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 .
Summary
Claims 1-9, 12, 14-18, 20-22, 24 and 25 are pending. Claims 1-9, 12, 14-18, 20-22, 24 and 25 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 16: Change “a harvester” to --the harvesting equipment-- in line 5. There is no further limitations on “a harvester” and “harvesting equipment” is used throughout claims 15-18, 20-22, 24, and 25.
Regarding claim 17: In line 2, change “stalk” to --stalks--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12, 14-18, 20-22, 24 and 25 is/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.
Regarding claims 1 16, 24, and 25: Claim 1 recites “a roller” then “the stalk roll.” It is unclear if they are the same structure. Furthermore, several different terms for this structure are used throughout the claims. Only one term for this structure should be used in the claims for clarity and consistency. The Examiner recommends using “stalk crushing rollers” as recited in claims 24 and 25.
Regarding claims 4 and 12: Claim 12 depends from a canceled claim therefore its scope is unclear. It is assumed to depend from claim 4 to have antecedent basis for the drive shaft. Please note that “shaft” is used in claim 4 while “drive shaft” is used in the rest of the claims. One term should be chosen for consistency. The Examiner recommends using “drive shaft.” There is also no antecedent basis for “the base” in claim 12.
Regarding claims 5 and 6: Claim 5 recites “correcting the force sensor signal” and then claim 6 recites “correlating the corrected force sensor signal.” Therefore there is no explicit antecedent basis for “the corrected force sensor signal.” The Examiner recommends changing the last step of claim 5 to “generating a corrected force sensor signal based on the force sensor signal and the temperature sensor signal.”
Regarding claims 6, 8, 9, and 21: These claims use the term "and/or." This term is indefinite and the Examiner recommends using "or" which avoids ambiguity and has the same patentable scope as that sought to be covered by "and/or." The Applicant may also consider using phrasing such as "at least one of."
Regarding claim 14: The language “and optionally wherein the plant is a corn plant” is indefinite because it is unclear if this limitation is within the scope of the claim. Furthermore, assuming that it is included in the claim, it is unclear what structural limitations this language places on the apparatus of claim 1 since the plant is not within the scope of the claims.
Regarding claim 15: It is unclear how many stalks are required to carry out the method of claim 15. Line 4 recites “crushing a stalk.” Then the second to last line recites “selecting corn plants of the plot with a higher than threshold plant stalk strength” which requires at least 2 plants. The Examiner recommends using language such as “crushing a plurality of stalks” then “selecting at least one corn plant…” with added changes for agreement in the intermediate steps.
Regarding claims 15 and 20: The relationship between “a temperature parameter” in claim 15 and “a correction factor” in claim 20 is unclear. They appear to refer to the same value or at least perform the same function.
Regarding claims 2-9, 12, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24 and 25: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 9, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 9: Claim 9 is a multiple dependent claim that depends from another multiple dependent claim (claim 5).
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 depends from a canceled claim.
Regarding claim 20: The method of claim 15 inherently requires all of the steps of claim 20. “Estimating a force correction factor based on the output of the temperature sensor” (claim 20) is inherent in “measuring, via a temperature sensor coupled to the harvesting equipment, a temperature parameter at the force sensor during the harvesting” (claim 15, see 112b rejection above regarding “factor” versus “parameter”). “Correcting the output of the force sensor” (claim 20) is inherent in “estimating plant stalk strength as a function of an output of each of the force sensor and the temperature sensor” (claim 15). “Calculating a stalk strength value…” (claim 20) is inherent in “estimating plant stalk strength…” (claim 15). Therefore all of the limitations of claim 20 are contained within the language of claim 15 meaning that claim 20 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 15. Therefore claim 20 is in improper dependent form.
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) 1-7, 9, 12, 14-18, 20, 22, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRAGESSER et al. (US 20100089178) in view of SZASZ et al. (EP 3771895).
Regarding claims 1-3: TRAGESSER discloses: An apparatus for measuring stalk strength of a plant growing in a plot (abstract; FIGS. 1, 2, and 12), comprising: a roller (40, 42) that is rotated to engage and crush a stalk of the plant (para. 37); a force sensor (strain gauges 56 in FIG. 12) coupled to the roller for measuring a force exerted on the roller by the plant stalk in resistance to crushing by the stalk roll (para. 37-38).
TRAGESSOR does not teach a temperature sensor.
SZASZ however does teach a temperature sensor (51 in FIG. 3) for measuring a temperature at or around a force sensor (strain gauge 2). The temperature is measured at the strain gauge (para. 41-42), thus meeting the limitations of claim 2. SZASZ also teaches that the temperature may vary over time and the strain can be measured as a function of the varying temperature, thus meeting the limitations of claim 3.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to install a temperature sensor around the force sensor of TRAGESSOR as taught by SZASZ because the output of a strain gauge is sensitive to temperature and if temperature is measured and compensated for, it will result in a more accurate measurement of strain (para. 1-5 of SZASZ).
Regarding claim 4: TRAGESSER discloses: wherein the roller is driven by a shaft (para. 38), and wherein one or more of the force sensor and the temperature sensor is coupled to a housing of the shaft (para. 38-39).
Regarding claim 5: TRAGESSER discloses: a controller (computer in para. 40-41) configured with computer readable instructions stored in a memory for: receiving a signal from the force sensor (para. 40-41).
SZASZ teaches receiving the strain signal and the temperature sensor (at evaluation unit 53 in FIG. 3); and correcting the force sensor signal based on the temperature sensor signal (abstract).
Regarding claim 6: TRAGESSER discloses: a geopositioned sensor (GPS in para. 6) for generating the data indicative of the position of the plot and/or the position of the plant within the plot (para. 6), wherein the controller is configured with further instructions for: receiving data indicative of the position of plot and/or the position of the plant within the plot from the geopositioned sensor (para. 6, 47); and correlating the corrected force sensor signal with the position of the plot and/or the position of the plant within the plot (to determine missing plants as discussed in para. 6 and 47).
TRAGRESSER does not specify where the GPS unit is mounted.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to mount the GPS unit in any convenient location because no matter where it is mounted, it will give the location of the harvester. Therefore any particular mounting arrangement is an obvious rearrangement of parts. Regarding the rearrangement of parts, MPEP 2144.04 VI C states:
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). However, “The mere fact that a worker in the art could rearrange the parts of the reference device to meet the terms of the claims on appeal is not by itself sufficient to support a finding of obviousness. The prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of appellant’s specification, to make the necessary changes in the reference device.” Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984).
Regarding claim 7: TRAGESSER discloses: correlating a statistical average (FIG. 25; para. 44-46) of the corrected force sensor signal for a threshold number of plants with the position of the plot (FIG. 22 shows location of plot; para. 44-46), wherein the threshold number of plants are growing in the same plot, and wherein the statistical average includes one of a mean, mode, median, or weighted average (average in para. 44-46).
Regarding claim 9: TRAGESSER discloses: the controller is configured with further instructions for: assigning a stalk strength value (“numerical value representative of stalk strength” in para. 6) to the plant and/or the plot as a function of the corrected force sensor signal (para. 6).
Regarding claim 12: TRAGESSOR does not disclose any protective covers for the sensor components, however the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the art to put protective covers on sensors. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to put a cover around a sensor to protect it from damage.
Regarding claim 14: TRAGESSER discloses: at least two force sensors (56 in FIG. 12) mounted in a biaxial configuration to the drive shaft housing (FIG. 9; para. 17), and optionally wherein the plant is a corn plant (para. 2).
Regarding claims 15 and 20: TRAGESSER discloses: A method of selecting corn plants with enhanced stalk strength (para. 5), comprising the steps of: while operating harvesting equipment through a plot of corn plants (para. 2-4), crushing a stalk of a corn plant received at the harvesting equipment (para. 6); measuring, via a force sensor coupled to the harvesting equipment (para. 6), a force exerted by the stalk of said plant against the stalk crushing (para. 6); estimating plant stalk strength as a function of an output of the force sensor (para. 6); and selecting corn plants of the plot with a higher than threshold plant stalk strength for use in a breeding program (para. 5).
TRAGESSOR does not teach a temperature sensor.
SZASZ however does teach a temperature sensor (51 in FIG. 3) for measuring a temperature at or around a force sensor (strain gauge 2). The temperature is measured at the strain gauge (para. 41-42), thus meeting the limitations of claim 2. SZASZ also teaches that the temperature may vary over time and the strain can be measured as a function of the varying temperature, thus meeting the limitations of claim 3.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to install a temperature sensor around the force sensor of TRAGESSOR as taught by SZASZ because the output of a strain gauge is sensitive to temperature and if temperature is measured and compensated for, it will result in a more accurate measurement of strain (para. 1-5 of SZASZ).
Regarding claim 16: TRAGESSER discloses: the force sensor measures a force exerted by the stalk of each plant of the plot against the stalk crushing as the harvesting equipment operates through the plot (para. 6-7), wherein the harvesting equipment comprises one or more stalk crushing rolls (40, 42 in FIG. 2) coupled to a harvester, and wherein the force sensor is a strain gauge coupled to a housing of the rolls (para. 6-7).
Regarding claim 17: TRAGESSER discloses: the force sensor measures a force exerted by the stalk of a threshold number of plants of the plot against the stalk crushing as the harvesting equipment operates through the plot (para. 44-45).
Regarding claim 18: TRAGESSER discloses: the estimating comprises estimating an average plant stalk strength value for plants of the plot based on a statistical average of the force measured by the force sensor (para. 44-46).
Regarding claim 22: TRAGESSER discloses: the positional information is received from a geopositioned sensor (GPS in para. 6) coupled to a housing of the harvesting equipment or inferred from a plot map retrieved from a database, and wherein the method further comprises storing the force sensor output as a function of the positional information (to determine missing plants as discussed in para. 6 and 47).
TRAGRESSER does not specify where the GPS unit is mounted.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to mount the GPS unit in any convenient location because no matter where it is mounted, it will give the location of the harvester. Therefore any particular mounting arrangement is an obvious rearrangement of parts. Regarding the rearrangement of parts, MPEP 2144.04 VI C states:
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). However, “The mere fact that a worker in the art could rearrange the parts of the reference device to meet the terms of the claims on appeal is not by itself sufficient to support a finding of obviousness. The prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of appellant’s specification, to make the necessary changes in the reference device.” Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984).
Regarding claim 24: TRAGESSER discloses: measuring the force comprises measuring an output of the force sensor coupled to a driving shaft housing of one or more stalk crushing rollers of the harvesting equipment (para. 39-40).
TRAGESSER discloses that the forces will tend to separate the legs of the housing (para. 38), but does not specify that the force sensor is installed on the base of the housing. However, because this location is already specified as a point of strain (para. 38), along with the other points of strain where the force sensors are installed, it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to install the force sensors at any location on the housing that experiences strain. Regarding the rearrangement of parts, MPEP 2144.04 VI C states:
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). However, “The mere fact that a worker in the art could rearrange the parts of the reference device to meet the terms of the claims on appeal is not by itself sufficient to support a finding of obviousness. The prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of appellant’s specification, to make the necessary changes in the reference device.” Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984).
The force measurements are empirically related to the strength of the stalks, therefore it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to locate them in any convenient location that experiences strain based on common engineering considerations such as ease of access and ease of installation.
Regarding claim 25: TRAGESSER discloses: measuring the force comprises measuring an output of at least two force sensors (56 in FIG. 12) mounted in a biaxial configuration to a driving shaft housing of one or more stalk crushing rollers of the harvesting equipment (FIG. 12).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRAGESSER and SZASZ in view of ZIELKE et al. (US 20200008351).
Regarding claim 21: TRAGESSER discloses: receiving, during the harvesting, positional information for the plot and/or each plant within the plot (GPS in para. 6); correlating the corrected force sensor output with the positional information (para. 6).
TRAGESSER does not disclose estimating a number of plants harvested during the harvesting based on the correlation.
ZIELKE however does teach using a sensor assembly on a harvester (abstract) to count the number of plants (para. 52 and 66). Please note that these calculations are based on data gathered from sensors mounted around rollers as shown in FIG. 9B and discussed in para. 74-75.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the data from the rollers of TRAGESSER to count plant stalks as taught by ZIELKE so that missing plants, yield per acre, yield per thousand plants and other metrics can be determined (para. 3 and 52 of ZIELKE) to aid in future planting decisions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. ANDERSON et al. (US 10126282) has a combine with sensors and GPS and can detect characteristics and yields of crops such as corn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights