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 .
Examiner Note
All foreign documents cited within this Office Action have had translations provided which the examiner relies upon.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the marketplace, job board, and remote device of claims 23-25 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0116 line 4 reads “positon” which appears to be a typographical error and should read “position” to improve clarity.
Paragraph 0135 line 8 reads “At stage 1930 the driver delivers the load” which appears to be a typographical error and should read “At stage 1935 the driver delivers the load” to maintain consistency with the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 12, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 1 reads “has landing gear” which appears to be a typographical error and should read “has a landing gear” to improve clarity.
Claim 12 line 2 reads “the door sensors and tarp sensors” which appears to be a continuity error and should read “the one or more door sensors and one or more tarp sensors” to improve continuity within the claims. (See 112(b) rejection below regarding more information regarding the tarp sensors.)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
“Has” as used in claim 3 is being interpreted to mean “comprises”.
“Channel” as used in claim 18 is interpreted as a groove channel, not a signal channel consistent with clarity from the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 23-25, no drawings are provided related to these claims, so it is utterly unclear exactly what the marketplace, remote device, and job board are as recited in these claims. All that is known is that the marketplace comprises a remote device which comprises a job board. In paragraph 0007 of the specification, some structure is given to the remote device: “In some embodiments, the remote device is a remote server. In other embodiments, the remote device is a webpage.” The detail that the remote device may be a webpage is contradictory to the ordinary meaning of the term “device” as known within the art and causes problems when trying to determine the actual metes and bounds of the term as this is not a full lexicographical definition (see 112(b) rejection below). Further, in claim 25, the job board “displays” information, but it is also unclear how this is done (see 112(b) rejection below). The terms “marketplace” and “job board” are utilized as if they are ordinary terms of the art and not given further definition within the specification, but it is not clear exactly what these are, what they comprise, how to make them, or how to use them. One of ordinary skill in the art would be forced to perform undue experimentation to attempt to recreate the marketplace, remote device, and job board as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would be required to, without known guidance in the art or the specification, figure out what works and what doesn’t work in order to accomplish the invention. Therefore, the claims are not enabled. Examiner recommends cancelling claims 23-25 or specifically pointing to sections of the disclosure which are enabling for the invention and bringing these details into the claims.
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 3-4, 6-8, 12, 14, 17-18, 20, and 23-25 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the method and sensors needed to perform detection of a vehicle. As claimed, it is indefinite as to how and with what a vehicle is detected. The specification provides potential examples such as in paragraphs 0105 and 0109 wherein the vehicle isn’t really detected as the terminology would traditionally suggest but rather the vehicle sends signals to the trailer to retract the landing gear of claim 3. Since the term “detect” is used unconventionally in light of these sections of the specification, it is also difficult to ascribe the metes and bounds of the detection limitation in claim 3. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Examiner recommends amending the claim to detail how detection occurs. For purpose of examination, the detection step will be interpreted as a mere communication between the vehicle and the trailer consistent with the specification.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “detection of” in claim 3 is used by the claim to mean “communication with,” while the accepted meaning is “identification of the presence or existence of.” (See above.) The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 3 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The term “large” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how “large” is large enough for the footprint pads. Is there a specific dimensionality that is required for the footprint pads? Is the footprint pad “large” in width, length, or height? All this is unclear. Examiner recommends amending the claim to remove utilization of the term “large”. For purpose of examination, “large” will be interpreted as any size.
Claim 6 is unclear as to what is being compacted. Typically, road compaction is a non-issue. Is this then compaction of soil, compaction of farmland, compaction of gravel, compaction of the system itself, or something else? It is unclear the metes and bounds of what compaction should be reduced. Paragraph 0101 discloses this is soil compaction. Examiner recommends amending this limitation to detail soil compaction. For the purpose of examination, compaction will be interpreted as being soil compaction.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the method and configuration necessary for the trailer to receive commands from the vehicle to operate an automatic tarp system and grain hoppers. The trailer has not been configured whatsoever to be able to receive vehicle commands, so it is unclear within the claims how the trailer is able to receive commands from the vehicle to operate its components. For the purpose of examination, the trailer will be assumed to be able to communicate via telemetry with the vehicle in these claims. This is reflected in claim 22. Examiner recommends amending claim 1 such that the trailer and vehicle are detailed to communicate via telemetry.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 7 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "tarp" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (See claim 7 112(b) rejection below regarding the “automatic tarp system”.)
Claim 12 recites the limitation "tarp sensors" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If the term was not meant to indicate a sensor with prior antecedence basis, then it is unclear what exactly the “tarp sensors” are and what they do. “Tarp sensor” is not a well know term in the art. There further is no tarp to sense in claim 12. Examiner presumes that the tarp sensors are meant to be the one or more tarp sensors recited in claim 8 wherein they detect tarp position. To resolve this rejection, examiner recommends amending claim 9 to depend upon claim 8 such that there is antecedent basis in later dependent claim 12 for the existence and definition of tarp sensors. For the purpose of examination, claim 9 will be interpreted as dependent upon claim 8.
The term “type” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “type” is indefinite as it is unclear what exactly “type” is meant to convey and what the metes and bounds of a “type” are. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E) for more details of indefiniteness regarding the term “type”. Examiner recommends amending the claim to remove the recitation of the term “type”. For the purpose of examination, a “flat-bed type” is interpreted as being only a flat-bed.
Regarding claims 23-25, it is unclear what exactly the metes and bounds for the term “marketplace” is. Is this a digital storefront? Is this a server automatically managing trading of goods? Is this a physical market such as a farmer’s market? Is this a newspaper with adverts for crop purchasing/selling? It is utterly unclear the scope of the term. It is only detailed in claim 24 that the marketplace includes a remote device which includes a job board. This further provides confusion as a marketplace comprising a “remote device” makes the term more unclear. If the device is a physical device such as a computer, what is the marketplace? Is it a person who operates the computer? Is it a collection of people operating computerized tills? Further confusion is provided when examining the specification for clarity. As detailed in the 112(a) rejection above, the remote device is detailed as being either a server or a webpage. This is contrary to the ordinary definition of a “device” as known in the art, so the term becomes indefinite. Further, if the marketplace only comprises a webpage, then what exactly is the marketplace? Is it the server the webpage is stored on? That doesn’t seem logical considering that the remote device can also be a server. What exactly is the metes and bounds of the marketplace? Furthermore, the term “job board” is utilized as if it’s a well-known term of the art, but its metes and bounds are not clearly stated within the specification or obviously known within the art. Is the job board a webpage? If so, how is this different than the remote device? Is the job board a physical corkboard? If so, how exactly does something like a server comprise a corkboard? It is utterly unclear what the job board is. Furthermore, the job board must “display” information in claim 25, but this is not clearly performed as the job board is not clearly comprising a display in which to perform the act of displaying on. Is the job board thus a cell phone? How does a server comprise a cell phone? Is the job board an HMI? How does a webpage comprise an HMI? The terms as utilized are not given any level of clarity in light of the specification that permit understanding of the metes and bounds of the limitations. For the purpose of examination only, the marketplace, remote device, and job board will be interpreted as all being one and the same component wherein this component can be an application, website, web page, or other online system able to present (“display”) information on itself and handle transactions and trading of crops.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “remote device” in claim 24 is used by the claim to mean “server or webpage,” while the accepted meaning is “a physical electronic gadget or system capable of performing functions at a distance.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 24 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
In claim 7, claim limitation "an automatic tarp system configured to open and close based on commands from the vehicle" has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the use of “system” indicates a potential nonce term, but it is unclear if “automatic tarp” is meant to be a mere descriptor of the system or a structural element comprised within the system. It is unclear the metes and bounds for what the system comprises. Does this include a tarp? Does this include actuators to move a tarp? Does this include a tarp housing? The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, the automatic tarp system will be interpreted as comprising an automatic tarp. To overcome this rejection, examiner recommends amending the claim to remove the term “system”.
In claim 17, claim limitation "flat-bed type trailer support system configured to slide beneath the trailer" has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the use of “system” indicates a potential nonce term, but it is unclear if “flat-bed type trailer support” is meant to be a mere descriptor of the system or a structural element comprised within the system. It is unclear the metes and bounds for what the system comprises. Does the system comprise a flat-bed? Are there additional supports in the flat-bed to support the trailer in the system? In the system, is there a hitch or something to attach to the trailer while it is being supported by the system? The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, the flat-bed type trailer support system will be interpreted as comprising a flat-bed. To overcome this rejection, examiner recommends amending the claim to remove the phrase “type trailer support system”. This would also overcome the 112(b) rejection for the use of the term “type” as detailed above.
In claim 20, claim limitation "conveyor system configured to receive grain from one or more hoppers" has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the use of “system” indicates a potential nonce term, but it is unclear if “conveyor” is meant to be a mere descriptor of the system or a structural element comprised within the system. It is unclear the metes and bounds for what the system comprises. Does the system include the conveyor? Does the system include actuators to run the conveyor? Does the system include any housing used to house the conveyor? The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, the conveyor system will be interpreted as comprising a conveyor. To overcome this rejection, examiner recommends amending the claim to remove the term “system”.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Blackwell et al. US 10130022 B2 (hereinafter Blackwell).
Regarding claim 1, Blackwell teaches a commodity transfer system, comprising:
a trailer (Figure 34 grain cart 74);
a vehicle (Figure 34 tug unit 70); and
a crop receiving facility (column 22 lines 21-24 disclose a storage location for dispensing grain from a full grain cart).
Regarding claim 2, Blackwell teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Blackwell further teaches that the trailer includes a moisture sensor (column 16 lines 46-58 discloses moisture content sensors aboard the grain cart) configured to detect a moisture content of one or more crops (column 17 lines 10-12 detail determining moisture content of grain in the grain cart).
Regarding claim 15, Blackwell teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Blackwell further teaches that the vehicle is at least a level 4 autonomous vehicle (column 8 lines 37-42 discloses the tug unit is autonomous with no need for an operator operating the unit indicating at least self driving level 4 and more likely level 5 as no details of operator override are provided within the disclosure) configured to autonomously move the trailer to and from a combine (column 22 lines 7-26 detail that the grain cart unit, i.e. the tug unit coupled with the grain cart, operates autonomously alongside a combine to fill the grain cart and can autonomously travel to a storage location once full).
Regarding claim 16, Blackwell teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Blackwell further teaches the vehicle is configured to fully support the weight of the trailer to prevent trailer ground contact (Figures 9-14 show example loading of an implement on the tug unit such that the implement is on top of the tug unit and not touching the ground; column 10 lines 53-55 disclose the implement can be a grain cart).
Regarding claim 17, Blackwell teaches all of claim 16 as detailed above. Blackwell further teaches that the vehicle includes a flat-bed type trailer support system (column 12 line 63 to column 13 line 23 discloses a flatbed for supporting the trailer) configured to slide beneath the trailer (Figures 21-27 show an implement 55 being loaded on the tug unit 50 by sliding the tug unit under the implement 55) during an autonomous trailer hooking and dropping process (column 12 line 63 to column 13 line 64 detail autonomously hooking and dropping of the implement onto the tug unit).
Regarding claim 18, Blackwell teaches all of claim 17 as detailed above. Blackwell further teaches that the vehicle and trailer include one or more sensors (column 12 lines 25-30 detail sensors on a tug unit and implement to allow for autonomous hooking and dropping), channels, and/or rollers configured to facilitate autonomous hooking and dropping of the trailer (column 12 line 63 to column 13 line 64 detail autonomously hooking and dropping of the implement onto the tug unit).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackwell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baird et al. US 20050073141 A1 (hereinafter Baird).
Regarding claim 3, Blackwell teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Blackwell further teaches that the trailer has a landing gear (Figure 22 jacks 56, lifts 57, and cylinders 58 included in the implement 55; column 10 lines 53-55 disclose the implement can be a grain cart) configured to automatically extend and retract upon detection of the vehicle (column 12 line 63 to column 13 line 64 detail autonomously hooking and dropping of the implement onto the tug unit by retracting 56-58 based on communication between the tug unit and implement, i.e. "detection of a vehicle").
Blackwell does not explicitly teach a motor configured to automatically extend and retract the landing gear. The control of 56-58 of Blackwell implies the existence of either a hydraulic system or motor to control the jack assembly, but it is not explicit which is used, so for completion of the record, Baird is used for this deficiency.
Baird teaches a motor configured to automatically extend and retract the landing gear (paragraph 0057 discloses a landing gear motor).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Blackwell to incorporate the teachings of Blackwell. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the landing gear motor of Baird for the unexplicit jack control system of Blackwell. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of controlling an up and down motion of a landing gear renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Blackwell reference teaches all of claim 4 as detailed above. Blackwell further teaches that the landing gear includes one or more large-footprint pads configured to prevent trailer sinking (Figure 21, as drawn, show flat pads at the end of cylinders 58; examiner understands that having these pads accomplishes the intended purpose of preventing trailer sinking).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackwell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Banwart US 20110074132 A1 (hereinafter Banwart).
Regarding claims 5-6, Blackwell teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Blackwell does not teach that the trailer includes one or more retractable wheels wherein the wheels are configured to retract after the trailer is hooked to the vehicle to reduce compaction.
Banwart teaches that the trailer includes one or more retractable wheels (Figures 3-4 show a wheel 98 that can be retracted) wherein the wheels are configured to retract after the trailer is hooked to the vehicle to reduce compaction (Figures 3-4 show that a wheel 98 can be retracted when hooked; examiner understands having this retraction performs the intended purpose of preventing soil compaction).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Blackwell to incorporate the teachings of Baird such that the grain cart of Blackwell can include the retractable wheel that can be stowed during hooking according to Banwart. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve maneuverability and stability of the grain cart when not mounted on the tug unit.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackwell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liang CN 212796662 U (hereinafter Liang).
Regarding claim 7, Blackwell teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Blackwell further teaches that trailer components are configured to open and close based on commands from the vehicle (column 5 lines 21-52 disclose tug unit motors operate the components of a connected implement).
Blackwell does not teach that the trailer includes an automatic tarp system configured to open and close based on commands from the vehicle.
Liang teaches that the trailer includes an automatic tarp system configured to open and close based on commands from the vehicle (translated abstract discloses a transport vehicle with automatic tarp closing and opening functionality; Figure 1 shows tarp is on the cargo hold 12 or "trailer" portion of the vehicle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Blackwell to incorporate the teachings of Liang such that the automatic tarp of Liang can be included on the grain cart and controlled by the tug unit motors of Blackwell. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to protect goods from environmental factors and save time by making tarp automated as disclosed in Liang (translated page 1 last paragraph to translated page 2 first paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Blackwell reference teaches all of claim 7 as detailed above.
Blackwell does not teach that the trailer includes one or more sensors configured to detect tarp position.
Liang further teaches that the trailer includes one or more sensors configured to detect tarp position (translated page 3 last paragraph to translated page 4 first paragraph discloses a tension sensor which can be used to determine tarp position).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Blackwell to incorporate the teachings of Liang such that the automatic tarp with position detection of Liang can be included on the grain cart of Blackwell. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure tarp opening and closing is working normally as disclosed in Liang (translated page 3 last paragraph to translated page 4).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackwell as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Calmel FR 2618106 A1 (hereinafter Calmel).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Blackwell reference teaches all of claim 8 as detailed above.
Blackwell does not teach that the trailer includes a rotating rear door for crop removal.
Calmel teaches that that the trailer includes a rotating rear door for crop removal (translated page 2 paragraph 6 discloses a rear door control by jacks for unloading; translated Figure 1 shows the door in a closed position and a rotated open position).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Blackwell to incorporate the teachings of Calmel such that the rear door of Calmel can be included on the grain cart of Blackwell. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve ease of unloading by allowing direct access to goods through a rear door.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Blackwell reference teaches all of claim 9 as detailed above.
Blackwell does not teach that the trailer includes one or more door sensors configured to detect rear door position.
Calmel further teaches that the trailer includes one or more door sensors configured to detect rear door position (translated page 2 last paragraph discloses position sensors for the rear door).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Blackwell to incorporate the further teachings of Calmel such that the rear door with position sensors of Calmel can be included on the grain cart of Blackwell. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure door opening and closing is working normally.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Blackwell reference teaches all of claim 10 as detailed above.
Blackwell does not teach that the trailer includes a dump hoist for crop removal.
Calmel further teaches that the trailer includes a dump hoist for crop removal (translated page 1 paragraph 2 discloses the trailer is a tipper trailer; translated Figure 1 shows a neutral position and a tipped unloading position).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Blackwell to incorporate the further teachings of Calmel such that the tipper functionality of Calmel can be included on the grain cart of Blackwell. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve ease of unloading by utilizing gravity.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackwell as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kuhns US 20230018114 A1 (hereinafter Kuhns) and Firat EP 2919211 A1 (hereinafter Firat).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Blackwell reference teaches all of claim 11 as detailed above.
Blackwell does not teach monitoring the one or more door sensors and one or more tarp sensors to detect load tampering.
Firat teaches monitoring the one or more door sensors and one or more tarp sensors to detect load tampering (Abstract discloses determining if an intervention, i.e. "tampering", to a load has occurred by monitoring a current flowing in a rope of a lorry; Figure 1 shows that the rope and current I goes fully around the lorry; Abstract discloses that the rope is connected to a curtain, i.e. tarp, and frame; paragraph 0021 discloses that the rope is connected by a seal seen in Figure 3 14; paragraph 0026 discloses a break or deviation in the current indicates intervention such as theft or smuggling; altogether, this indicates that if the current is cut or disturbed anywhere along the rope, such as by opening the curtain or opening the doors, an intervention is detected).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Blackwell to incorporate the teachings of Firat such that load intervention can be detected utilizing the system taught by Firat. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve security of goods.
Blackwell does not teach that the trailer includes an on-board controller configured to detect load tampering.
Kuhns teaches that the trailer includes an on-board controller configured to detect load tampering (paragraph 0018 discloses a controller on a grain cart that is used for theft detection).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Blackwell to incorporate the teachings of Kuhns such that the grain cart of Blackwell can comprising the theft detecting controller of Kuhns to perform the theft detection method of Firat. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve information processing and management and reduce reliance on remote operatives.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackwell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uno et al. JP 2020087307 A (hereinafter Uno).
Regarding claim 13, Blackwell teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Blackwell further teaches that the vehicle includes a GPS (column 5 lines 53-61 disclose the tug unit comprises a GPS).
Blackwell does not teach that the trailer includes a Real-time Kinematic Positioning Global Positioning System (RTK GPS); and the RTK GPS is configured to use the trailer as a base station for sending real-time corrections to the vehicle.
Uno teaches that the trailer includes a Real-time Kinematic Positioning Global Positioning System (RTK GPS) (translated page 3 last paragraph discloses a GNSS receiver in a base station trailer; translated page 4 paragraph 7 discloses RTK GNSS positioning; examiner considers that the GNSS receiver can be easily substituted with the RTK GNSS receiver on the base station trailer); and the RTK GPS is configured to use the trailer as a base station for sending real-time corrections to the vehicle (translated page 4 paragraph 2 discloses the base station trailer is used for locating other trailers; while the disclosure is specific for locating other trailers, it would be inconsequential for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the same locating method for vehicles).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Blackwell to incorporate the teachings of Uno such that the grain cart of Blackwell can incorporate the RTK GPS of Uno and be further utilized as a base station for other devices as taught by Uno. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to extend the GPS signal and improve positioning relative to the base station. Further, the repositioning of the GPS from the vehicle as taught in Blackwell to the trailer as taught by Uno would be obvious since it has been held that rearranging the location of elements without affecting operation of the elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) and the court cases cited therein.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackwell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bump et al. US 20120099948 A1 (hereinafter Bump).
Regarding claim 14, Blackwell teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Blackwell further teaches that trailer components are configured to open and close based on commands from the vehicle (column 5 lines 21-52 disclose tug unit motors operate the components of a connected implement).
Blackwell does not teach that the trailer includes one or more electrically controlled grain hoppers.
Bump teaches that the trailer includes one or more electrically controlled grain hoppers (paragraph 0020 discloses a grain cart comprises a hopper).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Blackwell to incorporate the teachings of Bump such that the grain cart of Blackwell can incorporate the hopper of Bump wherein the tug unit motors can be utilized to control the grain unit's hopper as detailed in Blackwell. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to better control discharge of material from the grain cart.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackwell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wendte US 20070068238 A1 (hereinafter Wendte).
Regarding claim 19, Blackwell teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Blackwell further teaches that the trailer includes a load sensor (column 16 lines 46-57 disclose a weight sensor in the grain cart) configured to detect a loading pattern of the crops in the trailer (column 17 lines 7-22 detail sensors detect how the grain cart is being filled such as being primarily loaded in the front).
Blackwell does not teach that the vehicle includes the load sensor.
Wendte teaches that the vehicle includes the load sensor (paragraph 0033 discloses a load sensor in the vehicle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Blackwell to incorporate the teachings Wendte such that the load sensor of Blackwell can be comprised in the tug unit instead of the grain cart as taught by Wendte since it has been held that rearranging the location of elements without affecting operation of the elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) and the court cases cited therein.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackwell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bump and Coers US 20100012467 A1 (hereinafter Coers).
Regarding claim 20, Blackwell teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Blackwell further teaches that the trailer includes a conveyor system (column 16 lines 1-4 detail a conveyor in the grain cart).
Blackwell does not teach that the trailer includes a conveyor system configured to receive grain from one or more hoppers and transport grain throughout the vehicle.
Bump further teaches that the trailer includes a conveyor system configured to receive grain from one or more hoppers and transport grain throughout the vehicle (column 16 lines 1-4 detail a conveyor in the grain cart).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Blackwell to incorporate the further teachings of Bump such that the conveyor for receiving grain from a hopper of Bump can be included in the tug unit of Blackwell. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to better control discharge of material from the grain cart and improve easy of unloading.
Blackwell does not teach that the vehicle includes the conveyor system.
Coers teaches that the vehicle includes the conveyor system (Abstract discloses a conveyor is mounted on a vehicle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Blackwell to incorporate the teachings Coers such that the conveyor system detailed in Bump and Blackwell can be comprised in the tug unit instead as taught by Coers since it has been held that rearranging the location of elements without affecting operation of the elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) and the court cases cited therein.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackwell as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Wenzel US 20120085458 A1 (Wenzel).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Blackwell reference teaches all of claim 20 as detailed above. Blackwell further teaches the trailer includes an auger (column 16 lines 1-4 detail an auger in the grain cart).
Blackwell does not teach that the trailer includes an auger configured to automatically transport grain from the conveyor system into a container.
Bump further teaches that the trailer includes an auger configured to automatically transport grain from the conveyor system into a container (paragraph 0020 discloses the conveyor is an auger; paragraph 0005 discloses that the conveyor can deposit the grain into another container).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Blackwell to incorporate the teachings of Bump such that the conveyor system for unloading grain of Bump can be included in the tug unit of Blackwell. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to transport the grain into a more efficient and longer term storage solution.
Blackwell does not teach that the trailer includes an auger configured to automatically transport grain from the conveyor system into a grain bagger.
Wenzel teaches that the trailer includes an auger configured to automatically transport grain from the conveyor system into a grain bagger (paragraphs 0058-0059 discloses that an auger transports grain into a grain bagger).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Blackwell to incorporate the teachings of Wenzel such that the auger conveyor of Bump can be utilized to unload crop into the grain bagger of Wenzel. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for cost efficient temporary storage of grain to preserve grain an keep out pests.
Blackwell does not teach that the vehicle includes an auger.
Coers teaches that the vehicle includes the conveyor system (Abstract discloses a conveyor is mounted on a vehicle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Blackwell to incorporate the teachings Coers such that the conveyor (auger) detailed in Bump can be comprised in the tug unit instead as taught by Coers since it has been held that rearranging the location of elements without affecting operation of the elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) and the court cases cited therein.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Blackwell reference teaches all of claim 21 as detailed above. Blackwell further teaches that the vehicle and trailer communicate via telemetry to control automatic hooking and dropping (column 12 line 63 to column 13 line 64 detail autonomously hooking and dropping of the implement onto the tug unit utilizing communication between the tug unit and implement; column 10 lines 53-55 disclose the implement can be a grain cart)
Blackwell does not teach automatic fill of the grain bagger.
Bump further teaches automatic fill of the grain bagger (claim 11 detail automatic discharging of grain into a separate storage device and automatic recording of grain amount).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Blackwell to incorporate the teachings of Bump such that the grain cart of Blackwell can be automatically unloaded according to Bump into the grain bagger of Wenzel utilizing the tug unit to grain cart communication of Blackwell. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent need for complicated training that is not easily taught to part time or casual operators as detailed in Bump (paragraph 0009).
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackwell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Perry et al. US 20190325467 A1 (hereinafter Perry).
Regarding claim 23, Blackwell teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Blackwell does not teach a real-time marketplace for crop transfer based on an estimated crop load weight, moisture content, and location information.
Perry teaches a real-time marketplace for crop transfer (Abstract discloses an online system that manages and optimizes crop transactions and transportations) based on an estimated crop load weight (paragraph 0054 discloses crop listings include quantity metrics such as unit weight), moisture content (paragraph 0054 discloses crop listings include quality metrics; paragraph 0063 discloses moisture content as one quality metric), and location information (paragraph 0054 discloses crop listings include product origin location).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Blackwell to incorporate the teachings of Perry such that the system of Blackwell can be incorporated into a larger marketplace for selling harvested crops as taught by Perry. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a source of cash flow after harvesting is complete.
Regarding claim 24, the modified Blackwell reference teaches all of claim 23 as detailed above.
Blackwell does not teach that the marketplace includes a remote device having a real-time job board for crop hauling to customer.
Perry further teaches that the marketplace includes a remote device having a real-time job board for crop hauling to customer (Abstract discloses the online crop system can determine an opportunity for an entity to transport a crop).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Blackwell to incorporate the further teachings of Perry such that crop transportation entities can be optimally chosen according to Perry. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure crop is optimally transported to meet customer needs.
Regarding claim 25, the modified Blackwell reference teaches all of claim 24 as detailed above.
Blackwell does not teach that the real-time job board displays available crop load pickup and drop off locations.
Perry further teaches that the real-time job board displays available crop load pickup and drop off locations (paragraph 0079 discloses that pick and destination locations are transmitted to the crop transportation entity; Figure 20 shows this transmitted data results in a displayed map with route).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Blackwell to incorporate the further teachings of Perry such that crop transportation entities can be provided with transportation instructions as taught by Perry. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure the correct crop is properly transported from an origin location to the correct destination.
Double Patenting
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.
Claim 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-17, and 21-28 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/584,125 (hereinafter Laird) in view of Crain US 20210029960 A1 (hereinafter Crain), Kallestad US 20060108434 A1, and Knight et al. US 20190325534 A1.
Application 18/780,690
US Patent Application 18/584,125 (Laird)
Claim 1
Claim 1
A commodity transfer system, comprising: a trailer;
A harvesting system, comprising: a trailer;
a vehicle; and
and a vehicle configured to support the trailer to reduce soil compaction.
a crop receiving facility.
Claim 2
Claims 3-4
The commodity transfer system of claim 1, wherein the trailer includes a moisture sensor
The harvesting system of claim 1, wherein the trailer is configured to collect harvested crops from a combine.The harvesting system of claim 3, wherein the trailer includes a moisture sensor
configured to detect a moisture content of one or more crops.
configured to detect a moisture content of the crops.
Claim 3
Claim 5
The commodity transfer system of claim 1, wherein the trailer has a landing gear
The harvesting system of claim 1, wherein the trailer has landing gear
and a motor
and a motor
configured to automatically extend and retract the landing gear upon detection of the vehicle.
configured to automatically extend and retract the landing gear upon detection of the vehicle.
Claim 4
Claim 6
The commodity transfer system of claim 3, wherein the landing gear includes one or more large-footprint pads
The harvesting system of claim 5, wherein the landing gear includes one or more large-footprint pads
configured to prevent trailer sinking.
configured to prevent trailer sinking.
Claim 5
Claim 7
The commodity transfer system of claim 1, wherein the trailer includes one or more retractable wheels.
The harvesting system of claim 1, wherein the trailer includes one or more retractable wheels.
Claim 6
Claim 8
The commodity transfer system of claim 5, wherein the wheels are configured to retract after the trailer is hooked to the vehicle to reduce compaction.
The harvesting system of claim 7, wherein the wheels are configured to retract after the trailer is hooked to the vehicle to reduce compaction.
Claim 7
Claim 9
The commodity transfer system of claim 1, wherein the trailer includes an automatic tarp system
The harvesting system of claim 1, wherein the trailer includes an automatic tarp system
configured to open and close based on commands from the vehicle.
configured to open and close based on commands from the vehicle.
Claim 8
Claim 10
The commodity transfer system of claim 7, wherein the trailer includes one or more sensors configured to detect tarp position.
The harvesting system of claim 9, wherein the trailer includes one or more sensors configured to detect tarp position.
Claim 9
Claim 11
The commodity transfer system of claim 1, wherein the trailer includes a rotating rear door for crop removal.
The harvesting system of claim 1, wherein the trailer includes a rotating rear door for crop removal.
Claim 10
Claim 12
The commodity transfer system of claim 9, wherein the trailer includes one or more door sensors configured to detect rear door position.
The harvesting system of claim 11, wherein the trailer includes one or more door sensors configured to detect rear door position.
Claim 11
Claim 13
The commodity transfer system of claim 10, wherein the trailer includes a dump hoist for crop removal.
The harvesting system of claim 12, wherein the trailer includes a dump hoist for crop removal.
Claim 12
Claim 14
The commodity transfer system of claim 11, wherein the trailer includes an on-board controller
The harvesting system of claim 13, wherein the trailer includes an on-board controller
configured to monitor the door sensors
configured to monitor the door sensors
and tarp sensors
and tarp sensors
to detect load tampering.
to detect load tampering.
Claim 13
Claims 15-16
The commodity transfer system of claim 1, wherein: the trailer includes a Real-time Kinematic Positioning Global Positioning System (RTK GPS); and
The harvesting system of claim 1, wherein the trailer includes a Real-time Kinematic Positioning Global Positioning System (RTK GPS).
the RTK GPS is configured to use the trailer as a base station for sending real-time corrections to the vehicle.
The harvesting system of claim 15, wherein the RTKGPS is configured to use the trailer as a base station for sending real-time corrections to the vehicle.
Claim 14
Claim 17
The commodity transfer system of claim 1, wherein the trailer includes one or more electrically controlled grain hoppers
The harvesting system of claim 1, wherein the trailer includes one or more electrically controlled grain hoppers
configured to open and close based on commands from the vehicle.
configured to open and close based on commands from the vehicle.
Claim 15
Claim 21
The commodity transfer system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is at least a level 4 autonomous vehicle
The harvesting system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is at least a level 4 autonomous vehicle
configured to autonomously move the trailer to and from a combine.
configured autonomously move the trailer to and from a combine.
Claim 16
Claim 22
The commodity transfer system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is configured to fully support the weight of the trailer
The harvesting system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is configured to fully support the weight of the trailer
to prevent trailer ground contact.
to prevent trailer ground contact.
Claim 17
Claim 23
The commodity transfer system of claim 16, wherein the vehicle includes a flat-bed type trailer support system
The harvesting system of claim 22, wherein thevehicle includes a flat-bed type trailer support system
configured to slide beneath the trailer
configured to slide beneath the trailer
during an autonomous trailer hooking and dropping process.
during an autonomous trailer hooking and dropping process.
Claim 18
Claim 24
The commodity transfer system of claim 17, wherein the vehicle and trailer include one or more sensors,
The harvesting system of claim 23, wherein thevehicle and trailer include one or more sensors,
channels,
channels,
and/or rollers
and/or rollers
configured to facilitate autonomous hooking and dropping of the trailer.
configured to facilitate autonomous hooking and dropping of the trailer.
Claim 19
Claim 25
The commodity transfer system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle includes a load sensor
The harvesting system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle includes a load sensor
configured to detect a loading pattern of the crops in the trailer.
configured to detect a loading pattern of crops in the trailer.
Claim 20
Claim 26
The commodity transfer system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle includes a conveyor system
The harvesting system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle includes a conveyor system
configured to receive grain from one or more hoppers
configured to receive grain from one or more hoppers
and transport grain throughout the vehicle.
and transport grain throughout the vehicle.
Claim 21
Claim 27
The commodity transfer system of claim 20, wherein the vehicle includes an auger
The harvesting system of claim 26, wherein the vehicle includes an auger
configured to automatically transport grain from the conveyor system into a grain bagger.
configured to automatically transport grain from the conveyor system into a grain bagger.
Claim 22
Claim 28
The commodity transfer system of claim 21, wherein the vehicle and trailer communicate via telemetry to control automatic hooking and dropping
The harvesting system of claim 27, wherein thevehicle and trailer communicate via telemetry to control the automatic hooking and dropping
and automatic fill of the grain bagger.
and automatic fill of the grain bagger.
Regarding claims 1 and 23, Kallestad teaches the deficiency of Laird as modified by Crain.
Application 18/780,690
103 reference: Kallestad US 20060108434 A1
Claim 1
Claim 1
A commodity transfer system, comprising: a trailer;
a vehicle; and
a crop receiving facility.
A co-management system for impartial co-management to aid crop marketing, the co-management system comprising: at least one crop storage site, wherein the at least one crop storage site comprises: a crop storage facility…
Claim 23
Claim 1-2
The commodity transfer system of claim 1, further comprising a real-time marketplace for crop transfer
A co-management system for impartial co-management to aid crop marketing, the co-management system comprising: at least one crop storage site, wherein the at least one crop storage site comprises: a crop storage facility; a node associated with the crop storage facility; and a controller associated with the crop storage facility for controlling crop storage, wherein the controller is configured according to a policy; and a crop co-manager that is arranged in communication with the at least one of the crop storage facility, the facility sensor, and the controller, wherein the crop co-manager is configured to: obtain facility data; transmit the policy to the controller, wherein the policy is configured according to a crop storage objective; and record crop management history data for limited access by a market participant.
based on an estimated crop load weight,
The system of claim 1, wherein the facility data includes at least one of: ...crop weight data…
moisture content,
...crop moisture data…
and location information.
...position data…
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Laird to incorporate the teachings of Kallestad with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a source of cash flow after harvesting is complete and to provide a location for crop to be safely harbored after harvesting away from outside interference such as pests.
Regarding claims 24-25, Knight teaches the deficiency of Laird as modified by Kallestad.
Application 18/780,690
103 reference: Knight et al. US 20190325534 A1
Claim 24
Claim 1
The commodity transfer system of claim 23, wherein the marketplace includes a remote device having a real-time job board for crop hauling to customer.
A system for arranging for transportation of a crop product, comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that, when executed, cause steps to be performed comprising: identifying, for a crop product transaction within an online agricultural system, a pick-up location of a crop product, a destination location of a crop product, a pick-up window, a delivery window, a type of crop product, and a quantity of crop product; accessing environmental information describing a set of expected environmental conditions during the transportation of the crop product from the pick-up location to the destination location; accessing historic information describing previous transportation availability and costs associated with the pick-up location and the destination location; computing a transportation price corresponding to each of a set of one or more transportation entities over one or more transportation routes between the pick-up location and the destination location, each transportation entity able to pick up the crop product at the pick-up location during the pick-up window and to deliver the crop product to the destination location during the delivery window, each transportation price computed based on the crop product type, the crop quantity, the accessed environmental information, and the accessed historic information; and causing modification of, for each of the set of one or more transportation entities, an interface displayed by a client device of the transportation entity to include a lowest computed transportation price corresponding to any of the set of one or more transportation entities and to identify the transportation route associated with the lowest transportation price, the interface configured to, in response to an input from a transportation entity, automatically execute a contract with the transportation entity to pick-up the crop product at the pick-up location and to transport the crop product to the destination location in exchange for compensation based on the lowest transportation price; and a hardware processor configured to execute the executable instructions.
Claim 25
Claim 1
The commodity transfer system of claim 24, wherein the real-time job board displays available crop load pickup and drop off locations.
...causing modification of, for each of the set of one or more transportation entities, an interface displayed by a client device of the transportation entity to include a lowest computed transportation price corresponding to any of the set of one or more transportation entities and to identify the transportation route associated with the lowest transportation price, the interface configured to, in response to an input from a transportation entity, automatically execute a contract with the transportation entity to pick-up the crop product at the pick-up location and to transport the crop product to the destination location in exchange for compensation based on the lowest transportation price…
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Laird to incorporate the teachings of Knight with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure crop is optimally transported to meet customer needs and ensure the correct crop is properly transported from an origin location to the correct destination.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Olsson et al. US 10274632 B1 discloses a trailer used as a GPS base station to send location corrections to entities.
Knüpfer JP 2007514222 A discloses detecting load theft based on door contacts.
Qui et al. CN 110356307 A discloses a trailer with retractable wheels and landing gears.
Yazici et al. TR 201903000 A2 discloses an automatic tarp with a position sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:30 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights