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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4, “is configure evaluate” should be “is configured to evaluate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 7-10, 12, 20-24, 30, 40 and 42-44 of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,217. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nykamp et al. (2017/0055446).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16, the Nykamp et al. reference discloses an automated grain filling system (see Figures) for directing the operation of a grain transfer element with a movable spout (89, 189) to transfer grain from a supplying container (91) to a receiving container (85), the automated grain filling system comprising: one or more sensors (10, 12; see para. [0048]) configured to detect at least a portion of a tarp bow of the receiving container (sensors 10, 12 are imaging devices that collect imaging data of the container, which would include any object (i.e., tarp bow or partition)); and a processor (18) configured to direct the operation of the grain transfer element and control the movement of the movable spout to direct the grain into the receiving container based at least in part on the detected portion of the tarp bow (would inherently be included as part of imaging data).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the Nykamp et al. reference further discloses wherein the one or more sensors (10, 12) are configured to detect at least a portion of at least one of a left upper perimeter edge of the receiving container or a right upper perimeter edge (81; Fig. 4A) of the receiving container (85), and wherein the processor (18) is configured to distinguish the detected portion of the tarp bow (sensors 10, 12 are imaging devices that collect imaging data of the container, which would include any object (i.e., tarp bow or partition) from at least one of the detected portion of the left upper perimeter edge or the detected portion of the right upper perimeter edge, and direct the operation of the grain transfer element and control the movement of the movable spout to direct the grain into the receiving container based at least in part on at least one of the detected portion of the left upper perimeter edge or the detected portion of the right upper perimeter edge. See first to twelfth techniques in paragraphs [0115 – 0129].
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the Nykamp et al. reference further discloses wherein the one or more sensors (10, 12) are configured to detect at least a portion of a near upper perimeter edge (para. [0011]) of the receiving container (85) and at least a portion of a far upper perimeter edge (81; Fig. 4A) of the receiving container (included in boundary of edges of container), wherein the processor (18) is configured to determine a location of a longitudinal centerline (504) of the receiving container based at least in part on the detected portion of the near upper perimeter edge and the detected portion of the far upper perimeter edge (see Figure 11), and wherein the processor is configured to direct the operation of the grain transfer element and control the movement of the movable spout to direct the grain generally along the longitudinal centerline of the receiving container (see para. [0120]).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the Nykamp et al. reference further discloses wherein the one or more sensors (10, 12) are configured to detect at least a portion of an upper surface of a grain mound in the receiving container (85), and wherein the processor (18) is configured to direct the operation of the grain transfer element and control the movement of the movable spout (89, 189) to direct the grain into the receiving container based at least in part on the detected portion of the upper surface (see para. [0030], [0066]).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the Nykamp et al. reference further discloses wherein the automated grain filling system further comprises a spout position sensor (alignment module 24) configured to detect at least one of a position or orientation of the movable spout, and wherein at least one of the directed operation of the grain transfer element or the controlled movement of the movable spout is based at least in part on at least one of the detected position or the detected orientation of the movable spout (see para. [0046]).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the Nykamp et al. reference further discloses wherein the movable spout (89, 189) comprises a spout articulation mechanism (16, 116) configured to at least one of position or orient the movable spout, and wherein the processor is configured to direct the operation of the spout articulation mechanism (see para. [0051]).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, the Nykamp et al. reference further discloses wherein the one or more sensors (10, 12 are configured to detect at least a portion of an upper perimeter (para. [0011]) of the receiving container (85), and wherein the processor (18) is configured evaluate the position of the grain transfer element relative to the detected portion of the upper perimeter of the receiving container and to prevent discharge of grain via the grain transfer element if the processor determines that the discharged grain would not be discharged into the receiving container. Material is not fed unless the spout is in the target fill zone.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, the Nykamp et al. reference further discloses wherein directing the operation of the grain transfer element further comprises providing a signal to move at least one of the supplying container or the receiving container (85) to position the grain transfer element relative to the receiving container. See first to twelfth techniques in paragraphs [0115 – 0129].
Regarding claim 15, see Nykamp et al. paragraph [0056].
Regarding claim 17, see Nykamp et al. paragraph [0120 - 0121].
Regarding claim 18, the method would be inherent during normal use and operation of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
