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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20, 22, 25-26, 28-29, and 31-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/22/26.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is longer than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 5-6, 9, 12, 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 5 recites “determination of the ingredients”, should read – determination of ingredients – to fix antecedent basis issue.
Claim 6, line 3 recites “directed at the same area of the cut subset”, should read – directed at a same area of the cut subset – to fix antecedent basis issue.
Claim 9, line 2 recites “the certain residual portion”, should read – the residual portion – due to earlier mention of the residual portion in claim 5, line 9 not being “certain”.
Claim 12, line 2 recites “in that: (i) the beet harvester”, should read – in that: the beet harvester –.
Claim 12, line 3 and 5 both recite “the cutting device”, should read – a cutting device –.
Claim 19, line 3 recites “the specific useful portion”, should read – a specific useful portion –.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-6, 9 and 19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5, line 3 sets forth “at least a second subset”. However, there isn’t a first subset claimed; therefore, it is unclear how to have a second subset without the first.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected due to dependency on claim 5.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the specific ingredients" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speth (EP 0791287 A2) in view of Sandbank (US 4324336 A).
Regarding claim 1, Speth discloses a mobile system (see Fig. 2) for harvesting and/or transporting and/or loading (harvests, transports, and loads the sugar beets, see Fig. 2) sugar beets [8] and comprising a conveyor [1] for movement of the sugar beets within the mobile system (see Figs. 1-3), but fails to disclose an optical imaging system configured to determine several useful portions of the sugar beets suitable for sugar production, wherein the several useful portions of the sugar beets suitable for sugar production include a portion of beet heads and a portion of beet bodies and a portion of beet tails.
Sandbank discloses a similar mobile system (harvester, see Col. 3, lines 10-12) for harvesting root crops and comprising a conveyor [1], characterized by an optical imaging system [5] configured to determine several useful portions of the root crops suitable for production (identifies the root crop out of foreign material, see Col. 3, lines 19-31; therefore determines portions of the head, body, and tail of crop as a useful portion), wherein the several useful portions of the root crops suitable for production include a portion of heads and a portion of bodies and a portion of tails (determines the useful portions through identifying the entire root crop as it passes the optical system, see Col. 3, lines 19-31; therefore, determines the portions of the head, body, and tail of the crop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the optical imaging system of Sandbank on the conveyor within the mobile system of Speth in order to determine and deflect foreign objects from the stream of crop material while continuing harvest (see Sandbank Col. 3, lines 19-31). Therefore, it can be seen when the optical imaging system of Sandbank is applied to the mobile system of Speth that the root crop determined by the optical imaging system are sugar beets.
Regarding claim 3, Speth, of the above resultant combination, further discloses a beet holder (conveyor [1] holds the beets and forms a bed or beet stream, see Fig. 1) for the receipt of at least a first portion of the sugar beets [8] as a bed or beet stream (see Fig. 1), but fails to disclose wherein the optical image capture system has a first optical image capture device for the detection of the bed or the beet stream, which is configured to determine a portion of beet heads and/or beet bodies and/or beet tails in the bed or the beet stream as a useful portion and/or to determine a portion of foreign bodies, in particular leaves, weeds or dirt, in the bed or the beet stream as a residual portion, and; a separating device for separating the certain residual portion, in particular the portion of foreign bodies, from the bed or the beet stream.
However, Sandbank discloses a similar beet holder (conveyor [1] holds the root crop and forms a bed stream, see Fig. 1) wherein the optical image capture system [5] has a first optical image capture device [13 and 15] for the detection of the bed or the beet stream (see Col. 3, lines 37-43), which is configured to determine a portion of beet heads and/or beet bodies and/or beet tails in the bed or the beet stream as a useful portion (determines the useful portions through identifying the entire root crop as it passes the optical system, see Col. 3, lines 19-31; therefore, determines the portions of the head, body, and tail of the crop) and/or to determine a portion of foreign bodies, in particular leaves, weeds or dirt, in the bed or the beet stream as a residual portion (determines foreign bodies such as stones as a residual potion, see Col. 3, lines 19-31; while stones is given as an example, any material other than root crop is identified as a residual portion), and;
a separating device [7] for separating the certain residual portion, in particular the portion of foreign bodies, from the bed or the beet stream (pivoting finger [9] removes residual portion from useful portion, see Col. 3, lines 19-31).
It can be seen then that when the optical image capture system of Sandbank is provided to the conveyor within the mobile device of Speck that the optical image capture system determines the sugar beets as the useful portion and the foreign material as the residual portion within the beet stream as disclosed by Sandbank (see Col. 3, lines 19-31 and Fig. 1). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the separating device of Sandbank on the conveyor within the mobile device of Speck in order to remove the identified residual portion from the bed stream while harvesting (see Sandbank Col. 3, lines 19-31).
Regarding claim 10, Speth, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the mobile system (see Fig. 2) is designed as a beet harvester (see para. [0025], lines 1-2) and has a harvesting device (picks sugar beets from ground [25] and conveys them into the harvester, see para. [0025], lines 5-7) for harvesting the sugar beets and a storage bunker ([24], see para. [0028], lines 2-5) for storing the sugar beets.
Regarding claim 14, Speth, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the mobile system (see Fig. 2) is designed as a beet cleaning loader (cleans beets after harvest and loads them into a truck, see para. [0025], lines 3-4) and a receiving unit (truck, not shown, that receives the sugar beets from the mobile system, see para. [0025, lines 13-15) for receiving sugar beets, a cleaning unit ([15], see Fig. 2 and para. [0025], lines 27-30) for cleaning the picked up sugar beets and an overloader [17] for dispensing the cleaned sugar beets, in particular a separate transport vehicle (dispenses to the receiving unit, see para. [0025], lines 13-22).
Regarding claim 17, Speth, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the mobile system (see Fig. 2) is designed as a beet transporter (mobile vehicle that harvests sugar beets; therefore, is transporting the beets from the ground to another location, see Fig. 2) and has a loading area [16] for the reception of the sugar beets (receives the sugar beets from harvesting device, see para. [0025], lines 5-7).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speth (EP 0791287 A2) and Sandbank (US 4324336 A) as applied to claims 1, 3, 10, 14 and 17 above, and further in view of Friedhoff et al. (US 20100216114 A1) and Boulard (FR 2807163 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the above combination discloses the mobile system as applied, but fails to disclose a cutting device for cutting at least a second subset of the sugar beets into a cut subset comprising cut sugar beets and foreign bodies, in particular leaves, weeds or dirt, and a near-infrared spectroscopy device for the determination of the ingredients of the cut subset, in particular the cut sugar beets, wherein the optical image capture system has a second optical image capture device for the detection of the cut subset, which is configured to determine a portion of the cut sugar beets as the useful portion and/or a portion of the foreign bodies in the cut subset as the residual portion.
Friedhoff et al. discloses a similar mobile system (see para. [0027], lines 1-10) comprising a conveyor [5] for movement of the sugar beets (see para. [0001], lines 1-3 and para. [0002], lines 1-5) and a cutting device [14] for cutting at least a second subset (subset of sugar beets entering cutting device [14], see Fig. 1) of the sugar beets into a cut subset (see Fig. 1) comprising cut sugar beets (see para. [0029], lines 5-13), and a near-infrared spectroscopy device ([9]; see para. [0025], lines 1-13) for the determination of the ingredients of the cut subset, in particular the cut sugar beets (see para. [0034], lines 1-9 and para. [0035], lines 1-10) (please see 112(b) rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cutting device and near-infrared spectroscopy device of Friedhoff et al. on the conveyor within the mobile system of Speth and Sandbank in order to chop the sugar beets into even-sized pieces to create an even distribution on the conveyor for ease of determining ingredients of the subset (see Friedhoff et al. para. [0029], lines 5-13) and identify the concentration of quality-ingredients within the sugar beets with high precision while continuing to harvest (see Friedhoff et al. para. [0035], lines 1-10). It can be seen then that when the cutting device of Friedhoff et al. is provided to the mobile system of Speth and Sandbank that the cutting device cuts sugar beets and foreign bodies together, allowing for the optical image capture system of Sandbank to identify the sugar beets from the foreign material (see Sandbank Col. 3, lines 19-31).
But Friedhoff et al. fails to disclose wherein the optical image capture system has a second optical image capture device for the detection of the cut subset, which is configured to determine a portion of the cut sugar beets as the useful portion and/or a portion of the foreign bodies in the cut subset as the residual portion.
Boulard discloses a similar mobile system (mobile system of conveyor, see Fig. 1) comprising a conveyor [2] for sugar beets [1] wherein the optical image capture system [15 and 16] has a second optical image capture device [16] for the detection of the sugar beets [8], which is configured to determine a portion of the sugar beets as the useful portion and/or a portion of the foreign bodies in the as the residual portion (determines beets from foreign objects and the morphological parameters of the beets, see para. [0005], lines 8-19; therefore, determines the beets are the useful portion and the foreign objects as the residual portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second optical image capture device of Boulard within the optical image capture system of Sandback in order to further identify the useful and residual portions of the beet stream through their morphological parameters (see Boulard para. [0005], lines 8-19).
Regarding claim 6, Boulard, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the second optical image capture device [16] directed at an area of the subset (see Fig. 1) spread on the conveyor [2], but fails to disclose the near-infrared spectroscopy device directed at the same area.
However, Friedhoff et al. discloses the near-infrared spectroscopy device ([9]; see para. [0025], lines 1-13) directed at an area of the cut subset (see Fig. 1) spread on the conveyor [5].
It can be seen then that when the second optical image capture device of Boulard and the near-infrared spectroscopy device of Friedhoff et al. is provided to the conveyor on the mobile system of Speth and Sandbank that the second optical image capture device and near-infrared spectroscopy device are directed to the same area of the cut subset due to being directed to the same conveyor.
Regarding claim 9, Sandbank, of the above resultant combination, further discloses a separating device [7] for separating the certain residual portion (determines foreign bodies such as stones as a residual potion, see Col. 3, lines 19-31; while stones is given as an example, any material other than root crop is identified as a residual portion), in particular the portion of foreign bodies (pivoting finger [9] removes residual portion from useful portion, see Col. 3, lines 19-31), but fails to disclose separating the certain residual portion from the cut.
However, Friedhoff et al. discloses a cutting device [14] for cutting at least the second subset (subset of sugar beets entering cutting device [14], see Fig. 1) of the sugar beets into a cut subset (see Fig. 1) comprising cut sugar beets (see para. [0029], lines 5-13).
It can be seen then that when the cutting device of Friedhoff et al. is provided to the conveyor within the mobile system of Speck, Sandbank, and Boulard that the separating device of Sandbank separates the residual portion from the cut sugar beets as disclosed by Sandbank (see Col. 3, lines 19-31).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speth (EP 0791287 A2) and Sandbank (US 4324336 A) as applied to claims 1, 3, 10, 14 and 17 above, and further in view of Friedhoff et al. (US 20100216114 A1)
Regarding claim 12, Speck, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the beet harvester comprises a feed device which is set up to feed sugar beets from the storage bunker to the cutting device;
or the beet harvester (see Fig. 2) comprises a feed device ([16]; feeds the sugar beets to the conveyor [1], see Figs. 1-3) which is set up to feed beets harvested with the harvesting device (picks sugar beets from ground [25] and conveys them into the harvester, see para. [0025], lines 5-7) without the sugar beets reaching the storage bunker ([24], see para. [0028], lines 2-5).
But Speck fails to disclose the cutting device.
Friedhoff et al. discloses a similar mobile system (see para. [0027], lines 1-10) comprising a conveyor [5] for movement of the sugar beets (see para. [0001], lines 1-3 and para. [0002], lines 1-5) and a cutting device [14] for cutting at least a second subset (subset of sugar beets entering cutting device [14], see Fig. 1) of the sugar beets into a cut subset (see Fig. 1) comprising cut sugar beets (see para. [0029], lines 5-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cutting device of Friedhoff et al. on the conveyor within the mobile system of Speth and Sandbank in order to chop the sugar beets into even-sized pieces to create an even distribution on the conveyor for ease of determining ingredients of the subset (see Friedhoff et al. para. [0029], lines 5-13); therefore, when the cutting device of Friedhoff et al. is applied to the conveyor of Speth and Sandbank, the beet harvester of Speck feeds the harvested beets to the cutting device without them reaching the storage bunker as disclosed by Sandbank (see Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speth (EP 0791287 A2) and Sandbank (US 4324336 A) as applied to claims 1, 3, 10, 14 and 17 above, and further in view of Panigrahi et al. (US 6845326 B1).
Regarding claim 19, the above combination discloses the mobile system as applied above, but fails to disclose a communication interface, in particular for wireless communication, via which data regarding the specific useful portion and/or a specific residual portion and/or the specific ingredients can be transmitted, in particular to a sugar production plant.
Panigrahi et al. discloses a similar mobile system [30] comprising a communication interface [151], in particular for wireless communication, via which data can be transmitted (see Col. 7, lines 25-59), in particular to a sugar production plant (see Col. 6, lines 57-67 and Col. 7, lines 60-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the communication interface of Panigrahi et al. on the mobile system of Speth and Sandbank in order to communicate information obtained by the optical sensor with a user (see Panigrahi et al. Col. 7, lines 25-59); therefore, when the communication interface of Panigrahi et al. is applied to the mobile system of Speth and Sandbank, the communication interface shares data regarding the useful portion and/or a specific residual portion obtained by the optical sensor of Sandbank (see Col. 3, lines 19-31).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for the full list of references.
Reference US 4624367 discloses an optical sensor [14] for determining useful and residual portions, and a separating device [15] for separating the residual portion from the useful portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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, Christopher 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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights