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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 2-3, “the header” should be changed to –a header—. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention:
Claim 11 sets forth wherein the sensor system emits a signal in lines 1-2. However, it is unclear how this “sensor signal” is related to the sensor data already set forth in independent claim 8, line 6. Specifically, it is unclear if the sensor signal and data are one and the same or two different types of data outputs. The claims are therefore indefinite. Claim 12 is rejected for its dependence on claim 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yanke et al. US 2022/0232770 A1.
Independent Claim 1: Yanke discloses an agricultural system, comprising:
a header (108, 1000) comprising:
a row unit (110) comprising a feed roller (“stalk roll”, not shown, see para. [0041]) configured to engage a crop and to pull a stalk of the crop toward a field; and
a conveyor (1024) configured to receive a desirable crop material of the crop from the row unit and to direct the desirable crop material of the crop toward an inlet of the agricultural system (at the elevator shown in Fig. 1); and
a sensor system (114, 206) configured to detect presence of material other than grain (MOG) (see lines 1-5 of para. [0027]) proximate to or at the conveyor (as seen in Fig. 1, sensors 114 are situated along header 108 in which auger 1024 is located), as per claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2-3, 5-7: Yanke further discloses wherein the sensor system (114, 206) comprises an emitter (not shown, inherent to any sensor, see also the final seven lines of para. [0026]) and a receiver (112 and/or the display 212), and the emitter is configured to transmit a signal toward the receiver for receipt by the receiver (see also the final seven lines of para. [0026]), as per claim 2;
wherein the conveyor (1024) is configured to rotate about a rotational axis (its own central axis, see Figs. 9-12) to direct the desirable crop material of the crop toward the inlet (at the elevator shown in Fig. 1), and the emitter (not shown, inherent to any sensor, see also the final seven lines of para. [0026]) is configured to transmit the signal along the rotational axis (a seen in Fig. 1, the location of header-mounted sensors 114 will travel parallel to the auger’s rotational axis to arrive at 112/212), as per claim 3;
wherein the sensor system (114, 206) is configured to monitor presence of MOG at a rear portion of the row unit (110) adjacent to the conveyor (1024, see lines 25-29 of para. [0027]), as per claim 5;
a control system (112) communicatively coupled to the sensor system (114, 206), wherein the control system is configured to:
receive sensor data from the sensor system (see the final seven lines of para. [0026]); and
output a control signal (via 200) in response to determining the sensor data indicates the presence of MOG proximate to or at the conveyor (1024, see the final seven lines of para. [0038]), as per claim 6;
wherein the control system (112) is configured to output the control signal to increase a rotational speed of the feed roller (see the final seven lines of para. [0038] and the final four lines of para. [0041]), as per claim 7.
Independent Claim 8: Yanke discloses an agricultural system (100), comprising:
a sensor system (114, 206) configured to monitor presence of material other than grain (MOG) (see lines 1-5 of para. [0027]) at the header (108) and rearward of a picking location (at 110, see lines 25-29 of para. [0027]); and
a control system (112) communicatively coupled to the sensor system, wherein the control system is configured to:
receive sensor data from the sensor system (see the final seven lines of para. [0026]);
determine the sensor data indicates the presence of MOG at the header and rearward of the picking location; and
output a control signal (via 200) in response to determining the sensor data indicates the presence of MOG at the header and rearward of the picking location (see the final seven lines of para. [0038]), as per claim 8.
Dependent Claims 9-14: Yanke further discloses wherein the control system (112) is configured to output the control signal (via 200) to reduce a travel speed of the agricultural system in response to determining the sensor data indicates the presence of MOG at the header and rearward of the picking location (see lines 28-35 of para. [0041]), as per claim 9;
a feed roller (“stalk roll”, not shown, see para. [0041]) configured to receive MOG and direct MOG toward a field, wherein the control system (112) is configured to output the control signal (via 200) to increase a speed of the feed roller in response to determining the sensor data indicates the presence of MOG (see the final four lines of para. [0041]) at the header and rearward of the picking location (see lines 25-29 of para. [0027]), as per claim 10;
wherein the sensor system (114, 206) comprises an emitter (not shown, inherent to any sensor, see also the final seven lines of para. [0026]) and a receiver (112 and/or the display 212), the emitter is configured to transmit a signal, and the receiver is configured to receive the signal transmitted by the emitter (see the final seven lines of para. [0026]), as per claim 11;
wherein the sensor system (114, 206) is configured to transmit the sensor data to the control system (112) to indicate a property of the signal received by the receiver (112/212, see the final seven lines of para. [0026]), and the control system is configured to determine the sensor data indicates the presence of MOG (lines 1-5 of para. [0027]) proximate to or at the conveyor (1024, lines 25-29 of para. [0027]) based on the property of the signal indicated by the sensor data (the final seven lines of para. [0026]), as per claim 12;
a conveyor (1024) configured to direct desirable crop material of a crop toward an inlet (at the front of the elevator shown in Fig. 1) of the agricultural system (100) and comprising a support positioned forward of the conveyor (say at the row unit 110 or the conveyor trough as described in para. [0027], lns. 25-29), wherein one of the emitter or the receiver is coupled to the support (in this case, the sensor emitter is located on the header at these row unit or trough), as per claim 13;
wherein the control system (112) is configured to output the control signal (via 200) to provide a visual output, an audio output, or both (see para. [0089], lns. 1-5) in response to determining the sensor data (from 114, 206) indicates the presence of MOG (para. [0027], lns. 1-5) at the header and rearward of the picking location (para. [0027], lns. 25-29), as per claim 14.
Independent Claim 15: Yanke discloses a non-transitory, computer readable medium (112), comprising instructions that, when executed by processing circuitry, are configured to cause the processing circuitry to:
receive sensor data (control system 112 receives data from sensors 114, 206, see the final seven lines of para. [0026]);
determine the sensor data indicates a presence of material other than grain (MOG) (para. [0027], lns. 1-5) proximate to or at a conveyor (1024) of an agricultural system (100, para. [0027], lns. 25-29), wherein the conveyor is configured to receive crop from a feed roller (“stalk roll”, not shown, see para. [0041]) of the agricultural system and to direct a desirable crop material of the crop toward an inlet of the agricultural system (to the unnumbered elevator shown in Fig. 1); and
output a control signal (via 200) to adjust an operation of the agricultural system in response to determining the sensor data indicates the presence of MOG proximate to or at the conveyor (see the final seven lines of para. [0038]), as per claim 15.
Dependent Claims 16-18: Yanke further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry (of 112), are configured to cause the processing circuitry to:
determine a quantity of times or a duration of time (see Figs. 4-7 and 18, see para. [0044], lns. 1-12 and para. [0053]) associated with the presence of MOG proximate to or at the conveyor (1024, as seen in Fig. 1) based on the sensor data (from sensor system 114, 206); and
output the control signal (via 200) to adjust the operation of the agricultural system in response to determining the quantity of times, the duration of time, or both, exceed a threshold quantity of times or a threshold duration of time, respectively, for an interval of time (see all of para. [0005], especially lns. 16-28, 42-45, 50-51), as per claim 16;
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry (of 112), are configured to cause the processing circuitry to output an additional control signal (via 200) to suspend the operation of the agricultural system (100) in response to determining the quantity of times, the duration of time, or both, exceed an additional, higher threshold quantity of times or an additional, higher threshold duration of time, respectively, for the interval of time (“target” see Fig. 3 and all of para. [0005], especially lns. 24-28 and [0072]), as per claim 17;
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry (of 112), are configured to cause the processing circuitry to:
determine a location of the presence of MOG proximate to or at the conveyor (1024) based on the sensor data (via 114, 206); and
output the control signal (to controller 200) to adjust the operation of the agricultural system (see para. [0098]) based on the location in response to determining the sensor data indicates the presence of MOG proximate to or at the conveyor (see paragraphs [0092, 0098, 0099], which describe the controller taking mitigation actions including the change of speed o a stalk roller in response to data including zone/position data and MOG data), as per claim 18.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanke et al. in view of Walker 10,049,296.
Dependent Claim 4: The system is disclosed as applied above. However, Yanke fails to disclose a hood extending over the conveyor at the inlet, wherein one of the emitter or the receiver is coupled to the hood, and the other of the emitter or the receiver is coupled to a side wall of the header, as per claim 4.
Walker discloses a similar system comprising a hood (78) extending over the conveyor (84) at the inlet (at the front of feeder housing 20), as per claim 4.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hood of Walker to the header of Yanke in order to aid in the direction of cornstalks into the feeder housing.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple one of the emitter/receiver to the hood and the other receiver/emitter to the header side wall since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanke et al. in view of Hermann et al. WO 2020/126211 A1.
Dependent Claim 20: Yanke discloses the computer readable medium as applied above. However, Yanke fails to specifically disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, are configured to cause the processing circuitry to determine the sensor data indicates the presence of MOG proximate to or at the conveyor based on the sensor data indicating unsuccessful receipt by a receiver of the agricultural system, as per claim 20.
Hermann discloses a similar system wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry (of 101), are configured to cause the processing circuitry to determine the sensor data (of sensing device 260) indicates the presence of MOG proximate to or at the conveyor (28) based on the sensor data indicating unsuccessful receipt (interruption of the light curtain created by MOG crossing through 265) by a receiver of the agricultural system (see para. [0053]), as per claim 20.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the MOG sensor of Hermann for that of Yanke since both references disclose optical or light-emitting sensors for detecting the presence of MOG and such a predictable result would be achieved.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTOL-892. See Strubbe 4,951,031 who also discloses a header-mounted MOG sensor (col. 9, lns. 42-45), as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca, can be reached at (571) 272-8971.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 January 7, 2026