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 4/8/26, 4/27/26, & 6/26/26 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 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts arguments with respect to both double patenting and prior art rejections under 35 USC 103 as set forth below.
With respect to rejection(s) under double patenting, the claims have been amended in a manner that, while obviating the previous rejection, aligns claim(s) 12 – 16 with claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-18, & 20 - 25 of co-pending Application No. US 2025/0133985 A1 in view of Mill (US 2021/0294337 A1). Thus, the arguments are found to be moot, and an updated grounds of rejection are presented below.
With respect to rejections under 35 USC 103, the Independent claims 1 & 19 have been amended in different manners, substantially incorporating limitations previously found in Dependent Claims, Claim 12 reciting new limitaitons. Each of the associated arguments appears to substantially summarize the amendments, directing to the support for each in the specification, and generally assert that the Claims are in allowable form. Thus, as no specific subject matter appears to be directed to or challenged in the argument(s), Examiner will briefly summarize the teachings relied upon to reject each in the below section.
Regarding Claim 1, Examiner respectfully asserts that Eichhorn (US 2022/0011444 A1) appears to anticipate the amended limitations. Eichhorn teaches in at least Paragraphs 0008, 0027, & 0071 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. Thus, Examiner respectfully asserts that it would have been obvious, when reading Mill in view of Eichhorn, to determine whether the material receiving machine is or will be in the swing zone based on the geographic location, the receiving machine speed, and the receiving machine route 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 as recited by the present claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12 - 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to Independent Claim 19 and the associated Dependent Claims, Examiner respectfully asserts that Meier (US 2020/0352099 A1) 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, wherein the auger enablement/disablement for transfer operations may be detected based on the detection of modes of vibration in the vehicle, causing the transfer operation to be stopped if the auger is stopped. Thus, Examiner respectfully asserts that it would have been obvious, when reading Mill in view of Meier, to determine an end to a material transfer operation based on detected vibrational characteristics as recited by the present claimed invention.
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.
Claims 12 - 16 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 12 of each as an example, along with Dependent Claim 13 of the present claimed invention to provide additional context):
Pending Application (Claims 12 & 13, 7/1/2026 Amendments)
Co-Pending Application (Claim 12, 3/12/2026 Amendments)
Mapping
A computer implemented method of controlling a chute of a material transfer machine that transfers material to a material receiving machine at a worksite, the computer implemented method comprising: receiving a request to perform a chute movement operation to move the chute from a deployed position to a storage position;
A computer implemented method of controlling a material transfer machine at a worksite, the computer implemented method comprising: receiving a request representing a requested movement of a chute from a storage position to a deployed position;
The pending and co-pending limitations are functionally identical to one another.
identifying a temporal characteristic of the requested movement of the chute from the storage position to the deployed position; obtaining interlock condition data indicative of presence of an interlock condition at the worksite;
While the pending application does not recite such limitations, the co-pending limitations appear to only generally recite that data is obtained, which is used regardless in the following step(s). Thus, the additional limitations of the co-pending application do not appear to distinguish the pending and co-pending applications from one another.
determining a swing zone based on the request and travel of the material transfer machine over the worksite, the swing zone defining an area in which the chute will travel when moved from the deployed position to the storage position;
Claim 13: The computer implemented method of claim 12, wherein travel of the material receiving machine comprises a receiving machine route and a receiving machine speed, and the travel of the material transfer machine comprises a transfer machine route and a transfer machine speed
determining a geographic location of a swing zone based on the request and one or more detected operating characteristics of the material transfer machine, the geographic location of the swing zone defining an area in which the chute will travel when moved from the storage position to the deployed position, wherein the one or more detected operating 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; and (v) an orientation of the material transfer machine;
The pending and co-pending limitations differ 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.
The pending and co-pending limitations further differ in that the pending application uses “travel of the material transfer machine” while the co-pending application recites specific operating characteristics. Examiner however notes that Dependent Claim 13 of the pending application narrows the “travel” to transfer machine route and speed, which are recited as operational characteristics in the co-pending application. Thus, while using different specific language, the limitations are patentably indistinguishable from one another.
determining whether an interlock condition is present based on travel of the material receiving machine over the worksite, a temporal characteristic of the chute movement, and the swing zone;
determining whether the interlock condition is present based on the interlock condition data, the swing zone, and the temporal characteristic of the requested movement;
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), as well as the pending application reciting “travel” compared to “interlock condition data” which parallel each other as set forth above. 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.
and controlling the material transfer machine based on the determination whether the interlock condition is present.
and controlling an actuator of the material transfer machine based on the determination.
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 pending application has been amended to recite the “travel” of the vehicle, which is narrowed in meaning in Dependent Claim 13, compared to the specific characteristics recited in the co-pending claim. However, as set forth above, the meaning of travel as set forth in Dependent Claim 13 parallels the “operational characteristics” recited by the co-pending application, thus rendering the claims patently indistinguishable from one another. And, as set forth above, the additional limitation of identifying temporal characteristics and obtaining interlock condition data as recited in the co-pending application appear to merely generically recite acquiring data used in the pending application as well, and do not serve to patentably distinguish the two. 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, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, & 22 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) and Eichhorn (US 2022/0011444 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 propulsion system that propels the material transfer machine at a transfer machine speed along a transfer machine route; (Mill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0045 & 0119 a prime mover or engine [i.e. a propulsion system] for driving a cart vehicle with attached auger at a safe speed, which may be along a route as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0020 & 0134 of Mill [i.e. a propulsion system that propels the material transfer machine at a transfer machine speed along a transfer machine route])
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 a material receiving machine, 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 a material receiving machine])
a chute moveable, relative to the material receptacle of the material transfer machine, 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 [i.e. movable relative to the material receptacle of the material transfer machine], 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; wherein the swing zone defines an area in which the chute will travel when moved, relative to the material receptacle of the material transfer machine, from the deployed position to the storage position by the actuator; (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. As set forth above, Mill further discloses in at least Paragraph 0037 wherein the auger assembly may be movable between an operating position [i.e. a deployed position] for use during the unloading of material [i.e. movable relative to the material receptacle of the material transfer machine], and a storage position, used when material is not being unloaded)
PNG
media_image1.png
592
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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:
obtain at least one of a receiving machine speed or a receiving machine route;
determine a swing zone based on the input and at least one of the transfer machine speed or the transfer machine route
determine whether an interlock condition is present based on the swing zone and at least one of the receiving machine speed or the receiving machine route; and
However Eichhorn teaches wherein location, heading, and speed data from both a grain cart and grain truck may be used to predict locations of each, and avoid a collision between the grain cart auger and grain truck during transfer operations.
obtain at least one of a receiving machine speed or a receiving machine route; (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. obtain at least one of a receiving machine speed or a receiving machine route] of each 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])
determine whether an interlock condition is present based on the swing zone and at least one of the receiving machine speed or the receiving machine route; and (However Eichhorn teaches in at least Paragraphs 0008, 0027, & 0071 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. determine whether an interlock condition is present based on the swing zone and at least one of the receiving machine speed or the receiving machine route])
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 a collision will occur between a grain cart auger and grain truck based on the respective locations, speeds, and headings of each as taught by Eichhorn.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Eichhorn in at least Paragraphs 0008, 0027, & 0071, the alignment between grain cart and truck may take place in a more efficient manner while preventing collision between the two, improving the collision avoidance system of the vehicle(s).
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 input and at least one of the transfer machine speed or the transfer machine route; (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 at least one of the transfer machine speed or the transfer machine route])
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 5:
The material transfer machine of claim 1, wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: obtain location sensor data, generated by a location sensor of the material receiving machine, indicative of a geographic location of the material receiving machine; and determine whether the interlock condition is present based on the 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. determine whether the interlock condition is present based on the geographic location of the material receiving machine].
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 geographic location, the receiving machine speed, and the receiving machine route 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 Eichhorn teaches in at least Paragraphs 0008, 0027, & 0071 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. determine whether the material receiving machine is or will be in the swing zone based on the geographic location, the receiving machine speed, and the receiving machine route 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])
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 a collision will occur between a grain cart auger and grain truck based on the respective locations, speeds, and headings of each as taught by Eichhorn.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Eichhorn in at least Paragraphs 0008, 0027, & 0071, the alignment between grain cart and truck may take place in a more efficient manner while preventing collision between the two, improving the collision avoidance system of the vehicle(s).
Regarding Claim 8:
The material transfer machine of claim 1, 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 a 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 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 a determination that the interlock condition is not present.
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.
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 material receiving machine 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 material receiving machine 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 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.
Claim(s) 12, 14, & 16 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) and Hayashi (WO 2018/124098 A1).
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 perform a chute movement operation 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)
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 travel of the material transfer machine over the worksite, 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 travel of the material receiving machine over the worksite…, and the swing zone; and
Wherein the interlock condition is further based on a temporal characteristic of the chute movement
determining a swing zone based on the request and travel of the material transfer machine over the worksite, 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 travel of the material receiving machine over the worksite…, and the swing zone; and
Wherein the interlock condition is further based on a temporal characteristic of the chute movement
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 travel of the material transfer machine over the worksite, 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 travel of the material receiving machine over the worksite…, 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.
However Hayashi teaches wherein a collision may be predicted between the swinging boom of a vehicle and surrounding obstacles based on a movement time of the rotatable boom.
Wherein the interlock condition is further based on a temporal characteristic of the chute movement (However Hayashi teaches in at least Paragraphs 0014 & 0019 wherein a vehicle may include a boom configured to rotatably move, relative to the vehicle it is mounted on, with at least Paragraphs 0105, 0109, & 0116 of Hayashi teaching wherein a collision between the boom and surrounding obstacles being predicted based on a movement time of the boom from one position to another [i.e. a temporal characteristic of the chute movement], in the given example taking 30 seconds, with a collision occurring partway through, for example at 26 seconds [i.e. wherein the interlock condition is further based on a temporal characteristic of the chute movement])
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 boom movement time to predict future collisions as taught by Hayashi.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hayashi in at least Paragraphs 0116 & 0139, collisions between the moving boom and obstacles may be more reliably predicted, improving the collision prevention system for the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 14:
The computer implemented method of claim 12 and further comprising 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 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 temporal characteristic of the chute movement operation comprises at least one of: a time that the chute movement operation is to occur, or a length of time for completion of the chute movement operation, and generating sensor data indicative of a 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 and the temporal characteristic of the chute movement operation.
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. 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]. Mill however appears to be silent regarding a temporal characteristic of the chute movement.
However Hayashi teaches in at least Paragraphs 0014 & 0019 wherein a vehicle may include a boom configured to rotatably move, relative to the vehicle it is mounted on, with at least Paragraphs 0105, 0109, & 0116 of Hayashi teaching wherein a collision between the boom and surrounding obstacles being predicted based on a movement time of the boom from one position to another [i.e. the temporal characteristic of the chute movement operation comprises a length of time for completion of the chute movement operation], in the given example taking 30 seconds, with a collision occurring partway through, for example at 26 seconds [i.e. 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 and the temporal characteristic of the chute movement operation].
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 boom movement time to predict future collisions as taught by Hayashi.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hayashi in at least Paragraphs 0116 & 0139, collisions between the moving boom and obstacles may be more reliably predicted, improving the collision prevention system for the vehicle.
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) and Hayashi (WO 2018/124098 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, travel of the material receiving machine, and the one or more operational characteristics of the material receiving machine comprises a receiving machine route and a receiving machine speed, and the travel of the material transfer machine comprises a transfer machine route and a transfer machine speed.
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 one or more operational characteristics of the material receiving machine comprises a receiving machine route and a receiving machine speed, and the travel of the material transfer machine comprises a transfer machine route and a transfer machine speed].
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 travel 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) 19, 20, 23, & 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mill (US 2021/0294337 A1) in view of Meier (US 2020/0352099 A1) and Kean (US 2019/0302794 A1).
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… (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:
receive one or more operational characteristics of the transfer operation, the one or more operational characteristics comprising 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;
automatically generate a request to move the chute from the deployed position to the storage position… in response to the at least one of the vibration characteristic or the force characteristic;
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 Meier teaches wherein vibrational characteristics sensed may be used to detect the end of a material transfer operation and cause a disabling of said transfer operation.
receive one or more operational characteristics of the transfer operation, the one or more operational characteristics comprising 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 [i.e. receive one or more operational characteristics of the transfer operation, the one or more operational characteristics comprising at least one of: a vibration characteristic of the material transfer subsystem])
automatically generate a request to move the chute from the deployed position to the storage position… in response to the at least one of the vibration characteristic or the force characteristic; (However Meyer teaches in at least Paragraphs 0059 & 0108 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, and the request to move the chute is automatically generated in response to the vibration characteristic])
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.
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 23:
The material transfer system of claim 19, wherein the one or more operational characteristics of the transfer operation comprises at least one of: the vibration characteristic of the material transfer subsystem, or the force characteristic of a conveying mechanism actuator that drives a conveying mechanism of the material transfer subsystem, and the request to move the chute is automatically generated in response to the at least one of the vibration characteristic or the force characteristic.
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, and the request to move the chute is automatically generated in response to the at least one of the vibration characteristic or the force characteristic].
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.
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, and the request to move the chute is automatically generated in response to the at least one of the material flow characteristic or the 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, upon the determination of which the discharge process may end and the folding operation may take place [i.e. wherein the one or more operational characteristics of the transfer operation comprises a material weight characteristic and the request to move the chute is automatically generated in response to the at least one of the material flow characteristic or the material weight characteristic].
Claim(s) 26 & 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mill (US 2021/0294337 A1) in view of Meier (US 2020/0352099 A1) and Kean (US 2019/0302794 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Hayashi (WO 2018/124098 A1).
Regarding Claim 26:
The material transfer system of claim 19, wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: determine whether the interlock condition is present based on a temporal characteristic of chute movement between the deployed position and the storage position.
Mill does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the interlock condition is determined based on a temporal characteristic of chute movement between the deployed position and the storage position.
However Hayashi teaches in at least Paragraphs 0014 & 0019 wherein a vehicle may include a boom configured to rotatably move, relative to the vehicle it is mounted on, with at least Paragraphs 0105, 0109, & 0116 of Hayashi teaching wherein a collision between the boom and surrounding obstacles being predicted based on a movement time of the boom from one position to another [i.e. the temporal characteristic of the chute movement operation comprises a length of time for completion of the chute movement operation], in the given example taking 30 seconds, with a collision occurring partway through, for example at 26 seconds [i.e. 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 and the temporal characteristic of the chute movement operation].
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 boom movement time to predict future collisions as taught by Hayashi.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hayashi in at least Paragraphs 0116 & 0139, collisions between the moving boom and obstacles may be more reliably predicted, improving the collision prevention system for the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 27:
The material transfer system of claim 26, wherein the temporal characteristic of the chute movement comprises at least one of: a time that the chute movement is to occur, or a length of time for completion of the chute movement from the deployed position to the storage position.
Mill does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the temporal characteristic of the chute movement comprises at least one of: a time that the chute movement is to occur, or a length of time for completion of the chute movement from the deployed position to the storage position.
However Hayashi teaches in at least Paragraphs 0014 & 0019 wherein a vehicle may include a boom configured to rotatably move, relative to the vehicle it is mounted on, with at least Paragraphs 0105, 0109, & 0116 of Hayashi teaching wherein a collision between the boom and surrounding obstacles being predicted based on a movement time of the boom from one position to another [i.e. the temporal characteristic of the chute movement operation comprises a length of time for completion of the chute movement operation], in the given example taking 30 seconds, with a collision occurring partway through, for example at 26 seconds [i.e. 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 and the temporal characteristic of the chute movement operation].
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 boom movement time to predict future collisions as taught by Hayashi.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hayashi in at least Paragraphs 0116 & 0139, collisions between the moving boom and obstacles may be more reliably predicted, improving the collision prevention system for the vehicle.
Claim(s) 28 & 29 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) and Eichhorn (US 2022/0011444 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayashi (WO 2018/124098 A1).
Regarding Claim 28:
The material transfer machine of claim 1, wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: determine whether the interlock condition is present based on a temporal characteristic of chute movement between the deployed position and the storage position.
Mill does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the interlock condition is determined based on a temporal characteristic of chute movement between the deployed position and the storage position.
However Hayashi teaches in at least Paragraphs 0014 & 0019 wherein a vehicle may include a boom configured to rotatably move, relative to the vehicle it is mounted on, with at least Paragraphs 0105, 0109, & 0116 of Hayashi teaching wherein a collision between the boom and surrounding obstacles being predicted based on a movement time of the boom from one position to another [i.e. the temporal characteristic of the chute movement operation comprises a length of time for completion of the chute movement operation], in the given example taking 30 seconds, with a collision occurring partway through, for example at 26 seconds [i.e. 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 and the temporal characteristic of the chute movement operation].
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 boom movement time to predict future collisions as taught by Hayashi.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hayashi in at least Paragraphs 0116 & 0139, collisions between the moving boom and obstacles may be more reliably predicted, improving the collision prevention system for the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 29:
The material transfer machine of claim 28, wherein the temporal characteristic of the chute movement comprises at least one of: a time that the chute movement is to occur, or a length of time for completion of the chute movement from the deployed position to the storage position.
Mill does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the temporal characteristic of the chute movement comprises at least one of: a time that the chute movement is to occur, or a length of time for completion of the chute movement from the deployed position to the storage position.
However Hayashi teaches in at least Paragraphs 0014 & 0019 wherein a vehicle may include a boom configured to rotatably move, relative to the vehicle it is mounted on, with at least Paragraphs 0105, 0109, & 0116 of Hayashi teaching wherein a collision between the boom and surrounding obstacles being predicted based on a movement time of the boom from one position to another [i.e. the temporal characteristic of the chute movement operation comprises a length of time for completion of the chute movement operation], in the given example taking 30 seconds, with a collision occurring partway through, for example at 26 seconds [i.e. 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 and the temporal characteristic of the chute movement operation].
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 boom movement time to predict future collisions as taught by Hayashi.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hayashi in at least Paragraphs 0116 & 0139, collisions between the moving boom and obstacles may be more reliably predicted, improving the collision prevention system for the vehicle.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights