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 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 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 1, line 4 discloses “correlating the displacement signals with velocity data.” It is unclear to what velocity data refers; e.g., in reference to the velocity of the stalk moving through a row unit or a speed of the combine as it moves to generate displacement signals. It is further unclear what component produces velocity data. Therefore the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purposes of the present examination, a radar sensor performs the function of generating velocity data, wherein the radar sensor is in relation to the motion of the combine. However, further clarification is required.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. Claim 1, lines 2-4 disclose “generating displacement signals from one or more sensing members when a stalk passes through a sensor; correlating the displacement signals with velocity data.” Claim 1, lines 5-6 disclose “generating stalk perimeter data; and determining stalk cross sectional area from the stalk perimeter data.” The omitted steps are: “wherein the width [displacement] measurements are processed by the system to generate stalk perimeter data;” e.g., see para. [0016] of applicant’s disclosure.
Claims 2-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 15, lines 4-6 disclose “the processor configured to process data generated by the sensor assembly.” Claim 15, lines 2-3 disclose that the sensor assembly is disposed on the row unit, and comprises at least one stalk measuring sensor. Claim 15 discloses the components and configuration of the sensor assembly, but falls short of actually utilizing the sensor to generate process data. It is therefore unclear how a processor may process generated data, when a step of generating the data utilizing the sensor assembly is absent. Therefore the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purposes of the present examination, the sensor assembly must necessarily produce data for the processor to process. However, further clarification is required.
Claims 16-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 15.
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 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the language:
A method for counting and measuring stalks comprising:
generating displacement signals
correlating the displacement signals with velocity data;
generating stalk perimeter data; and
determining stalk cross sectional area from the stalk perimeter data.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses A method for counting and measuring stalks comprising; construed as a preamble setting forth intended use; generating displacement signals; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; correlating the displacement signals with velocity data; construed by the examiner a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or observation; generating stalk perimeter data; and; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; determining stalk cross sectional area from the stalk perimeter data; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites:
from one or more sensing members when a stalk passes through a sensor;
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-7 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claims 15-20 are directed to a system and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 15 under prong 1 of step 2A, the language:
A system for measuring stalks on a row unit comprising:
process data generated to estimate a stalk perimeter.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 15 discloses A system for measuring stalks on a row unit comprising; construed by the examiner as a preamble setting forth intended use; process data generated to estimate a stalk perimeter; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 15 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 15 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 15 further recites:
a processor in operative communication
the processor configured to
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 15 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
a sensor assembly disposed on the row unit, the sensor assembly comprising at least one stalk measuring sensor; and
with the sensor assembly,
by the sensor assembly
Analyzing this additional element of claim 15 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 15 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 16-20 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 15 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 10,034,424 B2), hereinafter Anderson, in view of Slichter et al. (US 2015/0253427 A1), hereinafter Slichter.
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses: A method for counting and measuring stalks comprising:
generating displacement signals from one or more sensing members when a stalk passes through a sensor; (Anderson, e.g., see fig. 1 illustrating a combine row unit comprising crop attribute sensors (114) and (116); see also fig. 3 illustrating crap attribute sensors (114) and (116) comprising sensors (132) and (134) which are a part of flap portions (120) and (122); see also fig. 6 illustrating displacement signals over time of a stalk diameter; see also col. 9, lines 4-33 disclosing fig. 6 shows one example of two different sensor signals (250) and (252) that may be generated by sensors (132) and (134), respectively, and that are indicative of the displacement of flap portions (120) and (122), as machine (100) moves through the field. In the example illustrated, signal (250) is generated by sensor (132), and signal (252) is generated by sensor (134). The axis (254) is illustratively representative of the at-rest position for flap portions (120)-(122) (i.e., when no stalk is passing between them). As a stalk engages flap portion 9120) and (122), they begin to deflect so that the displacement signals (250) and (252) increase in their respective directions until they reach a maximum, at which point the stalk is between the two flap portions (120) and (122). The maximum displacement in signals (250) and (252) represents the diameter of the stalk passing between them. In the example shown in fig. 6, the maximum displacement of flap portion (120), as a first stalk passes between the two flaps, is represented by displacement (D1). the maximum displacement of flap portion (122) as the first stalk passes is represented by displacement (D2). Therefore, the diameter of the stalk is represented by the value of (D1)+(D2). After that, the stalk begins to pass rearward of flap portion (120) and (122), so that the flap portions begin to close and again move toward their at-rest position. Signals (250) and (252) thus decrease until the flaps are in their at-rest position, indicating that they are between stalks. As machine (100) continues to move through the field, another stalk is engaged by flap portions (120) and (122), at which point the flaps again begin to displace to a maximum displacement (represented by displacements (D3) and (D4) in fig. 6), and the process repeats).
correlating the displacement signals with velocity data; (Anderson, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also col. 2, line 65 – col. 3, line 2 disclosing as harvester (100) moves in a direction of travel indicated by arrow (105), corn header (104) engages corn crops and separates the ears of corn from stalks and feeds the ears through feeder house (106); see also col. 3, line 63 – col. 4, line 6 disclosing as flap portions (120) and (122) are displaced rearwardly about hinge portion (124) and (126), sensors (132) and (134) sense a variable indicative of that displacement and generate a sensor signal indicative of that displacement. The sensor signals may thus be indicative of a crop attribute. For instance, by sensing the deflection of flap portions (120) and (122), the sensor signals generated by sensors (132) and (134) give an indication of a diameter of the corn stalk that passes between them. The stalk diameter may be indicative of yield or another crop attribute; examiner notes a stalk diameter caused by displacement is explicitly disclosed as an attribute; see also col. 6, lines 51-58 disclosing the control signal may be provided to data logging logic (194) which logs data based on that signal. By way of example, if the control signal is indicative of the sensed crop attribute, then the data logging logic (194) can log the sensed crop attribute along with a variety of other information, such as its corresponding geographic location, the current machine settings, the machine speed, or a wide variety of other information; examiner notes that an attribute, to include displacement of the sensed stalk, is explicitly disclosed as correlating with a speed of the machine/harvest, wherein a speed combined with a direction, which must necessarily occur along a seeding row, is necessarily a velocity; e.g., comprising a speed/magnitude and a direction to produce a velocity vector).
generating stalk perimeter data; and (Anderson, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also col. 7, lines 35-41 disclosing sensors (132)-(134) can also be capacitive or inductive sensors (212). Such sensors have elements so that the capacitance or measured inductance changes as the distance between two portions of the sensor changes. Thus, the capacitance or inductance across the gap between the two flap portions (120)-(122) can be measured. As it changes, this may be indicative of the width of the cornstalk; see also fig. 6 illustrating a diameter that fluctuates between an at-rest position to a maximum position and back to an at-rest position, wherein the action is performed twice; see also col. 9, lines 4-33 disclosing fig. 6 shows one example of two different sensor signals (250) and (252) that may be generated by sensors (132) and (134), respectively, and that are indicative of the displacement of flap portions (120) and (122), as machine (100) moves through the field. In the example illustrated, signal (250) is generated by sensor (132), and signal 9252) is generated by sensor (134). The axis (254) is illustratively representative of the at-rest position for flap portions (120)-(122) (i.e., when no stalk is passing between them). AS a stalk engaged flap portions (120) and (122), they begin to deflect so that the displacement signals (250) and (252) increase in their respective directions until they reach a maximum, at which point the stalk is between the two flap portions (120) and (122). The maximum displacement in signals (250) and (252) represents the diameter of the stalk passing between them; examiner notes that a measured diameter produced by the signals of fig. 6 is construed as necessarily a perimeter. After that, the stalk begins to pass rearward of flap portions (120) and (122), so that the flap portion begins to close and again move toward their at-rest position. Signals (250) and (252) thus decrease until the flaps are in their at-rest position, indicating that they are between stalks).
determining stalk metric from the stalk perimeter data. (Anderson, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also col. 6, lines 4-23 disclosing the displacement of the flap portions of ear loss inhibitors (114) and (116) is indicative of the width (or diameter) of the cornstalk passing between inhibitors (114) and (116). Flap displacement sensors (132) and (134) thus provide signals indicative of the stalk width (or diameter). Signal conditioning logic (180) can include a variety of different types of signal conditioning items. For instance, it can include filtering, normalizing, amplifying, or other conditioning logic. Logic (180) conditions the sensor signals provided by sensors (132)-(134) and provides them to displacement signal processing system (182). system (182) illustratively processes the sensor signals to generate a value or metric indicative of a crop attribute).
Anderson is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: stalk cross sectional area.
However, Slichter further discloses: stalk cross sectional area. (Slichter, e.g., see para. [0024] disclosing the harvester (100) includes an edge sensing system (110). As described herein, the edge sensing system (110) facilitates the guidance of a vehicle, for instance an agricultural vehicle, through fields including crops planted in rows (corn) or crops that are not plated in rows (soybeans, hay, wheat or the like) through sensing and identification of an edge; see also para. [0060] disclosing by measuring one or more edges (610), the height and the shape of the crop (601) the cross-sectional area of the crop (601) is determined).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Anderson with Slichter’s stalk cross sectional area for at least the reasons that the measured variation of the cross-sectional area of the crop (601) ensures reliable and accurate yield values, as taught by Slichter; e.g., see para. [0060].
Regarding claim 2, Anderson in view of Slichter is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method of claim 1, further comprising using one or more of rectangular integration, trapezoidal integration, and best fit curve algorithms for determining stalk cross-sectional area from the stalk perimeter data.
However, Slichter further discloses: further comprising using one or more of rectangular integration, trapezoidal integration, and best fit curve algorithms for determining stalk cross-sectional area from the stalk perimeter data. (see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also Slichter, e.g., see para. [0062] disclosing a curve is fit to the height measurement (622) to provide a mathematical function; construed by the examiner as an algorithm, corresponding to the shape of the harvested crop (601) between each of the edges (610). By identifying the edges, heights and approximate shape of the crop (601) for a particular scan of the distance sensor (606) the controller (608) analyzes these values and determines an approximate cross-sectional area for that particular scan; examiner notes a best fit curve as a function of an algorithm is described; e.g. see also para. [0011] disclosing utilizing a limited number of data points and a comparative algorithm to identify the edge location).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Anderson in view of Slichter’s method with Slichter’s using one or more of rectangular integration, trapezoidal integration, and best fit curve algorithms for determining stalk cross-sectional area from the stalk perimeter data for at least the reasons that utilizing a mathematical algorithm can quickly and efficiently determine a property, such as cross-sectional area.
Regarding claim 3, Anderson in view of Slichter discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises one or more of an electromagnetic sensor, a non-contact inductive position sensor, an inductance sensor, a Capacitive sensor, an optical sensor, a flexible resistance sensor, a load cell, and an ultrasonic distance sensor. (Anderson, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also col. 7, lines 35-41 disclosing sensors (132)-(134) can also be capacitive or inductive sensors (212)).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Slichter in further view of Sauder et al. (US 2014/0331631 A1), hereinafter Sauder.
Regarding claim 4, Anderson in view of Slichter is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method of claim 1, further comprising generating velocity data via one or more of a radar sensor, a lidar sensor, a time-of-flight sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and a vehicle ground speed sensor.
However, Sauder further discloses: generating velocity data via one or more of a radar sensor, a lidar sensor, a time-of-flight sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and a vehicle ground speed sensor. (Sauder, e.g., see para. [0067] disclosing the monitor board 9250) is preferably in electrical communication with a speed sensor (105), which may comprise a radar speed sensor as is known in the art).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Anderson in view of Slichter’s method with Sauder’s generating velocity data via one or more of a radar sensor, a lidar sensor, a time-of-flight sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and a vehicle ground speed sensor for at least the reasons that utilizing a radar sensor will enhance measurement of yield, as taught by Sauder; e.g., see para. [0067].
Regarding claim 5, Anderson in view of Slichter is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method of claim 1, further comprising identifying and excluding outlier displacement signals.
However, Sauder further discloses: identifying and excluding outlier displacement signals. (Sauder, e.g., see para. [0069] disclosing the monitor board preferably determines whether each feeler (315) has passed a threshold displacement, e.g., 2 degrees from the undisturbed position (along axis Ap, Fig. 11) by comparing the signal from each sensor (335) to a baseline; examiner notes the cited paragraph infers that any threshold below the displacement threshold is not recorded; see also para. [0086] disclosing if the standard deviation
σ
of the stalk diameters in a given yield block exceeds a certain threshold (e.g., 0.25
μ
or 0.5cm) then the data point (4105) corresponding to the stalk block is preferably filtered out, i.e., not used to update the stalk yield diameter relationship (4110)).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Anderson in view of Slichter’s method with Sauder’s identifying and excluding outlier displacement signals for at least the reasons that removal of erroneous data improves data fidelity.
Regarding claim 6, Anderson in view of Slichter in further view of Sauder discloses The method of claim 5, further comprising establishing an outlier threshold wherein an outlier displacement signal is identified when the outlier threshold is exceeded. see rejection as applied to claim 5; e.g., see para. [0086].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Slichter, in further view of Wilson et al. (US 2016/0252384 A1), hereinafter Wilson.
Regarding claim 7, Anderson in view of Slichter is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method of claim 1, wherein stalk cross-sectional area is determined in real-time or near real-time.
However, Slichter further discloses: wherein stalk cross-sectional area is determined by a period of time. (Slichter, e.g., see para. [0061] disclosing the cross-sectional area is in one example multiplied by the speed of the vehicle (600) to accordingly determine a yield rate for the crop (601) as the harvest implement (602) harvests the crop. BY multiplying the yield rate by a period of time (the time the harvest implement (602) is harvesting within the field) a yield for the entirety of the field or a portion of the field depending on the time use is determined. Similarly, the cross-sectional area is multiplied by length of travel of the vehicle (600) to determine a volume yield value for that length of travel).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Anderson in view of Slichter’s method with Slichter’s stalk cross-sectional area is determined by a period of time for at least the reasons that measured variation of the cross-sectional area of the crop ensures reliable and accurate yield values, as taught by Slichter; e.g., see para. [0061].
Anderson in view of Slichter is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: real-time or near real-time.
However, Wilson further discloses: real-time or near real-time (Wilson, e.g., see para. [0021] disclosing the unloading device can further be controlled based on real time cross-sectional area calculations using the measured linear distance measurements of the array (14) of linear distance sensors (16)).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Anderson in view of Slichter’s method with Wilson’s real-time or near real-time for at least the reasons that real-time measurements/calculations enable instant stalk assessment so as to improve data as the harvester moves through the field.
Claims 8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauder in view of Anderson, in further view of Slichter.
Regarding claim 8, Sauder discloses: A system for measuring a cross-sectional area of a stalk at a row unit, comprising:
(a) at least one senor assembly disposed on the row unit, the at least one sensor assembly configured to generate width measurements as the stalk traverses the at least one sensor assembly; and (Sauder, e.g., see fig. 18 illustrating a combine with a four row units (90-1) comprising stalk sensors (300-1)-(300-4); see also figs. 9A-9B illustrating feelers (315) as attached to sensors (300b), wherein feelers (315a)-(315b) are illustrated as a part of the row unit of fig. 13; see also figs. 14A-14B illustrating a stalk (25) coming into contact with feelers (315a)-(315b); see also figs. 15A-15B and 16A-16B illustrating stalk (25) traverse the feelers (315a)-(315b) created a width measurements (Ds) calculated from angles (Wa) and (Wb); see also para. [0063] disclosing two stalk sensors (300a) and (300b) (together referred to herein as a single stalk sensor (300)) are preferably installed in the combine row unit (90); see also paras. [0069]-[0070] disclosing once the feelers (315) are both below the threshold displacement, at step (2125) the monitor board (250) stores the maximum displacement (Wa), (Wb) (fig. 16B) of each feeler (315a), (315b) and at step (2130) stores the time of the maximum displacement of the feelers (315). At step (2135), the monitor board (250) preferably calculates the diameter of the stalk (25). In accomplishing step (2135), the diameter (Ds) of the stalk (25) may be measured using the maximum deflection angles (Wa), (Wb) (fig. 16B) of feeler arms (315a), (315b) caused by the stalk as it moves through the row unit (90) using the relationship
D
s
=
D
t
-
L
sin
W
a
+
sin
W
b
).
(b) at least one stalk velocity sensor, (Sauder, e.g., see para. [0067] disclosing the monitor board (250) is preferably in electrical communication with a speed sensor (105), which may comprise a radar speed sensor as is known in the art; examiner notes a radar speed sensor is construed as at least one stalk velocity sensor).
wherein the width measurements are processed by the system to generate stalk width data from which stalk width average is determined. (Sauder, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also figs. 28A-28B illustrating a stalk width (cm) per frequency and yield, respectively; construed as stalk perimeter data; see also para. [0086] disclosing in order to improve the yield relationship 94110) for the current field, the harvest monitor (200) preferably performs optional steps (2040) through (2055) of process (2200). At step (2040), the harvest monitor (200) gathers additional data points (4105) (fig. 28B) in the diameter-yield relationship by recording the block yield (Yb) and an average stalk diameter (Da) for each yield block. At step (2045), the harvest monitor (200) preferably filters data points (4105) using a statistical criterion. Fig. 28A depicts a histogram (4210) in which each data point (4205) represents the number of stalks (25) in a given stalk block (1812) having a diameter within a set of ranges; see also fig. 29 and para. [0092] disclosing the row detail screen (1200) preferably includes a stalk width window (1240) that displays the current stalk width average of the most recent group of detected stalks and the average stalk width for the field. To determine the current stalk width average, the stalk measurement system (100) calculates the average of the most recent calculated diameters (e.g., the diameters of the previous 50 stalks)).
Sauder is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing a stalk perimeter data, and a stalk cross sectional area.
However, Anderson further discloses a stalk perimeter data (Anderson, e.g., see fig. 6 illustrating a diameter that fluctuates between an at-rest position to a maximum position and back to an at-rest position, wherein the action is performed twice; see also col. 9, lines 4-33 disclosing fig. 6 shows one example of two different sensor signals (250) and (252) that may be generated by sensors (132) and (134), respectively, and that are indicative of the displacement of flap portions (120) and (122), as machine (100) moves through the field. In the example illustrated, signal (250) is generated by sensor (132), and signal 9252) is generated by sensor (134). The axis (254) is illustratively representative of the at-rest position for flap portions (120)-(122) (i.e., when no stalk is passing between them). AS a stalk engaged flap portions (120) and (122), they begin to deflect so that the displacement signals (250) and (252) increase in their respective directions until they reach a maximum, at which point the stalk is between the two flap portions (120) and (122). The maximum displacement in signals (250) and (252) represents the diameter of the stalk passing between them; examiner notes that a measured diameter produced by the signals of fig. 6 is construed as necessarily a perimeter. After that, the stalk begins to pass rearward of flap portions (120) and (122), so that the flap portion begins to close and again move toward their at-rest position. Signals (250) and (252) thus decrease until the flaps are in their at-rest position, indicating that they are between stalks).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Sauder with Anderson’s stalk perimeter data for at least the reasons that an understanding of stock diameter/perimeter assists in identification of crop attributes, such as yield, as taught by Anderson; e.g., see col. 9, lines 50-66.
Sauder in view of Anderson is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing a stalk cross sectional area.
However, Slichter further discloses: a stalk cross sectional area. (Slichter, e.g., see para. [0024] disclosing the harvester (100) includes an edge sensing system (110). As described herein, the edge sensing system (110) facilitates the guidance of a vehicle, for instance an agricultural vehicle, through fields including crops planted in rows (corn) or crops that are not plated in rows (soybeans, hay, wheat or the like) through sensing and identification of an edge; see also para. [0060] disclosing by measuring one or more edges (610), the height and the shape of the crop (601) the cross-sectional area of the crop (601) is determined).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Sauder in view of Anderson with Slichter’s stalk cross sectional area for at least the reasons that the measured variation of the cross-sectional area of the crop (601) ensures reliable and accurate yield values, as taught by Slichter; e.g., see para. [0060].
Regarding claim 10, Sauder in view of Anderson, in further view of Slichter discloses The system of claim 8, wherein the at least one sensor assembly comprises one or more of an electromagnetic sensor, a non-contact inductive position sensor, an inductance sensor, a capacitive sensor, an optical sensor, a flexible resistance sensor, a load cell, and an ultrasonic distance sensor. (Sauder, e.g., see para. [0111] disclosing an optical stalk measurement device (300’) is illustrated in fig. 42 installed in combine row unit (90); see also para. [0113] disclosing it should be appreciated that the methods described with respect to fig. 44 may be used with other stalk sensors replacing the optical stalk measurement device (300’). For example, a capacitive sensor such as that disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,073,427 may be used to obtain a signal proportional to the capacitance of a sensing region, thus indicating the presence of stalks adjacent to the sensor).
Regarding claim 11, Sauder in view of Anderson, in further view of Slichter discloses The system of claim 10, wherein the at least one sensor assembly comprises an electromagnetic sensor. (Sauder, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 10 and 8; see also para. [0062] disclosing the sensor (335) is preferably a sensor adapted to generate a signal proportional to the strength of a magnetic field proximate to the sensor, such as a Hall-effect sensor).
Regarding claim 12, Sauder in view of Anderson, in further view of Slichter discloses The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one sensor assembly comprises one or more contact sensing members. see rejection as applied to claim 8, specifically to members (315a)-(315b)
Regarding claim 13, Sauder in view of Anderson, in further view of Slichter discloses The system of claim 12, wherein the at least one sensor assembly comprises two contact sensing members. see rejection as applied to claim 8, specifically to members (315a)-(315b).
Regarding claim 14, Sauder in view of Anderson, in further view of Slichter discloses The system of claim 12, wherein the at least one stalk velocity sensor comprises one or more of a radar sensor, a lidar sensor, a time-of-flight sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and a vehicle ground speed sensor. see rejection as applied to claim 8, specifically to para. [0067] disclosing a radar speed sensor.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauder in view of Anderson, in further view of Slichter, in further view of Wilson.
Regarding claim 9, Sauder in view of Anderson, in further view of Slichter discloses The system of claim 8, wherein width measurements are taken over time as the stalk passes through the row unit. (Sauder, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 8; see also para. [0077] disclosing as the combine (10) traverses the field, the harvest monitor (200) preferably records the yield over time using the signal from the yield sensor (54) as is known in the art; e.g., see fig. 21. As indicated on the x-axis of the plot, the yield curve (3110) is preferably shifted by a machine offset (e.g., 7 seconds) corresponding to a grain processing delay between the time at which stalks (25) enter the row units (90) and the time at which grain from the stalks reaches the yield sensor (54)).
Sauder in view of Anderson, in further view of Slichter is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: in real-time or near real-time.
However, Wilson further discloses: in real-time or near real-time. (Wilson, e.g., see para. [0021] disclosing the unloading device can further be controlled based on real time cross-sectional area calculations using the measured linear distance measurements of the array (14) of linear distance sensors (16)).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Sauder in view of Anderson, in further view of Slichter’s system with Wilson’s real-time or near real-time for at least the reasons that real-time measurements/calculations enable instant stalk assessment so as to improve data as the harvester moves through the field.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauder in view of Anderson.
Regarding claim 15, Sauder discloses A system for measuring stalks on a row unit comprising:
(a) a sensor assembly disposed on the row unit, the sensor assembly comprising at least one stalk measuring sensor; and (Sauder, e.g., see fig. 18 illustrating a combine with a four row units (90-1) comprising stalk sensors (300-1)-(300-4); see also figs. 9A-9B illustrating feelers (315) as attached to sensors (300b), wherein feelers (315a)-(315b) are illustrated as a part of the row unit of fig. 13; see also figs. 14A-14B illustrating a stalk (25) coming into contact with feelers (315a)-(315b); see also figs. 15A-15B and 16A-16B illustrating stalk (25) traverse the feelers (315a)-(315b) created a width measurements (Ds) calculated from angles (Wa) and (Wb); see also para. [0063] disclosing two stalk sensors (300a) and (300b) (together referred to herein as a single stalk sensor (300)) are preferably installed in the combine row unit (90); see also paras. [0069]-[0070] disclosing once the feelers (315) are both below the threshold displacement, at step (2125) the monitor board (250) stores the maximum displacement (Wa), (Wb) (fig. 16B) of each feeler (315a), (315b) and at step (2130) stores the time of the maximum displacement of the feelers (315). At step (2135), the monitor board (250) preferably calculates the diameter of the stalk (25). In accomplishing step (2135), the diameter (Ds) of the stalk (25) may be measured using the maximum deflection angles (Wa), (Wb) (fig. 16B) of feeler arms (315a), (315b) caused by the stalk as it moves through the row unit (90) using the relationship
D
s
=
D
t
-
L
sin
W
a
+
sin
W
b
).
(b) a processor in operative communication with the sensor assembly, the processor configured to process data generated by the sensor assembly to estimate a stalk width. (Sauder, e.g., see fig. 17 illustrating Harvest Monitor (200) comprising Processor (202), Memory (204), and GPU (206), wherein Harvest Monitor (200) connects to Monitor Board (250) and subsequently attaches to stalk sensors (300-1)-(300-4); construed by the examiner as in operative communication of the processor and sensor assembly; see also para. [0056] disclosing the processor logs the data and produces a field summary. Thus, it is possible to create a yield map with the logged data; see also figs. 14A-14B, 15A-15B, and 16A-16B illustrating sensor assembly (300) with feelers (315a)-(315b) producing deflection angles (Wa) and (Wb) as feelers (315a)-(315b) are guided around the cornstalk as it passes through the feelers; see also fig. 28A illustrating a stalk width (cm) as compared with a frequency (number of stalks); see also para. [0086] disclosing fig. 28A depicts a histogram (4120) in which each data point (4205) represents the number of stalks (25) in a given stalk block (1812) having a diameter within set of ranges. Using a statistical function as is known in the art, the harvest monitor preferably determines the standard deviation
σ
of stalk diameters for the yield block (1812) about the mean
μ
of the histogram).
Sauder is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing a stalk perimeter.
However, Anderson fur