DETAILED ACTION
I. Introduction
This Office action addresses U.S. reissue application number 18/406,616 (“616 reissue application” or “instant application”), having a filing date of 8 January 2024. Because the instant application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA ”) will govern this proceeding.
The instant application is a reissue of U.S. Patent 11,054,292 (“’292 patent”) titled “MATERIAL FLOW MONITORING SYSTEM AND METHOD”, which issued to Joseph A. Heilman et al. on 6 July 2021 with claims 1-20 (“issued claims”). The application resulting in the ‘292 patent was filed on 2 May 2018 and assigned U.S. patent application number 15/969,484 (“’484 application”).
II. Other Proceedings
After review of Applicant’s statements as set forth in the instant application, and the examiner's independent review of the ‘292 patent itself and its prosecution history, the examiner has failed to locate any current ongoing litigation. The examiner has likewise failed to locate any previous reexaminations (ex parte or inter partes), supplemental examinations, or other post issuance proceedings.
III. Priority
The ‘484 application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to U.S. provisional application 62/613,012 (“provisional application”), filed 2 January 2018.
As a reissue application, the instant application is entitled to the priority date of the ‘292 patent, the patent being reissued. Thus, the instant reissue application has a priority date of at least 2 May 2018, the filing date of the ‘484 application, and could be as early as 2 January 2018, presuming the claim limitations are fully supported by the disclosure in the provisional application.
The priority date will be determined on a claim-by-claim basis, as necessary.
Because the effective filing date of the instant application is after March 16, 2013, the pre-AIA ‘First to Invent’ provisions do not apply. Instead, the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions will apply.
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 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.
IV. Claim Construction
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111 et seq.
Upon review of the original specification and prosecution history, the examiner has found no instances of lexicographic definitions, either express or implied, that are inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the respective terms. Therefore, for the purposes of claim construction, the examiner concludes that there are no claim terms for which applicant is acting as their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
If applicant intended lexicographic definitions that have not been identified as such by the examiner, they are asked to note the term and the location in the specification or prosecution history supporting the lexicographic definition in response to this Office action.
Additionally, upon review of the pending claims, the examiner finds no instances where the claim terms explicitly include functional language which invokes the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
V. Applicant’s Response
Applicant’s response (“Response”), filed 10 February 2026, has been received and entered into the record. The Response includes a corrected Application Disclosure Sheet (“ADS”), a 37 C.F.R. § 3.73 Statement to establish ownership, a new power of attorney, a corrected Consent of Assignee, remarks, and amendments to the specification, drawings, and claims.
Specifically, claims 1, 6, 8, 13, and 18 have been amended. Claims 10 and 12 were canceled, and claims 7, 14, and 19 had been previously canceled. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15-18, and 20 are now pending in the application.
VI. Response to Arguments
The Response includes several arguments. These arguments are addressed in turn below.
Application Data Sheet
The Office acknowledges receipt of the updated ADS. It has been entered into the record.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicant asserts that an Information Disclosure Statement (“IDS”) was filed to include British document 1379808 by inventor Josef Klimmer. However, no IDS was filed with applicant’s response.
The document is cited herein on form PTO-892, in order to enter it into the record.
Consent
In view of the new Consent of Assignee, the pending objection is withdrawn.
Reissue Declaration
Applicant argues that the error statement submitted with the original reissue declaration is compliant. The Office finds this argument persuasive.
The pending objection is withdrawn.
The corresponding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 251 are likewise withdrawn.
Specification
In view of applicant’s amendment to the specification, the pending objection is withdrawn.
Drawings
In view of applicant’s amended drawings, the pending objection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
In view of applicant’s claim amendments, the pending objections are withdrawn, with the exception of claim 13. This claim includes redundant language which was not addressed by applicant’s amendment.
35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant argues that the disclosure of the ‘292 patent provides sufficient support for the claimed embodiment of a material flow monitoring system and method wherein flow irregularities are detected through the use of both acoustic sensors and strain gauges.
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant cites originally-filed claims 7-9 and 19-20, as well as col. 3, line 61 through col. 4, line 40, arguing that the disclosed “alternative embodiment” could have also included the disclosed acoustic sensors. Applicant also argues that a POSITA would have understood that “the flow monitoring system described in Applicant’s specification could have included both acoustic sensors and strain gauges” (Response, pages 14-15, emphasis added).
However, the test for written description support is that a POSITA would have recognized that the disclosed flow monitoring system did include both acoustic sensors and strain gauges, not that it could have included both.
As discussed in MPEP § 2163(I), an applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was "ready for patenting" such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998).
In this case, the entire disclosure of strain gauges is confined to col. 4, lines 18-58, and the use of strain gauges are clearly characterized as an alternate embodiment. Most clearly, at col. 4, lines 54-58, it is disclosed that “[o]ther embodiments may use in place of the acoustic-based sensor a strain detecting sensor including, but not limited to, surface acoustic devices, piezoelectric strain sensors, BOTDR (Brillouin optical time-domain reflectometer) and other optical fiber strain sensors.” (emphasis added).
In addition, there is no detailed illustration of the strain gauge embodiment, which might provide evidence that the acoustic sensors and strain gauges could even be physically implemented together. Specifically, the ‘292 patent discloses the use of “a plurality of strain gauges 49 (not shown) … embedded directly into circuit boards (not shown) which are placed into individual plastic enclosures (not shown) … [using an] alternative ECU (not pictured) … [whereby] each boom tube 8 has a circuit board and enclosure attached to it (not shown).” Col. 4, lines 18-34.
Applicant also cites col. 2, lines 56-67, which includes boilerplate-type language that is common in patent specifications (e.g., “…the disclosed aspects are merely exemplary of the invention…specific structural and functional details disclosed herein are not intended to be limiting…”), but this language provides no evidence that the inventors had in their possession a single embodiment of the claimed material flow monitoring system that included both acoustic sensors and strain gauges, an embodiment which must be clearly disclosed in order to satisfy the written description requirement.
The rejections are maintained.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
In view of applicant’s claim amendments, the pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues that the rejection of record conflates the claimed plurality of acoustic sensors and the at least one microphone associated with each of the Electronic Control Units (ECUs) (response, pages 16-18).
The Office finds this argument persuasive. The pending rejections are therefore withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are presented below. The instant Office action is therefore designated as non-final.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (specifically, applicant’s argument that while Gelinske discloses an acoustic sensor, it is not attached to a deflector plate), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
VII. Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to, because it includes redundant language. Specifically, the first “reporting” limitation includes “reporting…to a respective one ECU deflection data…to said respective one ECU.”
Appropriate correction is required.
VIII. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The essential goal of the written description requirement is to clearly convey that an applicant has invented the subject matter which is claimed1. The key issue is whether the specification describes the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2163(I).
Independent claims 1 and 13 are directed to a material flow monitoring system and method, wherein a dry-particulate spreader includes a plurality of boom tubes having deflector plates at their ends, each deflector plate having an attached acoustic sensor to detect flow irregularities of the boom tubes by analyzing the acoustic data received from the acoustic sensors.
The claims also include strain gauges attached to each deflector plate, whereby flow irregularities of the boom tubes can also be detected by analyzing data from the strain gauges measuring an amount of deflection of each of the deflector plates.
The Office acknowledges that the originally-filed ‘484 application included dependent claims (7-9 and 19-20) that were directed to a single embodiment of the claimed material flow monitoring system and method utilizing both acoustic sensors and strain gauges.
It is now well accepted that a satisfactory description may be found in originally-filed claims or any other portion of the originally-filed specification. See In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 204 USPQ 702 (CCPA 1980); In re Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389, 177 USPQ 396 (CCPA 1973); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). However, that does not mean that all originally-filed claims have adequate written support. The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate support in the written disclosure and/or the drawings. Issues of adequate written description may arise for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing2.
Upon review of applicant’s disclosure, the Office has concluded that there is sufficient support for an embodiment where flow irregularities can be detected through the use of acoustic sensors on the deflector plates. There is also sufficient support for an embodiment where flow irregularities can be detected through the use of strain gauges on the deflector plates. What is not supported is an embodiment where flow irregularities are detected through the use of both acoustic sensors and strain gauges.
For instance, in the Brief Summary of the Invention (col. 1, line 55 through col. 2, line 18), it is disclosed that the preferred embodiment of the invention uses acoustic sensors. See disclosure at col. 1, lines 63-64 “The acoustic-based sensor of the preferred embodiment is placed on each deflector…” The use of strain gauges is not mentioned in the Brief Summary section of the specification.
Applicant’s disclosure with respect to the use of strain gauges is limited to col. 4, lines 18-58, and Figs 4A and 4B. The use of strain gauges is clearly disclosed as an alternate embodiment of the invention, e.g., col. 4, lines 18-20 “Fig. 4A shows a block diagram of one alternate embodiment, in which a plurality of strain gauges 49 (not shown) are adhered to each dry-particulate spreader deflector 11.”
Also disclosed is that the use of strain gauges requires different electronic control units (ECUs) than those used in the acoustic sensor embodiment. At col. 4, lines 30-34, it is disclosed that “[a]n alternate ECU (not pictured) that can digitize and convert data to a CAN is part of said strain gauge. In this alternate embodiment, each boom tube 8 has a circuit board and enclosure attached to it (not shown).”
Finally, at col. 4, lines 54-58, it is explicitly disclosed that the use of strain gauges is an alternate embodiment to the use of acoustic sensors: “Other embodiments may use in place of the acoustic-based sensor a strain detecting sensor including, but not limited to, surface acoustic devices, piezoelectric strain sensors, BOTDR (Brillouin optical time-domain reflectometer) and other optical fiber strain sensors.” (emphasis added).
The use of a combination of acoustic sensors and strain gauges to detect flow irregularities is not disclosed.
In view of these disclosures, a POSITA would conclude that the inventors had in their possession two distinct embodiments of the disclosed material flow monitoring system and method, one utilizing acoustic sensors, and another utilizing strain gauges. There is nothing in applicant’s disclosure, however, that would lead a POSITA to conclude that the inventors had in their possession a single embodiment that utilized both acoustic sensors and strain gauges.
For these reasons, the Office concludes that even though an embodiment of the material flow monitoring system and method utilizing both acoustic sensors and strain gauges appeared in the originally-filed claims of the ‘484 application, such an embodiment lacks written description support in applicant’s disclosure.
IX. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.K. Patent Publication GB 2012535 to Cornelis Van Der Lely (“Van Der Lely”) in view of U.S. Patent 8,950,260 to Joshua N. Gelinske et al. (“Gelinske”) and U.S. Patent 4,057,709 to Joergen Lyngsgaard et al. (“Lyngsgaard”).
Claim 1
With respect to claim 1, Van Der Lely teaches a material flow monitoring system for a dry-particulate spreader (see title “Monitoring the Flow of Particulate Material along a Path”) as claimed, the system comprising:
a) a dry-particulate spreader (see illustration of an agricultural machine in the form of pneumatic distributor 1, Fig. 1);
b) said dry-particulate spreader comprising bins for storing dry-particulate (see hopper 4, Fig. 1; the Office notes that the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced3), a right boom, and a left boom (see illustration of left and right booms, Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
326
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Van Der Lely, Figure 1
c) each of said right and left booms further comprising a plurality of boom tubes, each of said plurality of boom tubes configured to deploy said dry-particulate to a field surface (see delivery tubes 5, Fig. 1; see also disclosure that the material to be distributed is fed from the hopper 4 through a dosing mechanism to the delivery tubes 5, page 1, lines 68-70);
d) a plurality of deflector plates, one of each of which are placed in proximity to a respective end of said boom tubes (see disclosure that near the end of delivery tubes 5 there is a deflector 6, page 1, lines 74-77; see also deflectors 6, attached to the ends of delivery tubes 5, Figs. 1 and 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
328
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Van Der Lely, Figure 2
e) a central gateway (see signaling box 12, Fig. 2) connected to a plurality of Electronic Control Units (ECUs), each of said ECUs comprising at least one microphone configured to consume pressure waves (see microphone 10, Fig. 2; see also disclosure of a pick-up [in the form of a microphone] that is connected with an indicator for providing sensory indication of movement of material, page 1, lines 20-24); and
f) whereby said microphones are configured to monitor flow of said dry-particulate through said boom tubes based upon audio data generated by said dry-particulate striking said deflector plates (see disclosure of such monitoring of dry-particulate distribution, page 1, lines 111-124).
Van Der Lely does not explicitly teach a material flow monitoring system utilizing a plurality of acoustic sensors for sensing audio data to monitor the flow of said dry-particulate through said boom tubes and conveying said audio data to the plurality of ECUs.
Gelinske, however, teaches a material flow monitoring system comprising a plurality of acoustic sensors configured to sense audio data and communicatively connected to a plurality of ECUs (see disclosure of acoustic sensors 200 used for detecting the amount of seeds and material flowing through the system, that are mechanical components designed to pick up, amplify, and direct sound from the inside of the seed tube into a separate electronics module called a blockage monitoring node 300 [i.e., the claimed ECU], Figs. 4A and 4B, col. 9, line 61 through col. 10, line 1).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize acoustic sensors affixed to a respective end of said deflector plates and connected to ECUs, rather than directly connecting microphones to the end of the deflector plates as taught by Van Der Lely, since this would serve to isolate the electronic components from the vibrations and environmental contaminants that can damage said electronic components, instead substituting purely mechanical components that are more resistant to damage from said vibrations and environmental contaminants that would commonly occur at the ends of deflector plates on dry-particulate spreaders (see col. 4, line 62 through col. 5, line 16 and col. 11, lines 1-10).
Van Der Lely does not explicitly teach a material flow monitoring system whereby said ECUs report data from said plurality of acoustic sensors to a mobile computing device or devices comprising a processor, data storage, and graphical user interface (GUI) to determine flow irregularity.
Gelinske, however, teaches a material flow monitoring system whereby ECUs (see blockage monitoring node 300, Fig, 5A; the Office notes that blockage monitoring node 300 comprises a microphone 310, Fig. 5A and col. 11, lines 62-64) are configured to report data from said plurality of acoustic sensors (see acoustic sensor 200, Figs. 4A and 4B; see also disclosure that blockage monitor node 300 receives data from a plurality of acoustic sensors, col. 11, lines 44-61) to a mobile computing device or devices (see handheld computing device 500, Figs. 8, 9A-9E, and 10A-10C; see also disclosure that blockage monitoring node 300 [i.e., the claimed ECU] is capable of communicating wirelessly with handheld computing device 500, col. 16, lines 17-19) comprising a processor, data storage, and graphical user interface (GUI) (the Office notes that a processor and memory are inherent in a handheld computing device; see also illustrations of a GUI on the handheld computing device 500 in Figs. 9A-9E) to determine flow irregularity (see extensive disclosure of the use of the GUI of handheld computing device 500 to monitor the flow of dry-particulate for irregularities, Figs. 9A and 9B, and col. 17, line 55 through col. 19, line 49).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a mobile computing device to convey information to the operator of the dry-particulate spreader regarding flow irregularities, since this would provide much more detailed information than the indicator lamps 13 disclosed by Van Der Lely in Fig. 2. The combination would have involved a simple substitution of a modern-day computing device to receive and interpret acoustic data collected from the deflector plates for the 1970’s era simple light-up indicators of Van Der Lely’s signaling box 12, to obtain the predictable result of a detailed display of the status of the various boom tubes, such as is illustrated in Gelinske’s Figs. 9A and 9B.
Neither Van Der Lely nor Gelinske explicitly discloses a material flow monitoring system utilizing strain gauges to monitor the volume of dry-particulate deployed through the boom tubes.
Lyngsgaard, however, teaches a particle detector for detecting the passage of seeds through a mechanical seeder (see Abstract), utilizing strain gauges to monitor the volume of dry-particulate (see disclosure of tubular conduit 14 having an “angled-over” section forming a bend at an appropriate angle a relative to the axis 16 of the inlet conduit, such that the seeds are caused to impact on an area of the inner surface of the wall of the conduit, col. 2, lines 32-41; see also disclosure of the use of a transducer 24 affixed to the outer surface of the wall of the angled-over tubular conduit at or proximate to the area of impact of the seeds upon the inner surface of the wall of the conduit, col. 2, lines 54-59 and Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
562
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lyngsgaard, Figure 1
See also disclosure that the transducer 24 may take any appropriate form such as a crystal, a strain gauge, a microphone, or the like, and is capable of providing an appropriate output signal into a line 26 each time a particle or seed 12 impacts anywhere upon the wall of the resounding angled-over conduit 14, col. 2, lines 59-64).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize strain gauges on the deflector plates to monitor the volume of dry-particulate deployed through the boom tubes, since it was well known in the art that a transducer, in the form of a strain gauge, can be utilized to measure pressure or force, such as is exerted by the passage of dry-particulate through a tube, to measure the volume of said dry-particulate passing through said tube, and because Lyngsgaard discloses that strain gauges can be used interchangeably with microphones for the monitoring of dry-particulate volume. The use of strain gauges on the deflector plates of Van Der Lely would have worked identically to its disclosed use on the “angled over” section forming a bend at an appropriate angle a relative to the axis 16 of the inlet conduit, as the dry-particulate would impact the deflector plate just as they impact the “angled over” conduit section.
Incorporating such a strain gauge in the material flow monitoring method of Van Der Lely and Gelinske would have provided additional data regarding the flow of dry-particulate through the boom tubes, thus incorporating redundancy into the material flow monitoring system.
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, Gelinske additionally teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising:
a) each of said plurality of acoustic sensors comprising a sensor plate (see disclosure of sensor plate 210, col. 10, lines 7-34 and Fig. 4A) mounted over a hollow acoustic chamber (see disclosure of hollow acoustic chamber 220, col. 10, lines 7-34 and Fig. 4A);
PNG
media_image4.png
454
596
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Gelinske, Figure 4A
c) a gasket located between said sensor plate and said acoustic chamber, said gasket configured to prevent material from entering said acoustic chamber (see disclosure of gasket 215, col. 10, lines 7-34 and Fig. 4A); and
d) an auditory tube connected from each of said acoustic sensors to a respective ECU (see disclosure of transmitting hose 230, col. 10, lines 7-34 and Fig. 4A).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the claimed features of the acoustic sensors, since this would constitute a simple mechanical solution which can be easily and inexpensively manufactured without electronics, so that the total amount of electronics on the air seeding system can be minimized, significantly reducing system cost and increasing system reliability (see col. 4, line 62 through col. 5, line 16 and col. 11, lines 1-10).
Although Gelinske does not explicitly disclose the use of an adhesive in affixing the acoustic sensor to the deflector plate, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize an adhesive, since it is one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for mounting an acoustic sensor to the deflector plate with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, Gelinske additionally teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said at least one microphone comprises a microelectromechanical system (“MEMS”) microphone (see disclosure of MEMS microphone 310, col. 11, line 62 through col. 12, line 5 and Fig. 5A).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a MEMS microphone, because they are small, contributing to a small blockage monitoring node, and are manufactured from a process that produces consistent parts with very little part-to-part variation, which minimizes the amount of calibration required (see col. 12, lines 6-13).
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, Gelinske additionally teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising:
a) said mobile computing device processor configured to determine a reduced flow within at least one of said boom tubes (see disclosure that information regarding a detected drop in sound level from one or more acoustic sensors is transmitted to the handheld computing device 500, where algorithms determine how to interpret to data transmitted by blockage monitoring nodes 300, col. 16, lines 43-56); and
b) said mobile computing device GUI configured to report said reduced flow (see disclosure that the GUI on computing device 500 displays manifold status 505 indicative of any blockages, col. 17, line 54 through col. 18, line 40 and Figs. 9A and 9B).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a mobile computing device GUI to convey information regarding blockages, since this would allow the operator of the dry-particulate spreader to monitor the status of the boom tubes from within the cab, and more accurately than could be done by means of visual inspection.
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, Gelinske additionally teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising:
a) said mobile computing device processor configured to determine a lack of flow within at least one of said boom tubes (see disclosure that information regarding a detected drop in sound level from one or more acoustic sensors is transmitted to the handheld computing device 500, where algorithms determine how to interpret to data transmitted by blockage monitoring nodes 300, col. 16, lines 43-56); and
b) said mobile computing device GUI configured to report said lack of flow (see disclosure that the GUI on computing device 500 displays manifold status 505 indicative of any blockages, col. 17, line 54 through col. 18, line 40 and Figs. 9A and 9B).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a mobile computing device GUI to convey information regarding blockages, since this would allow the operator of the dry-particulate spreader to monitor the status of the boom tubes from within the cab, and more accurately than could be done by means of visual inspection.
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, Gelinske additionally teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising:
a) a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver configured to determine a position and a velocity of a floater machine connected to said dry-particulate spreader (see disclosure of the use of a GNSS receiver 345 to determine position and velocity, col. 12, lines 56-60 and Fig. 5A);
b) said GNSS receiver configured to report said position and velocity to said mobile computing device (see disclosure that the handheld computing device 500 may be used as both a system display and a control device, which would require GPS data to be sent from the GPS receiver to the mobile computing device 500, col. 16, lines 34-35); and
c) said mobile computing device configured to determine application of said dry-particulate about said field based upon said data from said plurality of acoustic sensors and from said GNSS receiver determined position and velocity (see disclosure of a log page to display the text of log files created by the system software, perhaps showing the occurrence and location of blockage events or sensor/electronics errors, col. 21, lines 21-23).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a GNSS receiver in the system, since this would allow the material flow monitoring system to monitor the position of the dry-particulate spreader and determine when the end of the field has been reached (see col. 12, lines 56-65).
Claim 8
With respect to claim 8, Lyngsgaard additionally teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising:
a) each of the plurality of strain gauges comprising a protection and filtering element (see disclosure of hi-pass filter 32, col. 3, lines 19-45 and Fig. 2);
b) each of said plurality of strain gauges further comprising a difference amplifier (see disclosure of amplifier 30, col. 3, lines 19-45 and Fig. 2); and
c) an analog-to-digital converter configured to convert data from each of said plurality of strain gauges for interpolation and reporting by a microcontroller (see disclosure of Schmitt trigger 34, col. 3, lines 19-45 and Fig. 2), said microcontroller configured to report data converted by said analog-to-digital converter to said mobile device (see disclosure of counter 36 which counts every particle or seed passing through the conduit, and indicator 38 which indicates, via a visual display, the lack of flow of particles through the conduit, therefore detecting a jam or an empty hopper, col. 3, lines 19-45 and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize digital data from the strain gauge since this would allow the operator of the dry-particulate spreader to monitor for boom tube jams or an empty hopper from within the cab, and more accurately than could be done by means of visual inspection.
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11, Gelinske additionally teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising:
a) a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver configured to determine a position and a velocity of said dry-particulate spreader (see disclosure of the use of a GNSS receiver 345 to determine position and velocity, col. 12, lines 56-60 and Fig. 5A);
b) said GNSS receiver configured to report said position and velocity to said mobile computing device (see disclosure that the handheld computing device 500 may be used as both a system display and a control device, which would require GPS data to be sent from the GPS receiver to the mobile computing device 500, col. 16, lines 34-35); and
c) said mobile computing device configured to determine application of said dry-particulate about said field based upon said data from said plurality of acoustic sensors, strain sensors, and from said GNSS receiver determined position and velocity (see disclosure of a log page to display the text of log files created by the system software, perhaps showing the occurrence and location of blockage events or sensor/electronics errors, col. 21, lines 21-23; the Office notes that such a log system would log data received from any connected sensor, such as the strain gauges disclosed by Lyngsgaard).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a GNSS receiver and data logger in the system, since this would allow the material flow monitoring system to monitor and log the position of the dry-particulate spreader to determine when the end of the field has been reached, and to allow a review of performance of the dry-particulate spreader (see col. 12, lines 56-65).
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, Van Der Lely teaches method of monitoring a material flow of dry-particulate from a dry-particulate spreader (see title “Monitoring the Flow of Particulate Material along a Path”) as claimed, the method comprising the steps:
a) connecting a dry-particulate spreader to a floater machine (see illustration of an agricultural machine in the form of pneumatic distributor 1, Fig. 1), said dry-particulate spreader comprising bins for storing dry-particulate (see hopper 4, Fig. 1; the Office notes that the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced4), a right boom, and a left boom, each of said right and left booms further comprising a plurality of boom tubes (see illustration of left and right booms, Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
326
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Van Der Lely, Figure 1
b) spreading said dry-particulate about a field via the plurality of boom tubes, whereby said dry-particulate exits said boom tubes (see delivery tubes 5, Fig. 1; see also disclosure that the material to be distributed is fed from the hopper 4 through a dosing mechanism to the delivery tubes 5, page 1, lines 68-70) and contacts a plurality of deflector plates in proximity with and affixed to each respective one of said plurality of said plurality of boom tubes (see disclosure that near the end of delivery tubes 5 there is a deflector 6, page 1, lines 74-77; see also deflectors 6, attached to the ends of delivery tubes 5, Figs. 1 and 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
328
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Van Der Lely, Figure 2
c) a plurality of ECUs, each of said ECUs comprising at least one microphone (see disclosure that the outer surface of each deflector 6 is provided with a microphone 10, Fig. 2); and
d) determining flow irregularities based upon said audio data (see disclosure of such monitoring of dry-particulate distribution, page 1, lines 111-124).
Van Der Lely does not explicitly teach a material flow monitoring method utilizing a plurality of acoustic sensors for sensing audio data to monitor the flow of said dry-particulate through said boom tubes and conveying said audio data to the plurality of ECUs.
Gelinske, however, teaches a material flow monitoring method utilizing a plurality of acoustic sensors for detecting audio data and sending said audio data to a plurality of ECUs (see disclosure of acoustic sensors 200 used for detecting the amount of seeds and material flowing through the system, that are mechanical components designed to pick up, amplify, and direct sound from the inside of the seed tube into a separate electronics module called a blockage monitoring node 300 [i.e., the claimed ECU], Figs. 4A and 4B, col. 9, line 61 through col. 10, line 1).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize acoustic sensors affixed to a respective end of said deflector plates and connected to ECUs, rather than directly connecting microphones to the end of the deflector plates as taught by Van Der Lely, since this would serve to isolate the electronic components from the vibrations and environmental contaminants that can damage said electronic components, instead substituting purely mechanical components that are more resistant to damage from said vibrations and environmental contaminants that would commonly occur at the ends of deflector plates on dry-particulate spreaders (col. 4, line 62 through col. 5, line 16 and col. 11, lines 1-10).
Van Der Lely does not explicitly teach a material flow monitoring method whereby said ECUs report data from said plurality of acoustic sensors to a mobile computing device or devices comprising a processor, data storage, and graphical user interface (GUI) to determine flow irregularity.
Gelinske, however, teaches a material flow monitoring method whereby ECUs (see blockage monitoring node 300, Fig, 5A; the Office notes that blockage monitoring node 300 comprises a microphone 310, Fig. 5A and col. 11, lines 62-64) report data from said plurality of acoustic sensors (see acoustic sensor 200, Figs. 4A and 4B; see also disclosure that blockage monitor node 300 receives data from a plurality of acoustic sensors, col. 11, lines 44-61) to a mobile computing device or devices (see handheld computing device 500, Figs. 8, 9A-9E, and 10A-10C; see also disclosure that blockage monitoring node 300 [i.e., the claimed ECU] is capable of communicating wirelessly with handheld computing device 500, col. 16, lines 17-19) comprising a processor, data storage, and graphical user interface (GUI) (the Office notes that a processor and memory are inherent in a handheld computing device; see also illustrations of a GUI on the handheld computing device 500 in Figs. 9A-9E) to determine flow irregularities with said mobile computing device processor based upon said audio data (see extensive disclosure of the use of the GUI of handheld computing device 500 to monitor the flow of dry-particulate for irregularities, Figs. 9A and 9B, and col. 17, line 55 through col. 19, line 49).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a mobile computing device to convey information to the operator of the dry-particulate spreader regarding flow irregularities, since this would provide much more detailed information than the indicator lamps 13 disclosed by Van Der Lely in Fig. 2. The combination would have involved a simple substitution of a modern-day computing device to receive and interpret acoustic data collected from the deflector plates for the 1970’s era simple light-up indicators of Van Der Lely’s signaling box 12, to obtain the predictable result of a detailed display of the status of the various boom tubes, such as is illustrated in Gelinske’s Figs. 9A and 9B.
Neither Van Der Lely nor Gelinske explicitly discloses a material flow monitoring method utilizing strain gauges to monitor the volume of dry-particulate deployed through the boom tubes.
Lyngsgaard, however, teaches a particle detector for detecting the passage of seeds through a mechanical seeder (see Abstract), utilizing strain gauges to monitor the volume of dry-particulate (see disclosure of tubular conduit 14 having an “angled-over” section forming a bend at an appropriate angle a relative to the axis 16 of the inlet conduit, such that the seeds are caused to impact on an area of the inner surface of the wall of the conduit, col. 2, lines 32-41; see also disclosure of the use of a transducer 24 affixed to the outer surface of the wall of the angled-over tubular conduit at or proximate to the area of impact of the seeds upon the inner surface of the wall of the conduit, col. 2, lines 54-59 and Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
562
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lyngsgaard, Figure 1
See also disclosure that the transducer 24 may take any appropriate form such as a crystal, a strain gauge, a microphone, or the like, and is capable of providing an appropriate output signal into a line 26 each time a particle or seed 12 impacts anywhere upon the wall of the resounding angled-over conduit 14, col. 2, lines 59-64).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize strain gauges on the deflector plates to monitor the volume of dry-particulate deployed through the boom tubes, since it was well known in the art that a transducer, in the form of a strain gauge, can be utilized to measure pressure or force, such as is exerted by the passage of dry-particulate through a tube, to measure the volume of said dry-particulate passing through said tube, and because Lyngsgaard discloses that strain gauges can be used interchangeably with microphones for the monitoring of dry-particulate volume. The use of strain gauges on the deflector plates of Van Der Lely would have worked identically to its disclosed use on the “angled over” section forming a bend at an appropriate angle a relative to the axis 16 of the inlet conduit, as the dry-particulate would impact the deflector plate just as they impact the “angled over” conduit section.
Incorporating such a strain gauge in the material flow monitoring method of Van Der Lely and Gelinske would have provided additional data regarding the flow of dry-particulate through the boom tubes, thus incorporating redundancy into the material flow monitoring system.
Claim 15
With respect to claim 15, Gelinske additionally teaches the method of claim 13, wherein said at least one microphone comprises a microelectromechanical system (“MEMS”) microphone (see disclosure of MEMS microphone 310, col. 11, line 62 through col. 12, line 5 and Fig. 5A).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a MEMS microphone, because they are small, contributing to a small blockage monitoring node, and are manufactured from a process that produces consistent parts with very little part-to-part variation, which minimizes the amount of calibration required (see col. 12, lines 6-13).
Claim 16
With respect to claim 16, Gelinske additionally teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising the steps:
a) determining with said mobile computing device processor a reduced flow within at least one of said boom tubes (see disclosure that information regarding a detected drop in sound level from one or more acoustic sensors is transmitted to the handheld computing device 500, where algorithms determine how to interpret to data transmitted by blockage monitoring nodes 300, col. 16, lines 43-56); and
b) reporting with said mobile computing device GUI said reduced flow (see disclosure that the GUI on computing device 500 displays manifold status 505 indicative of any blockages, col. 17, line 54 through col. 18, line 40 and Figs. 9A and 9B).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a mobile computing device GUI to convey information regarding blockages, since this would allow the operator of the dry-particulate spreader to monitor the status of the boom tubes from within the cab, and more accurately than could be done by means of visual inspection.
Claim 17
With respect to claim 17, Gelinske additionally teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising the steps:
a) determining with said mobile computing device processor a lack of flow within at least one of said boom tubes (see disclosure that information regarding a detected drop in sound level from one or more acoustic sensors is transmitted to the handheld computing device 500, where algorithms determine how to interpret to data transmitted by blockage monitoring nodes 300, col. 16, lines 43-56); and
b) reporting with said mobile computing device GUI said lack of flow (see disclosure that the GUI on computing device 500 displays manifold status 505 indicative of any blockages, col. 17, line 54 through col. 18, line 40 and Figs. 9A and 9B).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a mobile computing device GUI to convey information regarding blockages, since this would allow the operator of the dry-particulate spreader to monitor the status of the boom tubes from within the cab, and more accurately than could be done by means of visual inspection.
Claim 18
With respect to claim 18, Gelinske additionally teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising the steps:
a) determining a position and a velocity of said dry-particulate spreader with a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver (see disclosure of the use of a GNSS receiver 345 to determine position and velocity, col. 12, lines 56-60 and Fig. 5A);
b) reporting said position and velocity to said mobile computing device (see disclosure that the handheld computing device 500 may be used as both a system display and a control device, which would require GPS data to be sent from the GPS receiver to the mobile computing device 500, col. 16, lines 34-35); and
c) determining with said mobile computing device processor an application of said dry-particulate about said field based upon said data from said plurality of acoustic sensors and from said GNSS receiver determined position and velocity (see disclosure of a log page to display the text of log files created by the system software, perhaps showing the occurrence and location of blockage events or sensor/electronics errors, col. 21, lines 21-23).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a GNSS receiver in the system, since this would allow the material flow monitoring system to monitor the position of the dry-particulate spreader and determine when the end of the field has been reached (see col. 12, lines 56-65).
Claim 20
With respect to claim 20, Gelinske additionally teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising the steps:
a) determining a position and a velocity of said dry-particulate spreader with a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver (see disclosure of the use of a GNSS receiver 345 to determine position and velocity, col. 12, lines 56-60 and Fig. 5A);
b) reporting said position and velocity to said mobile computing device (see disclosure that the handheld computing device 500 may be used as both a system display and a control device, which would require GPS data to be sent from the GPS receiver to the mobile computing device 500, col. 16, lines 34-35); and
c) determining with said mobile computing device processor an application of said dry-particulate about said field based upon said data from said plurality of acoustic sensors, said strain sensors, and from said GNSS receiver determined position and velocity (see disclosure of a log page to display the text of log files created by the system software, perhaps showing the occurrence and location of blockage events or sensor/electronics errors, col. 21, lines 21-23; the Office notes that such a log system would log data received from any connected sensor, such as the strain gauges disclosed by Lyngsgaard).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a GNSS receiver and data logger in the system, since this would allow the material flow monitoring system to monitor and log the position of the dry-particulate spreader to determine when the end of the field has been reached, and to allow a review of performance of the dry-particulate spreader (see col. 12, lines 56-65).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.K. Patent Publication GB 2012535 to Cornelis Van Der Lely (“Van Der Lely”) in view of U.S. Patent 8,950,260 to Joshua N. Gelinske et al. (“Gelinske”) and U.S. Patent 4,057,709 to Joergen Lyngsgaard et al. (“Lyngsgaard”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 9,377,335 to Piero Rindi (“Rindi”).
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, Van Der Lely, Gelinske, and Lyngsgaard teach a material flow monitoring system substantially as claimed in claim 1 (see above).
None of Van Der Lely, Gelinske, nor Lyngsgaard explicitly teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a Wheatstone bridge circuit configured to measure strain detected by each respective one of said plurality of strain gauges.
Rindi, however, teaches a flow rate sensor probe comprising a Wheatstone bridge circuit configured to measure strain detected by each of a plurality of strain gauges (see col. 11, line 65 through col. 12, line 19, as well as Figs. 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a Wheatstone bridge circuit as taught by Rindi in the material flow monitoring system of Van Der Lely, Gelinske, and Lyngsgaard, since Wheatstone bridge circuits are commonly used with resistance strain gauges (see col. 5, lines 16-28; see also col. 6, lines 9-15; see also col. 12, lines 3-10), such as the strain gauges taught by Lyngsgaard.
X. Conclusion
In accordance with MPEP § 1406, the examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited or of record in the original prosecution of the ‘292 patent. Applicants are reminded that a listing of the information cited or of record in the original prosecution of the ‘292 patent need not be resubmitted in this reissue application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this reissue application.
Applicant(s) are reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR § 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which ‘292 patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, other post-grant proceedings in the Office, and litigation.
Applicant(s) are further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant(s) are also reminded that any amendments to the claims must comply with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph, having clear support and antecedent basis in the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke S. Wassum whose telephone number is (571) 272-4119. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM-5 PM, alternate Fridays off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling can be reached on 571-270-1367. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
In addition, INFORMAL or DRAFT communications may be faxed directly to the examiner at 571-273-4119. Such communications must be clearly marked as INFORMAL, DRAFT or UNOFFICIAL.
Patent Center
Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications. For more information, please visit the Patent Center information page at www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center.
/LUKE S WASSUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Stephen J. Ralis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /MF/ Michael Fuelling
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3992
lsw
11 March 2026
1 In re Barker, 559 F2.2d 588, 592 n.4 (CCPA 1977).
2 See, e.g., Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
3 In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
4 In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).