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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on May 1, 2025. Claims 1-15 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on May 29, 2025 and October 9, 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Request for priority to Provisional App. No. 63/649,982 filed May 21, 2024 is acknowledged. Examiner notes Applicant may be requested to perfect one or more of the claims in the situation where applied prior art has priority falling between the filing date of the non-provisional application the date of the provisional application. No action by Applicant is requested at this time.
Claim Interpretation
While the final two limitations of the independent claims appear to be optional limitations, the preamble of the claims each respectively requires the combine harvester to comprise a plurality of crop processing arrangements configured to sequentially process the crop flow through the combine harvester. This means that there must be at least one upstream crop processing arrangement or at least one downstream crop processing arrangement that is controlled. Because at least one control must be implemented, the claims are directed toward a practical application and are not abstract ideas under a 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a. crop processing arrangements… in claims 1 and 14. Structure for this limitation may be found at least at [0051]-[0053] of the instant specification;
b. control system… in claim 1, 4-10, and 12-13. Structure for this limitation may be found at least at [0139]-[0141] of the instant specification;
c. at least one rotatable element… in claim 3. Structure for this limitation may be found at least at [0086] of the instant specification;
d. a plurality of crop processing elements… in claim 11. Structure for this limitation may be found at least at Fig. 4 and [0114]-[0115] of the instant specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: A computer program product comprising computer program code means… in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1, 4, 13, and 15 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-3, 5-12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
The term negligible in claims 1, 4, 13, and 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term negligible is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting negligible to mean below a threshold.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because claim 15 is not directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1. Instead, claim 15 is directed toward software per se which does not fall into a statutory category. Examiner suggests amending the language of claim 15 to recite “A non-transitory computer program product.”
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 1-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN106576580 (hereinafter, “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses A control system for a combine harvester comprising a plurality of crop processing arrangements configured to sequentially process crop to define a crop flow through the combine harvester (see at least p. 3; the combine harvester including an auger and a propulsion system which controls the speed of the combine harvester, the control system being configured to (see at least p. 3, p. 5-6 and the publication generally; central processor 52 and corresponding software steps performed by the processor), for each crop processing arrangement in a subset of the plurality of crop processing arrangements:
receive at least one flow rate measure responsive to a maximum flow rate of crop through the crop processing arrangement for current operating parameters of the crop processing arrangement (see at least p. 5-6; torques sensor assembly. The torque value corresponds to a speed of the auger which indicates the flow rate of the crop through the auger);
predict whether or not the crop processing arrangement is a flow-affected crop processing arrangement, being a crop processing arrangement in which the maximum flow rate of crop therethrough has reduced or has become negligible, by processing the at least one flow rate measure (see at least p. 5-6; when the torque value is greater than a torque preset value, it is determined that there is a blockage or prediction of an imminent blockage); and
responsive to predicting that the crop processing arrangement is a flow-affected crop processing arrangement:
reduce a maximum flow rate through each, if any, upstream crop processing arrangement, being any crop processing arrangement that is upstream, with respect to the crop flow, of the flow-affected crop processing arrangement (see at least p. 6; the combine harvester speed decreases. Examiner notes that the propulsion system that facilitates the movement of the harvester is considered an upstream crop processing arrangement); and
control a maximum flow rate through each, if any, downstream crop processing arrangement to be greater than the maximum flow rate through each, if any, upstream crop processing arrangement, wherein each downstream crop processing arrangement is any crop processing arrangement that is downstream, with respect to the crop flow, of the flow-affected crop processing arrangement (Examiner notes that this limitation is not required as there are no downstream crop process arrangements taken into consideration for rejecting this claim).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Zhang discloses wherein, for each crop processing arrangement in the subset, each flow rate measure is a measure of an operational speed or rate of a component of the crop processing arrangement (see at least p. 5-6; the propulsion system speed and the auger speed).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Zhang discloses wherein:
each crop processing arrangement in the subset comprises at least one rotatable element configured to rotate during processing of crop by the crop processing arrangement (see at least p. 5-6; the wheels to propel the combine harvester are a rotatable element of the propulsion system, and the rotation of the auger); and
for each crop processing arrangement in the subset, each flow rate measure is a measure of a rotation speed of a respective rotatable element of the crop processing arrangement (see at least p. 3-6; the flow rate is associated with the rotational movement of the rotatable elements. Speed of the combine harvester directly proportional to wheel rotation, and speed of the auger directly proportional to rotation thereof).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Zhang discloses wherein the control system is configured to, for each crop processing arrangement in the subset, predict whether or not the crop processing arrangement is a flow-affected crop processing arrangement by processing the at least one flow rate measure to predict whether or not the maximum flow rate of crop through the crop processing arrangement has become negligible (see at least p. 5-6; determining if the auger is blocked (i.e., flowrate become negligible) is determined).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Zhang discloses wherein the control system is configured to, for each crop processing arrangement in the subset, responsive to predicting that the crop processing arrangement is a flow-affected crop processing arrangement, stop an operation of each, if any, upstream crop processing arrangement (see at least p. 12; gradual deceleration is performed until the blockage is fixed. Examiner notes that, at least in some situations, this would result in stopping the combine harvester).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Zhang discloses wherein the control system is configured to, for each crop processing arrangement in the subset and responsive to predicting that the crop processing arrangement is a flow-affected crop processing arrangement, maintain a maximum flow rate through each, if any, downstream crop processing arrangement (Examiner notes that this is an optional limitation).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Zhang discloses wherein the control system is configured to, for each crop processing arrangement in the subset and responsive to predicting that the crop processing arrangement is a flow-affected crop processing arrangement:
for each, if any, downstream crop processing arrangement, stopping the operation of said downstream crop processing arrangement after a predetermined and non-zero period of time has elapsed (Examiner notes that this is an optional limitation).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Zhang discloses wherein the control system is configured to, for each crop processing arrangement in the subset and responsive to predicting that the crop processing arrangement is a flow-affected crop processing arrangement, reduce a travel speed of the combine harvester (see at least p. 6; the travel speed of the combine harvester is reduced).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Zhang discloses wherein, for each crop processing arrangement in the subset, the control system is configured to predict whether or not the crop processing arrangement is a flow-affected crop processing arrangement by comparing one or more flow rate measures for the crop processing arrangement to a respective set of one or more thresholds (see at least p. 5-6; the torque is compared to a threshold amount and corresponds to the flow rate through the auger).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Zhang discloses wherein, for each crop processing arrangement in the subset, the control system is configured to predict whether or not the crop processing arrangement is a flow-affected crop processing arrangement by performing a process that comprises identifying whether or not there are any step changes in each flow rate measure (see at least p. 3-6; dropping below a pre-set value for the rotation speed is considered a step change).
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of WO2016/193800 (hereinafter, “Ducroquet”).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Zhang discloses …the at least one flow rate measure comprises, for each crop processing element, an element flow rate measure responsive to a maximum flow rate of crop through the crop processing element for current operating parameters of the crop processing element (see at least p. 5-6; torques sensor assembly. The torque value corresponds to a speed of the auger which indicates the flow rate of the crop through the auger). However, Zhang does not explicitly teach at least one crop processing arrangement in the subset is a parallel processing arrangement that comprises a plurality of crop processing elements configured to process crop in parallel to one another. Ducroquet, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
at least one crop processing arrangement in the subset is a parallel processing arrangement that comprises a plurality of crop processing elements configured to process crop in parallel to one another (see at least Abstract and Fig. 4; the augers are in parallel, and the flowrate through each is monitored).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Zhang with the teachings of Ducroquet, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an increased machine uptime; see at least Ducroquet at Background.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and after the above objections and rejections are remedied. Reasons for indicating allowable subject matter will be provided once one or more claims is in a state of allowance.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
JP2004/057121 which pertains to determining flowrate and blockages through a granular material discharge machine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
