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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 6, 8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tobler et al. (US 5448069 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tobler discloses an apparatus for analyzing agricultural material (Fig. 6) comprising:
a housing (designated in dotted lines below) defining an inlet adjacent a first end of the housing and configured to receive the agricultural material (see annotated image below);
a first chamber (20) coupled to the inlet;
a first outlet (21) coupled to the first chamber;
a second chamber (25) coupled to the first chamber, the second chamber being positioned downstream of the first chamber (Fig. 6, see arrows representing flow of material) and including a metering conveyor (27);
a funnel portion (designated below) between the first chamber and the second chamber; and
a second outlet (designated below) adjacent a second end of the housing and coupled to the second chamber,
wherein the first outlet is configured to discharge at least a portion of the agricultural material (as seen exiting “first outlet” below) from the housing and bypassing the second chamber (as seen in Fig. 6, first outlet discharges at least a portion of the product stream from the housing formed by chambers 20,25 and toward a separate channel 24).
PNG
media_image1.png
775
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 6 of Tobler
Regarding claim 2, Tobler discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a first sensor (1) coupled to a first side of the housing (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Tobler discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a wall (continuous right side wall designated below) extending along at least a portion of the metering conveyor (27) from a first side (upper side) towards a second side (lower side) of the housing, wherein the funnel portion is defined by at least a portion of the wall (as seen below).
PNG
media_image2.png
735
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Tobler discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a width of the funnel portion tapers between the first chamber and the second chamber (funnel tapers downward between first chamber 20 and second chamber 25 as seen in annotated image above).
Regarding claim 11, Tobler discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first outlet is coupled to the second outlet (all elements in first and second chambers 20,25 are directly or indirectly “coupled” to each other).
Regarding claim 12, Tobler discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the metering conveyor (27) includes a metering wheel, an auger, or a roller (“screw conveyor 27”).
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottinger et al. (US 5560246 A) in view of Taneichi et al. (JP H10282028 A).
It is noted that all citations to Taneichi et al. (JP H10282028 A) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding independent claim 13, Bottinger discloses a system for analyzing agricultural material comprising:
an elevator (grain elevator E) including a first side (“downstream side”) and a second side (“upstream side”), the elevator extending from a first end (lower portion) to a second end (upper portion) (Fig. 1), the first end of the elevator including a receptacle formed between the first side and the second side, the receptacle configured to receive the agricultural material (implicit, lower portion of grain elevator configured to receive at least a portion of grain material); and
a first housing coupled to the elevator (Fig. 4), the first housing defining (refer to annotated image below for designations of each of the following elements):
a first inlet configured to receive at least a portion of the agricultural material, the first housing including,
a first chamber operatively coupled to the first inlet,
a first outlet coupled to the first chamber,
a second chamber coupled to the first chamber, the second chamber being positioned downstream of the first chamber,
a first funnel portion between the first chamber and the second chamber, and
a second outlet operatively coupled to the second chamber, wherein the first outlet is configured to discharge at least a portion of the agricultural material from the first housing and bypassing the second chamber (see col. 3 lines 26-27 and below, a portion of the grain flow from the inlet pours over and out the first outlet thus bypassing the second chamber).
PNG
media_image3.png
855
745
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 4 of Bottinger
Bottinger fails to disclose the second chamber including a first metering conveyor.
Taneichi discloses an apparatus 21 for analyzing agricultural material in a grain elevator 10 (Fig. 1-2) and operating in a substantially similar manner, wherein the housing comprises a funnel portion 28 +21b between an upper chamber 21a and lower chamber 21b of the housing for funneling material toward the lower chamber, the lower chamber having a metering conveyor 26 for discharging material through a lower outlet 15c (Fig. 3), wherein “the difference in grain amount gradually accumulates in the box body 21a, and eventually accumulates up to the upper end of the grain introduction plate 22 and then overflows” (para. [0028]) “from a separately formed overflow port” (bottom of para. [0030]), thereby achieving a constant amount of sample storage (bottom of para. [0013]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar metering conveyor for discharging material through the second outlet of Bottinger, as taught by Taneichi, in order to provide flow control means for advancing material at a controllable, preselected speed such that movement/discharge of the crop stream can be adjusted to achieve desired conditions for optimal grain measurement (Taneichi at para. [0026, 0030-0031]).
Regarding claim 14, Bottinger in view of Taneichi discloses the system of claim 13.
Bottinger does not explicitly detail wherein the elevator includes a plurality of paddles configured to deliver at least a portion of the agricultural material from the receptacle to the first inlet of the first housing via the first side (downstream side) of the elevator.
However, such deficiencies are cured by Taneichi, whereby the elevator 10 includes a plurality of paddles 13 configured to deliver at least a portion of the agricultural material from a receptacle 11 at the lower end of the elevator (Figs. 1-2, para. [0018]) to the first inlet 22 of the first housing 21 via the first side (downstream side) of the elevator (Fig. 3, para. [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize paddles for carrying crop material in the grain elevator of Bottinger, as taught by Taneichi, since there are a limited number of choices as to what conveying elements to use for such a purpose, and Taneichi teaches that paddles are old and well-known conveying elements for carrying crop material in a grain elevator as well as for delivering it to a measuring device in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Bottinger in view of Taneichi discloses the system of claim 13. Bottinger further discloses a first sensor (VC1) coupled to a first side of the first housing (Fig. 4) (Bottinger col. 6 lines 29-32 teaches VC1 is a capacitive-moisture sensor, Taneichi also discloses a capacitive-moisture sensor 24 mounted in a substantially similar manner).
Regarding claims 17-18, Bottinger in view of Taneichi discloses the system of claim 13.
Bottinger fails to disclose at least one second sensor coupled to a second side of the first housing, as per claim 17, wherein the second sensor includes one or more of a moisture sensor, a near-infrared (NIR) sensor, a temperature sensor, a capacitive sensor, and a proximity sensor, as per claim 18.
However, Taneichi further teaches a first sensor (24) coupled to a first side of the housing and a second sensor (23) coupled to a second side of the first housing (as seen in Fig. 1-2), wherein the second sensor includes one or more of a moisture sensor, a near-infrared (NIR) sensor, a temperature sensor, a capacitive sensor, and a proximity sensor (sensor 23 is a fill-level sensor, i.e. a proximity sensor, para. [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar fill-level sensor in the measuring device of Bottinger, as taught by Taneichi, in order to determine whether material is filled to a certain threshold level for sufficient measurements to be taken, and to allow for control of an active/inactive state of the auger accordingly (Taneichi at para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 19, Bottinger in view of Taneichi discloses the system of claim 13. Bottinger further discloses wherein the first outlet and the second outlet are configured to direct at least a portion of the agricultural material to the receptacle of the elevator (as seen in Fig. 4 of Bottinger above, material exiting both outlets is returned to downstream side of elevator).
Regarding claim 20, Bottinger in view of Taneichi discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the first funnel portion is defined by at least a portion of a wall of the first housing extending along at least a portion of the first metering conveyor from a first side (right side) of the first housing towards a second side (left side) of the first housing opposite the first side (inherent from combination w/ Taneichi, funnel portions extend along wall on each side of auger).
Regarding claims 1-6, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 13, 15-18, 20 respectively, and it has been determined that claims 1-6 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 13, 15-18, 20; therefore, claims 1-6 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 13, 15-18, 20.
Regarding claim 8, Bottinger in view of Taneichi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a width of the funnel portion tapers between the first chamber and the second chamber (Bottinger Fig. 4 or Taneichi Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Bottinger in view of Taneichi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first outlet is coupled to the second outlet (note all elements in first and second chambers are directly, indirectly, and/or operatively “coupled” to each other).
Regarding claim 12, Bottinger in view of Taneichi discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Taneichi further teaches wherein the metering conveyor (26) includes a metering wheel, an auger, or a roller (metering wheel/roller as seen in Fig. 3).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottinger in view of Taneichi as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Sierra et al. (US 20170112056 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Bottinger in view of Taneichi discloses the system of claim 15, but fails to wherein the first sensor comprises a camera.
Sierra teaches a similar apparatus for analyzing grain material wherein a camera (116) may be used to measure moisture content of the crop material (Figs. 3-4, para. [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the moisture sensor of Bottinger to include a camera, as taught by Sierra, in order to increase versatility of the measuring device by allowing for the determination of additional useful properties/measurements such as oil, protein, moisture content, yield, damaged grain, foreign materials in the agricultural material, pesticide resistance, herbicide resistance, genetically modified attributes, or other attributes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 22 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-6 and 8-22, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671