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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "104", "106", “108”, “112”, and “114” have all been used to designate the opening 104 in Fig. 4A. Furthermore, it is unclear what reference character “106b” is intended to be pointing toward in Fig. 4B as it appears to also designate opening 104. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. [0038] of the specification recites “Said movable plate 106 is mounted at the opening 104 so that one face 106a is directed towards the flow of harvested material, while the opposite face 106b comprises a detector 108.” However, this description does not appear consistent with Fig. 5A-5B and Fig. 7 of the drawings, which depict face 106a as the side comprising detector 108.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 23, and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 contains reference character “(50)” in line 3 which should be deleted for consistency as no other claim elements contain reference characters.
Claim 23 recites “The system according to claim 23” and therefore depends from itself. The examiner believes this portion of the claim should recite --The system according to claim 22--.
Claim 38 line 2 “detector mechanism in installed” should be --detector mechanism is installed--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 25 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 25 recites the limitation "the storage housing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 25 has therefore been interpreted as dependent from claim 24 which sets forth “a storage housing” in line 2.
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 21-24, 26-33, 35-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murray et al. (WO 2019173256 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Murray discloses an automatic load detection system (200) for an agricultural machine (10), the system comprising:
a processing path formed by a conveyor roller assembly (44), a chopping assembly (50), and an elevator assembly (52) of the agricultural machine; and
at least one detector mechanism (160) configured to identify an amount of harvested material in the processing path (Fig. 4, para. [0041]), the at least one detector mechanism configured to be installed in at least one location along the processing path (Fig. 1),
wherein the at least one detector mechanism comprises an opening (174) in which a movable plate (166) is arranged and configured to move between a neutral position (para. [0061] “cover plate 16…normally biased away from…the sensor element 164”) and an activated position (para. [0060] “when the fill level of the billets reaches the position of the fill level sensor 160, thereby allowing the billets to activate or otherwise push the cover plate 166 into and/or against…the sensor element 164”),
wherein the movable plate has a face (191) facing a flow of the harvested material, and an opposite face (170) comprising a detector (164) (Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 22, Murray discloses the system according to claim 21, wherein the at least one detector mechanism (160) is installed in a receiving basket (51) of the elevator assembly (52) (Fig. 1, para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 23, Murray discloses the system according to claim 22, wherein the receiving basket (51) of the elevator assembly (52) is arranged at a region opposite the chopping assembly (50) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Murray discloses the system according to claim 21, wherein the at least one detector mechanism (160) is installed in a storage housing (51) of the elevator assembly (52) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 26, Murray discloses the system according to claim 21, wherein said opening (174) is defined in a structure (51) of the elevator assembly (52) (para. [0058] recess 174 is defined in housing 162 within hopper 51).
Regarding claim 27, Murray discloses the system according to claim 21, wherein the detector mechanism (160) comprises a frame (162) in which return elements (195) are mounted, the frame being configured to provide support movement of the movable plate between said neutral and activated positions (para. [0062-0063]).
Regarding claim 28, Murray discloses the system according to claim 27, wherein said return elements (195) comprise coil springs (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 29, Murray discloses the system according to claim 21, wherein the movable plate (166) is mounted at said opening (174) through pivoting elements (178,180) (para. [0061] “pivot posts 180 are received within the pivot openings 178, thereby allowing the cover plate 166 to pivot relative to both the sensor housing 162 and the sensor element 164 supported thereby”).
Regarding claim 30, Murray discloses the system according to claim 21, wherein the detector (164) comprises an assembly of load cells (para. [0042] teaches that detector mechanism 160 comprises an array of sensors 160, wherein “active sensor portion 188 may include…a load cell”, see para. [0064]).
Regarding claims 31-33, Murray discloses the system according to claim 21, wherein the detector (164) comprises an assembly of optical sensors, as per claim 31, an assembly of pressure sensors, as per claim 32, or an assembly of ultrasonic sensors, as per claim 33 (para. [0043] teaches sensors may correspond to “one or more pressure sensors…one or more optics-based sensors …ultrasonic sensor(s))…and/or the like”).
Regarding claims 35-36, Murray discloses the system according to claim 21, wherein:
data provided by the at least one detector mechanism (160) allows the system to provide operational adjustments of the agricultural machine (10) associated with the amount of material harvested and a location of the amount of material harvested along the processing path, as per claim 35, and wherein the operational adjustment comprises management of a speed of an elevator (60) of the elevator assembly (52) based on a detection of an excessive amount of material collected in a receiving basket (51) of the elevator assembly (para. [0094] “when it is determined that the billet fill level has reached and/or exceeded the associated fill level threshold, the controller 202 may be configured to initiate a suitable control action…the control action may correspond to adjusting the operating speed of the elevator 60”), as per claim 36.
Regarding claim 37, Murray discloses an agricultural harvester (10) comprising the system as defined in claim 21, the elevator assembly (52) being formed by an elevator housing (58) within which an elevator (60) extends between a lower proximal end (62) provided with a receiving basket (51) and an upper distal end (64) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 38, Murray discloses the agricultural harvester according to claim 37, wherein the at least one detector mechanism (160) is installed in the receiving basket (51) and is arranged at the lower proximal end (62) of the elevator assembly (52) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 40, Murray discloses the agricultural harvester according to claim 37, wherein the agricultural harvester (10) comprises a sugarcane harvester (Fig. 1, para. [0023] “the harvester 10 is configured as a sugarcane harvester”).
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.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Cazenave (US 20240415059 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Murray discloses the system according to claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the detector (164) comprises integrated capacitive sensors.
Cazenave in the same area discloses a sensor (518) for detecting an amount of billets directed into a basket (516) of a sugarcane harvester (Fig. 11), wherein the sensor can include threshold detectors, level sensors, capacitive sensors, force plates, load cells, or any other sensors known in the art (para. [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize integrated capacitive sensors for the sensor of Murray, as taught by Cazenave, as a mere simple substitution of one known billet sensor for another to yield predictable results.
Claims 25 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray, hereinafter Murray ‘256, as applied to claims 21 and 37 above, and further in view of Murray et al. (WO 2019173255 A1), hereinafter Murray ‘255.
Regarding claims 25 and 39, Murray ‘256 discloses the system according to claim 24 and the agricultural harvester according to claim 37, wherein the at least one detector mechanism is installed on a wall of a lower storage hopper (51) instead of on a door (112) of an upper storage hopper (100) arranged at the upper distal end (64) of the elevator assembly (52) (Fig. 2).
In the same area, Murray ‘255 discloses an identical detector mechanism (160) installed on a door (112) of an upper storage hopper (100) of the elevator assembly (52) (para. [0049] teaches sensor mechanism 160 can be mounted to rear door 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to install the detector mechanism on a door of the upper storage hopper, as taught by Murray ‘255, in order to prevent billets from being discharged from the elevator into the upper hopper when a predetermined fill level threshold is exceeded (Murray ‘255 at para. [0073]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shinners et al. (US 20200060082 A1) discloses an impact plate mounted to a load cell. Baert et al. (US 20180042177 A1) discloses a movable plate and load cell assembly for a combine. Kirk et al. (US 20160011024 A1) discloses an impact mass flow sensor for a peanut harvester. Rossi (US 20110209925 A1) discloses a load cell that connected between a stationary plate and a movable plate. Cox et al. (US 6508049 B1) discloses a mass flow rate sensor for a sugar cane harvester. Wendte et al. (US 6272819 B1) discloses a sugar cane yield monitor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights