DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/06/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because fig. 3 appears to show the “auger gap” by a line with arrowheads at both end; this line is neither labeled in the drawings nor in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim 1 is directed towards a system and claim 11 is directed towards a method. Claim 19 is directed towards a system. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent SUBJECT Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception
The claim(s) recite(s) abstract limitations including:
Claim 1:
“analyze the image to measure a diameter of at least one ear of corn of the harvested crop material within the feederhouse” and
“determine an initial size of an auger gap between an auger and trough of a header…”.
Claim 11:
“analyzing…”
“determining”
Claim 19:
“analyze the image…”
These limitations, as drafted, are abstract mental processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of generic computing elements and/or sensors does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the additional limitations of “a controller” and “receive a sensor signal indicative of an image of harvested crop material within a feederhouse of the agricultural harvester”/”receiving…”.
“a controller” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
“receive a sensor signal”/”receiving…” is considered insignificant extra solution activity.
Claim 19 recites the additional limitations of “a header compromising an auger and a trough” and “a controller” and “receive a sensor signal indicative of an image of harvested crop material within a feederhouse of the agricultural harvester.”
“a header”, “an auger” and “a trough” merely links said method a particular technical environment or field of use;
“a controller” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
“receive a sensor signal” is considered insignificant extra solution activity,
and “automatically adjust a size of the auger gap” is considered apply it and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
With respect to the processing circuitry and a processor, these elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the specification fails to disclose that these elements are anything other than generic computing elements and are even shown as black boxes on the figures. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the recited process the step “receive…” and “receiving…”, is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is considered insignificant extra solution activity.
Furthermore, “a header”, “an auger” and “a trough” merely link the method to a particular environment or field of use. As they merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical field of use they fail to add an invention concept to the claim. These limitations represent mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim (see Flook and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“automatically adjust a size of the auger gap based on the diameter of the at least one ear of corn” merely amounts to “apply it”. The reciting of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e. changing an auger gap size) to an identified problem (i.e. corn diameter) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e. what aspects are changed or how the change is affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
The dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the exception into a practical application.
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, 3-4, 10-11, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fries et al. (US 20200163279 A1), hereinafter Fries in view of Anderson et al. (US 20220138987 A1), hereinafter Anderson.
Regarding claim 1, Fries discloses an auger gap detection and control system (see below) for an agricultural harvester (10, fig. 1-2, [0022]), comprising:
a controller (46, fig. 1, [0030, 0032, and 0034]) comprising a memory (essential part of electronic controller 46) and a processor (essential part of electronic controller 46), wherein the controller is configured to:
receive a sensor signal indicative of an image of harvested crop material within a feederhouse of the agricultural harvester (fig. 1-2, [0028, 0032- 0034], receive a signal from the sensors);
analyze the image to measure a property of the harvested crop material within the feederhouse ([0032 and 0034]); and
determine an initial size of an auger gap between an auger and a trough of a header of the agricultural harvester based on the measured property of the harvested crop material ([0032-0034], wherein the auger is being adjusted from an initial size, so an initial size was determined before for the expected corn size; alternatively the initial position is the first adjusted position), the trough being located beneath the auger ([fig. 3]).
However, Fries fails to explicitly disclose analyzing the image to measure a diameter of at least one ear of com.
Anderson teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein a controller (120, fig. 1a, [0047, 0066, and 0085]) is analyzing the image to measure a diameter of at least one ear of com (fig. 4f, [0047, 0066, and 0085]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the generic of harvested crop material property of Fries with the diameter of at least one ear of com of Anderson to yield the predictable result of allowing adjustment of the transverse conveyor using the harvested material crop material ([0007 of Anderson]).
Regarding claim 3, Fries in view of Anderson teaches wherein the controller (46, fig. 1, [0030, 0032, and 0034] of Fries) is further configured to automatically adjust the auger gap to the initial size ([0032-0033] of Fries).
Regarding claim 4, Fries in view of Anderson teaches wherein the controller (46, fig. 1, [0030, 0032, and 0034] of Fries) is further configured to analyze the image to detect a presence of at least one shelled ear of corn of the harvested crop material within the feederhouse ([0057 and 0083 of Anderson]).
Regarding claim 10, Fries in view of Anderson teaches wherein the controller (46, fig. 1, [0030, 0032, and 0034 of Fries]) is configured as the agricultural harvester travels through a crop field to continuously ([0033 of Fries] wherein the control device detects the throughput which is currently intended to be conveyed; fig. 6, [0166 of Anderson]):
receive sensor signals indicative of images of the harvested crop material within the feederhouse ([0033 of Fries]);
analyze the images to detect a presence of at least one shelled ear of com within the feederhouse ([0057 and 0083 of Anderson]); and
automatically adjust a size of the auger gap ([0032-0033 of Fries]) when the presence of the at least one shelled ear of corn is detected ([0083-0085 of Anderson]).
Regarding claim 11, Fries discloses a method for detecting and controlling an auger gap of an agricultural harvester (see below), comprising:
receiving, at a controller (46, fig. 1, [0030, 0032, and 0034]) comprising a processor (essential part of electronic controller 46) and a memory (essential part of electronic controller 46), a sensor signal indicative of an image of harvested crop material within a feederhouse of the agricultural harvester (fig. 1-2, [0028, 0032- 0034], receive a signal from the sensors); and
determining, via the controller, an initial size of the auger gap between an auger and a trough of a header of the agricultural harvester ([0032-0034], wherein the auger is being adjusted from an initial size, so an initial size was determined before for the expected corn size; alternatively, the initial position is the first adjusted position), the trough being located beneath the auger (fig. 3).
However, Fries fails to explicitly disclose analyzing the image to measure a diameter of at least one ear of com within the feederhouse.
Anderson teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein a controller (120, fig. 1a, [0047, 0066, and 0085]) is analyzing the image to measure a diameter of at least one ear of com within the feederhouse (fig. 4f, [0047, 0066, and 0085]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the generic of harvested crop material property of Fries with the diameter of at least one ear of com of Anderson to yield the predictable result of allowing adjustment of the transverse conveyor using the harvested material crop material ([0007 of Anderson]).
Regarding claim 14, Fries in view of Anderson teaches further comprising automatically adjusting, via the controller (46, fig. 1, [0030, 0032, and 0034] of Fries), the auger gap to the initial size ([0032-0033] of Fries).
Regarding claim 15, Fries in view of Anderson teaches further comprising analyzing, via the controller (46, fig. 1, [0030, 0032, and 0034] of Fries), the image to detect a presence of at least one shelled ear of com of the harvested crop material within the feederhouse ([0057 and 0083 of Anderson]).
Regarding claim 18, Fries in view of Anderson teaches further comprising automatically adjusting, via the controller (46, fig. 1, [0030, 0032, and 0034] of Fries), a size of the auger gap when the presence of the at least one shelled ear of com is detected ([0032-0033 of Fries]).
Regarding claim 19, Fries discloses an agricultural harvester (10, fig. 1-2, [0022]), comprising:
a header (18, fig. 1-2, [0024-0025]) comprising an auger (112, fig. 1-3, [0025 and 0029-0035]) and a trough located beneath the auger ([fig. 3]), wherein the auger and trough are separated by an auger gap (fig. 3, [0029-0035]); and
a controller (46, fig. 1, [0030, 0032, and 0034] of Fries) comprising a memory (essential part of electronic controller 46) and a processor (essential part of electronic controller 46), wherein the controller is configured to:
receive a sensor signal indicative of an image of harvested crop material within a feederhouse of the agricultural harvester (fig. 1-2, [0028, 0032, and 0034], receive a signal from the sensors);
automatically adjust an initial size of the auger gap ([0032-0033 of Fries]); and
automatically adjust a size of the auger gap ([0032-0033 of Fries]).
However, Fries fails to explicitly disclose analyzing the image to measure a diameter of at least one ear of com within the feederhouse.
Anderson teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein a controller (120, fig. 1a, [0047, 0066, and 0085]) is analyzing the image to measure a diameter of at least one ear of com within the feederhouse and the presence of the at least one shelled ear of com (fig. 4f, [0047, 0057, 0066, and 0085]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the generic of harvested crop material property of Fries with the diameter of at least one ear of com and the presence of the at least one shelled ear of com of Anderson to yield the predictable result of allowing adjustment of the transverse conveyor using the harvested material crop material ([0007 of Anderson]).
Claim 2, 5-8, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fries et al. (US 20200163279 A1), hereinafter Fries in view of Anderson et al. (US 20220138987 A1), hereinafter Anderson in view Yanke et al. (US 2022/0232770 A1), hereinafter Yanke.
Regarding claim 2, Fries in view of Anderson teaches the controller (46, fig. 1, [0030, 0032, and 0034 of Fries]) is further configured to determine the initial size of the auger gap ([0025 and 0032-0034 of Fries], wherein in order to adjust a position an initial position must be provided; alternatively the initial position is the first adjusted position).
Fries in view of Anderson teaches the above, but fails to explicitly disclose a user-perceptible indication of the initial size of the auger gap to be provided to an operator of the agricultural harvester.
Yanke teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein a user-perceptible indication of the initial size of the auger gap to be provided to an operator of the agricultural harvester ([0033], wherein the display can display information to the user obtained by the sensors).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fries in view of Anderson to incorporate the displaying of sensor information of Yanke in order to inform the user ([0033] of Yanke).
Regarding claim 5, Fries in view of Anderson and Yanke teaches wherein the controller (46, fig. 1, [0030, 0032, and 0034] of Fries) is further configured to determine the presence of the at least one shelled ear of corn to be provided to an operator of the agricultural harvester when the presence of the at least one shelled ear of corn is detected ([0057 and 0083 of Anderson]).
Fries in view of Anderson teaches the above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein there is a user-perceptible indication of the state of the crop.
Yanke teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein there is a user-perceptible indication of the state of the crop ([0033], wherein the display can display information to the user obtained by the sensors of Yanke).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fries in view of Anderson to incorporate the displaying of sensor information of Yanke in order to inform the user of the state of the crops ([0033] of Yanke).
Regarding claim 6, Fries in view of Anderson and Yanke teaches wherein the controller (46, fig. 1, [0030, 0032, and 0034 of Fries]) is further configured to adjust the auger gap ([0032-0033 of Fries]) when the presence of the at least one shelled ear of corn is detected ([0083-0085 of Anderson]).
Fries in view of Anderson and Yanke teaches the above, but fails to explicitly disclose is further configured to cause a recommendation to be provided to the operator on a display.
Yanke teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters is further configured to cause a recommendation to be provided to the operator on a display ([0087-0088], wherein the display can display information to the user related to recommended changes based on the crop harvesting properties).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fries in view of Anderson to incorporate the displaying of recommended changes of Yanke in order to inform the user ([0033] of Yanke).
Regarding claim 7, Fries in view of Anderson and Yanke teaches wherein the recommendation comprises a suggested size to adjust the auger gap to ([0032-0033 of Fries]).
Regarding claim 8, Fries in view of Anderson and Yanke teaches wherein the controller is further configured to automatically adjust a size of the auger gap when the presence of the at least one shelled ear of com is detected ([0032-0033 of Fries]).
Regarding claim 13, Fries in view of Anderson further teaches comprising determining, via the controller (46, fig. 1, [0030, 0032, and 0034 of Fries]), the setting of the auger gap ([0032-0034] of Fries).
Fries in view of Anderson teaches the above, but fails to explicitly disclose a user-perceptible indication of the initial size of the auger gap to be provided to an operator of the agricultural harvester.
Yanke teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein a user-perceptible indication of the initial size of the auger gap to be provided to an operator of the agricultural harvester ([0033], wherein the display can display information to the user obtained by the sensors).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fries in view of Anderson to incorporate the displaying of sensor information of Yanke in order to inform the user ([0033] of Yanke).
Regarding claim 16, Fries in view of Anderson further teaches
further comprising causing, via the controller (46, fig. 1, [0030, 0032, and 0034 of Fries]), a user-perceptible indication of the presence of the at least one shelled ear of com to be provided to an operator of the agricultural harvester when the presence of the at one shelled ear of com is detected ([0083-0085 of Anderson]).
Fries in view of Anderson and Yanke teaches the above, but fails to explicitly teach a user-perceptible indication of the presence of the at least one shelled ear of com to be provided to an operator of the agricultural harvester.
Yanke teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters further compromising a user-perceptible indication of the presence of the at least one shelled ear of com to be provided to an operator of the agricultural harvester ([0087-0088], wherein the display can display information to the user related to sensor information of the crop properties).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fries in view of Anderson to incorporate the displaying of recommended changes of Yanke in order to inform the user ([0033] of Yanke).
Regarding claim 17, Fries in view of Anderson and Yanke teaches further comprising causing, via the controller (46, fig. 1, [0030, 0032, and 0034 of Fries]), a recommendation to be provided to the operator on a display ([0087-0089] of Yanke) to adjust the auger gap ([0032-0033 of Fries]) when the presence of the at least one shelled ear of com is detected ([0083-0085 of Anderson]), wherein the recommendation comprises a suggested size to adjust the auger gap to ([0032-0033 of Fries]).
Claims 9, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fries et al. (US 20200163279 A1), hereinafter Fries in view of Anderson et al. (US 20220138987 A1), hereinafter Anderson in view of Robertson (US 2022/0071097 A1), hereinafter Robertson.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Fries in view of Anderson teaches a sensor in the form of a camera (48, fig. 1-2, [0032] of Fries) the controller (46, fig. 1, [0030, 0032, and 0034] of Fries) that receives the sensor signal indicative of the image (fig. 1-2, [0028, 0032- 0034] of Fries).
Fries in view of Anderson teaches the above, but fails to explicitly disclose an internal imaging system comprising at least one camera configured to be located within the feederhouse on a floor of the feederhouse.
Robertson teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein internal imaging system comprising at least one camera (216, [0055-0056]) configured to be located within the feederhouse on a floor of the feederhouse ([0055-0056]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fries in view of Anderson to incorporate the feederhouse position of the camera of Robertson in order to monitor operations ([0056 of Robertson]).
Regarding claim 12, Fries in view of Anderson teaches receiving the sensor signal ([0032] of Fries) from a sensor in the form of a camera (48, fig. 1-2, [0032] of Fries) indicative of the image of harvested crop material (fig. 1-2, [0028, 0032- 0034] of Fries).
Fries in view of Anderson teaches the above, but fails to explicitly disclose an internal imaging system comprising at least one camera configured to be located within the feederhouse on a floor of the feederhouse.
Robertson teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein internal imaging system comprising at least one camera (216, [0055-0056]) configured to be located within the feederhouse on a floor of the feederhouse ([0055-0056]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jelenkovic (US 2019/0261560 A1) - general imaging and adjusting of the agricultural harvester based on volume of the crop
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Railey whose telephone number is (571)270-7353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-4).
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/JENNIFER A RAILEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights