behavior the harvesting machine for adjustment of the header to decrease crop loss.
Further, though not expressly discussed by Yanke, harvesters typically have threshing apparatuses that separate kernels from cobs and it is likely that Yanke utilizes a threshing function after the ears are snapped off of the stalks by the disclosed deck plates. It is important to the harvesting operation to measure the effectiveness of the threshing by imaging the cobs to determine whether efficient kernel separation has occurred by analyzing threshed/unthreshed ratios and thresholds (Support found at least at Par. [0010] of Missotten ‘926), thus providing further motivation to combine the cob identification functionality of the threshing system of Missotten ‘926 with the harvester of Yanke.
Regarding claim 8, the previous combination of Yanke and Missotten ‘926 discloses the claimed invention except for adjustment of a threshing basket based on identified corn cob elements.
Nevertheless, Missotten ‘926 teaches a threshing basket (threshing and separating system, 24) and that 8. The agricultural machine of claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to execute the stored program instructions to adjust a position of one or more of the deck plates, the threshing basket, or the sieve based on the identified corn cob elements (At least at Par. [0037-0038]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the harvester of Yanke to having a threshing basket adjustable based on cob elements, as taught by Missotten ‘926, in order to collect and separate grain from ears that enter between the deck plates disclosed in Yanke. Furhter, though not expressly discussed, it is more than likely that Yanke has and utilizes a threshing basket since Yanke discusses its harvester performing a “grain separation” function, which a PHOSITA would readily recognize and equate with a threshing function.
Regarding 18, the primary reference, Yanke, discloses the claimed invention except for the specifically claimed carrier elements.
Nevertheless, Missotten ‘926 discloses that the identified carrier elements comprise corn cob elements, wherein the corn cob elements are identified as one of full cobs, portions of cobs, and split cobs (At least at Par. [0010]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the imaging apparatus of Yanke to being able to identify corn cobs, as taught by Missotten ‘926, to further detect the behavior the harvesting machine for adjustment of the header to decrease crop loss.
Further, though not expressly discussed by Yanke, harvesters typically have threshing apparatuses that separate kernels from cobs and it is likely that Yanke utilizes a threshing function after the ears are snapped off of the stalks by the disclosed deck plates. It is important to the harvesting operation to measure the effectiveness of the threshing by imaging the cobs to determine whether efficient kernel separation has occurred by analyzing threshed/unthreshed ratios and thresholds (Support found at least at Par. [0010] of Missotten ‘926), thus providing further motivation to combine the cob identification functionality of the threshing system of Missotten ‘926 with the harvester of Yanke.
Regarding 20, the primary reference, Yanke, discloses that the grain material comprises at least one of ears of corn or kernels of corn (At least at Par. [0068]), but does not expressly disclose that the non-grain material elements comprise corn cobs.
Nevertheless, Missotten ‘926 discloses that non-grain material elements comprise corn cobs (At least at Par. [0010]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the imaging apparatus of Yanke to being able to identify corn cobs, as taught by Missotten ‘926, to further detect the behavior the harvesting machine for adjustment of the header to decrease crop loss.
Further, though not expressly discussed by Yanke, harvesters typically have threshing apparatuses that separate kernels from cobs and it is likely that Yanke utilizes a threshing function after the ears are snapped off of the stalks by the disclosed deck plates. It is important to the harvesting operation to measure the effectiveness of the threshing by imaging the cobs to determine whether efficient kernel separation has occurred by analyzing threshed/unthreshed ratios and thresholds (Support found at least at Par. [0010] of Missotten ‘926), thus providing further motivation to combine the cob identification functionality of the threshing system of Missotten ‘926 with the harvester of Yanke.
Regarding claim 9, the primary reference, Yanke, discloses the claimed invention except for the crop residue device and crop residue imaging device imaging device.
Nevertheless, Missotten ‘926 discloses a threshing system and that one or more imaging devices comprises a crop residue imaging device located at the crop residue processing device to image corn cob elements of the imaged grain carriers (At least at Par. [0009-0014; 0034; 0042-0045]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the harvester of Yanke to have a threshing system, crop residue device, and crop residue imaging device imaging device, as taught by Missotten ‘926, in order to separate grain from the ears collected at the deck plates of Yanke and to provide downstream crop flow data for further dialing in a harvester to control harvesting operational settings to retrieve as much grain as possible for greater harvesting efficiency.
Further, though not expressly discussed by Yanke, harvesters typically have threshing apparatuses that separate kernels from cobs and it is likely that Yanke utilizes a threshing function after the ears are snapped off of the stalks by the disclosed deck plates. It is important to the harvesting operation to measure the effectiveness of the threshing by imaging the cobs to determine whether efficient kernel separation has occurred by analyzing threshed/unthreshed ratios and thresholds (Support found at least at Par. [0010] of Missotten ‘926), thus providing further motivation to combine the cob identification functionality of the threshing system of Missotten ‘926 with the harvester of Yanke.
Regarding claim 10, the primary reference, Yanke, discloses the claimed invention except for instructions to identify the imaged corn cob elements.
Nevertheless, Missotten ‘926 discloses that the processor is configured to execute the stored program instructions to identify the imaged corn cob elements (At least at Par. [0009-0014]; adjusting operational settings based on cob properties).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the previous combination of Yanke/ Missotten ‘926 to identify the imaged corn cob elements, as taught by Missotten ‘926, in order to adjust operational settings to increase/reduce threshing intensity while reducing power consumption for improved performance.
It is noted that the above-relied upon portions of the disclosure of Missotten ‘926 discuss the use of a controller for adjusting components/functions related to operation of the harvester. While those specific portions of the specification of Missotten ‘926 do not expressly use the word “instructions,” it would have been readily understood by a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing that a controller which operates to adjust components/functions of a harvester would necessarily require instructions.
Regarding claim 11, the previous combination of Yanke/ Missotten ‘926 discloses the claimed invention except for adjusting of a processing device based on the identified corn cob elements.
Nevertheless, Missotten ‘926 discloses that the processor is configured to execute the stored program instructions to adjust a position of one or more of the deck plates, the threshing basket, or the sieve, based on the identified corn cob elements (At least at Par. [0009-0014]; adjusting operational settings derived from physical properties).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the previous combination of Yanke/ Missotten ‘926 to identify the imaged corn cob elements for processing device adjustment, as taught by Missotten ‘926, in order to adjust operational settings to increase/reduce threshing intensity while reducing power consumption for improved performance.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. 2022/0232770 to Yanke et al. in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2009/0258684 to Missotten et al., hereafter referred to as Missotten ‘684.
Regarding claim 12, the primary reference Yanke, discloses the claimed invention except for a clean grain elevator and an imaging device located at a clean grain elevator.
Nevertheless, Missotten ‘684 teaches a clean grain elevator and that one of the one or more imaging devices is located at a clean grain elevator (10) and is configured to image at least one of kernels or corn cobs (At least at Par. [0048, 0160-0163, 0168]; clean grain elevator, 10/camera, 24).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modifed the harvester of Yanke to have a clean grain elevator imaging device, as taught by Missotten ‘684, in order to provide harvested grain quality feedback in real-time so that operational functions/equipment of the harvester can be adjusted to improve grain quality.
Regarding claim 13, the primary reference, Yanke, discloses an agricultural machine of wherein the processor is configured to execute the stored program instructions to identify sizes of the at least one of kernels or sizes of the corn cobs (At least at Par. [0048, 0160-0163, 0168]).
Regarding claim 14, the previous combination of Yanke/Missotten ‘684 discloses the claimed invention except for adjustment of the threshing basket based on kernel or cob size.
Nevertheless, Missotten ‘684 teaches that the processor is configured to execute the stored program instructions to adjust a position of a threshing basket based on at least one of the identified kernel size or the identified corn cob size (At least at Par. [0006, 0007, 0038-0044, 0051, 0060, 0185, 0186]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention to have adjusted a threshing basket, as taught by Missotten ‘684, in order to reduce damage to kernels for increased grain quality.
Further, though not expressly discussed by Yanke, harvesters typically have threshing apparatuses that separate kernels from cobs and it is likely that Yanke utilizes a threshing function after the ears are snapped off of the stalks by the disclosed deck plates. It is important to the harvesting operation to measure the effectiveness of the threshing by imaging the cobs to determine whether threshing intensity is dialed in, thus providing further motivation to combine the kernel quality identification functionality of the threshing system of Missotten ‘684 with the harvester of Yanke.
Regarding claim 15, the primary reference, Yanke, discloses that 15. The agricultural machine of claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to execute the stored program instructions to adjust the position of the deck plates processing device based on at least one of the identified kernel size or the identified corn cob size (At least at Par. [0037-0038]; alter header setting (such as deck plate spacing) based on grain quality data from the images, which includes grain size, coupled with grain cleanliness data, both influenced by MOG).
Additionally, Missotten ‘684 discloses adjustement of a header bar based on broken grain proportions measured at the clean grain elevator.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention to have adjusted upstream equipment (such as a header/deck plates), as taught by Missotten ‘684, in order to reduce damage to kernels at the collection points for increased grain quality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571)270-7429. 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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669