Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claims 18 and 19 both claim they are dependent to “the computer implemented method of claim 12 and further comprising”. However, claim 12 is dependent to claim 1, which is a system claim. Examiner assumes the claims to be dependent to claim 13, which is a method claim given the limitations appear to be directed towards a method.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 13 is directed toward a method. Therefore, claim 13 along with the corresponding dependent claims 14-18 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract idea: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 13 is used for illustration:
obtaining a camera output indicative of grain detected by a grain camera;
at an interface mechanism, associated with a mobile agricultural harvester, with a display screen:
in a grain camera display portion of the display screen, displaying a grain camera display element;
in a grain characteristic value display portion of the display screen, displaying a grain characteristic value display element indicative of a value of a grain characteristic; and
in a limit value adjuster display portion of the display screen, displaying an interactable limit value adjuster display element configured to receive operator or user interaction to adjust a limit value of the grain characteristic.
The independent claims recite obtaining and generating which are all directed to an abstract idea performable by the human mind (observing and thinking).
As explained above, independent claim 13 recites at least one abstract idea, reciting at least one abstract Idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solutions activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or a field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the elements of — using a processor to perform the listed steps. The processor in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See the examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology under MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 14-18 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 as they depend on the matter from their respective independent claims without adding more.
Dependent claim 14 only provides more detail on the grain detected.
Dependent claim 15 only provides more detail on the display.
Dependent claim 16 further provides more detail on the display.
Dependent claim 17 only provides more detail on the display.
Dependent claim 18 only provides more detail on the display.
Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner notes that dependent claim 19, if wrapped into independent claim 13, would assist in overcoming the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Specifically, claim 19 claims “generating a control signal to control a controllable subsystem …”, where control is in response to the grain characteristic.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20220132736A1 (Meyers) from the IDS.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, Meyers discloses a mobile agricultural harvester, a computer implemented method, and an agricultural harvesting system, comprising:
a grain camera configured to detect grain and generate a camera output indicative of the detected grain;
Meyers discloses a grain camera configured to detect grain generate a camera output indicative of the detected grain (see at least [0036] and Fig. 2).
a display screen;
Meyers discloses a display screen ([0036], display screen 24).
one or more processors
memory; and
Meyers discloses a controller architecture that processes the operator input from the operator interface ([0032]), where the controller architecture is connected to memory 82 as well (see Fig. 2 of Meyers).
computer executable instructions, stored in the memory, and executable by the one or more processors, the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to:
generate an interface comprising:
a grain camera display portion comprising a grain camera display element;
See at least Figs. 2, 4, and 5 of Meyers, where each exemplary GUI contains a grain camera display portion comprising a grain camera display element.
a grain characteristic value display portion comprising a grain characteristic value display element indicative of a value of grain characteristic of the detected grain; and
See Fig. 5 of Meyers, where the figure shows an example GUI screen ([0013]) comprising a grain characteristic value display element indicative of a value of grain characteristic of the detected grain (numerical read-outs of box 148).
a limit value adjuster display portion comprising an interactable limit value adjuster display element configured to receive operator or user interaction to adjust a limit value of the grain characteristic; and
[0037] of Meyers, “When such target setting adjustments are determined, the controller architecture 16 may prompt an operator of the combine harvester 10 to implement the target setting adjustments via generation of suitable graphics on the display device 24, via generation audible notifications (e.g., audible annunciation, chimes, or other audible cues), and/or via generation of any other operator-perceived cues (e.g., haptic notifications).”, where the adjustment suggestion may be based on the tracked average per kernel (APK) parameters (see at least [0056] and Fig. 3).
display the interface on the display screen.
See Fig. 5 of Meyers, where the interface is displayed on display screen 140 of display device 24.
Regarding claim 2, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the harvester further comprises:
wherein the grain characteristic is grain cleanliness or grain brokenness.
[0036] of Meyers, “As can be seen, various operator-selectable options may also be produced on the GUI screen 74 to, for example, enable an operator to switch between presentation of the camera feeds obtained from the grain camera 56 and the tailings camera 72, to apply a visually-augmented grain quality analysis tool (applying color-coding to broken grain and MOG detected in the live camera image), and to perform other functions, such as providing visual advisory alerts regarding excessive lens debris.”
Regarding claim 6, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the harvester further comprises:
wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the one or more processors to generate the interface further comprising:
a limit value display portion comprising a limit value display element indicative of the limit value of the grain characteristic.
[0056] of Meyers, “In embodiments, the controller architecture 16 may determine a target setting adjustment to the actuated harvesting component based on the tracked APK parameters, the topline harvesting metrics calculated utilizing the tracked APK parameters, or a combination thereof. Such information may be utilized to determine target adjustments to combine settings, which control the operation or positioning of the actuated harvesting components 76 described above in connection with FIG. 2. Further, the controller architecture 16 may generate imagery (e.g., a textual or symbol a visual notification) on the display device 24 prompt an operator to implement the determined target adjustments via appropriate visual cues.”
Regarding claim 7, with all of the limitations of claim 6, the harvester further comprises:
wherein the limit value display element is a textual representation of the limit value of the grain characteristic.
See the citation of claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the harvester further comprises:
wherein the camera output is an image or a video feed of the grain camera and wherein the grain camera display element displays the image or the video feed of the grain camera based on the camera output.
See the citations to claim 1 regarding “a grain camera display portion …”.
Regarding claim 14, with all of the limitations of claim 13, the harvester further comprises:
wherein displaying the grain camera display element comprises displaying the grain camera display element to display an image or video feed of the grain camera based on the camera output and a color overlay over grain in the image or video feed to indicate the grain characteristic.
See citation of claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, with all of the limitations of claim 13, the harvester further comprises:
in a limit value display portion of the display screen, displaying a limit value display element indicative of a limit value of the grain characteristic.
See citation of claim 6.
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.
Claims 3-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220132736A1 (Meyers) from the IDS in view of US20190223375A1 (Missotten).
Regarding claim 3, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the harvester further comprises:
wherein the interactable limit value adjuster display element comprises a scale and a slider configured to move along the scale in response to the operator or user interaction to adjust the limit value of the grain characteristic.
While Meyers discloses an interactable limit value adjuster display element to adjust the limit value of the grain characteristic (Meyers, [0036]), Meyers does not explicitly disclose that the interactable limit value adjuster display element comprises a scale and a slider configured to move along the scale in response to the operator or user interaction to adjust the limit value of the grain characteristic, from a similar field of endeavor of controller-based harvesters, Missotten discloses a controller configured to receive crop flow information and generate display information (Missotten, Abstract). Specifically, Misotten discloses an exemplary panel of the machine controls 104 (Missotten, [0117]) comprising an interactable limit value adjuster display element comprising a scale and a slider configured to move along the scale in response to the operator or user interaction to adjust the limit value of the grain characteristic (see Fig. 5, where “TRAVEL SPEED”, “THRESHING”, “CLEANING” are adjacent to scales with user-adjustable sliders to operate along the scales.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, to combine the system of Missotten to the system of Meyers as the inventions are already compatible as both comprise user-based GUI control and sliders are another form of user input that may provide a more intuitive experience for the operator.
Regarding claim 4, with all of the limitations of claim 3, the harvester further comprises:
wherein the slider is configured to receive the operator or user interaction.
See the rationale of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, with all of the limitations of claim 3, the harvester further comprises:
wherein the interactable limit value adjuster display element further comprises
a first interactable adjuster element configured to receive the operator or user interaction to move the slider in a first direction along the scale and
a second interactable adjuster element configured to receive the operator or user interaction to move the slider in a second direction along the scale.
See the rationale of claim 3, where Missotten discloses two interactable adjust elements configured to receive operator or user interaction, where both the interactable adjuster elements comprise sliders movable in two directions (up and down).
Regarding claim 15, with all of the limitations of claim 13, the harvester further comprises:
wherein displaying the interactable limit value adjuster display element comprises displaying the interactable limit value adjuster display element including a scale and a slider, the slider moveable, based on the operator or user interaction with the interactable limit value adjuster display element, along the scale in a first direction to increase the limit value of the grain characteristic and in a second direction to decrease the limit value of the grain characteristic.
See the rationale of claim 5, where one of ordinary skill in the art would find it further obvious to try a first direction that increases the limit value and a second direction that decreases the limit value as the sliders adjust the value as there a finite number of identified solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, where the slider can only move in two directions (up or down) and the value can only increase or decrease. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claims 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220132736A1 (Meyers) from the IDS.
Regarding claim 10, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the harvester further comprises:
wherein the grain camera display element is an interactable grain camera display element configured to receive an input from a user or an operator and
See Fig. 2 of Meyers, where the grain camera display element is an interactable grain camera display element configured to receive an input from a user or an operator ([0036]).
wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the one or more processors to:
generate, based on input from the user or the operator, an additional interface comprising:
an additional grain camera display portion comprising an additional grain camera display element that displays an image or a video feed of the grain camera based on the camera output; and
While Meyers does not explicitly disclose generating, based on input from the user or the operator, an additional interface comprising an additional grain camera display portion comprising an additional grain camera display element that displays an image or a video feed of the grain camera based on the camera output, Meyers discloses in Fig. 2 a “Source” section regarding camera sources to display in the GUI screen. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that an additional grain camera display portion comprising an additional grain camera display element that displays an image or a video feed of the grain camera based on the camera output would be generated in changing the source as Meyers discloses multiple cameras at differing locations ([0031]).
an additional limit value adjuster display portion comprising an additional interactable limit value adjuster display element that is interactable to adjust the grain characteristic limit value; and
[0073] of Meyers, “The controller architecture is configured to analyze the bulk grain sample images, as received from the grain camera, to determine an average per kernel (APK) parameter; and determine a target setting adjustment to an actuated harvesting component of the combine harvester based, at least in part, on the APK parameter. Additionally, the controller architecture performs at least one of the following actions: (i) generating a notification, such as a visual and/or audible notification, prompting an operator to implement the target setting adjustment; and (ii) controlling the actuated harvesting component to automatically implement the target setting adjustment.”
display the additional interface on the display screen.
In view of the citations and rationales above within claim 10, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the additional interface is displayed on the display screen as the additional grain camera display portion and the additional limit value adjuster display portion disclosed by Meyers both generate a visual change to the GUI.
Regarding claim 11, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the harvester further comprises:
a controllable subsystem and wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the one or more processors to:
identify an adjusted limit value of the grain characteristic based on the operator or user interaction;
[0037] of Meyers, “Additionally or alternatively, embodiments of the kernel-level grain monitoring system 12 may determine target setting adjustments to actuated harvesting components of the combine harvester 10 utilizing (that is, based at least in part on) the instantaneous values or trends of APK parameters; the instantaneous values or trends of topline harvesting metrics; or any blended combination thereof. When such target setting adjustments are determined, the controller architecture 16 may prompt an operator of the combine harvester 10 to implement the target setting adjustments via generation of suitable graphics on the display device 24, via generation audible notifications (e.g., audible annunciation, chimes, or other audible cues), and/or via generation of any other operator-perceived cues (e.g., haptic notifications).”, where “the target setting adjustments” are the identified adjusted limit value of the grain characteristic.
identify a current value of the grain characteristic based on the camera output; and
See Fig. 4 of Meyers, where box 126 shows identifying a current value of the grain characteristic based on the camera output in box 120.
generate a control signal to control the controllable subsystem based on the adjusted limit value of the grain characteristic and based on the current value of the grain characteristic.
While Meyers discloses generating a control signal to control the controllable subsystem based on the current value of the grain characteristic ([0056], “increase fan speeds in conjunction with increasing APK weight or size.”), Meyers does not explicitly generate a control signal to control the controllable subsystem based on the adjusted limit value of the grain characteristic and based on the current value of the grain characteristic. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to generate a control signal based on the adjusted limit value (“target settings adjustments”) and current value of the grain characteristic asthe adjusted limit value calculated is the value selected by the operator to modify the current limit value to be the adjusted limit value..
Regarding claim 19, with all of the limitations of claim 13, the harvester further comprises:
identifying an adjusted limit value of the grain characteristic based on the operator or user interaction;
See the rationale of claim 11.
identifying a current value of the grain characteristic; and
See the rationale of claim 11.
generating a control signal to control a controllable subsystem of the mobile agricultural harvester based on the adjusted limit value of the grain characteristic and based on the current value of the grain characteristic.
See the rationale of claim 11.
Claims 8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220132736A1 (Meyers) from the IDS in view of US20190223375A1 (Missotten) and in further view of US20220026230A1 (Sidon).
Regarding claim 8, with all of the limitations of claim 6, the harvester further comprises:
wherein the interactable limit value adjuster display element comprises
a scale and a slider configured to move along the scale in response to the operator or user interaction to adjust the limit value of the grain characteristic and
wherein the limit value display element is a mark incorporated into the scale.
While Meyers discloses an interactable limit value adjuster display element, Meyers does not disclose a scale and a slider configured to move along the scale in response to the operator or user interaction to adjust the limit value of the grain characteristic and wherein the limit value display element is a mark incorporated into the scale. In light of the rationale of claim 3, Missotten discloses a scale and a slider for adjusting the limit value of the grain characteristic, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the limit value display element is a mark incorporated into the scale. From a similar field of endeavor, Sidon discloses a user interface for an agricultural machine (Sidon, Fig. 3, box 350) comprising a slider element (Sidon, Fig. 3, slider 351) along a scale (Sidon, [0052], “bins”) with marks incorporated into the scale (Sidon, [0052], “As indicated by block 353, text input boxes can be generated. These text input boxes allow user to enter raw values or metric values that correspond to the value ranges of the bins.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date to further integrate the markings disclosed by Sidon to the system of Meyers in view of Missotten as the marks are configurable to set boundaries of ranges to be dependent on the variable and the marks provide more accurate approximation of the slider’s current position to better assist operators to gauge the desired slider value.
Regarding claim 16, with all of the limitations of claim 15, the harvester further comprises:
wherein displaying the grain characteristic value display element comprises displaying the grain characteristic value display element as a mark incorporated into the scale.
See the rationale of claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, with all of the limitations of claim 16, the harvester further comprises:
wherein the scale includes a plurality of marks, a first subset of the plurality of marks displayed towards a first side of the grain characteristic value display element mark in the first direction and a second subset of the plurality of marks displayed towards a second side of the grain characteristic value display element mark in the second direction.
In light of the rationale of claim 8, see Fig. 4 of Sidon. The figure shows a plurality of marks (Sidon, Fig. 4, raw value inputs 444) with a first subset of the plurality of marks displayed towards a first side of the grain characteristic value display element mark in the first direction (Sidon, Fig. 4, raw value inputs 444 of “93.9”, “84.76”, and “75.62”) and a second subset of the plurality of marks displayed towards a second side of the grain characteristic value display element mark in the second direction (Sidon, Fig. 4, raw value inputs 444 of “66.47”, “57.33”, and “48.19”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220132736A1 (Meyers) from the IDS in view of US20100217474A1 (Baumgarten) from the IDS.
Regarding claim 12, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the harvester further comprises:
wherein the grain characteristic value display element comprises a first grain characteristic value display element indicative of a value of grain brokenness of the detected grain, wherein the interactable limit value adjuster display element is a first interactable limit value adjuster display element configured to receive operator or user interaction to adjust a limit value of grain brokenness, wherein the interface further comprises:
a second grain characteristic value display element indicative of a value of grain cleanliness of the detected grain; and
While Meyers does disclose a second grain characteristic value display element (see Fig. 2 of Meyers, where “Source” in the GUI menu comprises a second grain characteristic value display element), Meyers does not disclose a second grain characteristic value display element indicative of a value of grain cleanliness of the detected grain. From a similar field of endeavor of agricultural harvesters, Baumgarten discloses a system of agricultural working machines. Specifically, Baumgarten discloses a grain characteristic value display element indicative of a value of grain cleanliness of the detected grain (Baumgarten, [0038]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, combine the system of Baumgarten to the system of Meyers as the addition of Baumgarten would improve the GUI of Meyers by allowing an operator of the system of Meyers to use grain cleanliness as a variable to modify operations of the agricultural harvester, improving grain flow rate.
a second interactable limit value adjuster display element configured to receive operator or user interaction to adjust a limit value of grain cleanliness.
In light of the rationale of claim 12 regarding “a second grain characteristic value display element …” above, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include a second interactable limit value adjuster to adjust the limit value of grain cleanliness as the system of Meyers already supports adjusting limit values in response to sensor feedback to the controller architecture 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAEWOOK JUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Wade Miles can be reached on (571) 270-7777. 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.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656