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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-8 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Species II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 6, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species I in the reply filed on July 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 2, 4, and 6 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 2 recites the limitation "the agricultural harvesting machine" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because of dependency on claim 2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the desired flow rates" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the desired moisture levels" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The plural “levels” is inconsistent with earlier singular.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Redden (US 2015/0027040 1).
With regard to claim 1, Redden discloses an additive applicator system for an agricultural cut crop comprises a storage tank (221) containing a quantity of liquid additive, an applicator (211) operable to dispense the liquid additive into the cut crop, a pump (222) between the storage tank (221) and the applicator (211) to drive the liquid additive from the storage tank to the applicator (Fig. 7), a control valve (223) between the applicator (211) and the storage tank (221) to control the flow of liquid additive back to the storage tank (via manifold 224) wherein the additive applicator system further comprises an accumulator (227) between the pump (222) and the applicator (211).
With regard to claim 2, the applicator system of Redden discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Redden further discloses that one or more moisture sensors (100) to monitor harvested material processed by the agricultural harvesting machine (Par. [0037]).
With regard to claim 3, the applicator system of Redden discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Redden further discloses that the one or more moisture sensors (100) comprises one or more of: an infrared sensor, a resistive sensor, an optical sensor; and a capacitive sensor (Par. [0037]).
With regard to claim 4, the applicator system of Redden discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Redden further discloses that each of the one or more moisture sensors (100) is mounted or otherwise coupled to the agricultural harvesting machine (Figs. 1-2).
With regard to claim 5, the applicator system of Redden discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Redden further discloses that an agricultural harvesting machine (10).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redden in view of Kelly US 2010/0107904 A1).
With regard to claim 6, Redden further discloses the agricultural harvesting machine according to claim 5. However, Redden does not disclose that the method of operation of the agricultural harvesting machine comprising the steps of setting a desired rate of spray and a desired crop moisture level using a user input apparatus to generate user input signals to be received by an electronic control unit; detecting existing moisture levels of a harvested material being processed by the agricultural harvesting machine; comparing the detected moisture levels with the desired moisture levels; actuating the applicator system as required; detecting the actual flow rate of the liquid additive and comparing the actual flow rate to the input desired rate of spray to determine if the desired flow rates are being achieved and adjusting the operation of the pump as required.
Kelly teaches a method of operation of the agricultural harvesting machine comprising the steps of setting a desired rate of spray and a desired crop moisture level using a user input apparatus (“the flow rate Set Point can be calculated using one or more user or sensor inputs, including the dose rate, the mass flow rate of fodder, the moisture content, etc.” see Abstract) to generate user input signals to be received by an electronic control unit (22); detecting existing moisture levels of a harvested material being processed by the agricultural harvesting machine (Par. [0019, 0053]); comparing the detected moisture levels with the desired moisture levels (“user input and/or detected system parameters include… moisture content” see Claim 19 and “The controller 22 is adapted to continuously read in all the sensors, and combined with values that have been entered into the flow controller parameter list by an operator” in Par. [0053]); actuating the applicator system as required; detecting the actual flow rate of the liquid additive and comparing the actual flow rate to the input desired rate of spray to determine if the desired flow rates are being achieved and adjusting the operation of the pump as required (Claim 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the harvesting machine of Redden, by incorporating the method steps for adjusting operation of the applicator as taught by Kelly, doing it would prevent unwanted pressure change by means of damping pressure pulses produced by the pump (Par. [0004-0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
