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 .
Response to Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election with traverse the restriction requirement in the reply dated 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assessment of the restriction requirement. As was previously stated, the invention in group 1 (claims 1-10) is directed toward estimating a throughput of a crop material based on weight or mass of the crop material and a speed, classified in G01G 19/08, G01F 15/00, G01F 15/06, and A01D 75/00 while group 2 (claims 11-21) is directed toward controlling a speed in which crop material is conveyed based on a distance the crop needs to be displaced to reach a target location, classified in B65G 43/08 and B65G 47/42. As such, the claimed inventions are directed to different inventive concepts requiring separate searches. Examiner notes that while the two claim groups may share similar structural elements, they perform materially different processes, requiring different search strategies. Based on the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s traversal is unpersuasive. The restriction is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to one or more abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus which is in the machines category of the four statutory categories. The claim as drafted, is a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the recited limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic components such as at least one conveyor having a belt and a driver, a first sensor, a memory device. The steps may be described as mere data gathering and/or data collection, in conjunction with mental process or an abstract idea.
The step of estimating, from information obtained by the first sensor, at least one of a weight and a mass of the crop material on the conveyor belt may be performed in the human mind. The foregoing step is equivalent to a person estimating the weight of crop material by way of reading a weight of a crop material being processed by a sensor on a conveyor equipped with a belt and a driver. The weight may be displayed by the sensor located on the conveyor, for example. The person estimates the weight after gathering or reading weight data from the sensor.
The step of identifying a speed at which the crop material is being conveyed by the at least one conveyor may be performed in the human mind. The foregoing step is equivalent to the person estimating or reading a speed of crop material being processed by the at least one conveyor. The speed may be displayed by a display located on the conveyor based on the rotational speed of the conveyor belt, for example.
The step of estimating, using the weight or the mass of the crop material and the speed, the throughput of the crop material may also be performed in the mind. The foregoing step is equivalent to the person estimating the throughput or the output per unit time of the crop material by way of using the weight and the speed readouts.
The mere nominal recitation of generic components such as at least one conveyor having a belt and a driver, a first sensor, a memory device does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. The claim limitations do not require any particular level of accuracy or precision, so nothing in the claim elements preclude the recited steps from practically being performed in the mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of the limitations are recited at a high level of generality. There is nothing implemented to technologically improve the functionality of what is recited in claim 1. The judicial exception does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. The limitations of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In summary, with respect to the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106), independent claim 1 falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention which satisfies STEP 1 (i.e., a machine). Claim 1 covers performance of one or more limitations in the human mind which constitutes a mental process, which may include an estimation, identification, observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, for example. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea which satisfies STEP 2A (Prong 1). Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application which does not satisfy STEP 2A (Prong 2). Furthermore, with regard to STEP 2B, claim 1 the absence of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. The mere recitation of generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. The recited steps correspond to well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept is not present.
Since claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites limitations of a mental process, without integrating the limitations into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more, it is ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims fall into the mental processes grouping as each of them depends on independent claim 1 and the additional limitations recited in each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For example, each of claims 8 and 9 corresponds to “generally linking” claims which links the abstract idea presented in independent claim 1 to a conventional or generic device, which adds nothing more than what is conventional and previously known to the industry and comprises nothing more than insignificant post-solution activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor estimates at least one of the weight and the mass of the crop material at least in part by comparing a first value provided by the first sensor to a second value second signal provided by the first sensor, the first value corresponding to information from the first sensor when the crop material is not on the conveyor belt.
It is unclear what is meant by “… at least in part by comparing a first value provided by the first sensor to a second value second signal provided by the first sensor, the first value corresponding to information from the first sensor when the crop material is not on the conveyor belt.” The foregoing verbiage appears to be missing several words due to a clerical or typographical error. Appropriate amendments are required for the above-identified issues. No new matter should be added for any amendment. For the sake of examination, the Examiner will strike-out the above-identified verbiage when examining the claim. Examiner reserves the right to update an examination of the merits of claim 5 at a future date after appropriate amendments are made by the Applicant.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the optical sensor is an ultra-wideband radar system, …”. It is unclear how an optical sensor is a radar system since an optical sensor is passive and relies on sunlight or ambient light imaging and detection compared to a radar system that utilizes an active system to transmit and receive reflected radio waves outside the optical range. Appropriate amendments are required for the above-identified issues. No new matter should be added for any amendment. For the sake of examination, the Examiner will interpret or assume that a radar sensor other than an optical sensor is being used when examining the claim. Examiner reserves the right to update an examination of the merits of claim 8 at a future date after appropriate amendments are made by the Applicant.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Wild (DE 102012013627 A1) (English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Wild teaches an apparatus for estimating a throughput of a crop material, the apparatus comprising: at least one conveyor having a conveyor belt and a driver, the driver adapted to provide a force for a rotational displacement of the conveyor belt; (see Wild at the Abstract which discloses a harvester or chaff-cutter. Examiner maps harvester or chaff-cutter to apparatus. See Wild at the Abstract, which discloses a crop supplying unit and a method for throughput controlling of crop in a harvester, i.e., chaff-cutter; see Wild at Fig. 1 element 3 which illustratively depicts crop supplying unit comprising a conveyor belt and a driver adapter to provide a force for a rotational displacement of the conveyor belt; see Wild at page 3 which discloses that the amount of crop harvested can be detected; see Wild at page 3 which discloses that the particular crop stream to be conveyed is then compared with a predetermined throughput of the processing unit or shredder plant, so that at a certain crop flow to be conveyed; see Wild at page 4 which discloses a system for throughput control to provide a uniform crop stream in a forage harvester. Examiner notes that by way of comparing the throughput with a predetermined throughput, the throughput can be estimated to be the predetermined throughput. Examiner maps crop supplying unit to at least one conveyor having a conveyor belt and driver.)
a first sensor coupled to the at least one conveyor; (see Wild at the Abstract which discloses that the system has a sensor (A) for detecting volume and/or mass. See Wild at page 2 which discloses that a sensor system A is arranged on a crop feed to a processing unit or a shredder plant of a forage harvester, with which the volume and / or the mass and / or the moisture content of a crop is to be picked up. See Wild at page 2 which discloses that by means of a sensor B, which can be arranged on the bypass conveyor, the amount of the conveyed with the bypass conveyor crop can be detected. See Wild at page 3 which discloses that with a sensor B, the amount of harvested by the bypass conveyor harvested crop can be detected.)
a memory device coupled with at least one processor, the memory device including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: estimate, from information obtained by the first sensor, at least one of a weight and a mass of the crop material on the conveyor belt; (see Wild at the Abstract which discloses a processing unit and that the stream conveyed to the processing unit is adjusted on a predeterminable throughput performance of the processing unit; see Wild at page 3 which discloses that the particular crop stream to be conveyed is then compared with a predetermined throughput of the processing unit or shredder plant, so that at a certain crop flow to be conveyed; Examiner notes that the processing unit would include a processor and a memory device for including instructions in order for it to perform a comparison of the predetermined throughput to the current throughput. Also, see Wild at page 3 which discloses that in a method according to the invention for throughput control of crops in a harvester, preferably a forage harvester, the volume and / or the mass and / or the moisture content of a crop to be picked up is detected with a sensor A arranged at a crop feed of a harvester or a forage harvester.)
identify a speed at which the crop material is being conveyed by the at least one conveyor; (see Wild at page 2 which discloses that with sensor A, the conveying speed of the crop feed can be controlled such that a crop stream can be provided which preferably has a predeterminable throughput capacity of the processing unit. Examiner notes that being able to control the conveyance speed of the crop feed corresponds to identifying a speed at which the crop material is being conveyed by the at least one conveyor.)
and estimate, using the weight or the mass of the crop material and the speed, the throughput of the crop material (see Wild at pages 2-3 which discloses that the conveying speeds can be reduced at a crop flow to be conveyed by the sensor system A (if the crop volume is too high), at which a maximum value of the throughput rate of the processing unit or the shredder plant would be exceeded; Examiner notes that the throughput rate is a function of conveying speed, Also, see Wild at page 3 which discloses that in a method according to the invention for throughput control of crops in a harvester, preferably a forage harvester, the volume and / or the mass and / or the moisture content of a crop to be picked up is detected with a sensor A arranged at a crop feed of a harvester or a forage harvester; see Wild at page 3 which further discloses that the particular crop stream to be conveyed is then compared with a predetermined throughput of the processing unit. Examiner notes that a predetermined throughput may be mapped to the estimate of the throughput of the crop material. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
Regarding claim 5, Wild teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor estimates at least one of the weight and the mass of the crop material [at least in part by comparing a first value provided by the first sensor to a second value second signal [sic] provided by the first sensor, the first value corresponding to information from the first sensor when the crop material is not on the conveyor belt.] (Based on the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the Examiner struck-out the affected portion. See Wild at page 3 which discloses that in a method according to the invention for throughput control of crops in a harvester, preferably a forage harvester, the volume and / or the mass and / or the moisture content of a crop to be picked up is detected with a sensor A arranged at a crop feed of a harvester or a forage harvester. Examiner notes that a detection of the mass corresponds to an estimation of at least one of the weight and the mass of the crop material.)
Regarding claim 6, Wild teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further including an optical sensor, and wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to estimate, using at least information provided by the optical sensor, at least one of a volume of the crop material on the conveyor belt or a volume of the crop material discharged from the at least one conveyor (see Wild at page 2 which discloses that the sensors A and B may be formed with at least one camera; see Wild at page 3 which discloses that in a method according to the invention for throughput control of crops in a harvester, preferably a forage harvester, the volume and / or the mass and / or the moisture content of a crop to be picked up is detected with a sensor A arranged at a crop feed of a harvester or a forage harvester. Examiner maps camera to an optical sensor.)
Regarding claim 10, Wild teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: receive a calibration signal that provides at least information indicative of a characteristic or property of the crop material; and calibrate, using information from the calibration signal, at least one of the throughput estimation or the information obtained by the first sensor (see Wild at page 3 which discloses reducing the speed of conveyance of a crop flow if the crop volume is too high such that a maximum value of the throughput rate would be exceeded; see Wild at page 3 which discloses that the particular crop stream to be conveyed is compared with a predetermined throughput of the processing unit. Examiner notes that comparing the throughput rate to a predetermined throughput rate corresponds to calibrating, using information from the calibration signal, at least one of the throughput estimation. Examiner notes that for the predetermined throughput to be compared that it comprises a value or a signal. Examiner maps the predetermined throughput to the calibration signal.)
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 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.
Claims 2-4, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wild (DE 102012013627 A1) in view of Lehmann (DE 102014016498 B4) (English translation attached).
Regarding claim 2, Wild does not expressly disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the driver is a hydraulic actuator, and the first sensor comprises a pressure sensor that is configured to detect a pressure of a hydraulic fluid, which in a related art, Lehmann teaches (see Lehmann at page 2 which discloses that the mass throughput of the crop flow to be processed by a bale wrapping device usually increases with increasing driving speed; see Lehmann at page 5 which discloses that the bale wrapping device 13 is driven in rotation around the vertical axis 15 by an actuator 29, designed as a hydraulic motor 14; see Lehmann at page 5 which discloses that a pressure-controlled hydraulic pump 40, designed as a variable displacement pump 25, supplies the hydraulic system with hydraulic fluid, the drive of which is provided by the combustion engine M of the tractor 12; further, see Lehmann at page 5 which discloses that the conveyor belt 41 is designed as a wrap-around drive and is driven by the hydraulic motor 16. Examiner notes that pressure-controlled hydraulic pump necessarily requires the use of a pressure sensor to control the hydraulic pump.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wild to include wherein the driver is a hydraulic actuator, and the first sensor comprises a pressure sensor that is configured to detect a pressure of a hydraulic fluid, as taught by Lehmann.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to implement a bale wrapping device driven in rotation around the vertical axis by way of an actuator, designed as a hydraulic motor, as suggested by Lehmann at page 5.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Wild teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the driver is an electric motor, and the first sensor is a load sensor (see Lehmann at page 5 which discloses that the bale wrapping device 13 is driven in rotation around the vertical axis 15 by an actuator 29, designed as a hydraulic motor 14, and that the actuator 29 can also be designed as an electric motor; also, see Wild at page 2 which discloses that the sensors A and B may be formed with at least one camera, a laser scanner, an ultrasonic distance sensor, x-ray sensor, radar sensor, [terahertz sensor], spectrometer and/or a weighing device. Examiner notes that a weighing device corresponds to a load sensor.)
Regarding claim 4, the modified Wild teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first sensor is a weight sensor that is coupled to the at least one conveyor (see Wild at page 2 which discloses that the sensors A and B may be formed with at least one camera, a laser scanner, an ultrasonic distance sensor, x-ray sensor, radar sensor, [terahertz sensor], spectrometer and/or a weighing device. Also, see Wild at page 3 which discloses that sensor systems A and B convey crop flow and throughput of the harvester. Examiner notes that a weighing device corresponds to a load sensor.)
Regarding claim 7, Wild does not expressly disclose the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to determine, using at least the weight or the mass and the volume estimated by the processor, a density of the crop material, which in a related art, Lehmann teaches (see Lehmann at page 7 which discloses that over several production cycles, an average value is also established that provides sufficient information about the mass density of the swath and thus of the crop flow.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wild to cause the at least one processor to determine, using at least the weight or the mass and the volume estimated by the processor, a density of the crop material, as taught by Lehmann.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so as the use the values of the mass density of the swath of crop lying on the ground that are linked by the job computer 17 in such a way that the optimal driving speed can be calculated, as suggested by Lehmann at page 7.
Regarding claim 8, Wild teaches a radar sensor (see Wild at page 2 which discloses that the sensors A and B may be formed with at least one radar sensor.). Wild does not expressly disclose the apparatus of claim 6, [wherein the optical sensor is an ultra-wideband radar system, and] wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to determine, using information provided by the ultra-wideband radar system, a density of the crop material, which in a related art, Lehmann teaches (based on the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the Examiner has interpreted the optical sensor as an additional radar sensor. See Lehmann at page 7 which discloses that over several production cycles, an average value is also established that provides sufficient information about the mass density of the swath and thus of the crop flow.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wild to cause the at least one processor to determine, using information provided by the radar system, a density of the crop material, as taught by Lehmann.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to use the values of the mass density of the swath of crop lying on the ground that are linked by the job computer 17 in such a way that the optimal driving speed can be calculated, as suggested by Lehmann at page 7.
Claim 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wild (DE 102012013627 A1) in view of Hugenroth (US 2008/0172997).
Regarding claim 9, Wild does not disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to generate a signal for a display of the throughput estimation, which in a related art Hugenroth teaches (see Hugenroth at [0032] which discloses that a throughput-measuring device 39 of the type described in DE 19524752 - the contents of which are hereby intended to be included in this description and which is known per se is also assigned to forage harvester 2 depicted in the exemplary embodiment, that crop-material throughput 40 passing through forage harvester 2 is then ascertained from crop-material throughput signal Y in a manner which is known per se and is described and that crop-material throughput 40 is also displayable in display unit 37.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wild to generate a signal for a display of the throughput estimation, as taught by Hugenroth.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to ascertain a crop material throughput passing through a forage harvester, as suggested by Hugenroth at [0032].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 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 may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664