DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Objection - Abstract
2. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. See 37 CFR 1.72 (b).
Further, it is respectfully requested removal of reference to Fig. 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
2a. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance:
Claim 17 recites the broad recitation “wherein a reduction in the noise amplitude with a simultaneous increase in the base signal is interpreted as indicating a higher water content in the crop material flow”, and the claim also recites “in particular” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 21 recites the broad recitation “wherein at least one throughput signal characterizing a throughput of crop material through a conveyor device”, and the claim also recites “such as a driving speed” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 22 recites the broad recitation “wherein a conductivity of the crop flow of the conveyed crop material is measured with a multidimensional array”, and the claim also recites “in particular” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 23, which descends from claim 22, is likewise rejected due to dependency.
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
2b. Claim 29 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 29 contains the embodiment “Harvesting machine according to claim 18”. It is believed the dependency is in error, as claim 18 is a method claim. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed claim 29 depends directly from independent claim 24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
Claims 16, 18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Diekhans (US 2009/0120202)
Regarding claims 16 and 24, Diekhans discloses a harvesting machine, a method for monitoring a crop flow in a conveyor device for crop material of a harvesting machine (monitoring crop flow parameters in a conveyance direction in a harvester; Diekhans at abstract, 0032), comprising:
Wherein an electrical conductivity or dielectric conductivity of the crop flow of the conveyed crop material is measured with at least one conductivity sensor in the conveyor device (at least one conductance sensor in the conveyance portion; Diekhans at Fig. 2, 0012, 0014) and a signal representing the measured conductivity is generated and wherein the signal is analyzed with an evaluation device (signal generated by signal processing device transmitted to evaluation unit; Diekhans at 0037).
Wherein the crop flow is evaluated based on a development of at least one of the following characteristics of the signal: Noise frequency, noise amplitude and base signal (frequency, amplitude corresponds to crop flow moisture content; Diekhans at 0037-0039), and wherein a reduction in the noise frequency is interpreted as a reduced flow rate of the crop flow (lower frequency correlates to lower crop flow rate; Diekhans at 0037-0040).
Regarding claim 18, Diekhans discloses wherein the conductivity of the crop flow of
the conveyed crop material is measured with a plurality of conductivity sensors spaced apart
from one another and a signal representing the measured conductivity is generated for each
conductivity sensor, and the signals are analyzed with the evaluation device and compared with
one another (each sensor comprises a plurality of conductivity sensors, signals are sent to signal processing and evaluation; Diekhans at 0037).
Claim Objections
4a. Claims 19, 20, 25, 28, and 29 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.
Subsequently, claims 26 and 27 are objected due to dependency on their respective claims.
4b. Upon resolution of the above issues, claims 17, 21, 22, 23, and 29 will be 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M DAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1332. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 0830-1730.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN M DAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 29 June 2026
Prosecution Insights