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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schafer (US PGPub 20080078153).
Re Claim 15, Schafer discloses a method for detecting foreign objects (refer to title) for an agricultural harvester (10), the agricultural harvester having a feed roller assembly (54, 56, 58, and 60) extending between a first end (ref. to annotated Fig. 2 below) and a second end (ref. to annotated Fig. 2 below), the feed roller assembly including a plurality of bottom rollers (56, 60) and a plurality of top rollers (54, 58), the feed roller assembly being configured to receive a flow of harvested materials and direct the flow of harvested materials along a flow path defined between the plurality of bottom rollers and the plurality of top rollers from the first end of the feed roller assembly to the second end of the feed roller assembly ([0023]; refer to annotated Fig. 2 below.), the method comprising: receiving, with one or more computing devices (evaluation circuit 78), displacement data indicative of displacement of a first roller (54) of the plurality of top rollers and displacement of a second roller (58) of the plurality of top rollers ([0025-0026]); determining, with the one or more computing devices (78), that a foreign object is present within the flow of harvested materials based at least in part on the displacement data ([0012], first sentence); and controlling, with the one or more computing devices (78), an operation of one or more components (42) of the agricultural harvester in response to determining that the foreign object is present within the flow of harvested materials (Claim 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
619
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 16, Schafer discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising monitoring the displacement data relative to at least one displacement condition standard (“threshold value”, abstract), wherein determining that the foreign object is present within the flow of harvested materials comprises determining that displacement of each of the first and second rollers differs from the at least one displacement condition standard (see [0009], [0012-13]).
Re Claim 19, Schafer discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: receiving, with the one or more computing devices, data indicative of a metallic property of the flow of harvested materials; and determining, with the one or more computing devices, that a metallic object is present in the flow of harvested materials based at least in part on the metallic property of the flow of material exceeding a metallic property threshold ([0034]; sensors and their associated circuits are known to inherently use filters and calibrate cutoff or threshold values by design in order to accurately capture desirable data and avoid unrepresentative noise.) .
Regarding Claim 20, Schafer discloses the method of claim 15, wherein controlling the operation of the one or more components of the agricultural harvester comprises controlling an operation of at least one of a feed roller drive member to stop the feed roller assembly, a chopper drive member to stop a chopper assembly directly downstream of the feed roller assembly, or a user interface (“a suitable display”) to provide an operator notification (“an acoustic signal”) associated with the foreign object ([0033]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Duncan (US Pub. App. 20030115846) in view of Craig et al. (US Pub. App. 2017/0112059).
Duncan discloses a system (1) for detecting foreign objects (abstract) within an agricultural harvester (abstract), the system comprising: a feed roller assembly (3) extending between a first end (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and a second end (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and including a plurality of bottom rollers (3b, 4b) and a plurality of top rollers (3a, 4a), the feed roller assembly being configured to receive a flow of harvested materials and direct the flow of harvested materials ([0026-27]) along a flow path (see annotated Fig. 1 below) defined between the plurality of bottom rollers and the plurality of top rollers from the first end of the feed roller assembly to the second end of the feed roller assembly (see annotated Fig. 1 below); a first movement sensor (15) configured to generate displacement data indicative of displacement of a first roller (3a) of the plurality of top rollers ([0037]); and a controller (31) communicatively coupled to the first movement sensor, the controller being configured to determine when a foreign object ([0034]) is present within the flow of harvested materials based at least in part on the displacement data received from the first sensor ([0048], note the first sentence).
Duncan does not clearly teach a second movement sensor specifically configured to generate displacement data indicative of displacement of a second roller of the plurality of top rollers; and a controller communicatively coupled to both the first and second movement sensors.
Craig teaches a second sensor (75) configured to generate displacement data indicative of displacement of a second roller ([0014]) of the plurality of top rollers (60) and a controller (80) communicatively coupled to both the first and second movement sensors ([0003]; abstract, last sentence).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duncan’s system to include a second sensor on another upper roller and to connect a controller to at least said two sensors, in view of Craig, as it would have expectedly allowed for more thorough detection of undesirable objects’ presence, via deflection of multiple conveying rollers, in the flow path of harvested materials. Moreover, the above modification would have amounted to the obvious duplication of parts in a manner that yields expected and predictable results. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
469
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re. Claim 2, the combination of Duncan in view of Craig teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to monitor the displacement data relative to at least one displacement condition standard, the controller being configured to determine that the foreign object is present within the flow of harvested materials when the displacement data indicates that displacement of each of the first and second rollers differs from the at least one displacement condition standard, based on Duncan’s predetermined threshold ([0015]; it would be present on both rollers based on the modification in view of Craig discussed above.).
Re Claim 7, the combination of Duncan in view of Craig teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to perform a control action when it is determined that the foreign object is present within the flow of harvested materials, the control action comprising controlling an operation of at least one of a feed roller drive member to stop the feed roller assembly, a chopper drive member to stop a chopper assembly directly downstream of the feed roller assembly, or a user interface to provide an operator notification associated with the foreign object, based on Duncan’s signal generated by a sensor and transmitted to an object detector (104) (refer to [0015-0017], [0039] (last sentence), and abstract, lines 2-4; the modification disclosing Claim 1 thus teaches that the feed mechanism can be halted upon the detector receiving said signal and subsequently terminating operation of a drive to a gearbox 8 or a clutch/brake system; moreover, [0052-53] teach an indicator 114, functioning as part of said user interface in conjunction with push button switch 130, that “alerts the operator” of the detection of a foreign object, as enabled by the entire sensing circuitry.).
Re Claim 8, the combination of Duncan in view of Craig discloses the system of claim 1, based on Duncan, further comprising a metal detecting sensor (102 with 108) associated with at least one of the plurality of bottom rollers or the plurality of top rollers ([0051]: The magnetic sensing circuit 118, as part of the sensor, is associated with the feed mechanism, which has upper and lower sets of rollers, via electrical connection.), the metal detecting sensor being configured to generate data indicative of a metallic property of the flow of harvested materials (All metal detectors or magnetic sensors are known to generate continuous or discrete signals, both of which comprise data points, relative to their calibrated sensitivity and physical proximity towards any passing metallic or ferromagnetic object, regardless of whether it occurs or not in a flow of harvested materials. This is presently an unpatentable feature in the relevant arts, as inducing electromagnetism, embodied here as the Hall effect, which enables such non-contact sensor species, is a natural phenomenon and thus cannot be used as intended use language.), wherein the controller (31) is communicatively coupled to the metal detecting sensor ([0048]), the controller being configured to determine that a metallic object is present in the flow of harvested materials based at least in part on the metallic property of the flow of harvested material exceeding a metallic property threshold (This configuration would be present based on the modification in view of Craig’s threshold value discussed above. Further, it is obvious and known to one of ordinary skill in the art that, in order for any sensor to essentially communicate data to a user, there must exist a zero or tared baseline value, set during calibration, in order for which to record/graph and compare sensed values against.)
Re Claim 9, the combination of Duncan in view of Craig teaches wherein the agricultural harvester comprises a sugarcane harvester, based on Craig’s sugarcane harvester (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duncan’s harvester to be tailored to sugarcane crop, in view of Craig, as it would be beneficial to select well-known harvesters comprising of specific chopping assemblies and other harvesting and conveying vehicular systems best suited for this field of agriculture, rather than a general application which could expectedly result in dramatically reduced billet yields at point-of-harvest.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Craig et al. (US Pub. App. 2017/0112059) in view of Depestel (US Patent 11525940 and also published as WO 2018/172210 on Sept. 27, 2018 – in the interests of brevity the citations are to the US Patent although the WO document contains the same subject matter).
Craig discloses a sugarcane harvester (10), comprising: a base cutter assembly (50) configured to sever sugarcane stalks ([0012-0013]); a feed roller assembly (55 and 60) extending between a first end ([0013]: first end begins past base cutters) and a second end ([0015] – first two lines) and including a plurality of bottom rollers (55) and a plurality of top rollers (60), the feed roller assembly being configured to receive a flow ([0013], lines 3-5) of the sugarcane stalks from the base cutter assembly and direct the flow of the sugarcane stalks along a flow path ([0013]-[0015]) defined between the plurality of bottom rollers and the plurality of top rollers from the first end of the feed roller assembly to the second end of the feed roller assembly; a chopper assembly (90) configured to receive the flow of the sugarcane stalks from the feed roller assembly and chop the flow of the sugarcane stalks into billets ([0015]); a first movement sensor (75) configured to generate displacement data indicative of displacement of a first roller (“two crop mass flow feedback devices 75 positioned adjacent the [two] upper feed rollers 60”) of the plurality of top rollers ([0014]); a second movement sensor (75) configured to generate displacement data indicative of displacement of a second roller (“two crop mass flow feedback devices 75 (can be embodied as height sensors, which deal with displacement in the y-axis) positioned adjacent the upper feed rollers 60”) of the plurality of top rollers; and a controller (80) communicatively coupled to the first and second movement sensors.
Craig fails to teach the controller being configured to determine when a foreign object is present within the flow of the sugarcane stalks based at least in part on the displacement data received from the first and second movement sensors and to control an operation of the agricultural harvester when the foreign object is present in the flow of the sugarcane stalks to protect the chopper assembly.
Depestel teaches the controller (134) being configured to determine when a foreign object is present within the flow of crops (108) based at least in part on the displacement data received from the first and second movement sensors (A controller can be programmed to determine displacement from angle sensors 116 using trigonometry.) and to control an operation (Column 12, second paragraph) of the agricultural harvester when the foreign object is present in the flow of the crops to protect the chopper assembly (“… a downstream cutter drum could be significantly damaged if a stone 112 were allowed to pass through the pair of rollers 102, 104.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Craig’s sugarcane harvester in view of Depestel so that its controller would be configured to determine a foreign object’s presence using signals from displacement/position sensors and to also terminate a critical operation in order to protect the entire vehicle and any nested assemblies or subsystems within.
Re Claim 11, the combination of Craig in view of Depestel teaches the sugarcane harvester of claim 10, wherein the controller is configured to monitor the displacement data relative to at least one displacement condition standard, the controller being configured to determine that the foreign object is present within the flow of the sugarcane stalks when the displacement data indicates that displacement of each of the first and second rollers differs from the at least one displacement condition standard, based on Depestel’s threshold value (abstract).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Craig’s controller, in view of Depestel, such that it would become configured to compare both rollers’ deflection data to a threshold or minimum in turn to detect a foreign object as it would prove useful to have a point of reference, using an algorithm or the like, with which to determine what values of such signals are noise or output-worthy.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Craig et al. (US Pub. App. 2017/0112059) in view of Depestel (US Patent 11525940) further in view of Diekhans et al. (DE Patent 4129113).
Re Claim 14, the combination of Craig in view of Depestel teaches the sugarcane harvester of claim 10.
The combination does not teach further comprising a metal detecting sensor associated with at least one of the plurality of bottom rollers or the plurality of top rollers, the metal detecting sensor being configured to generate data indicative of a metallic property of the flow of harvested materials, wherein the controller is communicatively coupled to the metal detecting sensor, the controller being configured to determine that a metallic object is present in the flow of harvested materials based at least in part on the metallic property of the flow of material exceeding a metallic property threshold.
Diekhans teaches further comprising a metal detecting sensor (1) associated with at least one of the plurality of bottom rollers (21) or the plurality of top rollers (30), the metal detecting sensor being configured to generate data indicative of a metallic property of the flow of harvested materials (Claim 1), wherein the controller (PS with ST) is communicatively coupled to the metal detecting sensor, the controller being configured to determine that a metallic object is present in the flow of harvested materials based at least in part on the metallic property of the flow of material exceeding a metallic property threshold (1S).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination of Craig and Depestel in view of Diekhans in order to use at least one metal detector or similar sensor on at least one roller in connection with a controller as to enable the determination of metallic objects in a flow of harvested crops, such as sugarcane.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 12-13, and 17-18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROHAN O. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 - 5 EST.
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, Joseph M Rocca can be reached at (571)272-8971. 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.
/R.O.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights