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 .
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation " fan speed control " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because a fan has not been previously claimed.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, and 14-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dugas et al. (US 2019/0037770 A1), hereinafter Dugas.
Regarding claim 1, Dugas discloses a sugarcane harvester (10, fig. 1, [0029]), comprising:
a cutter assembly (base cutter, [0029]) for cutting stalks of the sugarcane as the harvester moves through a field (fig. 1, [0029]);
a chopper assembly (28, fig. 2, [0030]) for chopping the cut sugarcane stalks into billets ("B", fig. 2, [0031]) and crop residue (extraneous plant matter, [0031]);
a primary extractor (55, fig. 2, [0030]) for cleaning the billets and extracting the crop residue (fig. 2, [0030]);
a loading elevator (56, fig. 1, [0035]) for transporting the cleaned billets to a discharge location (58, fig. 1, [0035]);
at least one moisture sensor (80, fig. 3, [0041 and 0047]) configured to sense a moisture content of the billets as the billets move through the sugarcane harvester ([0047]), the at least one moisture sensor being configured to generate a moisture content signal representative of the moisture content ([0047]); and
a controller (68, fig. 3, [0041]) functionally linked with the sensor for receiving the moisture content signal ([0040-0041, and 0047]), the controller being configured to generate an output signal based at least in part on the moisture content signal ([0040-0041, 0047, and 0056]).
Regarding claim 2, Dugas discloses wherein: the at least one moisture sensor includes a moisture sensor located below the primary extractor (80 in fig. 3, compared to 55 in fig. 2, [0047]).
Regarding claim 3, Dugas discloses wherein: the at least one moisture sensor (80, [0047]) includes a moisture sensor located along the loading elevator (80 can be placed on 56, [0047]).
Regarding claim 9, Dugas discloses wherein: the controller is configured to estimate the at least one moisture condition based on modelled correlations between the at least one moisture condition and inputs including the sensed parameters and the moisture content signal ([0062]).
Regarding claim 10, Dugas discloses wherein: the output signal is configured to actuate at least one actuator to adjust at least one operating parameter of the sugarcane harvester based at least in part on the moisture content signal ([0062]).
Regarding claim 11, Dugas discloses wherein: the at least one actuator includes a fan speed control of the primary extractor ([0062]).
Regarding claim 12, Dugas discloses wherein: the output signal includes a calibration factor (86, [055-0056]) representative of a change in moisture content relative to a base calibration value ([0051-0056]).
Regarding claim 14, Dugas discloses a method of operating a sugarcane harvester (10, fig. 1, [0029]), comprising:
cutting stalks of the sugarcane as the harvester moves through a field (fig. 1, [0029]);
chopping the cut sugarcane stalks into billets ("B", fig. 2, [0031]) and crop residue (extraneous plant matter, [0031]) with a chopper assembly of the sugarcane harvester (28, fig. 2, [0030-0031]);
cleaning the billets and extracting the crop residue with a primary extractor of the sugarcane harvester (55, fig. 2, [0030]), the primary extractor including a fan (40, fig. 2, [0030]);
transporting the cleaned billets to a discharge location (58, fig. 1, [0035]) with a loading elevator of the sugarcane harvester (56, fig. 1, [0035]);
sensing a moisture content of the billets ([0047]) with at least one moisture sensor (80, fig. 3, [0041 and 0047]) as the billets move through the sugarcane harvester ([0047]), the at least one moisture sensor generating a moisture content signal representative of the moisture content ([0047]); and
receiving the moisture content signal with a controller (68, fig. 3, [0040-0041, and 0047]) and generating an output signal with the controller based at least in part on the moisture content signal ([0040-0041, 0047, and 0056]).
Regarding claim 15, Dugas discloses performing a base calibration to determine a base calibration value of the moisture content signal corresponding to a base condition ([0051-0054]); and
wherein the output signal includes a calibration factor representative of a change in moisture content relative to the base calibration value ([0055-0056]).
Regarding claim 16, Dugas discloses further comprising: discharging the cleaned billets to a transport container ([0035]); and estimating a weight of a load of sugarcane billet ([0042 and 0046]) in the container based ([0035]) at least in part on the calibration factor ([0046 and 0055, 0061]).
Regarding claim 17, Dugas discloses further comprising: actuating at least one actuator and thereby adjusting at least one operating parameter of the sugarcane harvester based at least in part on the moisture content signal ([0062]).
Regarding claim 18, Dugas discloses wherein: the at least one actuator includes a fan speed control of the primary extractor and the fan speed of the primary extractor is adjusted based at least in part on the moisture content signal ([0062]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugas et al. (US 2019/0037770 A1), hereinafter Dugas.
Regarding claim 13, Dugas discloses the at least one moisture sensor (80, fig. 3, [0041 and 0047]) and positioned on the chopper assembly (28, fig. 2 and 3, [0047]), but fails to explicitly disclose the moisture sensor located upstream of the chopper assembly. Dugas however does teach that the moisture sensor can be located on any component of the harvester ([0047]). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moisture sensor of Dugas to specifically be placed upstream of the chopper assembly in order to detect the moisture of the crop at that position ([0047]).
Regarding claim 4, Dugas discloses further comprising: a secondary extractor (60, fig. 1, [0035-0037]) for further cleaning the billets before the billets are discharged from the loading elevator ([0035]); and wherein the at least one moisture sensor (80, fig. 3, [0041 and 0047]) and positioned on the primary extractor (55, [0047]), but fails to explicitly disclose the moisture sensor located below the secondary extractor. Dugas however does teach that the moisture sensor can be located on any component of the harvester ([0047]). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moisture sensor of Dugas to specifically be located below the secondary extractor in order to detect the moisture of the crop at that position ([0047]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugas et al. (US 2019/0037770 A1), hereinafter Dugas in view of Blank et al. (US 2014/0277960 A1), hereinafter Blank.
Regarding claim 8, Dugas discloses one or more parameter sensors configured to generate parameter output signals representing parameters ([0040 and 0056]) including one or more movement characteristics of the billets ([0043]), and a distance between the at least one moisture sensor and the billets ([0043] and [0047], wherein the location of monitoring and of the moisture sensor 0047 is known, therefore the distance between is known); and
wherein the controller is functionally linked to the one or more parameter sensors ([0040]) and is configured to estimate at least one moisture condition for the billets based at least in part on the parameter output signals ([0051-0056]) and the moisture content signal ([0047]).
However, Dugas fails to explicitly disclose the one or more parameter sensors configured to generate parameter output signals representing parameters including a temperature.
Blank teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein the one or more parameter sensors configured to generate parameter output signals representing parameters including a temperature (temperature sensor 178f, [0024-0025]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the generic sensors of Dugas with temperature sensor of Blank to yield the predictable result of outputting the temperature signal parameter in order to know the condition of the crop ([0024]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugas et al. (US 2019/0037770 A1), hereinafter Dugas in view of Anderson (US 20230107444 A1), hereinafter Anderson.
Regarding claim 19 as best understood, Dugas discloses an output signal from the controller ([0040-0041, 0047, and 0056]) from the sensors related to the properties of the sugarcane in the field ([0041]).
However, Dugas fails to explicitly disclose the controller output including a crop health indicator corresponding to one or more crop health parameters indicative of the health the sugarcane.
Blank teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural harvesters wherein the sensors sense a crop health indicator corresponding to one or more crop health parameters indicative of the health ([0190], crop properties such as grain quality or crop moisture) of the sugarcane ([0105], wherein the invention can be used for sugarcane).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the capture of crop health parameters by sensors in order to better control the harvesting ([0190] of Anderson).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, Dugas is considered the closest prior art, but fails to disclose “wherein: the at least one moisture sensor includes at least one radio antenna unit configured to receive reflected energy from the billets as the billets move through the sugarcane harvester.” No prior art was found of a moisture sensor that includes “at least one radio antenna unit” given the other limitations of the claims. Claims 6 and 7 are objected as being dependent on an allowable claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hunt (US 2024/0114832 A1) – a harvester that uses sensors to monitor the crop throughout the harvester and then take an action to reduce crop loss / improve efficiency
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Railey whose telephone number is (571)270-7353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-4).
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/JENNIFER A RAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights