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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 4/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the amendment to independent claims 1 and 12 regarding a sensor “in measurable proximity to the belt” is not taught by Happe, and Applicant alleges that Happe only includes sensors embedded in the belt. Happe primarily discloses a smart draper belt with sensors embedded as a main embodiment, but Applicant’s argument is erroneous, as Happe is not only restricted to such embodiments. P [0026] specifically mentions that a sensor for detecting an embedded object “may be disposed adjacent or proximate fiberglass rod 3.” Although Happe does not explicitly mention a sensor in “measurable” proximity, Happe certainly teaches use of a sensor in proximity to the belt. As seen below, there are additional concerns about the claim language regarding “measurable proximity”.
Additionally, Applicant argues that the combination of Happe and Tsuji is structurally incompatible, and that it would not be obvious to combine the two. This argument is additionally not persuasive, as using a camera is well known in the art to monitor belts as alternate means. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the argument is additionally moot because it does not apply to the combination of references and/or rationale being used in the current rejection. Specifically, another reference is used to show additional support for affixing a camera to a draper belt system in proximity to the belt of a work machine is known, and that the modification of Happe with Tsuji would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for detecting tears in the belt itself.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 4 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim language has been amended to recite “receiving belt operation data from one or more sensors disposed in measurable proximity to the belt”. There is, however, insufficient disclosure in the Specification and support from the Drawings for this claim amendment. The written description fails to demonstrate how or where such a sensor is located to be in “measurable” proximity. There is description about where a camera may be located and its field of view in P [0048], as well as description for an inspection routine in P [0081]. None of these descriptions adequately establish a “measurable” relation between the sensor and the belt, however. Therefore, the claim amendment constitutes new matter. In the interest of compact prosecution, the amendment will be understood as simply reciting “sensors disposed in proximity to the belt”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Happe (Document ID: US 20190144209 A1) in view of Shearer et al., hereinafter Shearer (Document ID: US2021137006A1), and further in view of Tsuji et al., hereinafter Tsuji (Document ID: JP 2021179368 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Happe teaches a method and system for detecting draper belt tears in a work machine, the method and system comprising:
receiving belt operation data from one or more sensors disposed in proximity to the belt (see at least P [0021]: “the sensors sufficiently communicate with a belt protection controller, or any other suitable device, to relay useful information regarding key measurable properties,”. See also P [0026] which specifically mentions that a sensor for detecting an embedded object “may be disposed adjacent or proximate fiberglass rod 3.”);
Should it be found that Happe does not teach sensors disposed in proximity to the belt, then Shearer, whose invention pertains to a harvesting vehicle with automatic detection and control operations, teaches in at least P [0132] and FIG. 4 the use of sensors that monitor the entirely of a draper belt.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the draper belt monitoring techniques of Happe with the camera and other sensors in proximity to a belt of Shearer in order to execute a design choice for implementing known means of sensor hardware in a crop harvester machine.
Happe teaches monitoring key measurable properties of a draper belt in P [0021], but Happe and Shearer do not explicitly teach
receiving belt condition baseline data;
Instead, Tsuji, whose invention pertains to diagnosing belt deterioration of a versatile belt, teaches in at least FIG. 5A-5C the deterioration of a belt over time with an initial state in FIG. 5A specifically.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the smart draper belt monitoring system of Happe and Shearer with the additional optical monitoring system for deterioration of Tsuji in order to monitor the surface of a rubber belt in a construction context, which "becomes thin due to repeated use". The monitoring of a belt is well known in the art, and especially with the demonstration of sensor configurations from Shearer, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a camera is structurally compatible in the context of Happe’s system.
In view of the modification, Happe additionally teaches
determining a belt active condition based at least in part on the belt condition baseline data and belt operation data (see at least P [0021]: “0021 useful information may be relayed to and received by an operator, a control system(s), management, or any suitable combination thereof, to then be notified about the condition of the draper belt”);
determining a change in active condition based at least in part on the belt operation data and the belt condition baseline data (see at least P [0022]: “0022 draper belt mistracking” involves a change in active condition); and
adjusting one or more belt operation parameters based at least in part on the determination of the change in active condition (see at least P [0022]: “0022 In those cases where the draper belt properties are measured and the resultant information relayed in real time, the recipient of the information may be enabled to modify the operating scenario”.
Regarding claim 12 specifically, Happe further teaches
one or more controllers (P [0021]: “a belt protection controller”)
Regarding claim 2, modified Happe teaches the method of claim 1, and Happe teaches a number of different sensor types, especially embedded elements with potential sensors proximal to them. Shearer teaches the use of optical sensors but not explicitly for monitoring a belt. Therefore Happe and Shearer are not explicitly teaching, in the context of monitoring a belt, that
the one or more sensors are optical sensors.
Instead, Tsuji teaches “a camera 30a that images the surface of the belt”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the smart draper belt monitoring system of Happe and Shearer with the additional optical monitoring system for deterioration of Tsuji in order to monitor the surface of a rubber belt in a construction context, which "becomes thin due to repeated use".
Regarding claim 3, modified Happe teaches the method of claim 1, and Happe teaches a number of different sensor types, especially embedded elements, but Happe and Shearer do not explicitly teach that
the belt condition baseline data is optical data.
Instead, Tsuji teaches “a camera 30a that images the surface of the belt”. The camera continuously monitors the belt, including an “initial state”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the smart draper belt monitoring system of Happe and Shearer with the additional optical monitoring system and initial state imaging of Tsuji in order to monitor the surface of a rubber belt in a construction context, which "becomes thin due to repeated use".
Regarding claims 4 and 13, modified Happe teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 12, and Happe teaches a number of different sensor types, especially embedded elements, but not specifically that
the one or more belt condition baseline data comprises optical data.
Instead, Tsuji teaches “a camera 30a that images the surface of the belt”. The camera continuously monitors the belt, including an “initial state”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the smart draper belt monitoring system of Happe with the additional optical monitoring system and initial state imaging of Tsuji in order to monitor the surface of a rubber belt in a construction context, which "becomes thin due to repeated use".
Regarding claims 5 and 14, modified Happe teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 12, but Happe and Shearer do not explicitly teach that
determining the change in active condition comprises identifying a tear based at least in part on the belt operation data.
Instead, Tsuji, whose invention pertains to diagnosing belt deterioration of a versatile belt, teaches in at least FIG. 5A-5C the deterioration of a belt over time with cracks c indicating actual tears that will continue to progress if left unchanged.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the smart draper belt monitoring system of Happe and Shearer with the deterioration progression monitoring of Tsuji in order to monitor the surface of a rubber belt in a construction context, which "becomes thin due to repeated use".
Regarding claims 6 and 15, modified Happe teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 12, and Happe teaches monitoring belt stress for example in P [0021], but Happe and Shearer do not explicitly teach that
the change in active condition comprises observing a belt growth based at least in part on the belt operation data.
Instead, Tsuji makes reference to application JP2019056627A, and the known use in the art of “a strain sensor” to measure “the relationship between belt elongation and deterioration”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the smart draper belt monitoring system of Happe with the additional strain monitoring system for elongation based deterioration disclosed by Tsuji in order to execute a design choice and utilize known sensors that monitor the change over time of a rubber belt in a construction context, which "becomes thin due to repeated use".
Regarding claims 7 and 16, modified Happe teaches the method of claim 6 and the system of claim 15, and in view of the modification Happe further teaches that
determining the change in active condition comprises comparing the belt operation data to the belt condition baseline data (see at least P [0022] wherein the “mistracking” necessarily requires a comparison between the active operation data and a reference baseline condition).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, modified Happe teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 12, and Happe further teaches that
adjusting one or more belt operation parameters comprises activating a belt alert (see at least P [0022]: “an immediate emergency notification”).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, modified Happe teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 12, and Happe further teaches that
adjusting one or more belt operation parameters comprises deactivating a belt (see at least P [0022]: “stop and correct the mistracked draper belt situation.”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Happe teaches the method of claim 1, and Happe further teaches
monitoring changes in belt active condition over time (see at least P [0004] wherein the belt monitoring is performed to mitigate damages “over a long period” and that in P [0021] that “the information may be accumulated in a package, and later relayed as appropriate.”).
Regarding claim 20, modified Happe system of claim 12, and Happe further teaches the one or more controllers are further configured to monitor the belt to mitigate damages “over a long period” in P [0004]. And in P [0021] Happe teaches either that “the information is relayed in real time so the property, or properties, of the belt is ascertainable in situ” or that “the information may be accumulated in a package, and later relayed as appropriate.” But Happe and Shearer are not explicitly teaching monitoring changes in belt operation parameters over a determined time period.
Instead, Tsuji teaches that “the imaging interval (frame rate) of the imaging device 30 is set so that the imaging range of a certain imaging timing and the imaging range of the next imaging timing partially overlap each other, or the imaging ranges are continuous without interruption,” as well as specific “time series” for image gather as a determined time period.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the package accumulation of belt information collection of Happe and Shearer with the specific time series as a determine time period for monitoring a belt of Tsuji in order to execute a design choice for frequency of belt monitoring by a user.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Happe in view of Shearer and Tsuji, and further in view of Missotten et al., hereinafter Missotten (Document ID: US 20240122114 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, modified Happe teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 12, and Happe further teaches in P [0023] adjusting “the equipment to improve the performance of the belt”. But Happe, Shearer, and Tsuji do not explicitly teach that
adjusting one or more belt operation parameters comprises adjusting work machine ground speed.
Instead, Missotten, whose invention pertains to automatically adjusting one or more parameters of a header of an agricultural harvester, teaches in at least P [0004] that “a number of factors (e.g., settings or parameters of the header, crop type/condition, forward speed of the harvester, etc.) may impact the header and its feeding of a crop into the harvester.” In P [0031] the system is able to “adjust…a ground speed of the harvester based on the recursive correlation”, the correlation being related to the header and belt speed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the belt monitoring system for a draper belt of Happe, Shearer, and Tsuji with the ground/forward speed control in response to header operation of Missotten in order to balance load at the header with the net engine load in a harvesting machine system. ensuring that "crop flow from the header into a feeder is as smooth as possible" as in P [00040 of Missotten.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Additional art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: CN 110040468 B
Invention pertains to monitoring fault points for belt conveyors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights