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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are 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.
Claim 1 lines 9-10 “an objective positioned upstream, with regard to the harvested material flow, from the image sensor”. However, the details of such an arrangement are not provided in the specification, as “upstream” would require that the objective 31 (i.e. the camera lens) be positioned forward of the image sensor 32 in the direction of material flow. However, from the drawings, it can be seen that both the image sensor 32 and the objective 31 are positioned to face downward toward the crop material, with the objective 31 positioned directly below the image sensor and closer to the viewing pane 29. Further, the configuration disclosed in the specification is such that “The camera system 16 shown in more detail in Figs. 2a and 2b has an objective 31 in front of the image sensor 32” (i.e. closer to the material flow/viewing pane, see drawings and para. [0037]), and from what can be seen from Figs. 2a-2b, the objective 31 appears to be positioned directly below the image sensor 32 rather than upstream the image sensor. The Examiner has therefore interpreted this portion of the claim as reading --an objective positioned directly below the image sensor— for purposes of examination as that is the configuration which appears to be supported by Applicant’s disclosure.
By virtue of their dependence on claim 1, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent claims 2-18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murray et al. (US 20220022375 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murray discloses a forage harvester (20, Fig. 1) comprising:
one or more working units (26);
a discharge chute (54); and
a camera system (66) configured to detect and evaluate a harvested material flow (28) processed by the one or more working units, wherein the harvested material flow comprises whole grains, comminuted grains as grain components and non-grain components (para. [0009]), the camera system comprising:
an image sensor (80);
an objective (implicit, lens of camera 80) positioned directly below the image sensor (Fig. 4); and
at least one light source (78) configured to generate light beams onto the harvested material flow (para. [0046]);
wherein the image sensor is positioned at least partly in a housing (70);
wherein the housing is positioned on the discharge chute (Fig. 1) and in which a viewing window (76) is positioned, past which the harvested material flow flows (para. [0043]);
wherein the image sensor is positioned opposite the viewing window (Fig. 4); and
wherein the image sensor is configured to generate and transmit one or more images of the harvested material flow to an image analysis apparatus (94) (para. [0056]).
Regarding claim 4, Murray discloses the forage harvester of claim 1, wherein the at least one light source comprises a first light source (78) and a second light source (other of 78); and
wherein the first light source and second light source are positioned opposite each other on a side next to the viewing window (76) and the image sensor (80) inside the housing (70) (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Murray discloses the forage harvester of claim 1, wherein the viewing window (76) consists of sapphire glass or glass with a wear-resistant coating (para. [0044] “window covering 76 may include or be manufactured from a sapphire glass”).
Regarding claim 13, Murray discloses the forage harvester of claim 1, wherein the housing (70) is positioned on an upper side of the discharge chute (54) (Fig. 1); and
wherein the housing is positioned in a second half of the discharge chute with respect to a longitudinal extension thereof (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Murray discloses the forage harvester of claim 1, wherein the camera system (66) includes a control unit (88) configured to control the at least one light source (78) (para. [0060] “processor 88 is operable to execute the crop processing analysis algorithm 104 to activate the light source 78”).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mehrotra et al. (US 6233350 B1) and Zou et al. (CN 111261261 A).
It is noted that all citations to Zou et al. (CN 111261261 A) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding claims 2-3, Murray discloses the forage harvester of claim 1, wherein the viewing window (76) and the image sensor (80), positioned opposite to one another, have no mirror therebetween (Fig. 4).
Murray fails to teach wherein the image sensor (80) comprises a CMOS or CCD image sensor and wherein the objective has a focal length of between 2 mm and 12 mm, as per claim 2, or a focal length of between 7 mm and 10 mm, as per claim 3.
Mehrotra discloses a similar camera system (Fig. 5) comprising a CCD image sensor (24) (col. 5 lines 9-11), an objective lens (22), a viewing window (20), and light sources (26), wherein the objective lens has a focal length between 11 and 27 mm (col. 3 lines 60-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a CCD image sensor and contrive any number of desirable ranges for the focal length of the lens, as taught by Mehrota, in order to produce optimal image resolution, and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap and/or are merely close to ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Murray fails to teach wherein the image sensor (80) is configured to record images at a frame rate in a range of 20 images/second to 40 images/second and wherein exposure time is between 2 microseconds and 20 microseconds, as per claim 2.
Zou discloses a camera system for providing real-time monitoring and image acquisition of falling grains (para. [0007,0016]), wherein the camera system has a frame rate of 50 FPS and an exposure time/shutter speed of 10 microseconds (para. [0026-0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the frame rate and exposure time of Murray, in order to clearly capture material information and images of the flowing grain (Zou at para. [0027]), and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap and/or are merely close to ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Mehrotra et al. (US 6233350 B1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Murray discloses the forage harvester of claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first second light source (78) are each inclined at an angle of between 20° and 45° to a surface of the viewing window (76), as per claim 5, or at an angle of between 35° and 40°, as per claim 6.
However, Murray at Fig. 4 depicts the light sources (78) inclined at an acute angle (e.g. approximately 45°) relative to the surface of the viewing window (76).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the inclined angle of the light sources, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Murray fails to teach wherein a distance between the first and second light source (78) to a center of the viewing window (76) is, in each case, between 50 mm and 120 mm, as per claim 5, or between 80 mm and 100 mm, as per claim 6.
Mehrotra discloses a similar camera system comprising an image sensor (24), an objective lens (22), and a viewing window (20), wherein light sources (26) disposed between the viewing window and the objective lens are positioned at a distance from the window approximately equal to the height of the window (Fig. 5, col. 4 lines 16-21), and wherein the height of the window is between 1 and 2 inches (i.e. 2 inches = approx. 50.8 mm) (col. 3 lines 61-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the distance between the light sources and the viewing window, in order to ensure that the lights are geometrically outside the field of view of the image sensor (Mehrotra at col. 4 lines 20-21), and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap and/or are merely close to ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claims 7-8, Murray discloses the forage harvester of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the objective has an angle of view in a range from 20° to 40°, as per claim 7, or in a range from 32° to 37°, as per claim 8.
Mehrotra discloses a similar camera system described above, wherein the objective lens (22) has an angle of view of approximately 32° (see angle formed by dotted lines in Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the angle of view such that a viewing space in front of the window results where material can be analyzed (Mehrotra at col. 3 lines 11-16), and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap and/or are merely close to ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claims 9-10, Murray discloses the forage harvester of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the viewing window is round with a diameter that is greater than 7 cm and less than 13 cm, as per claim 9, or wherein the viewing window is rectangular with side lengths between 8 cm and 18 cm, as per claim 10.
Mehrotra discloses a similar camera system described above, wherein the viewing window (20) may have a rectangular cross-section, or alternatively, a circular cross-section, the window having a height H and a width W equal to 1.33 times the height H, i.e. W=1.33H (col. 3 lines 20-29), wherein the height is between 1 and 2 inches (col. 3 lines 61-62) (i.e. 2 inches x 1.33 = approx. 6.76 cm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the viewing window to be circular or rectangular, and contrive any number of desirable ranges for the length/diameter, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap and/or are merely close to ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Correns et al. (US 20130293886 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Murray discloses the forage harvester of claim 11, but fails to teach wherein the wear-resistant coating comprises a coating of CVD diamond.
In the same area, Correns discloses an optical measuring device (7) for the discharge chute (6) of a forage harvester (5) (Figs. 7-8), wherein a viewing window (2.1) of the device comprises a diamond coating on the outside (i.e. a diamond-coated sapphire window) (para. [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply a diamond coating to the viewing window of Murray, as taught by Correns, in order to allow for an optimal adaptation of the window to specified requirements regarding optical properties, mechanical strength, and wear resistance (Correns at para. [0058]).
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Kormann et al. (US 20080186487 A1).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Murray discloses the forage harvester of claims 1 and 14, but fails to teach wherein the control unit (88) is positioned within the housing (70), as per claim 15, or wherein the image analysis apparatus (94) is positioned inside the housing (70), as per claim 18.
In the same area, Kormann discloses an optical measuring device (10) for measuring harvested material flowing through the discharge chute (126) of a forage harvester (100) (Fig. 4), wherein the optical measuring device comprises a housing (12), an image analysis apparatus (28) (para. [0038] “output signals of the image sensor 54 of the camera 26 are evaluated by the evaluation device 28”) and a control unit (28) for controlling a light source (24) (para. [0035] “evaluation device 28 further controls the second light source and can bring it into a flash operating mode or a continuous light mode”), wherein the image analysis apparatus and control unit are positioned inside the housing (Fig. 1, para. [0028] “Located inside the housing 12 are…an evaluation device 28”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the control unit and image analysis apparatus of Murray inside the housing, as taught by Kormann, as a mere simple substitution of one known control arrangement for another to yield predictable results.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Du Plessis et al. (US 20230266252 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Murray discloses the forage harvester of claim 1, wherein the viewing window (76) projecting into the discharge chute (54) is positioned on an inside of the discharge chute (para. [0043] the window 76 is positioned within and at least partially forms a wall 84 of the discharge chute 54) but does not explicitly disclose substantially flush with a surface thereof.
Du Plessis discloses a similar camera system (10) for detecting a material flow (16) inside a chute (12), wherein the camera system comprises a viewing window (20) positioned substantially flush with an inside surface of the chute (Fig. 2, para. [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the viewing window of Murray to be substantially flush with the inner surface of the chute, as taught by Du Plessis, so as to cause no significant disturbance to the flow of the material past the window (Du Plessis at para. [0092]).
Regarding claim 17, Murray in view of Du Plessis discloses the forage harvester of claim 16. Murray does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the viewing window (76) is in a range between 2 mm and 4 mm.
Du Plessis discloses a similar camera system (10) described above wherein a thickness of the viewing window (20) is in a range between 2 mm and 4 mm (para. [0130] “The window is a 3 mm thick sapphire window”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the thickness of the viewing window at approximately 3mm, as taught by Du Plessis, in order to provide a sufficient barrier between the material flow and the camera system components and yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Malos et al. (US 20200249058 A1) discloses a device for monitoring material flow parameters comprising a lens with a focal length of 3.9mm. Gallager (US 20170293217 A1) discloses a continuous particle imaging system having a frame rate of approximately 20 images/sec and a strobe pulse length of approximately 5 microseconds. Claussen (US 20140111792 A1) discloses an optical detection device for a forage harvester discharge chute. Pirro et al. (US 20060191251 A1) discloses a camera system for a forage harvester discharge chute. Kormann et al. (US 20050195406 A1) discloses a discharge arrangement with an optical measuring device. Kormann et al. (US 20050085283 A1) disclose a crop measuring device.
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, Christopher Sebesta, can be reached on (571) 272-0547. 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
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights