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
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed on 05/02/2025. Claims 1—15 are currently pending.
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for benefit of EPO Patent Document Number EP24173785 filed on 05/02/2024, has been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 05/02/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1—15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, and 12 recite the claim element “nearby trailer” where the term “nearby” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “nearby” 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.
There are two trailers which are recited in the claims which are a nearby trailer and a second trailer. As stated above, “nearby” is a relative term; however, it is understood by the Examiner that the “nearby trailer” is effectively a “first trailer” in comparison to the “second trailer.” Accordingly, the rejection will be withdrawn if the claims are amended to recite “a first trailer”/”the first trailer” instead of “a nearby trailer”/”the nearby trailer.” Notably the Specification exclusively refers to the nearby trailer (e.g., nearby trailer 30) in such terms. Accordingly, at least some portions of the Specification will need to be amended to indicate that the nearby trailer 30 is also a first trailer in order to align with the required claim amendment. The remaining claims, 2 and 4—8, depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from a rejected base claim.
Separately, Claim 9 recites the limitation “adjusting the crop transfer process in dependence of the estimated position of the second trailer relative to the agricultural harvester, in order to cease transferring crop between the agricultural harvester and the nearby trailer and to start transferring crop between the agricultural harvester and the second trailer.” Claim 9 depends from claim 1 where claim 1 recites the limitation “adjusting the crop transfer process in dependence of the estimated status parameter.” Examiner submits it is unclear how the limitations of claim 9 are incorporated into a cohesive method with the limitations of claim 1. More specifically, it is unclear whether the adjusting step of claim 9 further defines the adjusting step of claim 1 or if the combination of claims 1 and 9 would recite two distinct adjusting steps. If the claim is intended to recite two distinct adjusting steps it may be beneficial for the purpose of clarity to amend the limitations to recite something similar to “performing a first adjustment, comprising…” and “performing a second adjustment, comprising…”. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from a rejected base claim.
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—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Independent claims 1 and 12 are directed to a method (process) and a system (machine or manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent SUBJECT Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations including:
“processing the obtained image data to determine a status parameter of the nearby trailer at different points in time” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“estimating the status parameter of the nearby trailer at a further point in time” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Claim 12 recites abstract limitations including:
“process the obtained image data to determine a status parameter of the nearby trailer at different points in time” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“estimate the status parameter of the nearby trailer at a further point in time” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations identified above constitute abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, mathematical concepts, or a combination thereof. For example, actions including making determinations and estimates are directed to steps which are performable with a human mind with or without the benefit of pen and paper. Additionally, the generation of determinations and estimates may benefit from the utilization of a mathematical concept. More specifically, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of generic computing elements does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus the claims recite one or more abstract ideas.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
“a crop transfer process” (e.g., directed to a field of use);
“an agricultural harvester” (e.g., directed to a field of use);
“a nearby trailer” (e.g., directed to a field of use);
“an optical sensor… to obtain image data” (e.g., extra-solution activity); and
“adjusting the crop transfer process in dependence of the estimated status parameter” (e.g., a genericized application of the judicial exception equivalent to reciting “apply it”).
Claim 12 recites the additional elements of:
“a crop transfer process” (e.g., directed to a field of use);
“an agricultural harvester” (e.g., directed to a field of use);
“a nearby trailer” (e.g., directed to a field of use);
“an optical sensor… to obtain image data” (e.g., extra-solution activity);
“a controller” (e.g., generic computer hardware equivalent to reciting “apply it”); and
“adjust the crop transfer process in dependence of the estimated status parameter” (e.g., a genericized application of the judicial exception equivalent to reciting “apply it”
The above identified limitations of claims 1 and 12 constitute additional elements. However, for the reasons identified above, and discussed further below, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the above identified additional elements do not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As identified above, claims 1 and 12 recite the additional elements of “a crop transfer process”; “an agricultural harvester”; and “a nearby trailer.” The foregoing additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and function to generally link the identified abstract ideas to a particular field of use. The MPEP states “[a]s explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore the limitations directed to the additional elements “a crop transfer process”; “an agricultural harvester”; and “a nearby trailer,” do not integrate the above identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 12 further recite the additional element of “an optical sensor… to obtain image data,” which constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering) performed using a generically recited sensor. The MPEP states “[t]he term ‘extra-solution activity’ can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Moreover, use of optical sensors including, specifically, lidar sensors, is known in the art of crop harvesting. For example, Issued Patent Application to Kemmer et al. (US 10670708 B2) states “[t]he lidar sensor 32, as is known, illuminates a targeted object with a laser light that may operate according to ultraviolet, visible, or near infrared light spectrums. The lidar sensor 32 is principally comprised of a laser, a scanner and optics to enable azimuth and elevation scans, a photodetector, a receiver, and a signal processor (though in some embodiments, signal processing may be performed by the controller 38). The lidar 32 generates a set of 3D data points (a point cloud) according to a coordinate system (e.g., x, y, z coordinates, though some embodiments may use a different coordinate system).” (Kemmer, Col. 6, Lines 54—64). To this end, the MPEP states “[i]f the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility.” (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the inclusion of a generically recited sensor (e.g., or even a specific well-known sensor) which performs data gathering necessary to perform the identified judicial exception cannot provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas because the limitations are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 1 and 12 further recite the additional element of, or substantially similar to “adjusting the crop transfer process in dependence of the estimated status parameter,” which constitutes mere instruction to apply an exception as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the MPEP states “[w]hen determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent),… examiners may consider the following:… Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation directed to adjusting the crop transfer process constitutes mere instruction to apply an exception because the limitation does not include any limitations directed to: 1.) how the result is accomplished and/or 2.) the mechanism for accomplishing the result.
Claim 12 further recites the additional element of “a controller” which, as claimed, is merely invoked as a tool to perform an existing process. Moreover, claim limitations directed to computer components or other machinery which function in their ordinary capacity does not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application. For example, the MPEP states “[w]hen determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:… (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Examiner submits that the limitations directed to the controller as recited in claim 12 are merely invoked as a tool to perform an existing process and do not provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites limitations which furth define the above identified abstract idea of “estimating.” However, the further defined limitations are directed to “calculating a change, a rate of change, and/or an acceleration of change.” Accordingly the limitations of claim 2 further define the abstract idea of “estimating” with limitations with are also directed to an abstract idea insofar as “calculating” is directed to a mathematical concept. Moreover, claim 2 does not recite any additional elements which function to integrate the above identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Claim 3 also recites limitations which further define the abstract idea of “estimating,” as identified in claim 1. For example, claim 1 recites “estimating the status parameter…” which was identified as being an abstract idea directed to a mental process and/or mathematical concept while claim 3 recites limitations which further limit the estimated status parameter according to the estimation being made. Specifically, the estimation being performed can be “a position… an orientation… a filling level… a crop pile shape.” Accordingly, claim 3 is directed to the specific estimation which is performed and is therefore directed to an abstract idea consisting of a mental process, a mathematical concept, or a combination thereof. Moreover, claim 3 does not recite any additional elements which function to integrate the above identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “processing the obtained image data to determine a crop cloud parameter,” which is directed to the abstract idea of processing information (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept) and making determinations (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept). As such, claim 4 recites limitations which constitute abstract ideas in addition to the abstract ideas identified in claim 1. Claim 4 also recites the limitation “adjusting the crop transfer process in dependence of the estimated crop cloud parameter,” which is directed to an additional element. However, the additional element limitation is equivalent to mere directive to generically apply the exception. For example, the MPEP states “[w]hen determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:… (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claim 4 does not provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions.
Claim 5 recites a limitation directed to making additional estimations and determinations which are directed to abstract ideas insofar as estimations and determinations constitute mental processes which may be performed with or without the benefit of a mathematical concept. Moreover, claim 5 does not recite any additional elements which function to integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites multiple limitations directed to applications of the judicial exception; however, they are recited at such a high level of generality that they constitute mere directives to apply the exception. For example, the limitations do not provide for a connection between how the applications are selected with respect to the identified abstract ideas. With regards to the threshold for showing a recited application is a practical application, the MPEP states “[w]hen determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:… (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, while claim 6 recites multiple specific solutions and/or outcomes, claim 6 in combination with claim 1 do not tie the identified abstract ideas to the solutions in a manner which provides for a practical application as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 7 and 8 recite limitations which further define the generically recited optical sensor of claim 1; however, as addressed above, lidar sensors (e.g., the data of which is used to form a point cloud) are known in the technical field of harvesters as described in Issued Patent Application to Kemmer et al. (US 10670708 B2) at Col. 6, Lines 54—64. Accordingly, the limitations of claims 7 and 8 constitute insignificant extra-solution activity and cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions identified in claim 1.
As addressed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), it is unclear how the limitations of claim 1 and claim 9 work together. For example, it is unclear if the combination of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 results in two separate adjustment processes or a single adjustment process. Claim 9 recites judicial exceptions including “estimating a position of a second trailer relative to the agricultural harvester,” where such estimates constitute mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. Claim 9 further recites the judicial exception of “receiving a trailer swap signal,” which under the broadest reasonable interpretation, constitutes an abstract idea further comprising a mental process. For example, a person could receive a trailer swap signal with their eyes. Moreover, the claim does not limit the manner in which the signal is received, nor does it limit the manner in which the signal is sent. Accordingly, claim 9 recites abstract ideas. However, claim 9 also recites an adjusting step which is specific enough to properly integrate the recited judicial exception of claim 9 into a practical application. However, this does not necessarily resolve the lack of practical application identified with respect to claim 1 insofar as clam 9 appears to be a whole separate process from claim 1. As such, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because while it provides a practical application for the judicial exception recited in claim 9, it does not seem to provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions recited in claim 1.
The limitations of claim 10 are directed to a field of use scenario which are indicative of the field in which the abstract ideas of claim 1 are applied. For example, claim 1 is directed to the technological area of harvesters which deposit crops into a trailer. The scenario set forth in claim 10 describes a scenario which may occur when multiple pieces of equipment work together in a field. With respect to field of use limitation, the MPEP states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the limitations of claim 10 do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions identified in claim 1.
Claim 13 is directed to the incorporation of the system of claim 12 into an agricultural harvester. While the agricultural harvester constitutes an additional element, it is merely indicative of the field of use in which the identified judicial exceptions of claim 12 are to be applied. With respect to field of use limitations, the MPEP states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly the limitations of claim 13 do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions identified in claim 12 which are imported into claim 13.
Claim 14 further defines the recited agricultural harvester of claim 13; however, the limitations of “a forage harvester” and/or “a combine harvester” are merely indicative of a field of use in which the identified judicial exceptions of claim 12 are to be utilized. As such, for the same reasons provided above with respect to claim 13, claim 14 does not provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions. the MPEP states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly the limitations of claim 14 do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions identified in claim 12 which are imported into claim 13.
Claim 15 recites generic computer components on which the method of claim 1 may be stored and executed. While computer components constitute additional elements rather than abstract idea, the Mere recitation of generic computer components in combination with claim limitations which recite abstract ideas is equivalent to a mere directive to apply the exception on a computer. Limitations which constitute mere directives to apply one or more judicial exceptions using a computer (e.g., “apply it”) cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exception. For example, the MPEP states “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone).” (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly the limitations of claim 15 do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions identified in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1—3, 6—8, and 12—15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Published US Patent Application to Puryk et al., hereinafter “Puryk” (US 20210195840 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Puryk discloses [a] method of controlling a crop transfer process for transferring crop between an agricultural harvester and a nearby trailer (para. [0046], “[d]isclosed are systems and methods that facilitate the automated unloading of material, such as crop material, into a container of a transport vehicle… The disclosed systems and methods may utilize the fill model to determine a current fill characteristic or state (fill profile) of the container and/or adjust any current unloading parameters based upon the current fill characteristic or state.”), the method comprising:
at different points in time, using an optical sensor (sensors of perception system 304 including imaging module 18; see para. [0054], “[e]xamples of sensor that may be utilized as part of the perception system include, but are not limited to, cameras, lidar, radar, ultrasonic sensors and the like. The perception signals produced by such perception systems may be signals that represent images or signals that represent point clouds.”) of the agricultural harvester to obtain image data relating to the nearby trailer (para. [0055], “a gathering/harvesting vehicle, such as a harvester may include multiple cameras that are supported so as to capture images of the container itself, including its interior which may be filled with crop material. Such cameras may additionally be supported so as to capture images of the spout or other discharge point of the gathering/harvesting vehicle. The perception signals are in the form of signals that represent the image that was captured. An unloading controller may analyze the captured images (perception signals) to determine the current fill state of the container during unloading of material from the gathering/harvesting vehicle into the container.”; para. [0085], “[p]erception system 304 comprises sensors that output perception data or perception signals representing at least one actual fill characteristic or state of the container.”),
processing the obtained image data to determine a status parameter (see para. [0055], “current fill state”; see para. [0054], “fill characteristic or state”) of the nearby trailer at the different points in time (para. [0054], “[d]isclosed are example systems and methods that additionally offer the option of determining the current fill characteristic or state of the container and/or adjusting the MUT, the MUR and/or the MUL using a perception system. The perception system may utilize sensors that output perception data or perception signals representing at least one actual fill characteristic or state of the container. A fill characteristic may refer to a fill profile of the container, the distance separating a peak of material from the edge of the container or the like.”; para. [0057], “the disclosed systems and methods may switch between use of the fill model and use of the perception system when determining the current fill state or characteristic of the container and/or determining how to adjust the ongoing MUR and/or MUL.”; para. [0061], “the fill model is dynamically adjusted or updated using the perception data acquired by the perception system… As a result, the fill model may be updated so as be more accurate for when the fill model is used in place of the perception system to estimate the current fill state or characteristic of the container and/or to adjust ongoing unloading parameters such as MUR and MUL.”; para. [0121], “[t]he imaging module 18 may comprise material profile module 27 or a fill level sensor for detecting a one-dimensional, two-dimensional or three-dimensional representation of the fill level or volumetric distribution of the agricultural material in the container 85 or storage portion 93.),
based on the determined status parameter at the different points in time, estimating the status parameter of the nearby trailer at a further point in time (para. [0064], “[f]ill model 220 comprises a system model of a fill profile for a material filling a container of a transport vehicle. The model estimates or predicts what regions of the interior of the container will be filled with material for a given set of values for various fill variables. Fill model 220 may estimate or predict what regions of the interior the container will be filled with material at a given point in time based upon a given set of values for the various fill variables. Fill model 220 may estimate or predict how a mound of material presently being formed within the container will grow or shift in response to the addition of material and/or the mound abutting interior surfaces or edges of the container.”), the further point in time being later than the different points in time (para. [0065], “[f]ill model 220 may be used to estimate or predict what regions of the interior of the container are filled with material for a given set of historical values for various fill variables. Likewise, fill model 220 may be used to estimate or predict what regions of the interior of the container will be filled with material in the future for various possible values for the fill variables, given the current fill state of the container.”), and
adjusting the crop transfer process in dependence of the estimated status parameter (para. [0046], “[d]isclosed are systems and methods that facilitate the automated unloading of material, such as crop material, into a container of a transport vehicle… The disclosed systems and methods may utilize the fill model to determine a current fill characteristic or state (fill profile) of the container and/or adjust any current unloading parameters based upon the current fill characteristic or state.”; Examiner notes “MUT” is material unloading time described in para. [0051], “MUR” is material unloading rate described in para. [0052], and “MUL” is material unloading location described in para. [0052]; para. [0078], “based upon the current fill characteristic/state of container, a target fill profile for the container, and fill model 220, unloading controller 224 determines and outputs control signals 36 to adjust at least one of the MUT(s), the MUR(s) and the MUL(s).”; para. [0079], “rather than determining the current fill state of the container using fill model 220 and historic stored values for the model variables 225, unloading controller 224 may obtain the current fill state for the container using perception data received from a perception system. However, when determining how to adjust various unloading parameters going forward, unloading controller 224 may utilize fill model 220 to determine the various values for the model variables 225 so as to achieve the target fill profile for the container.”; para. [0083], “the unloading controller 224 may then adjust at least one of the MUT, the MUR and the MUL for the material being unloaded into the container based upon the current fill state and the fill model 220 with the objective of achieving the targeted fill profile for the container.”).
Regarding claim 2, Puryk discloses wherein estimating the status parameter at the further point in time (this is performed by fill model 220; para. [0064], “[f]ill model 220 may estimate or predict what regions of the interior the container will be filled with material at a given point in time based upon a given set of values for the various fill variables. Fill model 220 may estimate or predict how a mound of material presently being formed within the container will grow or shift in response to the addition of material and/or the mound abutting interior surfaces or edges of the container.”) comprises calculating a change (see above citation to para. [0064]), a rate of change, and/or an acceleration of change of the determined status parameter between the different points in time (para. [0066], “fill model 220 may be based upon multiple model variables 225 such as MUT 225, MUR 226 and MUL 228.”; Examiner notes “MUT” is material unloading time described in para. [0051], “MUR” is material unloading rate described in para. [0052], and “MUL” is material unloading location described in para. [0052].)
Regarding claim 3, Puryk discloses wherein the status parameter defines one of: a position of the nearby trailer relative to the agricultural harvester (material unloading location (“MUT”)), an orientation of the nearby trailer relative to the agricultural harvester, a filling level of the nearby trailer (see para. [0054] below), and a crop pile shape (see para. [0054] below) of crop inside the nearby trailer (para. [0046], “The disclosed systems and methods utilize a fill model that models, estimates and predicts a fill characteristic of the container, such as a fill profile of the container, based upon several variables such as material unloading times, corresponding material unloading rates (zero and non-zero “rates”) and corresponding material unloading locations.”; para. [0054], “[a] fill characteristic may refer to a fill profile of the container, the distance separating a peak of material from the edge of the container or the like.”).
Regarding claim 6, Puryk discloses wherein adjusting the crop transfer processes comprises one of: adapting a travel speed and/or travel direction of the agricultural harvester, adjusting an orientation of an unload spout or unload tube of the agricultural harvester relative to the agricultural harvester (para. [0053], “[i]n some implementations, the MUL location may be adjusted by adjusting the relative position of a discharge point of the gathering/harvesting vehicle and the container while the relative positioning of the vehicles themselves does not change. For example, the spout of a harvester may be elevated, rotated or otherwise moved relative to the remainder of the gathering/harvesting vehicle and relative to the container of the transport vehicle.”), adjusting an ejection power of a crop expel system of the agricultural harvester (para. [0052], “[a] material unloading rate (MUR) may refer to the rate at which the material is unloaded or discharged into the container. This may be adjusted by controlling the rate at which a belt, conveyor, auger or other component conveys or otherwise moves the material from a gathering/harvesting vehicle into the container of a transport vehicle.”), and adjusting a configuration of the unload spout or unload tube of the agricultural harvester (para. [0052], “[t]he material unloading location (MUL) relates to the location at which the material is dropped into or discharged into the container.”; para. [0053], “[i]n some implementations, the MUL location may be adjusted by adjusting the relative position of a discharge point of the gathering/harvesting vehicle and the container while the relative positioning of the vehicles themselves does not change. For example, the spout of a harvester may be elevated, rotated or otherwise moved relative to the remainder of the gathering/harvesting vehicle and relative to the container of the transport vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 7, Puryk discloses wherein the optical sensor is a point cloud sensor (para. [0054], “[e]xamples of sensor that may be utilized as part of the perception system include, but are not limited to, cameras, lidar, radar, ultrasonic sensors and the like. The perception signals produced by such perception systems may be signals that represent images or signals that represent point clouds.” Lidar generates point clouds.).
Regarding claim 8, Puryk discloses wherein the point cloud sensor is a LiDAR sensor (para. [0054], “[e]xamples of sensor that may be utilized as part of the perception system include, but are not limited to, cameras, lidar, radar, ultrasonic sensors and the like. The perception signals produced by such perception systems may be signals that represent images or signals that represent point clouds.” Lidar generates point clouds.).
Regarding claim 12, Puryk discloses [a] system for controlling a crop transfer process for transferring crop between an agricultural harvester and a nearby trailer (para. [0046], “[d]isclosed are systems and methods that facilitate the automated unloading of material, such as crop material, into a container of a transport vehicle… The disclosed systems and methods may utilize the fill model to determine a current fill characteristic or state (fill profile) of the container and/or adjust any current unloading parameters based upon the current fill characteristic or state.”), the system comprising:
an optical sensor for obtaining image data relating to the nearby trailer (sensors of perception system 304; see para. [0054], “[e]xamples of sensor that may be utilized as part of the perception system include, but are not limited to, cameras, lidar, radar, ultrasonic sensors and the like. The perception signals produced by such perception systems may be signals that represent images or signals that represent point clouds.”; para. [0054], “[d]isclosed are example systems and methods that additionally offer the option of determining the current fill characteristic or state of the container and/or adjusting the MUT, the MUR and/or the MUL using a perception system. The perception system may utilize sensors that output perception data or perception signals representing at least one actual fill characteristic or state of the container. A fill characteristic may refer to a fill profile of the container, the distance separating a peak of material from the edge of the container or the like.”), and
a controller (controller/unloading controller 224/324/1024)operatively coupled to the optical sensor (para. [0077], “[u]nloading controller 224 stores values for the model variables 225 over time during the filling of the container. For example, unloading controller 224 may receive signals from various sensors, wherein the signals, alone or in combination, directly or indirectly indicate values for the various variables 225 of the fill model.”; para. [0109], “[t]he first optical sensor 110 and the second optical sensor 112 each may be coupled to the unloading controller 1024.”), the controller being configured to:
(i) at different points in time, using an optical sensor (sensors of perception system 304; see para. [0054], “[e]xamples of sensor that may be utilized as part of the perception system include, but are not limited to, cameras, lidar, radar, ultrasonic sensors and the like. The perception signals produced by such perception systems may be signals that represent images or signals that represent point clouds.”) of the agricultural harvester to obtain image data relating to the nearby trailer (para. [0055], “a gathering/harvesting vehicle, such as a harvester may include multiple cameras that are supported so as to capture images of the container itself, including its interior which may be filled with crop material. Such cameras may additionally be supported so as to capture images of the spout or other discharge point of the gathering/harvesting vehicle. The perception signals are in the form of signals that represent the image that was captured. An unloading controller may analyze the captured images (perception signals) to determine the current fill state of the container during unloading of material from the gathering/harvesting vehicle into the container.”; para. [0085], “[p]erception system 304 comprises sensors that output perception data or perception signals representing at least one actual fill characteristic or state of the container.”),
(ii) process the obtained image data to determine a status parameter (see para. [0055], “current fill state”; see para. [0054], “fill characteristic or state”) of the nearby trailer at the different points in time (para. [0054], “[d]isclosed are example systems and methods that additionally offer the option of determining the current fill characteristic or state of the container and/or adjusting the MUT, the MUR and/or the MUL using a perception system. The perception system may utilize sensors that output perception data or perception signals representing at least one actual fill characteristic or state of the container. A fill characteristic may refer to a fill profile of the container, the distance separating a peak of material from the edge of the container or the like.”; para. [0057], “the disclosed systems and methods may switch between use of the fill model and use of the perception system when determining the current fill state or characteristic of the container and/or determining how to adjust the ongoing MUR and/or MUL.”; para. [0061], “the fill model is dynamically adjusted or updated using the perception data acquired by the perception system… As a result, the fill model may be updated so as be more accurate for when the fill model is used in place of the perception system to estimate the current fill state or characteristic of the container and/or to adjust ongoing unloading parameters such as MUR and MUL.”),
(iii) based on the determined status parameter at the different points in time, estimating the status parameter of the nearby trailer at a further point in time (para. [0064], “[f]ill model 220 comprises a system model of a fill profile for a material filling a container of a transport vehicle. The model estimates or predicts what regions of the interior of the container will be filled with material for a given set of values for various fill variables. Fill model 220 may estimate or predict what regions of the interior the container will be filled with material at a given point in time based upon a given set of values for the various fill variables. Fill model 220 may estimate or predict how a mound of material presently being formed within the container will grow or shift in response to the addition of material and/or the mound abutting interior surfaces or edges of the container.”), the further point in time being later than the different points in time (para. [0065], “[f]ill model 220 may be used to estimate or predict what regions of the interior of the container are filled with material for a given set of historical values for various fill variables. Likewise, fill model 220 may be used to estimate or predict what regions of the interior of the container will be filled with material in the future for various possible values for the fill variables, given the current fill state of the container.”), and
(iv) adjust the crop transfer process in dependence of the estimated status parameter (para. [0046], “[d]isclosed are systems and methods that facilitate the automated unloading of material, such as crop material, into a container of a transport vehicle… The disclosed systems and methods may utilize the fill model to determine a current fill characteristic or state (fill profile) of the container and/or adjust any current unloading parameters based upon the current fill characteristic or state.”; Examiner notes “MUT” is material unloading time described in para. [0051], “MUR” is material unloading rate described in para. [0052], and “MUL” is material unloading location described in para. [0052]; para. [0078], “based upon the current fill characteristic/state of container, a target fill profile for the container, and fill model 220, unloading controller 224 determines and outputs control signals 36 to adjust at least one of the MUT(s), the MUR(s) and the MUL(s).”; para. [0079], “rather than determining the current fill state of the container using fill model 220 and historic stored values for the model variables 225, unloading controller 224 may obtain the current fill state for the container using perception data received from a perception system. However, when determining how to adjust various unloading parameters going forward, unloading controller 224 may utilize fill model 220 to determine the various values for the model variables 225 so as to achieve the target fill profile for the container.”; para. [0083], “the unloading controller 224 may then adjust at least one of the MUT, the MUR and the MUL for the material being unloaded into the container based upon the current fill state and the fill model 220 with the objective of achieving the targeted fill profile for the container.”).
Regarding claim 13, Puryk discloses [a]n agricultural harvester comprising the system as claimed in claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12; para. [0084], “[s]ystem 300 facilitates the automated unloading of material, such as grain, from a gathering/harvesting vehicle, such as a harvester, into a container of a transport vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 14, Puryk discloses wherein the agricultural harvester is a forage harvester or a combine harvester (para. [0067], “the gathering/harvesting vehicle, such as the combine harvester”).
Regarding claim 15, Puryk discloses [a] non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions (para. [0068], “[f]ill model 220 may be stored in a persistent storage device for access by unloading controller 224.”; data storage device 19; controller 224 has access to a storage device to perform the limitations mapped in claim 1), thereon that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to execute the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 11 is/ rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Published US Patent Application to O’Connor et al., hereinafter “O’Connor” (US 20220410704 A1).
Regarding claim 11, O’Connor discloses [a] method of controlling a crop transfer process for transferring crop between an agricultural harvester and a nearby trailer, the method comprising:
using an optical sensor (camera 117) of the agricultural harvester to obtain image data relating to the nearby trailer (para. [0032], “the automatic fill control system or a separate fill level processing system also determines a fill parameter indicative of when trailer 122 will be full. As discussed above, the automatic fill control system or separate system can receive an input indicative of the flow of material through harvester 100, or indicative of the estimated flow of material through harvester 100. The input may be based upon a view of the crop material ahead of harvester 100 generated by a forward looking camera 117.” Camera 117, and optical sensor, is used to determine when the trailer 122 will be full),
processing the obtained image data to determine a position of the nearby trailer relative to the agricultural harvester (para. [0032], “[t]he input may be based upon a view of the crop material ahead of harvester 100 generated by a forward looking camera 117. The estimated flow of material can be based upon an estimated crop yield ahead of harvester 100. The estimated yield can be based upon a current yield, or based upon historic yield from a same position in the field. The fill parameter may be an estimated time value indicative of when trailer 122 will reach its target capacity, or the fill parameter may be a distance value indicating a distance that harvester 100 will travel before trailer 122 reaches its target capacity… The fill parameter may be a location in a local or global coordinate system indicating a location where harvester 100 will be when trailer 122 reaches its capacity, or the fill parameter may be a different parameter.” The distance travelled is ),
receiving a trailer swap signal (para. [0065], “Fill parameter output system 316 may generate an output simply indicating when the harvester 100 will fill its current receiving vehicle to the target capacity, where the harvester 100 will be when its current receiving vehicle is filled to the target capacity, how long it will be until the receiving vehicle is filled to the target capacity, or other things.”; para. [0070], “Mobile app 306 then provides the information to user interface control system 304 which generates an output on user interface mechanisms 308 to the operator of the receiving vehicle (e.g., to the operator of a towing vehicle), as indicated by block 338. The output may identify the time and/or location where the cart currently being filled by a particular harvester may reach its target capacity, as indicated by block 340. The output may identify a harvester that the operator of the empty receiving vehicle is to drive to, as indicated by block 342. The output may identify a specific or best route 344, or the output may identify a wide variety of other information 346 as well.”),
based on the determined position of the nearby trailer, estimating a position of a second trailer relative to the agricultural harvester (para. [0069], “[r]oute generator 314 may consider the location of the other receiving vehicles in the field. For instance, the mobile app 306 on each receiving vehicle may communicate the current position of the corresponding receiving vehicle on which it resides to other receiving vehicles in the area so that mobile apps on those other receiving vehicles can determine whether a different receiving vehicle is closer or further away from a specific harvester in the field.”; (para. [0039], “[s]ensors 172 can include relative position sensors 174 that sense the relative position of the harvester, relative to the receiving vehicle. Such sensors can include RADAR sensors, Doppler sensors, image or other optical sensors, or a wide variety of other relative position sensors. The relative position sensors 174 can also include position sensors (such as a GPS receiver, or another GNSS sensor, or another position sensor) that senses the position of harvester 100. This can be used, in conjunction with another position sensor on the receiving vehicle, to determine the position of the two vehicles relative to one another.” Once the location at which the trailer will be filled is determined, the next closest trailer can be identified and dispatched to the harvester),
adjusting the crop transfer process in dependence of the estimated position of the second trailer relative to the agricultural harvester, in order to cease transferring crop between the agricultural harvester and the nearby trailer and to start transferring crop between the agricultural harvester and the second trailer (para. [0067], “[m]obile app 306 then processes the cart fill parameter to identify a particular harvester 100 to which the empty receiving vehicle should proceed, as indicated by block 326. In one example, mobile app 306 identifies the location closest to the empty receiving vehicle where a receiving vehicle being loaded by one of the harvesters will be filled to its target capacity, as indicated by block 328.”; para. [0069], “[r]oute generator 314 may consider the location of the other receiving vehicles in the field. For instance, the mobile app 306 on each receiving vehicle may communicate the current position of the corresponding receiving vehicle on which it resides to other receiving vehicles in the area so that mobile apps on those other receiving vehicles can determine whether a different receiving vehicle is closer or further away from a specific harvester in the field.” Para. [0070], “[m]obile app 306… generates an output on user interface mechanisms 308 to the operator of the receiving vehicle (e.g., to the operator of a towing vehicle), as indicated by block 338. The output may identify the time and/or location where the cart currently being filled by a particular harvester may reach its target capacity, as indicated by block 340. The output may identify a harvester that the operator of the empty receiving vehicle is to drive to, as indicated by block 342.” Based on the location of the harvester when the first trailer is filled, the closest empty trailer is identified and sent to the harvester to continue the work.).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Puryk et al., hereinafter “Puryk” (US 20210195840 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of German Patent Document to Bohne (DE 102014108947 A1) an English translation of which is provided herewith.
Regarding claim 4, Puryk discloses sensing airborne particulates with the sensing system. For example, Puryk at para. [0060] states “sensed lighting conditions, sensed airborne particulates such as dust or chaff, and/or degree of occlusion or blockage of a sensor (such as the degree of occlusion of a camera lens or the like) may serve as a basis for the controller automatically switching between use of the fill model and the perception system.” However Puryk may not disclose the limitations of claim 4. German Patent Document to Bohne (DE 102014108947 A1), which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to a processes of harvesting crops, teaches the deficient limitations.
For example, Bohne teaches processing the obtained image data to determine a crop cloud parameter (“crop loss (10)” determined from “cloud (8)” which is measured by “camera (2)”) of the transferred crop at the different points in time (Bohne, Abstract, “[i]n order to monitor loss crops (10) separated during movement of crop material (5), an image of one of the loss crops (10) is taken in the region of an aggregate with which the crop material (5) is moved with a camera (2) ) and the image of the cloud (8) is automatically evaluated with respect to the loss crop (10) in the image. An evaluation device (14) has an input (13) for the image of the camera (2) and a processor (15) with control logic for monitoring the loss crop (10).”),
based on the determined crop cloud parameter at the different points in time (para. [0016], “an increase in the size of the cloud between two points in time can be interpreted as an increase in the amount of lost crop material, which may indicate a need to change the operating parameters of the swather.”; para. [0017], “[t]he change in the characteristic parameter can be permanently output at the output device or made available on request or when a specific criterion is met. This can include, for example, the output of a percentage or absolute change over a predetermined period and/or a graphical representation, for example in the form of a trend chart.), estimating the crop cloud parameter at the further point in time (based on the generated trend of para. [0017], and the predetermined crop loss threshold of para. [0021], one would implicitly understand that unless the operations were adjusted the crop loss would continue near or above the predetermined crop loss threshold. Accordingly, the operation is modified as described below to circumnavigate the continued crop loss such that it is below the threshold. See para. [0021].), and
adjusting the crop transfer process in dependence of the estimated crop cloud parameter (para. [0015], “[i]n a further embodiment of the invention, one or at least one characteristic parameter can be output by an output device in order to inform the driver of the result of the evaluation, thereby enabling the driver to be warned in particular and/or to initiate suitable countermeasures to reduce crop loss, such as adjusting the operating parameters of the unit and/or the driving speed.”; para. [0021], “[f]or maximum efficiency, the driving speed and the PTO speed can be adjusted so that, for example, the amount of lost crop does not exceed a predetermined limit. If the limit is exceeded, the swather can be slowed down or the PTO speed reduced. Control or regulation is also possible, for example, for one direction of travel of the towing vehicle with the swather. For example, it can be chosen in such a way as to minimize the influence of the wind on the loss of the harvested crop.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the crop cloud analysis feature of Bohne to the method of Puryk. The feature of Bohne can be directly added, as performed by Bohne, into the method of Puryk such that the combination is performed by known methods. The combination would generate the predictable result of providing for a method of reducing crop loss by adjusting operational parameters to maintain the crop loss below a threshold. Moreover, one would be motivated to incorporate this feature where crop loss negatively impacts the efficiency of an operation (e.g., as implied in para. [0021] of Bohne).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Puryk et al., hereinafter “Puryk” (US 20210195840 A1) and German Patent Document to Bohne (DE 102014108947 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Published US Patent Application to Bonefas et al., hereinafter “Bonefas” (US 20170042089 A1).
With regards to claim 5, Puryk modified by Bohne teach taking the wind into consideration when performing a harvesting operation. For example, Bohne at para. [0021] states “[f]or maximum efficiency, the driving speed and the PTO speed can be adjusted so that, for example, the amount of lost crop does not exceed a predetermined limit…. Control or regulation is also possible, for example, for one direction of travel of the towing vehicle with the swather. For example, it can be chosen in such a way as to minimize the influence of the wind on the loss of the harvested crop.” Bohne at para. [0044] further states “For example, in process step 37 the driving speed of the swather 3 can be controlled and/or regulated… in process step 39 the orientation of the direction of travel 7 of the swather 3 relative to, for example, the wind.” Accordingly, Puryk modified by Bohne is aware that the wind impacts the operation and takes associated measures to mitigate negative impact. However, Puryk modified by Bohne may not disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Bonefas, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to transferring crop products from a harvester to a container, teaches the deficient limitations. For example, Bonefas teaches wherein estimating the crop cloud parameter at the further point in time comprises determining a wind speed and direction (para. [0123], “material projection module 411 calculates the landing point by using the crop material exit point and exit angle from the kinematic module 410 in addition to other parameters such as material initial velocity (preprogrammed or from a machine controller via CAN bus 86), crop type, crop moisture, mass flow, wind speed, wind direction, machine roll, and machine pitch. As shown in FIG. 11, these parameters are inputs to the material projection module 411. Depending on the extent to which these parameters affect the crop flight, the projection module 411 can make an assumption about the deceleration of the crop material from the exit point to the landing point.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the wind speed and wind direction used to determine a crop trajectory into the crop cloud analysis of Puryk as modified by Bohne. The wind speed and wind direction variables could be incorporated into the crop cloud analysis of Bohne by known methods as set forth in Bonefas where the inclusion would create the predictable result of further accounting for crop flight parameters between the harvester and trailer (e.g., the area in which the crop cloud is generated) with respect to the wind parameters.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Puryk et al., hereinafter “Puryk” (US 20210195840 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Published US Patent Application to O’Connor (US 20220410704 A1).
Puryk may not disclose the limitations of claim 9; however, O’Connor, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to a harvester (e.g., forage harvester) which unload material into a container (e.g., cart and/or haulage unit) teaches the deficient limitations.
For example, O’Connor teaches receiving a trailer swap signal (para. [0065], “Fill parameter output system 316 may generate an output simply indicating when the harvester 100 will fill its current receiving vehicle to the target capacity, where the harvester 100 will be when its current receiving vehicle is filled to the target capacity, how long it will be until the receiving vehicle is filled to the target capacity, or other things.”; para. [0070], “Mobile app 306 then provides the information to user interface control system 304 which generates an output on user interface mechanisms 308 to the operator of the receiving vehicle (e.g., to the operator of a towing vehicle), as indicated by block 338. The output may identify the time and/or location where the cart currently being filled by a particular harvester may reach its target capacity, as indicated by block 340. The output may identify a harvester that the operator of the empty receiving vehicle is to drive to, as indicated by block 342. The output may identify a specific or best route 344, or the output may identify a wide variety of other information 346 as well.”),
based on the determined status parameter and/or the estimated status parameter of the nearby trailer, estimating a position of a second trailer relative to the agricultural harvester (para. [0069], “[r]oute generator 314 may consider the location of the other receiving vehicles in the field. For instance, the mobile app 306 on each receiving vehicle may communicate the current position of the corresponding receiving vehicle on which it resides to other receiving vehicles in the area so that mobile apps on those other receiving vehicles can determine whether a different receiving vehicle is closer or further away from a specific harvester in the field.”; (para. [0039], “[s]ensors 172 can include relative position sensors 174 that sense the relative position of the harvester, relative to the receiving vehicle. Such sensors can include RADAR sensors, Doppler sensors, image or other optical sensors, or a wide variety of other relative position sensors. The relative position sensors 174 can also include position sensors (such as a GPS receiver, or another GNSS sensor, or another position sensor) that senses the position of harvester 100. This can be used, in conjunction with another position sensor on the receiving vehicle, to determine the position of the two vehicles relative to one another.” Once the location at which the trailer will be filled is determined, the next closest trailer can be identified and dispatched to the harvester), adjusting the crop transfer process in dependence of the estimated position of the second trailer relative to the agricultural harvester, in order to cease transferring crop between the agricultural harvester and the nearby trailer and to start transferring crop between the agricultural harvester and the second trailer (para. [0067], “[m]obile app 306 then processes the cart fill parameter to identify a particular harvester 100 to which the empty receiving vehicle should proceed, as indicated by block 326. In one example, mobile app 306 identifies the location closest to the empty receiving vehicle where a receiving vehicle being loaded by one of the harvesters will be filled to its target capacity, as indicated by block 328.”; para. [0069], “[r]oute generator 314 may consider the location of the other receiving vehicles in the field. For instance, the mobile app 306 on each receiving vehicle may communicate the current position of the corresponding receiving vehicle on which it resides to other receiving vehicles in the area so that mobile apps on those other receiving vehicles can determine whether a different receiving vehicle is closer or further away from a specific harvester in the field.” Para. [0070], “[m]obile app 306… generates an output on user interface mechanisms 308 to the operator of the receiving vehicle (e.g., to the operator of a towing vehicle), as indicated by block 338. The output may identify the time and/or location where the cart currently being filled by a particular harvester may reach its target capacity, as indicated by block 340. The output may identify a harvester that the operator of the empty receiving vehicle is to drive to, as indicated by block 342.” Based on the location of the harvester when the first trailer is filled, the closest empty trailer is identified and sent to the harvester to continue the work.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the trailer swap features of O’Connor to the method of Puryk. The combination would be performed by known methods where the feature as described by O’Connor is directly added to Puryk and where the feature performs the same in both O’Connor alone as in combination with Puryk. The combination would achieve the predictable result of providing for a method to swap the unloading process of Puryk from a first trailer to a second trailer.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Puryk et al., hereinafter “Puryk” (US 20210195840 A1) and Published US Patent Application to O’Connor (US 20220410704 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Published US Patent Application to Hanrieder (US 20220122197 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Puryk discusses situations where the sensors of the perception system may operate at a reduced functionality due to environmental factors. For example, para. [0060] of Puryk states “[i]n some implementations, the disclosed systems and methods may switch between use of the perception system and the fill model based upon a performance evaluation of the perception system. For example, sensed lighting conditions, sensed airborne particulates such as dust or chaff, and/or degree of occlusion or blockage of a sensor (such as the degree of occlusion of a camera lens or the like) may serve as a basis for the controller automatically switching between use of the fill model and the perception system.” While Puryk envisioned scenarios where the perception system may experience decreased functionality due to the sensors being blocked, Puryk modified by O’Connor do not disclose the exact scenario recited in claim 10. However, Published US Patent Application to Hanrieder depicts, and therefore teaches, a situation where a second trailer is partially obscured by a first trailer.
For example, FIG. 2 of Hanrieder depicts Harvesting Vehicle 24B-2, Transport Vehicle 26D-2 (e.g., a first trailer), and Transport Vehicle 26B-1 (e.g., a second trailer) where Harvesting Vehicle 24B-2 is unloading into Transport Vehicle 26D-2 while Transport Vehicle 26B-1 is navigating the perimeter of the field in a manner such that Transport Vehicle 26D-2 will, at some point in time, be located between Harvesting Vehicle 24B-2 and Transport Vehicle 26B-1 such that at least a portion of Transport Vehicle 26B-1 is blocked from the view of Harvester 24B-2. Moreover, while prior art is set forth which depicts an example situation in which the limitations of claim 10 would occur, it should be implicitly understood that anytime multiple, independent pieces of equipment are located with the same work environment, there will be at least one point in time where those pieces of equipment cross paths and block each other.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the specific sensor occlusion situation of Hanrieder among the non-exhaustive “blockage of a sensor” situations as set forth in Puryk where the situation depicted by Hanrieder would function the same in Hanrieder as in Puryk as modified by O’Connor to achieve the predictable result of equipment blocking the sensors of other equipment in accordance with the placement of the equipment in a shared work space.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to URSULA NORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7 AM to 4 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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/U.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights