DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Remarks, Amendments
Applicant is thanked for their October 17, 2025 response to the Office Action filed July 17, 2025. In particular, Applicant is thanked for their amendments to the claims, rendering the drawing objections thereto withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 18 have been considered, and inasmuch as they pertain to prior art still being relied upon, the examiner’s response follows below. Respectfully, any arguments/ remarks directed towards newly amended limitations are moot if they resulted in a new ground(s) of rejection.
In response to the drawing objections, Applicant cancelled the features of “headspace”, “spool”, and “aeration floor” from claims 1 – 3, 8 – 11, 17, and 18; accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn.
In response to the Specification objections, Applicant cancelled the recitation of structures, in claims 1 – 3, 8 – 12, 17 and 18, that was not supported in the specification.
In response to the 35 USC §102 rejection of claims 1, 3, 8, 9, and claims 10, 12, 17, and 18 as being anticipated by Wettig (US 1,359,301), Applicant remarked that the “amended claims is a system of one of more ducts that are positioned within a grain to be dried. In other words, they are not separate from separate stacks of grain, and are not positioned intermediate to them”.
The examiner respectfully notes that Applicant is remarking on a newly amended limitation. Accordingly, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claims 2 and 11, as being unpatentable over Wettig (US 1,359,301) in view of Sutch (US 4,561,194), Applicant remarked that Wettig is also not appropriate prior art under 35 U.S.C. §103, as it does not teach all of the elements of the claimed invention for which it is asserted.
The examiner respectfully notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., wherein the at least one duct is positioned within the grain mass and allows for a flow of air from a bottom of the grain storage container through to the top area) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claims 3 – 5 and 12 – 14 , as being unpatentable over Wettig (US 1,359,301) in view of Schreiner (US 2016/0106042), the examiner respectfully understands that Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Wettig (US 1,359,301) in view of Sutch (US 4,561,194), may be similarly applied to the teachings of Schreiner (US 2016/0106042), and Garrido et al (US 8,726,535).
As Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been found to be persuasive, a new ground(s) of rejection, follows below.
Claim Objections
In re Claim 1, insufficient antecedent basis has been provided for the limitation “the grain mass”. For purposes of examination, the limitation “the grain mass” has been understood as if to read, “[[the]] a grain mass”.
In re Claim 11, please amend the minor typographical error in line 4, such that it reads “without allowing the stored grain to pass through or into the at least one duct”.
Claims 2 – 9, and 12 – 14 are objected, as being dependent on an objected base claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
As explained in MPEP §2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f):
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”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. §112(f), is invoked.
In re Claims 6 and 15, the element “a computer with means for calculating” has been recited without the structure in support thereof. Specification paragraph [0031] describes that the means for calculating can be a computer having a processor, and memory.
Please note that “a computer” (or a processor), absent code, can’t do the recited function “calculating”.
Given the disclosure in paragraphs [0013], [0031], [0038] and [0039], the limitation has been understood to correspond to structure comprising a processor and computer code.
Accordingly, Claims 6 and 15 have been construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 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 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.
Claims 1 – 5, 8 and 9, and Claims 10 – 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Wettig (US 1,359,301) in view of Detzel (US 2018/0187973)1 .
In re Claim 1,Wettig discloses an assembly (figs 1 – 4) for controlling a flow of air through a grain storage container (1), comprising:
at least one duct (28) positioned within the grain storage container, the at least one duct extending from a plenum (19) (page 2, lns 109 – 130) to a top area (proximal ventilating pipe (3)) within the grain storage container that allows for unrestricted of air through an exhaust port (3); and
a gate (30a) disposed within the at least one duct (pg 2, lns 121 – 130), the gate being operable to control the flow of air through the duct,
wherein the at least one duct is positioned within the grain storage container and allows for a flow of air from a bottom (16, 19) of the grain storage container through to the top area (16/19[Wingdings font/0xE8]gate 30a[Wingdings font/0xE8]vertical duct 28[Wingdings font/0xE8]lower chamber 17[Wingdings font/0xE8] through grain mass in shaft 10[Wingdings font/0xE8] higher chamber 17[Wingdings font/0xE8]through to a top area at 11).
Wettig may be construed as lacking wherein the at least one duct (fig 4: (28)) is positioned within the grain mass.
Detzel teaches an assembly (figs 6 – 8) for controlling a flow of air through an organic material storage container (326), comprising:
at least one duct (301, 304, 305) positioned within the organic material storage container, the at least one duct extending from a plenum (312/313) to a headspace a top area (at 314/315) within the organic material storage container that allows for unrestricted exit of air through an exhaust port (at 316); and
a gate (310) disposed within the at least one duct, the gate being operable to control the flow of air through the duct [0099 – 0100]
wherein the at least one duct (301, 304, 305) is positioned within [[the]] a organic material mass (as seen in fig 6) and allows for a flow of air from a bottom of the organic material storage container through to the top area.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Wettig as taught by Detzel, such that the system comprises:
at least one duct positioned within a grain storage container, the at least one duct extending from a plenum to a headspace a top area within the grain storage container that allows for unrestricted exit of air through an exhaust port; and
a gate disposed within the at least one duct, the gate being operable to control the flow of air through the duct;
wherein the at least one duct is positioned within a grain mass and allows for a flow of air from a bottom of the grain storage container through to the top area
as it would have been obvious to try modifying the system of Wettig such that:
air flows through ductwork surrounded by a grain mass, in lieu of
air flow surrounding a grain mass that flow through ductwork,
as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest.
In re Claim 2, Wettig discloses further comprising a vent (30a, 34) disposed within the at least one duct (28), the vent configured to open and close to allow an exchange of the air within the grain storage container, so that the air passes into and out of stored grain without allowing the grain to pass through or into the at least one duct.
In re Claim 3, Wettig discloses comprising at least one perforated tube (10) (pg 1, lns 96 - 99) within the grain storage container, the at least one perforated tube (10) facilitating a removal of air (heated air rising) into the top area of the grain storage container (pg 3, lns 30 – 52) that allows for unrestricted exit of the air.
In re Claim 4, the proposed system has been discussed, but Wettig may be construed as lacking wherein the at least one perforated tube [0097] is positioned at or near a wall of the grain storage container.
Detzel teaches wherein the at least one perforated tube (fig 6: (302, 303)) is positioned at or near a wall of the grain storage container (as seen in fig 6, the at least one perforated tube is positioned or near two of four walls of the grain storage container) [0112].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system as taught by Detzel, such that the system comprises wherein the at least one perforated tube is positioned at or near a wall of the grain storage container, for the benefit of simultaneously using outer walls of ducts to form parts of the shell of the grain storage container, reducing material costs during fabrication.
In e Claim 5, Wettig discloses wherein the at least one perforated tube (28) is positioned at or near a center (“the central air (vertical) chamber 28) of the grain storage container (pg 2, lns 111 - 130).
In re Claim 8, Wettig discloses wherein the at least one duct (fig 1: (17)) receives the flow of the air from the plenum (19) at or near a perforated divider (9) acting as a floor near the bottom of the grain storage container.
In re Claim 9, Wettig discloses,
wherein the at least one duct (28) receives the flow of the air from additional ducting (fig 1: (16)) at or near a perforated divider (9) acting as a floor near the bottom of the grain storage container, and
wherein the at least one duct (28) and the additional ducting (16) are independent of each other such that when air in the additional ducting (16) is reduced or stopped (via gate (30)), the flow of air in the at least one duct (28) is maintained (as is seen in fig 4).
In re Claims 10 – 14, 17 and 18, Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02
In re Claim 10, see above In re Claim 1, wherein the proposed assembly performs a method for controlling a flow of air through a grain storage container, comprising:
positioning at least one duct within the grain storage container, the at least one duct extending from a plenum to a top area within the grain storage container that allows for unrestricted exit of air through an exhaust port; and
providing a flow of air to the at least one duct,
wherein a gate disposed within the at least one duct controls the flow of air through the at least one duct, and
wherein the at least one duct is positioned within the grain mass and allows for a flow of air from a bottom of the grain storage container through to the top area.
In re Claim 11, see above In re Claim 2, wherein the proposed assembly performs a method of wherein a vent disposed within the at least one duct is configured to open and close to allow an exchange of the air within the grain storage container, so that the air passes into and out of the grain without allowing the stored grain to pass through or into the at least one duct.
In re Claim 12, see above In re Claim 3, wherein the proposed assembly performs a method further comprising positioning at least one perforated tube within the grain storage container, the at least one perforated tube facilitating a removal of air into the top area of the grain storage container that allows for unrestricted exit of the air.
In re Claim 13, see above In re Claim 4, wherein the proposed assembly performs a method of wherein the at least one perforated tube is positioned at or near a wall of the grain storage container.
In re Claim 14, see above In re Claim 5, wherein the proposed assembly performs a method of wherein the at least one perforated tube is positioned at or near a center of the grain storage container.
In re Claim 17, see above In re Claim 8, wherein the proposed assembly performs a method of wherein the at least one duct receives the flow of the air from the plenum at or near a perforated divider acting as a floor near the bottom of the grain storage container.
In re Claim 18, see above In re Claim 8, wherein the proposed assembly performs a method of wherein the at least one duct receives the flow of the air from additional ducting at or near a perforated divider acting as a floor near the bottom of the grain storage container, and wherein the at least one duct and the additional ducting are independent of each other such that when air in the additional ducting is reduced or stopped, the flow of air in the at least one duct is maintained.
In re Claims 10, 12, 17 and 18, Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02
In re Claim 10, Wettig discloses a method for controlling a flow of air through a grain storage container (figs 1 – 4: (1)), comprising:
positioning at least one duct (17) within the [[a]] grain storage container, the at least one duct extending from a plenum (19) to a headspace (proximal ventilating pipe (3)) within the grain storage container; and
providing a flow of air (via nozzles (8) (pg 1, lns 79 – 87)) to the at least one duct (17), wherein a gate (18) disposed within the at least one duct controls the flow of air through the at least one duct (pg 2, lns 6 – 15),
In re Claim 12, Wettig discloses further comprising positioning at least one perforated tube (17) within the grain storage container (1), the at least one perforated tube facilitating a removal of air into the top area of the grain storage container that allows for unrestricted exit of the air.
It is respectfully noted that, as Wettig discloses a warm air flow and natural convection, a perforated tube would provide a flow path into the headspace, facilitating evacuation.
In re Claim 17, Wettig discloses wherein the at least one duct (11) receives the flow of the air from the plenum (9) at or near a perforated divider (9) acting as a floor near the bottom of the grain storage container.
In re Claim 18, Wettig discloses:
wherein the at least one duct (17) receives the flow of the air from additional ducting (fig 1: (16)) at or near a perforated divider (9) acting as a floor near the bottom of the grain storage container, and
wherein the at least one duct (17) and the additional ducting (16) are independent of each other such that when air in the additional ducting 16() is reduced or stopped (e.g.; actuation of gate (22)), the flow of air in the at least one duct is maintained (as seen in fig 1).
Claims 6 and 7, and Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Wettig (US 1,359,301), in view of Detzel (US 2018/0187973, and further in view of Garrido et al (US 8,726,535).
In re Claims 6 and 7, the proposed system has been discussed, but lacks:
a sensor and control system having a computer with means for calculating a dry matter loss and a remaining allowable storage time from information collected from sensors within the grain storage container; and
a centralized database that receives and compares the information collected from the sensors within the grain storage container with additional information from sensors configured to monitor conditions in additional grain storage containers,
wherein differences in the information collected by the sensors within the grain storage container and in the additional information from the additional grain storage containers are analyzed to determine conditions in the grain across locations.
Garrido et al teaches an apparatus and method for controlling airdrying of a product, comprising:
a sensor (temperature 56, humidity 54, pressure 52) and control system (figs 9A, 9B)(col 16, ln 62 – col 17, ln 12) having a computer (60) with means for calculating a dry matter loss (via measuring seed moisture (col 20, ln 65 – col 21, ln 26) and a remaining allowable storage time from information collected from sensors within the grain storage container (col 3, lns 21 – 26; col 5, lns 51 – 67; col 6, lns 1 – 7; ); and
a centralized database (col 17, lns 17 – 18) that receives and compares the information collected from the sensors (temperature 56, humidity 54, pressure 52) within the grain storage container (via PLC (40)) with additional information from sensors configured to monitor conditions in additional grain storage containers (col 18, lns 22 – 30; col 22, lns 62 – 67)
wherein differences in the information collected by the sensors within the grain storage container and in the additional information from the additional grain storage containers are analyzed (e.g.; fig 4 “chamber 117” data, fig 5 “chamber 119” data, fig 6 “chamber 201” data) to determine conditions in the grain across locations (col 18, lns 17 – col 20, ln 17).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system as taught by Garrido et al, such that the assembly comprises a sensor and control system, the sensor and control system comprising:
a sensor and control system having a computer with means for calculating a dry matter loss and a remaining allowable storage time from information collected from sensors within the grain storage container; and
a centralized database that receives and compares the information collected from the sensors within the grain storage container with additional information from sensors configured to monitor conditions in additional grain storage containers,
wherein differences in the information collected by the sensors within the grain storage container and in the additional information from the additional grain storage containers are analyzed to determine conditions in the grain across locations;
for the benefit of avoiding bacterial growth, decay molding or rotting during shipment or storage (col 1, lns 60 – 67).
In re Claims 15 and 16, the proposed method has been discussed, but lacks
collecting information from the storage container within a sensor and control system having a computer with means for calculating a dry matter loss and a remaining allowable storage time, the information collected from sensors within the grain storage container;
storing the information collected from sensors within the grain storage container in a centralized database that receives and compares the information with additional information from sensors configured to monitor conditions in additional grain storage containers,
wherein differences in the information collected by the sensors within the grain storage container and in the additional information from the additional grain storage containers are analyzed to determine conditions in the grain across locations.
Garrido et al teaches an apparatus and method for controlling airdrying of a product, comprising:
collecting information from the storage container within a sensor (temperature 56, humidity 54, pressure 52) and control system (figs 9A, 9B)(col 16, ln 62 – col 17, ln 12) having a computer (60) with means for calculating a dry matter loss (via measuring seed moisture: col 20, ln 65 – col 21, ln 26) and a remaining allowable storage time, the information collected from sensors within the grain storage container (col 3, lns 21 – 26; col 5, lns 51 – 67; col 6, lns 1 – 7);
storing the information collected from sensors (temperature 56, humidity 54, pressure 52) within the grain storage container in a centralized database (col 17, lns 17 – 18) that receives and compares the information (via PLC (40)) with additional information from the sensors (temperature 56, humidity 54, pressure 52) configured to monitor conditions in additional grain storage containers (col 18, lns 22 – 30; col 22, lns 62 – 67),
wherein differences in the information collected by the sensors within the grain storage container and in the additional information from the additional grain storage containers are analyzed (e.g.; fig 4 “chamber 117” data, fig 5 “chamber 119” data, fig 6 “chamber 201” data) to determine conditions in the grain across locations (col 18, lns 17 – col 20, ln 17).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed method as taught by Garrido et al, such that the method comprises:
collecting information from the storage container within a sensor and control system having a computer with means for calculating a dry matter loss and a remaining allowable storage time, the information collected from sensors within the grain storage container;
storing the information collected from sensors within the grain storage container in a centralized database that receives and compares the information with additional information from sensors configured to monitor conditions in additional grain storage containers,
wherein differences in the information collected by the sensors within the grain storage container and in the additional information from the additional grain storage containers are analyzed to determine conditions in the grain across locations.
for the benefit of avoiding bacterial growth, decay molding or rotting during shipment or storage (col 1, lns 60 – 67).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
An example of such pertinent prior art includes Schafer, Jr. (US 9,347,904) who discloses an air grain drying control system and remote user interface 38. Sensor assemblies 40 determine the relative humidity and the temperature of the grain 11 by measuring the temperature and the relative humidity of the air surrounding the individual granules of grain within the stored mass. Sensor assemblies 42 determine the temperature of the grain 11 again by measuring the temperature of the air surrounding the grain within the stored mass. The master control unit 22 selectively activates the drying fan 16 when it is efficient and effective to do so to achieve and maintain the grain's selected EMC based upon a comparison of the detected conditions relating to external temperature and humidity and the temperature and humidity within the mass of grain to be dried. The measured temperature and humidity within the plenum 14 may also be factors used to determine fan operation. Generally, if the external relative humidity is lower than the relative humidity within the mass of grain and the external temperature relatively high, the master control unit 22 will activate the fan 16. The system 20 dries the grain 11 throughout the grain bin 10 to its selected EMC quickly and efficiently to help prevent over-drying or other grain degradation and allows for communication between the system 20 and the user with regard to the grain's condition.
PNG
media_image1.png
332
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frances F. Hamilton (she/her) whose telephone number is 571.270.5726. The examiner can normally be reached on Tu - Th; 9 – 6.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on 571.270.8480. 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, please visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For more information about Patent Center, please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center and for information about filing in DOCX format please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you are a Pro Se inventor and would like assistance, please call the Pro Se assistance center at 866.767.3848. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, please call 800.786.9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571.272.1000.
/Frances F Hamilton/
Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 Detzel (US 2018/0187973) has priority to WO 2017/001019, published January 5, 2017. US 2018/0187973 has been relied upon, to mitigate possible translation issues of WO 2017/001019.