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 8/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims overcome each and every rejection under U.S.C 101 previously set forth in the rejection mailed 6/9/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the independent claims 1 and 16, the applicant simply recites paragraph [0012] of the Foster reference with a cursory assertion that the reference does not disclose “obtaining, from the weight versus position fill profile using the position of the material transfer vehicle relative to the container, a target weight of material to be transferred to the container at the position of the material transfer vehicle” as if this is self-evident. The examiner disagrees, as the Foster reference does disclose this limitation. In the recited paragraph 0012, the Foster system is one capable of determining the target weight of material to be transferred to the container at the position of the material transfer vehicle, based on the weight versus position fill profile, as it is a system which determines the required fill level at certain locations [0012] “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” based on a weight versus position fill profile [0009] “A target weight distribution value of the trailer is determined for distributing the crop material in the trailer”, and is then determining the target weight of material to be transferred to the container at the position of the material transfer vehicle as the system identifies the fill level for an area that the vehicle is filling while in one location, and moves to another [0012] “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.”. The exact wording is not used, but the Foster system discloses what is currently claimed by the applicant; as the system determining the required fill level is reached at the current location, and then moving location, means that it is comparing the fill/weight state at the vehicle location.
Regarding Claim 19, applicant argues the newly-amended limitations make the combination of Foster and Van Mills non-obvious because the references do not have motivation to combine. This, allegedly, is because while Van Mill discloses the limitations to learn a weigh versus position fill profile, Foster discloses a system in which the weight versus fill profile is set based on axel weight ratings. The examiner disagrees- this in no way makes the two references incompatible combinations as a person with ordinary skill would find the Van Mill reference obvious to combine with Foster for two improvements: the first being a truck and trailer combination which is not stored int eh Foster system. As Foster has no backup for determine a weight versus position fill profile when the weight ratings are unknown, a learning step based on user input motivates one to combine the two. Second and even more pertinently, users want to use their tools as they see fit, and introducing a user-modifiable system to the system of Foster provides reason to modify. For the reasons above, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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,”)
obtaining, from the weight versus position fill profile using the position of the material transfer vehicle relative to the container, a target weight of material to be transferred to the container (see at least [0009] “A target weight distribution value of the trailer is determined for distributing the crop material in the trailer” [0012] “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.”)
at the position of the material transfer vehicle; (see at least [0012] “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”)
generating a comparison result based on a comparison of the weight of material, conveyed from the material transfer vehicle to the container, to the target weight of material (see at least [0008] “The sensors can identify the geometry of the truck and trailer combination and/or the fill status or level of the trailer. " [0012] "When the control system determines that a complete-full condition of the trailer has been achieved, a flow gate in the grain cart disclosed to stop crop material transfer from the grain cart to the trailer. The grain cart may not have enough crop material to completely fill the trailer to the target total weight value. After transferring all the crop material from the grain cart into the trailer, the control system may determine a partial-full condition of the trailer. The control system may store a partial-full value of the trailer in a memory that corresponds to the partial-full condition of the trailer.”)
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 comparison result. (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." [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.” [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.”)
Foster does not explicitly disclose:
receiving a weight signal indicative of a weight of material conveyed from the material transfer vehicle to the container;
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”)
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, but Foster does not explicitly disclose:
the weight versus position fill profile identifies a relative position of the material transfer vehicle and the container with respect to transferred weight.
In the same field of endeavor, Van Mill makes obvious:
the weight versus position fill profile identifies a relative position of the material transfer vehicle and the container with respect to transferred weight. (see at least [0037] The cycle then follows the same steps discussed above with respect to controlling the position of the chute based on weight 122, 124, 126 and 128, i.e., monitoring the weight unloaded, determining if a target weight has been reached, changing the chute position to a next position, and repeating the steps until all desired chute positions have been used.”)
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 so that the weight versus position fill profile identifies a relative position of the material transfer vehicle and the container with respect to transferred weight, as taught by Van Mill to unload material from a farm implement by moving the chute of the vehicle [0034]. While the Van Mill system discusses the weight at each location associated with the position if the chute, in combination with Foster which moves the transfer vehicle ([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.”), this limitation is obvious.
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,”)
obtain, from the weight versus position fill profile using the position of the material transfer vehicle relative to the container, a target weight of material to be transferred to the container (see at least [0009] “A target weight distribution value of the trailer is determined for distributing the crop material in the trailer” [0012] “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.”)
at the position of the material transfer vehicle; (see at least [0012] “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”)
generate a comparison result based on a comparison of the weight of material, conveyed from the material transfer vehicle to the container, to the target weight of material (see at least [0008] “The sensors can identify the geometry of the truck and trailer combination and/or the fill status or level of the trailer. " [0012] "When the control system determines that a complete-full condition of the trailer has been achieved, a flow gate in the grain cart disclosed to stop crop material transfer from the grain cart to the trailer. The grain cart may not have enough crop material to completely fill the trailer to the target total weight value. After transferring all the crop material from the grain cart into the trailer, the control system may determine a partial-full condition of the trailer. The control system may store a partial-full value of the trailer in a memory that corresponds to the partial-full condition of the trailer.”)
and control 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 comparison result. (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." [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.” [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.”)
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;
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”)
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 the 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 the 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 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:
a fill profile learning system configured to: detect one or more characteristics of a fill operation corresponding to the container performed by the controllable subsystem;
learning a weight versus position fill profile corresponding to the container based on the one or more characteristics;
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:
a fill profile learning system configured to: detect one or more characteristics of a fill operation corresponding to the container performed by the controllable subsystem; (see at least [0061] “ As the hopper begins to be filled, the chute may be moved. 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.”)
learning a weight versus position fill profile corresponding to the container based on the one or more characteristics; (see at least [0061] “Operations 4590 to 4600 may thus record how an operator moves the chute as a function of hopper weight during unloading of material into the hopper. Such recorded movement may later be replayed to automate movement of the chute." [0062] "Once a target weight of the hopper being filled is reached (4580), the various positions of the chute relative to the weight is recorded 4610 and the cycle is ended and saved for the first hopper 4620.”)
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] and engage in a fill profile learning system by learning a weight versus position fill profile corresponding to the container based on the one or more characteristic, as taught by Van Mill to learn from user control.
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 control 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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