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 .
Status of Claims
This is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 18/479,240, with an effective filing date of 10/2/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/2/2023 and 6/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, 13-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without
significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are directed to a method of controlling a vehicle and an agricultural machine (i.e., a process, machine). Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 15 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for determining a free-running pressure of a machine, the method comprising:
receiving a measurement of a temperature of a hydraulic fluid within a hydraulic circuit of the machine, the hydraulic circuit comprising a hydraulic motor configured to pump the hydraulic fluid through the hydraulic circuit; and
determining the free-running pressure of the hydraulic motor based on the temperature of the hydraulic fluid [mental process/step].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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 merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method for determining a free-running pressure of a machine, the method comprising:
receiving a measurement of a temperature of a hydraulic fluid within a hydraulic circuit of the machine, the hydraulic circuit comprising a hydraulic motor configured to pump the hydraulic fluid through the hydraulic circuit [insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors]; and
determining the free-running pressure of the hydraulic motor based on the temperature of the hydraulic fluid.
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving…,” the Examiner submits that this limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity that merely use a computer processor to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step from the sensor is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering temperature and pressure data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the determining … amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 9 and 15 recite a method and an agricultural machine, respectively, having substantially the same features of claim 1 above, therefore claims 9 and 15 are patent ineligible for the same reasons as claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6, 10, 13-14, 16, and 19-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they provide for further examples of mental processes such as determining and comparing and additional limitations that also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as receiving or calibrating. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 10, 13-14, 16, and 19-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 15.
However, claims 7-8, 11-12, and 17-18 recite limitations (e.g., claim 7 lines 1-2 a ground speed of the agricultural machine is automatically changed based on the mass throughput) which are deemed to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 7-8, 11-12, and 17-18 are patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 1-6, 9-10, 13-16 and 19-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brinkman et al. (US 20190063474 A1), hereinafter referred to as Brinkman, in view of Olvera Diaz (US 20220205462 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Brinkman discloses:
An agricultural machine ([0014] sentence (s.) 3, the machine may be any machine related to industry including that of agriculture) comprising:
a hydraulic circuit comprising a hydraulic motor configured to pump a hydraulic fluid through the hydraulic circuit between the hydraulic motor ([0024] s.2, the hydraulic system of the machine includes the at least one tank, the one or more hydraulic actuators including and/or embodied as the one or more hydraulic cylinders, and a pump, and one or more valves, which is construed by the Examiner as a hydraulic circuit that pumps fluid through the circuit between actionable features of the system which would necessarily include the motor and a chopper);
an engine configured to produce power to drive the agricultural machine ([0015] s.2-3, machine includes an enclosure mounted on the frame that is adapted to house a power source, (i.e., an internal combustion engine));
a temperature detector for measuring the temperature of the hydraulic fluid ([0007] s.2, receiving a signal indicative of a temperature of a fluid within the tank from a temperature sensor, which is construed as being synonymous with a temperature detector); and
a processor operably connected to the agricultural machine ([0014] as disclosed above regarding an agricultural machine and [0035] s.3-4, system comprises a master controller of the machine which may be one or more processors), the processor configured for:
receiving a measurement of the temperature of the hydraulic fluid ([0007] as disclosed above); and
determining a free-running pressure of the hydraulic motor based on the temperature of the hydraulic fluid ([0005] s.11, determine an estimated pressure of the fluid within the tank based on the signal indicative of the temperature of the fluid within the tank received from the temperature sensor),
but Brinkman, which discloses agricultural machinery, does not explicitly disclose such machinery:
comprising a chopper.
However, Olvera Diaz teaches in [0062] the incorporation of agricultural machines that possess a chopper.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of agricultural vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the agricultural vehicle control method of Brinkman, by incorporating the chopper teachings of Olvera Diaz, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of incorporating agricultural vehicles that possess a chopper utilizing a hydraulic system.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Olvera Diaz in [0062], this allows the incorporation of agricultural machines that possess a chopper.
Claims 1 and 9 recite a method and an agricultural machine, respectively, having substantially the same features of claim 15 above, therefore claims 1 and 9 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 15.
Regarding claim 20, Brinkman, as modified by Olvera Diaz, discloses:
The agricultural machine of claim 15, further comprising:
measuring an actual free-running pressure of the hydraulic motor (see claim 1);
comparing the determined free-running pressure to the actual free-running pressure ([0005] the controller is configured to receive a signal indicative of a pressure of the fluid within the tank from the pressure sensor and is configured to compare the estimated pressure with the pressure of the fluid within the tank); and
calibrating the determined free-running pressure to be within a predetermined threshold of the actual free-running pressure ([0083] warning status can be determined and generated by the controller in response to a measure or extent of a deviation value (such as, e.g., within a threshold range) between an actual, sensed pressure “P” and an estimated pressure “PE” being indicative of probable, impending, likely, and/or actual damage to the tank and/or the breather valve thereof and [0084] controller can generate and electronically transmit one or more command signals to deactivate the operation the pump or actuate the displacement of the pump to a zero displacement mode to prevent damage which is construed as the system calibrating based off of a threshold the pressure of the system after comparison of an estimation versus actual pressure).
Claim 6 recite a method having substantially the same features of claim 20 above, therefore claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 20.
Claims 2-3, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brinkman et al. (US 20190063474 A1), hereinafter referred to as Brinkman, in view of Olvera Diaz (US
20220205462 A1) and Afshari (US 20180252213 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Brinkman, as modified by Olvera Diaz, discloses:
The agricultural machine of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured for:
receiving a measurement of a first pressure of the hydraulic fluid at a first point within the hydraulic circuit ([0005] receive a signal indicative of a pressure of the fluid within the tank from the pressure sensor),
but Brinkman, as modified by Olvera Diaz, does not explicitly teach:
receiving a measurement of a second pressure of the hydraulic fluid at a second point within the hydraulic circuit,
wherein determining the free-running pressure of the hydraulic motor is further based on the first pressure and the second pressure.
However, Afshari teaches in [0090] that the fluid-driven system can include one or more process sensors therein (e.g., sensor assemblies can include one or more sensors to monitor the system operational parameters and can include at least one of a pressure transducer, a temperature transducer, and a flow transducer, or any combination of the transducers therein). Signals from the sensor assemblies 228, 248, 297 and 298 can be used by the control unit 266 (i.e., processor) and/or drive unit 295 (i.e., hydraulic motor) for monitoring and for control purposes. This is construed as receiving a first and second pressure measurement on either side of the hydraulic motor in order to monitor the free-running pressure within the system. See Fig. 11 below for diagram.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of agricultural vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the agricultural vehicle control method of Brinkman, by incorporating the chopper teachings of Olvera Diaz and the secondary pressure sensor teachings of Afshari, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of monitor the system operational parameters for better control.
PNG
media_image1.png
343
361
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Afshari in [0090], this allows signals from the sensor assemblies to be used by the control unit and/or drive unit for monitoring and for control purposes.
Claims 2 and 10 recite a method and an agricultural machine, respectively, having substantially the same features of claim 16 above, therefore claims 2 and 10 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 16.
Regarding claim 3, Brinkman, as modified by Olvera Diaz and Afshari, discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein the first point is upstream of the hydraulic motor and wherein the second point is downstream of the hydraulic motor (see claim 2 above as sensors are located upstream and downstream of the motor (e.g., 228/248)).
Claims 4-5, 7-8, 11-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brinkman et al. (US 20190063474 A1), hereinafter referred to as Brinkman, in view of Olvera Diaz (US 20220205462 A1) and Shinners et al. (US Pat. No. 6,431,981), hereinafter referred to as Shinners
Regarding claim 17, Brinkman, as modified by Olvera Diaz, discloses:
The agricultural machine of claim 15, wherein the free-running pressure is determined during harvesting operations in an area,
but Brinkman, as modified by Olvera Diaz, does not explicitly disclose:
a mass throughput of the agricultural machine is based on the determined free-running pressure, and wherein a ground speed of the agricultural machine is automatically changed based on the determined mass throughput.
However, Shinners teaches in column (col) 2 lines (ln)39-47 where a yield monitor for a forage processing machine that relates output of force with a mass flow rate, which is construed by the Examiner as a mass throughput. Furthermore, in col 19 ln 48-49 it is taught that force signal may be generated by a hydraulic pressure transducer. Furthermore, in col 16 ln 60-67 where the load on the hydraulic drive motor powering such a load device (i.e., pressure) may be used to determine a mass flow rate. In col 23 ln 1-4 the yield monitor provides a groundspeed control signal that may be used to automatically and optimally control the groundspeed independent of the operator.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of agricultural vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the agricultural vehicle control method of Brinkman, by incorporating the chopper teachings of Olvera Diaz and the yield flow rate teachings of Shinners, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improving how precisely yields are monitored.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Shinners in col 2 ln 23-34, this allows improved yield monitoring for a wider array of agricultural machines, and col 1 ln 32-33 allowing for more precisely monitored resulting yields.
PNG
media_image2.png
680
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 4, 7, and 11 recite a method, a method, and an agricultural machine, respectively, having substantially the same features of claim 17 above, therefore claims 4, 7, and 11 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Brinkman, as modified by Olvera Diaz and Shinners, discloses:
The agricultural machine of claim 15, wherein the free-running pressure is determined during harvesting operations in an area, a mass throughput of the agricultural machine is based on the determined free-running pressure, and wherein an energy consumption of the agricultural machine is automatically changed based on the determined mass throughput (see claim 17 where groundspeed is changed automatically which necessarily would also change the energy consumption of the agricultural vehicle).
Claims 8 and 12 recite a method and an agricultural machine, respectively, having substantially the same features of claim 18 above, therefore claims 8 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Brinkman, as modified by Olvera Diaz and Shinners, further discloses:
The agricultural machine of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured for:
receiving geotagged harvest yield data in an area, from the agricultural machine generated during harvesting operations, wherein the geotagged harvest yield data is determined based on a mass throughput in the area, the mass throughput based on the determined free-running pressure, and a speed of the agricultural machine in the area; and
processing the determined free-running pressure during harvesting operations and the geotagged harvest yield data to generate a yield map of the area.
Further, Shinners teaches in col 24 ln 11-15 that geographically referenced forage yield (construed as geotagged harvest yield data of an area) could be an important input to geographical information systems and could be used to control inputs to a particular field. Furthermore, in col 1 ln 35-39 that recorded yield levels of different areas (construed as mass throughput of an area) may be used to generate a yield map showing yield levels for each region of the field.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the pressure determination method of Brinkman, as already modified by Olvera Diaz and Shinners, by further incorporating the geographical information teachings of Shinners, such that as mass throughput and groundspeed control are considered within Brinkman, yield area geographical information are also considered.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Shinners in regards to claim 17.
Claims 5, 13, and 14 recite a method, an agricultural machine, and an
agricultural machine, respectively, having substantially the same features of claim 19 above, therefore claims 5, 13, and 14 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO Form-892 for references cited regarding this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/KEITH A. VON VOLKENBURG/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661