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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 3/6/2026, 3/16/2026, 3/20/2026, & 3/25/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Independent Claim 12, the claim has been amended to recite the automatic request to move a chute from a deployed to storage position based on sensor data.
Examiner respectfully asserts that "operational characteristics" of the material receiving machine in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (and in view of the operational characteristics recited in Independent Claim 1) are anticipated by Mill, similarly to the grounds of rejection with reference to Dependent Claim 5, which recites in relevant part:
"Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0080 wherein a container may report a location through the use of a GPS sensor, and further discloses in at least Paragraph 0141 wherein the location data of the cart/vehicle and container [i.e. material receiving machine] are compared to determine if the current location of the cart allows proper clearance relative to the container for the auger assembly to be moved from an operating position to a storage position [i.e. interlock condition data includes said location data]."
Thus, as the location of the material receiving machine appears to be recited as a possible condition to determine if clearance is available, Applicant arguments with respect to Independent Claim 12 are not persuasive.
With respect to Independent Claim 19, Applicant asserts:
Applicant submits that the cited references have not been shown to teach or suggest the features of independent claim 19, at least as amended. It is noted that on page 22 the Office Action alleges that Mill discloses generating an input based on a determination that a material transfer operation is complete, citing paragraphs [0130], [0132], and [0133]. In these cited sections, Mill describes
if the cart 100 (and/or the vehicle 200) determines that the hopper 118 of the cart 100 is empty, the discharge process 1000 (and/or the discharging material step 822) may end...
Returning to FIG. 8, when the material discharging step 822 ends, the process 800 may proceed to a step 824 in which the cart 100 (and/or vehicle 200) shuts down the auger of the auger assembly 110....
In some embodiments, as shown in FIG. 8, the process 800 may include a step 826 in which the vehicle 200 and/or the cart 100 moves to an auger folding location. In some embodiments, the auger folding location may be a location at which the cart 100 (and/or the vehicle 200) is able to safely fold the auger assembly 110 from the operating position to the storage position. FIG. 11 is a flow chart illustrating a process 1100 of traveling to an auger folding location according to some non- limiting embodiments of the invention. In some embodiments, one or more steps of the process 1100 may be performed during the step 826 of the process 800 of FIG. 8. In some embodiments, the cart 100 and/or vehicle 200 (e.g., the one or more computers 622 of the cart 100 and/or vehicle 200) may perform one or more steps of the process 1100.
Thus, what is being cited in Mill is that material discharge ends at step 822, the auger is disengaged at step 824, and the vehicle is moved at step 826. Mill has not been shown to teach or suggest "automatically generate a request to move the chute from the deployed position to the storage position based on sensor data indicative of one or more operational characteristics of the transfer operation."
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection and submits that independent claim 19 is in allowable form.
Examiner respectfully asserts that "one or more operational characteristics of the transfer operation" causing an automated request to move the chute is taught or otherwise rendered obvious by Mill with reference to Paragraphs 0130 - 0133, which recite, inter alia, wherein one or more flow sensors or load sensors [i.e. operational characteristics of the transfer operation] are used to determine if the material transfer operation is complete. If this condition is met, the vehicle/cart shuts down the augur moves to an augur folding location, and folds the augur. This appears to indicate an automated operation as recited by the amended limitations, based on the operational characteristics of the transfer operation through an overall shutdown operation, and thus would appear to anticipate the limitations of the amendments of Claim 19, as set forth in further detail below. Thus, Applicant arguments with respect to Claim 19 are not persuasive.
With respect to Independent Claim 1, Applicant asserts:
In rejecting claim 21, the Office Action states "Mill does not appear to specifically disclose wherein detected operational characteristics are used to identify a swing zone", but cites paragraphs [0023], [0033], [0034], [0037], [0039], [0040] and [0042] of Kean and alleges
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Mill by incorporating the use of operational characteristics to determine the swing zone of the work machine during movement as taught by Kean. The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kean in at least Paragraphs 0039 & 0040, a collision can be avoided by taking into account the full range of predicted movement for a vehicle during a movement operation, improving the collision avoidance capability of a vehicle during dynamic operations.
These paragraphs of Kean describe:
As another example, prediction logic 218 can generate signals used to control machine 102 to avoid a collision, for instance it can generate values that are used to limit one or more of the ground speed of the work machine 102 or speeds of controllable subsystems 225 to ensure the load carrying mechanism 106 and/or the carried load 108 do not intersect with the boundaries surrounding the drop zone 202 or with an obstacle.
For example, on an excavator, assume that command path logic 220 commands the boom to lift and the house to swing. Assume further that there is an obstacle that the load must clear as machine 102 is swinging it. Prediction logic 218 then checks the speeds at which the boom is rising and swinging to determine if the boom is rising fast enough so the load will clear the obstacle. If not, prediction logic 218 generates signals used to slow down the swing so that the boom is rising faster relative to the swing motion and so the load will clear the obstacle. In a loader, prediction logic 218 can generate signals used to limit ground speed to ensure the boom/bucket clears an obstacle along its travel path and so the loader does not run into the target zone 110, e.g. a truck.
Thus, the Office Action cites control of a load carrying mechanism and has not shown where Kean suggests modifying the alleged determination of the swing zone of the auger in Mill.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection and submits that independent claim 1 is in allowable form.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the Advisory action dated 3/2/2026, Examiner respectfully asserts that Kean teaches in at least Paragraph 0040 wherein a prediction logic determines if a movement path of a work machine will avoid collisions based on a measured speed, position, and/or path of the work machine, the work machine comprising an excavator and associated boom in an embodiment. Examiner respectfully asserts that the boom of the excavator recited by Kean maps onto an augur arm as recited by the present claimed invention, such that similar techniques for determining if a movement path is clear [i.e. if an interlock condition is present] and thereby improving movement safety, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have incorporated with the disclosure of Mill, which determines if the auger of an automated cart may be moved from one position to another without colliding with surrounding obstacles, such as a material receiving machine. Thus, Applicant arguments with respect to Independent Claim 1 are not persuasive.
With respect to nonstatutory double patenting, while the claims have been amended, Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection with respect to the 3/12/2026 claim amendments of the co-pending application as updated below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim1 - 2, 4 - 9, 11 - 16, 19 - 20, & 22 - 25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-18, & 20 - 25 of copending Application No. US 2025/0133985 A1 in view of Mill (US 2021/0294337 A1). The respective Independent Claims map to one another as follows (using Independent Claim 1 of each as an example, with similar rationale underpinning the double patenting of Independent Claims 12, and Independent Claim 19 (pending) compared with Independent Claims 20 & 12 (copending):
Pending Application
(3/5/2026 Amendments)
Co-Pending Application (3/12/2026 Amendments)
Mapping
A material transfer machine configured to operate at a worksite, the material transfer machine comprising: a material receptacle configured to hold a material; a material transfer subsystem operable to transfer the material from the material receptacle to another location, the material transfer subsystem comprising:
A material transfer machine configured to operate at a worksite, the material transfer machine comprising: a material receptacle configured to hold a material; a material transfer subsystem operable to transfer the material from the material receptacle to another location, the material transfer subsystem comprising:
The pending and co-pending limitations are functionally identical to one another.
a chute moveable between a deployed position and a storage position; and an actuator configured to drive movement of the chute between the deployed position and the storage position; one or more processors; memory; and computer executable instructions, stored in the memory, the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configuring the one or more processors to:
a chute moveable between a storage position and a deployed position; and an actuator configured to drive movement of the chute between the storage position and the deployed position; one or more processors; memory; and computer executable instructions, stored in the memory, the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configuring the one or more processors to:
The pending and co-pending limitations are identical to one another, aside from the order in which the storage and deployed positions are presented.
receive an input indicating that the chute should be moved from the deployed position to the storage position; obtain interlock condition data; determine a swing zone based on the input and one or more detected operational characteristics of the material transfer machine,
receive an input requesting movement of the chute from the storage position to the deployed position; identify a temporal characteristic of the requested movement of the chute from the storage position to the deployed position; obtain interlock condition data; determine a swing zone based on the temporal characteristic of the requested movement of the chute and one or more detected operational characteristics of the material transfer machine,
The pending and co-pending limitations differ only in if the chute is traveling from a deployed to storage position (pending application) or a storage to deployed position (co-pending application), and the identification of a “temporal characteristic of the requested movement” in the co-pending application. In each instance, a swing zone is identified in which the chute will travel, with interlock condition data being determined based in part on such. With respect to the “temporal characteristic,” said limitations found in the co-pending application as amended serve to further narrow the co-pending application, the pending application would be anticipated by the co-pending application in full.
wherein the one or more detected operational characteristics comprise at least one of: a current position characteristic of the material transfer machine, a heading characteristic of the material transfer machine, a route characteristic of the material transfer machine, or a travel speed characteristic of the material transfer machine
wherein the one or more detected operational characteristics of the material transfer machine comprise at least one of: (i) a geographic position of the material transfer machine: (ii) a heading of the material transfer machine: (iii) a route of the material transfer machine: (iv) a travel speed of the material transfer machine; or (v) an orientation of the material transfer machine;
The pending application substantially parallels the co-pending application, the co-pending application only differing in further including an “orientation” option for the material transfer machine.
the swing zone defining an area in which the chute will travel when moved from the deployed position to the storage position by the actuator;
the swing zone defining an area, between the storage position and the deployed position, in which the chute will travel when moved from the storage position to the deployed position by the actuator;
The pending and co-pending limitations differ only in if the chute is traveling from a deployed to storage position (pending application) or a storage to deployed position (co-pending application). In each instance, a swing zone is identified in which the chute will travel, with interlock condition data being determined based in part on such.
determine whether an interlock condition is present based on the interlock condition data and the swing zone; and control the material transfer machine based on the determination of whether an interlock condition is present.
determine whether an interlock condition is present based on the interlock condition data and the swing zone; and control the actuator based on the determination of whether an interlock condition is present.
The pending and co-pending limitations are functionally identical to one another, differing only in the specific control of the vehicle actuator in the co-pending application.
As noted above, the pending and co-pending applications primarily differ in the recited direction of travel for the chute, in each case moving between the same positions of storage and deployment, and checking the zone of travel [“swing zone”] for the existence of an interlock condition. While the conflicting claims are not identical due to this difference, the pending examined action would have been obvious over the co-pending claims in view of Mill (US 2021/0294337 A1). Mill teaches in at least Paragraph 0109 & 0110 wherein a cart/vehicle may unfold its auger [i.e. move the auger from a storage to deployed position] following the determination that no obstacles are present in the unfolding path [i.e. based on interlock condition data] which is the embodiment of the co-pending application. Similarly, Mill teaches in at least Paragraph 0147 wherein obstacle detection may further be performed to prevent collision with obstacles in the folding path, when the auger is moved to a storage position from a deployed position, which is the embodiment of the pending application.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have incorporated the determination of interlock data for a specific movement zone to control of the actuator when the actuator is either moving in the folding or unfolding direction, as taught by Mill. The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Mill in at least Paragraphs 0110 & 0147, damage to the auger may be prevented by ensuring the auger does not collide with obstacles while moving. As the same process is performed in each instance for determining if an object is present in the movement zone irrespective of direction of travel, Examiner respectfully asserts that the co-pending application, merely differing in the direction of travel, would have been obvious over the present claims under examination, in view of Mill.
With respect to the amended limitations, the co-pending application has been amended to recite “identify a temporal characteristic of the requested movement of the chute from the storage position to the deployed position; obtain interlock condition data; determine a swing zone based on the temporal characteristic of the requested movement of the chute and one or more detected operational characteristics of the material transfer machine,” which further narrows the claim compared to the present claimed invention. However, the additional elements recited by the co-pending amendments merely serve to further narrow the scope of that claim, such that the pending application would remain entirely anticipated by the co-pending claims, being the broader embodiment. Thus, the amended limitations do not appear to distinguish the pending application from the co-pending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 - 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, & 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mill (US 2021/0294337 A1) in view of Kean (US 2019/0302794 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Mill discloses: A material transfer machine configured to operate at a worksite, the material transfer machine comprising: (Mill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0009 – 0011 a cart including an augur assembly [i.e. a material transfer machine] configured to fold the auger from a deployed to storage position based on results of object detection. At least Paragraph 0050 of Mill further discloses wherein the cart operates when harvesting in a field [i.e. configured to operate at a worksite])
a material receptacle configured to hold a material; (Mill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0035 & 0036 wherein the cart may comprise a hopper configured to hold a material such as grain [i.e. a material receptacle configured to hold a material])
a material transfer subsystem operable to transfer the material from the material receptacle to another location, the material transfer subsystem comprising: (Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0036 wherein an auger assembly [i.e. a material transfer subsystem] may be positioned on the cart to draw material from the bottom of the hopper into the auger assembly, and discharge said material into another container, such as an another cart or rail car adjacent to the own cart [i.e. transfer material from the material receptacle to another location])
a chute moveable between a deployed position and a storage position; and (Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0037 wherein the auger assembly may include an upper and lower portion [together comprising a chute] movable between an operating position [i.e. a deployed position] for use during the unloading of material, and a storage position, used when material is not being unloaded)
an actuator configured to drive movement of the chute between the deployed position and the storage position; (Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0044 wherein an auger positioner may control movement of the auger assembly, the auger positioner including one or more of hydraulics, mechanical linkage, and a linear actuator to move the auger assembly between the storage position and the operating position [i.e. an actuator configured to drive movement of the chute between the deployed position and the storage position])
one or more processors; memory; and computer executable instructions, stored in the memory, the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configuring the one or more processors to: (Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0055 wherein the cart/vehicle may include one or more processors and non-volatile computer-readable media [i.e. memory] storing programming instructions for executing the steps of the disclosed control)
receive an input indicating that the chute should be moved from the deployed position to the storage position; (Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0136 wherein the process may include a step for determining if the cart/vehicle has reached a specified folding destination, at which the augur is configured to be folded from an operating position to a storage position as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0133 of Mill [Step 1106 of Figure 6, below, i.e. a location input indicating that the chute should be moved from the deployed position to the storage position]. If so, the system proceeds to Step 1116 of Figure 11, below, in which the system assesses if there is sufficient clearance to fold the auger assembly [i.e. chute], as well as if there is an obstacle present)
PNG
media_image1.png
592
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
obtain interlock condition data; (Examiner notes that “interlock condition data” is recited in at least Paragraphs 0024 & 0025 of the present specification to be data regarding the presence of obstacles in the swing path of the material transfer subsystem. Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0105 wherein the vehicle may use one or more proximity sensors to detect any obstacles that might interfere with movement of the auger assembly between a storage and operating position [i.e. interlock condition data]. This may include the movement of the auger assembly from an operating to storage position as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0142 of Mills)
control the material transfer machine based on the determination of whether an interlock condition is present. (Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0146 wherein when the cart/vehicle reaches a location that has proper clearance and is free from obstacles, the process moves/folds the auger assembly from its operating position to a storage position, which may be implemented using the auger positioner [i.e. actuator] controlled by the computing elements as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0011 of Mills [i.e. the material transfer machine is controlled based on the determination of interlock condition presence])
Mill however appears to be silent regarding:
wherein the one or more detected operational characteristics comprise at least one of: a current position characteristic of the material transfer machine, a heading characteristic of the material transfer machine, a route characteristic of the material transfer machine, or a travel speed characteristic of the material transfer machine, and
determine a swing zone based on the input and one or more detected operational characteristics of the material transfer machine, the swing zone defines an area in which the chute will travel when moved from the deployed position to the storage position by the actuator;
determine whether an interlock condition is present based on the interlock condition data and the swing zone; and
However Kean teaches wherein a work machine may generate a predicted path of travel for an element, such as a boom or bucket, to swing through during operation based on vehicle operating parameters, and limit or otherwise adjust vehicle movement to ensure that the boom/bucket clears an obstacle along the travel path.
wherein the one or more detected operational characteristics comprise at least one of: a current position characteristic of the material transfer machine, a heading characteristic of the material transfer machine, a route characteristic of the material transfer machine, or a travel speed characteristic of the material transfer machine, and (However Kean teaches in at least Paragraphs 0033 & 0034 wherein the prediction logic receives signals from sensors and control data, including speeds of the work machine, the ground speed of the work machine being modified in at least Paragraph 0040 to avoid a collision [i.e. the one or more detected operational characteristics comprises a travel speed characteristic of the material transfer machine]. At least Paragraph 0023 of Kean teaches wherein a position detection system may obtain a location of the work machine and load, with at least Paragraph 0037 of Kean teaching wherein the locations of the work machine and obstacles are used to determine a safe movement path [i.e. the one or more detected operational characteristics comprises a current position characteristic of the material transfer machine]. At least Paragraphs 0039, 0040, & 0042 of Kean wherein a prediction logic determines whether a collision will occur based on the path of the work machine [i.e. the one or more detected operational characteristics comprises a route characteristic of the material transfer machine])
determine a swing zone based on the input and one or more detected operational characteristics of the material transfer machine, the swing zone defines an area in which the chute will travel when moved from the deployed position to the storage position by the actuator; (However Kean teaches in at least Paragraphs 0039, 0040, & 0053 wherein a prediction logic is utilized to determine if a command provided, in an example a command causing a boom/bucket of an excavator to lift and swing, would cause a collision with or clear an obstacle, with vehicle operational parameters, such as the ground speed of the work machine, being taken into account in determining the predicted path of travel of boom/bucket [i.e. determine a swing zone based on the input and one or more detected operational characteristics of the material transfer machine, the swing zone defining an area in which the chute will travel when moved])
determine whether an interlock condition is present based on the interlock condition data and the swing zone; and (Examiner notes that Mill, as set forth above, discloses in at least Paragraph 0105 wherein the vehicle may use one or more proximity sensors to detect any obstacles that might interfere with movement of the auger assembly between a storage and operating position [i.e. interlock condition data]. Mill however appears to be silent regarding wherein this is based on a determined swing zone. However Kean teaches in at least Paragraphs 0039, 0040, & 0053 wherein a prediction logic is utilized to determine if a command provided, in an example a command causing a boom/bucket of an excavator to lift and swing, would cause a collision with or clear an obstacle [i.e. determine whether an interlock condition is present], with vehicle operational parameters, such as the ground speed of the work machine, being taken into account in determining the predicted path of travel of boom/bucket [i.e. determine whether an interlock condition is present based on the interlock condition data and the swing zone])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Mill by incorporating the determination of if any obstacles are present in a predicted movement zone a boom swings through during control, taking into account the movement parameters of the work machine as taught by Kean.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kean in at least Paragraphs 0039 & 0040, a collision can be avoided by taking into account the full range of predicted movement for a vehicle during a movement operation, improving the collision avoidance prediction capability of a vehicle during dynamic operations.
Regarding Claim 2:
The material transfer machine of claim 1 and further comprising: an interlock sensor configured to detect an object at the worksite and generate sensor data indicative of the detected object, wherein the interlock condition data includes, at least, the sensor data indicative of the detected object.
Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0051 wherein the cart may include one or more proximity sensors, including one or more of radar, sonar, laser scanning, and cameras to detect the environment around the vehicle [i.e. an interlock sensor configured to detect an object]. Mill further discloses in at least Paragraph 0110 wherein the cart/vehicle may perform obstacle detection using said sensor(s), in order to determine if the auger should be moved or if there is currently an obstacle present.
Regarding Claim 4:
The material transfer machine of claim 2, wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the one or more processors to: determine whether the detected object is or will be in the swing zone; and determine whether the interlock condition is present based on the determination of whether the detected object is or will be in the swing zone.
Mill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0105 & 0142 wherein the vehicle may use one or more proximity sensors to detect any obstacles that might interfere with movement of the auger assembly between a storage and operating position [i.e. interlock condition data]. Mill however appears to be silent regarding determining an interlock condition based on an identified swing zone.
However Kean teaches in at least Paragraphs 0039, 0040, & 0053 wherein a prediction logic is utilized to determine if a command provided, in an example a command causing a boom/bucket of an excavator to lift and swing, would cause a collision with or clear an obstacle [i.e. determine whether the detected object is or will be in the swing zone], with vehicle operational parameters, such as the ground speed of the work machine, being taken into account in determining the predicted path of travel of boom/bucket [i.e. determine whether an interlock condition is present based on the determination of whether the detected object is or will be in the swing zone]
Regarding Claim 5:
The material transfer machine of claim 1, wherein the interlock condition data includes, at least, location sensor data, generated by a location sensor of a material receiving machine, indicative of a geographic location of the material receiving machine.
Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0080 wherein a container [i.e. material receiving machine as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0039] may report a location through the use of a GPS sensor as part of a reported identification [i.e. location sensor data, generated by a location sensor, indicative of a location of a material receiving machine]. Mill further discloses in at least Paragraph 0141 wherein the location data of the cart/vehicle and container [i.e. material receiving machine] are compared to determine if the current location of the cart allows proper clearance relative to the container for the auger assembly to be moved from an operating position to a storage position [i.e. interlock condition data includes said location data].
Regarding Claim 6:
The material transfer machine of claim 5, wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the one or more processors to: determine whether the material receiving machine is or will be in the swing zone based on the location sensor data; and determine whether the interlock condition is present based on the determination of whether the material receiving machine is or will be in the swing zone.
Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0080 wherein a container [i.e. material receiving machine as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0039] may report a location through the use of a GPS sensor as part of a reported identification [i.e. location sensor data, generated by a location sensor, indicative of a location of a material receiving machine]. Mill further discloses in at least Paragraph 0141 wherein the location data of the cart/vehicle and container [i.e. material receiving machine] are compared to determine if the current location of the cart allows proper clearance relative to the container for the auger assembly to be moved from an operating position to a storage position [i.e. determine whether the receiving machine is or will be an obstruction based the location sensor data]. Mill however appears to be silent regarding determining an interlock condition based on if the container will be within an identified swing zone.
However Kean teaches in at least Paragraphs 0039, 0040, & 0053 wherein a prediction logic is utilized to determine if a command provided, in an example a command causing a boom/bucket of an excavator to lift and swing, would cause a collision with or clear an obstacle, such as a truck [i.e. determine whether the receiving machine is or will be in the swing zone], with vehicle operational parameters, such as the ground speed of the work machine, being taken into account in determining the predicted path of travel of boom/bucket [i.e. determine whether an interlock condition is present based on the determination of whether the receiving machine is or will be in the swing zone].
Regarding Claim 7:
The material transfer machine of claim 1, wherein the interlock condition data includes, at least, georeferenced worksite data indicative of a location of a border of the worksite.
Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0104 wherein the determination of if there is proper clearance for moving the auger assembly [i.e. interlock condition data] includes a determination of if the cart/vehicle is within a threshold distance of an outer field boundary [i.e. a location of a border of the worksite].
Regarding Claim 8:
The material transfer machine of claim 1, wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the one or more processors to: determine that the interlock condition is present based on the interlock condition data and the swing zone, wherein the control of the material transfer machine comprises control of an interface mechanism to generate an indication indicating that the interlock condition is present based on the determination that the interlock condition is present.
Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0148 wherein if an obstacle to moving the auger assembly to its storage position is detected, a remote manager may be notified of the obstacle, including by conveying a message to one or more remote devices. Mill however appears to be silent regarding the specific manner of determining the presence of the interlock condition through a swing zone, as well as a specific manner of notification to the user.
However Kean teaches in at least Paragraphs 0039, 0040, & 0053 wherein a prediction logic is utilized to determine if a command provided, in an example a command causing a boom/bucket of an excavator to lift and swing, would cause a collision with or clear an obstacle [i.e. determine whether the detected object is or will be in the swing zone], with vehicle operational parameters, such as the ground speed of the work machine, being taken into account in determining the predicted path of travel of boom/bucket [i.e. determine whether an interlock condition is present based on the determination of whether the detected object is or will be in the swing zone]. Kean further teaches in at least Paragraphs 0022 & 0066 wherein a user interface may include a plurality of input/output components, including display device and speaker components [i.e. the notification mechanism includes an interface mechanism].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Mill by incorporating the use of visual or audible input/output devices as taught by Kean.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kean in at least Paragraphs 0022 & 0078, notifications may be presented to a user via an appropriate interface medium, improving the user interaction with the control system.
Regarding Claim 9:
The material transfer machine of claim 1, wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the one or more processors to: determine that the interlock condition is not present based on the interlock condition data and the swing zone, wherein the control of the material transfer machine comprises control of the actuator to drive movement of the chute from the deployed position to the storage position based on the determination.
Mill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0105 & 0142 wherein the vehicle may use one or more proximity sensors to detect any obstacles that might interfere with movement of the auger assembly between a storage and operating position [i.e. interlock condition data]. Mill further discloses in at least Paragraph 0146 wherein if the augur has proper clearance, and is free from obstacles moving the auger to the storage position from the deployed position [i.e. the interlock condition is not present], the auger positioner may be used to move the auger assembly from the operation [i.e. deployed] position to the storage position. Mill however appears to be silent regarding determining an interlock condition based on an identified swing zone.
However Kean teaches in at least Paragraphs 0039, 0040, & 0053 wherein a prediction logic is utilized to determine if a command provided, in an example a command causing a boom/bucket of an excavator to lift and swing, would cause a collision with or clear an obstacle [i.e. determine whether the detected object is or will be in the swing zone], with vehicle operational parameters, such as the ground speed of the work machine, being taken into account in determining the predicted path of travel of boom/bucket [i.e. determine whether an interlock condition is present based on the determination of whether the detected object is or will be in the swing zone].
Regarding Claim 11:
The material transfer machine of claim 1 wherein the material transfer subsystem is operable to transfer the material from the material receptacle to the other location during a material transfer operation, and further comprising a material transfer status sensor configured to detect a variable indicative of the material transfer operation being complete, at least to a threshold level, and to generate material transfer status sensor data indicative of the variable, wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the one or more processors to: determine that that material transfer operation is complete, at least to the threshold level, based on the material transfer status sensor data; and generate the input based on the determination.
Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0130 wherein the cart determines if the hopper of the cart is empty to a threshold “empty” degree [i.e. a variable indicative of the material transfer operation being complete, at least to a threshold level], based on one or more of load sensors, cameras, or flow sensors [i.e. a material transfer status sensor], and ends the discharge process when the cart hopper is empty [i.e. the material transfer subsystem is operable to transfer the material from the material receptacle to the other location during a material transfer operation]. Mill further discloses in at least Paragraph 0132 wherein when the material discharge step ends, the auger of the cart is shut down, which may include the folding of the auger assembly from the operating position to the storage position as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0133 of Mill.
Regarding Claim 12:
Mill discloses: A computer implemented method of controlling a chute of a material transfer machine at a worksite, the computer implemented method comprising: (Mill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0009 – 0011 & 0020 a method for controlling a cart using a vehicle controller [i.e. a computer] including an augur assembly [i.e. a material transfer machine] configured to fold the auger from a deployed to storage position based on results of object detection. At least Paragraph 0050 of Mill further discloses wherein the cart operates when harvesting in a field [i.e. configured to operate at a worksite])
receiving a request to move the chute from a deployed position to a storage position; (Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0136 wherein the process may include a step for determining if the cart/vehicle has reached a specified folding destination [Step 1106 of Figure 6, above, i.e. an input request indicating that the chute should be moved from the deployed position to the storage position]. If so, the system proceeds to Step 1116 of Figure 11, above, in which the system assesses if there is sufficient clearance to fold the auger assembly [i.e. chute], as well as if there is an obstacle present)
obtaining interlock condition data indicative of one or more operational characteristics of the material receiving machine; (Examiner notes that “interlock condition data” is recited in at least Paragraphs 0024 & 0025 of the present specification to be data regarding the presence of obstacles in the swing path of the material transfer subsystem. Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0105 wherein the vehicle may use one or more proximity sensors to detect any obstacles that might interfere with movement of the auger assembly between a storage and operating position [i.e. interlock condition data]. This may include the movement of the auger assembly from an operating to storage position as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0142 of Mill. Mill further discloses in at least Paragraph 0080 wherein a container [i.e. material receiving machine as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0039] may report a location through the use of a GPS sensor as part of a reported identification, and discloses in at least Paragraph 0141 wherein the location data of the cart/vehicle and container [i.e. material receiving machine] are compared to determine if the current location of the cart allows proper clearance relative to the container for the auger assembly to be moved from an operating position to a storage position [i.e. interlock condition data includes data indicative of one or more operational characteristics of the material receiving machine])
controlling the material transfer machine based on the determination. (Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0146 wherein when the cart/vehicle reaches a location that has proper clearance and is free from obstacles, the process moves/folds the auger assembly from its operating position to a storage position, which may be implemented using the auger positioner [i.e. actuator] controlled by the computing elements as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0011 of Mills [i.e. the material transfer machine is controlled based on the determination of interlock condition presence])
Mill however appears to be silent regarding:
determining a swing zone based on the request and one or more detected operational characteristics of the material transfer machine, the swing zone defining an area in which the chute will travel when moved from the deployed position to the storage position;
determining whether an interlock condition is present based on the one or more operational characteristics of the material receiving machine and the swing zone; and
However Kean teaches wherein a work machine may generate a predicted path of travel for an element, such as a boom or bucket, to swing through during operation based on vehicle operating parameters, and limit or otherwise adjust vehicle movement to ensure that the boom/bucket clears an obstacle along the travel path.
determining a swing zone based on the request and one or more detected operational characteristics of the material transfer machine, the swing zone defining an area in which the chute will travel when moved from the deployed position to the storage position; (However Kean teaches in at least Paragraphs 0039, 0040, & 0053 wherein a prediction logic is utilized to determine if a command provided, in an example a command causing a boom/bucket of an excavator to lift and swing, would cause a collision with or clear an obstacle, with vehicle operational parameters, such as the ground speed of the work machine, being taken into account in determining the predicted path of travel of boom/bucket [i.e. determine a swing zone based on the input and one or more detected operational characteristics of the material transfer machine, the swing zone defining an area in which the chute will travel when moved])
determining whether an interlock condition is present based on the one or more operational characteristics of the material receiving machine and the swing zone; and (Examiner notes that Mill, as set forth above, discloses in at least Paragraphs 0141 & 0142 wherein the position of the container is assessed to determine if said position relative to the vehicle will interfere with movement of the auger assembly between a storage and operating position [i.e. interlock condition data based on the one or more operational characteristics of the material receiving machine]. Mill however appears to be silent regarding wherein this is based on a determined swing zone. However Kean teaches in at least Paragraphs 0039, 0040, & 0053 wherein a prediction logic is utilized to determine if a command provided, in an example a command causing a boom/bucket of an excavator to lift and swing, would cause a collision with or clear an obstacle [i.e. determine whether an interlock condition is present], with vehicle operational parameters, such as the ground speed of the work machine, being taken into account in determining the predicted path of travel of boom/bucket [i.e. determine whether an interlock condition is present based on the interlock condition data and the swing zone])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Mill by incorporating the determination of if any obstacles are present in a predicted movement zone a boom swings through during control, taking into account the movement parameters of the work machine as taught by Kean.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kean in at least Paragraphs 0039 & 0040, a collision can be avoided by taking into account the full range of predicted movement for a vehicle during a movement operation, improving the collision avoidance capability of a vehicle during dynamic operations.
Regarding Claim 14:
The computer implemented method of claim 12 and further comprising determining that the material receiving machine is or will be in the swing zone based on the one or more operational characteristics and determining that the interlock condition is present based on the determination that the material receiving machine is or will be in the swing zone, wherein controlling the material transfer machine comprises one of: controlling an interface mechanism to generate an indication that the interlock condition is present, or controlling an actuator to drive movement of the chute from the deployed position to the storage position, based on the determination that the interlock condition is not present.
Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0146 wherein when the cart/vehicle reaches a location that has proper clearance and is free from obstacles [i.e. determining that the material receiving machine is or will be in the swing zone based on the one or more operational characteristics and determining that the interlock condition is present based on the determination that the material receiving machine is or will be in the swing zone as set forth above in combination with Kean], the process moves/folds the auger assembly from its operating position to a storage position, which may be implemented using the auger positioner [i.e. actuator] controlled by the computing elements as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0011 of Mills [i.e. wherein controlling the material transfer machine comprises controlling an actuator to drive movement of the chute from the deployed position to the storage position, based on the determination that the interlock condition is not present].
Regarding Claim 16:
The computer implemented method of claim 12, wherein the one or more operational characteristics of the material receiving machine comprise a location of the material receiving machine at the worksite, and generating, as the interlock condition data, sensor data indicative of the location of the material receiving machine, and wherein determining whether the interlock condition is present comprises determining whether the material receiving machine is or will be in the swing zone based on the sensor data indicative of the detected location of the material receiving machine.
Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0080 wherein a container [i.e. material receiving machine as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0039] may report a location through the use of a GPS sensor as part of a reported identification [i.e. location sensor data, generated by a location sensor, indicative of a location of a material receiving machine]. Mill further discloses in at least Paragraph 0141 wherein the location data of the cart/vehicle and container [i.e. material receiving machine] are compared to determine if the current location of the cart allows proper clearance relative to the container for the auger assembly to be moved from an operating position to a storage position [i.e. interlock condition data includes said location data].
Regarding Claim 19:
Mill discloses: A material transfer system comprising: (Mill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0009 – 0011 a system including a cart/vehicle with an associated augur assembly, the system being configured to fold the auger from a deployed to storage position based on results of object detection)
a material receptacle configured to hold a material; (Mill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0035 & 0036 wherein the cart may comprise a hopper configured to hold a material such as grain [i.e. a material receptacle configured to hold a material])
a material transfer subsystem operable to transfer the material from the material receptacle to another location during a transfer operation, the material transfer subsystem comprising: (Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0036 wherein an auger assembly [i.e. a material transfer subsystem] may be positioned on the cart to draw material from the bottom of the hopper into the auger assembly, and discharge said material into another container, such as an another cart or rail car adjacent to the own cart [i.e. transfer material from the material receptacle to another location])
a chute moveable between a deployed position and a storage position; and (Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0037 wherein the auger assembly may include an upper and lower portion [together comprising a chute] movable between an operating position [i.e. a deployed position] for use during the unloading of material, and a storage position, used when material is not being unloaded)
a chute actuator configured to drive movement of the chute between the deployed position and the storage position; (Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0044 wherein an auger positioner may control movement of the auger assembly, the auger positioner including one or more of hydraulics, mechanical linkage, and a linear actuator to move the auger assembly between the storage position and the operating position [i.e. an actuator configured to drive movement of the chute between the deployed position and the storage position])
one or more processors; memory; and computer executable instructions, stored in the memory, the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configuring the one or more processors to: (Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0055 wherein the cart/vehicle may include one or more processors and non-volatile computer-readable media [i.e. memory] storing programming instructions for executing the steps of the disclosed control)
automatically generate a request to move the chute from the deployed position to the storage position based on sensor data indicative of one or more operational characteristics of the transfer operation; (Mill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0130 & 0132 wherein a material discharge process may determined to be at an end based on sensed conditions regarding the hopper of the cart, such as if the hopper is empty to a threshold degree, or based on one or more flow sensors [i.e. based on sensor data indicative of one or more operational characteristics of the transfer operation] and the auger may be shut down based on the material discharge ending. Mill further discloses in at least Paragraphs 0133 – 0136 wherein the process may include a step for folding the augur, including determining an augur folding location, determining if the cart/vehicle has reached said folding destination, and if so, the system proceeds to Step 1116 of Figure 11, above, in which the system assesses if there is sufficient clearance to fold the auger assembly [i.e. chute], as well as if there is an obstacle present [i.e. automatically generate a request to move the chute from the deployed position to the storage position based on the transfer operation ending])
obtain interlock condition data; (Examiner notes that “interlock condition data” is recited in at least Paragraphs 0024 & 0025 of the present specification to be data regarding the presence of obstacles in the swing path of the material transfer subsystem. Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0105 wherein the vehicle may use one or more proximity sensors to detect any obstacles that might interfere with movement of the auger assembly between a storage and operating position [i.e. interlock condition data]. This may include the movement of the auger assembly from an operating to storage position as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0142 of Mills)
control the material transfer system based on the determination of whether an interlock condition is present. (Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0146 wherein when the cart/vehicle reaches a location that has proper clearance and is free from obstacles, the process moves/folds the auger assembly from its operating position to a storage position, which may be implemented using the auger positioner [i.e. actuator] controlled by the computing elements as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0011 of Mills [i.e. the material transfer machine is controlled based on the determination of interlock condition presence])
Mill however appears to be silent regarding:
determine a swing zone based on the request to move the chute, the swing zone defining an area in which the chute will travel when moved from the deployed position to the storage position by the actuator;
determine whether an interlock condition is present based on the interlock condition data and the swing zone; and
However Kean teaches wherein a work machine may generate a predicted path of travel for an element, such as a boom or bucket, to swing through during operation based on vehicle operating parameters, and limit or otherwise adjust vehicle movement to ensure that the boom/bucket clears an obstacle along the travel path.
determine a swing zone based on the request to move the chute, the swing zone defining an area in which the chute will travel when moved from the deployed position to the storage position by the actuator; (However Kean teaches in at least Paragraphs 0039, 0040, & 0053 wherein a prediction logic is utilized to determine if a command provided, in an example a command causing a boom/bucket of an excavator to lift and swing, would cause a collision with or clear an obstacle, with vehicle operational parameters, such as the ground speed of the work machine, being taken into account in determining the predicted path of travel of boom/bucket [i.e. determine a swing zone based on the input and one or more detected operational characteristics of the material transfer machine, the swing zone defining an area in which the chute will travel when moved])
determine whether an interlock condition is present based on the interlock condition data and the identified swing zone; and (Examiner notes that Mill, as set forth above, discloses in at least Paragraph 0105 wherein the vehicle may use one or more proximity sensors to detect any obstacles that might interfere with movement of the auger assembly between a storage and operating position [i.e. interlock condition data]. Mill however appears to be silent regarding wherein this is based on a determined swing zone. However Kean teaches in at least Paragraphs 0039, 0040, & 0053 wherein a prediction logic is utilized to determine if a command provided, in an example a command causing a boom/bucket of an excavator to lift and swing, would cause a collision with or clear an obstacle [i.e. determine whether an interlock condition is present], with vehicle operational parameters, such as the ground speed of the work machine, being taken into account in determining the predicted path of travel of boom/bucket [i.e. determine whether an interlock condition is present based on the interlock condition data and the swing zone])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Mill by incorporating the determination of if any obstacles are present in a predicted movement zone a boom swings through during control, taking into account the movement parameters of the work machine as taught by Kean.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kean in at least Paragraphs 0039 & 0040, a collision can be avoided by taking into account the full range of predicted movement for a vehicle during a movement operation, improving the collision avoidance capability of a vehicle during dynamic operations.
Regarding Claim 20:
The material transfer system of claim 19, wherein the interlock condition data comprises one of: sensor data indicative of an object in the swing zone; or map data indicative of a location of a boundary of a worksite.
Mill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0105 & 0142 wherein the vehicle may use one or more proximity sensors to detect any obstacles that might interfere with movement of the auger assembly between a storage and operating position [i.e. interlock condition data]. Mill however appears to be silent regarding determining an interlock condition based on an identified swing zone.
However Kean teaches in at least Paragraphs 0039, 0040, & 0053 wherein a prediction logic is utilized to determine if a command provided, in an example a command causing a boom/bucket of an excavator to lift and swing, would cause a collision with or clear an obstacle [i.e. determine whether the detected object is or will be in the swing zone], with vehicle operational parameters, such as the ground speed of the work machine, being taken into account in determining the predicted path of travel of boom/bucket [i.e. determine whether an interlock condition is present based on the determination of whether the detected object is or will be in the swing zone].
Regarding Claim 22:
The material transfer machine of claim 1, wherein the input represents a requested movement of the chute, and the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the one or more processors to: determine that the interlock condition is present, wherein the control of the material transfer machine comprises inhibiting at least a portion of the requested movement of the chute.
Mill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0105 – 0107 wherein a determination is made regarding if an obstacle is present that would inhibit movement of the auger assembly [i.e. if an interlock condition is present]. If an obstacle is present, the vehicle is moved to a different location until the obstruction is no longer present, at which point the auger is unfolded [i.e. deployed], such that if the interlock condition is present, the requested movement of the chute is inhibited.
Regarding Claim 24:
The material transfer system of claim 19, wherein the one or more operational characteristics of the transfer operation comprises at least one of: a material flow characteristic, or a material weight characteristic.
Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0130 wherein one or more flow sensors are used to determine if the hopper of the cart is empty [i.e. the one or more operational characteristics of the transfer operation comprises a material flow characteristic]. At least Paragraph 0130 of Mill further discloses wherein one or more load sensors may be used to determine the empty state [i.e. wherein the one or more operational characteristics of the transfer operation comprises a material weight characteristic].
Regarding Claim 25:
The material transfer machine of claim 1, wherein the one or more detected operational characteristics comprise at least one of a heading of the material transfer machine or a route of the material transfer machine, and the swing zone is determined based on the at least one of the heading of the material transfer machine or the route of the material transfer machine.
Mill discloses in at least Paragraph 0068 wherein a potential for contact may be detected based on the planned travel path taking the harvester and cart over a field map, as well as the roll angle of the vehicle, however appears to be silent regarding determining the swing zone based on such.
However Kean teaches in at least Paragraphs 0039, 0040, & 0053 wherein a prediction logic is utilized to determine if a command provided, in an example a command causing a boom/bucket of an excavator to lift and swing, would cause a collision with or clear an obstacle, with vehicle operational parameters, such as the travel path of the work machine, being taken into account in determining the predicted path of travel of boom/bucket [i.e. the one or more detected operational characteristics comprise the route of the material transfer machine, and the swing zone is determined based on the route of the material transfer machine].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Mill by incorporating the determination of a predicted movement zone a boom swings through during control, taking into account the path of travel of the work machine as taught by Kean.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kean in at least Paragraphs 0039 & 0040, a collision can be avoided by taking into account the full range of predicted movement for a vehicle during a movement operation, improving the collision avoidance prediction capability of a vehicle during dynamic operations.
Claim(s) 13 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mill (US 2021/0294337 A1) in view of Kean (US 2019/0302794 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Eichhorn (US 2022/0011444 A1).
Regarding Claim 13:
The computer implemented method of claim 12, wherein the interlock condition data comprises material receiving machine sensor data received from one or more sensors on the material receiving machine, and the one or more operational characteristics of the material receiving machine comprise at least one operational characteristic, other than location, of the material receiving machine.
Mill does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the interlock condition data includes at least one operational characteristic, other than location, of the material receiving machine.
However Eichhorn teaches in at least Paragraphs 0008 & 0027 wherein a system may be provided to align a grain cart auger and grain truck to prevent a collision between the two, including the determination of a heading and speed [i.e. at least one operational characteristic, other than location] of a grain cart and grain truck [i.e. material receiving machine], which may be obtained via sensors disposed on the grain truck as taught in at least Paragraph 0027 [i.e. material receiving machine sensor data received from one or more sensors on the material receiving machine]. At least Paragraphs 0008, 0027, & 0071 of Eichhorn further teach wherein based on the relative headings, speeds, and locations of the grain truck and grain cart, a path may be determined to align the cart auger with the truck in order to prevent a collision between the two, and control of the auger may take place as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0141 & 0142 of Eichhorn [i.e. the interlock condition data comprises at least one operational characteristic, other than location, of the material receiving machine].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Mill by incorporating the determination of alignment between a grain cart and grain truck based on heading and speed of the grain truck as taught by Eichhorn.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Eichhorn in at least Paragraph 0008, the grain cart and auger may be quickly and reliably aligned, preventing collision of the grain cart auger and the grain truck, improving operational safety of the auger/truck system.
Regarding Claim 15:
The computer implemented method of claim 12, wherein the one or more operational characteristics of the material receiving machine comprise at least one of: a travel heading of the material receiving machine, or a travel speed of the material receiving machine.
Mill does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the interlock condition data includes at least one operational characteristic, other than location, of the material receiving machine.
However Eichhorn teaches in at least Paragraphs 0008 & 0027 wherein a system may be provided to align a grain cart auger and grain truck to prevent a collision between the two, including the determination of a heading and speed [i.e. a travel heading of the material receiving machine, or a travel speed of the material receiving machine] of a grain cart and grain truck [i.e. material receiving machine], which may be obtained via sensors disposed on the grain truck as taught in at least Paragraph 0027 [i.e. material receiving machine sensor data received from one or more sensors on the material receiving machine]. At least Paragraphs 0008, 0027, & 0071 of Eichhorn further teach wherein based on the relative headings, speeds, and locations of the grain truck and grain cart, a path may be determined to align the cart auger with the truck in order to prevent a collision between the two, and control of the auger may take place as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0141 & 0142 of Eichhorn [i.e. the one or more operational characteristics of the material receiving machine comprise a travel heading of the material receiving machine, or a travel speed of the material receiving machine].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Mill by incorporating the determination of alignment between a grain cart and grain truck based on heading and speed of the grain truck as taught by Eichhorn.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Eichhorn in at least Paragraph 0008, the grain cart and auger may be quickly and reliably aligned, preventing collision of the grain cart auger and the grain truck, improving operational safety of the auger/truck system.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mill (US 2021/0294337 A1) in view of Kean (US 2019/0302794 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Meier (US 2020/0352099 A1).
Regarding Claim 23:
The material transfer system of claim 19, wherein the one or more operational characteristics of the transfer operation comprises at least one of: a vibration characteristic of the material transfer subsystem, or a force characteristic of a conveying mechanism actuator that drives a conveying mechanism of the material transfer subsystem.
Mill does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the one or more operational characteristics of the transfer operation used to determine an end to the transfer operation comprises at least one of: a vibration characteristic of the material transfer subsystem, or a force characteristic of a conveying mechanism actuator that drives a conveying mechanism of the material transfer subsystem.
However Meier teaches in at least Paragraphs 0044 & 0046 wherein a measurement of vibrational characteristics may be used to determine the operational state of a machine, such as an unloading state, the measurement taking place through one or more sensors, such as accelerometers or load cells. At least Paragraphs 0059 & 0108 of Meier further teach wherein the auger enablement/disablement for transfer operations may be detected based on the detection of modes of vibration in the vehicle [i.e. the one or more operational characteristics of the transfer operation comprises a vibration characteristic of the material transfer subsystem].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Mill by incorporating the determination of a material transfer operation status based on vibrational states detected in the machine as taught by Meier.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Meier in at least Paragraphs 0044 & 0108, the motion of the auger may be reliably detected, and thus the transfer option taking place or not may be reliably detected, improving the determination of if a material transfer option is presently taking place or not.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Rush (US 12,089,529 B2): Rush recites an agricultural harvester configured to move a crop unloading tube from a stored position to a crop unloading position. This may be based in part on the location of a crop receiving vehicle relative to the harvester, specifically wherein the control takes place when the crop receiving vehicle is within a specified zone.
Linde (US 12,004,447 B2): Linde recites an agricultural harvester including a spreader assembly and chute, pivotable about a rotational axis between a deployed and retracted position. Various structural details of this chute and associated components are recited, including the components connecting the chute and agricultural vehicle.
Issac (US 2023/0126679 A1): Issac recites an agricultural harvester configured to move a harvester component between first and second positions. An imaging system is utilized to determine if obstructions are present in the area the component is expected to move through, with operation being prohibited if such obstruction exists.
McAree (US 2010/0036645 A1): McAree recites a system and method for reducing the probability of collision between first and second objects, including the shovel of a work machine and the environment. Dynamic movements of both objects in the environment may be predicted and used to determine said collision likelihood.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661 /MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661