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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to amendments and arguments filed on March 17, 2026. Claims 1, 8, 15, and 19 have been amended. Claims 9, 12-13, and 20 have been cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-8, 10-11 and 14-19 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed on March 17, 2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed on March 17, 2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are partially persuasive due to the following reasons:
Regarding the statement that the Nalbach reference does not teach the amended subject matter in claim 1 “wherein the housing includes a transparent window disposed between the fan assembly and the exhaust outlet and configured to enable the constituent sensor to capture the image through the transparent window of the extracted material passing through the interior passage of the housing” (Remarks, Page 7), the examiner agrees. While Nalbach teaches a bypass device containing transparent walls, Nalbach does not appear to explicitly teach the features for positioning a sensor to take images of an interior passage through a transparent window, as described in amended claim 1.
However, regarding the statement that the McCarthy reference teaches away from claim 1 (Remarks, Page 8), the examiner respectfully disagrees. While the examiner understands that “the most suitable location for the sensor was identified as underneath the primary extractor…” can be interpreted as being positioned physically below the extractor, the examiner interprets this location as reasonably within the extractor (e.g. underneath the extractor ceiling/hood) because McCarthy further recites “…which provided visibility of expelled trash as well as shelter to the sensor during harvesting” which indicates at least a view of the exhaust outlet from inside the harvester. Additionally, even if the most suitable location was interpreted as being physically below/away from the extractor, the examiner respectfully notes that the office does not require limiting prior art to a preferred (e.g. “most suitable”) disclosure (via MPEP2123(I), “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments”).
Nonetheless, as the currently applied art for claim 1 does not teach the amended subject matter, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn. Upon further search and consideration of the applicant’s amended claims, new ground(s) of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in view of newly found art Corban et al. (US20200084967A1) and previously used art Dugas et al. (US20170251601A1) have been made as shown in the updated mapping below.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank et al. (US20200337235A1; hereinafter Blank) in view of non-patent literature McCarthy (“Preliminary evaluation of real-time sensing of harvester losses by machine vision”, see previously attached NPL; hereinafter McCarthy), Corban et al. (US20200084967A1; hereinafter Corban), and Dugas et al. (US20170251601A1; hereinafter Dugas).
Regarding Claim 1, Blank discloses a sugarcane harvester (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0040, “a sugarcane harvester”) comprising:
an extractor including a housing defining an interior passage having an exhaust outlet (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0053, “The separator 55 may include any combination of one or more of a cleaning chamber, a cleaning chamber housing, a crop cleaner such as a fan 40, a fan enclosure, a motor 50 driving the fan 40, a hood 38 having an opening 54, and a centrifugal blower wheel 46”);
the extractor further including a fan assembly positioned within the interior passage of the housing and configured for inducing a flow of air across a flow of sugarcane billets and through the interior passage for extracting leaf residue from the flow of sugarcane billets and discharging the leaf residue through the exhaust outlet (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0056, “In the illustrated construction, the fan 40 (or other crop cleaner) is configured to draw air and extraneous plant matter from the cleaning chamber”);
a [sensor] positioned to detect data related to a sugar content of extracted material passing through the interior passage of the housing (Paragraph 0067, “The billet loss sensor 74 is configured for sending a signal to the control unit 68 corresponding to each billet passing through the separator 55 and, more specifically, out the opening 54”; Examiner notes that billets within extracted material is reasonably indicative of sugar within extracted material).
While Blank further discloses that the sensor may comprise various suitable sensing technology (Paragraph 0062, “In other constructions, the billet loss sensor 74 may include a piezoelectric sensor or employ another suitable sensing technology”), Blank does not explicitly recite that the sensor may be: a constituent sensor.
Nevertheless, McCarthy teaches a proof of concept for determining sugar loss of material passing through a primary extractor using image analysis (Page 1/3, “A proof-of concept machine-vision sensor containing cameras with visible light and non-visible light sensitivity has been developed for the purpose of real-time sensing of harvester losses”) comprising:
a constituent sensor (Page 2/3, “A compact, portable and enclosed sensor containing camera technology sensitive to visible and non-visible wavelengths was constructed to enable image capture during harvesting. The most suitable mounting location for the sensor was identified as underneath the primary extractor”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Blank invention to expand the monitoring process for identifying sugar (billet) loss (Paragraph 0067) to include a constituent sensor, as taught by McCarthy, for the benefit of identifying sugar loss from billets that are not detected by conventional technology (McCarthy, Page 1/3, “Commercially available products comprise a network of sensors fitted at key locations in the harvester and algorithms using over 20 years of harvesting data (SCHLOT Live, Norris ECT, Australia), and a billet counter based on an accelerometer detecting impacts on the primary extractor hood (SmartClean, John Deere, USA). However, existing technologies do not provide real-time direct measurement of invisible sugar losses. There is opportunity for development of a sensor that performs real-time losses detection based on sensing of the material expelled from the harvester during cane cleaning”).
However, Blank as currently modified still does not explicitly teach: wherein the constituent sensor includes an image sensor positioned to capture an image of the extracted material passing through the interior passage of the housing; and wherein the housing includes a transparent window disposed between the fan assembly and the exhaust outlet and configured to enable the constituent sensor to capture the image through the transparent window of the extracted material passing through the interior passage of the housing.
Nevertheless, Corban teaches features for monitoring constituent components of crop material inside a harvester (see at least Paragraph 0023) comprising:
wherein the constituent sensor includes an image sensor positioned to capture an image of the extracted material passing through the interior passage of the housing (Figure 4 and Paragraph 0048 describes a sensor (“camera 132”) configured to capture constituent information of crop flow inside a harvester (“The sample images are captured at a sampling location within the grain tailings elevator 70 with a high performance camera, such as the camera 132. The high-performance characteristic of the camera 132 coupled with the advanced processing performance of the grain quality detection system 202 provide for enhanced constituent part identification and classification”)); and
wherein the housing includes a transparent window [configured to enable the constituent sensor to capture the image through the transparent window of the extracted material passing through the interior passage of the housing] (Figure 4 and Paragraph 0040, “The window 140 may be an opening in the side wall 90 (as shown), or it may be a translucent or transparent sheet or plate (e.g., made of plastic or glass) for unobstructed view into the interior of the tailings elevator housing 76”).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Blank discloses that the placement of various types of billet loss sensors (Paragraph 0062, “the billet loss sensor 74 may…employ suitable sensing technology”) can be generally anywhere on an extractor structure (Paragraph 0067, “…the billet loss sensor 74 may be associated with, or coupled to, a cleaning chamber housing, a fan enclosure, the hood 38, the fan 40, the fan blades, the hub, a centrifugal blower wheel, a right angular blower blades, the drive shaft, etc., or any of the associated structures…”). Corban teaches that positioning a constituent sensor behind a transparent window in a combine harvester is known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly position a constituent sensor behind a transparent window in the sugarcane harvester of the Blank invention for the same well-known benefit of protecting harvester sensors from debris (e.g. from smudging a camera lens) during harvesting operation.
However, Blank as currently modified still does not explicitly recite that the sensor is: disposed between the fan assembly and the exhaust outlet.
Nevertheless, Dugas teaches sensor placement within a sugarcane harvester’s extractor (see at least Figure 2) comprising a constituent sensor:
disposed between the fan assembly and the exhaust outlet (Paragraph 0036, “The moisture sensor 80 is positioned to detect moisture of the crop. The moisture sensor 80 may include a near infrared sensor or other suitable moisture-detecting technologies…In the illustrated construction, the moisture sensor 80 is disposed in the separator 55 and, more specifically, in the hood 38. The moisture sensor 80 sends a signal to the control unit 68 corresponding to a level of moisture in the crop”; Examiner notes that being positioned in “hood 38” reasonably indicates being positioned between the fan assembly (see “fan 40”) and the exhaust outlet (see “opening 54”)).
PNG
media_image2.png
498
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Blank invention to expand the placement of billet loss sensors generally anywhere on an extractor housing (Paragraph 0067, “the billet loss sensor 74 may be associated with, or coupled to, a cleaning chamber housing, a fan enclosure, the hood 38, the fan 40, the fan blades, the hub, a centrifugal blower wheel, a right angular blower blades, the drive shaft, etc., or any of the associated structures…”) to a position between a fan assembly and exhaust outlet, as shown by Dugas, for the benefit of suitable positioning for crop monitoring (Dugas, Paragraph 0036).
Regarding Claim 2, Blank as modified teaches claim 1. Blank further discloses:
a controller including a processor and a memory having a billet loss detection algorithm saved thereon, wherein the processor is operable to execute the billet loss detection algorithm (Paragraphs 0062-0067, “The control unit 68 may include a memory and programming, such as algorithms…The control unit 68 is programmed to include a monitoring system that monitors harvester functions…The billet loss sensor 74 sends a signal to the control unit 68 each time a billet is detected. The control unit 68 records and counts the billets and may associate the billet signal data with a time, a location…).
However, Blank does not explicitly recite: determine a current sugar content of the extracted material passing through the interior passage of the housing from data sensed by the constituent sensor.
Nevertheless, McCarthy further teaches:
determine a current sugar content of the extracted material passing through the interior passage of the housing from data sensed by the constituent sensor (Page 2/3, “Features were extracted from both visible and non-visible camera image information”; Page 3/3, “A machine-vision sensor mounted beneath the primary extractor was successful in obtaining synchronised image datasets from camera technology during ISLMS trials conducted over 2 days. Image analysis algorithms developed for machine-vision data achieved high correlation with sugar loss from the conducted trials, which was a positive outcome for real-time sensing”; Examiner notes that McCarthy provides a proof of concept for training an algorithm (e.g. via results from “Infield Sucrose Loss Measurement System” (ISLMS) trials) to determine the sugar loss of extracted material from at least non-visible wavelength images of extracted material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Blank invention to expand the process for monitoring sugar loss (Paragraph 0067) to include images taken from a constituent sensor, as taught by McCarthy, for the benefit of identifying sugar loss from smaller billets that are not detected by conventional technology (McCarthy, Page 1/3, “…existing technologies do not provide real-time direct measurement of invisible sugar losses. There is opportunity for development of a sensor that performs real-time losses detection based on sensing of the material expelled from the harvester during cane cleaning”).
Regarding Claim 10, Blank as modified teaches Claim 1. Blank does not explicitly disclose: wherein the constituent sensor is positioned between the fan assembly and the exhaust outlet.
Nevertheless, Dugas teaches a constituent sensor for a sugarcane harvester’s extractor (see at least Figure 2) comprising:
wherein the constituent sensor is positioned between the fan assembly and the exhaust outlet (Paragraph 0036, “The moisture sensor 80 is positioned to detect moisture of the crop. The moisture sensor 80 may include a near infrared sensor or other suitable moisture-detecting technologies…In the illustrated construction, the moisture sensor 80 is disposed in the separator 55 and, more specifically, in the hood 38. The moisture sensor 80 sends a signal to the control unit 68 corresponding to a level of moisture in the crop”; Examiner notes that being positioned in “hood 38” reasonably indicates being positioned between the fan assembly (see “fan 40”) and the exhaust outlet (see “opening 54”)).
PNG
media_image2.png
498
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Blank invention to expand the process for monitoring sugar loss (Paragraph 0067) to include positioning the constituent sensor between the fan assembly and exhaust outlet, as taught by Dugas, for the benefit of providing measurements of extracted materials.
Regarding Claim 11, Blank as modified teaches Claim 1. While Blank discloses positioning a billet loss sensor upstream of extracted material (Paragraph 0067, “…the billet loss sensor 74 is coupled to the hood 38”), Blank does not explicitly disclose: wherein the constituent sensor is positioned upstream of the fan assembly relative to a flow path of the extracted material passing through the interior passage.
Nevertheless, Dugas teaches a constituent sensor for a sugarcane harvester’s extractor (see at least Figure 2) comprising:
wherein the constituent sensor is positioned upstream of the fan assembly relative to a flow path of the extracted material passing through the interior passage (Paragraph 0023, “The hood 38 directs cut crop through the opening 54 to the outside of the harvester 10, e.g., for discharging a portion of cut crop removed from the stream of cut crop back onto the field…All the cut crop directed through the opening 54, which is ejected back onto the field, is referred to herein as residue. Residue typically includes primarily the extraneous plant matter (which has generally been cut) and may include some billets B”; Paragraph 0036, “The moisture sensor 80 is positioned to detect moisture of the crop. The moisture sensor 80 may include a near infrared sensor or other suitable moisture-detecting technologies…the moisture sensor 80 is disposed in the separator 55 and, more specifically, in the hood 38”; Examiner notes that being positioned in “hood 38” reasonably indicates being positioned upstream of the fan assembly (“fan 40”) relative to the flow path of extracted material (“cut crop” / residue)).
PNG
media_image3.png
500
862
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Blank invention to expand the process for monitoring sugar loss (Paragraph 0067) to include positioning the constituent sensor upstream of extracted material, as taught by Dugas, for the benefit of providing measurements for extracted materials.
Regarding Claim 14, Blank as modified teaches Claim 1. Blank further discloses:
a chopper configured for cutting sugarcane stalks into the billets (Paragraph 0053, “The chopper 28 cuts the crop”);
an elevator configured for lifting the billets to an elevated position and discharging the billets into a wagon (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0058, “…an elevator 56 is coupled to the frame 12 for receiving cleaned crop from the separator 55. The elevator 56 terminates at a discharge opening 58 (or outlet) elevated to a height suitable for discharging cleaned crop into a collection receptacle of a vehicle (not shown), such as a truck, wagon, or the like following alongside the harvester 10”); and
wherein the extractor is a primary extractor disposed between the chopper and the elevator (Figure 1 shows the primary extractor (“separator 55”) as being located between the chopper (labeled) and the elevator (“elevator 56”)).
PNG
media_image4.png
388
663
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1 and 2, and it has been determined that claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 1 and 2. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 2.
Claims 3-6, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank in view of McCarthy, Corban, Dugas, and Lucca (US20240175440A1, filed on Nov. 20, 2023; hereinafter Lucca).
Regarding Claim 3, Blank as modified teaches claim 2. Blank does not explicitly disclose: wherein the processor is operable to execute the billet loss detection algorithm to compare the current sugar content of the extracted material passing through the interior passage to a trash sugar content threshold to determine if the current sugar content of the extracted material passing through the interior passage is less than or equal to the trash sugar content threshold or if the current sugar content of the extracted material passing through the interior passage is greater than the trash sugar content threshold.
Nevertheless, Lucca teaches a sugarcane harvester configured to monitor extracted material (see at least Abstract) comprising:
wherein the processor is operable to execute the billet loss detection algorithm to compare the current sugar content of the extracted material passing through the interior passage to a trash sugar content threshold to determine if the current sugar content of the extracted material passing through the interior passage is less than or equal to the trash sugar content threshold or if the current sugar content of the extracted material passing through the interior passage is greater than the trash sugar content threshold (Paragraph 0068-0069, “…the fan control module 216 may be configured to determine the crop loss through the extractor fan assembly 100 based at least in part on the sensor data 210…it should be appreciated that the crop losses may be determined in any other suitable manner…The fan control module 216 may further be configured to compare the crop loss to a crop loss threshold. When the crop loss is greater than the crop loss threshold…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Blank invention to expand the process for monitoring sugar loss (Paragraph 0067) to include a comparison with a threshold, as taught by Lucca, for the benefit of preventing excessive crop loss.
Regarding Claim 4, Blank as modified teaches claim 3. Blank does not explicitly disclose: wherein the processor is operable to execute the billet loss detection algorithm to communicate a billet loss notification signal to a communicator when the current sugar content of the extracted material passing through the interior passage is greater than the trash sugar content threshold.
Nevertheless, Lucca further teaches:
wherein the processor is operable to execute the billet loss detection algorithm to communicate a billet loss notification signal to a communicator when the current sugar content of the extracted material passing through the interior passage is greater than the trash sugar content threshold (Paragraph 0068-0069, “When the crop loss is greater than the crop loss threshold the fan control module 216 may be configured to initiate a control action. For instance, in one embodiment, when the crop loss is higher than the crop loss threshold, the fan control module 216 may be configured to control an operation of the user interface(s) 220 to indicate that the crop loss is higher than desired and/or to indicate recommended actions to reduce crop loss”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Blank invention to expand the process for monitoring sugar loss (Paragraph 0067) to include a notification when crop loss exceeds a threshold, as taught by Lucca, for the benefit of preventing excessive crop loss.
Regarding Claim 5, Blank as modified teaches claim 3. Blank does not explicitly disclose: wherein the processor is operable to execute the billet loss detection algorithm to control a harvest system operating parameter when the current sugar content of the extracted material passing through the interior passage is greater than the trash sugar content threshold.
Nevertheless, Lucca further teaches:
wherein the processor is operable to execute the billet loss detection algorithm to control a harvest system operating parameter when the current sugar content of the extracted material passing through the interior passage is greater than the trash sugar content threshold (Paragraph 0069, “In some embodiments, when the crop loss is higher than the crop loss threshold, the fan control module 216 may be configured to automatically control an operation of the fan rotational drive source(s) 96 to reduce the speed of the hub 102 and blades 104”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Blank invention to expand the process for monitoring sugar loss (Paragraph 0067) to include a control action when crop loss exceeds a threshold, as taught by Lucca, for the benefit of preventing excessive crop loss.
Regarding Claim 6, Blank as modified teaches claim 5. Blank does not explicitly disclose: wherein the harvest system operating parameter includes one of a chopper speed of a billet chopper system, a fan speed of the fan assembly, a speed of a feed section, a speed of an elevator, a ground speed of the sugarcane harvester, a position or angle of a billet deflector, a position of the fan assembly within the housing of the extractor, a blade pitch of a fan blade of the fan assembly, or an angular orientation of the fan assembly relative to the housing.
Nevertheless, Lucca further teaches:
wherein the harvest system operating parameter includes one of a chopper speed of a billet chopper system, a fan speed of the fan assembly, a speed of a feed section, a speed of an elevator, a ground speed of the sugarcane harvester, a position or angle of a billet deflector, a position of the fan assembly within the housing of the extractor, a blade pitch of a fan blade of the fan assembly, or an angular orientation of the fan assembly relative to the housing (Paragraph 0069, “In some embodiments, when the crop loss is higher than the crop loss threshold, the fan control module 216 may be configured to automatically control an operation of the fan rotational drive source(s) 96 to reduce the speed of the hub 102 and blades 104”); Examiner notes that “hub 102” refers to “fan hub 102” shown in Figure 2, which is reasonably indicative of a fan assembly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Blank invention to expand the process for monitoring sugar loss (Paragraph 0067) to include a reduction of fan speed when crop loss exceeds a threshold, as taught by Lucca, for the benefit of preventing excessive crop loss.
Regarding Claim 16, Blank as modified teaches claim 15. The limitations of claim 16 have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 3. Therefore, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 17, Blank as modified teaches claim 16. The limitations of claim 17 have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 4. Therefore, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank in view of McCarthy, Corban, Dugas, and Cotton et al. (US20160327535A1; hereinafter Cotton).
Regarding Claim 7, Blank as modified teaches claim 2. Blank does not explicitly disclose: wherein the processor is operable to execute the billet loss detection algorithm to register a sugar loss sum in the memory, wherein the sugar loss sum is the sum of the determined current sugar content of the extracted material passing through the interior passage measured over a period of time.
Nevertheless, Cotton teaches features for detecting sugarcane loss (see at least Abstract and Paragraph 0015, “Also, it will be noted that the present discussion will proceed with respect to mobile machine 102 harvesting grain, but it could be harvesting other crops as well, such as sugarcane, cotton, sugar beets, etc”) comprising:
wherein the processor is operable to execute the billet loss detection algorithm to register a sugar loss sum in the memory, wherein the sugar loss sum is the sum of the determined current sugar content of the extracted material passing through the interior passage measured over a period of time (Paragraph 0059, “The grain loss monitor system 124 illustratively generates a grain loss monitor display that is displayed in display portion 364…In addition, the historic grain loss indicator 302 displays historic grain loss that was monitored over a previous period of time, and also displays it relative to target range indicator 304”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Blank invention to expand the process for monitoring sugar loss (Paragraph 0067) to include determining sugar loss over a period of time, as taught by Cotton, for the benefit of providing relevant information of harvesting operations to an operator.
Regarding Claim 18, Blank as modified teaches claim 15. The limitations of claim 18 have been analyzed in view of claim 7, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 7. Therefore, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank in view of McCarthy, Corban, Dugas, and Nalbach et al. (EP4275472A1, citations refer to the previously attached English translation; hereinafter Nalbach).
Regarding Claim 8, Blank as modified teaches Claim 1. Blank does not explicitly recite: wherein the constituent sensor includes a Near Infra Red (NIR) sensor positioned to capture an image of the extracted [material passing through the interior passage of the housing].
Nevertheless, Nalbach teaches a constituent sensor for a harvester (see at least Paragraph 0006) comprising:
the constituent sensor includes a Near Infra Red (NIR) sensor (Paragraph 0006, “…a bypass device configured for taking and returning a sample stream from the crop stream, and a control unit, wherein the bypass device comprises an NIR measuring device for detecting constituents of the taken sample stream”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Blank invention to expand the process for monitoring sugar loss (Paragraph 0067) to include the use of a Near Infra-Red sensor, as taught by Nalbach, for the benefit of measuring constituent information in a non-destructive way.
Regarding Claim 19, Blank as modified teaches claim 15. The limitations of claim 19 have been analyzed in view of claim 8, and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 8 in view of its 112(b) interpretation. Therefore, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Vandike (US20210015039A1) teaches a harvester, wherein Figure 8 shows a camera (“424-3”) positioned to take images of flowing crop residue (“CR”) through a transparent window (“protective panel 448”).
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 EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights