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 Non-Final action is in reply to the application 18506622 filed on 11/10/2023.
Claims 1 - 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1)(A2) as being UNPATENTABLE by CA2601210 – Huvenaars et al. hereinafter as HUVENAARS
Regarding Claim 1
HUVENAARS discloses:
A grader assembly comprising:
a front end opposite a rear end defining a first direction there between(Fig. 1 – a front end is the end with the hitch support, rear end is opposite of this side), and a first side opposite a second side defining a second direction therebetween( fig. 1 – wherein a first side opposite a second side, wherein the first side is element 2 on the left, the opposite is on the other side on the right element 2 of the figure 1), and a top opposite a bottom defining a third direction therebetween, wherein the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction are orthogonal to each other; ( See figure 1 for orientations)
a frame including a first side member(side 1), a second side member(side 2), a rear member(rear 4), and a front member(front 4), wherein the first side member and the second side member extend in the first direction between the front end to the rear end, (See figure 1) wherein the rear member and the front member extend in the second direction between the first side member and the second side member;(See figure 1)
a moveable blade coupled to the frame, ( blade 12 )wherein the moveable blade is positioned between the first side member and the second side member( figure 1 – where in blade 12 is between side 1 and side 2) and is positioned between the rear member and the front member, and the moveable blade having a first side and a second side, wherein at least one of the first side and the second side the moveable blade is moveable relative to the first direction or the third direction; and ( where in blade 12 is movable between a first direction)
at least one drive mount coupled to one of the rear member and the front member, wherein the at least one drive mount is configured to couple with a machine to move the grader assembly forward in the first direction. (fig. 1 – drive mount 1 - is a three point hitch)
[AltContent: textbox (Side 2)][AltContent: textbox (front)][AltContent: textbox (rear)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (bottom)][AltContent: textbox (Side 1)][AltContent: textbox (top)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
746
1000
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2
HUVENAARS discloses claim 1:
2. The grader assembly of Claim 1, further comprising: a first blade mount coupled to the first side member, wherein the first side of the moveable blade is coupled to the first blade mount( fig. 1 – side mount bracket blade 10); and a second blade mount coupled to the second side member, wherein the second side of the moveable blade is coupled to the second blade mount. ( fig. 1 – side mount bracket blade 10)
Regarding Claim 3
HUVENAARS discloses claim 2:
3. The grader assembly of Claim 2, wherein the second blade mount is disposed rearward from the first blade mount relative to the first direction. (figure 1 - the second mount is rearward compared to first blade mount)
Regarding Claim 4
HUVENAARS discloses claim 2:
4. The grader assembly of Claim 2, further comprising: a length of the moveable blade that extends from the first side of the moveable blade to the second side of the moveable blade, wherein the length of the moveable blade lies along a blade axis( see figure and blade axis between the two mounting brackets); a lower edge of the moveable blade; a lower horizontal plane of the grader assembly; a crowning angle defined between the lower edge of the moveable blade and the horizontal plane, wherein the crowning angle is adjustable depending on an orientation of the lower edge relative to the horizontal plane,( figure 4. Where in the height of the blade can have a change in angle based on the mounting of the bolts connected to the blade mounts. where in the slots in the mount 10 allow for height adjustability to change angle.) wherein the angle is adjustable in response to actuation of moveable blade from at least one component coupled to one of the first blade mount and the second blade mount. ( see figure 4 and height adjustable mounting brackets in relation to the bolts for blade mount 10)
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, 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1)(A2) as being UNPATENTABLE by CA2601210 – Huvenaars et al. hereinafter as HUVENAARS in view of 20170292244 – Atherton et al. hereinafter as ATHERTON
Regarding Claim 5
HUVENAARS discloses claim 4:
HUVENAARS discloses of adjustability of the blades manually utilizing bolts and slidable flange mounts as disclosed(figure 4 – mount 10 with slidable )
ATHERTON discloses of a box scraper with the ability to adjust blade based on Hydraulics, ATHERTON discloses adjustment of a blade:
The grader assembly of Claim 4, further comprising: a manual jack coupled with the first blade mount and the first side of the moveable blade, wherein actuation of the manual jack raises and lowers the lower edge of the moveable blade. (para. 0037 – wherein the adjustment of the height of a blade can be done through a manual , automatic or semi automatic actuator)
HUVERNAARS / ATHERTON are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor and usable together. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified HUVERNAARS to incorporate the teachings of ATHERTON to disclose a manual jack coupled with the blade mount and the first side of the movable blade that raises and lowers the lower edge of the movable blade. One would have made this combination in order to allow the adjustability of the height to improve setup and operational efficiencies.
Regarding Claim 6HUVENAARS discloses claim 4:
HUVENAARS discloses of adjustability of the blades manually utilizing bolts and slidable flange mounts as disclosed(figure 4 – mount 10 with slidable )
ATHERTON discloses of a box scraper with the ability to adjust blade based on Hydraulics, ATHERTON discloses adjustment of a blade:
6. The grader assembly of Claim 4, further comprising: a hydraulic actuator coupled with the second blade mount and the second side of the moveable blade, wherein actuation of the hydraulic actuator raises and lowers the lower edge of the moveable blade. (para. 0037 – wherein the adjustment of the height of a blade can be done through a manual , automatic or semi automatic actuator)
HUVERNAARS / ATHERTON are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor and usable together. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified HUVERNAARS to incorporate the teachings of ATHERTON to disclose a hydraulic actuator coupled with the second blade mount and the second side of the moveable blade, wherein actuation of the hydraulic actuator raises and lowers the lower edge of the moveable blade. One would have made this combination in order to allow the adjustability of the height to improve setup and operational efficiencies.
Regarding Claim 12
HUVENAARS discloses claim 1:
HUVENAARS discloses of adjustability of the blades manually utilizing bolts and slidable flange mounts as disclosed(figure 4 – mount 10 with slidable )
ATHERTON discloses of a box scraper with the ability to adjust blade based on Hydraulics, ATHERTON discloses adjustment of a blade:
12. The grader assembly of Claim 1, further comprising: an actuator, wherein the moveable blade is moveable in the first direction or the third direction in response to movement of the actuator. (para. 0037 – wherein the adjustment of the height of a blade can be done through a manual , automatic or semi automatic actuator)
HUVERNAARS / ATHERTON are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor and usable together. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified HUVERNAARS to incorporate the teachings of ATHERTON to disclose an actuator, wherein the moveable blade is moveable in the first direction or the third direction in response to movement of the actuator. One would have made this combination in order to allow the adjustability of the height to improve setup and operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1)(A2) as being UNPATENTABLE by CA2601210 - Hunvenaars et al. hereinafter as HUVENAARS
Regarding Claim 7
HUVENAARS discloses claim 4:
The grader assembly of Claim 4, further comprising: a support flange that is part of the first blade mount, wherein the support flange defines a slot that permits a range of travel in the third direction, wherein bounded ends of the slot bound a maximum position and a minimal position of the lower edge at the first side of the moveable blade that define the range of travel for the lower edge at the first side of the moveable blade in the third direction ( wherein the support mount is a part of the first blade mount that has a range of a minimum and maximum position as shown in figure 4),; and a slide bracket coupled to the at least one component and the support flange, wherein the slide bracket slides in the third direction along or within the slot in response to movement of the at least one component in the third direction, wherein the slide bracket is directly or indirectly coupled with the first side of the moveable blade, and the lower edge of the moveable blade moves in the third direction in response the slide bracket being slid along or within the slot. ( fig. 4 blade mounting bracket – unit that contains the mount to the blade and to the adjustable pins, the flange the comes up from the mount of the blade, to the slide bracket that has the pins for adjustability)
wherein the range of travel for the lower edge extends from two inches below the bottom of the frame to one inch above the bottom of the frame( page 10 – a plurality of bolt and not arrangement of components against flanges and rear blade mounts) The height of the range of travel is seen as a results effective variable.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention to utilize the range of dimension as it has been held that routine optimization of a results effective variable is obvious in this case to achieve the right angles for the specific blade to control the depth of the blade for wear and efficiency.
Regarding Claim 8
HUVENAARS discloses claim 4:
8. The grader assembly of Claim 4, further comprising: a support flange that is part of the second blade mount, wherein the support flange defines a slot that permits a range of travel in the third direction, wherein bounded ends of the slot bound a maximum position and a minimal position of the lower edge at the second side of the moveable blade that define the range of travel of the lower edge at the second side of the moveable blade in the third direction( wherein the support mount is a part of the first blade mount that has a range of a minimum and maximum position as shown in figure 4),; and a slide bracket coupled to the at least one component and the support flange, wherein the slide bracket slides in the third direction along or within the slot in response to movement of the at least one component in the third direction, wherein the slide bracket is directly or indirectly coupled with the second side of the moveable blade, and the lower edge of the moveable blade moves in the third direction in response the slide bracket being slid along or within the slot. ( fig. 4 blade mounting bracket – unit that contains the mount to the blade and to the adjustable pins, the flange the comes up from the mount of the blade, to the slide bracket that has the pins for adjustability)
wherein the range of travel of the second side extends from four inches below the bottom of the frame to one and a half inches above the bottom of the frame ( page 10 – a plurality of bolt and not arrangement of components against flanges and rear blade mounts) The height of the range of travel is seen as a results effective variable.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention to utilize the range of dimension as it has been held that routine optimization of a results effective variable is obvious in this case to achieve the right angles for the specific blade to control the depth of the blade for wear and efficiency.
Regarding Claim 9
HUVENAARS discloses claim 1:
9. The grader assembly of Claim 1, further comprising: a length of the moveable blade that extends from the first side of the moveable blade to the second side of the moveable blade, wherein the length of the moveable blade lies along a blade axis; ( see figure and blade axis between the two mounting brackets)
a transverse axis of the grader assembly extending parallel to the second direction; (fig 4 – where in the transverse axis is the axis horizontally)
an angle defined between the moveable blade axis and the transverse axis, wherein the angle is adjustable relative to the first direction depending on an orientation of the moveable blade relative to one of the first blade mount and the second blade mount, ( figure 4. Where in the height of the blade can have a change in angle based on the mounting of the bolts connected to the blade mounts. where in the slots in the mount 10 allow for height adjustability to change angle.)
wherein the angle is adjustable between about 15 degrees and 25 degrees. ( page 10 – a plurality of bolt and not arrangement of components against flanges and rear blade mounts ) The angle of the height based upon the adjustment of the slide bracket is seen as a results effective variable.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention to utilize the range of the angle as it has been held that routine optimization of a results effective variable is obvious in this case to achieve the right angles for the specific blade to control the depth of the blade for wear and efficiency.
Regarding Claim 10
HUVENAARS discloses claim 9:
10. The grader assembly of Claim 9, wherein one of the first blade mount and the second blade mount is a slide mount adapted to slide the moveable blade in the first direction to adjust the angle between the blade axis and the transverse axis. ( fig. 4 blade mounting bracket with slidable feature for blade 1 and blade 2)
Claim(s) 11, 14 – 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1)(A2) as being UNPATENTABLE by CA2601210 – Huvenaars et al. hereinafter as HUVENAARS in view of 20190040606 – Armstrong et al. hereinafter as ARMSTRONG
Regarding Claim 11
HUVENAARS discloses claim 1:
HUVENAARS discloses a drive mount a forward drive mount coupled to the front member to all the grader assembly to be pulled forward from the front end. (Fig. 2 – number 1 hitch mount which is a forward mount being pulled forward from the front end.
ARMSTRONG discloses of a box mount of which discloses:
11. The grader assembly of Claim 1, wherein the at least one drive mount has two drive mounts including:
a rear drive mount coupled to the rear member to allow the grader assembly to be pushed forward from the rear end; ( where in para. 0010 – this can be adapted from front end or rear end auxiliary implement )
HUVERNAARS / ARMSTRONG are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor and usable together. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified HUVERNAARS to incorporate the teachings of ARMSTRONG to disclose a dual mounting options for front and rear mounted implementations. One would have made this combination in order to allow the flexibility to utilize multiple vehicles for implementation.
Regarding Claim 14
HUVERNAARS discloses:
14. A method of operation for a grader assembly comprising:
selectively coupling a machine to one of a rear drive mount and a front drive mount on a grader assembly( fig. 1 – where in the three point hitch is a rear drive mount defined as being pulled in the rear.), wherein third direction(fig.4 see the adjustability of the blade mount 10 – wherein blade in the third direction where in the blade moves up or at an angle), wherein the moveable blade is coupled to the frame and positioned between the first side member and the second side member and positioned between the rear member and the front member; ( fig. 1 and fig. 4 - where in blade 12 is movable between a first direction and a second direction)
setting a lower edge of the moveable blade at a crowning angle, wherein the crowning angle is defined between a horizontal plane and the lower edge; ( figure 4. Where in the height of the blade can have a change in angle based on the mounting of the bolts connected to the blade mounts. where in the slots in the mount 10 allow for height adjustability to change angle.)
grading a road with the moveable blade set at the crowning angle. ( See figure 4, where in the blade can be adjusted to be at an angle with movable blade at the blade mount slidable adjustability.)
HUVENAARS discloses a front drive mount coupled to the front member to all the grader assembly to be pulled forward from the front end. (Fig. 2 – number 1 hitch mount which is a forward mount being pulled forward from the front end. ARMSTRONG discloses:
wherein the rear drive mount and the front drive mount(para. 0010 – this can be adapted from front end or rear end auxiliary implement )
wherein if the machine was selectively coupled to rear drive mount of the grader assembly, then pushing the grader assembly in the first direction via the machine;(para. 0010 – this can be adapted from front end or rear end auxiliary implement )
HUVERNAARS / ARMSTRONG are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor and usable together. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified HUVERNAARS to incorporate the teachings of ARMSTRONG to disclose a dual mounting options for front and rear mounted implementations. One would have made this combination in order to allow the flexibility to utilize multiple vehicles for implementation.
Regarding Claim 15
HUVENAARS / ARMSTRONG discloses claim 14:
HUVENAARS discloses:
15. The method of Claim 14, further comprising: moving a first side of the moveable blade in the third direction, wherein the first side of the moveable blade moves relative to a first blade mount coupled to the first side member, wherein the first side of the moveable blade is coupled to the first blade mount; ( fig. 4 blade mounting bracket with slidable feature wherein the slots are used for adjusting the angle that have a min or max height adjustability for blade 1) and moving a second side of the moveable blade in the third direction( fig. 4 blade mounting bracket with slidable feature wherein the slots are used for adjusting the angle that have a min or max height adjustability for blade 1), wherein the second side of the moveable blade moves relative to a second blade mount coupled to the second side member, ( fig. 4 blade mounting bracket with slidable feature wherein the slots are used for adjusting the angle that have a min or max height adjustability for blade ) wherein the second side of the moveable blade is coupled to the second blade mount, ( fig. 4 blade mounting bracket with slidable feature wherein the slots are used for adjusting the angle that have a min or max height adjustability for blade) wherein the second blade mount is disposed rearward from the first blade mount relative to the first direction. (wherein fig.4 – the second blade is mounted rear of the first blade relative to the first direction)
Regarding Claim 20
HUVENAARS / ARMSTRONG discloses claim 14:
HUVENAARS discloses:
20. The method of Claim 14, further comprising: wherein the moveable blade includes a length that extends from the first side of the moveable blade to the second side of the moveable blade, wherein the length of the moveable blade lies along a blade axis; ( see figure1 and 4 and blade axis between the two mounting brackets)
and adjusting an angle defined between the blade axis and a transverse axis of the grader assembly that extends in the second direction, ( see fig. 4 )
wherein the angle is adjustable between about 15 degrees and 25 degrees. ( page 10 – a plurality of bolt and not arrangement of components against flanges and rear blade mounts ) The angle of the height based upon the adjustment of the slide bracket is seen as a results effective variable.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention to utilize the range of the angle as it has been held that routine optimization of a results effective variable is obvious in this case to achieve the right angles for the specific blade to control the depth of the blade for wear and efficiency.
Claim(s) 16 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1)(A2) as being UNPATENTABLE by CA2601210 – Huvenaars et al. hereinafter as HUVENAARS in view of 20190040606 – Armstrong et al. hereinafter as ARMSTRONG in view of 20170292244 – Atherton et al. hereinafter as ATHERTON
Regarding Claim 16
HUVENAARS / ARMSTRONG discloses claim 15:
HUVENAARS discloses of adjustability of the blades manually utilizing bolts and slidable flange mounts as disclosed(figure 4 – mount 10 with slidable )
ATHERTON discloses of a box scraper with the ability to adjust blade based on Hydraulics, ATHERTON discloses adjustment of a blade:
16. The method of Claim 15, further comprising: actuating a manual jack coupled to the first blade mount to impart movement in the third direction to the first side of the moveable blade. (para. 0037 – wherein the adjustment of the height of a blade can be done through a manual , automatic or semi-automatic actuator)
HUVENAARS / ARMSTRONG / ATHERTON are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor and usable together. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified HUVENAARS / ARMSTRONG to incorporate the teachings of ATHERTON to disclose actuating a manual jack coupled to the first blade mount to impart movement in the third direction to the first side of the moveable blade. One would have made this combination in order to allow the adjustability of the height to improve setup and operational efficiencies.
Regarding Claim 17
HUVENAARS / ARMSTRONG / ATHERTON discloses claim 16:
HUVENAARS discloses:
17. The method of Claim 16, further comprising:
sliding a slide bracket along a support flange that is part of the first blade mount( see figure 4 – wherein mount 10 is connected to the blade, the flange shows two pins that can move up or down with min and max adjustability along the support flange), wherein the slide bracket includes a pin that travels between bounded ends of a slot defined in the support flange; ( see figure 4 – wherein mount 10 is connected to the blade, the flange shows two pins that can move up or down with min and max adjustability along the support flange) and wherein the bounded ends of the slot bound a maximum position and a minimal position of the lower edge at the first side of the moveable blade that define a range of travel of the lower edge at the first side of the moveable blade in the third direction,. (fig. 4 - where in the min and max are defined on the bracket)
wherein the range of travel extends from two inches below the bottom to one inch above the bottom ( page 10 – a plurality of bolt and not arrangement of components against flanges and rear blade mounts) The height of the range of travel is seen as a results effective variable.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention to utilize the range of dimension as it has been held that routine optimization of a results effective variable is obvious in this case to achieve the right angles for the specific blade to control the depth of the blade for wear and efficiency.
Regarding Claim 18
HUVENAARS / ARMSTRONG discloses claim 15:
HUVENAARS discloses of adjustability of the blades manually utilizing bolts and slidable flange mounts as disclosed(figure 4 – mount 10 with slidable )
ATHERTON discloses of a box scraper with the ability to adjust blade based on Hydraulics, ATHERTON discloses adjustment of a blade:
18. The method of Claim 15, further comprising: actuating a hydraulic actuator coupled to the second blade mount to impart movement in the third direction to the second side of the moveable blade. (para. 0037 – wherein the adjustment of the height of a blade can be done through a manual , automatic or semi-automatic actuator)
HUVENAARS / ARMSTRONG / ATHERTON are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor and usable together. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified HUVENAARS / ARMSTRONG to incorporate the teachings of ATHERTON to disclose actuating a hydraulic actuator coupled to the second blade mount to impart movement in the third direction to the second side of the moveable blade. One would have made this combination in order to allow the adjustability of the height to improve setup and operational efficiencies.
Regarding Claim 19
19. The method of Claim 18, further comprising: sliding a slide bracket along a support flange that is part of the first blade mount, ( see figure 4 – wherein mount 10 is connected to the blade, the flange shows two pins that can move up or down with min and max adjustability along the support flange) wherein the slide bracket includes a pin that travels between bounded ends of a slot defined in the support flange; ( see figure 4 – wherein mount 10 is connected to the blade, the flange shows two pins that can move up or down with min and max adjustability along the support flange) wherein the bounded ends of the slot bound a maximum position and a minimal position of the lower edge at the second side of the moveable blade that define a range of travel of the lower edge at the second side of the moveable blade in the third direction, ( where in the min and max are defined on the bracket)
wherein the range of travel extends from four inches below the bottom to one and a half inches above the bottom. ( page 10 – a plurality of bolt and not arrangement of components against flanges and rear blade mounts) The height of the range of travel is seen as a results effective variable.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention to utilize the range of dimension as it has been held that routine optimization of a results effective variable is obvious in this case to achieve the right angles for the specific blade to control the depth of the blade for wear and efficiency.
Claim(s) 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1)(A2) as being UNPATENTABLE by CA2601210 – Huvenaars et al. hereinafter as HUVENAARS in view of US PG Pubs 20200184153 – Bongartz et al. hereinafter as BONGARTZ
Regarding Claim 13
HUVENAARS disclose claim 1
HUVENAARS discloses of a grader, however does not explicitly disclose of a grader with a sensor that has machine learning to predict patterns. XYZ discloses of a grade that has a sensor and machine learning:
13. The grader assembly of Claim 1, further comprising: a sensor to gather data pertaining to surrounding environment or operation of the grader assembly, wherein sensed data is evaluated and processed with machine learning to predict or identify underlying patterns and relationships of sensed data pertaining to surrounding environment or operation of the grader assembly. ( para. 1614 – machine learning to influence patters in order to determine an effect in plant growth and post-harvest results)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for the box grader of HUEVNAARS to incorporate a sensor to gather data pertaining to surrounding environment or operation of the grader assembly, wherein sensed data is evaluated and processed with machine learning to predict or identify underlying patterns and relationships of sensed data pertaining to surrounding environment or operation of the grader assembly as taught by BONGARTZ. This would allow HUVERNAARS to determine an effect in plat growth and post-harvest results in order to influence patterns using machine learning.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Pub 20220381002 – Convertible box blade scraper – adjustable blade
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
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676