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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 20 November 2025 and the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 20 August 2025 and 20 November 2025.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1, 8, 12 have been amended.
Claims 15-16 and 18-19 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-24 have been added.
All art rejections and the 112b rejection in regards to cancelled Claims 15-16 and 18-19 from the previous office action have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment
Claims 1-14, 17, 20-24 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 12 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/20/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. 1) A copy of foreign reference 4 DE112014000996 was not provided to the Office with this filed IDS. 2) A complete and eligible copy of foreign reference 2 JP6216795 was not provided to the Office with this filed IDS. The text from the JP6216795 publication is missing from the provided copy. The information disclosure statement filed 11/20/25 also fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. The provided DE 1928065 reference listed under Foreign Patent Documents (Reference 1), is not in English and/or it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance in English or a written English-language translation of the reference or the Abstract is provided. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/20/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Note: Applicant is reminded of 37 CFR 1.98(5) states that that the number of pages of each NPL reference submitted must also be disclosed on the NPL’s listing on the IDS.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
yield monitor configured to collect in claim 1, 8
second operations unit configured to collect in claim 1
calibration system configured to record, verify, update, calibrate in claim 1, 8
calibration system configured to configured to determine in claim 3
grain cart vehicle system configured to collect in claim 1
calibration system configured to record, update, calibrate in claim 8
calibration system configured to process, verify, and apply in claim 11
yield monitor configured to collect, record in claim 12
grain cart weighing system configured to compile, calibrate in claim 12
grain cart weighing system configured to be calibrated in claims 14
yield monitor and grain cart weigh system configured to be calibrated in claim 17
automatic calibration system configured to process in claims 20-24
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14, 17, 20 remain and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claims 1-20, the claim limitation having the elements "(monitor, system, or second operations unit) configured to" is a limitation that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. No clear algorithm is shown in the specification to correspond to each of the claimed means. This is required as described in MPEP 2181 II.B.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 12-13, 17, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acheson et al (US20160345485) in further view of Beck et al (US 20040050138) in further view of Koch et al (US20200000031) in further view of Hamamoto (US 20100228521)
As per independent claim 1, Acheson et al discloses an automatic calibration system (Abstract, 0007, 0019: removing the need for a user to manually input crop characteristics into a system; thus automatic) comprising:
a) a combine vehicle system, comprising: (0016, 0020: harvester)
i) a first operations unit; (0020 – field computer. Computers have processors)
ii) at least one combine sensor; and (FIG 1, 2; 0016-0017, 0020 – sensors)
iii) a yield monitor configured to collect yield monitor data from the at least one combine sensor; (FIG 1, 2; 0016, 0020- yield monitor)
b) a grain cart vehicle system, comprising a second operations unit configured to collect grain cart system data; and (0019: measures true crop characteristics)
c) a data link between the combine vehicle system and grain cart vehicle system, wherein the calibration system is configured to: (FIG 2; 0021)
record a calibration load profile from the collected yield monitor data; (0017: determining harvest crop characteristics)
verify the recorded calibration load profile with grain cart system data; (0019, 0021, 0031: compares harvest crop characteristics with true crop characteristic)
calibrate the yield monitor. (0019,0031)
Furthermore, Acheson et al discloses the comparison includes calculating an average discrepancy between a total of each of the measured true crop characteristics and a total of each of the measured harvested crop characteristics. (0019,0031) However, Acheson et al fails to specifically disclose update the calibration load profile; and calibrate the yield monitor with the updated calibration load profile.
However, Beck et al discloses receiving calibration factor information and estimated weight of the collect grains from the harvester. The grain carrier determines the actual weight. In response, Beck discloses updating the received calibration factor using the different weight data with a new calibration factor (form of updating a calibration load profile). This new calibration factor is used to calibrate the yield monitor. (0022, 0027, 0029, 0031-0032, 0034)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified Acheson et al with the cited features of Beck et al since it would have provided time-saving method to update the calibration factor after every load. (0004)
Furthermore, Acheson et al discloses the first operations unit having a processor (0020 – field computer. Computers have processors). In addition, Beck et al discloses wherein the yield monitor and weighing systems are configured to be initially calibrated by comparing start and stop weights with weights (0027, 0034, 0042: formula using actual weights are used) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose: (i) determine unload start and stop times using a increasing correlator applied to a buffer of grain cart weight samples; and (iii) validate and weight calibration load profile using at least one of a bin sigma score derived from force-bin distributions and a speed distribution score.
However, Koch discloses determine unload start and stop times using a increasing correlator applied to a buffer of grain cart weight samples. FIG 2D and 0038 discloses a linear increasing weight correlator for calibration purposes. (see a plotted curve from a starting point near T(0) to an end point near T(60). 0038 discloses the timing period of 60 secs) Based on FIG. 2D and 0038, it would have been obvious to one of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the plotted line between T(0) and T(60) to determine the unload start and stop times based on where that curve starts and stops increasing because doing so would have presented an effective manner for doing so.
Furthermore, Koch discloses validating and weighting vehicle weight data (i.e., like the “calibration load profile”) using a sigma score derived from a force distribution. (Note: It is noted Applicant discloses bins as force ranges (0174) and bin sigma is similar a standard deviation (0177 of Applicant’s specification). 0068 of Koch discloses step 920 that “compares the data quality to a predetermined threshold. (form of validating) The threshold may comprise a predetermined percentage or number of standard deviations from of the average data quality criterion or simply a predetermined value.” Thus, 0068 discloses data (i.e., like the “calibration load profile”) being validated. Furthermore 0069 of Koch discloses after step 920 (“validating”), step 930 occurs that includes “ In embodiments in which the monitor system 320 calibrates mass flow sensor using a correction factor (e.g., as described with respect to FIG. 2B), the monitor system may continue using the last correction factor calculated before the data quality criterion exceeded the trusted data threshold.” Thus, step 930 discloses the correction factor is a form of “weight” on being applied to the validated data (i.e., like the “calibration load profile”). It is noted that FIG 2B discloses a multi-load calibration based on the different points shown where each point being a load. Thus, steps 920 and 930, disclose the correction factor being a “weight” that is used after the data has been “validated.” Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take such an approach (with the standard deviation being the equivalent of a “bin sigma score” according to 0177 of Applicant’s specification) as explained in 0068 and 0069 of Koch in order to perform proper calibration using trusted data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Koch et al since it would have provided the benefit of accurately calibrating the mass flow rate sensor of a yield monitor while harvesting. (0010)
Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose ii)compute unload start and stop weight by averaging grain cart weight samples over pre-unload and post-unload windows. However, Hamamoto discloses averaging weight samples to reduce the impact of measurement noise. (0033)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the cited art with the averaging weight samples by Hamamoto since it provided benefit of an desired averaging process to be adjusted so that the averaging process becomes appropriate for the situation in accordance with whether the object is light or heavy, the task of measurement (simple measurement of weight, gradual measurement) and the environment for the task. (0011)
Therefore, given the functionality of the correlator used to determine unload start and stops for calibration purposes disclosed by Koch and the functionality of averaging weight samples to reduce the impact of measurement noise as taught by Hamamoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have realized that the combination of these features would have generate the functionality of averaging weight samples when using the correlator to determine unload start and stop times in order to minimize the impact of measurement noise.
As per dependent claim 2, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Beck et al discloses the at least one combine sensor comprises a mass flow sensor and the calibration system is configured to calibrate the mass flow sensor. (abstract, 0005, 0021)
As per dependent claim 5, Acheson et al discloses the first operations unit is housed in a display. (0020: field computer displays… indicating that the field computer includes a display such that the processor within the computer is housed in a display since the field computer has a display)
As per dependent claim 6, Acheson et al discloses a cloud system (FIG 2; 0025: discloses a computer that remote from the harvester and stores data. This is a form of a cloud system).
As per dependent claim 7, Acheson et al discloses wherein the yield monitor data comprises at least one of raw mass sensor force data or flow data, crop type data, calibration load time and date, calibration load duration, moisture data, number of unloads and crop variety data. (0016, 0020: moisture)
As per independent claim 12, claim 12 recites similar limitations as in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Acheson et al discloses automatically at least one of the yield monitor and/or grain cart weighing system. (Abstract, 0007, 0019: removing the need for a user to manually input crop characteristics into a system; thus automatic). Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Beck et al discloses a grain cart weighing system configured to compile grain cart weight data (0034, 0042: grain cart weight determined/read)
Furthermore, Acheson et al discloses a system having a processor (0020 – field computer. Computers have processors) In addition, Beck et al discloses wherein the yield monitor and weighing systems are configured to be initially calibrated by comparing start and stop weights with weights (0027, 0034, 0042: formula using actual weights are used) In addition, as explained in claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Koch discloses determine unload start and stop times using a linear increasing correlator and Hamamoto discloses compute unload start and stop weights by averaging weight samples over defined windows. Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Koch discloses score calibration load profiles using a bin sigma score and applying weighting during multi-load calibration. (Note: It is noted Applicant discloses bins as force ranges (0174) and bin sigma is similar a standard deviation (0177 of Applicant’s specification). 0068 of Koch discloses step 920 that “compares the data quality to a predetermined threshold. (form of validating) The threshold may comprise a predetermined percentage or number of standard deviations from of the average data quality criterion or simply a predetermined value.” Thus, 0068 discloses data (i.e., like the “calibration load profile”) being validated. Furthermore 0069 of Koch discloses after step 920 (“validating”), step 930 occurs that includes “ In embodiments in which the monitor system 320 calibrates mass flow sensor using a correction factor (e.g., as described with respect to FIG. 2B), the monitor system may continue using the last correction factor calculated before the data quality criterion exceeded the trusted data threshold.” Thus, step 930 discloses the correction factor is a form of “weight” on being applied to the validated data (i.e., like the “calibration load profile”). It is noted that FIG 2B discloses a multi-load calibration based on the different points shown where each point being a load. Thus, steps 920 and 930, disclose the correction factor being a “weight” that is used after the data has been “validated.” Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take such an approach (with the standard deviation being the equivalent of a “validate/score calibration load profiles using a bin sigma score” according to 0177 of Applicant’s specification) as explained in 0068 and 0069 of Koch in order to perform proper calibration using trusted data.
As per dependent claim 13, Claim 13 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As per dependent claim 17, Acheson et al discloses wherein yield monitor and grain cart weighing system are configured to be automatically calibrated for crop conditions. (Abstract, 0007, 0016, 0019: calibrating based on crop weight, crop moisture, crop temperature, and/or volume of harvested crop)
As per dependent claim 24, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and 12 and the rationale, including the motivation, incorporated, Koch et al disclose applying a multipoint calibration correction (FIG 2B and 0033: discloses a multipoint calibration correction. FIG 2B is similar to FIG. 6-8 of Applicant’s filed drawings)
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acheson et al in further view of Beck et al in further view of Koch et al in further view of Hamamoto in further view of Zielke et al (US 20160174465, 2016)
As per dependent claim 3, the cited art fails to disclose determine that the combine grain tank is empty via unload timing, via unload rotations, via material out sensor or via grain cart weight system. However, Zielke et al discloses bin level sensor that determines when the combine tank is empty (0016)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified Acheson et al with the cited features of Zielke et al since it would have provided a method and system for a combine bin level monitoring that is convenient to use and aids in a combine operator's ability to manage the harvest process in an effective and efficient manner. (0010)
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acheson et al in further view of Beck et al in further view of Koch et al in further view of Hamamoto in further view of Asebedo et al (US 20210051849, 2021)
As per dependent claim 4, the cited art fails to disclose at least one GNSS system. However, Asebedo et al disclose at least one GNSS system (0033)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified Acheson et al with the cited features of Asebedo et al since it would have provided the benefit of improving combine yield monitor system calibrations and mass flow sensing in order to improve reliability and accuracy (0004)
Claim(s) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acheson et al in further view of Beck et al in further view of Koch et al in further view of Meier et al (US9983048, 2018)
As per independent claim 8, Acheson et al discloses an automatic calibration system (Abstract, 0007, 0019: removing the need for a user to manually input crop characteristics into a system; thus automatic) comprising:
a) a combine vehicle system, comprising: (0016, 0020: harvester) a yield monitor configured to collect yield monitor data from the at least one combine sensor; (FIG 1, 2; 0016, 0020- yield monitor; (FIG 1, 2; 0016-0017, 0020 – sensors)
b) a grain cart vehicle system configured to collect grain cart system data; and (0019: measures true crop characteristics)
c) a data link between the combine vehicle system and grain cart vehicle system, wherein the calibration system is configured to: (FIG 2; 0021)
record a calibration load profile from the collected yield monitor data; (0017: determining harvest crop characteristics)
calibrate the yield monitor. (0019,0031)
Furthermore, Acheson et al discloses the comparison includes calculating an average discrepancy between a total of each of the measured true crop characteristics and a total of each of the measured harvested crop characteristics. (0019,0031) However, Acheson et al fails to specifically disclose update the calibration load profile; and calibrate the yield monitor with the updated calibration load profile.
However, Beck et al discloses receiving calibration factor information and estimated weight of the collect grains from the harvester. The grain carrier determines the actual weight. In response, Beck discloses updating the received calibration factor using the different weight data with a new calibration factor (form of updating a calibration load profile). This new calibration factor is used to calibrate the yield monitor. (0022, 0027, 0029, 0031-0032, 0034)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified Acheson et al with the cited features of Beck et al since it would have provided time-saving method to update the calibration factor after every load. (0004)
Furthermore, Acheson et al discloses combine vehicle system comprises an operations unit having a processor (0020 – field computer. Computers have processors) In addition, Beck et al discloses wherein the yield monitor and weighing systems are configured to be initially calibrated by comparing start and stop weights with weights (0027, 0034, 0042: formula using actual weights are used) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose determine unload start and stop times using a linear increasing correlator on weight samples.
However, Koch discloses determine unload start and stop times using a increasing correlator applied to a buffer of grain cart weight samples. FIG 2D and 0038 discloses a linear increasing weight correlator for calibration purposes. (see a plotted curve from a starting point near T(0) to an end point near T(60). 0038 discloses the timing period of 60 secs) Based on FIG. 2D and 0038, it would have been obvious to one of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the plotted line between T(0) and T(60) to determine the unload start and stop times based on where that curve starts and stops increasing because doing so would have presented an effective manner for doing so.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Koch et al since it would have provided the benefit of accurately calibrating the mass flow rate sensor of a yield monitor while harvesting. (0010)
Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose apply acceptance thresholds based on minimum load weight and motion-induced signal noise. However, Meier et al discloses the subject matter of apply acceptance thresholds based on minimum load weight and motion-induced signal noise. (FIG. 6, Col 6, ll. 57-65; Col. 7, ll. 29-Col 8, ll.2: detect weights of grain transactions (cart loads and unloads) based on the generation of noise thresholds includes minimum load parameter (e.g. minimum load weight) wherein the noise thresholds are based on the noise measurement)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Meier et al since it would have provided the benefit of accurately calibrating the mass flow rate sensor of a yield monitor while harvesting. (0010)
As per dependent claim 9, Acheson et al discloses wherein the yield monitor data comprises at least one of raw mass sensor force data or flow data, crop type data, calibration load time and date, calibration load duration, moisture data, number of unloads and crop variety data. (0016, 0020: moisture)
As per dependent claim 10, based on the rejection of Claim 8 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Beck et al discloses wherein the grain cart system data comprises at least one of grain cart weighing system data, grain cart ID data, grain cart start weight data, grain cart location data, grain cart loading or unloading date and time, grain cart tilt, roll and pitch, grain cart speed data during loading or unloading, grain cart stop weight data, and grain cart load duration data (0034: start/initial, stop/final weight data)
As per dependent claim 11, Acheson et al discloses process and verify calibration load profiles and apply corrections (0019, 0021, 0031: compares harvest crop characteristics with true crop characteristic; 0031: adjust the measured harvested crop characteristic to more accurately reflect the true crop characteristic measurement (form of correction))
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acheson et al in further view of Beck et al in further view of Koch et al in further view of Hamamoto in further view of GIS Ag Maps (here in as “GIS), “Yield Monitor Data Post-Calibration (Linear and Non-Linear) Examples”, 1/20/2022, 8 pages)
As per dependent claim 14, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the grain cart weighing system is configured to be calibrated via linear correction. However, GIS discloses calibrating via linear correction (pg 1-4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modify Acheson et al with the cited features of Myers since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of a more accurate estimate of yield, both across the farm and by location within a field.
Claim(s) 20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acheson et al in further view of Beck et al in further view of Koch et al in further view of Hamamoto in further view of Bonefas (US201403111113, 2014)
As per dependent claim 20, the cited art fails to specifically disclose process grain cart load profiles and / or grain cart weight system weight by applying at least one correction selected from the group consisting of: an upper and lower range calibration; a linear calibration correction; a bi-linear calibration correction; a multi-point calibration correction; a motion correction; a crop type corrections; a combine speed correction; and a grain cart speed correction. However, Bonefas discloses the speed of the grain cart is adjusted to match the speed of the combine, a form of grain cart speed correction. (0052, 0073, 0077, 0079)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modify Acheson et al with the cited features of Bonefas since it would have provided the benefit of achieving an even fill of the grain cart by choreograph the movements of the combine and grain cart (0002)
As per dependent claim 22, based on the rejection of Claim 8 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Bonefas discloses the speed of the grain cart is adjusted to match the speed of the combine (0052, 0073, 0077, 0079), a form of motion correction since the motion speed of the grain cart is adjusted to match the motion speed of the combine.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acheson et al in further view of Beck et al in further view of Koch et al in further view of Hamamoto in further view of Luck et al (“Precision Agriculture -- Best Management Practices for Collecting Accurate Yield Data and Avoiding Errors during Harvest”, 2014, 6 pages)
As per dependent claim 21, the cited art fails to specifically disclose applying a bi-linear calibration correction. However, Luck et al discloses applying a bi-linear calibration correction (Mass Flow Sensor Calibration: pages 2-3; FIG 3B: multi linear regression corresponding to the data measurement. FIG 3B is analogous to Applicant’s FIG 9 and Paragraphs 0130-0131)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Luck et al since it would have provided the benefit of reducing the error from mass flow sensor estimates by improving the sensor output equation or curve.(pg 3)
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acheson et al in further view of Beck et al in further view of Koch et al in further view of Hamamoto in further view of Middelburg et al (US20150245560)
As per dependent claim 23, the cited art fails to specifically disclose applying a crop type correction. However, Middelberg et al discloses performing a crop type detection based on determining the crop type (0012, 0033, 0046; claim 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Middelberg et al since it would have provided the benefit of developing an agricultural working machine such that a highly accurate determination of the moisture content in the crop is even more accurate. (0008)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, in regards to claims 1-14, 17, 20 rejected under 112(b), Applicant argues [065]-[070], and FIG. 1B describe the various computing structures capable of executing the claimed functions. In additional, Applicant argues claims 1, 8, and 12 have been amended to affirmative recite "a processor.” Thus, Applicant recites that the 112(b) rejection should be withdrawn for these reasons. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In regards to claims 1, 8, and 12 being amended to include a “processor”, the Examiner respectfully states that only the “first operations unit” was amended to indicate the “first operations unit” has a processor and not the claimed yield monitor, second operation units, calibration system, grain cart vehicle system, automatic calibration system, and grain cart weigh system. Therefore, these terms do not recite sufficient structure to perform their respective recited function. Thus, the listed claims still invoke 112(f)
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully states that Paragraph 065-070 and FIG 1B does not clearly, explicitly, and definitely state that the yield monitor, second operation units, calibration system, grain cart vehicle system, automatic calibration system, and/or grain cart weigh system has the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. First, it is noted that these citations do not recite the terms “calibration system”, “grain cart vehicle system”, “automatic calibration system, and “grain cart weigh system” are not mentioned or described in any way in 065-070. Therefore, terms “calibration system”, “grain cart vehicle system”, “automatic calibration system, and “grain cart weigh system” are not explicitly defined in the specification resulting in structure being explicitly defined/present; therefore, resulting in the “calibration system”, “grain cart vehicle system”, “automatic calibration system, and “grain cart weigh system” not having any specific, limited, structural meaning in Applicant’s specification. In other words, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function of the “calibration system”, “grain cart vehicle system”, “automatic calibration system, and “grain cart weigh system” limitations. In regards to the “yield monitor” term, only 069 of 065-070 mentions the term; however, only states “the yield monitor 28 is in direct operational communication with some or all of the various sensors” and “the yield monitor 28 may be operating on, for example, the combine system 12 but be in operational communication with both vehicle systems”. Thus, 069 only discloses the yield monitor has communications with sensors. In addition, 069 discloses an example of yield monitor may be located and possible operational communication. Therefore, 069 discloses possible examples of possible functionalities of a yield monitor may have. However, examples are not definitions. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Describing examples of functionalities of a yield monitor is not considered explaining structure of the yield monitor. Thus, term “yield monitor” is not explicitly defined in the specification resulting in structure being explicitly defined/present; therefore, resulting in the “yield monitor” not having any specific, limited, structural meaning in Applicant’s specification. In regards to the “second operations unit” term, 067 discloses the (second) operations unit is “configured for the sending and receiving of data for storage and processing” Thus, 067 only discloses communication functionalities of the operation unit. In addition, 068 discloses an operations unit further has examples of optional processing and computing components. However, examples are not definitions. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Thus, term “second operation unit” is not explicitly defined in the specification resulting in structure being explicitly defined/present; therefore, resulting in the “second operation unit” not having any specific, limited, structural meaning in Applicant’s specification. In other words, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function of the second operation unit limitation. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 12 remain rejected under 112 (b) for this reason.
Furthermore, even if Applicant’s specification does disclose corresponding structure for the navigator limitation (Which the Examiner disagrees), a clear algorithm must also be shown in the specification to correspond to the claimed navigator. Applicant’s arguments did not indicate where a clear algorithm for the claimed navigator within Applicant’s specification. 2181 II.B. clearly states “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).” Therefore, the Examiner was unable to find an algorithm for the claimed navigator limitation. Therefore, claim 1 also remains rejected under 112 (b) for this reason.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, 12 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) since the new ground(s) of rejection(s) was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
All other arguments on page 3 that were not addressed by the Examiner, are referring to the dependent claims which are in reference or depend to the topics above, thus the rationale above can be used to respond to the similar arguments and/or Examiner's explanation used in the rejection of those claims as described in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172