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 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: “module” in claim 11 and “row unit” in claim 26.
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.
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.
Claims 11-20 and 26 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.
Claim 11 and 26 respectively recite “module” and “unit”. The specification does not describe the “module” and “unit” in such a way that it is clear what the requirements to be defined as such are. While functions and possible features contained in said elements are described, it is not clear what materials are required to meet the scope of the term. For the purposes of examining if the claimed function is met, the examiner considers it to be said “module” or “unit”.
Claims 12-20 are rejected based on their inherited issues.
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 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claims 1-29 belongs to a statutory category.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 and similarly 11 and 21 recite(s) “to determine response signals for each product based on the sensor data, and to analyze the response signals for each product to determine product characteristics including color of each product to distinguish each product” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes per applicant’s specification, for example see Par. 28.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “an electrical control system comprising:”, “processing logic coupled to the at least one sensor, the processing logic is configured to” and in claim 21, “a computer implemented method” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The elements of “at least one sensor that is configured to illuminate multiple light sources with each light source having a different wavelength and to sense one or more products”, “obtain sensor data from the at least one sensor”, and in claim 11 “module” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The elements “one or more products flowing in a product line of an agricultural implement” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “an electrical control system comprising:”, “processing logic coupled to the at least one sensor, the processing logic is configured to” and in claim 21, “a computer implemented method” are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). The elements of “at least one sensor that is configured to illuminate multiple light sources with each light source having a different wavelength and to sense one or more products”, “obtain sensor data from the at least one sensor” and in claim 11 “module” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record). The elements “one or more products flowing in a product line of an agricultural implement” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record).
Claims 2-3, 12-13, and 22-23 further describe the abstract ideas cited above.
In claims 4-6, 14-16, and 24-26 the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application or does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity and are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record).
In claims 8-10, 17-20, and 27-29 the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application or does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record).
In claim 7, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application or does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-17, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Butts (US 20160078611 A1).
In claim 1, Butts discloses an electrical control system (Fig. 2B-F) comprising: at least one sensor (Fig. 2 B-F, 222) that is configured to illuminate multiple light sources (Fig. 2 B-F, 211) with each light source having a different wavelength (Par. 103 “different wavelength”) and to sense one or more products (Par. 106) flowing in a product line (Fig. 4A, 409) of an agricultural implement (See Fig. 1, Fig. 4A); and processing logic coupled to the at least one sensor (Fig. 2 B-F, 212), the processing logic is configured to obtain sensor data from the at least one sensor (Par. 104), to determine response signals for each product based on the sensor data (Par. 109), and to analyze the response signals for each product to determine product characteristics including color of each product to distinguish each product (Par.109, Par. 12).
In claim 2, Butts further discloses wherein the product characteristics comprise a ratio of seeds or particles of a first product being applied to seeds or particles of a second product being applied (Par. 109 “fractional amount of MOG and cracked grain”).
In claim 3, Butts further discloses wherein the processing logic is further configured to select different wavelengths of the multiple light sources to be illuminated when the products flow in the product line during an application pass (Par. 166).
In claim 4, Butts discloses all of claim 3. Butts further discloses wherein the wavelength of each light source is selected to maximize a contrast of the response signals (Par. 107) that indicate a reflectance of light from each product (Par. 108 and 111).
In claim 5, Butts discloses all of claim 3. Butts further discloses wherein the different light sources comprise a first light source having a first wavelength (Par. 107 “red”) and a second light source having a second wavelength (Par. 107 “green”).
In claim 6, Butts further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is positioned on or adjacent to the product line of the agricultural implement (see Fig. 4A).
In claim 7, Butts further discloses a display device that is configured to display the product characteristics including color and product ratio (Par. 109).
In claim 11, Butts discloses an electrical control system (Fig. 2B-F) comprising: at least one sensor (Fig. 2 B-F, 222) that is configured to alternate illumination of multiple light sources (Fig. 2 B-F, 211) with each light source having a different wavelength (Par. 103 “different wavelength”) while one or more products flow (Par. 106) in a product line (Fig. 4A, 409) of an agricultural implement (See Fig. 1, Fig. 4A); a module to receive sensor data from the at least one sensor (Fig. 2 B-F, 212); and processing logic coupled to the module, the processing logic is configured to obtain the sensor data including images of the products flowing in the product line from the module (Par. 104), to determine color thresholds for analyzing the images of the products (Par. 109), and to determine product characteristics including color of each product to distinguish each product based on the images of the products (Par.109, Par. 12).
In claim 12, Butts further discloses wherein the product characteristics comprise a ratio of seeds or particles of a first product being applied to seeds or particles of a second product being applied (Par. 109 “fractional amount of MOG and cracked grain”).
In claim 13, Butts further discloses wherein the processing logic is further configured to select different wavelengths of the multiple light sources to be illuminated when the products flow in the product line during an application pass (Par. 166).
In claim 14, Butts discloses all of claim 13. Butts further discloses wherein the wavelength of each light source is selected to maximize a contrast of response signals (Par. 107) that are obtained by capturing images of the different products with the at least one sensor (Par. 108 and 111).
In claim 15, Butts discloses all of claim 13. Butts further discloses wherein the different light sources comprise a first light source having a first wavelength (Par. 107 “red”) and a second light source having a second wavelength (Par. 107 “green”).
In claim 16, Butts further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is positioned on or adjacent to the product line of the agricultural implement (see Fig. 4A).
In claim 17, Butts further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is positioned on or adjacent to a main product line or a secondary product line of the product line, on a manifold tower, or on a manifold tower riser pipe (see Fig. 4A).
In claim 21, Butts discloses a computer implemented method (Fig. 7A-C) comprising: alternating illuminating of different light sources (Fig. 2 B-F, 211) with each light source having a different wavelength (Par. 103 “different wavelength”) for at least one sensor (Fig. 2 B-F, 222) on an agricultural implement while products flow through a product line (Par. 106) during an application pass (Fig. 4A, 409) of the agricultural implement (See Fig. 1, Fig. 4A); capturing sensor data including response signals for each product while the products flow through the product line of the agricultural implement (Par. 104); and analyzing the response signals for each product to determine product characteristics including color of each product to distinguish each product (Par.109, Par. 12).
In claim 22, Butts further discloses wherein the product characteristics comprise a ratio of seeds or particles of a first product being applied to seeds or particles of a second product being applied (Par. 109 “fractional amount of MOG and cracked grain”).
In claim 23, Butts further discloses selecting different wavelengths of light sources to be illuminated during the application pass based on reflectance of each product (Par. 108 and 111).
In claim 24, Butts further discloses wherein a wavelength of each light source is selected to maximize a contrast of response signals that are generated from the different products (Par. 107).
In claim 25, Butts discloses all of claim 24. Butts further discloses wherein the different light sources comprise a first light source having a first wavelength (Par. 107 “red”) and a second light source having a second wavelength (Par. 107 “green”).
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.
Claim(s) 8-10, 18-20, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butts in view of Thompson (US 20200245529 A1)
In claim 8, Butts does not explicitly disclose wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products to an agricultural field for planting.
Thompson teaches wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products to an agricultural field for planting (Par. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before then invention was filed to have wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products to an agricultural field for planting as taught by Thompson in Butts in order to improve the sensor results (Butts Par. 152), thus leading to a more accurate system.
In claim 9, Butts does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more products comprise seed and fertilizer being applied by the agricultural implement to the agricultural field.
Thompson teaches wherein the one or more products comprise seed and fertilizer being applied by the agricultural implement to the agricultural field (Par. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before then invention was filed to have wherein the one or more products comprise seed and fertilizer being applied by the agricultural implement to the agricultural field as taught by Thompson in Butts in order to improve the sensor results (Butts Par. 152), thus leading to a more accurate system.
In claim 10, Butts does not explicitly disclose wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products including seed and fertilizer to an agricultural field for planting, wherein the agricultural implement is a planter.
Thompson teaches wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products including seed and fertilizer to an agricultural field for planting (See Fig. 1, Par. 2), wherein the agricultural implement is a planter (See Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before then invention was filed to have wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products including seed and fertilizer to an agricultural field for planting, wherein the agricultural implement is a planter as taught by Thompson in Butts in order to improve the sensor results (Butts Par. 152), thus leading to a more accurate system.
In claim 18, Butts does not explicitly disclose wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products to an agricultural field for planting.
Thompson teaches wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products to an agricultural field for planting (Par. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before then invention was filed to have wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products to an agricultural field for planting as taught by Thompson in Butts in order to improve the sensor results (Butts Par. 152), thus leading to a more accurate system.
In claim 19, Butts does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more products comprise seed and fertilizer being applied by the agricultural implement to the agricultural field.
Thompson teaches wherein the one or more products comprise seed and fertilizer being applied by the agricultural implement to the agricultural field (Par. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before then invention was filed to have wherein the one or more products comprise seed and fertilizer being applied by the agricultural implement to the agricultural field as taught by Thompson in Butts in order to improve the sensor results (Butts Par. 152), thus leading to a more accurate system.
In claim 20, Butts does not explicitly disclose wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products including seed and fertilizer to an agricultural field for planting, wherein the agricultural implement is a planter.
Thompson teaches wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products including seed and fertilizer to an agricultural field for planting (See Fig. 1, Par. 2), wherein the agricultural implement is a planter (See Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before then invention was filed to have wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products including seed and fertilizer to an agricultural field for planting, wherein the agricultural implement is a planter as taught by Thompson in Butts in order to improve the sensor results (Butts Par. 152), thus leading to a more accurate system.
In claim 26, Butts does not explicitly disclose utilizing a blockage sensor or a seed or particle counter assembly for each row unit of the agricultural implement to count seeds or particles while each product flows through the product line of the agricultural implement during the agricultural application pass.
Butts teaches utilizing a blockage sensor or a seed or particle counter assembly (Fig. 2, 40, 42) for each row unit of the agricultural implement (Fig. 2, 30) to count seeds or particles while each product flows through the product line of the agricultural implement during the agricultural application pass (Par. 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before then invention was filed to have utilizing a blockage sensor or a seed or particle counter assembly for each row unit of the agricultural implement to count seeds or particles while each product flows through the product line of the agricultural implement during the agricultural application pass as taught by Thompson in Butts in order to improve the sensor results (Butts Par. 152), thus leading to a more accurate system.
In claim 27, Butts does not explicitly disclose wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products to an agricultural field for planting.
Thompson teaches wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products to an agricultural field for planting (Par. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before then invention was filed to have wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products to an agricultural field for planting as taught by Thompson in Butts in order to improve the sensor results (Butts Par. 152), thus leading to a more accurate system.
In claim 28, Butts does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more products comprise seed and fertilizer being applied by the agricultural implement to the agricultural field.
Thompson teaches wherein the one or more products comprise seed and fertilizer being applied by the agricultural implement to the agricultural field (Par. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before then invention was filed to have wherein the one or more products comprise seed and fertilizer being applied by the agricultural implement to the agricultural field as taught by Thompson in Butts in order to improve the sensor results (Butts Par. 152), thus leading to a more accurate system.
In claim 29, Butts does not explicitly disclose wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products including seed and fertilizer to an agricultural field for planting, wherein the agricultural implement is a planter.
Thompson teaches wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products including seed and fertilizer to an agricultural field for planting (See Fig. 1, Par. 2), wherein the agricultural implement is a planter (See Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before then invention was filed to have wherein the product line of the agricultural implement is applying the one or more products including seed and fertilizer to an agricultural field for planting, wherein the agricultural implement is a planter as taught by Thompson in Butts in order to improve the sensor results (Butts Par. 152), thus leading to a more accurate system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20080011209 A1, SMOOTH FLOW SEED TUBE FOR AGRICULTURAL PLANTERS; US 20050254053 A1, Non-destructive Single Seed Or Several Seeds NIR Analyzer And Method; US 20050254054 A1, Non-destructive Derivation Of Weight Of Single Seed Or Several Seeds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights