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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17, line 4 recites “the selected known quantity ofloss material” which should instead read “the selected known quantity of loss material”. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be written as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 and 17 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 1 recites the limitation "the injected quantity of loss material" in line 6. Line 2 of claim 1 teaches the limitation “…inject a quantity of material”, but does not teach “a quantity of loss material”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 2-13 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “selected quantity of loss material” in line 4. Independent claim 14 teaches “…inject a known quantity of material into the loss sensing system” in line 5-6 but does not teach “a known quantity of loss material”. Similarly, claims 15 and 16 do not teach a “quantity of loss material”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Todd, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0133037).
Regarding Claim 1, Todd teaches: A computer implemented method (Todd, Para. 0053, 0057 – “a method for measuring grain loss” implemented by an “electronic data processor”), comprising:
controlling a loss injection system to inject a quantity of material into a loss sensing system on an agricultural harvester (Todd, Para. 0019-0021, 0050-0054 – during a “calibration mode” a “certain known harvested material with a known grain loss content” is provided in “in one or more primary channels 116, one or more secondary channels 216, or both” of a harvester having “a measurement device 11” for estimating “grain loss content and material other than grain (MOG) content of the agricultural material”);
sensing loss with the loss sensing system (Todd, Para. 0019-0021, 0050-0054, 0072 – obtaining “observed grain loss of the first measurement device 11” during “the calibration mode… when harvested material with known grain loss is present”);
generating a loss signal indicative of the sensed loss (Todd, Para. 0019, 0021, 0053 – “measurement device 11 comprises a transmitter 10 for providing a transmitted signal” that is evaluated to obtain “the observed grain loss of the first measurement device 11”, where the signal either “meets or exceeds an attenuation threshold, reference attenuation, or reference signal strength”);
generating a calibration value based on the injected quantity of loss material and the sensed loss (Todd, Para. 0036, 0050-0054, 0072 – receiving “a transmitted signal (or received signal) that meets or exceeds an attenuation threshold, reference attenuation, or reference signal strength” from “measurement device 11”, and further, “moisture content sensor 61… may provide an observed reference measurement for the grain and MOG” corresponding to the “harvested material with known grain loss”, and providing “calibration data that is used to adjust or calibrate the observed grain loss of the first measurement device 11”); and
generating a control signal to configure the loss sensing system based on the calibration value (Todd, Para. 0050, 0053, 0072 – providing “yield-related data and/or moisture data of the harvested agricultural material during any sampling interval… used to control or adjust combine settings via the vehicle data bus 96, or as calibration data that is used to adjust or calibrate the observed grain loss of the first measurement device 11”, the data collected “during the calibration mode… when harvested material with known grain loss is present” in the channels).
In regards to Claim 3, Todd teaches the computer implemented method of Claim 1, and Todd further teaches wherein the loss sensing system comprises a loss sensor configured to generate a loss sensor signal and a loss computation system configured to generate an identified loss signal based on the loss sensor signal (Todd, Para. 0019, 0021, 0053 – “measurement device 11 comprises a transmitter 10 for providing a transmitted signal” that is evaluated by “electronic data processor 42” to obtain “the observed grain loss of the first measurement device 11”, where the signal either “meets or exceeds an attenuation threshold, reference attenuation, or reference signal strength”) and wherein controlling the loss injection system comprises: controlling the loss injection system to inject the quantity of material to the loss sensor (Todd, Para. 0019-0021, 0050-0054 – during a “calibration mode” a “certain known harvested material with a known grain loss content” is provided in “in one or more primary channels 116, one or more secondary channels 216, or both” of a harvester, having “a measurement device 11”, for estimating “grain loss content and material other than grain (MOG) content of the agricultural material”).
Regarding Claim 14, Todd teaches: An agricultural system (Todd, Para. 0053, 0057 – “a method for measuring grain loss” implemented by an “electronic data processor”), comprising:
a loss sensing system configured to sense crop loss on an agricultural harvester (Todd, Para. 0019-0021, 0027, 0050-0054 – a “combine 52 or harvester” having “a measurement device 11” for estimating “grain loss content and material other than grain (MOG) content of the agricultural material”) and generate a loss signal indicative of the sensed crop loss (Todd, Para. 0019, 0021, 0053 – “measurement device 11 comprises a transmitter 10 for providing a transmitted signal” that is evaluated to obtain “the observed grain loss of the first measurement device 11”, where the signal either “meets or exceeds an attenuation threshold, reference attenuation, or reference signal strength”);
a loss injection system configured to inject material into the loss sensing system (Todd, Para. 0019-0021, 0050-0054 – during a “calibration mode” a “certain known harvested material with a known grain loss content” is provided in “in one or more primary channels 116, one or more secondary channels 216, or both” of a harvester having “a measurement device 11” for estimating “grain loss content and material other than grain (MOG) content of the agricultural material”); and
a loss processing system configured to control the loss injection system to inject a known quantity of material into the loss sensing system (Todd, Para. 0019-0021, 0050-0054 – during a “calibration mode” a “certain known harvested material with a known grain loss content” is provided in “in one or more primary channels 116, one or more secondary channels 216, or both” of a harvester having “a measurement device 11” for estimating “grain loss content and material other than grain (MOG) content of the agricultural material”),
generate a calibration value based on the injected known quantity of material and the sensed crop loss (Todd, Para. 0036, 0050-0054, 0072 – receiving “a transmitted signal (or received signal) that meets or exceeds an attenuation threshold, reference attenuation, or reference signal strength” from “measurement device 11”, and further, “moisture content sensor 61… may provide an observed reference measurement for the grain and MOG” corresponding to the “harvested material with known grain loss”, and providing “calibration data”), and
generate a control signal to configure the loss sensing system based on the calibration value (Todd, Para. 0050, 0053, 0072 – providing “yield-related data and/or moisture data of the harvested agricultural material during any sampling interval… used to control or adjust combine settings via the vehicle data bus 96, or as calibration data that is used to adjust or calibrate the observed grain loss of the first measurement device 11”, the data collected “during the calibration mode”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd, et al. in view of Fechner, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2005/0026662).
In regards to Claim 2, Todd teaches the computer implemented method of Claim 1, and Todd further teaches wherein the loss sensing system comprises a loss sensor that generates a loss sensor signal and a loss computation system that generates an identified loss signal based on the loss sensor signal (Todd, Para. 0019, 0021, 0053 – “measurement device 11 comprises a transmitter 10 for providing a transmitted signal” that is evaluated by “electronic data processor 42” to obtain “the observed grain loss of the first measurement device 11”, where the signal either “meets or exceeds an attenuation threshold, reference attenuation, or reference signal strength”), but Todd does not teach and wherein controlling the loss injection system comprises: controlling the loss injection system to inject the quantity of material into a material flow sensed by the loss sensor.
However, Fechner teaches wherein controlling the loss injection system comprises: controlling the loss injection system to inject the quantity of material into a material flow sensed by the loss sensor (Fechner, Para. 0010 – “introducing an additional supply of grain to the flow of crop material being processed upstream from the sensor” by a “dosing device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer implemented method of Todd to include wherein controlling the loss injection system comprises: controlling the loss injection system to inject the quantity of material into a material flow sensed by the loss sensor, as taught by Fechner, in order to provide improved sensor accuracy (Fechner, Para. 0009).
In regards to Claim 15, Todd teaches the agricultural system of Claim 1, and Todd further teaches wherein the loss sensing system comprises: a loss sensor configured to generate a loss sensor signal; and a loss computation system configured to generate an identified loss signal based on the loss sensor signal (Todd, Para. 0019, 0021, 0053 – “measurement device 11 comprises a transmitter 10 for providing a transmitted signal” that is evaluated by “electronic data processor 42” to obtain “the observed grain loss of the first measurement device 11”, where the signal either “meets or exceeds an attenuation threshold, reference attenuation, or reference signal strength”), but Todd does not teach and wherein the loss processing system is configured to control the loss injection system to inject the known quantity of material into a material flow sensed by the loss sensor.
However, Fechner teaches wherein controlling the loss injection system comprises: controlling the loss injection system to inject the quantity of material into a material flow sensed by the loss sensor (Fechner, Para. 0010 – “introducing an additional supply of grain to the flow of crop material being processed upstream from the sensor” by a “dosing device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural system of Todd to include wherein controlling the loss injection system comprises: controlling the loss injection system to inject the quantity of material into a material flow sensed by the loss sensor, as taught by Fechner, in order to provide improved sensor accuracy (Fechner, Para. 0009).
In regards to Claim 18, Todd in view of Fechner teaches the agricultural system of Claim 15, and Todd further teaches wherein the loss processing system comprises: a sensor calibration processor configured to generate a sensor calibration signal to configure the loss sensor based on the calibration value (Todd, Para. 0050, 0053, 0072 – a “data processor 42” for providing “yield-related data and/or moisture data of the harvested agricultural material during any sampling interval… used to control or adjust combine settings via the vehicle data bus 96, or as calibration data that is used to adjust or calibrate the observed grain loss of the first measurement device 11”, the data collected “during the calibration mode… when harvested material with known grain loss is present” in the channels).
In regards to Claim 19, Todd in view of Fechner teaches the agricultural system of Claim 15, and Todd further teaches wherein the loss processing system comprises: a logic/algorithm calibration processor configured to generate a computation system calibration signal to configure the loss computation system based on the calibration value (Todd, Para. 0050, 0053, 0072 – a “data processor 42” for providing “yield-related data and/or moisture data of the harvested agricultural material during any sampling interval… used to control or adjust combine settings via the vehicle data bus 96, or as calibration data that is used to adjust or calibrate the observed grain loss of the first measurement device 11”, the data collected “during the calibration mode… when harvested material with known grain loss is present” in the channels).
Regarding Claim 20, Todd teaches: An agricultural harvester (Todd, Para. 0027 – “combine 52 or harvester”), comprising:
a crop processing system configured to process crop engaged by the agricultural harvester (Todd, Para. 0027 – “kernel processing system or the grain processing system”);
a loss sensing system configured to sense crop loss from the crop processing system (Todd, Para. 0019-0021, 0027, 0050-0054 – a “combine 52 or harvester” having “a measurement device 11” for estimating “grain loss content and material other than grain (MOG) content of the agricultural material”) and generate a loss signal indicative of the sensed crop loss (Todd, Para. 0019, 0021, 0053 – “measurement device 11 comprises a transmitter 10 for providing a transmitted signal” that is evaluated to obtain “the observed grain loss of the first measurement device 11”, where the signal either “meets or exceeds an attenuation threshold, reference attenuation, or reference signal strength”);
a loss injection system configured to inject material into the loss sensing system (Todd, Para. 0019-0021, 0050-0054 – during a “calibration mode” a “certain known harvested material with a known grain loss content” is provided in “in one or more primary channels 116, one or more secondary channels 216, or both” of a harvester having “a measurement device 11” for estimating “grain loss content and material other than grain (MOG) content of the agricultural material”);
a calibration system configured to generate a calibration value based on the injected known quantity of material and the sensed crop loss (Todd, Para. 0036, 0050-0056, 0072 – receiving “a transmitted signal (or received signal) that meets or exceeds an attenuation threshold, reference attenuation, or reference signal strength” from “measurement device 11”, and further, “moisture content sensor 61… may provide an observed reference measurement for the grain and MOG” corresponding to the “harvested material with known grain loss”, and “combine processing system” for providing “calibration data that is used to adjust or calibrate the observed grain loss of the first measurement device 11”), and generate a control signal to configure the loss sensing system based on the calibration value (Todd, Para. 0050, 0053, 0072 – providing “yield-related data and/or moisture data of the harvested agricultural material during any sampling interval… used to control or adjust combine settings via the vehicle data bus 96, or as calibration data that is used to adjust or calibrate the observed grain loss of the first measurement device 11”, the data collected “during the calibration mode… when harvested material with known grain loss is present” in the channels).
Todd does not specifically teach a sample injection control system configured to control the loss injection system to inject a known quantity of material into the loss sensing system.
However, Fechner teaches a sample injection control system configured to control the loss injection system to inject a known quantity of material into the loss sensing system (Fechner, Para. 0010, 0014 – “introducing an additional supply of grain to the flow of crop material being processed upstream from the sensor” by a “dosing device”, where the additional supply of grain is a “defined amount of grain” determined by “a function of the throughput”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer implemented method of Todd to include wherein controlling the loss injection system comprises: controlling the loss injection system to inject the quantity of material into a material flow sensed by the loss sensor, as taught by Fechner, in order to provide improved sensor accuracy (Fechner, Para. 0009).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd, et al. in view of Iseringhausen, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2023/0397533).
In regards to Claim 10, Todd teaches the computer implemented method of Claim 1, but Todd does not teach wherein generating a calibration value further comprises: detecting whether the agricultural harvester is harvesting; generating a harvester state value based on whether the agricultural harvester is harvesting; and generating the calibration signal based on the harvester state value.
However, Iseringhausen teaches wherein generating a calibration value further comprises: detecting whether the agricultural harvester is harvesting; generating a harvester state value based on whether the agricultural harvester is harvesting (Iseringhausen, Para. 0022-0024 – “the grain loss sensor setting assistant may check whether the combine harvester is operating in one or more predetermined operating states (which are conducive for determining and setting the grain loss sensor sensitivity, such as a predetermined operating state of the combine harvester)”); and generating the calibration signal based on the harvester state value (Iseringhausen, Para. 0022-0025 – “determination and setting of the grain loss sensor sensitivity of the grain loss sensors (e.g., the calibration of the grain loss sensors) is… performed when the operating conditions required or necessary for this are actually present”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer implemented method of Todd to include wherein generating a calibration value further comprises: detecting whether the agricultural harvester is harvesting; generating a harvester state value based on whether the agricultural harvester is harvesting; and generating the calibration signal based on the harvester state value, as taught by Iseringhausen, in order to improve calibration efficiency and avoid “inaccurate or unrealistic” calibration (Iseringhausen, Para. 0025).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, 11-13, 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to disclose or sufficiently suggest the combination of features as claimed and arranged by applicant when read in light of the specification.
In regards to claim 4 and similar claim 16, Todd teaches the computer implemented method of Claim 1, and Todd further teaches wherein the loss sensing system comprises a loss sensor that generates a loss sensor signal and a loss computation system that generates an identified loss signal based on the loss sensor signal (Todd, Para. 0019, 0021, 0053 – “measurement device 11 comprises a transmitter 10 for providing a transmitted signal” that is evaluated by “electronic data processor 42” to obtain “the observed grain loss of the first measurement device 11”, where the signal either “meets or exceeds an attenuation threshold, reference attenuation, or reference signal strength”), but Todd does not teach and wherein controlling a loss injection system comprises: controlling the loss injection system to inject the known quantity of material for a first sample time period; and controlling the loss injection system to stop injecting material for a second sample time period.
Fechner teaches and wherein controlling a loss injection system comprises: controlling the loss injection system to inject the known quantity of material for a sample time period (Fechner, Para. 0010, 0014 – “amount of selected crop is a function of the throughput” and is introduced “to the flow of crop material being processed upstream from the sensor” for a “duration… as small as possible in order to minimize impairing the separating process”; where the dosing can take place at “regular intervals”), but Fechner does not specifically teach wherein controlling a loss injection system comprises: controlling the loss injection system to inject the known quantity of material for a first sample time period; and controlling the loss injection system to stop injecting material for a second sample time period.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baumgarten, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2016/0235003) teaches a method for determining calibration data for a grain-loss sensor on a combine harvester includes measuring grain-loss quantities, which were left behind by the combine harvester during a harvesting operation, and measuring sensor grain-loss values by the grain-loss sensor during the harvesting operation.
Pfeiffer, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2017/0071125) teaches a crop loss correction system receives one or more crop loss sensor signals that are indicative of crop lost by a harvesting machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN LI whose telephone number is (703)756-4719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9am to 5pm eastern.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights