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 .
This is a non-final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 12/05/2023 has been considered by examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a controller in claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 17, 18 and 19
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a controller:
"There may be provided a computer program, which when run on a computer, causes the computer to configure any apparatus, including a circuit, controller, converter, or device disclosed herein or perform any method disclosed herein. The computer program may be a software implementation, and the computer may be considered as any appropriate hardware, including a digital signal processor, a microcontroller, and an implementation in read only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM) or electronically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), as non-limiting examples. The software may be an assembly program.", [¶ 74]
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 1-11, 12-16, and 17-20 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 – YES
Claim 1 is directed to a system, claim 11 is directed toward a method and Claim 17 is directed toward a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, claims 1, 11 and 17 are 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.
Independent claims 1, 11 and 17 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. The other analogous claims 1, 11 and 17 are analogous to each other so claim 11 and 17 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here.
Claim 1 recites:
An agricultural system comprising:
an agricultural rake for a raking operation comprising gathering cut-crop material into a windrow, the agricultural rake comprising: a
a crop condition sensor positioned on the agricultural rake to detect a condition of the cut-crop material at least one of prior to, during, or after, windrow formation;
wherein the agricultural system further comprises:
a controller configured to:
receive crop condition data from the crop condition sensor;
determine a process parameter for a subsequent agricultural
process to the raking operation, based on the crop condition data; and
output the process parameter.
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. For example, determine a process parameter for a subsequent agricultural process to the raking operation in the context of the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, based on data from a sensor, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper.
Examiner notes that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Here, the determination is a form of making evaluation and judgement based on observation.
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”):
Claim 1 recites:
An agricultural system comprising:
an agricultural rake for a raking operation comprising gathering cut-crop material into a windrow, the agricultural rake comprising: a
a crop condition sensor positioned on the agricultural rake to detect a condition of the cut-crop material at least one of prior to, during, or after, windrow formation;
wherein the agricultural system further comprises:
a controller configured to:
receive crop condition data from the crop condition sensor;
determine a process parameter for a subsequent agricultural
process to the raking operation, based on the crop condition data; and
output the process parameter.
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 detect…, receive…, and output… the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform data gathering, displaying, sending and receiving steps. In particular, the receiving and communicating steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and performing communications for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Further, the additional limitation of an agricultural rake… is recited at a high level of generality and considered generally linking to technological environment.
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 computer 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 impost any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1, 11 and 17 do 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 using a processor to perform the steps detect…, receive…, and output… amounts to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform data gathering, displaying, sending and receiving steps. In particular, the receiving and communicating steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and performing communications for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20, do not recite any further limitations that causes the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-14, 16-17, and 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 18.
Therefore, claims 1-11, 12-16, and 17-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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, 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 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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 11-12, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaney; Nathan A. et al. (US 20180184594 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chaney teaches, an agricultural system comprising: an agricultural rake for a raking operation comprising gathering cut-crop material into a windrow (machine 108 comprises a raking machine that rakes cut or mowed material into windrows 112, see at least, ¶21, Chaney), the agricultural rake comprising: a crop condition sensor positioned on the agricultural rake to detect a condition of the cut-crop material at least one of prior to, during, or after, windrow formation (machine 108 includes other sensors 218 which can include material sensors 234 configured to sense and provide information indicative of the agricultural material being prepared by the machine 108 which include windrow sensor which obtains data indicative of a volume of the windrow being formed by the machine and other sensor such as position, weather, quality and fuel sensors, see at least, ¶42 and 44, Chaney); wherein the agricultural system further comprises: a controller configured to (Fig. 13 depicts a computing environment configured to execute programs, see at least, ¶114-122, Chaney): receive crop condition data from the crop condition sensor (Fig. 4 depicts windrow sensor 312 positioned above the raking channel 308 configured to sense a height of the agricultural material within the raking channel 308 of known width. Fig. 6 depicts operation 374, correlating the windrow height to location in the field, see at least, ¶60-65 and 74, Chaney); determine a process parameter for a subsequent agricultural process to the raking operation, based on the crop condition data (Fig. 7A block 424 depicts operation of the baler machine is controlled based on the target feed rate and yield data obtained at block 420, see at least, ¶78-82, Chaney); and.
Chaney does not explicitly teach output the process parameter but teaches an alternative embodiment where the target speed can be displayed (output) to the operator as a suggested speed modification (process parameter) (see at least, ¶84, Chaney).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Chaney’s to incorporate the alternate embodiment of which teaches output the process parameter in order to discourage plugging the baler.
Regarding Claim 12, Chaney teaches, a method for monitoring crop condition comprising: receiving crop condition data from a crop condition sensor positioned on an agricultural rake to detect a condition of cut-crop material during a raking operation that is at least one of prior to, during, or after windrow formation (Fig. 6 depicts operation of machine 108 that prepares the agricultural material into a windrow for the bale forming machine and Fig. 4 depicts machine 108 windrow sensor 312 positioned above the raking channel 308 configured to sense a height of the agricultural material within the raking channel 308 of known width, see at least, ¶50, 60-65 and 71-77, Chaney); determining a process parameter for a subsequent agricultural process to the raking operation, based on the crop condition data (Fig. 7A block 424 depicts operation of the baler machine which is a subsequent agricultural process, controlled based on the target feed rate and yield data obtained at block 420, see at least, ¶78-82, Chaney).
Chaney does not explicitly teach and outputting the process parameter but teaches an alternative embodiment where the target speed can be displayed (output) to the operator as a suggested speed modification (process parameter) (see at least, ¶84, Chaney).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Chaney to incorporate the alternate embodiment of which teaches output the process parameter in order to discourage plugging the baler.
Regarding Claim 17, Chaney teaches, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions for monitoring crop condition), the instructions, when performed by a controller (Fig. 9 depicts memory 21 that stores computer readable instructions executed by a processor 17, see at least, ¶109, Chaney), configure the controller to: receive crop condition data from a crop condition sensor positioned on an agricultural rake to detect a condition of cut-crop material during a raking operation that is at least one of prior to, during, or after windrow formation (Fig. 6 depicts operation of machine 108 that prepares the agricultural material into a windrow for the bale forming machine and Fig. 4 depicts machine 108 windrow sensor 312 positioned above the raking channel 308 configured to sense a height of the agricultural material within the raking channel 308 of known width, see at least, ¶50, 60-65 and 71-77, Chaney); determine a process parameter for a subsequent agricultural process to the raking operation, based on the crop condition data (Fig. 7A block 424 depicts operation of the baler machine which is a subsequent agricultural process, controlled based on the target feed rate and yield data obtained at block 420, see at least, ¶78-82, Chaney).
Chaney does not explicitly teach and outputting the process parameter but teaches an alternative embodiment where the target speed can be displayed (output) to the operator as a suggested speed modification (process parameter) (see at least, ¶84, Chaney).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Chaney to incorporate the alternate embodiment of which teaches output the process parameter in order to discourage plugging the baler.
Regarding Claim 2, Chaney teaches,
The agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the process parameter comprises one or more of: a timing parameter, a selection parameter, or an intensity parameter of the subsequent agricultural process (target speed is considered a timing parameter of the subsequent agricultural process which is baling, see at least, ¶83, Chaney).
Regarding Claim 3, 16 and 20, Chaney teaches, the agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to (re-claim 3), the method of claim 12, further comprising (re-claim 16), and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, the instructions, when performed by the controller, further configure the controller to (re-claim 20): receive position data indicating a position of the agricultural rake from a position sensor (Fig. 2 block 134 machine position data, see at least, ¶29, Chaney); and determine the process parameter as a position-dependent process parameter based on the crop condition data and the position data (Fig. 2 block 142 control baler speed based on position-referenced yield data (crop condition) of block 136 to discourage plugging, see at least, ¶34, Chaney).
Regarding Claims 9 and 15, Chaney teaches, the agricultural system of claim 1 (re-claim 9) and the method of claim 12 (re-claim 15), wherein the crop condition sensor comprises one or more of: a quality sensor, a nutritional value sensor, or a yield sensor (material sensors 234 include a yield sensor such as a windrow sensor, see at least, ¶44, Chaney).
Regarding Claim 11, Chaney teaches, the agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to output the process parameter to one or more of: a user device; a control centre; and an agricultural vehicle or machine (the target speed can be displayed to the operator on a user interface device 226 as a suggested speed modification, see at least, ¶ 42 and 84, Chaney).
Claims 4-6, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaney (US 20180184594 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 9, 11-12, 15-17 and 20 and further in view of Fay, II; Jeffrey B. et al. (US 20220210972 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Chaney teaches, the agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the crop condition sensor comprises a moisture sensor and the subsequent agricultural process comprises at least one of: a collection process (Fig. 2 block 138 performing baling operation, see at least, ¶33, Chaney); a spraying process; a tedding process; a chopping process; a conditioning process; or a further raking process.
Chaney does not explicitly teach wherein the crop condition sensor comprises a moisture sensor.
Fay, directed to agricultural harvesting machines teaches wherein the crop condition sensor comprises a moisture sensor (Fig. 2, moisture sensor 148, see at least, ¶37-39, Fay).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Chaney to incorporate the teachings of Fay which teaches wherein the crop condition sensor comprises a moisture sensor since they are both related to agricultural harvesting machines and incorporation of the teachings of Fay would improve the resolution of field yield monitoring (¶8, Fay).
Regarding Claim 5, Chaney in view of Fay teaches, the agricultural system of claim 4 wherein the agricultural rake comprises a raking channel for forcing swath guard for intercepting cut-crop material raked by tines of the agricultural rake to form the windrow, wherein the moisture sensor is positioned on the swath guard.
Fay, directed to agricultural harvesting machines further teaches, a swath guard for intercepting cut-crop material to form the windrow, wherein the moisture sensor is positioned on the swath guard (Fig. 2 depicts a swath gate 134 which creates windrows with moisture sensor 148 on the swath gate, see at least, ¶32, Fay).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Chaney to incorporate the teachings of Fay which teaches a swath guard for intercepting cut-crop material to form the windrow, wherein the moisture sensor is positioned on the swath guard since they are both related to agricultural harvesting machines and incorporation of the teachings of Fay would improve the resolution of field yield monitoring (¶8, Fay).
Regarding Claim 6, Chaney in view of Fay teaches, the agricultural system of claim 5.
Fay, directed to agricultural harvesting machines further teaches, wherein the moisture sensor comprises a flexible electrode on a surface of the swath guard (moisture sensors 148 may be fitted within a mount 160 which may include a plastic material, which is known to be flexible, see at least, ¶37-38, Fay).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Chaney in view of Fay to further incorporate the teachings of Fay which teaches wherein the moisture sensor comprises a flexible electrode on a surface of the swath guard since they are both related to agricultural harvesting machines and incorporation of the teachings of Fay would improve the resolution of field yield monitoring (¶8, Fay).
Regarding Claim 13 and 18, Chaney teaches,
The method of claim 12, further comprising (re-claim 13) and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, the instructions, when performed by the controller, further configure the controller to (re-claim 18.
Chaney does not explicitly teach receiving a previous process parameter from an agricultural process previous to the raking operation; correlating the previous process parameter with the crop condition data; and determining the process parameter for the subsequent agricultural process based on the correlation.
Fay, directed to agricultural harvesting machines teaches, receiving a previous process parameter from an agricultural process previous to the raking operation `; correlating the previous process parameter with the crop condition data; and determining the process parameter for the subsequent agricultural process based on the correlation (correlating the moisture content map 154 with the yield map 655 and determining a drying time 656 of the crop material, see at least, ¶54-59, Fay).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Chaney to incorporate the teachings of Fay which teaches teach receiving a previous process parameter from an agricultural process previous to the raking operation; correlating the previous process parameter with the crop condition data; and determining the process parameter for the subsequent agricultural process based on the correlation since they are both related to agricultural harvesting machines and incorporation of the teachings of Fay would improve the resolution of field yield monitoring (¶8, Fay).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaney (US 20180184594 A1) in view of Fay, II; Jeffrey B. et al. (US 20220210972 A1)as applied to claims 4-6, 13 and 18 and further in view of Kraus; Timothy J. (US 20120103205 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Chaney in view of Fay teaches, the agricultural system of claim 4.
Chaney in view of Fay does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to output an abort signal if moisture data sensed via the moisture sensor is outside a raking moisture range.
Kraus, directed to agricultural balers teaches, output an abort signal if moisture data sensed via the moisture sensor is outside a baling moisture range (Fig. 5 depicts block 510 send warning to display if the moisture content ratio has exceeded the high moisture content ratio threshold, see at least, ¶22, Kraus).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Chaney in view of Fay raking operation to incorporate the teachings of Kraus which teaches output an abort signal if moisture data sensed via the moisture sensor is outside a baling moisture range since they are both related to agricultural harvesting machines and incorporation of the teachings of Kraus would ensure that the moisture content of the material is in condition for storage and prevent spoilage or fire (¶2, Kraus).
Claims 10, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaney (US 20180184594 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 9, 11-12, 15-17 and 20 and further in view of Hamilton; Kevin J. (US 20220207622 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Chaney teaches, the agricultural system of claim 1.
Chaney does not explicitly teach wherein the subsequent agricultural process comprises an agricultural process in a subsequent harvesting cycle.
Hamilton, directed to agricultural machines and systems for handling forage harvesting teaches, wherein the subsequent agricultural process comprises an agricultural process in a subsequent harvesting cycle (Fig. 5 depicts loss monitoring system 10 that monitor quality and yield during stages of a harvest operation over one or more time periods where a second time period comprises a second harvest at another non-overlapping span of days, see at least, ¶42 and 56, Hamilton).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Chaney to incorporate the teachings of Hamilton which teaches wherein the subsequent agricultural process comprises an agricultural process in a subsequent harvesting cycle since they are both related to agricultural harvesting processes and incorporation of the teachings of Hamilton would reduce losses in forage quality that can occur during the harvesting process.
Regarding Claim 14 and 19, Chaney teaches,
The method of claim 12, further comprising (re-claim 14) and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, the instructions, when performed by the controller, further configure the controller to (re-claim 19).
Chaney does not explicitly teach, receive further crop condition data from a plurality of agricultural processes in one or more harvesting cycles; receive further process parameters from the plurality of agricultural processes; determine relationships between the further crop condition data and the further process parameters; and determine the process parameter for the subsequent agricultural process based on the condition data and the determined relationships.
Hamilton, directed to agricultural machines and systems for handling forage harvesting teaches, receive further crop condition data from a plurality of agricultural processes in one or more harvesting cycles; receive further process parameters from the plurality of agricultural processes (Fig. 5 depicts loss monitoring system 10 that monitor quality and yield during a plurality of stages of a harvest operation, see at least, ¶30, 42, 67, Hamilton); determine relationships between the further crop condition data and the further process parameters (comparisons of the quality and/or yield maps of different stages may provide insight into where among the stages more stage operations may provide a reduction in quality losses and/or yield losses (crop condition data) and correlate those losses based on machine settings for the current stage of harvest (process parameters), see at least, ¶30, 42, 67, Hamilton); and determine the process parameter for the subsequent agricultural process based on the condition data and the determined relationships (Similarly, adjustments (or recommended adjustments) to machine settings (e.g., swather traveling speed) and/or schedules may be made based on the dry tonnage determinations (e.g., compared to historical practice, predefined thresholds/threshold ranges, or configurable settings), where speed is adjusted to lower the moisture content to a suitable amount to reduce microbial carbohydrate consumption (e.g., closer to 60% moisture). As noted above, the quality and/or yield determinations may simply be fed back to the operator (and/or farm manager) to enable informed decisions on farm management practices, see at least, ¶30, 42, 67, Hamilton).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Chaney to incorporate the teachings of Hamilton which teaches receive further crop condition data from a plurality of agricultural processes in one or more harvesting cycles; receive further process parameters from the plurality of agricultural processes; determine relationships between the further crop condition data and the further process parameters; and determine the process parameter for the subsequent agricultural process based on the condition data and the determined relationships, since they are both related to agricultural harvesting processes and incorporation of the teachings of Hamilton would reduce losses in forage quality that can occur during the harvesting process.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaney (US 20180184594 A1) in view of Fay, II; Jeffrey B. et al. (US 20220210972 A1)as applied to claims 4-6, 13 and 18 and further in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 7, Chaney in view of Fay teaches, the agricultural system of claim 4 wherein the moisture sensor comprises a plurality of moisture sensor elements (the mower-conditioner machine 320 may include two or more moisture sensors 348 located on the swatch gate 334 and conditioning rolls 338, see at least, ¶40, Fay).
Chaney in view of Fay does not explicitly teach each positioned on a corresponding tine of the agricultural rake.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Chaney and Fey to re-arrange the moisture sensor elements on a corresponding tine of the agricultural rake, since the placement of a sensor is considered to be a choice of the designer (see MPEP 2144.04 VI C Rearrangement of Parts).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights