DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claim(s) 14 have been canceled.
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are pending.
Claims 1-10, 13, and 15-18 are rejected, grounds follow.
Claims 11-12 are objected for containing allowable subject matter in improper dependent form.
Claims 19-21 are allowed, reasons follow.
THIS OFFICE ACTION IS FINAL, see additional information at the conclusion of this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 9, filed 05 March 2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees that the amendment corrects the deficiencies noted in the previous office action. Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of Claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 10 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) in view of Kowalchuk and 35 USC 102(a)(1) in view of Klubertanz have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees that the amendments to claim 1 distinguish over the Kowalchuk and Klubertanz references alone. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kowalchuk and Foley et al., US Pg-Pub 2010/0070073.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 11, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) in view of Kowalchuk and 35 USC 102(a)(1) in view of Klubertanz have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees that the amendments to claim 16 distinguish over the Kowalchuk and Klubertanz references alone. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kowalchuk and Cash et al., US Pg-Pub 2013/0311050.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 11-12, with respect to the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection over “Kowalchuk and 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection over Klubertanz have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees that the amendments to claim 19 distinguish over the Kowalchuk and Klubertanz references alone.. The 35 USC 103 rejection of Claims 19-21 has been withdrawn. Further search and consideration has uncovered no other reasons for refusal regarding Claims 19-21, which are accordingly indicated as allowable. See below for further detail.
In the interest of compact prosecution examiner notes that an after-final amendment canceling all claims other than 19-21 would be entered and a notice of allowance would be issued responsive to such an amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9-10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalchuk, US Pg-Pub 2020/0060071 in view of Foley et al., US Pg-Pub 2010/0070073.
Regarding Claim 1, Kowalchuk teaches:
A method, (see fig. 5, for a planter with air cart 10, see fig. 1) comprising: obtaining a weight value indicative of a weight of material (product 15) in a material container (storage tank 14; [0015] “the product sensor 28 may be a scale sensor (e.g., weight sensor or load cell), … to monitor weight of the product 15 … remaining in the storage tank 14 throughout the product distribution operation.”; see also step 102 in fig. 5) corresponding to a material application machine that is configured to perform an application operation to apply the material to a field; (i.e. the planter with air cart 10, see [0013])
obtaining one or more operation characteristics of the application operation; ([0016] “the flow sensor(s) 30 may determine product flow characteristics, such as a product flow rate” see also step 104 in fig. 5);
generating, based on […] the weight value, a time to empty value ([0020] “time to runout”), indicative of time it takes for the material application machine to apply the material to the field to empty the material container; ([0020] “the product runout tracking system 12 may determine a time to runout based at least in part on the current amount of product 15 within the storage tank and the rate at which the product 15 is being distributed from the air car 10 (e.g., the flow rate of the product 15”; see also step 108 in fig. 5).
and generating a control signal (nb. control signals interpreted to include displaying information, see claim 14 and instant application paragraph 26) to control the material application machine based on the time to empty value. ([0025] “The controller 26 may then output an instruction signal to cause display of the runout location to the operator via a user interface 64.” See also step 116 of fig. 5).
Kowalchuk differs from the claimed invention in that:
Kowalchuk does not appear to clearly articulate: calculating a mass flow rate value based on the one or more operating characteristics, the mass flow rate value indicative of a mass flow rate of material being applied to the field by the material application machine;
Nor [generating a time to empty value] based on the mass flow rate [and the weight value].
However, However, Foley teaches a bulk material feeder (see fig. 1) which teaches that a mass flow rate calculated by aggregating the average of a series of instantaneous flow measurements is a suitable alternative for characterizing a material flow rate in an agricultural process. (see [0062] “In general, the process variable may be any of several values that characterize or are indicative of the material flow through the system. For example, the process variable may be a mass flow rate, the InstFF, an average instantaneous speed flow factor (InstFF.sub.avg), a rate of change of the InstFF.sub.avg during a selected time interval, or other material flow characteristic of the system.”)
Foley is analogous art because it is representative of the general background knowledge one of ordinary skill in the art would have before the effective filing date of the application regarding mass flow control in material transport systems.
Accordingly, Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element etc.) with other components; - the method of Kowalchuk, which differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of an aggregate (e.g. average) of instantaneous flow measures calculating a mass flow measurement for the product flow rate of Kowalchuk; 2) the substituted step and its functions were known in the art – as exemplified by the teachings of Foley, which recites that mass flow rate and average instantaneous flow rate are both suitable measures for characterizing a material flow rate; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because Foley suggests that either mass flow or average instantaneous flow rate are suitable for characterizing a material flow in a process (Foley [0062]) and therefore the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application (see MPEP 2143.I.B).
Regarding Claim 2, Kowalchuk in view of Foley teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Kowalchuk further teaches:
The one or more operation characteristics comprises at least two operation characteristics, each operation characteristic, of the at least two operation characteristics, comprising a different one of:
a speed at which a conveyance system, that conveys the material on the material application machine, moves a given distance; ([0017] “the product runout tracking system 12 may include a ground speed sensor(s) 32 that may be located adjacent to one or more of the wheels 18 of the air cart 10, or at any other location about the air cart 10 suitable for monitoring a ground speed of the air cart 10. In some embodiments, if the air cart 10 is being towed, the ground speed sensor 32 may be located on the implement or the work vehicle towing the air cart 10. The ground speed sensor 32 may determine the speed at which the air cart 10 is moving through the field.”)
a density of the material;
or a rate at which the material application machine is applying the material to the field. ([0016] “the controller 26 may determine the product flow characteristics based at least in part on the rotational speed of the meter rollers and calibration of the metering system 20 (e.g., an amount of the product 15 metered per minute, or other period of time, for a given rotational speed of the meter rollers”).
Regarding Claim 9, Kowalchuk in view of Foley teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Kowalchuk further teaches:
wherein generating a time to empty value comprises: generating an instantaneous time to empty value. (see e.g. [0036] “The signals at steps 102, 104, and 106 may be received in any order and may be received continuously throughout the distribution process.”)
Regarding Claim 10, Kowalchuk in view of Foley teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 9,
Kowalchuk further teaches:
a plurality of instantaneous time to empty values (see e.g. [0036] “The signals at steps 102, 104, and 106 may be received in any order and may be received continuously throughout the distribution process.”)
Foley further teaches:
obtaining an aggregated time by aggregating a plurality of instantaneous time to empty values; and generating a current time to empty value based on the aggregated time to empty values. (see [0062] “In general, the process variable may be any of several values that characterize or are indicative of the material flow through the system. For example, the process variable may be a mass flow rate, the InstFF, an average instantaneous speed flow factor (InstFF.sub.avg), a rate of change of the InstFF.sub.avg during a selected time interval, or other material flow characteristic of the system.”) (nb. examiner notes that Kowalchuk uses flow rate to calculate each time to empty).
Accordingly, Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element etc.) with other components; - the method of Kowalchuk, which differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of an aggregate (e.g. average) of instantaneous flow measures for the mass flow measurement of Kowalchuk; 2) the substituted step and its functions were known in the art – as exemplified by the teachings of Foley, which recites that mass flow rate and average instantaneous flow rate are both suitable measures for characterizing a material flow rate; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because Foley suggests that either mass flow or average instantaneous flow rate are suitable for characterizing a material flow in a process (Foley [0062]) and therefore the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application (see MPEP 2143.I.B).
Regarding Claim 15, Kowalchuk in view of Foley teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Kowalchuk further teaches:
wherein generating a control signal comprises: generating a communication control signal to communicate a time to empty value to a tender vehicle. (see fig. 5, step 120 “output signals to fill truck”)
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalchuk in view Foley, further in view of Mayerle et al., US Pg-Pub 2004/0244659.
Regarding Claim 3, Kowalchuk in view of Foley teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 2,
Kowalchuk further teaches:
wherein generating the mass flow rate value comprises: detecting an application speed value indicative of a speed at which a volume of the material is being applied to the field; ([0016] “the metering system 20 may regulate the flow of the product 15 from the storage tank 14 into the air flow via the meter rollers, which may be set to rotate at a particular rotational speed to meter the product 15”)
obtaining a [Calibration] value indicative of a density of the material; ([0016] “product flow characteristics from the storage tank 14 of the air cart 10 may be determined based at least in part on calibration of the metering system 20.”)
and generating the mass flow rate value based on the application speed value and the [Calibration] value. ([0016] “the controller 26 may determine the product flow characteristics based at least in part on the rotational speed of the meter rollers and calibration of the metering system 20 (e.g., an amount of the product 15 metered per minute, or other period of time, for a given rotational speed of the meter rollers).”)
Kowalchuk differs from the claimed invention in that:
Kowalchuk does not appear to clearly articulate the value is a density.
However, Mayerle teaches that density of the seed may be used in calibrating the metering of an air cart. (see Mayerle [0003] “Volumetric meters typically have to be calibrated with each seed variety to remain accurate due to factors such as the seed density, size, and moisture level effecting the amount of seed metered per rotation.”)
Mayerle is analogous art because it is representative of the general background knowledge one of ordinary skill in the art would have before the effective filing date of the application regarding the calibration of air carts such as the air cart of Kowalchuk.
Accordingly, Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element etc.) with other components; - the method of Kowalchuk, which differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of a density value for the calibration value of Kowalchuk; 2) the substituted step and its functions were known in the art – as exemplified by the teachings of Mayerle, which calibrates volumetric meters in air carts based at least in part on seed density; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because Mayerle suggests that accounting for a seed density factor is important to ensure accurate calibration in a volumetric metering air cart; (Mayerle [0003]) and therefore the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application (see MPEP 2143.I.B).
Regarding Claim 4, Kowalchuk in view of Foley and Mayerle teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 3,
Kowalchuk further teaches:
wherein detecting an application speed value comprises: detecting a speed of movement value indicative of a speed at which a conveyance system, ([0016] “ the controller 26 may determine the product flow characteristics based at least in part on the rotational speed of the meter rollers”) that conveys the material on the material application machine, moves a given distance; (see [0002] “The metering system may include meter rollers that regulate the flow of product based on meter roller geometry and rotation rate.”)
and obtaining a correlation value (e.g. calibration, see [0016]) indicative of a volume of material moved by the conveyance system each time the conveyance system moves the given distance, ([0016] “product flow characteristics from the storage tank 14 of the air cart 10 may be determined based at least in part on calibration of the metering system 20.” [0020] “It should be appreciated that the flow rate of the product and the ground speed of the air cart 10 may be dependent on each other”)
and wherein calculating the mass flow rate value comprises calculating the mass flow rate value based on the speed of movement value, the density value, and the correlation value. ([0016] “the controller 26 may determine the product flow characteristics based at least in part on the rotational speed of the meter rollers and calibration of the metering system 20 (e.g., an amount of the product 15 metered per minute, or other period of time, for a given rotational speed of the meter rollers).”)
Regarding Claim 5, Kowalchuk in view of Foley and Mayerle teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 4,
Kowalchuk further teaches:
wherein the conveyance system comprises a rotary system ([0014] “The metering system 20 may include one or more meter rollers that regulate the flow of the product 15 from the storage tank 14”)
and wherein detecting the speed of movement value comprises: detecting a speed of the rotary system in revolutions per minute and wherein obtaining the correlation value comprises obtaining a volume per revolution value indicative of a volume of the material that is applied per revolution of the rotary system, ([0016] “The flow sensor(s) 30 may determine product flow characteristics, such as a product flow rate and/or a product flow velocity. The flow sensor(s) 30 may output a signal or signals to the controller 26 indicative of the product flow characteristics of the product 15 from the storage tank 14. In some embodiments, product flow characteristics from the storage tank 14 of the air cart 10 may be determined based at least in part on calibration of the metering system 20. As discussed above, the metering system 20 may regulate the flow of the product 15 from the storage tank 14 into the air flow via the meter rollers, which may be set to rotate at a particular rotational speed to meter the product 15 at a particular flow rate by the controller 26”)
and wherein generating the mass flow rate value comprises generating the mass flow rate value based on the speed of the rotary system, the density value, and the volume per revolution value. ([0016] “As such, the controller 26 may determine the product flow characteristics based at least in part on the rotational speed of the meter rollers and calibration of the metering system 20 (e.g., an amount of the product 15 metered per minute, or other period of time, for a given rotational speed of the meter rollers).”)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalchuk in view of Foley, further in view of Klubertanz US Pg-Pub 2019/294150.
Regarding Claim 6, Kowalchuk in view of Foley teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Kowalchuk further teaches:
obtaining an application rate indicative of a rate at which the material application machine is applying the material to the field; ([0016] “the flow sensor(s) 30 may determine product flow characteristics, such as a product flow rate” see also step 104 in fig. 5);
obtaining a productivity value indicative of how quickly the material application machine is applying the material to […] the field, ([0017] “[0017] Further, the product runout tracking system 12 may include a ground speed sensor(s) 32 that may be located adjacent to one or more of the wheels 18 of the air cart 10, or at any other location about the air cart 10 suitable for monitoring a ground speed of the air cart 10.”)
and wherein generating the time to empty value comprises generating the time to empty value based on the application rate and the productivity value. ([0020] “The product runout track system 12 may determine a distance until runout based at least in part on the time until runout and the current ground speed of the air cart 10. … It should be appreciated that the flow rate of the product and the ground speed of the air cart 10 may be dependent on each other.”)
Kowalchuk differs from the claimed invention in that:
Kowalchuk does not appear to clearly the articulate [the productivity value indicates how quickly material is applied to] a defined area of the field.
However Klubertanz teaches obtaining a productivity value indicative of how quickly an application machine is applying material to a defined area of a field. ([0032] “data representing an application rate of agricultural material … is received… [t]he application rate can be in various units such as weight or volume of material per square foot, distance travelled by agricultural distribution device 200, etc.)
Klubertanz is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of agricultural dispensing systems.
Accordingly, Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element etc.) with other components; - the method of Kowalchuk, which differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of a productivity value described in terms of field area for the linear distance productivity value of Kowalchuk; 2) the substituted step and its functions were known in the art – as exemplified by the teachings of Klubertanz which describes obtaining a productivity value in terms of weight of volume of material dispensed per square foot; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because Klubertanz expressly describes weight-or-volume-per-square-foot and linear distance traveled as suitable alternatives in estimating a time or location to empty in an agricultural dispensing system (see Klubertanz [0032]) and therefore the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application (see MPEP 2143.I.B).
Regarding Claim 7, Kowalchuk in view of Foley and Klubertanz teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 6,
Klubertanz further teaches:
wherein obtaining the application rate value comprises obtaining the application rate value in units of weight per unit of area, ([0034] “The application rate can be in various units such as weight or volume of material per square foot”)
and wherein obtaining the productivity value comprises obtaining the productivity value in units of area per unit of time. (see e.g. [0029] “The time at which the material in storage carriers 202, 204 will be depleted can be determined by dividing the distance agricultural distribution device 200 can travel before depleting the agricultural material in storage carriers 202,204 by the speed at which the agricultural distribution device is travelling. For example, 10,000 feet divided by a speed of 1 foot per second equals 10,000 seconds (approximately 167 minutes).”
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalchuk in view of Foley and Klubertanz; Alternatively further in view of Cash et al., US Pg-Pub 2013/0311050.
Regarding Claim 8, Kowalchuk in view of Foley and Klubertanz teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 7,
Klubertanz further teaches:
wherein obtaining the productivity value comprises: detecting a ground speed of the application machine; (see e.g. [0029] “the speed at which the agricultural distribution device is travelling”)
obtaining a dimension of the application machine; (e.g. storage container volume, see [0028])
and generating the productivity value based on the ground speed and the dimension. (see e.g. [0029] “The time at which the material in storage carriers 202, 204 will be depleted can be determined by dividing the distance agricultural distribution device 200 can travel before depleting the agricultural material in storage carriers 202,204 by the speed at which the agricultural distribution device is travelling. For example, 10,000 feet divided by a speed of 1 foot per second equals 10,000 seconds (approximately 167 minutes).”
In the interest of compact prosecution, should Applicant feel that the disclosure of Klubertanz does not adequately read on the limitation “obtaining a dimension of the application machine”; the claim is alternatively rejected under 35 USC 103 further in view of Cash et al., US Pg-Pub 2013/0311050.
Cash teaches a method for estimating time to empty (see fig. 7) in an agricultural dispensing machine (see fig. 1, machine 105), which calculates the dispensing rate based on the boom width of the seed boom of the machine (see Cash [0040] “For example a seeder may plant a certain number of seeds per minute, per distance travelled, or per area covered by a seed boom. Since autopilots and farm information displays have access to vehicle speed information, temporal rates may be converted into spatial rates and vice versa by using the relationship that distance equals speed multiplied by time. Similarly, area equals distance travelled multiplied by boom width.”)
Cash is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of agricultural dispensing systems.
Accordingly, Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element etc.) with other components; - the method of Klubertanz, which differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of a step for calculating productivity rate based on a dimension of the machine for the technique set forth in Klubertanz; 2) the substituted step and its functions were known in the art – as exemplified by the teachings of Cash, which calculating a productivity area of the dispensing method based on the boom width of the machine; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because cash expressly teaches that the step is suitable for calculating the dispensing rate for the purpose of determining time to empty (cash [0040] “The agricultural rate adjustment methods described above are useful for improving material utilization on farms while reducing farm vehicle operator work load. Rates are not limited to changes in quantity of material per unit time. They may also refer to changes in quantity per unit length or area.”) and therefore the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application (see MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalchuk in view of Foley, further in view of, alternatively, Vandike et al., US Pg-Pub 2022/0232816 or Riffel, US Pg-Pub 2012/0316673.
Regarding Claim 13, Kowalchuk in view of Foley teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Kowalchuk differs from the claimed invention in that
Kowalchuk does not appear to clearly articulate: at least one of: generating a speed control signal to control a speed of the material application machine or generating an operator interface control signal to display a time to empty display on an operator interface mechanism of the material application machine.
However, Vandike teaches a seed dispensing method for an agricultural machine (see fig. 7) which generates a speed control signal ([0103] “An actuator, such as motor, can be used to control the speed of seed meter 124 to control the rate at which seeds are delivered to the furrow 162.”) based on the time to empty ([0303] “For instance, where material empty logic 655 identifies a material empty location that is not at the end of a pass, application rate logic 656 will identify an application rate setting to adjust the application rate of material application machine 100 such that material application machine will become empty at the end of a pass. It will be important to note that it may be that application rate logic 656 adjusts the operation rate in a pass that is prior to the pass that material empty logic 655 identifies as the pass in which the material application machine 100 will become empty.”)
Vandike is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of agricultural dispensing systems.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Kowalchuk to adjust the dispensing rate of the air cart metering system with a speed control signal, based on the time to empty as suggested by Vandike.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to adjust the empty location to the end of a row, as suggested by Vandike ([0303] “it may be preferable to change the application rate of material application machine 100 such that material application machine will become empty (at least to a threshold level) at the end of a pass, rather than, somewhere else along the route (e.g., in the middle of the field or in the middle of a pass).”)
Alternatively, Riffel teaches a display (see [0064] “monitor 276”) for an agricultural dispensing machine (see fig. 1, Cultivation seeder 10) which displays the time to empty ([0064] “Another use of the weight information is to calculate and display the estimated time of depletion, based upon the rate of depletion determined by comparing the weight at known time intervals.”)
Riffel is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of agricultural dispensing systems.
Accordingly, Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element etc.) with other components; - the method of Kowalchuk, which differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of a time to empty display for the distance to empty display of Kowalchuk; 2) the substituted step and its functions were known in the art – as exemplified by the teachings of Riffel, which displays Time to empty to the operator on the operator display; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because Riffle suggests displaying the time so that an operator may monitor the operation (Riffle [0064] “For example, in addition to a direct display to the operator of the weight at any point in time, and the activation of alarms when the hopper is full or becomes empty, the decreasing weight read by the load cells as the volume of seeds reduces in the hopper can be used to calculate the actual amount of product applied over a given area, which is then compared with the intended amount. If a deviation between the two values is greater than a set point, an error message can be displayed on the monitor 276. Another use of the weight information is to calculate and display the estimated time of depletion, based upon the rate of depletion determined by comparing the weight at known time intervals.”) and therefore the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application (see MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalchuk in view of Cash.
Regarding Claim 16, Kowalchuk teaches:
An application machine (a planter with an air cart 10, see fig. 1) comprising: a container that holds material to be applied to a field; (storage tank 14, see [0015] “product 15… remaining in the storage tank 14”)
an application mechanism configured to perform an application operation to apply material from the container to the field; ([0014] “The product 15 within the storage tank 14 may be gravity fed into the metering system 20. The metering system 20 may include one or more meter rollers that regulate the flow of the product 15 from the storage tank 14 into an air flow provided by the air source 22. The air flow then carries the material to the implement via one or more pneumatic conduits 24. In this manner, the row units of the other implement may receive the product 15 for distribution into the field”)
an operator interface system; (e.g. controller 26, see [0015], including “user interface 64.” See [0025])
an application control system configured to: obtain a weight value indicative of a weight of material in the container; [0015] “the product sensor 28 may be a scale sensor (e.g., weight sensor or load cell), … to monitor weight of the product 15 … remaining in the storage tank 14 throughout the product distribution operation.”; see also step 102 in fig. 5)
generate a time to empty value ([0020] “time to runout”), indicative of the time it takes for the application mechanism to apply the material to the field to empty the container, based on the […] weight value; ([0020] “the product runout tracking system 12 may determine a time to runout based at least in part on the current amount of product 15 within the storage tank and the rate at which the product 15 is being distributed from the air car 10 (e.g., the flow rate of the product 15”; see also step 108 in fig. 5).
a control signal generator configured to generate a control signal (nb. control signals interpreted to include displaying information, see instant application claim 13 and instant application paragraph 26) to control the application machine based on the time to empty value. ([0025] “The controller 26 may then output an instruction signal to cause display of the runout location to the operator via a user interface 64.” See also step 116 of fig. 5).
Kowalchuk differs from the claimed invention in that:
Kowalchuk does not clearly articulate: calculate a field area-based productivity value, indicative of how quickly the application mechanism is applying the material to the field based on a ground speed of the application machine and a dimension of the application machine, wherein the field area-based productivity value is defined in units of area per unit of time;
Nor calculating the time to empty based on the field area-based productivity value in addition to the weight value.
However, Cash teaches a material application system for dispensing product into a field which teaches that a calculated field area-based productivity value defined in units of area per unit time is a suitable substitute for a quantity per unit time ([0040] “Rates are not limited to changes in quantity of material per unit time. They may also refer to changes in quantity per unit length or area.”) which may be based on travel speed and a dimension ([0040] “boom width”) of the application machine ([0040] “temporal rates may be converted into spatial rates and vice versa by using the relationship that distance equals speed multiplied by time. Similarly, area equals distance travelled multiplied by boom width.”)
Cash is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of agricultural dispensing systems.
Accordingly, Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element etc.) with other components; - the method of Kowalchuk, which differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of a flow rate measured in area per unit time for the product flow rate of Kowalchuk; 2) the substituted step and its functions were known in the art – as exemplified by the teachings of Cash, which recites that temporal and spatial dispensing rates may be converted between based on known relationships of distance, speed, time, and a dimension of the dispensing machine; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because Cash explicitly discloses that these values are substitutable for one another (Cash [0040]) and therefore the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application (see MPEP 2143.I.B).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Kowalchuk in view of Cash teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 16;
Cash further teaches:
Wherein the application control system is configured to: obtain an application rate value in units of weight per unit of area, and generate the time to empty value based on the application rate value. ([0002] “A particular number of seeds or weight of fertilizer may be applied per acre, for example.” [0041] “Sensors may report that a bin or tank has a certain volume or weight of material such as grain, fertilizer or diesel fuel, that the vehicle is steering a turn, or that an engine is running at a certain speed, as examples.”)
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Kowalchuk in view of Cash teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 16;
Kowalchuk further teaches:
An application rate processor configured to obtain an application rate value indicative of a rate at which the application mechanism is applying material to the field; ([0016] “the flow sensor(s) 30 may determine product flow characteristics, such as a product flow rate” see also step 104 in fig. 5);
A time to empty generator configured to generate the time to empty value based on the application rate value and the field area-based productivity value. ([0020] “The product runout track system 12 may determine a distance until runout based at least in part on the time until runout and the current ground speed of the air cart 10. … It should be appreciated that the flow rate of the product and the ground speed of the air cart 10 may be dependent on each other.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19-21 are allowed. However, as there are claims which are not allowable still pending in the application, the overall application is not yet in condition for allowance.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While Kowalchuk, Klubertanz, Foley, Vandike, Riffel, Cash, Mayerle, and Tahiliani teach many of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above and described in the non-final rejection mailed 18 December 2025; none of the references of record, alone or in reasonable combination, teach or fairly suggest all of the limitations of the claimed invention, particularly:
(Claim 11)
obtaining a map input that divides the field into a plurality of application zones and defines, for each respective application zone, of the plurality of application zones, a size in units of area of the respective application zone; and
for each respective application zone of the plurality of application zones, identifying an application rate for the respective application zone; and identifying a number of fill operations for the respective application zone based on the application rate for the respective application zone, the size of the respective application zone, and the capacity of the material application machine
(excerpted)
…in combination with the remaining limitations and features of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 19 recites substantively the same subject matter identified with respect to dependent claim 11 above. Accordingly, mutatis mutandis, these claims are likewise persuasive for the above noted reason(s).
Dependent Claims 12, and 20-21, being definite, fully enabled, further limiting, and dependent upon the above noted Claims 11 and 19, are likewise persuasive for at least the above noted reason(s).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights