Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 20, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 7-8 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.
The term “relatively short” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively short” 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. As written, it is unclear what distance the diameter of the log must increase and decrease.
The term “substantially” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. As written, it is unclear what change in diameter is allowable in the at least one area of the log.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more.
Legal Framework
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int' l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, the Office is guided by the Court' s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, Examiners first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, Examiners turn to the second part of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept' sufficient to ‘transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features' to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].' ” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published revised guidance on the application of § 101 and further updated this guidance in October 2019. This guidance is now found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), and particularly Sections 2103 through 2106.07(c). See MPEP §§ 2103–2106.07(c) (9th ed., Rev. 10.2019, June 2020).
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, Examiners first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”). 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55. Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do Examiners then look, under Step 2B, to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Analysis
Examiners consider the claim as a whole giving it the broadest reasonable construction as one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it in light of the Specification at the time of filing.
The Examiner finds, under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Guidance, that claim 18 is directed to an apparatus and claims 1-17, 20, and 22-23 are directed to a method and, therefore, all claims recite a statutory category of invention.
Revised Step 2A, Prong One –recites a judicial exception
According to Alice step one, “[w]e must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 218 (emphasis added). The Memorandum instructs Examiners first to determine whether each claim recites any judicial exception to patent eligibility. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. The Memorandum identifies three judicially-excepted groupings: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic practices, and (3) mental processes. Id. at 52. Examiners primarily focus here on the first and third groupings - mathematical concepts and mental processes.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of checking a measurement of a log processed with a log-handling device, measuring a first diameter of said log according to a measuring instruction created for said log and measurement data created for said log, comparing said diameter with a different measured diameter of said log, determining an accuracy of said first diameter, and then executing a command to the log-handling device based on the determined accuracy of said first measurement and creating information concerning the performed diameter determination based on the determined measuring accuracy, which under broadest reasonable interpretation can be considered either mathematical concepts (i.e. algorithms) and/or mental processes and therefore are considered abstract ideas.
Revised Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
Having determined that claim 1 recites the abstract ideas, Examiners next look to determine whether the claims recite “additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h); 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Reg. at 53–54. Integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to “apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–54; see also id. at 55 (setting forth exemplary considerations indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application).
In the current instance, there are no limitations integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application as there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, it is not used by a particular machine or to effect a particular transformation.
It is noted that while the claim specifies the abstract idea is to be carried out on a log that has been processed with a log-handling device, the claim limitations are drawn to mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations [see MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) and 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C), respectively].
Step 2B–Inventive Concept
Because the Examiner has determined that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the Examiner looks to whether each claim provides an inventive concept, i.e., adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. That is not the case here. See Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 890 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that “the ‘inventive concept' cannot be the abstract idea itself”).
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of “measuring, through use of a measurement device”. However, the measurement device as claimed could be satisfied by any form of apparatus capable of measuring, (i.e. a tape ruler, string, or any sort of visual aid), and is used for mere data gathering and recited at a high level of generality. Therefore it is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. All uses of the claimed abstract idea require a measurement through use of a measurement device therefore simply reciting a measurement device without specifying what it is, is not meaningfully limiting the abstract idea [see MPEP § 2106.05(g)].
Therefore, because there are no additional elements that can provide an inventive concept, we conclude that claim 1 does not recite patent eligible subject matter.
Similarly, claims 2-9, 11-14, and 17 recite claim limitations pertaining to the manipulation of acquired data, or the obtaining of new measurement points in a certain direction, such that the claim limitations under broadest reasonable interpretation can be considered either mathematical concepts (i.e. algorithms) and/or mental processes, and therefore are considered abstract ideas are drawn to mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations [see MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) and 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C), respectively] and do not add significantly more patentable structure to the claim limitation(s).
Although claim 10 includes the claim limitation “a transmitter” to send “measurement results” (data), the transmitter seems to be a generic computer implement simply used to carry out the abstract idea. The Supreme Court has ruled “merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International 573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Further, although claim 22 recites “hardware comprising at least one memory unit for storing program code and at least one processor configured to execute the program code”, these components similarly appear to be a generic computer implement simply used to carry out the abstract idea. The Supreme Court has ruled “merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International 573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Applying the guidance set forth in the Memorandum, the Examiner concludes that claims 1-14, 17, and 22 do not recite patent-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(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.
Claims 1-18, 20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Suutari (SE 518240 C2; Suutari, H., hereinafter "SUUTARI"; cited in the IDS filed August 20, 2024).
In regard to claims 1-17, 20, and 22-23, Suutari discloses:
[claim 1] a method for a check measurement of a log processed with a tree-handling device [page 2 para. 1 describes checking the measurement from a feed roller for a tree trunk, device shown handling a tree in Fig. 1] , the method comprising:
measuring, through use of a measurement device, a diameter [abstract describes a device for measuring the diameter of a tree trunk] of at least one log processed with the tree-handling device [abstract, tree trunk worked with a multifunctional machine used for felling trees] according to a measuring instruction [page 2 para. 1 describes controlling measurements taken] created for the at least one log [tree trunk/felled tree] and determined based on measurement data created in connection with a processing of the at least one log with the tree-handling device [page 2 para. 3 describes obtaining diameter information based on the tree trunk measurements which is then conveyed to the feed roller];
comparing at least one diameter measured with the measurement device of the at least one log to the diameter determined in connection with the processing of the at least one log with the tree-handling device [page 2 paras. 2-5 describe obtaining diameters when the trunk passes through the harvesting unit and the feed rollers, then comparing the diameters and creating a diameter diagram 9];
determining based on the comparison, an accuracy of the diameter determined in connection with the processing of the at least one log with the tree-handling device [page 2 para. 5 describes comparing the measured values to "obtain as correct a diameter as possible of the tree trunk" (read as an accuracy)]; and
executing a command, wherein said command includes at least one of controlling a diameter determination [page 2 para, 1 describes controlling the measurements, claim 1 describes a computer "simultaneously reading at least two measuring means", thus implying a command for measurement to begin] performed in connection with the processing of the at least one log with the tree-handling device [claim 1 describes performing measurements at the feed rollers 3 and pruning bits 4 & 5] and creating information concerning the performed diameter determination based on the determined measuring accuracy [claim 1 describes the computer establishing a diameter diagram 9 and comparing measured values and proposing corrections of obtained measurements, implying the computer is making an accuracy determination on the measurements (as described in page 2 para. 5)];
[claim 2] defining a dedicated measuring instruction for at least part of said at least one log based on the measurement data created in connection with the processing of the at least one log with the tree-handling device [claim 1 describes the computer proposing corrections of obtained measurements from the processing portions of the tree trunk handling device (feed rollers 3, pruning bits 4 & 5), thus defining a dedicated measuring instruction for a measurement of at least one log based on measurement data]; and
arranging one or more measuring points in a longitudinal direction (L) of the at least one log in the measuring instruction for measuring the diameter of the at least one log with the measurement device at the measuring points [page 2 para. 5 describes comparing measuring points of the tree trunk diameter(s) from one measuring device against another at the same cross-sectional area, thus the points are arranged based on the length/longitudinal direction of the tree trunk];
[claim 3] that for at least part of said at least one log, the measuring instruction includes one or more suggested measuring positions of which at least one measuring point is selected or imposed for a measurement of the at least one log with the measurement device [page 2 paras. 5-6 describe the sensors reading diameters using different measuring means at the same cross section, (thus at least one measuring position) and the computer configured to compare and suggest new measurements (correcting measured values), meaning multiple measuring points selected];
[claim 4] that the measuring instruction includes at least one measuring area in the longitudinal direction (L) of the at least one log determined based on the measurement data created in connection with the processing of the at least one log with the tree-handling device [page 2 para. 5-6 describes comparing measuring points of the tree trunk diameter(s) from one measuring device against another at the same cross-sectional area, thus the points are arranged based on the length/longitudinal direction of the tree trunk, and the computer suggesting correcting measurement values based on a comparison of the data], where in connection with the measurement of the diameter of the at least one log with the measurement device, the diameter of the at least one log is measured in the at least one measuring area [page 2 para. 7 describes that the corrected measurement values are compared to the diameter diagram 9, meaning that the diameter of the log is measured at least in the one measuring area suggested based on the previous measurement data];
[claim 5] that when measuring the at least one log with the measurement device, the method further comprises at least one of:
selecting, via a measurer, at least one measuring point on the basis of the measuring instruction [page 2 paras. 1-4 describe a plurality of measuring points];
suggesting at least one measuring point for the measurer based on the measuring instruction [page 2 paras. 5-6 describe the sensors reading diameters using different measuring means at the same cross section, (thus at least one measuring position) and the computer configured to compare and suggest new measurements (correcting measured values), meaning multiple measuring points selected];
instructing the measurer to measure at least one measuring point based on the measuring instruction [page 2 para. 6]; and
measuring automatically, via the measuring device [claim 1 describes the computer reading values from sensors, thus measuring automatically via the measuring device], in at least one of a measuring area imposed by the measuring instruction [same cross section, page 2 para. 5], the at least one measuring point imposed by the measuring instruction, and a combination of each [same cross section from measurement devices, page 2 para. 5];
[claim 6] that a measuring point is located in the longitudinal direction (L) of the at least one log at a point [page 2 para. 5-6 describes comparing measuring points of the tree trunk diameter(s) from one measuring device against another at the same cross-sectional area, thus the points are arranged based on the length/longitudinal direction of the tree trunk] or in an area where the diameter of the at least one log is mainly constant or changes uniformly by increasing or decreasing [Fig. 1 shows the top of the tree trunk having a narrower diameter than the base, with the top of the trunk uniformly decreasing from the base];
[claim 7] the method further comprising:
determining in a longitudinal direction (L) of the at least one log at least one point or area [page 2 para. 5-6 describes comparing measuring points of the tree trunk diameter(s) from one measuring device against another at the same cross-sectional area, thus the points are arranged based on the length/longitudinal direction of the tree trunk] including a local deviation in the diameter of the at least one log [page 2 para. 7 describes reading a point obscured by measurement errors such as thick branches, thus a deviation in diameter], where an otherwise constant or uniformly changing diameter of the at least one log both increases and decreases [shown in Fig. 1], or vice versa, at a relatively short distance in the longitudinal direction of the at least one log; and imposing the measuring point outside the at least one point or area [abstract and claims 1-4 describe correcting measured values by comparing the data points from a value obtained from a different measuring device, each measuring device shown in a different area in Fig. 1, thus obtaining a measurement point outside of the "flagged" measurement area/point];
[claim 8] the method further comprising:
determining in a longitudinal direction (L) of the at least one log at least one area [page 2 para. 5-6 describes comparing measuring points of the tree trunk diameter(s) from one measuring device against another at the same cross-sectional area, thus the points are arranged based on the length/longitudinal direction of the tree trunk], where the diameter of the at least one log does not change substantially or changes uniformly such that a diameter between the start point and the end point of the at least one area either increases or decreases in the longitudinal direction (L) of the at least one log [Fig. 1 shows the top of the tree trunk having a narrower diameter than the base, with the top of the trunk uniformly decreasing from the base]; and
selecting at least one measuring point from the determined at least one area [page 2 para. 5 describes selecting a cross-section, meaning a measuring point];
[claim 9] the method further comprising:
determining, through use of the tree-handling device, a cross-sectional shape of the at least one log in a longitudinal direction (L) in connection with the processing of the at least one log [page 2 para. 5-6 describes comparing measuring points of the tree trunk diameter(s) from one measuring device against another at the same cross-sectional area, thus the points are arranged based on the length/longitudinal direction of the tree trunk]; and
creating the measuring instruction for the at least one log based on information concerning the determined cross-sectional shape of the at least one log [page 2 paras. 5-6 describe the sensors reading diameters using different measuring means at the same cross section, (thus at least one measuring position) and the computer configured to compare and suggest new measurements (correcting measured values), meaning multiple measuring points selected];
[claim 10] that the measurement device further facilitates at least one of the following:
receiving at least part of the measuring instructions for measurement of the at least one log [claim 1 describes to computer receiving the data from the sensors for the measurement];
creating at least part of the measuring instruction for the measurement of the at least one log from the measurement data [page 2 paras. 5-6 describe the sensors reading diameters using different measuring means at the same cross section, (thus at least one measuring position) and the computer configured to compare and suggest new measurements (correcting measured values), meaning multiple measuring points selected]; and
sending, via a transmitter, a measurement results [page 2 para. 4 describes transmitting results];
[claim 11] that the measuring instructions defined based on the measurement data created in connection with the processing of the at least one log with the tree-handling device are used for the at least one log either without a standard measuring points or together with at least part of the standard measuring point [page 2 paras. 5-6 describe the sensors reading diameters using different measuring means at the same cross section, (thus at least one measuring position) and the computer configured to compare and suggest new measurements (correcting measured values), meaning multiple measuring points selected, and one being used as a standard based on the diameter diagram 9];
[claim 12] further comprising at least one of the following:
filtering out unreliable measuring points from the standard measuring points based on the measurement data created in connection with the processing of the at least one log with the tree-handling device [page 2 para. 7 describe removing/correcting data points that are considered unreliable]; and
reducing a weighting of the standard measuring points based on the measurement data created in connection with the processing of the at least one log with the tree-handling device [page 2 para. 8 describes calibrating the measured value set based on large differences, reducing the weight of a standard measuring point is a type of calibration and would be an obvious manipulation of the data];
[claim 13] that when measuring the diameter of the at least one log with the measurement device at a measuring point, the method further comprises:
measuring the diameter of the at least one log in two or more positions in a circumferential direction of the at least one log and storing the diameter of the at least one log corresponding the measured positions [claim 1 describes the computer proposing corrections of obtained measurements from the processing portions of the tree trunk handling device (feed rollers 3, pruning bits 4 & 5), thus at least two or more positions, page 2 paras. 1-5 describe comparing the two or more positions at the same cross-section, i.e. circumferential direction, and creating a diameter diagram 9, i.e. storing the diameter of the log]; and,
wherein information is created based on the diameter measurement of the at least one log [diameter diagram 9], said information is used according to at least one of:
determining a mean value of the diameter of the at least one log at the measurement point;
defining one or more measuring directions that meet the set criteria for a crosswise measurement [diameter] performed with the measurement device and performing the crosswise measurement with the measurement device in these defined one or more measuring directions [claim 1 describes the device taking a plurality of diameter measurements, page 2 para. 5-6 describes comparing measuring points of the tree trunk diameter(s) from one measuring device against another at the same cross-sectional area, thus the points are arranged based on the length/longitudinal direction/measuring direction of the tree trunk]; and
controlling the crosswise measurement based on the determination, where at least one measuring direction is indicated for guiding the measurement to a measurer and an indication is given to the measurer, when the measurement device is found to be in a position corresponding to the defined measuring direction [claim 1 describes the computer establishing a diameter diagram 9 and comparing measured values and proposing corrections of obtained measurements, implying the computer is making implying the computer is giving indications to the measurer based on the position according to a diameter];
[claim 14] that when measuring the diameter of the at least one log at the measuring point with the measurement device, the diameter of the at least one log is measured in the circumferential direction as a continuous measurement while storing the diameter of the at least one log [described in page 2 paras. 1-5];
[claim 15] that the tree-handling device is a harvester head [harvester unit 2] that is arranged in a work machine [harvester, page 2 para. 2];
[claim 16] that the measurement results created with the measurement device are used for at least one of:
maintaining an accuracy of a diameter measuring function at least one of a work machine and the tree-handling device including a calibration measurement and tuning of the diameter measuring function performed based on the calibration measurement [claim 1 describes the computer establishing a diameter diagram 9 and comparing measured values and proposing corrections of obtained measurements, implying the computer is making an accuracy determination on the measurements (as described in page 2 para. 5)];
monitoring of the measuring accuracy of at least one of the work machine and the tree-handling device [page 2 paras. 6-7];
checking measurement of at least one of the work machine and the tree-handling device [page 2 paras. 6-7];
monitoring fault diagnostics of at least one of the work machine and the tree-handling device;
evaluating measurement quality assurance; and
monitoring and adjusting of an operation of at least one of the work machine and the tree-handling device [page 2 para. 7];
[claim 17] the method further comprising:
creating the measurement data connected to one or more contact functions of the tree-handling device [measuring at least at the pruning bits 4 & 5 and the feed rollers 3];
creating and storing status data of the one or more contact functions concerning at least one of a measurement of a lengthwise position and a corresponding diameter measurement [page 2 para. 5, analyzing cross section data from a diameter diagram 9], the status data related to a current position of the one or more contact functions relative to the at least one log processed [diameter diagram 9]; and
creating the measuring instruction through use of the status data of the one or more contact functions [feed rollers are set to simultaneously measure the diameter, page 2 para. 3];
[claim 20] a forest machine [tree trunk harvester, page 2 paras. 1-2], configured to perform one or more steps of the method [page 2 paras. 1-5];
[claim 22] hardware comprising at least one memory unit for storing program code and at least one processor configured to execute the program code wherein the hardware performs one or more steps [claim 1 describes a computer executing measurements and comparison, implying at least a memory unit, a processor, and a program code]; and
[claim 22] the hardware further comprising:
a first interface arranged for data transfer concerning measurement data created in connection with processing of a log with a tree-handling device [conventional data signal path 7, page 2 para. 4]; and
a second interface [computer 8 with display] arranged for data transfer concerning information that is created in the hardware based on the measurement data created in connection with the processing of the log with the tree-handling device [diameter diagram 9; Fig. 1 shows computer 8 displaying the diameter diagram 9]; wherein, in response to the one or more processors executing the program code, the hardware is configured to:
create a measuring instruction based on the measurement data created in connection with the processing of the log with the tree-handling device as information for the log, which is arranged to be used for a check measurement of the log processed with the tree-handling device [claim 1 describes the computer establishing a diameter diagram 9 and comparing measured values and proposing corrections of obtained measurements, read as check-measurements].
In regard to claim 18, Suutari discloses a measurement system for a check measurement of a log processed with a tree-handling device [page 2 para. 1 describes checking the measurement from a feed roller for a tree trunk, device shown handling a tree in Fig. 1], which is arranged to be performed with a measurement device for measuring a diameter of the log processed with the tree-handling device [measurement devices/sensors, page 2 paras. 1-5] at one or more longitudinal (L) measuring points of the log [page 2 para. 5-6 describes comparing measuring points of the tree trunk diameter(s) from one measuring device against another at the same cross-sectional area, thus the points are arranged based on the length/longitudinal direction of the tree trunk], the measurement system comprising:
the tree-handling device [harvester] arranged to process the log [page 2 paras. 1-5, claim 1]; at least one sensor configured to create measurement data in connection with the processing of the log [sensors described at least at page 2 para. 2], the measurement data including a lengthwise position and a diameter of the log [page 2 para. 5-6 describes comparing measuring points of the tree trunk diameter(s) from one measuring device against another at the same cross-sectional area, thus a diameter of the log at a lengthwise portion (stored in diameter diagram 9)];
at least one processor and a memory connected to the at least one processor [computer, claim 1], the at least one processor arranged to compare the diameter of the log based on the measurement data to the diameter of the log measured with the measurement device [page 2 para. 5-6 describes comparing measuring points of the tree trunk diameter(s)]; and wherein the at least one processor is configured to: create a measuring instruction for the log based on the measurement data created in connection with the processing of the log with the tree-handling device claim 1 describes the computer establishing a diameter diagram 9 and comparing measured values and proposing corrections of obtained measurements, thus creating a measuring instruction]; compare at least one diameters measured with the measurement device to the diameter determined in connection with the processing of the log with the tree-handling device claim 1 describes the computer establishing a diameter diagram 9 and comparing measured values];
determine, based on the comparison, an accuracy of the diameter determined in connection with the processing of the log with the tree-handling device [claim 1 describes the computer establishing a diameter diagram 9 and comparing measured values and proposing corrections of obtained measurements, implying the computer is making an accuracy determination on the measurements (as described in page 2 para. 5)]; and,
control a diameter determination performed in connection with the processing of the log with the tree-handling device based on the determined accuracy or create information concerning the diameter determination based on the determined accuracy [described at least in claim 1 and page 2 paras. 6-7], and the measurement device is configured to measure the diameter of the log processed with the tree-handling device according to the measuring instruction created for the log [claim 1 describes the computer performing simultaneous measurements using the harvester components].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Arvidsson
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-2690. The examiner can normally be reached T-R 07:00-19:00, F 07:00-11:00.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/DANIEL M QUINN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights