DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-12 remain pending.
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 .
Priority
The Applicant claims benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §120, §121, §365(c), or §386(c).
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.
Claims 5 and 9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.
(a) Regarding Claim 5, the term “the first and second camera images” lacks antecedent basis.
(b) Regarding Claim 9, the term “the knives” lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Missotten et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0394921A1 (hereinafter, Missotten), in view of Kormann et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2005/0072135A1 (hereinafter, Kormann).
Regarding Claim 1, Missotten describes a straw chopper for a harvester (straw chopper for a harvester, Missotten, Paragraph 0036), the straw chopper comprising:
-a chopper housing with an inlet for receiving unchopped straw and an outlet for releasing chopped straw (chopper housing with inlet to receive unchopped straw and an outlet for releasing chopped straw, Missotten, Paragraph 0036 and Figures 1 and 2);
-a rotational axle carrying a plurality of knives extending radially therefrom and configured for rotating therewith (rotational axle carrying a plurality of knives extending radially (i.e., rotatable knife rows in the chopper arrangement), Missotten, Paragraph 0009 and Figures 1 and 2);
-a counter knife, the plurality of knives and the counter knife being configured to cooperatively exert a chopping action on the received straw to produce chopped straw (counter knife to exert a chopping action on the received straw to produce chopped straw, Missotten, Paragraph 0018 and Figures 1 and 2);
-a camera configured to obtain camera images of at least a portion of the chopped straw that is located downstream of the counter knife (a camera configured to obtain images of the chopped straw located downstream the counter knife / chopper arrangement, Missotten, Paragraph 0043); and
-a controller coupled to the camera for receiving the camera images therefrom, the controller being configured to process the camera images and determine based thereon: a chopping quality of the straw chopper during use (processor and camera images used to determine the chopping quality of the straw chopper during use, Missotten, Paragraphs 0043 and 0051 and Figure 3), and a knife wear of at least one of the knives (processor and camera images used to determine knife wear, Missotten, Paragraphs 0018 and 0055) …
Missotten does not specifically disclose the straw chopper to include [determining a knife wear of at least one of the knives] when not in use.
Kormann discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Kormann describes determining the knife wear when the cutter is not in use (Kormann, Paragraph 0030).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the straw chopper of Missotten to include determining a knife wear of at least one of the knives when not in use, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Kormann.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining the sharpness of the blades allows for increased cutting quality (Kormann, Paragraphs 0027-0029).
Regarding Claim 2, Missotten, as modified, describes the straw chopper as claimed in claim 1.
Missotten does not specifically disclose the straw chopper to include that when not in use: use the camera to obtain a first camera image of a first one of the plurality of knives, determine, based on the first camera image, a knife wear of the first one of the plurality of knives, cause rotation of the rotational axle, use the camera to obtain a second camera image of a second one of the plurality of knives, and determine, based on the second camera image, a knife wear of the second one of the plurality of knives.
Kormann discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Kormann describes determining the knife wear when the cutter is not in use (Kormann, Paragraph 0030). Additionally, Kormann describes the use of a first and second camera which can be used to determine the wear of knifes, in use or not in use (Kormann, Paragraphs 0023-0030).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the straw chopper of Missotten to include when not in use: use the camera to obtain a first camera image of a first one of the plurality of knives, determine, based on the first camera image, a knife wear of the first one of the plurality of knives, cause rotation of the rotational axle, use the camera to obtain a second camera image of a second one of the plurality of knives, and determine, based on the second camera image, a knife wear of the second one of the plurality of knives, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Kormann.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining the sharpness of the blades allows for increased cutting quality (Kormann, Paragraphs 0027-0029).
Regarding Claim 3, Missotten, as modified, describes the straw chopper as claimed in claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to obtain the first camera image and the second camera image, while rotating the rotational axle (capable of obtaining the images when the machine is in operation (i.e., rotating), Missotten, Paragraph 0018).
Regarding Claim 4, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claims 1 and 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 5, Missotten, as modified, describes the straw chopper as claimed in claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to, during use: identify and analyze a straw cut in the first and second camera images, and based on the analyzed straw cut, determine the knife wear of at least one of the knives (capable of reviewing multiple images either taken or stored in a database to determine straw cut, Missotten, Paragraphs 0018, 0051, and 0055).
Regarding Claim 6, Missotten, as modified, describes the straw chopper as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least some of the knives are flailing knives (some knives are rotating (i.e., flailing), Missotten, Paragraph 0009 and Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Missotten, as modified, describes the straw chopper as claimed in claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to obtain the first camera image and the second camera image, while respectively rotating the rotational axle at two different non-zero rotational speeds (capable of obtaining images when the rotational axle is at different rotational speeds, Missotten, Paragraph 0018 and 0055).
Regarding Claim 8, Missotten, as modified, describes a straw chopper as claimed in claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to adapt a position of the counter knife relative to the rotational axle in dependence of the determined chopping quality and/or in dependence of the determined knife wear (adjust position of the knife (e.g., angle) based on chopping quality or wear, Missotten, Paragraph 0018).
Regarding Claim 9, Missotten describes a method of monitoring a straw chopper for a harvester, the method comprising:
-using a camera of the straw chopper to obtain first camera images of straw after having been chopped by the straw chopper (a camera configured to obtain images of the chopped straw located downstream the counter knife / chopper arrangement, Missotten, Paragraph 0043);
-determine a chopping quality of the straw chopper based on the first camera images (processor and camera images used to determine the chopping quality of the straw chopper, Missotten, Paragraphs 0043 and 0051 and Figure 3);
-using the camera of the straw chopper to obtain second camera images when the straw chopper is … for chopping straw and to determine a knife wear of at least one of the knives based on the second camera images (processor and camera images (i.e., second camera images) used to determine knife wear, Missotten, Paragraphs 0018 and 0055).
Missotten does not specifically disclose the method to include [determining a knife wear of at least one of the knives] when not in use.
Kormann discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Kormann describes determining the knife wear when the cutter is not in use (Kormann, Paragraph 0030).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Missotten to include determining a knife wear of at least one of the knives when not in use, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Kormann.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining the sharpness of the blades allows for increased cutting quality (Kormann, Paragraphs 0027-0029).
Regarding Claim 10, Missotten, as modified, describes the method as claimed in claim 9, further comprising determining the knife wear using the chopping quality as determined based on the first camera images (processor and camera images used to determine the chopping quality of the straw, Missotten, Paragraphs 0043 and 0051 and Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Missotten, as modified, describes the method as claimed in claim 10, further comprising using the knife wear determined based on the second camera images to calibrate a chopping quality-based algorithm for determining the knife wear (ability to calibrate the chopping quality based algorithms, Missotten, Paragraph 0018).
Regarding Claim 12, Missotten, as modified, describes a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to execute the method of claim 9 (processor operates instructions, Missotten, Paragraphs 0018 and 0046).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights