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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 4/6/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the rejections of Claim 1-18 under U.S.C. 101 previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 1/15/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 4/6/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, specifically regarding the use of the Corban secondary reference as prior art. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Foster (US 20150264866), and Van Mill (US 20160251167).
Regarding the rejection under U.S.C 101, while the independent claims 1 and 16 are amended to overcome the rejection under U.S.C 101, applicant states that “a material transfer vehicle comprising a controllable subsystem configured to convey material from the material transfer vehicle to a container, a fill profile accessing system, and a position control system is directed to patent eligible subject matter”. The Claim 19 is directed to the same fundamental abstract idea as the others, that is the weight versus position fill profile corresponding to the container and determining controls of an object based on said profile. The difference that Claim 19 discloses a material transfer vehicle in the preamble and no claim limitations, rather than simply “a control system” or a method, does not overcome the rejection or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application- it instead merely serves to generally link the abstract idea to a certain field of endeavor. In the case the abstract idea is generally linked to the field of loading/unloading machinery.
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 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 19 is directed to a vehicle (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 19 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 19 recites a material transfer vehicle that transfers material to a container, the material transfer vehicle comprising:
a fill profile accessing system configured to access a weight versus position fill profile corresponding to the container; [abstract idea – mental process]
and a position control system configured to receive a weight signal indicative of a weight of transferred material
and generate a control signal to control the controllable subsystem to transfer material to a position in the container based on the weight signal and based on the weight versus position fill profile. [abstract idea – mental process]
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers limitations which may be performed in the human mind. Regarding the limitations of this claim, the limitations “access a weight versus position fill profile corresponding to a container;” in the context of this claim encompass a person learning information comprising a weight versus fill profile of a container. The limitations “and generate a set of control signals to control a controllable subsystem on the material transfer vehicle based on the weight signal, based on the position of the material transfer vehicle relative to the container, and based on the weight versus position fill profile” in the context of this claim encompass a person determining the control/commands/operation needed to operate a machine subsystem based on the position of the material transfer vehicle relative to the container, and based on the weight versus position fill profile. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
a fill profile accessing system configured to [performing abstract idea using generic computer] access a weight versus position fill profile corresponding to the container; [abstract idea – mental process]
and a position control system configured to receive a weight signal indicative of a weight of transferred material [insignificant extra-solution activity – pre-solution data gathering]
and generate a control signal to control the controllable subsystem to transfer material to a position in the container based on the weight signal and based on the weight versus position fill profile. [abstract idea – mental process]
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations “a fill profile accessing system configured to” are in the context of this claims recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of accessing information. The additional element “and a position control system configured to receive a weight signal indicative of a weight of transferred material” are in the context of the claims
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible
Dependent claim 20 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claim 20 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claim 19.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 20150264866), herein after known as Foster, in view of Van Mill (US 20160251167), herein after referred to as Van Mill.
Regarding Claim 1, Foster discloses:
accessing a weight versus position fill profile corresponding to a container; (see at least [0010] “the tractor controller may identify the truck and trailer combination and determine the target total weight of crop material and target weight distribution value”)
generating a control signal to control a conveyor to convey material from a material transfer vehicle to the container; (see at least [0024] “The tractor/grain cart control system 25 coordinates movement of the tractor 17 and grain cart 15 as well as operations of the components of the grain cart 15 such as a grain cart unloading system 41 that can be activated for transferring the crop material 9 from the grain cart 15 into the trailer 21.”)
detecting a position of the material transfer vehicle relative to the container; (see at least [0023] “The sensors 39 are arranged to detect characteristics of the grain cart 15 and trailer 21, such as ... the position(s) of the grain cart 15 or its components relative to the trailer 21,”)
and controlling a controllable subsystem on the material transfer vehicle (see at least [0022] “The tractor/grain cart control system 25 coordinates movement of the tractor 17 and grain cart 15 as well as operations of the components of the grain cart 15 such as a grain cart unloading system 41 that can be activated for transferring the crop material 9 from the grain cart 15 into the trailer 21.”)
based on the position of the material transfer vehicle relative to the container, and based on the weight versus position fill profile. (see at least [0025] “the tractor/grain cart control system 25 determines a loading strategy for the particular identified truck and trailer combination 19, based on the particular weight ratings of that truck and trailer combination 19. The loading strategy allows the trailer 21 to be loaded to correspond to a target total weight value and a target weight distribution value based on axle weight ratings of the axles the truck and trailer combination 19. As represented at block 55, the tractor/grain cart control system 25 controls the grain cart 15 and tractor 17 to load the trailer 21 according to the loading strategy.”)
Foster does not explicitly disclose:
receiving a weight signal indicative of a weight of material conveyed from the material transfer vehicle to the container;
based on the weight signal,
In the same field of endeavor, Van Mill discloses:
receiving a weight signal indicative of a weight of material conveyed from the material transfer vehicle to the container; (see at least [0044] “ The weight discharged from the farm implement 210 is monitored by a weigh system," [0045] "For example, the controller 900 may receive information regarding the weight from a weigh sensor, such as a scale, monitoring the weight of the bin 202”)
based on the weight signal, (see at least [0044] “The weight discharged from the farm implement 210 is monitored by a weigh system, and, when a first target weight is reached, the chute 210 is pivoted from the first position to a second position P2.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the material transfer field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Foster receive a weight signal indicative of a weight of material conveyed from the material transfer vehicle to the container and perform control based on said signal, as taught by Van Mill to unload material from a farm implement by moving the chute of the vehicle [0034].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Foster further discloses:
identifying a target weight of material to be transferred to the container at the position of the material transfer vehicle; comparing the target weight of material to the weight of material conveyed to obtain a comparison result; and controlling a controllable subsystem based on the comparison result. (see at least [0012] “A first area of the trailer is loaded and a determination is made when the first area of the trailer reaches a first area required fill level. The first area required fill level corresponds to a component of the target total weight value as a function of the target weight distribution value relative to the first area. When the required fill level is achieved for the first area, the tractor and grain cart are moved for loading the crop material into a second area of the trailer.”)
Regarding Claim 3, modified Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 2, and Foster further discloses:
when the comparison result indicates that the weight of material conveyed is within a threshold value of the target weight, then performing steps comprising: controlling a controllable subsystem to move the position of the material transfer vehicle to a next subsequent position. (see at least [0026] “As represented by blocks 81 and 83, by way of sensors 39 that monitor fill level of the trailer 21, the tractor/grain cart control system 25 automatically moves the tractor 17 forward to fill a new area(s) of the trailer 21 when the area presently being filled reaches the target or required fill level" [0023] "The sensors 39 can include ... a grain cart bin scale,”)
Regarding Claim 4, modified Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 3, and Foster further discloses:
controlling a propulsion subsystem on the material transfer vehicle to move the material transfer vehicle. (see at least [0026] “As represented by blocks 81 and 83, by way of sensors 39 that monitor fill level of the trailer 21, the tractor/grain cart control system 25 automatically moves the tractor 17 forward to fill a new area(s) of the trailer 21 when the area presently being filled reaches the target or required fill level" [0023] "The sensors 39 can include ... a grain cart bin scale,”)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 3, but Foster does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the material transfer vehicle includes a conveyor position actuator that is actuatable to change a position of a conveyor on the material transfer vehicle
and wherein controlling a controllable subsystem to move the position of the material transfer vehicle to the next subsequent position comprises: generating a conveyor position actuator control signal; and controlling the conveyor position actuator to move the conveyor.
In the same field of endeavor, Van Mill discloses:
wherein the material transfer vehicle includes a conveyor position actuator (see at least [0037] “chute control devices (e.g., hydraulic cylinders, linear actuators, belts and pulleys, or servo motors)”)
that is actuatable to change a position of a conveyor on the material transfer vehicle (see at least [0043] “ The node may control the power supply to the actuation device to control the position of the chute 210.”)
and wherein controlling a controllable subsystem to move the position of the material transfer vehicle to the next subsequent position comprises: generating a conveyor position actuator control signal; and controlling the conveyor position actuator to move the conveyor. (see at least [0044] “The chute 210 is positioned in a first position P1 and the system commences material discharge from the chute 210. The weight discharged from the farm implement 210 is monitored by a weigh system, and, when a first target weight is reached, the chute 210 is pivoted from the first position to a second position P2.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the material transfer field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Foster to include on the material transfer vehicle a conveyor position actuator that is actuatable to change a position of a conveyor on the material transfer vehicle, and generate a conveyor position actuator control signal to control the conveyor position actuator to move the conveyor, as taught by Van Mill to unload material from a farm implement by moving the chute of the vehicle [0034].
Regarding Claim 7, modified Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Foster further discloses:
sensing a variable indicative of the weight of material on the material transfer vehicle with a sensor on the material transfer vehicle; and generating the weight signal with the sensor. (see at least [0023] “The sensors 39 can include, for example, ... a grain cart bin scale, and others that operably communicate with the tractor/grain cart control system 25.”)
Regarding Claim 8, modified Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Foster further discloses:
sensing a variable indicative of the weight of material in the container with a sensor on the container; and generating the weight signal with the sensor on the container. (see at least [0023] “The sensors 39 are arranged to detect characteristics of the grain cart 15 and trailer 21, such as loading status of the trailer 21 which may include fill level(s) of the grain cart 15 and/or trailer 21 or particular zones or areas within the trailer ... The sensors 39 can include, for example, ... a grain cart bin scale, and others that operably communicate with the tractor/grain cart control system 25.”)
Regarding Claim 12, modified Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Foster further discloses:
wherein controlling the controllable subsystem comprises generating a set of control signals … based on the position of the material transfer vehicle relative to the container, and based on the weight versus position fill profile, (see at least [0025] “the tractor/grain cart control system 25 determines a loading strategy for the particular identified truck and trailer combination 19, based on the particular weight ratings of that truck and trailer combination 19. The loading strategy allows the trailer 21 to be loaded to correspond to a target total weight value and a target weight distribution value based on axle weight ratings of the axles the truck and trailer combination 19. As represented at block 55, the tractor/grain cart control system 25 controls the grain cart 15 and tractor 17 to load the trailer 21 according to the loading strategy.”)
controlling the controllable subsystem with the set of control signals (see at least [0025] “As represented at block 55, the tractor/grain cart control system 25 controls the grain cart 15 and tractor 17 to load the trailer 21 according to the loading strategy.”)
generating an additional set of control signals with an additional unload control system; and coordinating controlling of material transfer from the material transfer vehicle to the container based on the set of control signals and the additional set of control signals. (see at least [0024] “The tractor/grain cart control system 25 coordinates movement of the tractor 17 and grain cart 15 as well as operations of the components of the grain cart 15 such as a grain cart unloading system 41 that can be activated for transferring the crop material 9 from the grain cart 15 into the trailer 21.”)
Foster does not explicitly disclose:
wherein controlling the controllable subsystem comprises generating a set of control signals based on the weight signal,
In the same field of endeavor, Van Mill discloses:
wherein controlling the controllable subsystem comprises generating a set of control signals based on the weight signal, (see at least [0044] “The system will monitor the weight of material discharged in the second position P2 until a second target weight is reached. If there are more than two positions, e.g., at P1 and P2 the chute 210 is rotated about the second axis of rotation into positions PA and PB, then the system will continue moving the chute 210 into the desired positions until the target weight is reached for each position.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the material transfer field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Foster create a system in which controlling the controllable subsystem comprises generating a set of control signals based on the weight signal, as taught by Van Mill to unload material from a farm implement by moving the chute of the vehicle [0034].
Regarding Claim 14, modified Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Foster further discloses:
conducting a fill operation for the container; (see at least [0009] “A grain cart unloading system is activated for transferring the crop material from the grain cart to the trailer to load the trailer.”)
Foster does not explicitly disclose:
and learning the weight versus position fill profile corresponding to the container from the fill operation.
In the same field of endeavor, Van Mill discloses:
and learning the weight versus position fill profile corresponding to the container from the fill operation. (see at least [0061] “At an operation 4570, a determination is made as to whether the hopper weight has changed. If the weight has changed, the method 4500 observes at operation 4590 whether the chute position has changed. The operation may thus learn whether an operator of the mobile farm implement has moved the chute as the hopper is being filled, and may learn a direction or amount of such movement.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the material transfer field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Foster to include learning the weight versus position fill profile corresponding to the container from the fill operation, as taught by Van Mill to operate in a learning mode [0058].
Regarding Claim 16, Foster discloses:
at least one processor; (see at least [0023] “Each of the grain cart controller 33 and the tractor controller 35 can include an industrial computer”)
a fill profile accessing system (see at least [0022] “The target total weight and target weight distribution values for each of the particular truck and trailer combinations 19 can be stored in a database of the tractor/grain cart control system 25 for retrieval upon identifying each truck and trailer combination”)
configured to access a weight versus position fill profile corresponding to the container; (see at least [0010] “the tractor controller may identify the truck and trailer combination and determine the target total weight of crop material and target weight distribution value”)
and a position control system (see at least [0023] “The sensors 39 are arranged to detect characteristics of the grain cart 15 and trailer 21, such as ... the position(s) of the grain cart 15 or its components relative to the trailer 21,”)
and control a controllable subsystem on the material transfer vehicle (see at least [0024] “The tractor/grain cart control system 25 coordinates movement of the tractor 17 and grain cart 15 as well as operations of the components of the grain cart 15 such as a grain cart unloading system 41 that can be activated for transferring the crop material 9 from the grain cart 15 into the trailer 21.”)
and based on the weight versus position fill profile. (see at least [0025] “the tractor/grain cart control system 25 determines a loading strategy for the particular identified truck and trailer combination 19, based on the particular weight ratings of that truck and trailer combination 19. The loading strategy allows the trailer 21 to be loaded to correspond to a target total weight value and a target weight distribution value based on axle weight ratings of the axles the truck and trailer combination 19. As represented at block 55, the tractor/grain cart control system 25 controls the grain cart 15 and tractor 17 to load the trailer 21 according to the loading strategy.”)
Foster does not explicitly disclose:
configured to receive a weight signal indicative of a weight of material conveyed from the material transfer vehicle to the container;
based on the weight signal,
In the same field of endeavor, Van Mill discloses:
configured to receive a weight signal indicative of a weight of material conveyed from the material transfer vehicle to the container; (see at least [0044] “ The weight discharged from the farm implement 210 is monitored by a weigh system," [0045] "For example, the controller 900 may receive information regarding the weight from a weigh sensor, such as a scale, monitoring the weight of the bin 202”)
based on the weight signal, (see at least [0044] “The weight discharged from the farm implement 210 is monitored by a weigh system, and, when a first target weight is reached, the chute 210 is pivoted from the first position to a second position P2.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the material transfer field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Foster receive a weight signal indicative of a weight of material conveyed from the material transfer vehicle to the container and perform control based on said signal, as taught by Van Mill to unload material from a farm implement by moving the chute of the vehicle [0034].
Regarding Claim 17, modified Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 16, and Foster further discloses:
a current position detector configured to detect a current transfer position indicative of a position at which material is currently being transferred to the container; (see at least [0023] “ The sensors 39 are arranged to detect characteristics of the grain cart 15 and trailer 21, such as... the position(s) of the grain cart 15 or its components relative to the trailer 21,”)
indicated by the weight versus position fill profile, corresponding to the current transfer position, to obtain a comparison result (see at least [0012] “a fill level of the trailer is determined and the tractor and the grain cart are moved relative to the trailer based on the determined fill level of the trailer. A first area of the trailer is loaded and a determination is made when the first area of the trailer reaches a first area required fill level. The first area required fill level corresponds to a component of the target total weight value as a function of the target weight distribution value relative to the first area”)
the position control system being configured to control the controllable subsystem to move to a subsequent transfer position based on the comparison result. (see at least [0026] “As represented by blocks 81 and 83, by way of sensors 39 that monitor fill level of the trailer 21, the tractor/grain cart control system 25 automatically moves the tractor 17 forward to fill a new area(s) of the trailer 21 when the area presently being filled reaches the target or required fill level" [0023] "The sensors 39 can include ... a grain cart bin scale,”)
Foster does not explicitly disclose:
and a profile processor configured to compare the weight indicated by the weight signal to a threshold weight value,
In the same field of endeavor, Van Mill discloses:
and a profile processor configured to compare the weight indicated by the weight signal to a threshold weight value, (see at least [0056] “the system may move the chute based on a threshold weight is reached at operation 5080.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the material transfer field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Foster to compare the weight indicated by the weight signal to a threshold weight value, as taught by Van Mill to unload material from a farm implement by moving the chute of the vehicle [0034].
Regarding Claim 18, modified Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 17, and Foster further discloses:
a desired position identifier configured to identify the subsequent transfer position based on the comparison result and based on the weight versus position fill profile; and a transfer position control signal generator configured to control the controllable subsystem to move the position, at which the material is being transferred, to the subsequent transfer position. (see at least [0012] “When the required fill level is achieved for the first area, the tractor and grain cart are moved for loading the crop material into a second area of the trailer.”)
Regarding Claim 19, Foster discloses:
a controllable subsystem configured to convey the material from the material transfer vehicle to the container; (see at least [0024] “The tractor/grain cart control system 25 coordinates movement of the tractor 17 and grain cart 15 as well as operations of the components of the grain cart 15 such as a grain cart unloading system 41 that can be activated for transferring the crop material 9 from the grain cart 15 into the trailer 21.”)
a fill profile accessing system (see at least [0022] “The target total weight and target weight distribution values for each of the particular truck and trailer combinations 19 can be stored in a database of the tractor/grain cart control system 25 for retrieval upon identifying each truck and trailer combination”)
configured to access a weight versus position fill profile corresponding to the container; (see at least [0010] “the tractor controller may identify the truck and trailer combination and determine the target total weight of crop material and target weight distribution value”)
and a position control system (see at least [0005] “The system coordinates movement of the grain cart and unloading functions of the grain cart to automatically load the trailer”)
and generate a control signal to control the controllable subsystem to transfer material to a position in the container … and based on the weight versus position fill profile. (see at least [0025] “the tractor/grain cart control system 25 determines a loading strategy for the particular identified truck and trailer combination 19, based on the particular weight ratings of that truck and trailer combination 19. The loading strategy allows the trailer 21 to be loaded to correspond to a target total weight value and a target weight distribution value based on axle weight ratings of the axles the truck and trailer combination 19. As represented at block 55, the tractor/grain cart control system 25 controls the grain cart 15 and tractor 17 to load the trailer 21 according to the loading strategy.”)
Foster does not explicitly disclose:
configured to receive a weight signal indicative of a weight of material conveyed from the material transfer vehicle to the container;
based on the weight signal,
In the same field of endeavor, Van Mill discloses:
configured to receive a weight signal indicative of a weight of material conveyed from the material transfer vehicle to the container; (see at least [0044] “ The weight discharged from the farm implement 210 is monitored by a weigh system," [0045] "For example, the controller 900 may receive information regarding the weight from a weigh sensor, such as a scale, monitoring the weight of the bin 202”)
based on the weight signal, (see at least [0044] “The weight discharged from the farm implement 210 is monitored by a weigh system, and, when a first target weight is reached, the chute 210 is pivoted from the first position to a second position P2.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the material transfer field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Foster receive a weight signal indicative of a weight of material conveyed from the material transfer vehicle to the container and perform control based on said signal, as taught by Van Mill to unload material from a farm implement by moving the chute of the vehicle [0034].
Regarding Claim 20, modified Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 19, and Foster further discloses:
a propulsion subsystem that provides propulsion to the material transfer vehicle and wherein the position control system is configured to generate, as the control signal, a propulsion control signal to control the propulsion subsystem on the material transfer vehicle to move the material transfer vehicle. (see at least [0009] “The tractor is controlled with a tractor controller to automatically move the tractor and correspondingly automatically move the grain cart relative to the trailer while the grain cart unloading system is activated. ”)
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 20150264866), herein after known as Foster, in view of Van Mill (US 20160251167), herein after referred to as Van Mill, and Christiansen (US 20240037806), herein after referred to as Christiansen.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Foster further does not explicitly disclose:
controlling an operator interface system to generate an indication of the comparison result.
In the same field of endeavor, Christiansen discloses:
controlling an operator interface system to generate an indication of the comparison result. (see at least [Fig. 18] [0089] “The fill level and distribution of the grain are also presented to the operator via the graphical user interface via an image such as that depicted in FIG. 16.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the material transfers field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Foster to control an operator interface system to generate an indication of the comparison result., as taught by Christiansen to display a loading state of a grain cart, in comparison to even loading, to a user [0089].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Foster further does not explicitly disclose:
sensing a variable indicative of the weight of material conveyed with a sensor external to the material transfer vehicle and external to the container.
In the same field of endeavor, Christiansen discloses:
sensing a variable indicative of the weight of material conveyed with a sensor external to the material transfer vehicle and external to the container. (see at least [0081] “ The electromagnetic detecting and ranging module 86 is located at or near an end of the unload conveyor 22 corresponding to the spout 24 and distal the body 18 of the harvester 10. The module 80 includes a two-dimensional light detecting and ranging (LiDAR) scanner positioned to scan an area 88 extending downwardly from the end of the unload conveyor 22" [0083] "he one or more computing devices use this data generated by the module 86 to determine the fill level of the grain cart 36, the distribution of grain (or other processed crop material) within the grain cart 36, or both.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the material transfers field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Foster to sense a variable indicative of the weight of material conveyed with a sensor external to the material transfer vehicle and external to the container, as taught by Christiansen to use lidar mounted on a machine to sense the grain cart fill level and profile [0089].
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 20150264866), herein after known as Foster, in view of Van Mill (US 20160251167), herein after referred to as Van Mill, and Meier (US 20230329148), herein after referred to as Meier.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Foster does not explicitly disclose:
sensing a variable indicative of the weight of material conveyed to a first portion of the container using a first sensor;
generating a first weight signal with the first sensor;
sensing a variable indicative of the weight of material conveyed to a second portion of the container using a second sensor;
and generating a second weight signal with the second sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, Meier discloses:
sensing a variable indicative of the weight of material conveyed to a first portion of the container using a first sensor; generating a first weight signal with the first sensor; sensing a variable indicative of the weight of material conveyed to a second portion of the container using a second sensor; and generating a second weight signal with the second sensor. (see at least [0025] “In one configuration, there is one weight sensor for each wheel and one for the tow bar or hitch. In another configuration, there are multiple weight sensors spread out around the container.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the material transfer field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Foster to sense a variable indicating weight conveyed to one area with a foist sensor, and to a second area with a second sensor, as taught by Meier to sense weight in a plurality of locations across the grain bin [0025].
Regarding Claim 11, modified Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 10, and Foster further discloses:
and generating a set of control signals based on the estimated fill profile and the weight versus position fill profile. (see at least [0027] “In another embodiment, an initial fill level of the trailer 21 may be determined before beginning transferring the crop material 9 from the grain cart 15 to the trailer 21, for example, by monitoring through the sensors 39. The tractor 17 can be automatically moved relative to the trailer 21 until a partial-full area is detected. A subsequent loading session will start at the detected partial-full area of the trailer 21.”)
and controlling the controllable subsystem with the set of control signals. (see at least [0025] “As represented at block 55, the tractor/grain cart control system 25 controls the grain cart 15 and tractor 17 to load the trailer 21 according to the loading strategy.”)
While not explicitly disclosing, Foster makes obvious:
generating an estimated fill profile based on the first weight signal and the second weight signal; (see at least [0023] “The sensors 39 are arranged to detect characteristics of the grain cart 15 and trailer 21, such as loading status of the trailer 21 which may include fill level(s) of the grain cart 15 and/or trailer 21 or particular zones or areas within the trailer 21")
While the Foster reference does not explicitly state that the weights of the particular zones are what the sensors detect when determining “fill levels”, the system is focused on filling the container in a way that maintains acceptable weights on the different axles of the trailer. As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the fill level of the portion of trailer to be an indirect measurement of the weight in order to control the filling of the container based on the position and weight profile.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 20150264866), herein after known as Foster, in view of Van Mill (US 20160251167), herein after referred to as Van Mill, and Talbi (US 20060104770), herein after referred to as Talbi.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 12, but Foster does not explicitly disclose:
determining whether the additional unload control system is impeded; (see at least [0026] “ When pressure conditions in the line 106 leading to unloader drive 102 reach a predetermined high level indicative of a stall condition in unloader conveyor 34, for instance, due to induction of a slug of grain or other blockage sufficient to slow down rotation of unloader drive 102 so as to possibly cause significant grain or apparatus damage,”)
generating a trigger signal based on the determination; (see at least [0026] “sequence valve 110 will output a fluid signal over line 112 to dump valve 114,”)
and controlling the controllable subsystem with the set of control signals or the additional set of control signals based on the trigger signal. (see at least [0026] “to cause it to open to divert fluid flow from grain tank drive 100, to interrupt operation of grain tank auger 26. As a result, grain flow to unloader conveyor 34 will be halted, and possible damage to the grain and/or the apparatus will be averted.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the material transfer field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Foster determine whether an unload system is impeded, generate a signal that says as much, and control a subsystem based on this determination, as taught by Talbi to prevent damage [0026].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 20150264866), herein after known as Foster, and Corban (US 20230276735), herein after referred to as Corban, Van Mill (US 20160251167), herein after referred to as Van Mill , and Toniges (EP 4074160), herein after referred to as Toniges.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 14, and Foster further discloses:
wherein the material transfer vehicle includes a gate that is movable between a fully open position and a closed position, (see at least [0024] “The flow gate 45 is opened to allow transfer of the crop material 9 into the trailer 21 and closed to stop transfer of the crop material 9 into the trailer 21.”)
and a spout through which the material travels (see at least [0026] “An operator extends the unloading tube 43 of the grain cart 15 over one end of the trailer 21.”)
Foster does not explicitly disclose:
a conveyor actuator that drives the conveyor at a conveyor speed,
and wherein learning the weight versus position fill profile comprises: recording, during the fill operation, a distance traveled by the material transfer vehicle, the weight of material conveyed, the gate position, a spout position, and the conveyor speed.
In the same field of endeavor, Van Mill discloses:
a conveyor actuator that drives the conveyor at a conveyor speed, (see at least [0051] “a conveyor belt controller 1321 may control the belt speed, tension, or any other property of the conveyor belt 1302.”)
and wherein learning the weight versus position fill profile comprises: (see at least [0061] “The operation may thus learn whether an operator of the mobile farm implement has moved the chute as the hopper is being filled, and may learn a direction or amount of such movement. At an operation 4600, the chute position relative to the recorded weight is recorded if the position of the chute has changed. ”)
the weight of material conveyed (see at least [0061] “The operation may thus learn whether an operator of the mobile farm implement has moved the chute as the hopper is being filled, and may learn a direction or amount of such movement. At an operation 4600, the chute position relative to the recorded weight is recorded if the position of the chute has changed. ”)
a position of the gate, (see at least [0016] “The step of stopping the chute from discharging may include shutting the container door to stop the flow of grain from the grain cart bin to the conveyor" [0020] "determining a third amount of material discharged from the bin, and, when material stops being discharged from the chute, recording the third amount of material discharged from the bin”)
a spout position, (see at least [0061] “The operation may thus learn whether an operator of the mobile farm implement has moved the chute as the hopper is being filled, and may learn a direction or amount of such movement. At an operation 4600, the chute position relative to the recorded weight is recorded if the position of the chute has changed. ”)
and the conveyor speed. (see at least [0051] “a conveyor belt sensor 1312 may measure a belt speed of the conveyor belt 1302, ”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the material transfer field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Foster to include a conveyor actuator that drives the conveyor at a conveyor speed, and learn a height versus weight control profile based on the plurality of recorded operation data types above, as taught by Van Mill to operate in a learning mode [0058].
In the same field of endeavor, Toniges discloses:
recording, during the fill operation, a distance traveled by the material transfer vehicle, (see at least [0045] “Typically, the transport vehicle 24 and the work vehicle 30 have a position tracking device which makes it possible to record the distance traveled 34, 34a, 34b, 34c and to assign driving speeds to the recorded position tracking data, which are stored together.")
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the material transfer field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Foster combined with Van Mill to record, during the fill operation, a distance traveled by the material transfer vehicle, as taught by Toniges to record tracking data for a transport vehicle and work vehicle [0045]. While the Toniges reference does not explicitly use this information for learning, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s claimed invention would consider it obvious to combine with the Van Mill reference’s many sources of recorded data, as this establishes that a plurality of learning data sources is preferred.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D UNDERBAKKE whose telephone number is (571)272-6657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/JACOB DANIEL UNDERBAKKE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights