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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 01/28/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
Group I (claims 1 and 9) and Group III (claim 20) overlap in scope and Group I (claims 1 and 9) includes the details of Group III (claim 20). Therefore, according to MPEP §806.05(c), it is irrelevant whether Group III has separate utility from Group I. Group I and Group III are not distinct and, thus, the requirement for restriction between Groups I and III must not be maintained.
This is not found persuasive because the applicant has failed to address the separate utility of claim 1 with respect to claim 20. As claim 1 does not require adjusting a setting of an agricultural machine, claim 1 has the separate utility of monitoring without adjusting parameters. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Additionally, applicant’s traversal is on the grounds that The process of Group II includes all the features of Group I and Group III plus a step of communication to a gin. It is submitted that the step of communicating does not result in a materially different process.
This is not found persuasive because para [0027] of applicant’s specification states “the data can be used to establish the settings of a cotton gin and thereby improve the efficiency of the cotton gin”. As there is no recitation of a gin in Group I or Group III, this results in a materially different method.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 14, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5 line 3, the phrase “is not be conveyed” is a grammatical error.
Regarding claim 5 line 4, the phrase “measure the seed cotton measuring seed cotton” is a grammatical error.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 14 has been renumbered to claim 13.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “further configure” is a grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17 line 4, the phrase “combined data” is unclear if the combined data is the same or different from the previously recited combined data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall et al. (US 2014/0060348), hereinafter Hall.
In re. claim 1, Hall teaches an agricultural machine, comprising: a sensor array (105, 130); and a computing device (160) having a processor executing computer-readable instructions (para [0025]) to: control the sensor array to measure seed cotton during harvesting by the agricultural machine to generate sensor readings (para [0016]-[0017]); generate a profile for seed cotton based on sensor readings acquired from the sensor array (multiple moisture readings (110, 120, 135, 140) is a profile) (para [0024]); and determine one or more properties of the seed cotton based on the profile (average moisture reading) (para [0025]).
In re. claim 2, Hall teaches the agricultural machine of claim 1, further comprising a baler (85, 90) (para [0015]), wherein the sensor array is mounted in the baler (fig. 1).
In re. claim 3, Hall teaches the agricultural machine of claim 2, wherein the computing device executes instructions to control the sensor array to measure the seed cotton when a bale in the baler is stationary (when cotton is stationary) (para [0017]).
In re. claim 4, Hall teaches the agricultural machine of claim 2, wherein the computing device executes instructions to control the sensor array to measure the seed cotton when the baler is active (when the module builder is moving) (para [0021]).
In re. claim 5, Hall teaches the agricultural machine of claim 2, wherein the computing device executes instructions to: rotate the bale when seed cotton is not be conveyed to the baler (when the feeder stops rotating) (para [0021]); and control the sensor array to measure the seed cotton measuring seed cotton while rotating (when the module builder is moving) (para [0021]).
In re. claim 6, Hall teaches the agricultural machine of claim 1, further comprising a conveying duct (470) (fig. 5), wherein the sensor array (507) is mounted within the conveying duct (para [0029]).
In re. claim 7, Hall teaches the agricultural machine of claim 1, further comprising an accumulator (265) (fig. 4), wherein the sensor array (307) is mounted within the accumulator (para [0027]).
In re. claim 8, Hall teaches the agricultural machine of claim 1, wherein the computing device further executes instructions to: determine a location in a cotton field at which the seed cotton was collected (150) (fig. 3); and store the location in association with the one or more properties determined (175) (fig. 3) (para [0024]).
In re. claim 9, Hall teaches the agricultural machine of claim 1, wherein the computing device further executes instructions to adjust a setting for a component of the agricultural machine based on the one or more properties of the seed cotton (initiate alarm (190)) (fig. 3).
In re. claim 12, Hall teaches the agricultural machine of claim 1, wherein the one or more properties of the seed cotton include moisture level in the seed cotton (para [0016]-[0017]).
In re. claim 13, Hall teaches the agricultural machine of claim 1, wherein the computing device further executes instructions to communicate quality data (below moisture limit), based at least in part on the one or more properties (para [0024]).
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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stover (US 2010/0307120).
In re. claim 10, Hall fails to disclose the computing device further executes instructions to determine one or more predicted properties of the seed cotton based on the one or more properties.
Stover teaches one or more predicted properties of the seed cotton based on the one or more properties (Roughly 1500 pounds of seed cotton produces 500 pounds of lint, 700-800 pounds of seed and 200 pounds of trash) (para [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Hall to incorporate the teachings of Stover to have the computing device execute instructions to determine one or more predicted properties of the seed cotton based on the one or more properties, for the purpose of communicating known estimates of the cotton to user via the display, increasing the information provided to the user.
In re. claim 11, Hall as modified by Stover (see Stover) teach the agricultural machine of claim 10, wherein the one or more predicted properties include an estimate of respective quantities of trash, cotton, and seed present in the seed cotton (para [0042]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lewis et al. (US 6,389,647), hereinafter Lewis.
In re. claim 14, Hall fails to disclose the sensor array includes at least a near- infrared (NIR) sensor.
Lewis teaches a near- infrared (NIR) sensor (col. 7, ln. 58-62).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Hall to incorporate the teachings of Lewis to have the sensor array includes at least a near-infrared sensor, to deliver a very accurate moisture regardless of the incoming moisture.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall as modified by Lewis as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Thomasson et al. (US 2011/0002536), hereinafter Thomasson.
In re. claim 15, Hall as modified by Lewis fail to disclose the sensory array further includes an optical sensor.
Thomasson teaches the sensory array further includes an optical sensor (1504) (fig. 16).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Hall as modified by Lewis to incorporate the teachings of Thomasson to have the sensory array further include an optical sensor, to measure cotton fiber quality and ultimately generate cotton fiber quality maps efficiently (Thomasson, para [0075]).
In re. claim 16, Hall as modified by Lewis and Thomasson (see Thomasson) teach the agricultural machine of claim 15, wherein the computing device (1508) is further configured to combine data on the seed cotton acquired by the NIR sensor (1506) with data on the seed cotton acquired by the optical sensor (1504), wherein the one or more properties of the seed cotton are determined based on combined data (para [0075]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647