DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/26/2024, 4/10/2024, 04/29/2024, and 6/26/2025 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings submitted on 3/01/2024 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method of optimizing a fill profile of a harvested material in a receiving container, the method comprising:
determining, via a visual system, a plurality of desired fill profile parameters for a harvested material in the receiving container based on data regarding the supply container, the receiving container, and the harvested material;
determining, via the visual system, one or more actual fill profile parameters of the harvested material in the receiving container based on vision data from the visual system;
determining, via the visual system, an adjustment factor for a fill profile of the harvested material in the receiving container based on a comparison of the plurality of desired fill profile parameters and the one or more actual fill profile parameters; and
generating, via the visual system, a second fill profile of the harvested material that accounts for the adjustment factor.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 17.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim. Likewise, claim 8 is a system claim and claim 15 a non-transitory computer readable medium claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical concept and/or mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “determining, via a visual system, a plurality of desired fill profile parameters for a harvested material in the receiving container based on data regarding the supply container, the receiving container, and the harvested material; determining, via the visual system, one or more actual fill profile parameters of the harvested material in the receiving container based on vision data from the visual system;
determining, via the visual system, an adjustment factor for a fill profile of the harvested material in the receiving container based on a comparison of the plurality of desired fill profile parameters and the one or more actual fill profile parameters…”, which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of claim 17.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including “generating, via the visual system, a second fill profile of the harvested material that accounts for the adjustment factor” (claims 1 and 17) which are merely data outputting steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The claim also recites or implies a “processing unit” (claims 1 and 17) however the “processing unit” is recited at a high level of generality, e.g. Spec. [0081] describing a variety of different types of “processors” that may be used, and merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “processors” to perform the predictions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the output from the visual processing unit.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 1, 8, and 15). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claim 17, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-16 and 18-20, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 1 and 17.
See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Puryk et al. US 2021/0195840
With regards to claims 1 and 17, Puryk et al. US 2021/0195840 teaches a system and method of optimizing a fill profile of a harvested material in a receiving container, the method comprising:
determining, via a visual system, a plurality of desired fill profile parameters for a harvested material in the receiving container based on data regarding the supply container, the receiving container, and the harvested material; (paragraph 0121)
determining, via the visual system, one or more actual fill profile parameters of the harvested material in the receiving container based on vision data from the visual system; (paragraph 0120)
determining, via the visual system, an adjustment factor for a fill profile of the harvested material in the receiving container based on a comparison of the plurality of desired fill profile parameters and the one or more actual fill profile parameters; (paragraph 0095,0100-0101, 0121,0224) and
generating, via the visual system, a second fill profile of the harvested material that accounts for the adjustment factor. (updated profile; paragraph 0224(offset adjustment; paragraph 0163)
With regards to claims 2 and 18, Puryk et al. US 2021/0195840 teaches the plurality of desired fill profile parameters includes any of a first desired fill profile parameter is a maximum weight of harvested material that can be deposited in the receiving container, a second desired fill profile parameter is a desired fill profile type of the harvested material for the receiving container, a third desired fill profile parameter is a weight distribution of the harvested material in the receiving container, a fourth desired fill profile parameter is a maximum fill profile of the harvested material of the receiving container, and/or a fifth desired fill profile parameter is a commodity density of the harvested material. (paragraph 0120-0121 )
With regards to claim 3, Puryk et al. US 2021/0195840 teaches determining, via a sensor, the commodity density from a specific type and humidity of the harvested material. (paragraph 0082)
With regards to claim 4, Puryk et al. US 2021/0195840 teaches the weight distribution of the harvested material across the receiving container includes one of a level distribution, an axle distribution, a front fill distribution, a rear fill distribution, or a reverse fill distribution. (paragraph 0116 and 0121)
With regards to claim 5, Puryk et al. US 2021/0195840 teaches loading, via the supply container, a first portion of the harvested material onto a front axle of the receiving container to a fill height that corresponds to the fill profile being a reverse fill profile; and loading, via the supply container, a remaining portion of the harvested material onto a rear axle of the receiving container to a fill height that corresponds to the fill profile being a reverse fill profile. (paragraph 0116 & 0186)
With regards to claim 6, Puryk et al. US 2021/0195840 teaches moving the supply container in one direction along the receiving container until the fill height corresponds to the fill profile being the reverse fill profile. (facilitate even distribution; paragraph 0186)
With regards to claim 7, Puryk et al. US 2021/0195840 teaches determining, via the visual system, a floor surface profile along a longitudinal axis and a horizontal axis of a floor of the receiving container. (paragraph 0161)
With regards to claims 8 and 19, Puryk et al. US 2021/0195840 teaches determining, via the visual system, a maximum fill profile matrix for the harvested material in the receiving container relative to the floor surface profile. (paragraph 0121)
With regards to claim 9, Puryk et al. US 2021/0195840 teaches determining, via the visual system, a profile matrix of the desired fill profile. (paragraph 0121)
With regards to claim 10, Puryk et al. US 2021/0195840 teaches determining, via the visual system, an initial estimated location of the profile matrix relative to the floor surface profile. (paragraph 0121)
With regards to claims 11 and 20, Puryk et al. US 2021/0195840 teaches optimizing, via the visual system, the second fill profile of the harvested material in the receiving container to within a weight tolerance or a volume tolerance. (volumetric distribution; paragraph 0121)
With regards to claim 12, Puryk et al. US 2021/0195840 teaches determining, via the visual system, a minimum shifted profile that includes the maximum fill profile matrix and the initial estimated location of the profile matrix relative to the floor surface profile. (paragraph 0183)
With regards to claim 13, Puryk et al. US 2021/0195840 teaches determining, via the visual system, a desired fill volume and/or a desired fill weight of the harvested material in the receiving container from the minimum shifted profile and the floor surface profile. (paragraph 0122 & 0124)
With regards to claim 14, Puryk et al. US 2021/0195840 teaches determining, via the visual system, whether the desired fill volume and/or the desired fill weight, respectively, are within a volume tolerance and/or a weight tolerance; when either of the desired fill volume and/or the desired fill weight, respectively, are not within the volume tolerance and/or the weight tolerance, then either increasing or decreasing the adjustment factor; and when both of the desired fill volume and/or the desired fill weight, respectively, are within the volume tolerance and/or the weight tolerance, then determining a two-dimensional profile of the maximum fill matrix of the harvested material in the receiving container. (paragraph 0071, 0081-0087)
With regards to claim 15, Puryk et al. US 2021/0195840 teaches displaying information related to the two-dimensional profile of the maximum fill matrix on a visual display. (paragraph 0136)
With regards to claim 16, Puryk et al. US 2021/0195840 teaches displaying an actual fill height of the harvested material on the visual display; determining, via the visual system, whether the actual fill height is above or below the two-dimensional profile of the maximum fill matrix; and if the actual fill height is below the two-dimensional profile, then the supply container remains in its current location relative to the receiving container as indicated by a nudger position request. (fill model continuously updated; paragraph 0087)
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pighl et al. US Pat# 8,380,401 teaches an automatic grain transfer control system based on real time modeling of a fill level profile for regions of the receiving container.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
12. 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.
13. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
14. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 June 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights