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 .
Claim Interpretation
According to MPEP 2112.02: Process Claims, it is noted that “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device” (emphasis added). It is also noted in that same MPEP section that “The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that "Donley inherently performs the function disclosed in the method claims on appeal when that device is used in ‘normal and usual operation’" and found that a prima facie case of anticipation was made out” (emphasis added). Id. at 138, 801 F.2d at 1326. It was up to applicant to prove that Donley's structure would not perform the claimed method when placed in ambient light.).”
With regard to claims 9-13, these claims present a process for determining a drying time for a granulate material according to the system for determining a drying time for a granulate material of claims 1-8. Therefore, the argument made against claims 1-8 also applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 9-13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagai (JP H08-14754 A).
Nagai teaches a grain drying time setting device for a grain dryer comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
598
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
496
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
512
826
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1 and 9, a system (FIG. 2, grain drying time setting device) for determining a drying time (drying time T1) for a granulate material, comprising: a moisture sensor (FIG. 2, moisture sensor 2) configured to generate an output relating to a moisture content of the granulate material (moisture content of the grain); and a computing device (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, operating device 14) communicatively coupled to the moisture sensor (FIG. 2, moisture sensor 2), wherein the computing device (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, operating device 14) is configured to calculate the moisture content of the granulate material (moisture content of the grain) prior to a drying process (upon start of drying or before starting the drying operation) based at least in part on the output of the moisture sensor (FIG. 2, moisture sensor 2), and to determine a drying time (drying time T1) for the drying process based at least in part on a difference between the calculated moisture content of the granulate material (moisture content of the grain) and a targeted moisture content for the granulate material (grain) (“moisture difference between the grain moisture measured by the moisture sensor 2 at the start of drying and the finishing target moisture”) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0003]-[0008]; and claim 1).
With regard to claim 9, inputting at least some of the following information into a computing device (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, operating device 14): the type and grade of the granulate material; a recommended drying air temperature; a moisture content at which the granulate material becomes saturated; a recommended drying time (expected drying time TO); the throughput of a dryer in which the granulate material will be dried; the volume of the dryer; a target moisture content for the granulate material; and the type of storage vessel from which the granulated material will be drawn (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0016]-[0018]; and claim 1).
With regard to claim 4, the computing device (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, operating device 14) is further configured to display (FIG. 3, display unit 43) the drying time (drying time T1).
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.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai in view of Wu et al. (CN 204044097 U).
Nagai teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the above rejection of claims 1, 4 and 9 including the computing device (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, operating device 14), but it does not explicitly disclose the following feature:
A force sensor communicatively coupled to the computing device and configured to be immersed in the granulate material, wherein the computing device is further configured to calculate the moisture content of the granulate material prior to the drying process based at least in part on an output of the force sensor.
Wu et al. discloses a grain moisture sensor device comprising:
PNG
media_image4.png
412
532
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
646
568
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 2 and 10, a force sensor (FIG. 2 in view of FIG. 1, force sensor 4) communicatively coupled to a computing device (FIG. 1, force sensor 4 converts the collected signal into electric signal transmitted through processing of the subsequent circuit to display instrument or the upper computer) and configured to be immersed in the granulate material, wherein the computing device (FIG. 1, force sensor 4 converts the collected signal into electric signal transmitted through processing of the subsequent circuit to display instrument or the upper computer) is further configured to calculate the moisture content of the granulate material prior to the drying process based at least in part on an output of the force senso (Abstract; and paragraphs: [0001] and [0028]-[0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grain drying time setting device for a grain dryer of Nagai to use a force sensor as taught by Wu et al. since Wu et al. teaches that such an arrangement is beneficial to provide a suitable force-measuring type online corn moisture sensing device for detecting moisture continuous online in grain drying process so as to improve the accuracy of the high-precision measurement as disclosed in the Abstract.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai in view of Chen et al. (UA 128713 C2).
Nagai teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the above rejection of claims 1, 4 and 9 including the computing device (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, operating device 14) and the moisture sensor (FIG. 2, moisture sensor 2) for calculating a moisture content in the granulate material before the start of the drying process (Abstract; and paragraphs: [0003]-[0008]; and claim 1), but it does not explicitly disclose the following features:
Measuring a capacitance of a moisture sensor immersed in the granulate material.
A gyroscope communicatively coupled to the computing device and configured to measure an orientation of the moisture sensor, wherein the computing device is further configured to calculate the moisture content of the granulate material prior to the drying process based at least in part on the orientation of the moisture sensor.
A first humidity sensor communicatively coupled to the computing device and configured to measure an intergranular humidity of the granulate material; and a second humidity sensor communicatively coupled to the computing device and configured to measure the humidity of the environment around the granulate material; wherein the computing device is further configured to adjust the calculated moisture content of the granulate material based at least in part on a difference between the intergranular humidity and the environmental humidity, and the computing device is further configured to determine the drying time based at least in part on the difference between the adjusted moisture content of the granulate material and the targeted moisture content for the granulate material.
The computing device is a smartphone.
Chen et al. discloses a computer system comprising:
PNG
media_image6.png
517
390
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 3 and 12, a gyroscope (FIG. 1, sensors 112 such as gyroscopes) communicatively coupled to a computing device (FIG. 1, field health monitoring computer device 104, controller 114, on-board computer 115 and computing system 130) and configured to measure an orientation of the moisture sensor, wherein the computing device (FIG. 1, field health monitoring computer device 104, controller 114, on-board computer 115 and computing system 130) is further configured to calculate the moisture content of the granulate material prior to the drying process based at least in part on the orientation of the moisture sensor (Abstract; FIG.7; from page 13, line 39 to page 15, line 35; from page 16, line 56 to page 18, line 16; from page 22, line 7 to page 23, line 34; and claims 1, 4, 6 and 9).
With regard to claims 5, 6 and 13, a first humidity sensor (FIG. 1, humidity sensors 112) communicatively coupled to the computing device (FIG. 1, field health monitoring computer device 104, controller 114, on-board computer 115 and computing system 130) and configured to measure an intergranular humidity of the granulate material (humidity levels for one or more fields); and a second humidity sensor (FIG. 1, humidity sensors 112) communicatively coupled to the computing device (FIG. 1, field health monitoring computer device 104, controller 114, on-board computer 115 and computing system 130) and configured to measure the humidity of the environment around the granulate material (humidity levels for one or more fields); wherein the computing device (FIG. 1, field health monitoring computer device 104, controller 114, on-board computer 115 and computing system 130) is further configured to adjust the calculated moisture content of the granulate material based at least in part on a difference between the intergranular humidity and the environmental humidity, and the computing device (FIG. 1, field health monitoring computer device 104, controller 114, on-board computer 115 and computing system 130) is further configured to determine the drying time based at least in part on the difference between the adjusted moisture content of the granulate material and the targeted moisture content for the granulate material (From page 13, line 39 to page 15, line 35; from page 16, line 56 to page 18, line 16; from page 22, line 7 to page 23, line 34; and claims 1, 4, 6 and 9).
With regard to claim 8, the computing device (FIG. 1, field health monitoring computer device 104, controller 114, on-board computer 115 and computing system 130) is a smartphone (Page 8, lines 37-53).
With regard to claim 11, measuring a capacitance of a moisture sensor (FIG. 1, sensors 112 such as capacitive sensors) (Abstract; FIG.7; from page 13, line 39 to page 15, line 35; from page 16, line 56 to page 18, line 16; from page 22, line 7 to page 23, line 34; and claims 1, 4, 6 and 9). It is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to immerse in the granulate material for more accurate capacitance measurements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grain drying time setting device for a grain dryer of Nagai to use a gyroscope, a capacitive moisture sensor, and humidity sensors as taught by Chen et al. since Chen et al. teaches that such an arrangement is beneficial to provide position sensors for tools used with harvesters for adjusting the operating parameters of devices used for harvesting as disclosed from page 13, line 39 to page 15, line 35.
With regard to claim 6, Nagai teaches that the computing device (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, operating device 14) is configured to calculate moisture content of the granulate material based at least in part on the a recommended drying time (expected drying time TO). On another hand, Chen et al. teaches the computing device (FIG. 1, field health monitoring computer device 104, controller 114, on-board computer 115 and computing system 130) is further configured to adjust the calculated moisture content of the granulate material. Therefore, Nagai in view of Chen et al. teaches that the computing device is further configured to adjust the calculated moisture content of the granulate material based at least in part on the recommended drying time as recited in claim 6.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai in view of Chen et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Garrido et al. (US 2010/0229420 A1).
Nagai in view of Chen et al. teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the above rejection of claims 3, 5, 6, 8 and 11-13 including the computing device is configured to adjust the calculated moisture content of the granulate material, but it does not explicitly disclose the following feature:
To adjust the calculated moisture content of the granulate material based at least in part on the type of storage vessel from which the granulate material will be drawn.
Garrido et al. discloses a system for controlling heated air drying of product comprising:
With regard to claim7, a computing device is further configured to adjust the calculated moisture content of the granulate material based at least in part on the type of storage vessel from which the granulate material will be drawn (FIGS. 4-6, 14A-B and 15A-B; and paragraphs: [0050]-[0052] and [0085]-[0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the grain drying time setting device for a grain dryer of Nagai to adjust the calculated moisture content of the granulate material based at least in part on the type of storage vessel from which the granulate material will be drawn as taught by Garrido et al. since Garrido et al. teaches that such an arrangement is beneficial to provide more reliable and accurate control for safety and seed quality so as to improve drying rate control in a variety of dryer types and for a variety of environmental or seed conditions, and improve efficiency of drying as disclosed in paragraphs [0085]-[0088].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants’ attention is invited to the followings whose inventions disclose similar devices.
Bartosik et al. (ES 2632103 T3) teaches a procedure and installation for grain moisture control.
Chen et al. (CN 105115291 A) teaches a control method for grain drier.
Yumitate et al. (JP 2010002107 A) teaches a grain drier.
Yang et al. (CN 113175981 A) teaches an embedded weighing system for real-time detecting grain weight in dryer.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 AM - 5:00 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, LEE E. RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858