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 .
Response to Arguments
The objections to the drawings have been partially resolved. The unresolved portion is repeated below.
The objections to the claims have been partially resolved. The unresolved portion is repeated below.
Applicant's arguments filed May 1st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (paraphrasing) Wright et al. in view of Thompson, Pidwerbesky et al. and Wright II fail to disclose the features of claim 1 (Remarks, page 17) in that there is correspondence between the parameter received from an associated human operator and operational changes in the movement characteristics of the commodity working member made by the controller (Remarks, page 19) and Thompson’s user interface is operable in the limited conditions of use for inputting a terrain map and for outputting notifications to the user (Remarks, page 20).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because in Thompson the terrain map is used to control the speed of the agitator (operation of the agitator is based on geographic location, para. [0041], and the rotational seed of the agitator may be varied when the system moves to different regions of the field, para. [0041]) and at least broadly meets the limitation of “rotational speed command parameter”. Thompson also states that the operator may confirm or select operations for the agitators using the user interface (para. [0045]) which would reasonably include a “rotational speed command parameter” controlling the speed at least between zero and an operational speed. Further, Thompson teaches that the agitator speed may be varied (“to rotate at different speeds”, para. [0030]) by the power transfer system 44 (para. [0030]) and the power transfer system may be controlled “automatically or by the operator” (para. [0030]). Thus, Thompson reasonably discloses that a human operator may control the agitator speed and the control input would comprise a rotational speed command parameter which would be input through the user interface (para. [0045]) and the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that in Pidwerbesky et al. the user interface is limited to high-level modes of operation rather than for selecting specific operational movement characteristics of a commodity working member and Pidwerbesky et al. is limited to high-level door-dump, high-level leveling modes, and a high-level agitation mode (Remarks, page 20). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that nothing in the claims preclude the agitation control parameters from being part of a high-level mode and it seems a high-level mode would comprise control parameters and inputting or selecting a high-level mode would comprise storing the selection in memory. Regardless, Pidwerbesky et al. reasonably discloses a rotational speed parameter being input by an operator because Pidwerbesky et al. states: “the agitator may be rotated based on other parameters, such as a speed of the agitator, an amount of particulate material moved by the agitator, and the like, as based on the operating mode of the agitating system” (para. [0051]) where the user interface is used to “adjust the operating mode of the agitating system” (para. [0068]) where the operator may adjust parameters associated with operation of the agitation control system (para. [0068]). Thus, Pidwerbesky et al. reasonably discloses the operator adjusting the speed of the agitator as a parameter and the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Wright II mentions “duty cycle” but only in the context of an agitator drive system to avoid constantly drawing current in greater amounts than a set threshold (Remarks, page 20). It is noted that the claims only require one of the three listed parameters (rotational speed, duty cycle and/or movement extent). Regardless, Wright II teaches that the operator may adjust operation of the agitator drive system when a current threshold is exceeded as indicated by a light or icon displayed to the operator or an audio indication (para. [0037]) and as pointed out by the Applicant, Wright II teaches that reducing the duty cycle avoids drawing current which exceeds a threshold (para. [0039]). In view of these two teachings, it would have been obvious to allow the operator to adjust/reduce the duty cycle manually (such as via the user interface, para. [0041]) to avoid drawing excessive current.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 21-22 recite “sensor operable to generate a commodity blockage signal”, “sensor operable to generate a commodity jam signal” and “the user interface device is configured to receive the commodity blockage and jam signals”. These terms are not explicitly used in the specification. The use of “signal” in this context is interpreted to mean an action to convey information rather than a physical signal (e.g., electrical impulse, wave, etc.) and the commodity jam and blockage signals may each include the generation of multiple physical signals. As shown in Fig. 2B, the sensors (sensors 226 and 224) are in communication with the user interface via the controller.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: “940” (Fig. 9).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “the agitation module” in line 15 which should be changed to “the agitator module” for consistency in the claim (see line 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11, 17-20 and 22 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 11 recites “the controller” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “a set of agitation control parameters” in line 10. It is unclear if these are the same agitation control parameters previously recited in the claim. This could be changed to “the set of agitation control parameters”.
Claim 11 recites “a controller” in line 11. It is unclear if this is the same controller previously recited in the claim. This could be changed to “the controller”.
Claims 17-20 and 22 are likewise rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 8, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 20210220783) in view of Thompson (US 20240090367), Pidwerbesky et al. (US 20200245534) and Wright et al. (US 20210059119) hereinafter “Wright II”.
Regarding claim 1, Wright et al. discloses a system for agitating a commodity (“particulate material, such as seeds, fertilizer, and/or other agricultural product”, para. [0003]) in a commodity feed system including a tank (tank 32) storing the commodity and a metering device (metering system 30) delivering the commodity to a seeder duct (conduit 41, Fig. 2) of an associated agricultural implement (seeding implement, pars. [0003] and [0028]) as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
585
1316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wright et al. discloses the system comprises an agitator module comprising: a frame (sub-hopper 100) configured to couple the agitator module with the tank (attached to the tank at holes 106, para. [0034]); a commodity working member (agitator 56) configured to engage the commodity stored in the tank; and a drive system (drive system 58) configured to control movement of the commodity working member (para. [0036]) based on a command signal (para. [0037]); a controller (controller 70) comprising: a memory device (memory device 74); a processor device (processor 72) operatively coupled with the memory device (para. [0032], Fig. 3); an agitation control parameter stored in the memory device (para. [0033]); and agitation control logic stored in the memory device (software for controlling the agitator drive system, para. [0033]).
Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose a set of agitation control parameters and does not explicitly disclose what agitation control parameters (para. [0033]) comprise.
However, Thompson also discloses a system for agitating a commodity (para. [0003]) in a commodity feed system including a tank for storing the commodity (storage compartment 12) and a metering device (meter 28/meter drive 30) delivering the commodity to a seeder duct (Fig. 2) and which includes a controller (controller 50) with memory (memory 54) and Thompson teaches a set of agitation control parameters (parameters to reduce or stop operation of agitators, para. [0044]) and Thompson teaches that agitation control parameters may comprise a rotational speed command parameter in that Thompson teaches the agitator may be operated at different speeds by the power transfer system (para. [0030]).
Likewise, Pidwerbesky et al. discloses a system for agitating (with agitator 74) a commodity in a commodity feed system including a tank for storing the commodity (pars. [0003]-[0004]) and having a controller (controller 80) with memory (memory 84) and Pidwerbesky et al. teaches using a set of agitation control parameters (time durations, operating speed, number of rotations, para. [0051], “In further embodiments, the agitator may be rotated based on other parameters, such as a speed of the agitator, an amount of particulate material moved by the agitator, and the like, as based on the operating mode of the agitating system”, para. [0051]) where agitation control parameters may comprise a rotational speed command parameter (rotational speed, para. [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. wherein the system includes a set of agitation control parameters stored in the memory of the device wherein the set of agitation control parameters comprise a rotational speed command parameter (Thompson, para. [0050], Pidwerbesky et al., para. [0051]) wherein the agitation control logic is executable by the processor device to generate the command signal to control a rotational speed of movement of the commodity working member based on the rotational speed command parameter.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use stored parameters (Wright et al., para. [0033]) to control the agitator speed to facilitate the flow of material (Wright et al., para. [0031]). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a rotational speed command parameter to vary the rotation speed to allow for different operating modes (Pidwerbesky et al., pars. [0051]-[0052] and [0063]) such as for leveling (Pidwerbesky et al., para. [0063]) or clumping (Wright et al., para. [0029]).
Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose a human interface device.
However, Thompson further teaches a user/human interface (pars. [0038] and [0045]).
Likewise, Pidwerbesky et al. further teaches a human interface device (interface 172) for receiving a user input for adjusting operation of the agitation control system (para. [0067]) including parameters of the agitation control system (para. [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. wherein the system comprises a human interface device operatively coupled with the controller, the human interface device being configured to receive the set of agitation control parameters from an associated human operator of the system wherein the set of agitation control parameters comprise a rotational speed command parameter (Thompson, para. [0050], Pidwerbesky et al., para. [0051]) wherein the agitation control logic is executable by the processor device to generate the command signal to control a rotational speed of movement of the commodity working member based on the rotational speed command parameter received from the associated human operator of the system.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a human interface in order to make adjustments to the system and to adjust the operation of the agitator.
Insomuch as Wright et al. does not explicitly state a set of agitation control parameters include a rotational movement extent command parameter; Wright et al. discloses the agitator may have an operation mode comprising a rotational movement extent in that the agitator oscillates (oscillatory rotational movement of the shaft, rather than full rotational movement of the shaft, para. [0037]) and has an extent of movement in first and second directions (such as between 5-35 degrees, para. [0038]) and Pidwerbesky et al. teaches using parameters based on the operating mode (para. [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. wherein the set of agitation control parameters comprises a rotational movement extent command parameter; and the agitation control logic is executable by the processor device to generate the command signal to control an extent of movement of the commodity working member based on the rotational movement extent command parameter received from the associated human operator of the system.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a rotational movement extent parameter for an operating mode using oscillatory movement thereby limiting a torque applied by the motor (Wright et al., para. [0037]).
Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose agitation control parameters (para. [0033]) include a duty cycle command parameter.
However, Wright II further discloses a system for agitating (with agitator 56, Fig. 2) a commodity (para. [0003]) and Wright II further teaches using a reduced duty cycle for the agitator drive system in an alternative mode of operation (para. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. wherein the set of agitation control parameters comprises a duty cycle command parameter; wherein the agitation control logic is executable by the processor device to generate the command signal to control movement of the commodity working member to a fraction of a repeating period (Wright II, para. [0045]) based on the duty cycle command parameter received from the associated human operator of the system.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a duty cycle command parameter to reduce the duty cycle in order to increase structural longevity of the agitating system (Wright II, para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 8, Wright et al. does not expressly disclose a tank load sensor.
However, Pidwerbesky et al. discloses a tank load sensor (agitation control system configured to monitor a load, e.g. weight, on a storage tank 36, the agitator or sub-hopper, para. [0045]) and Thompson likewise teaches controlling the agitator drive assembly based on weight sensor data (para. [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. wherein the system includes a tank load sensor operatively coupled with the controller, the tank load sensor generating a commodity weight signal representative of an amount of the commodity in the tank, wherein the agitation control logic is executable by the processor device to generate the command signal for controlling the movement of the commodity working member based on the set of agitation control parameters and the commodity weight signal.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a load sensor in order to redistribute commodity in the tank (Thompson, para. [0039 ]) or adjust power to the agitator (as less power would be needed for agitating smaller weights of commodity and Pidwerbesky et al. teaches conserving power, para. [0071]).
Regarding claim 11, Wright et al. discloses a method of operating an agitator module (comprising drive system 58 with agitator 56) in a commodity feed system including a tank (tank 32) storing the commodity (seeds, fertilizer, or other agricultural product, para. [0003]) and a metering device (metering system 30 with roller 46) delivering the commodity to a seeder duct (conduit 41, Fig. 2) of an associated agricultural implement (seeding implement, para. [0003]), the method comprising: storing an agitation control parameter in a memory device of a controller (para. [0033]); storing agitation control logic (software, para. [0033]) in the memory device of the controller (para. [0033]).
Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose a set of agitation control parameters and does not explicitly disclose what agitation control parameters (para. [0033]) comprise.
However, Thompson discloses a method for operating an agitator module (para. [0004]) in a commodity feed system including a tank for storing the commodity (storage compartment 12) and a metering device (meter 28/meter drive 30) delivering the commodity to a seeder duct (Fig. 2) and which includes a controller (controller 50) with memory (memory 54) and Thompson teaches a set of agitation control parameters (parameters to reduce or stop operation of agitators, para. [0044]) and Thompson teaches that agitation control parameters may comprise a rotational speed command parameter in that Thompson teaches the agitator may be operated at different speeds by the power transfer system (para. [0030]).
Likewise, Pidwerbesky et al. discloses a method for operating an agitator module (having agitator 74) in a commodity feed system including a tank for storing the commodity (pars. [0003]-[0004]) and having a controller (controller 80) with memory (memory 84) and Pidwerbesky et al. teaches using a set of agitation control parameters (time durations, operating speed, number of rotations, para. [0051], “In further embodiments, the agitator may be rotated based on other parameters, such as a speed of the agitator, an amount of particulate material moved by the agitator, and the like, as based on the operating mode of the agitating system”, para. [0051]) where agitation control parameters may comprise a rotational speed command parameter (rotational speed, para. [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. wherein the method includes receiving a set of agitation control parameters and storing the set of agitation control parameters in the memory device of the controller wherein the set of agitation control parameters comprise a rotational speed command parameter (Thompson, para. [0050], Pidwerbesky et al., para. [0051]) and executing the agitation control logic by a processor device (Wright et al., processor 72) of the controller to generate a command signal to control a speed of movement of a commodity working member (Wright et al., agitator 56) of the agitating module based on the rotational speed command parameter.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use stored parameters (Wright et al., para. [0033]) to control the agitator speed to facilitate the flow of material (Wright et al., para. [0031]). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a rotational speed parameter to vary the rotation speed to allow for different operating modes (Pidwerbesky et al., pars. [0051]-[0052] and [0063]) such as for leveling (Pidwerbesky et al., para. [0063]) or clumping (Wright et al., para. [0029]).
Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose a human interface device.
However, Thompson further teaches a user/human interface (pars. [0038] and [0045]).
Likewise, Pidwerbesky et al. further teaches a human interface device (interface 172) for receiving a user input for adjusting operation of the agitation control system (para. [0067]) including parameters of the agitation control system (para. [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. wherein the method includes the use of a human interface device and the set of agitation control parameters are received from an associated human operator of the commodity feed system by the human interface device operatively coupled with the controller, storing the set of agitation control parameters received from the associated human operator in the memory device of the controller and executing the agitation control logic by the processor device of the controller to generate a command signal to control a speed of movement of a commodity working member (Thompson, pars. [0030] and [0044], Pidwerbesky et al., para. [0051]) of the agitation module based on the rotational speed command parameter received from the associated human operator and stored in the memory device of the controller.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a human interface in order to make adjustments to the operation of the agitator.
Insomuch as Wright et al. does not explicitly state the set of agitation control parameters include a rotational movement extent command parameter; Wright et al. discloses the agitator may have an operation mode comprising a rotational movement extent in that the agitator oscillates (oscillatory rotational movement of the shaft, rather than full rotational movement of the shaft, para. [0037]) and has an extent of movement in first and second directions (such as between 5-35 degrees, para. [0038]) and Pidwerbesky et al. teaches using parameters based on the operating mode (para. [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. wherein the set of agitation control parameters comprise a rotational movement extent command parameter and where the method includes executing the agitation control logic by the processor device of the controller to generate a command signal to control an extent of rotational movement of the commodity working member based on the rotational movement extent command parameter received from the associated human operator and stored in the memory device of the controller.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a rotational movement extent parameter for an operating mode using oscillatory movement thereby limiting a torque applied by the motor (Wright et al., para. [0037]).
Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose agitation control parameters (para. [0033]) include a duty cycle command parameter.
However, Wright II further discloses a method for agitating (with agitator 56, Fig. 2) a commodity (para. [0003]) and Wright II further teaches using a reduced duty cycle for the agitator drive system in an alternative mode of operation (para. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. wherein the set of agitation control parameters comprise a duty cycle command parameter and where the method includes executing the agitation control logic by the processor device of the controller to generate a command signal to control rotational movement of the commodity working member to a fraction of a repeating period based on the duty cycle command parameter received from the associated human operator and stored in the memory device of the controller.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a duty cycle command parameter to reduce the duty cycle in order to increase structural longevity of the agitating system (Wright II, para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 18, Wright et al. does not expressly disclose a tank load sensor.
However, Pidwerbesky et al. discloses a tank load sensor (agitation control system configured to monitor a load, e.g. weight, on a storage tank 36, the agitator or sub-hopper, para. [0045]) and Thompson likewise teaches controlling the agitator drive assembly based on weight sensor data (para. [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. wherein the method further comprises receiving from a tank load sensor operatively coupled with the controller a commodity weight signal representative of an amount of the commodity in the tank, wherein the executing the agitation control logic by the processor device comprises executing the control logic by the processor device to generate the command signal for controlling the movement of the commodity working member based on the set of agitation control parameters and the commodity weight signal.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a load sensor in order to redistribute commodity in the tank (Thompson, para. [0039]) or to adjust power to the agitator (as presumably less power would be needed for agitating smaller weights of commodity and Pidwerbesky et al. teaches conserving power, para. [0071]).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 20210220783) in view of Thompson (US 20240090367), Pidwerbesky et al. (US 20200245534) and Wright et al. (US 20210059119) hereinafter “Wright II” as applied to claim 1 or 11 above and in further view of Harmon et al. (US 20210127566) and Schilling et al. (US 20200245535).
Regarding claim 7, Wright et al. is silent as to sensors.
However, Harmon et al. discloses a system for agitating (agitator 210) a commodity (para. [0003]) and Harmon et al. teaches level sensors (check sensors 214 and 216, para. [0061], Fig. 3) which may be used to control the agitator (“instruct responses from one or more of the agitator 210”, para. [0064]).
Likewise, Schilling et al. discloses a system for agitating (using agitator 76 and/or auger 68) and teaches level sensors (sensors 120 and 106, Fig. 3, pars. [0038]) which are used in controlling the agitator (para. [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. wherein the system includes a fill height sensor operatively coupled with the controller, the fill height sensor generating a fill height signal representative of a fill level of the commodity in the tank, wherein the agitation control logic is executable by the processor device to generate the command signal for controlling the movement of the commodity working member based on the set of agitation control parameters and the fill height signal.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a fill height sensor in order to level the commodity in the tank (Schilling et al., para. [0041]) or to confirm commodity is in the tank (Harmon et al., para. [0061]) before energizing the agitator.
Regarding claim 17, Wright et al. is silent as to sensors.
However, Harmon et al. discloses a system for agitating (agitator 210) a commodity (para. [0003]) and Harmon et al. teaches level sensors (check sensors 214 and 216, para. [0061], Fig. 3) which may be used to control the agitator (“instruct responses from one or more of the agitator 210”, para. [0064]).
Likewise, Schilling et al. discloses a system for agitating (using agitator 76 and/or auger 68) and teaches level sensors (sensors 120 and 106, Fig. 3, pars. [0038]) which are used in controlling the agitator (para. [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. wherein the method further comprises receiving from a fill height sensor operatively coupled with the controller a fill height signal representative of a fill level of the commodity in the tank, wherein the executing the agitation control logic by the processor device comprises executing the control logic by the processor device to generate the command signal for controlling the movement of the commodity working member based on the set of agitation control parameters and the fill height signal.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a fill height sensor in order to level the commodity in the tank (Schilling et al., para. [0041]) or to confirm commodity is in the tank (Harmon et al., para. [0061]) before energizing the agitator.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 20210220783) in view of Thompson (US 20240090367), Pidwerbesky et al. (US 20200245534) and Wright et al. (US 20210059119) hereinafter “Wright II” as applied to claim 1 or 11 above and in further view of Collins et al. (US 20200245543) and Rowntree et al. (US 20180255823).
Regarding claim 9, Wright et al. does not disclose a weather condition sensor.
However, Collins et al. discloses a system for agitating a commodity (pars. [0002] and [0004]) and Collins et al. teaches using weather conditions as an operating parameter which may be received by a sensor (para. [0059]).
Likewise, Rowntree et al. discloses a system for agitating a commodity (feed mixer which mixes grain, para. [0003]) and Rowntree et al. discloses mixing characteristic and mixing time can vary depending on factors including weather conditions (para. [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. wherein the device includes a weather condition sensor operatively coupled with the controller, the weather condition sensor generating a weather condition signal representative of a condition of the weather, wherein the agitation control logic is executable by the processor device to generate the command signal for controlling the movement of the commodity working member based on the set of agitation control parameters and the weather condition signal.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a weather sensor such as to sense conditions which may result in clumping or bridging and to adjust mixing to handle clumps (Collins et al., pars. [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 19, Wright et al. does not disclose a weather condition sensor.
However, Collins et al. discloses a system for agitating a commodity (pars. [0002] and [0004]) and Collins et al. teaches using weather conditions as an operating parameter which may be received by a sensor (para. [0059]).
Likewise, Rowntree et al. discloses a system for agitating a commodity (feed mixer which mixes grain, para. [0003]) and Rowntree et al. discloses mixing characteristic and mixing time can vary depending on factors including weather conditions (para. [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. wherein the method further comprises receiving from a weather condition sensor operatively coupled with the controller a weather condition signal representative of a condition of the weather, wherein the executing the agitation control logic by the processor device comprises executing the control logic by the processor device to generate the command signal for controlling the movement of the commodity working member based on the set of agitation control parameters and the weather condition signal.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a weather sensor such as to sense conditions which may result in clumping or bridging and to adjust mixing to handle clumps (Collins et al., pars. [0032]-[0033]).
Claims 10 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 20210220783) in view of Thompson (US 20240090367), Pidwerbesky et al. (US 20200245534) and Wright et al. (US 20210059119) hereinafter “Wright II” as applied to claim 1 or 11 above and in further view of Harmon et al. (US 20210127566).
Regarding claim 10, Wright et al. is silent as to sensors.
However, Thompson teaches sensors for detecting a commodity condition (profile, para. [0039]).
Further, Harmon et al. discloses a system for agitating (agitator 210) a commodity (para. [0003]) and Harmon et al. teaches a commodity condition sensor operatively coupled with a controller (sensors are used to detect a bridging condition, para. [0086]) and altering parameters of the agitator upon sensing a commodity condition (bridging, para. [0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. wherein the system comprises a commodity condition sensor operatively coupled with the controller, the commodity condition sensor generating a commodity condition signal representative of a condition of the commodity stored in the tank, wherein the agitation control logic is executable by the processor device to generate the command signal for controlling the movement of the commodity working member based on the set of agitation control parameters and the commodity condition signal.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use sensors to detect a commodity condition in order to adjust the profile for even flow (Thomson, para. [0003]) or to detect a bridging condition (Harmon et al., para. [0001]).
Regarding claim 20, Wright et al. is silent as to sensors.
However, Thompson teaches sensors for detecting a commodity condition (profile, para. [0039]).
Further, Harmon et al. discloses a system and method for agitating (using agitator 210) a commodity (para. [0003]) and Harmon et al. teaches a commodity condition sensor operatively coupled with a controller (sensors are used to detect a bridging condition, para. [0086]) and altering parameters of the agitator upon sensing a commodity condition (bridging, para. [0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. wherein the method comprises receiving from a commodity condition sensor operatively coupled with the controller, a commodity condition signal representative of a condition of the commodity stored in the tank, wherein the executing the agitation control logic by the processor device comprises executing the control logic by the processor device to generate the command signal for controlling the movement of the commodity working member based on the set of agitation control parameters and the commodity condition signal.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use sensors to detect a commodity condition in order to adjust the profile for even flow (Thomson, para. [0003]) or to detect a bridging condition (Harmon et al., para. [0001]).
Regarding claim 21, Wright et al. is silent as to sensors.
However, Harmon et al. discloses a system for agitating (agitator 210) a commodity (pars. [0002]-[0003]) and Harmon et al. teaches an outlet sensor (sensor 224, Fig. 2, para. [0055]) operable to generate a commodity blockage signal representative of a blockage of the commodity identifying the commodity not passing to the seeder duct (passages 206 or 208), an inlet sensor (sensor 226, Fig. 2) operable to generate a commodity jam signal representative of a jamming of the commodity identifying the commodity not passing to the metering device (para. [0056]); wherein the human interface device is configured to receive the commodity blockage and jam signals and display an icon viewable by the associated human operator of the system (para. [0058]), wherein the icon is representative of a condition of the commodity not passing to the seeder duct and/or of the commodity not passing to the metering device (pars. [0055]-[0056] and [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. to include an outlet sensor operable to generate a commodity blockage signal representative of a blockage of the commodity identifying the commodity not passing to the seeder duct of the associated agricultural implement, an inlet sensor operable to generate a commodity jam signal representative of a jamming of the commodity identifying the commodity not passing to the metering device of the associated agricultural implement, wherein the human interface device is configured to receive the commodity blockage and jam signals and display an icon viewable by the associated human operator of the system, wherein the icon is representative of a condition of the commodity not passing to the seeder duct and/or of the commodity not passing to the metering device.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use sensors in order to notify the operator of a malfunction which prevents the commodity from flowing.
Regarding claim 22, Wright et al. is silent as to sensors.
However, Harmon et al. discloses a system for agitating (agitator 210) a commodity (pars. [0002]-[0003]) and Harmon et al. teaches generating a commodity blockage signal by an outlet sensor (outlet sensor 224, Fig. 2, para. [0055]), the commodity blockage signal being representative of a blockage of the commodity identifying the commodity not passing to the seeder duct (passages 206 or 208, Fig. 2); and generating a commodity jam signal by an inlet sensor (sensor 226, Fig. 2, para. [0056]) the commodity jam signal being representative of a jamming of the commodity identifying the commodity not passing to the metering device, wherein the human interface device is configured to receive the commodity blockage and jam signals and display an icon viewable by the associated human operator (para. [0058]), wherein the icon is representative of a condition of the commodity not passing to the seeder duct and/or of the commodity not passing to the metering device (pars. [0055]-[0056] and [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Wright et al. wherein the method includes generating a commodity blockage signal by an outlet sensor, the commodity blockage signal being representative of a blockage of the commodity identifying the commodity not passing to the seeder duct of the associated agricultural implement; and generating a commodity jam signal by an inlet sensor, the commodity jam signal being representative of a jamming of the commodity identifying the commodity not passing to the metering device of the associated agricultural implement, wherein the human interface device is configured to receive the commodity blockage and jam signals and display an icon viewable by the associated human operator, wherein the icon is representative of a condition of the commodity not passing to the seeder duct and/or of the commodity not passing to the metering device.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use sensors in order to notify the operator of a malfunction which prevents the commodity from flowing.
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 PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights