DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 3/13/2026.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-22 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 12, 15 and 18 are currently amended; Claims 2 and 10 are canceled and Claims 21 and 22 are new.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are maintained.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102-103 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites calculating a ratio according to the formula: Density Index Value = (first throughput signal - second throughput signal) / (first throughput signal + second throughput signal). However, the parent claim identifies that the first throughput signal is either a pressure or power value, and that the second throughput signal is more sensitive to changes in material density. The specification at [0025] explicitly states that the second throughput signal is a value other than that of the first throughput signal.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed formula is adding and subtracting signal values which do not represent the same units, particularly as the specification states that they are different signal values. The claims and specification do not explain how differing signals, in different units and potentially of vastly different values depending on the units used, are to be added and subtracted such that an index value can be calculated in the manner claimed. Therefore, the metes and bounds of this claimed formula cannot be ascertained, and the claim must be rejected as indefinite.
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, 11-15 and 18-21 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 3-6 recite additional mathematical concepts, and do not recite elements beyond those concepts. Claim 3 further defines a received measurement, and Claims 4-6 recite mathematical concepts of removing a baseline value (“free running offset”), calculating a derivative, and filtering. As these claims likewise do not recite additional elements, they 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 11-14 recite additional mathematical concepts, identical to the concepts of Claims 3-6. 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 and 3, and recites additional elements of 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, and a waste sensor in a trash outlet of the agricultural machine that indicates an output of the material.
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. The additional elements are not in any way tied to or even related to the mathematical concepts. Therefore, these additional 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 18-21 recite additional mathematical concepts; Claims 18-20 recite concepts identical to those of Claims 4-6, and Claim 21 explicitly claims a mathematical formula. 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, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cleodolphi, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2023/0135915 (“Cleodolphi”).
With regard to Claim 1, Cleodolphi teaches a method for determining a material density of a harvested crop, the method comprising:
receiving a measurement of a first throughput signal, wherein the first throughput signal is selected from the group consisting of a processing power of a component of an agricultural machine, and a hydraulic pressure of the component of the agricultural machine ([0040] describes monitoring the fluid pressure of hydraulic fluid used to maintain drums rotating at a given rotational speed while harvesting material);
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 ([0040] describes monitoring and determining the volume of incoming materials. Applicant explains at [0026] that signals based on volume estimates are more sensitive to changes in material density than signals such as those related to hydraulic fluid);
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 ([0050]-[0051] describe that the hydraulic pressure differential in the drums can be used in combination with a correction factor that takes into account the volume of the harvested materials to determine the density of the harvested material).
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 3, Cleodolphi 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. [0048]-[0049] describe that the volume is determined by monitoring the positions of rollers that perform intake of the harvested material.
Claim 11 recites an agricultural machine including a processor and memory storing computer instructions (Fig. 6) that carries out the method of Claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 4, Cleodolphi 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 removing a second free running offset from the second throughput signal. [0051] describes that the hydraulic pressure value that is used for calculating the density is the pressure measured during harvesting, minus the baseline pressure when the chopper assembly operates without any materials being processed. [0048] describes that the height component of the rollers used to calculate the height component of the material volume is calculated by determining displacement from a minimum height, thereby accounting for the roller height at the time when there is no material being processed.
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 8, Cleodolphi teaches that the processor is further configured to perform automatically changing a delivered quantity of air based on the determined material density index value. [0063] describes that a mass flow rate can be used to determine adjustments for the operation of various components of the harvester, including the fan speed of the extractors. [0043]-[0044] describe that the mass flow rate is calculated using the determined density.
With regard to Claim 22, Cleodolphi teaches automatically changing a ground speed of the agricultural machine based on the determined material density index value. [0063] describes that the harvester ground speed can be adjusted in response to the detected mass flow rate.
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 5, 6, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleodolphi, in view of Campbell, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2002/0014116 (“Campbell”).
With regard to Claim 5, 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Campbell with Cleodolphi. Campbell states at [0037] that measuring volume and volume flow rate can result in useful crop yield information. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by ensuring the delivery of useful crop yield information.
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. Campbell teaches at [0058] that a signal extracted from a sensor is passed through a low-pass filter, and the signals processed by an analog-to-digital converter, likewise band-limiting the signals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Campbell with Cleodolphi. Campbell states at [0058] that filtering can remove much of the signal noise generated by a harvester as it operates. One of skill in the art would have therefore sought the combination, to improve system functioning by removing signal noise.
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.
Claims 9 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleodolphi, in view of Dugas, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0251601 (“Dugas”).
With regard to Claim 9, Dugas teaches that the processor is further configured to perform receiving a waste signal from a waste sensor in a trash outlet of the machine, wherein when the waste signal indicates an output of the material, automatically reducing the delivered quantity of air. [0049]-[0050] describe that sensors can detect a percentage of sugarcane billet in residue, and adjust a fan speed to ensure billet loss is below a desired level, where higher fan speeds correspond to more billets being lost, indicating that excess billet loss will cause a reduction in the fan speed. [0034] describes that the billet loss sensor can be part of the hood assembly through which residue is gathered and passed back into the field.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Dugas with Cleodolphi. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by ensuring that residue is being separated from crop as desired, without unwanted crop loss due to excess fan speeds.
With regard to Claim 15, Cleodolphi teaches an agricultural machine for harvesting a material, the machine comprising:
a fan ([0028]); a processor ([0057]); a memory to store computer program instructions ([0057]), 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 processing power of a component of the agricultural machine, and a hydraulic pressure of the component of the agricultural machine ([0040] describes monitoring the fluid pressure of hydraulic fluid used to maintain drums rotating at a given rotational speed while harvesting material);
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 ([0040] describes monitoring and determining the volume of incoming materials, and [0048]-[0049] describe that the volume is determined by monitoring the positions of rollers that perform intake of the harvested material. Applicant explains at [0026] that signals based on volume estimates are more sensitive to changes in material density than signals such as those related to hydraulic fluid);
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 ([0050]-[0051] describe that the hydraulic pressure differential in the drums can be used in combination with a correction factor that takes into account the volume of the harvested materials to determine the density of the harvested material).
Cleodolphi does not teach a waste sensor; and receiving a waste signal from the waste sensor in a trash outlet of the agricultural machine that indicates an output of the material. Dugas teaches at [0034] that the billet loss sensor can be part of the hood assembly through which residue is gathered and passed back into the field, and that the sensor provides signals indicating billets in the waste.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Dugas with Cleodolphi. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by ensuring that residue is being separated from crop as desired, without unwanted crop loss due to excess fan speeds.
With regard to Claim 16, Cleodolphi teaches that a delivered quantity of air is automatically changed based on the determined material density index value. [0063] describes that a mass flow rate can be used to determine adjustments for the operation of various components of the harvester, including the fan speed of the extractors. [0043]-[0044] describe that the mass flow rate is calculated using the determined density.
With regard to Claim 17, Dugas teaches that when the waste signal indicates an output of the material, a delivered quantity of air is automatically reduced. [0049]-[0050] describe that sensors can detect a percentage of sugarcane billet in residue, and adjust a fan speed to ensure billet loss is below a desired level, where higher fan speeds correspond to more billets being lost, indicating that excess billet loss will cause a reduction in the fan speed. [0034] describes that the billet loss sensor can be part of the hood assembly through which residue is gathered and passed back into the field.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Dugas with Cleodolphi. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by ensuring that residue is being separated from crop as desired, without unwanted crop loss due to excess fan speeds.
With regard to Claim 18, Cleodolphi 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 removing a second free running offset from the second throughput signal. [0051] describes that the hydraulic pressure value that is used for calculating the density is the pressure measured during harvesting, minus the baseline pressure when the chopper assembly operates without any materials being processed. [0048] describes that the height component of the rollers used to calculate the height component of the material volume is calculated by determining displacement from a minimum height, thereby accounting for the roller height at the time when there is no material being processed.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleodolphi, in view of Dugas, and in view of Campbell.
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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Campbell with Cleodolphi and Dugas. Campbell states at [0037] that measuring volume and volume flow rate can result in useful crop yield information. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by ensuring the delivery of useful crop yield information.
With regard to Claim 20, Campbell teaches that 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. Campbell teaches at [0058] that a signal extracted from a sensor is passed through a low-pass filter, and the signals processed by an analog-to-digital converter, likewise band-limiting the signals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Campbell with Cleodolphi and Dugas. Campbell states at [0058] that filtering can remove much of the signal noise generated by a harvester as it operates. One of skill in the art would have therefore sought the combination, to improve system functioning by removing signal noise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that the independent claims are not directed to mathematical concepts, as the claims recite specific physical measurements from agricultural machinery. However, the claims specifically recite that data values are compared, and a material density index value determined therefrom.
Claim 21 and Applicant’s specification give numerous mathematical formulas which are used to determine the material density index value based on the comparison of the first throughput signal to the second throughput signal. Therefore, mathematical concepts are not merely involved in the claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the independent claims includes the use of mathematical formulas to calculate the material density index. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Applicant then argues that the claims integrate the judicial into a practical application, because the claimed invention represents an improvement. In support of this assertion, Applicant identifies that the claims are directed to a specific agricultural machine, and that the specification describes that the material density measurement “may also be used for automation of various components of the agricultural machine.”
While the claims do recite components of an agricultural harvester, such as a fan, waste sensor, processor and memory, these do not recite a specific machine as they are highly general components. Applicant asserts that the recitation of “processing power of a component” and “hydraulic pressure of the component” recite further elements, however the claim only recites that measurements of these values are received; the components themselves are not claimed, only signal measurements are claimed.
As Applicant states, “if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement." The improvement described in the specification is the automation of components of the agricultural machine. Claims 1, 7 and 15 merely recite collecting data and determining a material density index; no automation of components is disclosed in these claims. Examiner notes that claims in this application which recite automation of components using the calculated index have been found to be patent eligible. However, a claim cannot be interpreted as reflecting this improvement without any claim language stating that the index is used for component automation. It is not enough to merely claim calculating the index itself to reflect this improvement.
Applicant then argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea, because they use specific physical measurements from agricultural machinery. However, nothing in the claims or specification suggests that measuring component power or a hydraulic pressure is anything other than routine or conventional, and the claimed technological improvement does not improve the gathering of this data.
Applicant also argues that the second throughput signal being more sensitive to changes in material density is specifically advantageous, however the specification describes this at [0026] as an aspect of a volume measurement, and not an additional aspect of the claimed invention not found elsewhere. A signal that measures volume meets this claim limitation because the limitation is describing a facet of a volume measurement. Further, using a volume measurement to determine density is well-understood, routine, and conventional because density is a measure of mass per unit volume. Therefore, the claims do not include significantly more than the mathematical concepts.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103, these arguments are considered moot, as the amended claims argued by Applicant are rejected using different references, as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
5/13/2026
Prosecution Insights