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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 04 January 2024 and 21 May 2025 are acknowledged and the information referred to therein has been considered.
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: "alignment mechanism" and "deflection mechanism" in claims 1 and 20.
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 § 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 1-2, 4-5, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7,401,528 to Deppermann et al. (hereinafter referred to as Deppermann).
With regards to claim 1, Deppermann discloses an apparatus configured for attachment to a vehicle (a vehicle mounted apparatus for measuring stalk strength; abstract), the apparatus comprising:
an alignment mechanism (positioning mechanism 301; see fig. 3) configured, as result of movement of the vehicle relative to a plant stalk, to place the plant stalk in a known position relative to the apparatus (col. 6, ll. 27-39);
a deflection mechanism (plant stalk strength measurement (PSSM) apparatus 100; fig. 1) configured, as result of at least one of the movement of the vehicle relative to the plant stalk or rotational movement of the deflection mechanism, to move the plant stalk from the known position to a deflected position, the deflected position being a distance from the known position (col. 5, ll. 13-26 & col. 5, l. 63 to col. 6, l. 12); and
a force sensor (force sensor 109; fig. 1) configured to determine an amount of force applied to move the plant stalk from the known position to the deflected position (col. 5, ll. 27-42).
With regards to claim 2, Deppermann discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Deppermann further discloses the apparatus being configured such that a height of the apparatus from a growing surface of the plant stalk is adjustable (via telescoping post 107; col. 6, ll. 47-55).
With regards to claim 4, Deppermann discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Deppermann further discloses the deflection mechanism including a wheel including a plurality of radial vanes uniformly disposed around a perimeter of the wheel (within PSSM apparatus 100, see circulatory conveyor 101 with the plurality of pulling fingers 103 uniformly disposed around the perimeter extending radially outwards; fig. 1).
With regards to claim 5, Deppermann discloses the apparatus of claim 4. Deppermann further discloses the force sensor being operationally coupled with the wheel (col. 5, ll. 27-31).
With regards to claim 8, Deppermann discloses the apparatus of claim 4. Deppermann further discloses the alignment mechanism including at least one rigid member (jib arms 305; fig. 3).
With regards to claim 20, Deppermann discloses a method (using a vehicle mounted apparatus for measuring stalk strength; abstract), comprising:
driving a vehicle having a measurement apparatus (vehicle mountable system 300; fig. 3) attached thereto proximate to a growing plant stalk (col. 6, ll. 27-32);
as a result of movement of the vehicle, an alignment mechanism (positioning mechanism 301; see fig. 3) placing a plant stalk in a known position relative to the measurement apparatus (col. 6, ll. 27-39);
moving with a deflection mechanism (plant stalk strength measurement (PSSM) apparatus 100; fig. 1), as a result of at least one of the movement of the vehicle relative to the plant stalk or rotational movement of the deflection mechanism, the plant stalk from the known position to a deflected position, the deflected position being a distance from the known position (col. 5, ll. 13-26 & col. 5, l. 63 to col. 6, l. 12); and
determining, with a force sensor (force sensor 109; fig. 1), an amount of force applied to move the plant stalk from the known position to the deflected position (col. 5, ll. 27-42),
the alignment mechanism, the deflection mechanism and the force sensor being included in the measurement apparatus (col. 6, ll. 27-55, also see fig. 1, 3, 6, etc.).
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 3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deppermann as applied to claim 1 and 20 above, and further in view of US 10,859,479 to Brune et al. (hereinafter referred to as Brune; cited by applicant).
With regards to claim 3, Deppermann teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Deppermann further teaches the force sensor being configured to provide an electrical signal indicating the amount of force applied (the electrical signal being sent to acquisition system 335; col. 11, ll. 59-63).
However, Deppermann does not expressly state that the force sensor includes a load cell.
Brune, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the use of a load cell (including strain gauge type load cells) to measure the strength of a plant stalk (col. 3, ll. 14-19 & col. 9, ll. 30-36). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly use a load cell to generate the electrical signal provided to acquisition system 335. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to provide an electrical signal that is proportional to the mechanical force being measured.
With regards to claim 21, Deppermann discloses the method of claim 20. Deppermann further discloses determining the amount of force applied including at least one of:
receiving an electric signal (the electrical signal being sent to acquisition system 335; col. 11, ll. 59-63).
However, Deppermann does not expressly teach receiving the electric signal from at least one load cell or from at least one strain gauge.
Brune, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the use of a load cell (including strain gauge type load cells) to measure the strength of a plant stalk (col. 3, ll. 14-19 & col. 9, ll. 30-36). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly use a load cell to generate the electrical signal provided to acquisition system 335 (thus resulting in receiving an electric signal from at least one load cell, or receiving an electric signal from at least one strain gauge). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to provide an electrical signal that is proportional to the mechanical force being measured.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deppermann.
With regards to claim 6, Deppermann teaches the apparatus of claim 4. Deppermann further teaches the wheel being motorized (col. 4, ll. 43-51). Although Deppermann does not expressly teach the wheel being configured to rotate at a rotational speed corresponding with a velocity of the vehicle, Deppermann does state that the apparatus advantageously only tests one plant stalk at a time, thereby ensuring stalk count accuracy and the accuracy of force data (col. 9, ll. 8-13). That the speed of the vehicle would clearly impact the ability of the apparatus to test a single plant stalk at a time if the speed of the wheel were fixed. In view hereof, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the apparatus such that the wheel is configured to rotate at a rotational speed corresponding with a velocity of the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to ensure that only one stalk is interacted with at any given time, thereby ensuring the accuracy of force data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9-19 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With regards to claim 7, the prior art considered to be most pertinent was not found to teach, alone or in combination:
the plurality of radial vanes includes four vanes forming a cross shape; and the wheel is configured to: be rotationally fixed when the amount of force applied determined by the force sensor is below a threshold value; and in response to the amount of force applied determined by the force sensor reaching or exceeding the threshold value, rotate ninety degrees
in combination with all other elements in claim 7.
With regards to claim 9, the prior art considered to be most pertinent was not found to teach, alone or in combination:
the deflection mechanism includes: a cantilever beam having a proximal end coupled to an end of a rigid member of the at least one rigid member in a fixed position relative to the rigid beam, a distal end of the cantilever beam being free moving; and the force sensor includes: a first strain gauge disposed on the cantilever beam at a first distance from the proximal end; and a second strain gauge disposed on the cantilever beam at a second distance from the proximal end, the second distance being greater than the first distance
in combination with all other elements in claim 9.
Claims 10-12 depend from claim 9 and are allowable for the same reason.
With regards to claim 13, the prior art considered to be most pertinent was not found to teach, alone or in combination:
the deflection mechanism includes: a cantilever beam having a proximal end coupled to an end of a rigid member of the at least one rigid members via a torsional spring, a distal end of the cantilever beam being free moving; and the force sensor includes: a torsional load cell operationally coupled with the torsional spring; a strain gauge disposed on the cantilever beam at a distance from the proximal end
in combination with all other elements in claim 13.
Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and is allowable for the same reason.
With regards to claim 15, the prior art considered to be most pertinent was not found to teach, alone or in combination:
the deflection mechanism includes: a first wheel of a first radius being rotationally mounted on a first axis, the first wheel defining a first rotational plane; and a second wheel of a second radius being rotationally mounted on a second axis, the second wheel defining a second rotational plane that different from the first rotational plane; and a third wheel of the first radius being rotationally mounted on the first axis, the third wheel defining a third rotational plane that is different from the first rotational plane and the second rotational plane, the second axis being spaced from and parallel to the first axis, the first axis and the second axis being substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the plant stalk, the second rotational plane being disposed between the first rotational plane and the third rotational plane, and the first radius plus the second radius being greater than the spacing between the first axis and the second axis; and the force sensor is operatively coupled with one of the first wheel, the second wheel, or the third wheel
in combination with all other elements in claim 15.
Claims 16-19 depend from claim 15 and are allowable for the same reason.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7,987,735 to Mann, III et al. discloses a non-vehicular device for measuring the susceptibility of plants to root lodging. The device is used to push over the plant, and the fore used to push over the plant is recorded.
US 10,337,951 to Cook et al. discloses an apparatus for determining the flexural rigidity of a plant. This device measures force and angular displacement of the plant when used.
US 8,215,191 to Tragesser et al. discloses a related vehicle-mounted apparatus for measuring stalk strength of a plant. In this apparatus, a force sensor is mounted to a harvester in a position to measure the resistance to crushing of the plant stalk by a stalk roll of the harvester.
CN 111198137 to Cao et al. discloses a vehicle-mounted apparatus for measuring the strength of corn stalks using pressure test heads mounted to the device.
However, none of the aforementioned documents, considered to otherwise be the closest pieces of prior art, disclose the particular mechanical configurations mentioned above with respect to claims 7, 9, 13, and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/James Split/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858