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 .
Double Patenting
Examiner notes that the restriction requirement in Application 17/088,042 (U.S. Patent No. 12,063,885) was withdrawn in the 04/24/2024 Notice of Allowance due to the restriction rejoinder.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,177. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
A kernel-level grain monitoring system utilized onboard a combine harvester, the kernel-level grain monitoring system comprising: (claim 1)
an actuated harvesting component onboard the combine harvester; (claim 1)
a grain camera positioned to capture bulk grain sample images of a currently- harvested grain taken into and processed by the combine harvester; and (claim 1)
a controller architecture coupled to the grain camera, to the actuated harvesting component, and to the display device, the controller architecture configured to: (claim 1)
analyze the bulk grain sample images, as received from the grain camera, to determine an average per kernel (APK) volume representing an estimated volume of a single average kernel of the currently-harvested grain; (claim 1)
determine a target setting adjustment to the actuated harvesting component based, at least in part, on a parameter calculated utilizing the APK volume; and (claim 1 and 8)
output the target setting adjustment as a notification to an operator of the combine harvester or as an automated control command to the actuated harvesting component. (claim 1, 7 and 8)
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,063,885. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
A kernel-level grain monitoring system utilized onboard a combine harvester, the kernel-level grain monitoring system comprising: (claim 1)
an actuated harvesting component onboard the combine harvester; (claim 1 and 10)
a grain camera positioned to capture bulk grain sample images of a currently- harvested grain taken into and processed by the combine harvester; and (claim 1)
a controller architecture coupled to the grain camera, to the actuated harvesting component, and to the display device, the controller architecture configured to: (claim 1)
analyze the bulk grain sample images, as received from the grain camera, to determine an average per kernel (APK) volume representing an estimated volume of a single average kernel of the currently-harvested grain; (claim 1)
determine a target setting adjustment to the actuated harvesting component based, at least in part, on a parameter calculated utilizing the APK volume; and (claim 1 and 10)
output the target setting adjustment as a notification to an operator of the combine harvester or as an automated control command to the actuated harvesting component. (claim 1 and 10)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claims 21 and 28 contain the terms “the display device” without proper antecedent basis. It appears this term should be deleted from the claims here. Examiner also notes that claim 27 contains the term “a display device”.
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.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellington (PGPub 2016/0189007) in view of Young (PGPub 2017/0024876).
Regarding claim 21, Wellington discloses a kernel-level grain monitoring system utilized onboard a combine harvester, the kernel-level grain monitoring system comprising: (Wellington teaches a system for harvested grain image analysis, which scores and outputs metrics on kernel-level grain monitoring. See Fig. 2, Fig. 3A-E and ¶ 0030-0031 as well as the combine harvester at Fig. 4.)
an actuated harvesting component onboard the combine harvester; (¶ 0061)
a grain camera positioned to capture bulk grain sample images of a currently- harvested grain taken into and processed by the combine harvester; (¶ 0024, “bulk grain image source 24 comprises a camera mounted along a grain elevator of a harvester and/or a camera mounted along the tailings elevator of a harvester.”)
a controller architecture coupled to the grain camera, to the actuated harvesting component, and to the display device, the controller architecture configured to: (¶ 0027 teaches that the controller connected to these combine harvester sensors and display.)
analyze the bulk grain sample images, as received from the grain camera to determine an average size representing an estimated size of a single average piece of the currently-harvested grain; (¶ 0078 teaches segmenting individual grain pieces and ¶ 0080-0081 teach an average size of the segmented grain pieces to define a grain quality parameter.)
determine a target setting adjustment to the actuated harvesting component based, at least in part, on a parameter calculated utilizing the APK parameter; and (¶ 0067, the controller transmits adjustment signals to one or more of actuators based upon the grain quality results.)
output the target setting adjustment as a notification to an operator of the combine harvester or as an automated control command to the actuated harvesting component. (Regarding notification to the operator see ¶ 0028, “display 36 comprises one or more devices by which information regarding the quality of grain is visibly displayed.” Grain quality measurements are presented to the user and selective presentation is taught at ¶ 0051’s teaching of adjustment recommendations and ¶ 0073’s teaching of presenting poor-quality areas that exceed a threshold. Regarding automated control see ¶ 0067, the controller transmits adjustment signals to one or more of actuators based upon the grain quality results.)
In the field of grain analysis Young teaches what Wellington does not expressly disclose, namely, that the grain size analysis is an average per kernel (APK) volume (Young is system for analyzing corn grain kernels to provide yield estimates for a crop of corn. ¶ 0024 teaches “determining the average volume of a kernel of corn from its dimensions.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Wellington’s grain analysis system with Young’s grain analysis system. Wellington a system for combine harvester-based bulk grain analysis which continually monitors quality parameters such as grain size per kernel. Average per kernel volume is not taught. Young is system for analyzing corn grain kernels to provide yield estimates for the crop, via image analysis. The combination constitutes the repeatable and predictable result of simply applying Young’s teachings of grain image analysis to Wellington’s combine harvester-based grain image analysis system, for the purpose of providing Wellington with the ability to output yield estimates such average per kernel volume. Extending Wellington in this way cannot be considered a non-obvious improvement in view of the relevant prior art here in field of grain image analysis. Using known engineering design, no “fundamental” operating principle of the teachings are changed; they continue to perform the same functions as originally taught prior to being combined.
Regarding claim 22, the above combination teaches the kernel-level grain monitoring system of claim 21, wherein the controller architecture is configured to calculate one or more topline harvesting parameters based, at least in part, on the determined APK volume. (Wellington’s topline quality analysis happens overtime as the combine harvester is operating in order to adjust combine actuation, ¶ 0048 teaches that the analysis is performed continuously so that an operator is notified of changes to grain quality. Also see multiple images analyzed at ¶ 0099 and 0101. See rejection of claim 21.)
Regarding claim 23, the above combination teaches the kernel-level grain monitoring system of claim 22, wherein the topline harvesting parameters comprise a grain yield parameter calculated utilizing a mass flow rate as an input. (Wellington ¶ 0059 and 0046.)
Regarding claim 24, the above combination teaches the kernel-level grain monitoring system of claim 22, further comprising a moisture sensor configured to generate moisture sensor data indicative of a moisture level of the currently-harvested grain, and wherein the controller architecture is configured to calculate the one or more topline harvesting parameters based, at least in part, on the determined APK volume and the moisture sensor data. (Young ¶ 0047, “the estimated average kernel volume may be adjusted to take into account a current and target moisture content of the kernels . . . If the estimated average kernel volume is determined in step 140 on corn having a relatively high moisture content, the estimated average kernel volume can be expected to be higher than the average kernel volume when the corn has adequately dried down. The estimated average kernel volume may therefore be adjusted to take into account this future shrinkage.” Thus, the topline harvesting parameter of adjusted average per kernel volume is calculated.)
Regarding claim 25, the above combination teaches the kernel-level grain monitoring system of claim 21, wherein the target setting adjustment pertains to one or more of shoe positioning, sieve positioning, chaffer positioning, and fan speeds associated with the combine harvester. (Wellington ¶ 0061)
Regarding claim 26, the above combination teaches the kernel-level grain monitoring system of claim 25, wherein the target setting adjustment comprises a fan speed adjustment. (Wellington ¶ 0061)
Regarding claim 27, the above combination teaches the kernel-level grain monitoring system of claim 21, further comprising a display device that includes a display screen on which parameters pertaining to the currently-harvested grain are selectively presented, wherein the controller architecture is configured to, when generating the notification, generate graphics on the display screen of the display device visually prompting the operator to implement the target setting adjustment. (Wellington ¶ 0028, “display 36 comprises one or more devices by which information regarding the quality of grain is visibly displayed.” Grain quality measurements are presented to the user and selective presentation is taught at ¶ 0051’s teaching of adjustment recommendations and ¶ 0073’s teaching of presenting poor-quality areas that exceed a threshold.)
Claims 28-32 is the system claim corresponding to claim 21-23 and 25, but requiring only an average per kernel parameter rather than an average per kernel volume in particular. The rejection of claim 21 teaches an average per kernel parameter. Claim 30 requires that the parameter comprises a volume. Remaining limitations are rejected similarly. See detailed analysis above.
Claims 33-34 and 36-40 is the system claim similar to the corresponding to claim 21-25 and 27. Claim 33 requires only an average per kernel parameter rather than an average per kernel volume in particular. The rejection of claim 21 teaches an average per kernel parameter. Claim 33 also requires a display device, which is taught in the rejection of claim 27. Remaining limitations are rejected similarly. See detailed analysis above.
Regarding claim 35, the above combination teaches the kernel-level grain monitoring system of claim 33, further comprising a grain loss sensor onboard the combine harvester and coupled to the controller architecture; and wherein the controller architecture is configured to: monitor a grain loss parameter of the combine harvester based, at least in part, on the APK parameter and data provided by the grain loss sensor; and determine the target setting adjustment to the actuated harvesting component based, at least in part, the grain loss parameter. (¶ 0059-0060 teaches that three different grain loss sensors are among the sensor signal information used to control the adjustable actuators via the controller. See also rejection of claim 21 regarding controlling the combine based on the APK parameter.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Raphael Schwartz whose telephone number is (571)270-3822. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am-5pm CT.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached on (571) 272-8243. 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.
/RAPHAEL SCHWARTZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights