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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 05/06/2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
[a controller configured with a function device and a solution device, wherein the function device] is configured, in chronologically successive steps, taking into account a location-dependent forecast for an expected crop stand density and a measured crop stand density in the harvesting machine to create a cost function and an associated optimization problem with the effect of optimizing a state of the harvesting machine and
[the solution device] is configured to provide respective chronologically successive first sequences of control variables relating to a pre-definition of the forward drive speed, which solve the respective optimization problem and minimize the associated cost function; and
wherein a parameter relating to an uncertainty of the expected crop stand density can be fed to [the function device], and
wherein [the function device] is configured to continuously create at least one chronologically first value of the control commands of a second sequence, which, while taking account of the expected crop stand density and of the parameter, is calculated in such a way that this uncertainty is taken into account, wherein the chronologically first value of the first and second sequences is identical.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Mathematical Concepts related to mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a function device/a processor). For example, taking into account a location-dependent forecast for an expected crop stand density and a measured crop stand density in the harvesting machine to create a cost function involve mathematical calculations. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Mathematical Concepts.
In addition, the claim could be seen as Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data.
Independent Claims 10 and 19 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract ideas identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to establishing the parameter by predefining, entering by operator or determining by sensor; Claim 3 is directed to determining the parameter by a sensor; Claim 4 is directed to a predefined weighting; Claim 5 is directed to incorporating the parameter relating to uncertainty; Claim 6 is continuously creating a chronologically first value; Claim 7 is directed to a subsequent parameter relating to uncertainty of an output value; Claim 8 is directed to creating a prediction model and Claim 9 is directed to state observer. Claims 11-18 and 22 are substantially similar to Claims 2-9 and encompass the same abstract ideas.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 10 and 19 recites the additional elements of a controller configured with a function device and a solution device and a valve control device. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer components (see Spec ¶0029, a processor).
For instance, the steps of generating a location dependent forecast for an expected crop stand density and a measured crop stand density to create a cost function and an associated optimization problem and generating chronologically successive first sequences of control variables that solve the respective optimization problem and minimize cost function involve analyzing data through mathematical operations. The step of influencing the forward drive speed of the harvesting machine by generating control commands of each first sequence with the parameter related to uncertainty of expected crop stand density is used to continuously create a first value of the control commands of a second sequence is calculated and where the chronologically first value of the first and second sequences is identical involves analyzing data through mathematical operations.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a function device/processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a function device/ processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a controller configured with a function device and a solution device and a valve control device are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
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 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Muench et al. (US 2018/0196441) .
Claim 1:
Meunch discloses:
A system for the automatic control of a forward drive speed of a harvesting machine comprising: (see at least ¶0015, a model based control of the propulsive speed of the harvesting machine)
a controller configured with a function device and a solution device, wherein the function device is configured, in chronologically successive steps, taking into account a location-dependent forecast for an expected crop stand density and a measured crop stand density in the harvesting machine to create a cost function (see at least ¶0041, calculates by means of sequence and throughputs associated with relative sites the time dependent prediction of the rate of harvested crop; see also ¶0016, cost function and optimization problem taking in consideration the throughput)
and an associated optimization problem with the effect of optimizing a state of the harvesting machine and the solution device is configured to provide respective chronologically successive first sequences of control variables relating to a pre-definition of the forward drive speed, which solve the respective optimization problem and minimize the associated cost function; and (see at least ¶0031-¶0037, calculating quantities for an optimization problem and associated cost function)
a valve control device configured to influence the forward drive speed of the harvesting machine by generating respective chronologically first control commands of each first sequence, (see at least ¶0037-¶0038, sequence of target quantities is successive sequence; see also ¶0016, solution of the optimization problem takes place in a time range to generate a timewise sequence of proposed commands)
wherein a parameter relating to an uncertainty of the expected crop stand density can be fed to the function device, and (see at least ¶0034-¶0036, machine modeling module takes into consideration biomass error; see also ¶0020, recognize possible deviations between expected rate of harvested crop and actual and use this to correct the cost function; see also ¶0022-¶0023)
wherein the function device is configured to continuously create at least one chronologically first value of the control commands of a second sequence, which,
while taking account of the expected crop stand density and of the parameter, is calculated in such a way that this uncertainty is taken into account, wherein the chronologically first value of the first and second sequences is identical. (see at least ¶0037-¶0038, sequence of target quantities is successive sequence; see also ¶0016, solution of the optimization problem takes place in a time range to generate a timewise sequence of proposed commands)
Claim 2:
Meunch discloses claim 1: Meunch further discloses:
wherein the parameter is established by at least one of fixedly predefining the parameter, entering the parameter by an operator via an operator interface and determining the parameter by one or more sensors. (see at least see at least ¶0033, operator interface for inputting data; see also ¶0029, various sensors; see also Abstract, throughput sensor)
Claim 3:
Meunch discloses claim 2. Meunch further discloses:
wherein the determination of the parameter by sensors is carried out by using a comparison between at least one of the expected and measured crop stand density, using a determined machine state and using a detection of ambient conditions. (see at least ¶0016, capturing crop stand density or throughput using sensors; see also ¶0019-¶0020, expected vs actual throughput crop harvested rate and state of machine; see also ¶0022-¶0023, deviations)
Claim 4:
Meunch discloses claim 3. Meunch further discloses:
wherein it is possible to predefine via an operator interface a weighting as to whether a safer operation using a speed control based on the second sequence or a faster operation based on the first sequence, is preferred, preferably with the possibility of entering intermediate values. (see at least ¶0015, weighting individual control quantities determines driving comfort; see also ¶0023)
Claim 5:
Meunch discloses claim 4. Meunch further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to incorporate the parameter relating to the uncertainty of the crop stand density into the first sequence via the first value of the second sequence after the optimization algorithm for creating the optimization problem and the cost function has been processed by the solution device while taking the uncertainty into account. (see at least ¶0034 and ¶0036, computing harvested crop rate and sends biomass error value; see also ¶0022-¶0023)
Claim 6:
Meunch discloses claim 5. Meunch further discloses:
wherein the function device is configured to continuously create at least one chronologically first value of the control command of a third sequence which, while taking the expected crop stand density and a subsequent parameter opposite to the initial parameter for the uncertainty into account, is calculated in such a way that this uncertainty is taken into account, wherein the chronologically first value of all three sequences is identical. (see at least ¶0037-0¶0038, the sequence of command quantifies is sent by the solving device to the sped setting device which converts the sequence of commences to absolute speeds and in each case only the first value of the sequence is sent to the control device)
Claim 7:
Meunch discloses claim 6. Meunch further discloses:
wherein the function device is configured using, instead of or in addition to the initial parameter relating to the uncertainty of the expected crop stand density, a subsequent parameter relating to the uncertainty of an output value of at least one of a state observer and a model adaptation function. (see at least ¶0031-¶0032, input value quantities that are dependent on the operating state of the harvesting machine thru data captured by sensors; see also ¶0034, disturbance monitor outputs an error value representing the difference between expected and observed sensor data; see also ¶0019)
Claim 8:
Meunch discloses claim 7. Meunch further discloses:
wherein the output values are fed to a forecasting model, which creates a prediction model for the function device for creating the optimization problem and the cost function. (see at least ¶0036, machine modeling module is supplied with quantities that are dependent on the relevant operation state of the harvesting machine)
Claim 9:
Meunch discloses claim 8. Meunch further discloses:
wherein the uncertainty of the output values of at least one of the state observer and the model adaptation function is based on the initial parameter which is fed to at least one of the state observer and the model adaptation function. see at least ¶0036, machine modeling module is supplied with quantities that are dependent on the relevant operating state of the harvesting machine)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Bischoff (US 2014/0215984) discloses a method for setting work parameters for a harvester comprises: (a) providing a map with characteristics of a field in an electronic control device of the harvester; (b) deriving at least one work parameter of the harvester in a harvesting operation with the control device, taking into consideration a characteristic of the field, deduced from the electronic map for a harvesting position; (c) adjusting an actuator of the harvester, with the aid of the derived work parameter with the control device, etc.
Muench et al. (US 10925211) discloses automatic control of an operating parameter of a crop transport or processing device of an agricultural harvesting machine, including a sensor to detect at least one property of the crop or a parameter affected by the property, determining successive control signals to control an actuator that affects the operating parameter of the crop transport or processing device, and an interface for input of corrective inputs for the operating parameter by an observer monitoring the operating result.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights