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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/06/2025 and 09/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system of determining one or more properties of crop material (i.e., a system). Therefore, claim 1 is within one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
The examiner has identified system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites:
A system for determining one or more properties of crop material in a working environment, the system comprising:
an event-based sensor; and
one or more controllers, configured to:
receive sensor data from the event-based sensor indicative of a measure of material present within a material flow associated with one or more working components of an agricultural machine;
analyze the sensor data to determine a crop material parameter for the material flow; and
output one or more control signals for controlling operation of one or more operable components of or otherwise associated with the agricultural machine in dependence on the determined crop material parameter;
wherein the system comprises an optical filter associated with the event- based sensor for filtering light incident on one or more sensing elements thereof.
The examiner submits that foregoing the bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process” as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. For example, “analyze the sensor data to determine a crop material parameter for the material flow” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data to determine information on the crop material.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for determining one or more properties of crop material in a working environment, the system comprising:
an event-based sensor; and
one or more controllers, configured to:
receive sensor data from the event-based sensor indicative of a measure of material present within a material flow associated with one or more working components of an agricultural machine;
analyze the sensor data to determine a crop material parameter for the material flow; and
output one or more control signals for controlling operation of one or more operable components of or otherwise associated with the agricultural machine in dependence on the determined crop material parameter;
wherein the system comprises an optical filter associated with the event- based sensor for filtering light incident on one or more sensing elements thereof.
Regarding the additional limitation of “an event-based sensor; and one or more controllers” and “wherein the system comprises an optical filter associated with the event- based sensor for filtering light incident on one or more sensing elements thereof” the examiner submits that these are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application because they are generally linking additional elements to a technological environment, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f).
Regarding the additional limitations of “receive sensor data from the event-based sensor indicative of a measure of material present within a material flow associated with one or more working components of an agricultural machine” the examiner submits that this limitation is an example of mere data gathering. The limitation, “output one or more control signals for controlling operation of one or more operable components of or otherwise associated with the agricultural machine in dependence on the determined crop material parameter” the examiner submits that this limitation is an example of mere data output. In particular, the receiving and outputting of data is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The additional limitations of claim 1 are examples of adding insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution and/or post-solution) to the judicial exception as it is mere data gathering.
Dependent claims 2-4 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather the limitations of the dependent claims further narrows the sensor elements of claim 1 that were considered to be generally linking additional elements to a technological environment, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f); thus the description of such elements does not take claims 2-4 out of the realm of mental process. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims 5-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather the limitations of the dependent claims further narrows the “analyze” element of claim 1 that was considered to be a mental process; thus the description of such elements does not take claims 5-10out of the realm of mental process. Therefore, dependent claims 5-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claim 11 recites a limitation that does cause these claims to be patent eligible. More specifically, the limitation, “one or more controllers are configured to utilize the implement control system for controlling one or more operable settings of an associated implement in dependence on the determined crop material parameter(s).”
Dependent claim 12, it recites an apparatus with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Independent claim 13 recites a limitation that does cause these claims to be patent eligible. More specifically, the limitation, “controlling operation of one or more operable components of or otherwise associated with the agricultural machine in dependence on the determined crop material parameter”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vandike et al. (US 20230017658 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Vandike teaches:
A system for determining one or more properties of crop material in a working environment, the system comprising:
(Vandike – Fig. 1, see below, and 2)
PNG
media_image1.png
458
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an event-based sensor; and
(Vandike – Fig. 1, see above, camera 24)
one or more controllers, configured to:
(Vandike – Fig. 1, see above, control unit 50. Paragraph [0042] states “ It should be appreciated that method 200 may likewise be carried out by analytical unit 26 or any of the analytical units or controllers described hereafter.”)
receive sensor data from the event-based sensor indicative of a measure of material present within a material flow associated with one or more working components of an agricultural machine;
(Vandike – Paragraph [0023] states “Camera 24 captures images of the crop residue 53 generated by harvester 22. In one implementation, camera 24 capture the image of the crop after it has been discharged and spread by harvester 22.”)
analyze the sensor data to determine a crop material parameter for the material flow; and
(Vandike – Paragraph [0024] states “Analytical unit 26 comprises a processing unit that follows instructions contained on a non-transitory computer-readable or machine-readable medium. Analytical unit 26 receives the captured image 55 from camera 24 and derives a value 57 for a crop residue (CR) parameter of the crop residue based upon an optical analysis of the image.”)
output one or more control signals for controlling operation of one or more operable components of or otherwise associated with the agricultural machine in dependence on the determined crop material parameter;
(Vandike – Paragraph [0027] states “ In some implementations, control unit 50 may be part of harvester 22. Control unit 50 may adjust the operational settings of the harvester 22 itself during a subsequent harvesting season, during the same harvesting season or during the same pass of the harvester across the same field may be adjusted based upon the value of the crop residue parameter. For example, operational settings of the harvester 22 itself minutes or hours after the value for the crop residue parameter value has been derived, while harvester is traversing the same field, may be adjusted based upon the derived crop residue parameter value. Examples of such operations settings include, but are not limited to, chopper speed, chopper power, harvester speed, harvester feed rate, chopper counter knife position, header height, spreader speeds, spreader vane positions, threshing speed, cleaning speed, threshing clearance, and sieve louver positions.”)
wherein the system comprises an optical filter associated with the event- based sensor for filtering light incident on one or more sensing elements thereof.
(Vandike – Paragraph [0033] states “ Such identification may be carried out by applying various optical filters to the image to distinguish between individual pieces and then measuring the individual pieces using the detected edges of the individual pieces and the scale of the image being analyzed.”)
Regarding claim 5,
Vandike teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Vandike further teaches:
wherein the one or more controllers are configured to:
identify one or more crop material components within the material flow; and determine the one or more crop parameters in dependence on the identified crop material component(s).
(Vandike – Paragraph [0024] states “Analytical unit 26 receives the captured image 55 from camera 24 and derives a value 57 for a crop residue (CR) parameter of the crop residue based upon an optical analysis of the image. The crop residue parameter for which a value 57 may be derived include, but are not limited to, at least one of chop size, crop residue moisture, crop residue constituents and crop residue dispersion. In one implementation, the values may be derived by the analytical unit optically identifying individual pieces of crop residue and determining values for the individual pieces of crop residue.” Paragraph [0026] further state “In some implementations, the settings of the agricultural machine having the control unit 50 may remain the same, but the parameter of a subsequent applied material may be adjusted by control unit 50 based upon the value of the crop residue parameter.”)
Regarding claim 6,
Vandike teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Vandike further teaches:
wherein the one or more controllers are configured to determine a measure of a length associated with an identified material component; and wherein the crop material parameter(s) comprises a measure of the length of the identified crop material component(s).
(Vandike – Paragraph [0024] states “In one implementation, the values may be derived by the analytical unit optically identifying individual pieces of crop residue and determining values for the individual pieces of crop residue. For example, the analytical unit may measure a length of each of the pieces of crop residue, wherein the value of the crop residue parameter may be based upon a count of the number of pieces having each of a plurality of lengths.”)
Regarding claim 7,
Vandike teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Vandike further teaches:
wherein the crop material parameter(s) comprises a measure of a relative length associated with the identified crop material component(s).
(Vandike – Paragraph [0026] states “In some implementations, the settings of the agricultural machine having the control unit 50 may remain the same, but the parameter of a subsequent applied material may be adjusted by control unit 50 based upon the value of the crop residue parameter.” Paragraph [0033] further states “In implementations where the value comprises a numerical statistic, the value may be derived by optically identifying individual pieces of crop residue, individual pieces of straw, chaffer the like in measuring a characteristic of the individual pieces, such as the length of the individual pieces using optical analysis…”)
Regarding claim 9,
Vandike teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Vandike further teaches:
wherein the crop material parameter comprises a measure of a speed associated with the identified crop material component(s).
(Vandike – Paragraph [0018] states “For example, operational settings of the harvester itself minutes or hours after the value for the crop residue parameter value has been derived, while harvester is traversing the same field, may be adjusted based upon the derived crop residue parameter value. Examples of such operations settings include, but are not limited to, chopper speed, chopper power, harvester speed, harvester feed rate, chopper counter knife position, header height, spreader speeds, spreader vein positions, threshing speed, cleaning speed, threshing clearance, separator discharge vane positions.”)
Regarding claim 10,
Vandike teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Vandike further teaches:
wherein the one or more controllers are configured to:
compare the determined crop material parameter with an expected crop material parameter; and generate and output the control signal for controlling the operable component(s) in dependence on the comparison.
(Vandike – Paragraph [0066] states “In addition to displaying or presenting the individual parameter values for crop residue from each of the cameras and a category, score or other value derived from an aggregation of values from multiple cameras 424, controller 450 may compare such values against various thresholds to trigger the adjustment of the operational settings of harvester 422. Such adjustments may dynamically occur in real time as a harvester 422 is crossing a field. In one implementation, based on a comparison of the value against various predetermined thresholds, controller 450 may output control signals to an actuator 470 (such as a hydraulic or electric motor) so as to adjust the speed of chopper 470 or the power of chopper 470…”)
Regarding claim 11,
Vandike teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Vandike further teaches:
wherein the one or more operable components of or otherwise associated with the agricultural machine include one or more of:
a user interface; wherein the one or more controllers are configured to control output of an indicator indicative of the determined crop material parameter(s) via the user interface;
(Vandike – Paragraph [0065] states “As further shown by FIG. 6, the different values for the different parameters may be determined for individual widthwise portions of the overall trailing row of crop residue discharged from harvester of 422. These different values may be presented on display 460.”)
a propulsion system for the machine; wherein the one or more controllers are configured to utilize the propulsion system for controlling a forward speed of the agricultural machine in dependence on the determined crop material parameter(s); and
an implement control system; wherein the one or more controllers are configured to utilize the implement control system for controlling one or more operable settings of an associated implement in dependence on the determined crop material parameter(s).
(Vandike – Paragraph [0066] states “In addition to displaying or presenting the individual parameter values for crop residue from each of the cameras and a category, score or other value derived from an aggregation of values from multiple cameras 424, controller 450 may compare such values against various thresholds to trigger the adjustment of the operational settings of harvester 422. Such adjustments may dynamically occur in real time as a harvester 422 is crossing a field. In one implementation, based on a comparison of the value against various predetermined thresholds, controller 450 may output control signals to an actuator 470 (such as a hydraulic or electric motor) so as to adjust the speed of chopper 470 or the power of chopper 470…”)
Regarding claim 12, it recites an apparatus with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 13, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim
1 above, therefore it is rejected on the same 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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandike et al. (US 20230017658 A1) in view of PALLA et al. (US 20230180662 A1).
Regarding claim 2,
Vandike teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, Vandike does not teach the limitations of claim 2.
Koskinson teaches:
wherein the optical filter comprises a spectral filter.
(PALLA – Paragraph [0083] states “Without limitation, these crop constituent sensors utilize one or more bands of electromagnetic radiation in detecting crop constituents. For example, a crop constituent sensor utilizes the reflectance or absorption of various ranges (e.g., various wavelengths or frequencies, or both) of electromagnetic radiation by crop or other vegetation material in detecting crop constituents.”)
Vandike and PALLA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a crop sensing machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vandike with PALLA. It would have been obvious to combine a crop sensing machine with a specific optical filter because the ability to use specific wavelengths or frequencies allows for more detailed sensor data. This allows the system to be more efficient and exact.
Regarding claim 3,
Vandike teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, Vandike does not teach the limitations of claim 3.
PALLA teaches:
wherein the optical filter comprises a band pass filter configured to attenuate incident light at frequencies outside of a selected frequency range, the selected frequency range corresponding to an optical response of crop material components of interest.
(PALLA – Paragraph [0079] states “In some examples, a vegetative index may be derived from sensor readings of one or more bands of electromagnetic radiation reflected by the plants. Without limitations, these bands may be in the microwave, infrared, visible, or ultraviolet portions of the electromagnetic spectrum.” Paragraph [0083] further states “Without limitation, these crop constituent sensors utilize one or more bands of electromagnetic radiation in detecting crop constituents. For example, a crop constituent sensor utilizes the reflectance or absorption of various ranges (e.g., various wavelengths or frequencies, or both) of electromagnetic radiation by crop or other vegetation material in detecting crop constituents.”)
Vandike and PALLA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a crop sensing machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vandike with PALLA. It would have been obvious to combine a crop sensing machine with a specific optical filter because the ability to use specific wavelengths or frequencies allows for more detailed sensor data. This allows the system to be more efficient and exact.
Regarding claim 4,
Vandike and PALLA teaches the limitations of claim 3.
However, Vandike does not teach the limitations of claim 4.
PALLA further teaches:
wherein the optical filter is configured to attenuate frequencies corresponding to live crop or plant material.
(PALLA – Paragraph [0083] states “Without limitation, these crop constituent sensors utilize one or more bands of electromagnetic radiation in detecting crop constituents. For example, a crop constituent sensor utilizes the reflectance or absorption of various ranges (e.g., various wavelengths or frequencies, or both) of electromagnetic radiation by crop or other vegetation material in detecting crop constituents.”)
Vandike and PALLA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a crop sensing machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vandike with PALLA. It would have been obvious to combine a crop sensing machine with a specific optical filter because the ability to use specific wavelengths or frequencies allows for more detailed sensor data. This allows the system to be more efficient and exact.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandike et al. (US 20230017658 A1) in view of Childs et al. (US 20230376041 A1).
Regarding claim 8,
Vandike teaches the limitations of claim 5.
However, Vandike does not teach the limitations of claim 8.
Childs teaches:
wherein the crop material parameter comprises a measure of a shape or structure of the identified crop material component(s).
(Childs – Paragraph [0037] states “Thus, bale shape sensor 140 is configured for sensing the bale shape of crop material 136 in bale chamber 109, and for outputting to controllers 123, 115 a bale shape signal corresponding to the bale shape.”)
Vandike and PALLA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a crop sensing machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vandike with PALLA. It would have been obvious to combine a crop sensing machine with a sensor for the shape of the crop because the ability to determine specific shapes of the crop allows for the system to work more efficiently to get the output that it needs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH GALYN MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1537. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS 9-2.
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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/E.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights