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 .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 11/21/2023 has been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in GB on 12/24/2022.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected for 3 reasons:
First, it appears that many of the drawings are (Gray Scaled) For example, Figures 2-10 appear light gray ink or Xeroxed copies, where the gray shading is not necessary for some Figures and extremely light and unclear in others. Color photographs and color drawings (and Gray is not black or white rather a color) are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via EFS-Web or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via EFS-Web, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Second, almost all of the Figures appear to be a mix of handwriting and graphics and this becomes an issue for clarity and subject matter support when the handwriting is unintelligible. For Example Figure 4, it is unclear, based on the handwriting and the grayscaled image if the item is 315, 313, 318. The Office strongly suggests submitting all new Figures, as Figure 1 was resubmitted for clarity and to properly support the claimed subject matter.
Third, Figures 8-9 are objected to as they use a scheme where numbers are inserted into the drawings to represent items instead of the labels which actually make the drawings useless without a key, a legend, or the use of the specification to understand. While this is understandable in drawings, such as Figure 1, in Figures such as Figures 8-9, these drawings become useless with either empty boxes, or boxes with numbers. Figure 10 is the acceptable format. The drawings submitted with a patent application are supposed to help describe and metes and bounds of a claimed invention and when the meaning of the drawings cannot easily or clearly be derived without a specification or key or legend, the value of the drawings and use is diminished. Proper action is requested.
The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Title Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Status of Application
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “the one or more operational components comprise actuators for the displacement of individual vertically displaceable elements making up the first and second residue spreaders of the crop residue spreader arrangement” and metes and bounds of this claim are unclear thus indefinite. First, there appears to be antecedent issues with the term “the displacement” and “the first and second residue spreaders”. As these terms have not yet been properly introduced and further based on the claim language, these values become unclear. For example, this limitation introduces “one or more one operational components” yet it is made up of multiple spreaders. Since only one operational component is required, would only one spreader be needed or is “the first and second residue spreaders” part of the single operational component which is in fact an actuator? If this is so, the term “actuators” and “individual” makes the claims confusing as its just an individual displaceable element with multiple actuators. Further,, what is “making up” the first and second residue spreaders? Is this the displaceable elements or is there more to the spreaders? As currently presented, Claim 1 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus it is indefinite. Looking through the specification, it appears that there can be several actuators which appear to be vertical displaceable elements and work within a first and second residue spreader, thus not making it up, but rather working in association with. Therefore the Office is going to interpret these as any single vertically displaceable element with regards to a first and second residue spreader. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 10 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claims 2-9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (system). Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below):
Claim 1 recites: A control system for controlling operation of one or more operational components of a crop residue spreader arrangement of an agricultural harvester, the control system comprising one or more controllers, and being configured to:
receive data indicative of a detected distribution of crop residue located on the ground behind the crop residue spreader arrangement;
determine, in dependence on the detected distribution, a spreading strategy for operation of one or more operational components of the crop residue spreader arrangement,
and generate and output one or more control signals for controlling the one or more operational components of the crop residue spreader arrangement in dependence on the determined spreading strategy,
wherein the one or more operational components comprise actuators for the displacement of individual vertically displaceable elements making up the first and second residue spreaders of the crop residue spreader arrangement.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “receiving, determining, generating, and outputting” steps encompass a user to gather information between, determine and generate a strategy, and output said strategy. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “controller”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “controller” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the receiving, determining, generating, and outputting steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the controller is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a controller. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of determining and generating is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only compares data where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that receiving data and outputting and using a controller, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a controller to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a controller or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the apparatus, the controller amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of receiving data, determining, generating, and outputting data, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of receiving the data and outputting are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-9, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claim 1.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle as the controlling step is positively recited in Claim 10, where in Claim 1, the output is “for” controlling. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Regarding Claim 16, the preamble recites a “Computer Software". In light of the instant specification on page 4, the program appears to comprise software elements. The Software is executed by a processor but the claim itself is merely the Software code. None of the comprising elements of the claimed system appear to be physical components. Therefore the “Computer Software” of Claim 16 is computer software per se and is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.03 I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0369554) in view of Knapp (United States Patent Publication 2013/0095899).
With respect to Claim 1: While Christiansen discloses “A control system for controlling operation of one or more operational components of a crop residue spreader arrangement of an agricultural harvester” [Christiansen, ¶ 0004 (it is known to utilise sensors, e.g. wind direction sensors, ultrasonic sensors, cameras and the like operable to infer or monitor the distribution of the MOG in real time. In some instances, information relating to the observed distribution may be relayed to the operator of the combine (e.g. through a user interface within the operator cab) who may use this information to adjust operation of the spreader tool. In further solutions, control of the spreader tool has been at least partly automated based on data from such sensors, for example by controlling the direction of one or more steering vanes/deflectors)];
“the control system comprising one or more controllers, and being configured to” [Christiansen, ¶ 0004-0006 (one or more controllers, configured to: receive operational data indicative of an operational parameter of the spreader tool; and control operation of the sensor in dependence thereon)];
“receive data indicative of a detected distribution of crop residue located on the ground behind the crop residue spreader arrangement” [Christiansen, ¶ 0050, (The LIDAR unit 30 is used, and the sensor data therefrom for example, may be used to determine a distribution of residue material associated with the spreader)];
“determine, in dependence on the detected distribution, a spreading strategy for operation of one or more operational components of the crop residue spreader arrangement” [Christiansen, ¶ 0017 (the system may be operable to control one or more operating parameters of the spreader tool in dependence on the observed residue material distribution)];
“and generate and output one or more control signals for controlling the one or more operational components of the crop residue spreader arrangement in dependence on the determined spreading strategy” [Christiansen, ¶ 0021 (The one or more controllers may collectively comprise one or more processors (e.g. electronic processors) operable to execute computer readable instructions for controlling operation of the control system, for example to determine the operational parameter from the received input signal(s). The one or more processors may be operable to generate one or more control signals for controlling operation of the sensor. The one or more controllers may collectively comprise an output (e.g. an electronic output) for outputting the one or more control signals)];
Christiansen does not specifically state how the spreader tool is adjusted.
Knapp, which is in the same field of endeavor of using sensor data to control residue spreaders teaches “A control system for controlling operation of one or more operational components of a crop residue spreader arrangement of an agricultural harvester” [Knapp, ¶ 0015, 0062 with Figures 1D-1E (The processor analyzes combine speed and combine location for retrieving compensation spreader setting entries)];
“the control system comprising one or more controllers, and being configured to” [Knapp, ¶ 0018 (the spreader setting unit is the spreader controller)];
“receive sensor data” [Knapp, ¶ 0050-0051 (By using the information provided by the weather sensing device 32, such as wind speed and wind direction, adjustments for residue spreading may be automatically made in real time)];
“determine, in dependence on the received data, a spreading strategy for operation of one or more operational components of the crop residue spreader arrangement” [Knapp, ¶ 0050-0051 (By using the information provided by the weather sensing device 32, such as wind speed and wind direction, adjustments for residue spreading may be automatically made in real time)];
“and generate and output one or more control signals for controlling the one or more operational components of the crop residue spreader arrangement in dependence on the determined spreading strategy” [Knapp, ¶ 0015, 0062 with Figures 1D-1E (adjustment of the flow guides 116 as a function of wind speed and direction and command the flow guide adjustors 146 to raise or lower the flow guides up or down in direction F (see FIG. 1D). By adjusting the flow guides 116 closer to the impellers 100, 102, in a vertical direction away from the ground surface, residue is thrown from the impellers 100, 102 further to the sides and sidewardly outwardly of the combine 72 making for a wider distribution and longer range along path C)];
“wherein the one or more operational components comprise actuators for the displacement of individual vertically displaceable elements making up the first and second residue spreaders of the crop residue spreader arrangement” [Knapp, ¶ 0015, 0062 with Figures 1D-1E (adjustment of the flow guides 116 as a function of wind speed and direction and command the flow guide adjustors 146 to raise or lower the flow guides up or down in direction F (see FIG. 1D). By adjusting the flow guides 116 closer to the impellers 100, 102, in a vertical direction away from the ground surface, residue is thrown from the impellers 100, 102 further to the sides and sidewardly outwardly of the combine 72 making for a wider distribution and longer range along path C)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Knapp into the invention of Christiansen to not only include using LIDAR data for controlling residue spreader distributions as Christiansen discloses but to also control vertical components of the spreader for distribution control as taught by Knapp with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Knapp into Christiansen to create a more robust system that adjust both vertical and horizontal members thus creating an adaptable range of residue distribution areas [Knapp, ¶ 0062]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as controlling residue distribution patterns based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 2: While Christiansen discloses “The control system according to claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to generate and output one or more control signals for controlling operation of the actuators in accordance with the determined spreading strategy” [Christiansen, ¶ 0016-0017 (the residue material, e.g. 50/50 split between the left hand side and right hand side of the agricultural machine) and (the system may be operable to control one or more operating parameters of the spreader tool in dependence on the observed residue material distribution)].
Christiansen does not specifically state how the spreader tool is adjusted.
Knapp, which is in the same field of endeavor of using sensor data to control residue spreaders teaches “The control system according to claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to generate and output one or more control signals for controlling operation of the actuators to displace one or more of the individual vertically displaceable elements in accordance with the determined spreading strategy” [Knapp, ¶ 0015, 0062 with Figures 1D-1E (adjustment of the flow guides 116 as a function of wind speed and direction and command the flow guide adjustors 146 to raise or lower the flow guides up or down in direction F (see FIG. 1D). By adjusting the flow guides 116 closer to the impellers 100, 102, in a vertical direction away from the ground surface, residue is thrown from the impellers 100, 102 further to the sides and sidewardly outwardly of the combine 72 making for a wider distribution and longer range along path C)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Knapp into the invention of Christiansen to not only include using LIDAR data for controlling residue spreader distributions as Christiansen discloses but to also control vertical components of the spreader for distribution control as taught by Knapp with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Knapp into Christiansen to create a more robust system that adjust both vertical and horizontal members thus creating an adaptable range of residue distribution areas [Knapp, ¶ 0062]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as controlling residue distribution patterns based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 3: Christiansen discloses “The control system according to claim 1 wherein the one or more operational components may additionally comprise a user interface” [Christiansen, ¶ 0016 and 0034 (the one or more systems of the agricultural machine controllable by the system of the present aspect may include a user interface, e.g. a display means, which may provide information, for example to an operator of the agricultural machine corresponding to the observed residue material distribution)].
With respect to Claim 5: Christiansen discloses “The control system according to any of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to: receive sensor data from sensors associated with the crop residue spreader arrangement” [Christiansen, ¶ 0014, 0034, 0050, 0056, (The LIDAR unit 30 is used, and the sensor data therefrom for example, may be used to determine a distribution of residue material associated with the spreader)];
“and determine a spreading characteristic of the crop residue in dependence thereon” [Christiansen, ¶ 0014, 0034, 0050, 0056, (The LIDAR unit 30 is used, and the sensor data therefrom for example, may be used to determine a distribution of residue material associated with the spreader)].
With respect to Claim 6: Christiansen discloses “The control system according to claim 5, wherein the sensors comprise one or more of: an optical sensor, a lidar scanner, a radar scanner, or a laser scanner” [Christiansen, ¶ 0014, 0034, 0050, 0056, (The LIDAR unit 30 is used, and the sensor data therefrom for example, may be used to determine a distribution of residue material associated with the spreader)].
With respect to Claim 7: Christiansen discloses “The control system according to claim 5, wherein the sensors are mounted or otherwise coupled to the crop residue spreader arrangement or the agricultural harvester and configured to monitor crop residue spread by the crop residue spreader arrangement” [Christiansen, ¶ 0014, 0034, 0050, 0056 with Figure 3, (The LIDAR unit 30 is used, and the sensor data therefrom for example, may be used to determine a distribution of residue material associated with the spreader)].
With respect to Claim 8: Christiansen discloses “A system, comprising: a crop residue spreader arrangement” [Christiansen, ¶ 0004 with Figure 3 (it is known to utilise sensors, e.g. wind direction sensors, ultrasonic sensors, cameras and the like operable to infer or monitor the distribution of the MOG in real time. In some instances, information relating to the observed distribution may be relayed to the operator of the combine (e.g. through a user interface within the operator cab) who may use this information to adjust operation of the spreader tool. In further solutions, control of the spreader tool has been at least partly automated based on data from such sensors, for example by controlling the direction of one or more steering vanes/deflectors)];
“and a control system according claim 1 configured to control operation of the crop residue spreader arrangement in accordance with a determined spreading strategy” [Christiansen, ¶ 0014, 0034, 0050, 0056 with Figure 3].
With respect to Claim 9: Christiansen discloses “An agricultural harvester comprising a control system as described in claim 1” [Christiansen, ¶ 0004 with Figure 3 (it is known to utilise sensors, e.g. wind direction sensors, ultrasonic sensors, cameras and the like operable to infer or monitor the distribution of the MOG in real time. In some instances, information relating to the observed distribution may be relayed to the operator of the combine (e.g. through a user interface within the operator cab) who may use this information to adjust operation of the spreader tool. In further solutions, control of the spreader tool has been at least partly automated based on data from such sensors, for example by controlling the direction of one or more steering vanes/deflectors)].
With respect to Claims 10-13 and 15: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system/harvester in Claims 1-3 and 5-9. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 10-13 and 15 can clearly perform on the system/harvester of Claims 1-3 and 5-9. Therefore Claims 10-13 and 15 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 16: Christiansen discloses “Computer software comprising computer-readable instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause performance of a method in accordance with claim 10” [Christiansen, ¶ 0004 and 0044].
With respect to Claim 17: Christiansen discloses “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising the computer software of claim 16.” [Christiansen, ¶ 0004, 0044, 0082, and 0094].
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0369554) in view of Knapp (United States Patent Publication 2013/0095899) and in further view of Leenknegt et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0225246).
With respect to Claim 4: While Christiansen discloses “The control system according to claim 3, wherein the control system is configured to generate and output one or more control signals for controlling operation of the user interface to display the current spreading strategy and current images of the distribution” [Christiansen, ¶ 0033-0034 (the method may comprise determining, from the sensor data, a distribution of residue material associated with the spreader tool. The method may comprise controlling one or more operational parameters of the agricultural machine or one or more components thereof in dependence on the determined distribution. In embodiments, the method may comprise controlling a user interface, e.g. a display means, which may provide information, for example to an operator of the agricultural machine corresponding to the observed residue material distribution)];
Christiansen does not specifically state that the determined strategy is displayed..
Leenknegt, which is in the same field of endeavor of using sensor data to control residue spreaders teaches “wherein the control system is configured to generate and output one or more control signals for controlling operation of the user interface to display the determined spreading strategy to an operator of the agricultural harvester” [Leenknegt, ¶ 0107, 0114-0116 Figures 5-8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Leenknegt into the invention of Christiansen to not only include displaying current distributions of residue for better control of residue distribution as Christiansen discloses but to display optimized distributions for a user as taught by Leenknegt with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Leenknegt into Christiansen to create a more robust system can optimize residue distribution and keep the user informed [Leenknegt, ¶ 0109]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as controlling residue distribution patterns based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 14: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system/harvester in Claim 4. The method taught/disclosed in Claim 14 can clearly perform on the system/harvester of Claim 4. Therefore Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c