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 § 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 1-2 and 11-12, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by European Patent Application Pub. No.: EP4111845A1 to OCONNOR that was filed in 2021.
PNG
media_image1.png
838
1354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1 and 11 and 23, OCONNOR discloses “…1. A system comprising:
an unloading conveyor configured to transfer agricultural material;
one or more electromagnetic detecting and ranging modules configured to generate movement information associated with the agricultural material flowing out of the unloading conveyor; and
a computing system, configured to: (See FIG. 1 where a first vehicle can eject the agricultural material to the second holding vehicle and see paragraph 24-25 where the range between the two vehicles can be with a camera or LIDAR sensor or an electromagnetic hall effect sensor)
PNG
media_image2.png
856
1258
media_image2.png
Greyscale
determine from the movement information that at least a portion of the agricultural material will flow outside of a target area; and
in response to determining that the at least a portion of the agricultural material will flow outside of the target area, generate a signal for communicating an alert to a user that the at least a portion of the agricultural material will flow outside of the target area or for controlling an unloading process to direct the flow of
the agricultural material to the target area”. (See paragraph 33-41 and FIG. 4-6 where the user includes a user interface and a touch screen to direct the agricultural material from outside of the second vehicle’s area to inside of the holding area of the second vehicle to collect the agricultural material)
PNG
media_image3.png
604
904
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2 and 12, OCONNOR discloses “…2. The system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the movement information comprises
location data and velocity data of at least one particle of the agricultural material”. (See FIG. 5 where there is a fill strategy 184 and elements for the kinematic flow or speed and direction to fill back to front at a speed higher than the wind speed and in paragraph 32 and see paragraph 33-41 and FIG. 4-6 where the user includes a user interface and a touch screen to direct the agricultural material from outside of the second vehicle’s area to inside of the holding area of the second vehicle to collect the agricultural material)
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.
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.
Claims 3-8 and 10 and 13-18, 19, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of European Patent Application Pub. No.: EP4111845A1 to OCONNOR that was filed in 2021 and in view of European Patent Application Pub. NO.: EP4427573A1 to Bart.
In regard to claim 3 and 13-14, OCONNOR is silent but Bart teaches “…3. The system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the one or more electromagnetic detecting
and ranging modules comprise a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) LIDAR”. (see paragraph 64 and 93)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of BART with the disclosure of OCONNOR with a reasonable expectation of success since BART teaches that a LIDAR and a RADAR and a camera can provide a 4d point cloud. This point cloud can perceive through dusty environments and provide a 3d model of the fill state of the grain flow and mass flow rate and speed of the particles into the container and determine if the container is full or if the ejection site needs to be moved and how the container is being filled. This can provide an improved and precise point cloud using multiple passes with a high resolution to determine if it is full and if more grain is needed to flow faster or if the items are not being filled. See paragraph 93-100 of Bart. A LiDAR transceiver, RADAR transceiver and ultrasonic transceiver may comprise a corresponding transmitter for emitting a radiation signal and a corresponding receiver for receiving the reflected or scattered radiation signal. The emitted radiation signal may illuminate the plurality of points (including points within the interior of the container 408) within a field of view of the receiver. The range profile may comprise a 3D point cloud or a stereo image depending upon the type of sensor used. For example, the range profile may comprise a 3D point cloud, when the first and second radiation sensors 422, 462 comprise LiDAR transceivers, or may comprise a stereo image, when the first and second radiation sensors 422, 462 comprise cameras. A camera or a stereo camera may operate at a visible and/or infrared wavelength. In some examples, the crop container monitor 420 may comprise different types of sensors 422, 462 and perform sensor fusion. For example, the controller 424 may output a fill-state comprising a stereo camera image with an overlay of a LiDAR 3D point cloud. Such a visual may be particularly advantageous to an operator, particularly in high dust conditions.
In regard to claim 4 and 15, OCONNOR is silent but Bart teaches “…4. The system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the one or more electromagnetic detecting and ranging modules comprise a multi-tone continuous wave (MTCW) LIDAR. (See paragraph 93-98)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of BART with the disclosure of OCONNOR with a reasonable expectation of success since BART teaches that a LIDAR and a RADAR and a camera can provide a 4d point cloud. This point cloud can perceive through dusty environments and provide a 3d model of the fill state of the grain flow and mass flow rate and speed of the particles into the container and determine if the container is full or if the ejection site needs to be moved and how the container is being filled. This can provide an improved and precise point cloud using multiple passes with a high resolution to determine if it is full and if more grain is needed to flow faster or if the items are not being filled. See paragraph 93-100 of Bart. A LiDAR transceiver, RADAR transceiver and ultrasonic transceiver may comprise a corresponding transmitter for emitting a radiation signal and a corresponding receiver for receiving the reflected or scattered radiation signal. The emitted radiation signal may illuminate the plurality of points (including points within the interior of the container 408) within a field of view of the receiver. The range profile may comprise a 3D point cloud or a stereo image depending upon the type of sensor used. For example, the range profile may comprise a 3D point cloud, when the first and second radiation sensors 422, 462 comprise LiDAR transceivers, or may comprise a stereo image, when the first and second radiation sensors 422, 462 comprise cameras. A camera or a stereo camera may operate at a visible and/or infrared wavelength. In some examples, the crop container monitor 420 may comprise different types of sensors 422, 462 and perform sensor fusion. For example, the controller 424 may output a fill-state comprising a stereo camera image with an overlay of a LiDAR 3D point cloud. Such a visual may be particularly advantageous to an operator, particularly in high dust conditions.
In regard to claim 5, 16, OCONNOR discloses a radar in paragraph 24 but is silent but Bart teaches “…5. The system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the one or more electromagnetic detecting and ranging modules comprise a scanning LID AR and an imaging radar”. (See paragraph 93-98)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of BART with the disclosure of OCONNOR with a reasonable expectation of success since BART teaches that a LIDAR and a RADAR and a camera can provide a 4d point cloud. This point cloud can perceive through dusty environments and provide a 3d model of the fill state of the grain flow and mass flow rate and speed of the particles into the container and determine if the container is full or if the ejection site needs to be moved and how the container is being filled. This can provide an improved and precise point cloud using multiple passes with a high resolution to determine if it is full and if more grain is needed to flow faster or if the items are not being filled. See paragraph 93-100 of Bart. A LiDAR transceiver, RADAR transceiver and ultrasonic transceiver may comprise a corresponding transmitter for emitting a radiation signal and a corresponding receiver for receiving the reflected or scattered radiation signal. The emitted radiation signal may illuminate the plurality of points (including points within the interior of the container 408) within a field of view of the receiver. The range profile may comprise a 3D point cloud or a stereo image depending upon the type of sensor used. For example, the range profile may comprise a 3D point cloud, when the first and second radiation sensors 422, 462 comprise LiDAR transceivers, or may comprise a stereo image, when the first and second radiation sensors 422, 462 comprise cameras. A camera or a stereo camera may operate at a visible and/or infrared wavelength. In some examples, the crop container monitor 420 may comprise different types of sensors 422, 462 and perform sensor fusion. For example, the controller 424 may output a fill-state comprising a stereo camera image with an overlay of a LiDAR 3D point cloud. Such a visual may be particularly advantageous to an operator, particularly in high dust conditions.
In regard to claim 6 and 17 and 18, Bart teaches “…6. The system as set forth in claim 5, wherein the scanning LIDAR and the imaging radar are time synchronized and integrated.” (See paragraph 93-100 where the lidar and radar are synchronized to determine a fill state of the container)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of BART with the disclosure of OCONNOR with a reasonable expectation of success since BART teaches that a LIDAR and a RADAR and a camera can provide a 4d point cloud. This point cloud can perceive through dusty environments and provide a 3d model of the fill state of the grain flow and mass flow rate and speed of the particles into the container and determine if the container is full or if the ejection site needs to be moved and how the container is being filled. This can provide an improved and precise point cloud using multiple passes with a high resolution to determine if it is full and if more grain is needed to flow faster or if the items are not being filled. See paragraph 93-100 of Bart. A LiDAR transceiver, RADAR transceiver and ultrasonic transceiver may comprise a corresponding transmitter for emitting a radiation signal and a corresponding receiver for receiving the reflected or scattered radiation signal. The emitted radiation signal may illuminate the plurality of points (including points within the interior of the container 408) within a field of view of the receiver. The range profile may comprise a 3D point cloud or a stereo image depending upon the type of sensor used. For example, the range profile may comprise a 3D point cloud, when the first and second radiation sensors 422, 462 comprise LiDAR transceivers, or may comprise a stereo image, when the first and second radiation sensors 422, 462 comprise cameras. A camera or a stereo camera may operate at a visible and/or infrared wavelength. In some examples, the crop container monitor 420 may comprise different types of sensors 422, 462 and perform sensor fusion. For example, the controller 424 may output a fill-state comprising a stereo camera image with an overlay of a LiDAR 3D point cloud. Such a visual may be particularly advantageous to an operator, particularly in high dust conditions.
In regard to claim 7 and 19, Bart teaches “…7. The system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the computing system is configured to collect data from multiple scans of the one or more electromagnetic detecting and ranging modules and use an iterative closest point (ICP) process to align data from each of the multiple scans to track individual particles of the agricultural material. .” (See paragraph 86 and 100 and 93-100 where the lidar and radar are synchronized to determine a fill state of the container) (see claims 1-16 where a 3d point cloud can align the data with multiple scans to provide an indication of the fill state of the container)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of BART with the disclosure of OCONNOR with a reasonable expectation of success since BART teaches that a LIDAR and a RADAR and a camera can provide a 4d point cloud. This point cloud can perceive through dusty environments and provide a 3d model of the fill state of the grain flow and mass flow rate and speed of the particles into the container and determine if the container is full or if the ejection site needs to be moved and how the container is being filled. This can provide an improved and precise point cloud using multiple passes with a high resolution to determine if it is full and if more grain is needed to flow faster or if the items are not being filled. See paragraph 93-100 of Bart. A LiDAR transceiver, RADAR transceiver and ultrasonic transceiver may comprise a corresponding transmitter for emitting a radiation signal and a corresponding receiver for receiving the reflected or scattered radiation signal. The emitted radiation signal may illuminate the plurality of points (including points within the interior of the container 408) within a field of view of the receiver. The range profile may comprise a 3D point cloud or a stereo image depending upon the type of sensor used. For example, the range profile may comprise a 3D point cloud, when the first and second radiation sensors 422, 462 comprise LiDAR transceivers, or may comprise a stereo image, when the first and second radiation sensors 422, 462 comprise cameras. A camera or a stereo camera may operate at a visible and/or infrared wavelength. In some examples, the crop container monitor 420 may comprise different types of sensors 422, 462 and perform sensor fusion. For example, the controller 424 may output a fill-state comprising a stereo camera image with an overlay of a LiDAR 3D point cloud. Such a visual may be particularly advantageous to an operator, particularly in high dust conditions.
In regard to claim 8 and 20, Bart discloses “…8. The system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the one or more electromagnetic detecting and rangmg modules are configured to generate position, depth and velocity data, and wherein the computing system is configured to: (See paragraph 71 and 91-102where a uav can capture the speed and position and depth of the unloading of the particles into the container with a 3d point cloud and a crop flow mass flow and direction and landing point can all be captured)
receive the position, depth and velocity data from the one or more electromagnetic detecting and ranging modules, and
align and process the position, depth and velocity data using an iterative closest point (ICP) process to track particles of the agricultural material. (See paragraph 86 and 100 and 93-100 where the lidar and radar are synchronized to determine a fill state of the container) (see claims 1-16 where a 3d point cloud can align the data with multiple scans to provide an indication of the fill state of the container)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of BART with the disclosure of OCONNOR with a reasonable expectation of success since BART teaches that a LIDAR and a RADAR and a camera can provide a 4d point cloud. This point cloud can perceive through dusty environments and provide a 3d model of the fill state of the grain flow and mass flow rate and speed of the particles into the container and determine if the container is full or if the ejection site needs to be moved and how the container is being filled. This can provide an improved and precise point cloud using multiple passes with a high resolution to determine if it is full and if more grain is needed to flow faster or if the items are not being filled. See paragraph 93-100 of Bart. A LiDAR transceiver, RADAR transceiver and ultrasonic transceiver may comprise a corresponding transmitter for emitting a radiation signal and a corresponding receiver for receiving the reflected or scattered radiation signal. The emitted radiation signal may illuminate the plurality of points (including points within the interior of the container 408) within a field of view of the receiver. The range profile may comprise a 3D point cloud or a stereo image depending upon the type of sensor used. For example, the range profile may comprise a 3D point cloud, when the first and second radiation sensors 422, 462 comprise LiDAR transceivers, or may comprise a stereo image, when the first and second radiation sensors 422, 462 comprise cameras. A camera or a stereo camera may operate at a visible and/or infrared wavelength. In some examples, the crop container monitor 420 may comprise different types of sensors 422, 462 and perform sensor fusion. For example, the controller 424 may output a fill-state comprising a stereo camera image with an overlay of a LiDAR 3D point cloud. Such a visual may be particularly advantageous to an operator, particularly in high dust conditions.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by European Patent Application Pub. No.: EP4111845A1 to OCONNOR that was filed in 2021.
In regard to claim 9 and 21, OConnor discloses “…9. The system as set forth in claim 8, wherein the computing system is configured to determine that at least a portion of the agricultural material will flow outside of a target area by analyzing trajectory and velocity of each of the particles to determine whether each of the particles will flow outside of the target area. (See paragraph 33-41 and FIG. 4-6 where the user includes a user interface and a touch screen to direct the agricultural material from outside of the second vehicle’s area to inside of the holding area of the second vehicle to collect the agricultural material)
In regard to claim 10 and 22, Bart teaches “…10. The system as set forth in claim 1,
wherein the one or more electromagnetic detecting and ranging modules comprise:
a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) LIDAR;
a multi-tone continuous wave (MTCW) LIDAR;
a scanning LIDAR; and
an imaging radar, and
wherein the computing system is configured to:
obtain position data and first velocity data from the FMCW LIDAR and the MTCW LIDAR; and obtain depth data and second velocity data from the scanning LIDAR and the imaging radar, align and process the position data, the first velocity data, the depth data and the second velocity data using an iterative closest point (ICP) process, resulting im a precise tracking of each harvested material particle throughout the unloading process. (See claims 1-16 and see paragraph 86 and 100 and 93-100 where the lidar and radar are synchronized to determine a fill state of the container) (see claims 1-16 where a 3d point cloud can align the data with multiple scans to provide an indication of the fill state of the container)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of BART with the disclosure of OCONNOR with a reasonable expectation of success since BART teaches that a LIDAR and a RADAR and a camera can provide a 4d point cloud. This point cloud can perceive through dusty environments and provide a 3d model of the fill state of the grain flow and mass flow rate and speed of the particles into the container and determine if the container is full or if the ejection site needs to be moved and how the container is being filled. This can provide an improved and precise point cloud using multiple passes with a high resolution to determine if it is full and if more grain is needed to flow faster or if the items are not being filled. See paragraph 93-100 of Bart. A LiDAR transceiver, RADAR transceiver and ultrasonic transceiver may comprise a corresponding transmitter for emitting a radiation signal and a corresponding receiver for receiving the reflected or scattered radiation signal. The emitted radiation signal may illuminate the plurality of points (including points within the interior of the container 408) within a field of view of the receiver. The range profile may comprise a 3D point cloud or a stereo image depending upon the type of sensor used. For example, the range profile may comprise a 3D point cloud, when the first and second radiation sensors 422, 462 comprise LiDAR transceivers, or may comprise a stereo image, when the first and second radiation sensors 422, 462 comprise cameras. A camera or a stereo camera may operate at a visible and/or infrared wavelength. In some examples, the crop container monitor 420 may comprise different types of sensors 422, 462 and perform sensor fusion. For example, the controller 424 may output a fill-state comprising a stereo camera image with an overlay of a LiDAR 3D point cloud. Such a visual may be particularly advantageous to an operator, particularly in high dust conditions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights