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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 14, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 6-8 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.
In claim 6, lines 1-3, applicant claims: “…the baling parameter setpoint is selected from the group comprising a chamber load setpoint, a slice thickness setpoint and a number of slices per bale.” This phrasing is improper for a Markush grouping.
A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See In re Kiely, 2022 USPQ2d 532 at 2* (Fed. Cir. 2022) (each independent claim recites "a selection from the group comprising a person, an animal, an animated character, a creature, an alien, a toy, a structure, a vegetable, and a fruit." … (emphasis added). "Given the breadth of variation among the specified alternatives and the use of the open-ended word ’comprising’ to define the scope of the list, we affirm the Board's conclusion that the pending claims recite improper Markush language and are indefinite under § 112(b)."). If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as "at least one member" selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as "or mixtures thereof"). Id. at 1281. See also MPEP § 2111.03.
Note: To replace “comprising” with –consisting of—would overcome the lack of clarity.
In claim 8, line 2, “the current values” appear to lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 is rejected based on its claim dependency.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Verhaeghe et al. (USPGPub 2012/0240797).
Regarding claim 1: Verhaeghe discloses a method of controlling the weight of bales made by an agricultural baler (page 1, paragraph [0002]), the method comprising:
receiving a bale weight setpoint (page 1, paragraph [0002], line 5; “a desired bale weight to be achieved.”);
receiving crop parameter data (page 1, paragraph [0002], lines 3-4 “a plurality of operating parameters of the baler); and,
while a bale is being made:
receiving baler operating data relating to baling parameters (page 1, paragraph [0014] and page 2, paragraph [0025]);
inputting the crop parameter data and baler operating data into a weight prediction model to generate a predicted final weight of the bale (page 2, paragraph [0028] and page 5, paragraph [0078]); and
changing a baling parameter setpoint of one of the baling parameters based on the predicted final weight of the bale and the bale weight setpoint (page 2, paragraphs [0030] and [0031], page 4, paragraph [0074] and page 5, paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 2: Verhaeghe discloses the method of controlling the weight of bales made by an agricultural baler of claim 1. Further, Verhaeghe discloses wherein the baler operating data comprise an average chamber load in a chamber of the baler (page 3, paragraph [0053]), an average plunger torque of a plunger in the baler (page 1, paragraph [0007]; page 4, paragraphs [0065] to [0071] and page 5, paragraph [0080]), a slice thickness variation parameter representing the variation in a thickness of slices of the bale and a number of slices per bale (page 2, paragraphs [0027] and [0028]).
Regarding claim 3: Verhaeghe discloses the method of controlling the weight of bales made by an agricultural baler of claim 1. Further, Verhaeghe discloses wherein the crop parameter data comprises crop type data and crop moisture level data (page 5, paragraph [0080]), lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 4: Verhaeghe discloses the method of controlling the weight of bales made by an agricultural baler of claim 1. Further, Verhaeghe discloses wherein changing the baling parameter setpoint of one of the baling parameters comprises:
calculating a difference between the predicted final weight of the bale and the bale weight setpoint (page 5, paragraph [0080]);
calculating a setpoint correction using the weight prediction model based on the
difference (page 4, paragraph [0074] and page 5, paragraph [0080]);
multiplying the setpoint correction by a gain factor to generate a modified setpoint
correction (page 5, paragraph [0082], lines 5-7); and
applying the modified setpoint correction to the baling parameter setpoint (page 5, paragraphs [0076] to [0081]).
Regarding claim 5: Verhaeghe discloses the method of controlling the weight of bales made by an agricultural baler of claim 4. Further, Verhaeghe discloses wherein the gain factor is between zero and one (page 5, paragraph [0082], lines 5-7, “a value halving the difference between its current setting and the desired setting determined by the data processor” and thus .5).
Regarding claims 6 and 7: Verhaeghe discloses the method of controlling the weight of bales made by an agricultural baler of claim 1. Further, Verhaeghe discloses wherein the baling parameter setpoint is selected from the group consisting of a chamber load setpoint, a slice thickness setpoint and a number of slices per bale (page 2, paragraph [0027]) and wherein the step of changing the baling parameter setpoint comprises changing either the chamber load setpoint or the slice thickness setpoint, or the number of slices per bale (page 5, paragraphs [0080] to [0082]).
Regarding claim 8: Verhaeghe discloses the method of controlling the weight of bales made by an agricultural baler of claim 7. Further, Verhaeghe discloses wherein the step of changing the baling parameter setpoint comprises changing the chamber load setpoint if current values of the chamber load setpoint and a plunger torque of a plunger in the baler are within respective threshold operating ranges (page 5, paragraphs [0080] to [0083]).
Regarding claim 9: Verhaeghe discloses the method of controlling the weight of bales made by an agricultural baler of claim 1. Further, Verhaeghe discloses repeating the steps of the method carried out while the bale is being made (page 5, paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 13: Verhaeghe discloses the method of controlling the weight of bales made by an agricultural baler of claim 1. Further, Verhaeghe discloses an agricultural baler comprising a controller configured to perform the method of claim 1 (as seen in figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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.
Regarding claims 10-12: The prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest when taken in combination with prior features/limitations, the additional limitations of: claim 10: the method wherein the steps of the method carried out while the bale is being made are repeated every time n slices of the bale have been completed, and wherein the baler operating data is received for the previous m slices of the bale, wherein n is greater than or equal to m; claim 11: the steps of: calculating a model offset in dependence on the difference between the measured and predicted final weights of the bale; and applying the model offset to the weight prediction model and claim 12: the step of : wherein the model offset is calculated using a Kalman filter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dorge et al. (USP 6,378,276) discloses a baler with a weighing device which allows for sensed control of bale weight.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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 M. 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.
/ROBERT E PEZZUTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671