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 .
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 5 and 19 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.
Referring to claims 5 and 19, the applicant recites “the first sensor comprises one or more of a location sensor , a speed sensor, a location system and an elevation sensor”. The phrase “the first sensor” would generally indicate just one sensor. Therefore, the phrase of “one or more” appears to claim a plurality of sensor. It is unclear how many sensors the applicant is claiming in claims 5 and 19. The examiner suggest amending the phrase “first sensor” to be - - at least one first sensor- - for better clarity.
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 15-17, 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to 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 15 is directed to 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.
Claim 15 recites identify, using information provided by the first sensor, a first location of the agricultural machine associated with the signal, the first location being adjacent to the headland; determine, using at least information provided by a terrain map, a first elevation for the first location; and determine a setpoint for the height of the component at the first location, the setpoint being based at least on a difference between the first elevation and an elevation of the headland. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes.
Thus the claims recite 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 step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 15 recites the additional elements of a first sensor, an actuator configured to provide a force for an adjustment in the height of the component, a processor, a memory coupled with the at least one processor, and receive a signal indicative of at least one of a machine mode of the agricultural machine and a change in an operation of the agricultural machine. The first sensor and the actuator amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor and the memory are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitation of receive a signal indicative of at least one of a machine mode of the agricultural machine and a change in an operation of the agricultural machine amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, 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).
The limitation of first sensor is insignificant extra-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) .
The actuator configured to provide a force for an adjustment in the height of the component is insignificant extra-solution activity. Perez-Iturbe 20130116894 discloses that actuators to adjust heights of components are well known in the art (see paragraph 0026).
The processor and the memory are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
The limitation of receive a signal indicative of at least one of a machine mode of the agricultural machine and a change in an operation of the agricultural machine amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Referring to claim 16, the limitation of machine mode is the machine mode is a harvesting mode, a maneuvering mode, or a cutting mode amounts to mere data gathering. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 15, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Referring to claim 17, the limitation of the user interface recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). The limitation of the signal generated from the user interface amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity. • 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 a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 15, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Referring to claim 19, the limitation of the one or more of a location sensor, a speed sensor, a location system, and an elevation sensor amounts to mere data gathering. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 15, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Referring to claim 20, the limitation of the height corresponds to a height of at least one of the agricultural machine, a chassis of the agricultural machine, and one or more components of a header of the agricultural machine merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 15, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Dugas et al. 20230270043 .
Referring to claims 1 and 9, Dugas (see fig. 1) discloses a system and method for proactively adjusting a height of a component of an agricultural machine, the system comprising: a first sensor (124); an actuator (166) configured to drive an adjustment in the height of the component; at least one processor (128); and a memory (see paragraph 0069) coupled with the at least one processor, the memory including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: identify, using information provided by the first sensor, a location and an elevation of the agricultural machine (see paragraph 0058 and 0107); determine, using information provided by a terrain map, a first terrain elevation at the location of the agricultural machine (see paragraphs 0104 , 0136, 0138); determine, using information provided by at least the terrain map, a second terrain elevation at a lookahead location at a lookahead distance from the agricultural machine ( see paragraph 0151, pre harvest data of a field uses maps); determine, using at least the first terrain elevation, the elevation of the agricultural machine, and a machine height of the agricultural machine, a machine sink of the agricultural machine (see paragraph 0138, 0140) ; determine, prior to an arrival of the agricultural machine at the lookahead location, and using at least the first terrain elevation, the second terrain elevation, and the machine sink, a setpoint for the height of the component (see paragraph 0176); and generate one or more signals to actuate, prior to an arrival of the agricultural machine at the lookahead location, the actuator to satisfy the setpoint at least upon arrival of the agricultural machine at the lookahead location (see paragraph 0117).
Referring to claims 2 and 10, Dugas discloses the memory further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to determine, using information from a second sensor (see paragraph 0134), a tilt offset of the agricultural machine, and wherein the setpoint is further determined using at least the tilt offset of the agricultural machine (see paragraph 0174).
Referring to claims 3 and 11, Dugas discloses the memory further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to determine, using at least the tilt offset, a track elevation for one or more track paths, and wherein the setpoint is further determined using at least the track elevation (see paragraph 0160, compaction map which can be used to determine setpoint is based on machine pose).
Referring to claims 4 and 12, Dugas discloses the memory further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to determine, using at least the tilt offset, a ground engagement body elevation for one or more ground engagement bodies of the agricultural machine positioned on one or more track paths, and wherein the setpoint is further determined using at least the ground engagement body elevation (see paragraph 0174).
Referring to claim 5 and 19, Dugas discloses the first sensor comprises one or more of a location sensor, a speed sensor, a location system, and an elevation sensor (see paragraph 0105).
Referring to claim 6, Dugas discloses the memory further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to determine, using at least information provided by the first sensor, at least one of the lookahead distance, the lookahead location, a time until an arrival of the agricultural machine at the lookahead location, and a time for a travel along the lookahead distance (paragraph 00107, can include location).
Referring to claims 7-8 ,13-14 and 20, Dugas discloses the height corresponds to a height of a base cutter (see paragraph 0154).
Referring to claim 15, Dugas discloses a system for proactively adjusting a height of a component of an agricultural machine to compensate for travel across a headland, the system comprising: a first sensor (124); an actuator (166) configured to provide a force for an adjustment in the height of the component; at least one processor(128); and a memory (see paragraph 0069) coupled with the at least one processor, the memory including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: receive a signal indicative of at least one of a machine mode of the agricultural machine and a change in an operation of the agricultural machine (see paragraph 0004, harvesting mode); identify, using information provided by the first sensor, a first location of the agricultural machine associated with the signal, the first location being adjacent to the headland (see pargraph 0107); determine, using at least information provided by a terrain map, a first elevation for the first location (see paragraph 0136); and determine a setpoint for the height of the component at the first location (see paragraph 0055), the setpoint being based at least on a difference between the first elevation and an elevation of the headland (see paragraph 0055, set points is based on height of crop bed and field topography).
Referring to claim 16, Dugas discloses 16. The system of claim 15, wherein the machine mode is a harvesting mode, a maneuvering mode, or a cutting mode (see paragraph 0004, harvesting mode or cutting mode).
Referring to claim 17, Dugas a user interface (see fig. 5-1 at operator input), and wherein the signal is generated from the user interface (see paragraph 0153, cutting setpoint set to cut harvest).
Referring to claim 18, Dugas discloses the memory further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to actuate, prior to a travel of the agricultural machine to the first location, the actuator to adjust the component to satisfy the setpoint at least upon the agricultural machine being at the first location (see paragraph 0117).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNA WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7027. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am- 5 pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/Giovanna Wright/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights