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 .
Application Status
Claims 16-34 are pending in the application currently. All pending claims are eligible for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comma following “x-ray” is inappropriately placed; to mirror claim 17, the comma should follow “ultraviolet”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 25, 26, 31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fischer et al. (2022/0053692 hereinafter Fischer).
With respect to claim 16, Fischer discloses a grain loss sensing system for a combine harvester (in paragraph 14, Fischer discloses a sensor system for a combine harvester than can sense when husks are empty, which is a type of grain loss sensing since husks that are full and being discarded are lost grain), said grain loss sensing system comprising
at least one emitter (in figure 2, Fischer discloses light source 28, which is an emitter since it emits light – see paragraph 69);
at least one receiver (in figure 2, Fischer discloses first sensor 10, which receives data by sensing – as described in paragraph 69, the sensor is meant to record light emitted by the light source 28); and
a processor, wherein the processor uses what is received by the receiver to calculate grain loss (in paragraph 33, Fischer discloses a processor 29 that analyzes sensor data and determines harvested material parameters, like grain loss).
With respect to claim 17, Fischer discloses the limitations of claim 16. Fischer further discloses the system uses at least one of microwave, ultraviolet, and x-ray technology to sense grain loss (in paragraph 36, Fischer discloses using x-rays).
With respect to claim 25, the limitations of this claim are a method for using the system of claim 16. Since Fischer has already been shown to anticipate the limitations of claim 16, it also anticipates the limitations of claim 25.
With respect to claim 26, Fischer discloses the limitations of claim 25. Fischer further discloses the system uses at least one of microwave, ultraviolet, and x-ray technology to sense grain loss (in paragraph 36, Fischer discloses using x-rays).
With respect to claim 31, Fischer discloses the limitations of claim 16. Fischer further discloses the system uses photographic technology to sense grain loss (in the abstract, Fischer discloses that the optical sensor senses image data; photographic technology includes sensors that sense images, so the optical sensor reads on photographic technology).
With respect to claim 34, Fischer discloses the limitations of claim 25. Fischer further discloses using photographic technology to sense grain loss (in the abstract, Fischer discloses that the optical sensor senses image data; photographic technology includes sensors that sense images, so the optical sensor reads on photographic technology).
Claims 16, 18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lenaerts et al. (2023/0084831 hereinafter Lenaerts).
With respect to claim 16, Lenaerts discloses a grain loss sensing system for a combine harvester (in the abstract, Lenaerts discloses a system for determining threshing loss which is a type of grain loss), said grain loss sensing system comprising
at least one emitter (in figure 3, Lenaerts discloses emitter 210, described in paragraph 33);
at least one receiver (in figure 3 and paragraph 33, Lenaerts discloses sensor 220, which reads on a receiver because it measures transmission of the electromagnetic waves sent by emitter 210); and
a processor, wherein the processor uses what is received by the receiver to calculate grain loss (in figure 3, Lenaerts discloses processor 110 that receives the data from loss sensors that include an emitter 210 and sensor 220 – as described in paragraph 32, the controller measures threshing losses).
With respect to claim 18, Lenaerts discloses the limitations of claim 16. Lenaerts further discloses the system is configured to relay results to an operator so that the operator can make adjustments (in paragraph 32, Lenaerts discloses communicating threshing losses to a user).
With respect to claim 25, the limitations of this claim are a method for using the system of claim 16. Since Lenaerts has already been shown to anticipate the limitations of claim 16, it also anticipates the limitations of claim 25.
Claims 16, 25, 29, 31, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoskinson et al. (US 2006/0009269 hereinafter Hoskinson).
With respect to claim 16, Hoskinson discloses a grain loss sensing system for a combine harvester (in paragraph 41, Hoskinson discloses using a monitoring apparatus 150 in a combine harvester to monitor grain loss), said grain loss sensing system comprising
at least one emitter (in figure 3A, Hoskinson discloses excitation source 151 that emits, for example, light, as described in paragraph 31);
at least one receiver (in figure 3A and paragraph 36, Hoskinson discloses sensors 157A and 157B, either of which reads on a receiver; as shown in the figure, light from the excitation source 151 eventually arrives at the sensors 157A and 157B); and
a processor, wherein the processor uses what is received by the receiver to calculate grain loss (in figure 3A, Hoskinson discloses image processors 158A and 158B; in paragraph 38, the processors are taught to employ an algorithm to analyze received data; as described in paragraph 41, the processors are part of a system that monitors grain loss).
With respect to claim 25, the limitations of this claim are a method for using the system of claim 16. Since Hoskinson has already been shown to anticipate the limitations of claim 16, it also anticipates the limitations of claim 25.
With respect to claim 29, Hoskinson discloses the limitations of claim 16. Hoskinson further discloses the at least one emitter comprises at least one strobe light, and wherein the at least one receiver comprises a camera (in paragraph 31, Hoskinson discloses that the excitation source 151 can be a strobe light; in paragraph 35, Hoskinson discloses that the sensor 157A is configured to detect light, which means that the sensor reads on a camera; the description of one embodiment of the sensor as an image charge-coupled device – CCD - further shows that it reads on a camera, because CCD’s capture images).
With respect to claim 31, Hoskinson discloses the limitations of claim 16. Hoskinson further discloses the system uses photographic technology to sense grain loss (in the paragraph 35 and figure 3A, Hoskinson discloses an image processor; photographic technology encompasses processors that process images, so the image processor reads on photographic technology).
With respect to claim 32, Hoskinson discloses the limitations of claim 25. Hoskinson further discloses using at least one strobe light, and while using the at least one strobe light, using a camera to capture images (in paragraph 31, Hoskinson discloses that the excitation source 151 can be a strobe light; in paragraph 35, Hoskinson discloses that the sensor 157A is configured to detect light, which means that the sensor reads on a camera; the description of one embodiment of the sensor as an image charge-coupled device – CCD - further shows that it reads on a camera, because CCD’s capture images).
With respect to claim 34, Hoskinson discloses the limitations of claim 25. Hoskinson further discloses using photographic technology to sense grain loss (in the paragraph 35 and figure 3A, Hoskinson discloses an image processor; photographic technology encompasses processors that process images, so the image processor reads on photographic technology).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Walker et al. (US 2023/0072664 hereinafter Walker).
With respect to claim 19, Fischer discloses the limitations of claim 16. Fischer does not disclose that the system is configured to relay results to a combine harvester host controller which responds by making adjustments automatically.
However, Walker discloses a system configured to relay results to a combine harvester host controller which responds by making adjustments automatically (in paragraph 36, Walker discloses a combine controller 310 automatically adjusting operational parameters based on grain loss).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to modify the operation of Fischer by automatically adjusting operational parameters based on grain loss as taught by Walker with the motivation to “automatically reduce grain loss” (Walker paragraph 36).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Conrad (US 2017/0038311).
With respect to claim 20, Fischer discloses the limitations of claim 16. Fischer further discloses the at least one emitter produces radio waves (in paragraph 36, Fischer discloses using radar, the spectrum of which falls within the spectrum of radio waves). Fischer does not disclose the at least one receiver comprises either a wave guide or a lens coupled to a diode detector.
However, Conrad, which is directed to radio transmissions, discloses at least one receiver comprises either a wave guide or a lens coupled to a diode detector (in paragraph 56. Conrad discloses supplying radio waves with an oscillator and receiving the radio waves with a waveguide 450).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the specific oscillator/waveguide data transmission taught by Conrad for the general transmission and reception of radar waves shown by Fischer because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be a transmission and reception system for radar waves that is known to work (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claims 21, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Schleusner et al. (US 2018/0000011 hereinafter Schleusner).
With respect to claim 21, Fischer discloses the limitations of claim 16. Fischer further discloses the at least one emitter comprises an ultraviolet generator that produces wavelengths between 10 and 400 nanometers (in paragraph 30, Fischer discloses that the optical system includes ultraviolet radiation – UV radiation falls within 10 and 400 nanometers) and the at least one detector comprises either an ultraviolet camera or photo diode (in paragraph 17, Fischer discloses using multispectral or hyperspectral cameras used to detect invisible light – as Fischer specifically refers to ultraviolet radiation in paragraph 30, these specialty cameras read on an ultraviolet camera; in the first paragraph of page 8 of applicant’s specification, applicant describes an ultraviolet camera as one that “effectively ‘sees’ the ultraviolet reflections of anything in view).
Fischer does not disclose that the emitter comprises an LED light source.
However, Schleusner, which is directed to grain analysis using electromagnetic radiation, discloses an emitter that comprises an LED light source (in paragraph 256, Schleusner discloses using an LED as a light source 211 for illuminating crop material 200; the LED emission spectrum for the disclosed light source explicitly includes ultraviolet light).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the LED light source of Schleusner for the general light source of Fischer because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be system that uses a well-understood light source (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
With respect to claim 27, Fischer discloses the limitations of claim 16. Fischer further discloses the at least on receiver comprises a camera (in paragraph 17, Fischer discloses using cameras to detect visible or invisible light). Fischer does not discloses that the emitter comprises at least one LED light.
However Schleusner discloses an emitter comprising at least one LED light (in paragraph 256, Schleusner discloses using an LED as a light source 211 for illuminating crop material 200).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the LED light source of Schleusner for the general light source of Fischer because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be system that uses a well-understood light source (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
With respect to claim 28, Fischer discloses the limitations of claim 25. Fischer further discloses using a camera to capture images (in paragraph 17, Fischer discloses using cameras to detect visible or invisible light). Fischer does not discloses that the emitter comprises at least one LED light.
However Schleusner discloses using at least one LED light (in paragraph 256, Schleusner discloses using an LED as a light source 211 for illuminating crop material 200).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the LED light source of Schleusner for the general light source of Fischer because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be system that uses a well-understood light source (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Ben Shalom et al. (US 20220086996 hereinafter Ben Shalom).
With respect to claim 22, Fischer discloses the limitations of claim 16. In paragraph 36, Fischer further discloses measuring principles for grain based on electromagnetic waves outside of the optical range, including x-rays. Fischer does not disclose the at least one emitter comprises an x-ray tube and a high voltage source.
However, Ben Shalom, which is directed to x-ray systems, discloses at least one emitter comprises an x-ray tube and a high voltage source (in the abstract, Ben Shalom discloses an x-ray emitter that uses an high voltage supply – also seen in figure 1; Ben Shalom discloses an x-ray tube in paragraph 26).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the x-ray production and detection system of Ben Shalom with Fischer’s grain analysis system that uses x-rays because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be a system that could produce and receive x-rays to further the analysis of grain going through a combine harvester (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Note that the system disclosed by Ben Shalom includes a scintillator receiving x-rays (see the abstract of Ben Shalom). While the limitation of a scintillator is not relevant to this claim, dependent claims do incorporate this feature; the scintillator of Ben Shalom is also an obvious piece of equipment to combine with the x-ray system of Fischer.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Ben Shalom as applied to claim 22 and further in view of Petel (US 2016/0220206).
With respect to claim 23, Fischer and Ben Shalom have discloses the limitations of claim 22. The combination of Fischer and Ben Shalom further discloses the at least one receiver comprises a flat panel with a scintillator (in the abstract, Ben Shalom discloses a scintillator; in figure 5A, Ben Shalom discloses that the scintillator is a flat panel). Fischer in view of Ben Shalom does not disclose that the scintillator is coupled to a photo diode receiver.
However, Petel discloses a scintillator coupled to a photo diode receiver (in paragraph 21, Petel discloses x-ray detection via several modes, including photodiodes coupled to scintillator materials).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the photodiode x-ray detection system of Petel with Ben Shalom and Fischer’s grain analysis system that uses x-rays because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be a system that converts the output of the scintillator into electrical currents (photodiodes convert light into electrical current or voltage) that can be electronically/digitally captured and processed (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
With respect to claim 24, Fischer and Ben Shalom have discloses the limitations of claim 22. The combination of Fischer and Ben Shalom further discloses the at least one receiver comprises a scintillator (in the abstract, Ben Shalom discloses a scintillator). Fischer in view of Ben Shalom does not disclose the at least one receiver comprises a scintillator coupled to an image intensifier that transfers light to a video camera or light sensor.
However, Petel discloses at least one receiver comprises a scintillator coupled to an image intensifier that transfers light to a video camera or light sensor (in paragraph 21, Petel discloses x-ray detection via several modes, including intensifiers between a scintillator and an optical detector – an optical detector reads on a light sensor).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the intensifier and optical detector x-ray detection system of Petel with Ben Shalom and Fischer’s grain analysis system that uses x-rays because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be a system that captures the output of the scintillator for analysis (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoskinson in view of Deljkovic et al. (US 2023/0079259 hereinafter Deljkovic).
With respect to claim 30, Hoskinson discloses the limitations of claim 29. Hoskinson does not disclose that the at least one strobe light comprises at least one high intensity LED strobe light.
However, Deljkovic discloses a strobe light comprising at least one high intensity LED strobe light (in paragraph 80, Deljkovic discloses illuminating crops with a strobe LED – the output of the light is significantly higher than the sun and hence qualifies as high intensity; further, Deljkovic discloses that the illumination source is “high-intensity” in paragraph 70).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to modify the strobe light of Hoskinson by making it an LED strobe light as taught by Deljkovic with the motivation of “allowing the lumen output of a relatively cheap LED array to be significantly higher than the sun” (Deljkovic paragraph 80).
With respect to claim 33, Hoskinson discloses the limitations of claim 32. Hoskinson does not disclose that the at least one strobe light comprises at least one high intensity LED strobe light.
However, Deljkovic discloses a strobe light comprising at least one high intensity LED strobe light (in paragraph 80, Deljkovic discloses illuminating crops with a strobe LED – the output of the light is significantly higher than the sun and hence qualifies as high intensity; further, Deljkovic discloses that the illumination source is “high-intensity” in paragraph 70).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to modify the strobe light of Hoskinson by making it an LED strobe light as taught by Deljkovic with the motivation of “allowing the lumen output of a relatively cheap LED array to be significantly higher than the sun” (Deljkovic paragraph 80).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kringe (US 2025/0287871) discloses a grain loss detector for a combine harvester that includes modes that use ultraviolet radiation, X-rays, and radio waves (paragraph 89). See also figure 16B with sensor 110.
Hermann (US 2023/0320273) analyzes crop stream in a combine harvester using emitted light. Figure 6 shows LED’s 364. Figure 10 is a flowchart that shows illuminating, detecting reflectance from crop material, and then processing data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS JAMES MEISLAHN whose telephone number is (703)756-1925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 EST M-Th, 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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at (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 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.
/DOUGLAS J MEISLAHN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671