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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated September 18th, 2023 was not considered.
The IDS lists only one reference (US 20120127566A1) and lists the patentee as “Harmon”. This appears to be erroneous and it is believed the document which the Applicant meant to disclose is Harmon et al., US 20210127566A1, which has been considered and added to the attached PTO-892 form.
No further action is needed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: “23” (see Fig. 1), “814” and “816” (see Fig. 8) and “940” (see 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 “storing a set of agitation control parameters stored in a memory device of a controller” in line 4 and it seems that “stored” should be removed.
Claim 11 recites “the agitation module” in line 9 which should be changed “the agitator module” for consistency in the claim (see line 1).
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11-13, 15 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) and Pidwerbesky et al. (US 20200245534).
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
651
1466
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.
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 (size of headlands, drive time, product type, product load, para. [0044]).
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]).
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 a set of agitation control parameters (Thompson, para. [0044], Pidwerbesky et al., para. [0051]) are stored in the memory device (Wright et al., para. [0033]) and wherein the agitation control logic is executable by the processor device (Wright et al., para. [0033]) to generate the command signal (Wright et al., pars. [0035] and [0037]) for controlling the movement of the commodity working member based on the set of agitation control parameters.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a set of parameters, such as to specify a speed of the agitator, time, or time periods for agitator operation (Thompson, para. [0044], Pidwerbesky et al., para. [0051]) in order to assist in automation and improve efficiency (such as by reducing running time or reducing power to the agitator drive when less power could suffice).
Regarding claim 2, Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose what agitation control parameters (para. [0033]) comprise.
However, Thompson or Pidwerbesky et al. both teach an agitation control parameter comprises a speed command parameter (Thompson, “reduce or stop the operation”, para. [0044], Pidwerbesky et al., “the agitator may be rotated based on other parameters, such as a speed of the agitator”, 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 speed command parameter; and the agitation control logic is executable by the processor device (Wright et al., para. [0033]) to generate the command signal (Wright et al., pars. [0035] and [0037]) to control a speed of movement of the commodity working member based on the 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]).
Regarding claim 3, Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose what agitation control parameters (para. [0033]) comprise.
However, Thompson further teaches the agitator is rotated (para. [0022]), may be rotated based on the type and state of the product (para. [0030]) and Pidwerbesky et al. teaches rotating the agitator based on a speed parameter (para. [0051]) and rotating may be varied based on the operating mode (para. [0052]).
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 speed command parameter comprises a rotational speed command parameter; and 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 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]).
Regarding claim 5, Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose what agitation control parameters (para. [0033]) comprise.
However, Wright et al. discloses the agitator may have an operation mode where is oscillates (pars. [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 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 movement extent command parameter.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a movement extent parameter for an operating mode using oscillatory movement and thereby limiting a torque applied by the motor (Wright et al., para. [0037]).
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 stored 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.
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 (size of headlands, drive time, product type, product load, para. [0044]).
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]).
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 storing a set of agitation control parameters (Thompson, para. [0044], Pidwerbesky et al., para. [0051]) stored in the memory device of a controller (Wright et al., para. [0033]) and executing the agitation control logic by a processor device (processor 72) of the controller (Wright et al., Fig. 2, para. [0033]) to generate a command signal (Wright et al., pars. [0035] and [0037]) for controlling movement of a commodity working member of the agitation module based on the set of agitation control parameters stored in the memory device of the controller.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a set of parameters, such as to specify a speed of the agitator, time, or time periods for agitator operation (Thompson, para. [0044], Pidwerbesky et al., para. [0051]) in order to assist in automation and improve efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose what agitation control parameters (para. [0033]) comprise.
However, Thompson or Pidwerbesky et al. both teach an agitation control parameter comprises a speed command parameter (Thompson, “reduce or stop the operation”, para. [0044], Pidwerbesky et al., “the agitator may be rotated based on other parameters, such as a speed of the agitator”, 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 storing the set of agitation control parameters comprises storing a speed command parameter in the memory device and executing the agitation control logic by the processor device (Wright et al., para. [0033]) comprises executing the control logic by the processor device to generate the command signal (Wright et al., pars. [0035] and [0037]) to control a speed of movement of the commodity working member based on the 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]).
Regarding claim 13, Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose what agitation control parameters (para. [0033]) comprise.
However, Thompson further teaches the agitator is rotated (para. [0022]), may be rotated based on the type and state of the product (para. [0030]) and Pidwerbesky et al. teaches rotating the agitator based on a speed parameter (para. [0051]) and rotating may be varied based on the operating mode (para. [0052]).
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 storing the speed command parameter comprises storing a rotational speed command parameter in the memory device; and the executing the agitation control logic by the processor device comprises executing the control logic 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 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 to handle clumping (Wright et al., para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 15, Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose what agitation control parameters (para. [0033]) comprise.
However, Wright et al. discloses the agitator may have an operation mode where it oscillates (pars. [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 storing the set of agitation control parameters comprises storing a movement extent command parameter in the memory device; and the executing the agitation control logic by the processor device comprises executing the control logic by the processor device to generate the command signal to control an extent of movement of the commodity working member based on the movement extent command parameter.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a movement extent parameter for an operating mode using oscillatory movement and thereby limiting a torque applied by the motor (Wright et al., para. [0037]).
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 4, 6, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 20210220783) in view of Thompson (US 20240090367) and Pidwerbesky et al. (US 20200245534) as applied to claim 1 or claim 11 above and in further view of Wright et al. (US 20210059119) hereinafter “Wright II”.
Regarding claim 4, Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose agitation control parameters (para. [0033]) include a duty cycle command parameter.
However, Wright II 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; and 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.
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 6, Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose a human interface device.
However, Thompson further teaches a user/human interface (pars. [0038] and [0045]) and 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 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.
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.
Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose what agitation control parameters (para. [0033]) comprise.
However, Thompson or Pidwerbesky et al. both teach an agitation control parameter comprises a speed command parameter (Thompson, “reduce or stop the operation”, para. [0044], Pidwerbesky et al., “the agitator may be rotated based on other parameters, such as a speed of the agitator”, 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 one or more of a speed command parameter, a duty cycle command parameter, and/or a movement extent command parameter, wherein the agitation control logic is executable by the processor device to generate the command signal to control a corresponding one or more of a speed of movement of the commodity working member (Pidwerbesky et al., para. [0051]) based on the speed command parameter, movement of the commodity working member to a fraction of a repeating period based on the duty cycle command parameter, and/or an extent of movement of the commodity working member based on the movement extent 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]).
Further, Wright et al. discloses the agitator may oscillate (pars. [0037]) and have 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]). Wright II 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 one or more of a speed command parameter, a duty cycle command parameter, and/or a movement extent command parameter, wherein the agitation control logic is executable by the processor device to generate the command signal to control a corresponding one or more of a speed of movement of the commodity working member (Pidwerbesky et al., para. [0051]) based on the speed command parameter, movement of the commodity working member to a fraction of a repeating period (Wright II, para. [0045]) based on the duty cycle command parameter, and/or an extent of movement of the commodity working member (Wright et al., para. [0038]) based on the movement extent command parameter.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a movement extent parameter for an operating mode using oscillatory movement and thereby limiting a torque applied by the motor (Wright et al., para. [0037]). 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]). 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]).
Regarding claim 14, Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose agitation control parameters (para. [0033]) include a duty cycle command parameter.
However, Wright II 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 storing the set of agitation control parameters comprises storing a duty cycle command parameter in the memory device; and the executing the agitation control logic by the processor device comprises executing the control logic by the processor device to generate the command signal to control movement of the commodity working member to a fraction of a repeating period based on the duty cycle command parameter.
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 16, Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose a human interface device.
However, Thompson further teaches a user/human interface (pars. [0038] and [0045]) and 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 comprises: receiving the set of agitation control parameters from an associated human operator of the system by a human interface device operatively coupled with the controller.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a human interface device in order to make adjustments to the system.
Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose what agitation control parameters (para. [0033]) comprise.
However, Thompson or Pidwerbesky et al. both teach an agitation control parameter comprises a speed command parameter (Thompson, “reduce or stop the operation”, para. [0044], Pidwerbesky et al., “the agitator may be rotated based on other parameters, such as a speed of the agitator”, 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 one or more of a speed command parameter, a duty cycle command parameter, and/or a movement extent command parameter, 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 to control a corresponding one or more of a speed of movement of the commodity working member (Pidwerbesky et al., para. [0051]) based on the speed command parameter, movement of the commodity working member to a fraction of a repeating period based on the duty cycle command parameter, and/or an extent of movement of the commodity working member based on the movement extent 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]).
Further, Wright et al. discloses the agitator may oscillate (pars. [0037]) and have 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]). Wright II 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 one or more of a speed command parameter, a duty cycle command parameter, and/or a movement extent command parameter, 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 to control a corresponding one or more of a speed of movement of the commodity working member (Pidwerbesky et al., para. [0051]) based on the speed command parameter, movement of the commodity working member to a fraction of a repeating period (Wright II, para. [0045]) based on the duty cycle command parameter, and/or an extent of movement of the commodity working member (Wright et al., para. [0038]) based on the movement extent command parameter.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a movement extent parameter for an operating mode using oscillatory movement and thereby limiting a torque applied by the motor (Wright et al., para. [0037]). 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]). 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]).
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) and Pidwerbesky et al. (US 20200245534) 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) and Pidwerbesky et al. (US 20200245534) 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 20210220783) in view of Thompson (US 20240090367) and Pidwerbesky et al. (US 20200245534) 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]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lehner et al. (attached translation of DE 102005058563A1) discloses using agitation control parameters and sensors.
Reineccius et al. (US 20120189762) discloses a weather sensor for a seed treatment process.
Rydmark (US 20240122095) discloses operating a drive device using a signal from a material sensor.
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