DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed 10/2/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-7, 10-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of mathematical concepts without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites steps of receiving measurements of signals, comparing the signals, and determining an index value based on the comparison. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not contain additional elements beyond these concepts. Similarly, Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the judicial exception.
Similarly, Claims 2-6 recite additional mathematical concepts, which likewise do not recite additional elements and therefore do not integrate the concepts into a practical application, or constitute significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites the same mathematical concepts as Claim 1, and recites additional elements of a processor and a memory to store computer program instructions which are executed on the processor to cause the processor to perform the mathematical concepts. This does not constitute a practical application because the additional elements only tie the judicial exception to a general computing device; the claim does not include any specific machine for practicing the invention, or an improvement to the computing device or another technological area sufficient to recite a practical application. These elements do not constitute significantly more than the judicial exception, because of the lack of a specific machine or improvement, and because the additional elements are merely generic computing components of the type that are well-understood and conventional.
Similarly, Claims 10-14 recite additional mathematical concepts. These claims likewise do not recite additional elements and therefore do not integrate the concepts into a practical application, or constitute significantly more than the judicial exception, because they do not include any further additional elements beyond the judicial exception.
Claim 15 recites the same mathematical concepts as Claims 1-3, and recites additional elements of a waste sensor, a fan, a processor and a memory to store computer program instructions which are executed on the processor to cause the processor to perform the mathematical concepts. This does not constitute a practical application because the additional elements only tie the judicial exception to a general agricultural machine; the claim does not include any specific machine for practicing the invention, or an improvement to the agricultural machine or another technological area sufficient to recite a practical application. These elements do not constitute significantly more than the judicial exception, because of the lack of a specific machine or improvement, and because the additional elements are merely generic components of the type that are well-understood and conventional in the field of agricultural machinery.
Similarly, Claims 18-20 recite additional mathematical concepts. These claims do not recite additional elements beyond the judicial exception, and therefore do not integrate the concepts into a practical application, or constitute significantly more than the judicial exception, because they do not include any further additional elements beyond the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Campbell, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2002/0014116 (“Campbell”).
With regard to Claim 1, Campbell teaches a method for determining a material density of a harvested crop, the method comprising:
receiving a measurement of a first throughput signal ([0045] describes that weight measurement is performed of harvested material on a conveyor);
receiving a measurement of a second throughput signal, wherein the second throughput signal is more sensitive to changes in material density than the first throughput signal ([0044] describes sensor signals that operate to calculate the volume of the material);
comparing the first throughput signal to the second throughput signal; and determining a material density index value based on the comparison of the first throughput signal to the second throughput signal ([0046] describes that an overall density of material can be calculated using a ratio of the weight to the volume. [0048] describes that the volumetric ratio of crop material to total material can be calculated using the density).
Claim 7 recites an agricultural machine including a processor and memory storing computer instructions (Fig. 6) that carries out the method of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 2, Campbell teaches that the first throughput signal is selected from the group consisting of a weight of the harvested crop at a location of an agricultural machine, a weight of the harvested crop at a collection location, a processing power of a component of the agricultural machine, and a hydraulic pressure of the component of the agricultural machine. [0045] describes the weight is the weight signal of the harvested crop measured using a load cell.
Claim 10 recites an agricultural machine including a processor and memory storing computer instructions (Fig. 6) that carries out the method of Claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 3, Campbell teaches that the second throughput signal is selected from the group consisting of a volume throughput of the material at a location of an agricultural machine and a volume throughput of the material at a collection location. [0044] describes the volume signal is generated by sensors that detect the volume of the harvested crop.
Claim 11 recites an agricultural machine including a processor and memory storing computer instructions (Fig. 6) that carries out the method of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 4, Campbell teaches that prior to comparing the first throughput signal to the second throughput signal, the method further comprises: removing a first free running offset of the first throughput signal; and/or removing a second free running offset from the second throughput signal. [0044] describes calculating a volume flow rate, which identifies the change in volume and therefore removes any constant offsets that exist in the volume measurements.
Claim 12 recites an agricultural machine including a processor and memory storing computer instructions (Fig. 6) that carries out the method of Claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 5, Campbell teaches that the first free running offset comprises calculating a derivative of the first throughput signal, and/or removing the second free running offset comprises calculating a derivative of the second throughput signal. [0033] describes calculating a volume flow rate, which as shows at [0035] can be integrated to calculate a volume. Therefore, the flow rate that is calculated is a derivative of the volume.
Claim 13 recites an agricultural machine including a processor and memory storing computer instructions (Fig. 6) that carries out the method of Claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 6, Campbell teaches that prior to comparing the first throughput signal to the second throughput signal, the method further comprises: extracting a first frequency range from the first throughout signal; and extracting a second frequency range from the second throughput signal. [0058] describes that the load cell signal is passed through a low-pass filter, and the signals processed by an analog-to-digital converter, likewise band-limiting the signals.
Claim 14 recites an agricultural machine including a processor and memory storing computer instructions (Fig. 6) that carries out the method of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 8, 9 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell, in view of Darr, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2015/0124054 (“Darr”).
With regard to Claim 8, Campbell teaches Claim 1. Campbell, in view of Darr teaches automatically changing a delivered quantity of air based on the determined material density index value. Campbell teaches at [0048] that the system can compute a ratio of crop material to total material harvested from a field using the value calculated from the determined material density. Darr teaches at [0041] that an extractor fan used to separate trash can have its speed increased when the detected amount of trash is above a threshold. [0029] describes that the system identifies a ratio of crop material to total material in identifying an amount of crop present.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Darr with Campbell. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by introducing crop cleaning and monitoring into the system of Campbell, thereby enabling additional harvesting activities to be automated within a combine harvester.
With regard to Claim 9, Darr teaches that when the waste signal indicates an output of the material, a delivered quantity of air is automatically reduced. [0041] describes that sensors which identify material being harvested, a fan speed can be lowered and the quantity of air thereby delivered reduced when the output material has an amount of trash below a threshold amount.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Darr with Campbell. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by introducing crop cleaning and monitoring into the system of Campbell, thereby enabling additional harvesting activities to be automated within a combine harvester.
With regard to Claim 15, Campbell teaches an agricultural machine for harvesting a material, the machine comprising:
a processor; a memory to store computer program instructions (Fig. 6), the computer program instructions when executed on the processor cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving a measurement of a first throughput signal, the first throughput signal is selected from the group consisting of a weight of the harvested crop at a location of an agricultural machine, a weight of the harvested crop at a collection location, a processing power of a component of the agricultural machine, and a hydraulic pressure of the component of the agricultural machine ([0045] describes receiving a weight by reading a weight signal of the harvested crop measured using a load cell);
receiving a measurement of a second throughput signal, wherein the second throughput signal is more sensitive to changes in material density than the first throughput signal, the second throughput signal is selected from the group consisting of a volume throughput of the material at a location of an agricultural machine and a volume throughput of the material at a collection location ([0044] describes the volume signal is generated by sensors that detect the volume of the harvested crop); and
comparing the first throughput signal to the second throughput signal; determining a material density index value based on the comparison of the first throughput signal to the second throughput signal ([0046] describes that an overall density of material can be calculated using a ratio of the weight to the volume. [0048] describes that the volumetric ratio of crop material to total material can be calculated using the density).
Campbell does not teach a waste sensor; a fan; and receiving a waste signal from the waste sensor that indicates an output of the material. Darr teaches at [0041] an extractor fan, and that sensors can identify when there is material passing through the crop cleaning system that blows the trash away from the crop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Darr with Campbell. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by introducing crop cleaning and monitoring into the system of Campbell, thereby enabling additional harvesting activities to be automated within a combine harvester.
With regard to Claim 16, Campbell, in view of Darr teaches that a delivered quantity of air is automatically changed based on the determined material density index value. Campbell teaches at [0048] that the system can compute a ratio of crop material to total material harvested from a field using the value calculated from the determined material density. Darr teaches at [0041] that an extractor fan used to separate trash can have its speed increased when the detected amount of trash is above a threshold. [0029] describes that the system identifies a ratio of crop material to total material in identifying an amount of crop present.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Darr with Campbell. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by introducing crop cleaning and monitoring into the system of Campbell, thereby enabling additional harvesting activities to be automated within a combine harvester.
With regard to Claim 17, Darr teaches that when the waste signal indicates an output of the material, a delivered quantity of air is automatically reduced. [0041] describes that sensors which identify material being harvested, a fan speed can be lowered and the quantity of air thereby delivered reduced when the output material has an amount of trash below a threshold amount.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Darr with Campbell. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by introducing crop cleaning and monitoring into the system of Campbell, thereby enabling additional harvesting activities to be automated within a combine harvester.
With regard to Claim 18, Campbell teaches that the processor is further configured to perform, prior to comparing the first throughput signal to the second throughput signal, removing a first free running offset of the first throughput signal; and/or removing a second free running offset from the second throughput signal. [0044] describes calculating a volume flow rate, which identifies the change in volume and therefore removes any constant offsets that exist in the volume measurements.
With regard to Claim 19, Campbell teaches that removing the first free running offset comprises calculating a derivative of the first throughput signal, and/or removing the second free running offset comprises calculating a derivative of the second throughput signal. [0033] describes calculating a volume flow rate, which as shows at [0035] can be integrated to calculate a volume. Therefore, the flow rate that is calculated is a derivative of the volume.
With regard to Claim 20, Campbell teaches that the processor is further configured to perform, prior to comparing the first throughput signal to the second throughput signal, extracting a first frequency range from the first throughout signal; and extracting a second frequency range from the second throughput signal. [0058] describes that the load cell signal is passed through a low-pass filter, and the signals processed by an analog-to-digital converter, likewise band-limiting the signals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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 D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
12/26/2025