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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “component positioning system” in claims 1, 14 and 17; “one or more moveable crop engaging components” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-17 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.
In Reference to Claim 1
In lines 1-2 recites “A control system for adjusting a level of conditioning applied by a conditioning system of or otherwise associated with an agricultural machine” however it is not clear what (bolded recitations above) “or otherwise associated with” is intending to describe since the claim recites “the conditioning system” following the preamble (and directed to the condition system) therefore scope of the above recitations are not clear and as to what is required by the recitations. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as “A control system for adjusting a level of conditioning applied by a conditioning system of an agricultural machine”.The examiner suggests amending the claim to delete the recitations “or otherwise associated with” in order to overcome the rejection above.
In Reference to Claim 14
In lines 4-8 recites “the control system of any preceding claim, operable in use for controlling operation of the component positioning system to control a level of conditioning applied by the one or more moveable crop engaging components in dependence on a comparison of a measured displacement of the crop engaging component(s) with a target displacement” is not clear as to what is required by the claim since the claim recitation looks like it is implying that claims 1-13 should be incorporated as “the control system” however this is improper therefore for the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as “the control system of claim 1…”. The examiner suggest amending the claim as proposed in order to overcome the rejection.
In Reference to Claim 17
In lines 1-3 recites “A computer implemented method for adjusting a level of conditioning applied by a conditioning system of or otherwise associated with an agricultural machine” however it is not clear what (bolded recitations above) “or otherwise associated with” is intending to describe since the claim recites “the conditioning system” following the preamble (and directed to the condition system) therefore scope of the above recitations are not clear and as to what is required by the recitations. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as “A control system for adjusting a level of conditioning applied by a conditioning system of an agricultural machine”.The examiner suggests amending the claim to delete the recitations “or otherwise associated with” in order to overcome the rejection above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub No. US 2025/0072327 A1 to Somarowthu et. al. (Somarowthu).
In Reference to Claim 1
A control system for adjusting a level of conditioning applied by a conditioning system (104) of or otherwise associated with an agricultural machine (102), the control system comprising one or more controllers (200) (see at least Somarowthu Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs [0021] and [0026], “In some implementations, the windrower 100 broadly comprises a self-propelled tractor 102 and a header 104 (i.e., header attachment). The header 104 may be attached to the front 138 of the tractor 102. The tractor 102 may include a chassis 106 and an operator compartment 108 supported atop the chassis 106. The operator compartment 108 may provide an enclosure for an operator and for mounting various user control devices (e.g., a steering wheel, accelerator and brake pedals, etc.), communication equipment and other instruments used in the operation of the windrower 100, including a user interface providing visual (or other) user control devices and feedback. The tractor 102 may also include one or more wheels 110 or other traction elements (e.g., tracks) for propelling the tractor 102 and the header 104 across a field or other terrain. The windrower 100 may form a windrow 112 as it moves along a travel direction indicated by the arrow 113” and “FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram illustrating one example implementation of a system 200 for determining a condition of a crop during harvesting, in order to provide appropriate roller assembly adjustment information to adjust the assembly to reach a target dry-down time. In this implementation, the system 200 comprises a data input component 202, such as a database, crop model, user interface, cloud-based data, etc., (e.g., disposed remotely or in vehicle). The data input component 202 may also comprise a sensor array comprising one or more sensors to detect various conditions of the incoming crop and/or outgoing (e.g., constituent levels, leaf to stem ratio, NDVI health), along with other data. As an example, constituent levels of the crop may include moisture content, dry matter content, acid detergent fiber (ADF) content, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content, lignin content, metabolized energy content, and crude protein, among others”), and being configured to:
receive sensor data indicative of a displacement (308) associated with one or more components (304, 306) of the conditioning system (104); determine a measured displacement in dependence on the received data (see at least Somarowthu Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs [0035] and [0042] “As one example, in FIGS. 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D an example windrower implement can comprise a header 300 that is coupled to a vehicle, such as a tractor (e.g., 102 of FIG. 1). The header 300 comprises a set of cutters 302, such as rotating cutter blades, arranged in the front of the header 300 to cut down the harvested crop as it enters the header 300. Rearward of the cutters 302 is disposed one or more sets of rollers 304 that are configured to condition the harvested crop as it is drawn through the header 300 from the front to the rear. That is, for example, a first set of rollers 306a, b can be arranged with a gap 308 therebetween that is configured to allow the harvested crop to pass between the rollers, while crimping and/or pressure is applied to the crop passing through. Further, additional sets of rollers 304 can comprise a variety of designs 304a, b, c that can include ridges, treads, or other features in a desired pattern that applies a desired amount or type of crimping, depending on the harvested crop” and “Additionally, other data 506 can be collected, such as by a sensor array with one or more sensors, and/or as input from other components of the harvester and header systems, such as from a user interface (UI) 530, and/or global network satellite system (GNSS) 528 (e.g., remote database of historical data, current weather data, geolocation data, and imaging data for the target field). For example, other data can include the implement data (e.g., the current roll gap between the one or more sets of rollers in the roller assembly)”;
compare the measured displacement with a target displacement (target roll gap) for the component(s) (304, 306) (see at least Somarowthu Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs [0034], [0044], “As an example, a target roll gap and/or roll tension can be estimated on-the-fly and applied to the roller assembly 252 based on header load measurements, crop parameters, and other data collected in real-time. Further, one or more additional rollers may be activated to apply additional crimping to the harvested crop, as needed. As an example, moisture distribution data indicative of moisture distribution of the crop in the harvested crop can be utilized, for example; and a control system can generate control signals to automatically adjust roll gap and/or roll tension, etc. in the roller assembly based on the processed data” and “As illustrated in FIG. 5, the crop constituent data 552, along with the other crop data 554, and results of the image processing 512 can be combined to determine whether the roll gap needs to be adjusted (e.g., which may also include calibration), for example, to attain a desired conditioning result for the harvested crop. A roll gap supervisor 514 (e.g., comprising instructions stored in memory processed by a processor) can be used to monitor the roll gap in the one or more sets of rollers in the roller assembly of the header. A roll gap diagnostics module 516 (e.g., comprising instructions stored in memory processed by a processor) can receive diagnostics (feedback status data 556, 562) from a roller gap actuator 520 and header lift/tilt actuator 526, and the header itself (e.g., state data indicative of the current condition of the headers, rollers, etc.). A roll gap calibration module 518 (e.g., comprising instructions stored in memory processed by a processor) can be used to process the received data (e.g., from the sensor array) in real-time, in combination with diagnostics data for the header, actuator(s), and roller assembly to identify a potential adjustment for the roller gap (e.g., positive, negative, or zero adjustment). In some implementations, the roll gap calibration module 518 and/or the roll gap supervisor 514 can utilize the sensor data (e.g., processed image data, constituent data 552, and other crop data 554) from a plurality of sensors in the sensor array in a decision forest regression to identify the adjustment data. That is, a type of voting process can be used to identify or select the data or data sets that can be used to determine the desired adjustment for the roller gap” since Somarowthu teaches that the current roller gap can be determined by the sensors, and that the target roll gap is estimated and need to adjust the roll gap based on it, and further teaches that the determine whether the (current) roll gap needs adjustment or not, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Somarowthu must compare the current roll gap to the target roll gap in order to determine the desired adjustment for the roller gap); and
generate and output one or more control signals for controlling operation of a component positioning system (204) for the component(s) (304, 306) in dependence on the comparison (see at least Somarowthu Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs [0036] and [0045], “In some implementations a first roller 306a may be configured to translate toward and away from a second roller 306b along an axis of translation 310, while roller 306b remains stationary. In other configurations, roller 306b may be translatable, while roller 306a remains stationary. In other configurations both rollers 306a, 306b may translate along the axis of translation 310. In this way, in this configuration, the gap 308 can be effectively decreased and increased. With continued reference to FIG. 2, in one example, the adjustment data 216 received by the actuator(s) 204 can result in the actuator(s) 204 increasing or decreasing the gap 308 between the rollers 306a, 306b during operation of the header 300. In this way, the amount and type of conditioning (e.g., crimping) of the harvested crop can be adjusted during operation (e.g., harvesting), on-the-fly. As another example, a speed can be adjusted for respective one or more roller set 306, 304; and merely the first set 306 may be activated; or additional sets 304a, 304b, 304c can be activated to provide additional conditioning. The data input to the analyzer can help determine the amount and type of crimping needed to meet crop conditioning profile 220, which determines the adjustments needed to meet that profile” and “In some implementations, the controller 510 can transmit actuator control commands 548, 560 (e.g., using a roll gap actuator control 522, such as comprising programming 212 resident on memory 210 processed by a processor 208) to a roll gap actuator 520 and/or header lift/tilt actuator 528. This can result in the roll gap actuator adjusting (e.g., or not) the distance of the gap between respective one or more sets of rollers in the roller assembly, and/or the header adjusting the lift (e.g., distance/height) or tilt of the header. For example, which results in an adjustment of the conditioning of the harvested crop, on-the-fly, during operation to meet the harvested crop condition”).
In Reference to Claim 2
A control system of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the one or more components of the conditioning system (104) comprise one or more conditioning rollers (304, 306) (see at least Somarowthu Fig. 3 and paragraphs 35-36).
In Reference to Claim 3
A control system of claim 2 (see rejection to claim 2 above), wherein the one or more components of the conditioning system (104) comprise a pair of conditioning rollers (304, 306) (see at least Somarowthu Fig. 3 and paragraphs 35-36).
In Reference to Claim 4
A control system of claim 2 (see rejection to claim 2 above), wherein the measured displacement comprises a roller gap (308) (see at least Somarowthu Fig. 3 and paragraphs 35-36).
In Reference to Claim 7
A control system of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the target displacement comprises a set value or a range about a defined set displacement value (target roll gap which can be either value or range) within which the measured displacement (308) of the component(s) (304, 306) is deemed acceptable and no adjustments may be made to the component positioning system (204) operation (see at least Somarowthu Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-23, 34, 42 and 44-46).
In Reference to Claim 8
A control system of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the target displacement (target roll gap) is predefined, is determined in dependence on a crop type to be processed by the conditioning system, and/or is determined in dependence on a user input (see at least Somarowthu Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 32-37).
In Reference to Claim 9
A control system of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the component positioning system (204) comprises one or more actuators (204) for controlling the displacement of the component(s) (see at least Somarowthu Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 33 and 36).
In Reference to Claim 14
A conditioning system for an agricultural machine, comprising:
one or more moveable crop engaging components (304, 306);
a component positioning system (204); and
the control system of any preceding claim (see rejection to claim 1 above), operable in use for controlling operation of the component positioning system (204) to control a level of conditioning (roll gap) applied by the one or more moveable crop engaging components (304, 306) in dependence on a comparison of a measured displacement of the crop engaging component(s) (304, 306) with a target displacement (see at least Somarowthu Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-23, 34, 42 and 44-46).
In Reference to Claim 15
An agricultural machine comprising the conditioning system of claim 14 (see rejection to claim 14 above) (see at least Somarowthu Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-23, 34, 42 and 44-46).
In Reference to Claim 16
An agricultural machine (102) comprising or being controllable under operation of the control system of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above) (see at least Somarowthu Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-23, 34, 42 and 44-46).
In Reference to Claim 17
A computer implemented method for adjusting a level of conditioning applied by a conditioning system (104) of or otherwise associated with an agricultural machine (102) (see at least Somarowthu Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs [0021] and [0026], “In some implementations, the windrower 100 broadly comprises a self-propelled tractor 102 and a header 104 (i.e., header attachment). The header 104 may be attached to the front 138 of the tractor 102. The tractor 102 may include a chassis 106 and an operator compartment 108 supported atop the chassis 106. The operator compartment 108 may provide an enclosure for an operator and for mounting various user control devices (e.g., a steering wheel, accelerator and brake pedals, etc.), communication equipment and other instruments used in the operation of the windrower 100, including a user interface providing visual (or other) user control devices and feedback. The tractor 102 may also include one or more wheels 110 or other traction elements (e.g., tracks) for propelling the tractor 102 and the header 104 across a field or other terrain. The windrower 100 may form a windrow 112 as it moves along a travel direction indicated by the arrow 113” and “FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram illustrating one example implementation of a system 200 for determining a condition of a crop during harvesting, in order to provide appropriate roller assembly adjustment information to adjust the assembly to reach a target dry-down time. In this implementation, the system 200 comprises a data input component 202, such as a database, crop model, user interface, cloud-based data, etc., (e.g., disposed remotely or in vehicle). The data input component 202 may also comprise a sensor array comprising one or more sensors to detect various conditions of the incoming crop and/or outgoing (e.g., constituent levels, leaf to stem ratio, NDVI health), along with other data. As an example, constituent levels of the crop may include moisture content, dry matter content, acid detergent fiber (ADF) content, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content, lignin content, metabolized energy content, and crude protein, among others”), the method comprising:
determining a measured displacement (roll gap) associated with one or more components (304, 306) of the conditioning system (104) (see at least Somarowthu Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs [0035] and [0042] “As one example, in FIGS. 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D an example windrower implement can comprise a header 300 that is coupled to a vehicle, such as a tractor (e.g., 102 of FIG. 1). The header 300 comprises a set of cutters 302, such as rotating cutter blades, arranged in the front of the header 300 to cut down the harvested crop as it enters the header 300. Rearward of the cutters 302 is disposed one or more sets of rollers 304 that are configured to condition the harvested crop as it is drawn through the header 300 from the front to the rear. That is, for example, a first set of rollers 306a, b can be arranged with a gap 308 therebetween that is configured to allow the harvested crop to pass between the rollers, while crimping and/or pressure is applied to the crop passing through. Further, additional sets of rollers 304 can comprise a variety of designs 304a, b, c that can include ridges, treads, or other features in a desired pattern that applies a desired amount or type of crimping, depending on the harvested crop” and “Additionally, other data 506 can be collected, such as by a sensor array with one or more sensors, and/or as input from other components of the harvester and header systems, such as from a user interface (UI) 530, and/or global network satellite system (GNSS) 528 (e.g., remote database of historical data, current weather data, geolocation data, and imaging data for the target field). For example, other data can include the implement data (e.g., the current roll gap between the one or more sets of rollers in the roller assembly)”;
comparing the measured displacement with a target displacement for the component(s) (304, 306) (see at least Somarowthu Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs [0034], [0044], “As an example, a target roll gap and/or roll tension can be estimated on-the-fly and applied to the roller assembly 252 based on header load measurements, crop parameters, and other data collected in real-time. Further, one or more additional rollers may be activated to apply additional crimping to the harvested crop, as needed. As an example, moisture distribution data indicative of moisture distribution of the crop in the harvested crop can be utilized, for example; and a control system can generate control signals to automatically adjust roll gap and/or roll tension, etc. in the roller assembly based on the processed data” and “As illustrated in FIG. 5, the crop constituent data 552, along with the other crop data 554, and results of the image processing 512 can be combined to determine whether the roll gap needs to be adjusted (e.g., which may also include calibration), for example, to attain a desired conditioning result for the harvested crop. A roll gap supervisor 514 (e.g., comprising instructions stored in memory processed by a processor) can be used to monitor the roll gap in the one or more sets of rollers in the roller assembly of the header. A roll gap diagnostics module 516 (e.g., comprising instructions stored in memory processed by a processor) can receive diagnostics (feedback status data 556, 562) from a roller gap actuator 520 and header lift/tilt actuator 526, and the header itself (e.g., state data indicative of the current condition of the headers, rollers, etc.). A roll gap calibration module 518 (e.g., comprising instructions stored in memory processed by a processor) can be used to process the received data (e.g., from the sensor array) in real-time, in combination with diagnostics data for the header, actuator(s), and roller assembly to identify a potential adjustment for the roller gap (e.g., positive, negative, or zero adjustment). In some implementations, the roll gap calibration module 518 and/or the roll gap supervisor 514 can utilize the sensor data (e.g., processed image data, constituent data 552, and other crop data 554) from a plurality of sensors in the sensor array in a decision forest regression to identify the adjustment data. That is, a type of voting process can be used to identify or select the data or data sets that can be used to determine the desired adjustment for the roller gap” since Somarowthu teaches that the current roller gap can be determined by the sensors, and that the target roll gap is estimated and need to adjust the roll gap based on it, and further teaches that the determine whether the (current) roll gap needs adjustment or not, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Somarowthu must compare the current roll gap to the target roll gap in order to determine the desired adjustment for the roller gap); and
controlling operation of a component positioning system (204) for the component(s) (304, 306) in dependence on the comparison (see at least Somarowthu Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs [0036] and [0045], “In some implementations a first roller 306a may be configured to translate toward and away from a second roller 306b along an axis of translation 310, while roller 306b remains stationary. In other configurations, roller 306b may be translatable, while roller 306a remains stationary. In other configurations both rollers 306a, 306b may translate along the axis of translation 310. In this way, in this configuration, the gap 308 can be effectively decreased and increased. With continued reference to FIG. 2, in one example, the adjustment data 216 received by the actuator(s) 204 can result in the actuator(s) 204 increasing or decreasing the gap 308 between the rollers 306a, 306b during operation of the header 300. In this way, the amount and type of conditioning (e.g., crimping) of the harvested crop can be adjusted during operation (e.g., harvesting), on-the-fly. As another example, a speed can be adjusted for respective one or more roller set 306, 304; and merely the first set 306 may be activated; or additional sets 304a, 304b, 304c can be activated to provide additional conditioning. The data input to the analyzer can help determine the amount and type of crimping needed to meet crop conditioning profile 220, which determines the adjustments needed to meet that profile” and “In some implementations, the controller 510 can transmit actuator control commands 548, 560 (e.g., using a roll gap actuator control 522, such as comprising programming 212 resident on memory 210 processed by a processor 208) to a roll gap actuator 520 and/or header lift/tilt actuator 528. This can result in the roll gap actuator adjusting (e.g., or not) the distance of the gap between respective one or more sets of rollers in the roller assembly, and/or the header adjusting the lift (e.g., distance/height) or tilt of the header. For example, which results in an adjustment of the conditioning of the harvested crop, on-the-fly, during operation to meet the harvested crop condition”).
Claims 5-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somarowthu in view of Pub No. US 2021/0360857 A1 to Steidinger et. al. (Steidinger).
In Reference to Claim 5
Somarowthu teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A control system of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the sensor data is received from one or more sensors (202, 504) mounted or otherwise coupled in association with the conditioning system (104) for monitoring one or more parameters (at least roll gap) associated with the operation of the conditioning system (104) (see at least Somarowthu Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-23, 26-28, 41-46).
Somarowthu is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the sensors are mounted or otherwise coupled in association with the conditioning system for monitoring one or more parameters associated with the operation of the conditioning system. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that for a conditioning system to have sensors are mounted or otherwise coupled in association with the conditioning system for monitoring one or more parameters associated with the operation of the conditioning system. For example, Steidinger teaches sensors (160, 161, 162, 163) are mounted or otherwise coupled in association with the conditioning system (120). Steidinger further teaches that having such structures provides monitoring one or more parameters associated with the operation of the conditioning system (120) (see at least Steidinger Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 24-26 and 36-39). Therefore 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 system of Somarowthu with the sensors mounted or otherwise coupled in association with the conditioning system as taught by Steidinger in order to monitoring one or more parameters associated with the operation of the conditioning system.
In Reference to Claim 6
A control system of claim 5 (see rejection to claim 5 above), wherein the one or more sensors (160, 161, 162, 163) include a rotary potentiometer (161, 163) providing a comparable sensor output in dependence on the position of the one or more components (124, 126) of the conditioning system (see at least Steidinger Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 24-26 and 36-39).
In Reference to Claim 10
Somarowthu teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A control system of claim 9 (see rejection to claim 9 above), wherein the one or more actuators (204) form part of a fluid drive control system; and wherein the one or more controllers (200) are configured to adjust a control pressure associated with the fluid drive control system of the component positioning system (204) in dependence on the comparison of the measured displacement with the target displacement (see at least Somarowthu Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-23, 34, 42 and 44-46).
Somarowthu does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the one or more actuators (204) form part of a fluid drive control system; and wherein the one or more controllers (200) are configured to adjust a control pressure associated with the fluid drive control system of the component positioning system (204) in dependence on the comparison of the measured displacement with the target displacement. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have one or more actuators form part of a fluid drive control system; and wherein the one or more controllers are configured to adjust a control pressure associated with the fluid drive control system of the component positioning system in dependence on the comparison of the measured displacement with the target displacement. For example, example, Steidinger teaches of having the actuators (144, 152) includes the hydraulic system (180) which are configured to adjust a control pressure associated with the fluid drive control system of the component positioning system in dependence on the comparison of the measured displacement with the target displacement. Steidinger further teaches that having such structures provides to achieve an optimized conditioning quality (see at least Steidinger Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 9-10,20, 30, 35, 38 and 41-45). Therefore 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 system of Somarowthu to include the actuators includes the hydraulic system which are configured to adjust a control pressure associated with the fluid drive control system of the component positioning system in dependence on the comparison of the measured displacement with the target displacement as taught by Steidinger in order to achieve an optimized conditioning quality.
In Reference to Claim 11
A control system of claim 10 (see rejection to claim 10 above), wherein the component positioning system (144, 152) is configured to control a level of tensioning applied to the one or more components; and wherein the one or more controllers (170) are configured to adjust a level of tensioning applied by the component positioning system in dependence on the comparison of the measured displacement with the target displacement (see at least Steidinger Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 9-10,20, 30, 35, 38 and 41-45).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somarowthu in view of Steidinger and further in view of Pub No. US 2014/0311365 A1 to Posselius et. al. (Posselius).
In Reference to Claim 12
Somarowthu in view of Steidinger teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A control system of claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11 above), wherein the one or more controllers (170) are configured to increase a pressure level where the measured displacement is greater than the target displacement or an upper bound of target displacement range to increase a level of tensioning applied by the component positioning system (144, 152) to the one or more components (124, 126) (see at least Steidinger Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 9-10,20, 30, 35, 38 and 41-45).
Somarowthu in view of Steidinger teaches to adjust the roll gap however Somarowthu in view of Steidinger does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to controllers (170) are configured to increase a pressure level where the measured displacement is greater than the target displacement or an upper bound of target displacement range to increase a level of tensioning applied by the component positioning system (144, 152). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the pressure when the measured displacement is greater than the target displacement. For example, Posselius teaches to perform the function of to increase the pressure when the measured displacement is greater than the target displacement. Posselius further teaches that performing such function provides ideal gap between the rollers (804) (see at least Posselius Figs. 1-8 and paragraphs 61, 69-72). Therefore 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 system of Somarowthu in view of Steidinger to increase the pressure when the measured displacement is greater than the target displacement as taught by Posselius in order to provides ideal gap between the rollers.
In Reference to Claim 13
Somarowthu in view of Steidinger teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A control system of claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11 above), wherein the one or more controllers (170) are configured to decrease a pressure level where the measured displacement is smaller than the target displacement or a lower bound of target displacement range to decrease a level of tensioning applied by the component positioning system (144, 152) to the one or more components (124, 126) (see at least Steidinger Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 9-10,20, 30, 35, 38 and 41-45).
Somarowthu in view of Steidinger teaches to adjust the roll gap however Somarowthu in view of Steidinger does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to controllers (170) are configured to decrease a pressure level where the measured displacement is smaller than the target displacement or a lower bound of target displacement range to decrease a level of tensioning applied by the component positioning system (144, 152). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to decrease the pressure when the measured displacement is smaller than the target displacement. For example, Posselius teaches to perform the function of to decrease the pressure when the measured displacement is smaller than the target displacement. Posselius further teaches that performing such function provides ideal gap between the rollers (804) (see at least Posselius Figs. 1-8 and paragraphs 61, 69-72). Therefore 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 system of Somarowthu in view of Steidinger to decrease the pressure when the measured displacement is smaller than the target displacement as taught by Posselius in order to provides ideal gap between the rollers.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/944431 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-18 of application ‘431 teaches all the recitation of claims 1-17 of the current application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/957097 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-17 of application ‘431 teaches all the recitation of claims 1-17 of the current application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/944491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-16 of application ‘431 teaches all the recitation of claims 1-17 of the current application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub No. US 2022/0240450 A1 to Barnett et. al. (Barnett) teaches condition system which determines the gap between the rollers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 July 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights