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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the patent application filed on February 6, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is being handled by examiner Christine Huynh.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 16, 2024 and April 1, 2025. The submission 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13 and 15-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 13 is directed to a control system. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 13 recites:
A control system for an agricultural machine configured to perform a harvesting operation to harvest a crop, comprising:
a controller configured to store a first threshold or a second threshold, the first threshold related to a quantity of grain loss by the agricultural machine during the harvesting operation and the second threshold related to a quality of grain harvested during the harvesting operation, and
a sensor disposed in communication with the controller, the sensor configured to detect the quantity of grain loss or the quality of the grain during the harvesting operation,
wherein, during the harvesting operation, the sensor is configured to send a signal to the controller corresponding to the quantity of grain loss or the quality of the grain, and
wherein the controller is configured to compare the signal from the sensor to either the first threshold or the second threshold and determine whether the quantity of grain loss exceeds the first threshold in response to the comparison between the signal from the sensor and the first threshold or the quality of the grain exceeds the second threshold in response to the comparison between the signal from the sensor and the second threshold.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “detect…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (operator) looking at data collected and “compare…” encompasses a person (operator) comparing the given data set to a value and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A control system for an agricultural machine configured to perform a harvesting operation to harvest a crop, comprising:
a controller configured to store a first threshold or a second threshold, the first threshold related to a quantity of grain loss by the agricultural machine during the harvesting operation and the second threshold related to a quality of grain harvested during the harvesting operation, and
a sensor disposed in communication with the controller, the sensor configured to detect the quantity of grain loss or the quality of the grain during the harvesting operation,
wherein, during the harvesting operation, the sensor is configured to send a signal to the controller corresponding to the quantity of grain loss or the quality of the grain, and
wherein the controller is configured to compare the signal from the sensor to either the first threshold or the second threshold and determine whether the quantity of grain loss exceeds the first threshold in response to the comparison between the signal from the sensor and the first threshold or the quality of the grain exceeds the second threshold in response to the comparison between the signal from the sensor and the second threshold.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “store a first threshold or a second threshold…,” and “send a signal to the controller corresponding to the quantity of grain loss or the quality of the grain…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the storing a threshold value are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data storing, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The sending a signal is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of sending a signal based on the detecting result from the detecting step), and amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “controller” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the evaluating… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “store a first threshold or a second threshold…,” and “send a signal to the controller corresponding to the quantity of grain loss or the quality of the grain…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 15-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite: “detect the quantity of grain loss or the quality of the grain during the harvesting operation…” and “compare the signal from the sensor to either the first threshold or the second threshold and determine whether the quantity of grain loss exceeds the first threshold…”. Each of the further limitations expound upon the detect the quantity of grain loss or the quality of the grain during the harvesting operation…” and “compare the signal from the sensor to either the first threshold or the second threshold and determine whether the quantity of grain loss exceeds the first threshold…”and do not recite additional elements integrating these limitations into a practical application or additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, dependent claims 15-17 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Dependent claim 14, however, is NOT directed towards an abstract idea, as claim 14 recites “wherein the controller is configured to adjust a machine setting when the quantity of grain loss exceeds the first threshold or when the quality of the grain exceeds the second threshold”, where the adjusting a machine setting integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claim(s) 13 and 15-17 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mott et al. (US 20160081271 A1).
Regarding claims 1-10 and 12-18:
With respect to claims 1, 13, and 18, Mott teaches:
a chassis; (“Referring to FIG. 1, an agricultural harvester 100, here shown as a combine, comprises a chassis 102 that is supported on wheels 104 to be driven over the ground and harvest crops.” [0027]).
a header coupled to the chassis, the header configured to harvest a crop during the harvesting operation in a field; (“Feederhouse lift cylinders 107 extend between the chassis of the agricultural harvester 100 and the feederhouse to raise and lower the feederhouse (and hence the agricultural harvesting head 108) with respect to the ground. An agricultural harvesting head 108 is supported on the front of the feederhouse 106.” [0027]).
a separating section of the agricultural machine configured to separate grain from the harvested crop; (“Once inside the agricultural harvester 100, the crop is conveyed into separator which comprises a rotor 110 that is cylindrical and a threshing basket or threshing basket 112.” [0027]).
a cleaning shoe of the agricultural machine configured to clean the grain received from the separating section and move the grain towards a tank coupled to the chassis, wherein the separating section and cleaning shoe are positioned downstream from the header and upstream from the tank; (“The cleaning shoe 118 has two sieves: an upper sieve 120, and a lower sieve 122. A fan 124 is provided at the front of the cleaning shoe to blow air rearward underneath the sieves. This air passes upward through the sieves and lifts chaff, husks, culm and other small particles of MOG (as well as a small portion of grain). The air carries this material rearward to the rear end of the sieves. A motor 125 drives the fan 124. Most of the grain entering the cleaning shoe 118, however, is not carried rearward, but passes downward through the upper sieve 120, then through the lower sieve 122.” [0030-0031]).
a sensor configured to detect a quantity of grain loss from the agricultural machine during the harvesting operation or a quality of the grain; (“The current machine settings may be indicated by at least one of a group consisting of a rotor speed sensor, a threshing gap sensor, a grain yield sensor, a tailings sensor, a threshing load sensor, a grain quality sensor,” [0013], “The shoe loss sensor 121 provides a signal that is indicative of the quantity of material (which may include grain and MOG mixed together) carried to the rear of the cleaning shoe and falling off the left side of the cleaning shoe 118. The shoe loss sensor 123 provides a signal that is indicative of the quantity of material (which may include grain and MOG mixed together) carried to the rear of the cleaning shoe when falling off the right side of the cleaning shoe 118.” [0033-0034], “The tailings sensor 216 and the grain quality sensor 220 each provide a signal indicative of the quality of the grain.” [0049]), which shows a plurality of sensors that detect a quantity of grain loss from the agricultural machine during the harvesting operation and a quality of the grain.
a control system comprising a controller disposed in communication with the sensor, the controller configured to store a first threshold related to a quantity of grain loss and a second threshold related to a grain quality; (“In step 310, the ECU determines at least one error limit for each of the performance parameters. This at least one error limit may be an upper threshold for the performance parameter, a lower threshold for the performance parameter, or both an upper threshold and a lower threshold. The at least one error limit for each of the performance parameters is based at least upon the current performance parameters determined in step 306.” [0075]), in which the thresholds are related to parameters such as quantity of grain loss and a grain quality (see Mott [0011]).
wherein the controller is configured to receive a signal from the sensor, the signal corresponding to the quantity of grain loss or the quality of the grain; (“receiving the electronic signal by the ECU; determining in the ECU current performance parameters of the agricultural combine after the step of receiving;” [0016], “The shoe loss sensor 121 provides a signal that is indicative of the quantity of material (which may include grain and MOG mixed together) carried to the rear of the cleaning shoe and falling off the left side of the cleaning shoe 118. The shoe loss sensor 123 provides a signal that is indicative of the quantity of material (which may include grain and MOG mixed together) carried to the rear of the cleaning shoe when falling off the right side of the cleaning shoe 118.” [0033-0034], “The tailings sensor 216 and the grain quality sensor 220 each provide a signal indicative of the quality of the grain.” [0049]), where the ECU receives a signal from the plurality of sensors regarding the quantity of grain loss or the quality of the grain.
wherein the controller is configured to compare the signal from the sensor to either the first threshold or the second threshold and determine if the quantity of grain loss exceeds the first threshold in response to the comparison of the signal from the sensor to the first threshold or the quality of the grain exceeds the second threshold in response to the comparison of the signal from the sensor to the second threshold; (“The step of comparing the again determined current performance parameters with the performance parameter error limits may further comprise the step of sequentially comparing each of the again determined current performance parameters with its associated performance parameter error limit, to thereby sequentially determine whether said each of the again determined current performance parameters falls outside its associated performance parameter error limit.” [0015], “In step 314, the system determines that one or more of the performance parameters is not within the error limits (e.g. if it exceeds the error limits), then the system proceeds to execute step 316.” [0080], “For example, if the operator indicated that the operation was acceptable (in step 304) when the cracked grain current performance parameter was 1% (i.e. 1% of all the harvested grain is cracked grain), the system could establish an upper threshold of cracked grain that is slightly above the 1% cracked grain current performance parameter, for example 1.5%. Alternatively, if the operator indicated that the operation was acceptable when the cracked grain current performance parameter was 5%, the system could establish an upper threshold of cracked grain that is slightly above the 5% cracked grain current performance parameter, for example 5.5%. Thus, the error limits are a function of (e.g. derived from) the current performance parameters that the system determined when the operator indicated that the current performance was acceptable.” [0076]), where the signal from the sensor is compared to the determined threshold for a parameter of the machine. This also shows an example where the quality of the grain exceeds the parameter threshold in response to the comparison of the signal from the sensor to the parameter threshold.
adjusting a setting on the work machine when the controller identifies a grain loss issue or a grain quality issue; (“If all the performance parameters are within the error limits calculated in step 312, the operation of the agricultural harvester 100 is acceptable and the system branches from step 314 back to step 312. In step 314, the system determines that one or more of the performance parameters is not within the error limits (e.g. if it exceeds the error limits), then the system proceeds to execute step 316. In step 316, the system calculates a change in one or more machine settings that will bring the erroneous performance parameter (or parameters) that has exceeded its error limit (or error limits) back within the error limit or limits calculated.” [0079-0081], which shows adjusting from one setting to another based on measure parameters that exceed the error limit, (“Having calculated a change in one or more machine settings that will bring the erroneous performance parameter (or parameters) back within its error limit or limits, the system applies these new machine settings to the agricultural harvester 100 and proceeds to execute step 318.” [0083]), which shows the adjusting the setting on the machine based on the measured parameters exceeding a threshold.
With respect to claim 2, Mott, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mott teaches detecting multiple specific issues of claim 1. Mott further teaches:
wherein the sensor comprises a plurality of sensors, wherein one of the plurality of sensors detects the quantity of grain loss from the separating section, the cleaning shoe, or the header; (“The shoe loss sensor 121 provides a signal that is indicative of the quantity of material (which may include grain and MOG mixed together) carried to the rear of the cleaning shoe and falling off the left side of the cleaning shoe 118. The shoe loss sensor 123 provides a signal that is indicative of the quantity of material (which may include grain and MOG mixed together) carried to the rear of the cleaning shoe when falling off the right side of the cleaning shoe 118.” [0033-0034]), where a plurality of sensors detects the quantity of grain loss from the the cleaning shoe.
With respect to claim 3, Mott, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mott teaches detecting multiple specific issues of claim 1. Mott further teaches:
wherein the sensor comprises a plurality of sensors, where one of the plurality of sensors detects the quality of the grain in a tank or an elevator coupled to the chassis; (“The tailings sensor 216 and the grain quality sensor 220 each provide a signal indicative of the quality of the grain.” [0049], “the grain quality sensor 220 is disposed in a grain flow path between the clean grain auger 128 and the grain tank 117. More particularly, the grain quality sensor 220 is disposed adjacent to the grain elevator 115. More particularly, grain quality sensor 220 is disposed to receive samples of grain from the grain elevator 115 and to sense characteristics of grain sampled therefrom.” [0050]), where a sensor detects the quality of the grain in an elevator.
With respect to claim 4, Mott, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mott teaches detecting multiple specific issues of claim 1. Mott further teaches:
wherein the sensor comprises a camera; (“In one arrangement, the tailings sensor 216 and the grain quality sensor 220 each comprise a digital camera...” [0053]) where the sensor comprises a camera.
With respect to claim 5, Mott, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Mott teaches detecting multiple specific issues of claim 2. Mott further teaches:
wherein the sensor is configured to capture an image of the grain when detecting the quality of the grain, the controller receiving the image from the sensor via the signal and being configured to analyze the quality of the grain from the image; (“In one arrangement, the tailings sensor 216 and the grain quality sensor 220 each comprise a digital camera configured to receive a picture of the grain sample, and an ECU configured to interpret the picture and determine the quality of the grain sample.” [0053]), where the camera sensor captures an image of the grain for determining the quality of the grain.
With respect to claims 6 and 14, Mott, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Mott teaches detecting multiple specific issues of claims 1 and 13. Mott further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to adjust a machine setting in response to the grain loss exceeding the first threshold or in response to the quality of the grain exceeding the second threshold; (“if at least one of the again determined current performance parameters falls outside its associated performance parameter error limit in step “f”, then calculating in the ECU changes to machine settings of the agricultural combine that will bring the at least one of the again determined current performance parameters back within its associated performance parameter error limit.” [0016], “The current performance parameters may comprise at least one of a group consisting of grain yield, grain quality, grain loss.” [0019], “Having calculated a change in one or more machine settings that will bring the erroneous performance parameter (or parameters) back within its error limit or limits, the system applies these new machine settings to the agricultural harvester 100 and proceeds to execute step 318.” [0083]), which shows the adjusting the setting on the machine based on the measured parameters exceeding a threshold.
With respect to claim 7, Mott, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mott teaches detecting multiple specific issues of claim 1. Mott further teaches:
the sensor is configured to detect the quantity of grain loss, the quality of the grain, or a quantity of broken grain during the harvesting operation; (“The shoe loss sensor 121 provides a signal that is indicative of the quantity of material (which may include grain and MOG mixed together) carried to the rear of the cleaning shoe and falling off the left side of the cleaning shoe 118. The shoe loss sensor 123 provides a signal that is indicative of the quantity of material (which may include grain and MOG mixed together) carried to the rear of the cleaning shoe when falling off the right side of the cleaning shoe 118.” [0033-0034], “The tailings sensor 216 and the grain quality sensor 220 each provide a signal indicative of the quality of the grain.” [0049]).
the controller is configured to store a third threshold related to broken grain; (“For example, if the operator indicated that the operation was acceptable (in step 304) when the cracked grain current performance parameter was 1% (i.e. 1% of all the harvested grain is cracked grain), the system could establish an upper threshold of cracked grain that is slightly above the 1% cracked grain current performance parameter, for example 1.5%...” [0076]), in which this example shows that a threshold can be set for the parameter of broken grain.
wherein, when the sensor detects the quantity of broken grain during the harvesting operation, the sensor is configured to communicate the signal corresponding to the quantity of broken grain to the controller, and the controller is configured to compare the quantity of broken grain to the third threshold; (“The step of comparing the again determined current performance parameters with the performance parameter error limits may further comprise the step of sequentially comparing each of the again determined current performance parameters with its associated performance parameter error limit, to thereby sequentially determine whether said each of the again determined current performance parameters falls outside its associated performance parameter error limit.” [0015], “In step 314, the system determines that one or more of the performance parameters is not within the error limits (e.g. if it exceeds the error limits), then the system proceeds to execute step 316.” [0080], “For example, if the operator indicated that the operation was acceptable (in step 304) when the cracked grain current performance parameter was 1% (i.e. 1% of all the harvested grain is cracked grain), the system could establish an upper threshold of cracked grain that is slightly above the 1% cracked grain current performance parameter, for example 1.5%. Alternatively, if the operator indicated that the operation was acceptable when the cracked grain current performance parameter was 5%, the system could establish an upper threshold of cracked grain that is slightly above the 5% cracked grain current performance parameter, for example 5.5%. Thus, the error limits are a function of (e.g. derived from) the current performance parameters that the system determined when the operator indicated that the current performance was acceptable.” [0076]), where the signal from the sensor is communicated to the ECU and compared to the determined broken grain threshold.
With respect to claims 8 and 15, Mott, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 6 and 14. Mott teaches detecting multiple specific issues of claims 6 and 14. Mott further teaches:
wherein the machine setting includes one or more of rotor speed, threshing clearance, fan speed, chaffer clearance, and sieve clearance; (“The current machine settings may comprise at least one of a group consisting of rotor speed, upper sieve position, lower sieve position, fan speed, vehicle speed, threshing gap, threshing load, and header height.” [0012]).
With respect to claim 9, Mott, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 6. Mott teaches detecting multiple specific issues of claim 6. Mott further teaches:
wherein the controller comprises a plurality of controllers, where a first controller of the plurality of controllers is in communication with the sensor and is configured to receive the signal from the sensor and compare the signal from the sensor to the first threshold or second threshold; (“Referring to FIG. 2, an electronic control unit (ECU) 200 is coupled to a plurality of sensors 202 and a plurality of controllers 204. The ECU 200 is also coupled to an operator input device 206 and a display device 208. The ECU 200 is configured to read each sensor of the plurality of sensors 202, and to drive each controller of the plurality of controllers 204.” [0038], “The step of comparing the again determined current performance parameters with the performance parameter error limits may further comprise the step of sequentially comparing each of the again determined current performance parameters with its associated performance parameter error limit, to thereby sequentially determine whether said each of the again determined current performance parameters falls outside its associated performance parameter error limit.” [0015]), where the ECU is in communication with the sensor and is configured to receive the signal from the sensor and compare the signal from the sensor to the parameter thresholds.
wherein a second controller of the plurality of controllers is communicatively coupled to the first controller, the second controller configured to adjust one or more machine settings based on the comparison of the signal to the first threshold or second threshold.(“if at least one of the again determined current performance parameters falls outside its associated performance parameter error limit in step “f”, then calculating in the ECU changes to machine settings of the agricultural combine that will bring the at least one of the again determined current performance parameters back within its associated performance parameter error limit.” [0016], “Having calculated a change in one or more machine settings that will bring the erroneous performance parameter (or parameters) back within its error limit or limits, the system applies these new machine settings to the agricultural harvester 100 and proceeds to execute step 318.” [0083]), where the ECU adjusts the machine settings based on the comparison of the signal to the parameter threshold.
With respect to claim 10, Mott, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 6. Mott teaches detecting multiple specific issues of claim 6. Mott further teaches:
the machine setting comprises at least a first machine setting and a second machine setting; (“automatically selects an appropriate change in a machine setting, automatically applies the change, automatically waits for the system to stabilize, and automatically decides whether or not the correction was sufficient, and if not, identifies a further change in the machine settings to solve the problem.” [0008]), which shows that there are at least two machine settings as it a first machine setting can be adjusted to a different machine setting.
after the controller adjusts the first machine setting, the controller is configured to detect the quantity of grain loss or quality of grain, and, if the controller determines that the quantity of grain loss exceeds the first threshold in response to the comparison of the signal from the sensor to the first threshold or the quality of the grain exceeds the second threshold in response to the comparison of the signal from the sensor to the second threshold, the controller is configured to operably adjust the second machine setting; (“If all the performance parameters are within the error limits calculated in step 312, the operation of the agricultural harvester 100 is acceptable and the system branches from step 314 back to step 312. In step 314, the system determines that one or more of the performance parameters is not within the error limits (e.g. if it exceeds the error limits), then the system proceeds to execute step 316. In step 316, the system calculates a change in one or more machine settings that will bring the erroneous performance parameter (or parameters) that has exceeded its error limit (or error limits) back within the error limit or limits calculated.” [0079-0081], which shows adjusting from one setting to another based on measure parameters that exceed the error limit, (“Having calculated a change in one or more machine settings that will bring the erroneous performance parameter (or parameters) back within its error limit or limits, the system applies these new machine settings to the agricultural harvester 100 and proceeds to execute step 318.” [0083]), which shows the adjusting the setting on the machine based on the measured parameters exceeding a threshold.
With respect to claim 12, Mott, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mott teaches detecting multiple specific issues of claim 1. Mott further teaches:
wherein the sensor is configured to detect one or more of foreign material, unthreshed grain, or broken grain when detecting the quality of the grain, (“The tailings sensor 216 and the grain quality sensor 220 each provide a signal indicative of the quality of the grain. The signal may be one or more of the following: a signal indicative of the amount of proportion of grain, a signal indicative of the amount or proportion of damaged grain (e.g. cracked or broken kernels of grain), a signal indicative of the amount or proportion of MOG mixed with the grain (which can be further characterized as an amount or proportion of different types of MOG, such as light MOG or heavy MOG), and the signal indicative of an amount or proportion of unthreshed grain.” [0049]), where the grain quality sensor provides a signal indicative of the quality of the grain such as MOG foreign material, broken, and unthreshed grain.
wherein the sensor is configured to communicate the signal regarding the quality of the grain to the controller, the signal regarding the quality of grain including information about the foreign material, unthreshed grain, or broken grain detected by the sensor, (“In one arrangement, the tailings sensor 216 and the grain quality sensor 220 each comprise a digital camera configured to receive a picture of the grain sample, and an ECU configured to interpret the picture and determine the quality of the grain sample.” [0053]), where the signal regarding the quality of the grain is communicated to the ECU.
wherein the controller is configured to determine the quality of the grain based on the information about the foreign material, unthreshed grain, or broken grain; (“…ECU configured to interpret the picture and determine the quality of the grain sample. In particular, the ECU is configured to determine the signals mentioned in the previous paragraph by classifying the picture taken by the camera.” [0053]), which shows the ECU is configured to determine the quality of the grain.
With respect to claim 16, Mott, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 13. Mott teaches detecting multiple specific issues of claim 13. Mott further teaches:
wherein the sensor comprises a plurality of sensors, where a first sensor of the plurality of sensors is configured to detect the quantity of grain loss and a second sensor of the plurality of sensors is configured to detect the quality of the grain; (“The current machine settings may be indicated by at least one of a group consisting of a rotor speed sensor, a threshing gap sensor, a grain yield sensor, a tailings sensor, a threshing load sensor, a grain quality sensor,” [0013], “The shoe loss sensor 121 provides a signal that is indicative of the quantity of material (which may include grain and MOG mixed together) carried to the rear of the cleaning shoe and falling off the left side of the cleaning shoe 118. The shoe loss sensor 123 provides a signal that is indicative of the quantity of material (which may include grain and MOG mixed together) carried to the rear of the cleaning shoe when falling off the right side of the cleaning shoe 118.” [0033-0034], “The tailings sensor 216 and the grain quality sensor 220 each provide a signal indicative of the quality of the grain.” [0049]), which shows a plurality of sensors that detect a quantity of grain loss from the agricultural machine during the harvesting operation and a quality of the grain.
With respect to claim 17, Mott, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 13. Mott teaches detecting multiple specific issues of claim 13. Mott further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to receive an input corresponding to the first threshold or the second threshold from an input device, the input received by the controller including a value based on a linear numeric scale or a percentage; (“For example, if the operator indicated that the operation was acceptable (in step 304) when the cracked grain current performance parameter was 1% (i.e. 1% of all the harvested grain is cracked grain), the system could establish an upper threshold of cracked grain that is slightly above the 1% cracked grain current performance parameter, for example 1.5%. Alternatively, if the operator indicated that the operation was acceptable when the cracked grain current performance parameter was 5%, the system could establish an upper threshold of cracked grain that is slightly above the 5% cracked grain current performance parameter, for example 5.5%. Thus, the error limits are a function of (e.g. derived from) the current performance parameters that the system determined when the operator indicated that the current performance was acceptable.” [0076]), which shows an example where the inputted threshold can be a value based on a percentage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mott et al. (US 20160081271 A1) in view of French (US 20180116112 A1):
Regarding claims 11 and 19-20:
With respect to claim 11, Mott, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mott teaches detecting multiple specific issues of claim 1. Mott further teaches:
the sensor is configured to detect the quantity of grain loss from one or more of the cleaning shoe, the separating section, and the header; (“The shoe loss sensor 121 provides a signal that is indicative of the quantity of material (which may include grain and MOG mixed together) carried to the rear of the cleaning shoe and falling off the left side of the cleaning shoe 118. The shoe loss sensor 123 provides a signal that is indicative of the quantity of material (which may include grain and MOG mixed together) carried to the rear of the cleaning shoe when falling off the right side of the cleaning shoe 118.” [0033-0034], “The plurality of sensors 202 comprise the separator loss sensor 119, the shoe loss sensor 121, the shoe loss sensor 123,” [0044]).
the sensor is configured to communicate the quantity of grain loss from the one or more of the cleaning shoe, the separating section, and the header to the controller; (“Referring to FIG. 2, an electronic control unit (ECU) 200 is coupled to a plurality of sensors 202 and a plurality of controllers 204.” [0038], this teaches that the controller is connected to the sensors, therefore information detected by the sensors is sent to the ECU, (“transmitting an electronic signal to an ECU indicating that a current performance of the agricultural combine is acceptable; receiving the electronic signal by the ECU; determining in the ECU current performance parameters of the agricultural combine after the step of receiving” [0016]), where sensor information is sent to the ECU.
wherein the controller is configured to determine a total quantity of grain loss based on the quantity of grain loss detected by the sensor from the one or more of the cleaning shoe, the separator, and the header; (“The ECU 200 is configured to alternatively calculate the grain yield by combining the signal from the header height sensor 226 and the signal from the feederhouse mass flow sensor 228 together with agronomic tables stored in memory circuits of the ECU 200. This arrangement can be substituted for the signal from the grain yield sensor 214 to provide a signal indicative of the flow rate of clean grain.” [0058]), where the signals from the machine sensors can be combined to calculated the grain quantity. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine a total quantity of grain loss in an attempt to provide an improved system or method, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In turn, because the product as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, where the total quantity of grain can be determined using the plurality of sensors of the machine, it would have been obvious to make the system or product where the total quantity of grain loss is determined.
In addition, French teaches (“They can include sensors or sensor combinations that indicate a constituent percent of clean grain entering clean grain tank 232.” [0031], “For the purposes of the present description, it will be assumed that one of sensors 112-114 (e.g., sensor 112) senses a variable indicative of a constituent percentage of clean grain entering a clean grain tank 232 on a combine harvester. For instance, the signal may be any one or a combination of signals indicative of different types or percentages of material other than grain (such as light or heavy materials other than grain) that are entering the clean grain tank along with the grain. They could be signals indicative of grain quality, such as whether the grain entering the clean grain tank is broken or unthreshed. These are examples only, and the sensor signals could be indicative of grain loss, such as grain loss in the separator or grain loss in the cleaning shoe 218, or other signals.” [0033], “Sensor selection logic 128 then selects a sensor signal for processing. This is indicated by block 302. It will be appreciated that multiple sensor signals can be selected for substantially simultaneous processing, or a single sensor signal can be selected for processing.” [0035]), where the signals from the machine sensors can be combined to calculated the grain quantity, and also states that sensor information from multiple sensors can be processed. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine a total quantity of grain loss.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Mott’s agricultural machine with French’s plurality of signal processing because (“It will also be noted that the various sensors can be mechanisms that directly measure the sensed variables, or they can be components that generate an estimation of the sensed variables from other sensor inputs. For instance, a yield sensor may sense mass flow rate of product through the clean grain elevator 230, and generate a metric indicative of yield, based upon that sensor input.” See French [0031]), and therefore the collected information can be used to better calculation the present parameters of the machine.
With respect to claim 19, Mott, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 18. Mott teaches detecting multiple specific issues of claim 18. Mott further teaches:
when a grain loss issue or a grain quality issue is identified, comparing a first subcategory to at least a second subcategory of a plurality of subcategories, where each of the plurality of subcategories is related to either the grain loss issue or the grain quality issue identified by the controller; (“In step 306, the ECU determines the current performance parameters of the agricultural harvester 100. These performance parameters may comprise separator loss (indicated by the separator loss sensor 119), shoe loss (indicated by the shoe loss sensor 121 and/or the shoe loss sensor 123), grain quality (indicated by the grain quality sensor 220), grain yield (indicated by the grain yield sensor 214), tailings volume (indicated by the tailings sensor 216), tailings quality (indicated by the tailings sensor 216), and straw quality (indicated by the straw quality sensor 224).” [0071], “In step 310, the ECU determines at least one error limit for each of the performance parameters. This at least one error limit may be an upper threshold for the performance parameter, a lower threshold for the performance parameter, or both an upper threshold and a lower threshold. The at least one error limit for each of the performance parameters is based at least upon the current performance parameters determined in step 306.” [0075]), where this shows that there is a plurality of parameters, which are subcategories, related to either the grain loss issue or the grain quality issue identified by the controller.
However, Mott does not teach, but French teaches:
determining, by the controller, the first subcategory contributes to the grain loss issue or the grain quality issue more than the second subcategory when a magnitude of the first subcategory is greater in comparison to a magnitude of the second subcategory, and the second subcategory contributes to the grain loss issue or the grain quality issue more than the first subcategory when the magnitude of the second subcategory is greater in comparison to the magnitude of the first subcategory; (“Control system 118 illustratively receives the long-term signal value 140 and the short-term signal value 142 and generates a control signal, based upon those two values 140 and 142, to control one or more controllable subsystems 120.” [0020], “For the purposes of the present description, it will be assumed that one of sensors 112-114 (e.g., sensor 112) senses a variable indicative of a constituent percentage of clean grain entering a clean grain tank 232 on a combine harvester. For instance, the signal may be any one or a combination of signals indicative of different types or percentages of material other than grain (such as light or heavy materials other than grain) that are entering the clean grain tank along with the grain. They could be signals indicative of grain quality, such as whether the grain entering the clean grain tank is broken or unthreshed. These are examples only, and the sensor signals could be indicative of grain loss, such as grain loss in the separator or grain loss in the cleaning shoe 218, or other signals.” [0033], “a first filter that generates a first filter signal value corresponding to the sensed variable, based on a first plurality of signal values generated by the sensor signal value generator over a first time interval; a second filter that generates a second filter signal value corresponding to the sensed variable, based on a second plurality of signal values, different from the first plurality of signal values, generated by the sensor signal value generator over a second time interval, different from the first time interval; and control system logic that receives the first filter signal value and the second filter signal value and generates a control signal to control a controllable subsystem on the agricultural vehicle based on the first filter signal value and the second filter signal value.” [0079-0081]), where the different signal values that correspond to different machine parameters are measured, and the agricultural machine control signal is adjusted based on the signal value. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that it can determined when the first subcategory contributes to the grain loss issue or the grain quality issue more than the second subcategory when a magnitude of the first subcategory is greater in comparison to a magnitude of the second subcategory, as the different signal values are measured, in an attempt to provide an improved system or method, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In turn, because the product as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to make the system or product that it can be determined when a subcategory contributes to the grain loss issue or the grain quality issue more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Mott’s agricultural machine with French’s plurality of signal processing because (“It will also be noted that the various sensors can be mechanisms that directly measure the sensed variables, or they can be components that generate an estimation of the sensed variables from other sensor inputs. For instance, a yield sensor may sense mass flow rate of product through the clean grain elevator 230, and generate a metric indicative of yield, based upon that sensor input.” See French [0031]), and therefore the collected information can be used to better calculation the present parameters of the machine.
With respect to claim 20, Mott, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 18. Mott teaches detecting multiple specific issues of claim 18. Mott further teaches:
when a grain loss issue or a grain quality issue is identified, comparing a first subcategory to at least a second subcategory of a plurality of subcategories, where each of the plurality of subcategories is related to either the grain loss issue or grain quality issue identified by the controller; (“In step 306, the ECU determines the current performance parameters of the agricultural harvester 100. These performance parameters may comprise separator loss (indicated by the separator loss sensor 119), shoe loss (indicated by the shoe loss sensor 121 and/or the shoe loss sensor 123), grain quality (indicated by the grain quality sensor 220), grain yield (indicated by the grain yield sensor 214), tailings volume (indicated by the tailings sensor 216), tailings quality (indicated by the tailings sensor 216), and straw quality (indicated by the straw quality sensor 224).” [0071], “In step 310, the ECU determines at least one error limit for each of the performance parameters. This at least one error limit may be an upper threshold for the performance parameter, a lower threshold for the performance parameter, or both an upper threshold and a lower threshold. The at least one error limit for each of the performance parameters is based at least upon the current performance parameters determined in step 306.” [0075]), where this shows that there is a plurality of parameters, which are subcategories, related to either the grain loss issue or the grain quality issue identified by the controller.
However, Mott does not teach, but French teaches:
determining, by the controller, the first subcategory contributes to the grain loss issue or the grain quality issue more than the second subcategory when the first subcategory changes more over a predetermined period of time in comparison to the second subcategory, and the second subcategory contributes to the grain loss issue or the grain quality issue more than the first subcategory when the second subcategory changes more over the predetermined period of time in comparison to the first subcategory; (“Thus, the long-term signal value 140 will illustratively reflect changes in the sensor signal values more slowly (because it is based on a relatively large number of sensor signal values generated over a longer period of time) than the short-term signal value 142, which reflects value changes more quickly (because it is based on fewer, more recent, sensor signal values).” [0019], “For the purposes of the present description, it will be assumed that one of sensors 112-114 (e.g., sensor 112) senses a variable indicative of a constituent percentage of clean grain entering a clean grain tank 232 on a combine harvester. For instance, the signal may be any one or a combination of signals indicative of different types or percentages of material other than grain (such as light or heavy materials other than grain) that are entering the clean grain tank along with the grain. They could be signals indicative of grain quality, such as whether the grain entering the clean grain tank is broken or unthreshed. These are examples only, and the sensor signals could be indicative of grain loss, such as grain loss in the separator or grain loss in the cleaning shoe 218, or other signals.” [0033], “a first filter that generates a first filter signal value corresponding to the sensed variable, based on a first plurality of signal values generated by the sensor signal value generator over a first time interval; a second filter that generates a second filter signal value corresponding to the sensed variable, based on a second plurality of signal values, different from the first plurality of signal values, generated by the sensor signal value generator over a second time interval, different from the first time interval; and control system logic that receives the first filter signal value and the second filter signal value and generates a control signal to control the controllable subsystem on the agricultural vehicle based on the first filter signal value and the second filter signal value.” [0122-0124]), where the signals are measured over a period of time. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that is can be determined when the first subcategory contributes to the grain loss issue or the grain quality issue more than the second subcategory when the first subcategory changes more over a predetermined period of time in comparison to the second subcategory, as the different signal values are measured over time, in an attempt to provide an improved system or method, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In turn, because the product as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to make the system or product that the subcategory that contributes to the grain loss issue or the grain quality issue can be determined.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Mott’s agricultural machine with French’s plurality of signal processing because (“It will also be noted that the various sensors can be mechanisms that directly measure the sensed variables, or they can be components that generate an estimation of the sensed variables from other sensor inputs. For instance, a yield sensor may sense mass flow rate of product through the clean grain elevator 230, and generate a metric indicative of yield, based upon that sensor input.” See French [0031]), and therefore the collected information can be used to better calculation the present parameters of the machine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Bollin et al. (US 20150046043 A1) is pertinent because (“All of the working results are recorded as a function of time, thereby enabling the operator to identify the specific value of the working parameter at which the best working result was attained. This specific value is then used to adjust the particular working mechanism, thereby ensuring that an improved working result of the agricultural working machine is ultimately attained.” which pertains to identifying specific parameters for controlling the agricultural vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christine N Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/CHRISTINE NGUYEN HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662