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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This Final action is in reply to the application 18/494,929 amendment filed on 04/08/2026.
Claims 3, and 12 are amended
Claims 3 and 12 are objected
Claim 21 is new
Claims 1 - 21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to arguments
Response to 102 and 103
The applicants arguments for independent claims 1 and 11 are not persuasive. The applicant argues that PAXINOS does not disclose the elements in claim 1 . specifically applicant argues that PAXINOS does not anticipate “ a plugging sensor positioned within an interior of the basket assembly such that the lugging sensor is configured to transmit detection signals at different frequencies across a field of detection along the interior of the basket assembly and along the rotational axis, the plugging sensor being configured to generate data indicative of return signals received based on reflection of the detection signals at the different frequencies off at least one surface”. The examiner states that PAXINOS does disclose a plugging sensor positioned within an interior of the basket assembly… It appears the applicant is arguing the limitations and boundaries of the boundary of the basket assembly. Based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the basket assembly as interpreted by the examiner include the tool bar mounting location, sensors which are affixed to the tool to be a part of the basket assembly. The examiner states that the basket assembly to include the elements of the toolbar , the sensors, and also includes the baskets and blades of the baskets. Further, the examiner further states that figure 4A the basket assembly encompasses all of the elements of the components of the basket elements. The examiner states that the interior sensor – 102 is within the basket assembly, as the basket assembly encompasses off of the elements of the outer most boundary of the elements of the basket as shown in fig. 4A
[AltContent: textbox (Outer perimeter of basket assembly)]
[AltContent: textbox (Inside the basket assembly)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
516
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The applicant states with respect to claim 3 and 12, the amended claim stating “ …a plurality of support plates spaced out along the rotational axis, each of the plurality of support plates defining an opening extending therethrough at the rotational axis; and a plurality of blades supported by the plurality of support plates such that blades of the plurality of blades are spaced apart from each other about the rotational axis and along a perimeter of the plurality of support plates, wherein the plugging sensor is positioned radially within the plurality of blades relative to the rotational axis, the plugging sensor directing the field of detection through a plurality of the openings defined in the plurality of support plates.” The applicants amendments amended the claims such that the location of the sensors was more structurally more clearly defined.
With respect to claim 4 and 13, the examiner states that based on broadest reasonable interpretation, a sampling frequency would disclose the different frequencies as claimed. The examiner suggest the applicant to further clarify the structure of the different frequencies with respect to the baseline return signal by providing more details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 13, 15 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)(a2) as being unpatentable by US PG Pub 20210105942 – Paxinos et al. hereinafter as PAXINOS
Regarding Claim 1 and 11
PAXINOS discloses:
An agricultural system for monitoring plugging of basket assemblies of an agricultural implement, the agricultural system comprising: a basket assembly (para. 0024 - basket assembly ) configured to be supported by a frame( para. 0033 – toolbar) of an agricultural implement for rotation relative to the frame about a rotational axis(para. 0037 - rotation), the basket assembly extending across a lateral width defined between a first lateral end and a second lateral end spaced apart along the rotational axis; ( para. 0036 – lateral width along axis)
a plugging sensor positioned within an interior of the basket assembly such that the plugging sensor is configured to transmit detection signals at different frequencies across a field of detection along the interior of the basket assembly and along the rotational axis, ( wherein each plugging sensor 102 is part of the respective basket assembly, including sensor) the plugging sensor being configured to generate data indicative of return signals received based on reflection of the detection signals at the different frequencies off at least one surface;( para. 0037 – reflection signals) and a computing system configured to: receive the data generated by the plugging sensor; and
determine when the basket assembly is experiencing a plugged condition based at least in part on the data generated by the plugging sensor. (para. 0037 – wherein the basket assembly experiences a plugged condition and notify operator)
Regarding Claim 2
PAXINOS discloses claim 1:
The agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the plugging sensor is positioned at one of the first and second lateral ends and directs the field of detection towards another of the first and second lateral ends. ( para. 0036 - where in the sensor is positioned along the width of the toolbar and extends along that plane)
Regarding Claim 4 and 13
PAXINOS discloses claim 1 and 11:
The agricultural system of claim 1, wherein each of the different frequencies is associated with a respective baseline return signal profile when the basket assembly is not experiencing the plugged condition( para. 0059 – where in the sensors detecting the signals may require different sampling of frequency), and wherein the computing system is configured to determine when the basket assembly is experiencing the plugged condition based on a difference between each of the return signals associated with the different frequencies from the data generated by the plugging sensor and the respective baseline return signal profile. ( para. 0059 and 0060 – where in based on soil conditions, it detects parameters detected during the operation for performance. wherein the sensor can detect through the opening of support plates based upon the field of view detection of the sensor., para. 0063 – wherein the plugging sensors detect a period and determined a plugging condition of value set to zero if signal instance reaches or exceeds a certain value)
Regarding Claim 6 and 15
PAXINOS discloses claim 4 and 13:
The agricultural system of claim 4, wherein each of the different frequencies is also associated with a different distance along the lateral width of the basket assembly when the basket assembly is not experiencing the plugged condition. ( para. 0059 - Where in different rate of sampling frequency for determining a plugged condition)
Regarding Claim 7 and 16
PAXINOS discloses claim 1 and 11:
The agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is further configured to perform a control action in response to determining that the basket assembly is experiencing the plugged condition. ( para. 0061 – experience of a plugged condition based on sensor data)
Regarding claim 17:
PAXINOS discloses claim 11:
The agricultural method of claim 11, wherein performing the control action comprises controlling an operation of a user interface associated with the agricultural implement to indicate the plugging condition of the basket assembly when it is identified that the basket assembly is experiencing the plugged condition. ( para. 0061 – experience of a plugged condition based on sensor data, para. 0070 – user interface with plugged condition)
Regarding Claim 8 and 18
PAXINOS discloses claim 1:
The agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is further configured to control the plugging sensor to transmit the detection signals at the different frequencies. ( para. 0065 – where in sampled detection signals relative to basket center)
Regarding Claim 9 and 19
PAXINOS discloses claim 1:
The agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the plugging sensor is at least one of a multi-frequency ground penetrating radar sensor, a multi-frequency radar sensor, or a LIDAR device. (para. 0038 - radar based distance sensor)
Regarding Claim 10 and 20
PAXINOS discloses claim 1:
The agricultural system of claim 1, further comprising a soil moisture sensor configured to generate moisture data indicative of soil moisture within a field during an agricultural operation with the agricultural implement, wherein the computing system is further configured to receive the moisture data, and wherein the computing system is configured to determine when the basket assembly is experiencing the plugged condition based at least in part on the data generated by the plugging sensor and the moisture data. ( para. 0059 – moisture data and moisture level of soil and plugging )
Regarding Claim 21
PAXINOS discloses claim 1:
The agricultural system of claim 1, further comprising one or more support arms, the basket assembly being supported relative to the frame by the one or more support arms, the basket assembly being rotatable about the rotational axis relative to the one or more support arms. ( Fig. 3 and para. 0033 - 62 – basket support arms)
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) 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US PG Pub 20210105942 – Paxinos et al. hereinafter as PAXINOS in view of US PG Pub 20210022284 – Glovier et al. hereinafter as GLOVIER
Regarding Claim 5 and 14
PAXINOS discloses claim 4 and 13:
PAXINOS discloses of detecting multiple frequencies, GLOVIER discloses
The agricultural system of claim 4, wherein the difference includes at least one of attenuation (para. 0019 – attenuation of the signals) or phase shift.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for PAXINOS detection of multiple frequencies to utilize the difference includes at least one of attenuation as disclosed by GLOVIER. This would allow PAXINOS to better handle the increase or decrease of the implement in order to reduce material accumulation (GLOVIER - para. 0051)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The examiner states that prior art PAXINOS / GLOVIER discloses of sensing the plugging of basket assembly with sensors. However PAXINOS does not disclose the details of “wherein the basket assembly comprises: a plurality of support plates spaced out along the rotational axis, each of the plurality of support plates defining an opening extending therethrough at the rotational axis; and a plurality of blades supported by the plurality of support plates such that blades of the plurality of blades are spaced apart from each other about the rotational axis and along a perimeter of the plurality of support plates, wherein the plugging sensor is positioned radially within the plurality of blades relative to the rotational axis, the plugging sensor directing the field of detection through a plurality of the openings defined in the plurality of support plates.” Such modification would require too significant of a modification and would constitute an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
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 ALFRED H TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-9511. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 5712720547. 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.
/A.H.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights