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 .
Claim Interpretation
As previously set forth in the Final Rejection of 10/21/2025, claim limitations of attachment structure in claims 2-4, 12, and 13 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, 16-20, and 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon et al. (US 2020/0390023; hereinafter referred to as 'Harmon')
Regarding claim 1, Harmon discloses a system for monitoring the installation status of shank attachment members of an agricultural implement, the system comprising:
a shank assembly including a shank (including or of 50) extending between a proximal end and a distal end opposite the proximal end, the proximal end of the shank being configured to be coupled to a portion (including or of 28) of the agricultural implement, the shank assembly further comprises a shank attachment member (including or at 45) configured to be coupled to the distal end of the shank;
a load sensor (including 66) provided in operative association with the shank assembly and being configured to generate data indicative of a magnitude and a direction of a load transmitted through the shank assembly (wherein the load applied and sensed has a directional component, i.e., is in a given direction, and thus data generated by 66 is indicative of the magnitude and direction of the load, in at least that non-zero values specify a magnitude and indicate a direction); and
a computing system (including 82) communicatively coupled to the load sensor, the computing system configured to determine an installation status of the shank assembly (including the shank attachment member) based on the data received from the load sensor,
wherein the computing system is configured to determine the installation status based at least in part on the magnitude and the direction of the load transmitted through the shank assembly (see paras. 0042 and 0048-0050, wherein the load applied and sensed has a directional component, i.e., is in a given direction, and thus determination is based at least in part on a direction of the load).
Harmon does not disclose the main embodiment of the system (comprising the structure set forth above) configured to determine an installation status of the shank attachment member relative to the shank, wherein the installation status is indicative of a presence of the shank attachment member on the shank. However, Harmon teaches another embodiment configured to determine an installation status of the shank attachment member relative to the shank based on the data received from the load sensor, wherein the installation status is indicative of point loss (see para. 0043). “Point loss” (as recited in Harmon) is considered to be indicative of a presence of the shank attachment member on the shank. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the main embodiment of Harmon with the installation status as taught by the other embodiment in order to prevent damage to the shank assembly.
Regarding claim 2, Harmon discloses the shank assembly further comprising attachment structure (including 56) coupling the proximal end of the shank to the portion of the agricultural implement, and the load sensor (including 66) being provided at a connection point (at 60) between the shank and the attachment structure.
Regarding claim 3, Harmon discloses the shank being coupled to the attachment structure at a pivot point (60), the load sensor (including 66) being provided at the pivot point to generate data indicative of the load being transmitted through the shank assembly at the pivot point.
Regarding claim 4, Harmon discloses the load sensor (including 66) comprising one of a load pin or a strain gauge installed at the pivot point (see para. 0035).
Regarding claim 7, Harmon discloses the shank assembly being movable between a raised position at which the shank attachment member is configured to be located above a surface of the ground (as shown by dashed lines in Fig. 3, or raised as set forth in paras. 0046 and 0051) and a lowered position at which the shank attachment member is configured to be located below the surface of the ground, and the computing system being configured to determine the installation status of the shank attachment member when the shank assembly is at the lowered position based on load variations in the load transmitted through the shank assembly (as the installation status is actively determined, particularly when operating at depth).
Regarding claim 8, Harmon discloses a user interface (including 102) in communication with the computing system, the computing system being configured to indicate the installation status of the shank attachment member to an operator of the agricultural implement via the user interface (see paras. 0044-0045 and 0051).
Regarding claim 9, Harmon discloses the computing system (including 82) being configured to adjust an operation of the agricultural implement based at least in part on the installation status of the shank attachment member (see paras. 0046 and 0051).
Regarding claim 10, Harmon discloses the shank attachment member (including or at 45) comprising a shank point (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Harmon discloses an agricultural implement, comprising:
a frame (including or of 28);
a plurality of shank assemblies supported relative to the frame (see Fig. 2), each of the plurality of shank assemblies comprising:
a shank (including or of 50) extending between a proximal end and a distal end opposite the proximal end, the proximal end of the shank being configured to be coupled to the frame; and
a shank attachment member (including or at 45) configured to be coupled to the distal end of the shank;
a load sensor (including 66) provided in operative association with a respective shank assembly of the plurality of shank assemblies and being configured to generate data indicative of a magnitude and a direction of a load transmitted through the respective shank assembly (wherein the load applied and sensed has a directional component, i.e., is in a given direction, and thus data generated by 66 is indicative of the magnitude and direction of the load, in at least that non-zero values specify a magnitude and indicate a direction); and
a computing system (including 82) communicatively coupled to the load sensor; the computing system configured to determine an installation status of the respective shank assembly (including the shank attachment member of the respective shank assembly) based on the data received from the load sensor,
wherein the computing system is configured to determine the installation status based at least in part on the magnitude and the direction of the load transmitted through the shank assembly (see paras. 0042 and 0048-0050, wherein the load applied and sensed has a directional component, i.e., is in a given direction, and thus determination is based at least in part on a direction of the load).
Harmon does not disclose the main embodiment of the system (comprising the structure set forth above) wherein the installation status is indicative of a presence of the shank attachment member on the respective shank assembly. However, Harmon teaches another embodiment configured to determine an installation status of a shank attachment member based on the data received from the load sensor, wherein the installation status is indicative of point loss (see para. 0043). “Point loss” (as recited in Harmon) is considered to be indicative of a presence of the shank attachment member on the respective shank assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the main embodiment of Harmon with the installation status as taught by the other embodiment in order to prevent damage to the shank assembly.
Regarding claim 12, Harmon discloses the respective shank assembly further comprising attachment structure (including 56) coupling the proximal end of the shank to the frame, the load sensor being provided at a connection point (at 60) between the shank and the attachment structure.
Regarding claim 13, Harmon discloses the shank (including or of 50) being coupled to the attachment structure at a pivot point (at 60), the load sensor being provided at the pivot point to generate data indicative of the load being transmitted through the respective shank assembly at the pivot point.
Regarding claim 16, Harmon discloses a user interface (including 102) in communication with the computing system, the computing system being configured to indicate the installation status of the shank attachment member to an operator of the agricultural implement via the user interface (see paras. 0044-0045 and 0051).
Regarding claim 17, Harmon discloses the computing system (including 82) being configured to adjust an operation of the agricultural implement based at least in part on the installation status of the shank attachment member (see paras. 0046 and 0051).
Regarding claim 18, Harmon discloses a method for monitoring an installation status of a shank assembly of an agricultural implement, the agricultural implement comprising a shank assembly including a shank (including or of 50) and a shank attachment member (including or at 45), the shank extending between a proximal end and a distal end opposite the proximal end, the proximal end of the shank being configured to be coupled (via 56) to a frame (including or of 28) of the agricultural implement, the shank attachment member configured to be coupled to the distal end of the shank (see Fig. 3), the method comprising:
receiving (as in step 202, from 66), with a computing system (including 82), data indicative of a magnitude and a load being transmitted through the shank assembly (wherein the load applied and sensed has a directional component, i.e., is in a given direction, and thus data received from 66 is indicative of the magnitude and direction of the load, in at least that non-zero values specify a magnitude and indicate a direction);
determining (as in step 206), with the computing system, when a change in the installation status of the shank assembly occurs based at least in part on the magnitude and the direction of the load transmitted through the shank assembly (see paras. 0042 and 0048-0050, wherein the load applied and sensed has a directional component, i.e., is in a given direction, and thus determination is based at least in part on a direction of the load); and
initiating, with the computing system, a control action when it is determined that a change in the installation status of the shank assembly has occurred (see paras. 0044-0046 and 0051).
Harmon does not disclose the main teaching of the method (comprising that set forth above) wherein the installation status is indicative of a presence of the shank attachment member on the shank. However, Harmon teaches another embodiment configured to determine an installation status of a shank attachment member based on the data received from the load sensor, wherein the installation status is indicative of point loss (see para. 0043). “Point loss” (as recited in Harmon) is considered to be indicative of a presence of the shank attachment member on the respective shank assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Harmon with the installation status as taught by the other embodiment in order to prevent damage to the shank assembly.
Regarding claim 19, Harmon discloses the method, wherein initiating the control action comprises indicating the change in the installation status to an operator of the agricultural implement (see paras. 0044-0045 and 0051).
Regarding claim 20, Harmon discloses the method, wherein initiating the control action comprises adjusting an operation of the agricultural implement when it is determined that a change in the installation status has occurred (see paras. 0046 and 0051).
Regarding claims 25 and 28, Harmon teaches the system of claim 1 and the agricultural implement of claim 11, as set forth above, wherein the computing system (including 82) is configured to determine the installation status of the shank attachment member based on a change in the magnitude of the load transmitted through the shank assembly in a given direction (see paras. 0042-0043 and 0048-0050, wherein the load applied and sensed is in a given direction).
Regarding claims 26 and 29, Harmon teaches the system of claim 1 and the agricultural implement of claim 11, as set forth above, wherein the computing system (including 82) is configured to determine the installation status of the shank attachment member (as set forth above) when the load detected by the load sensor (including 66) drops below the load threshold (see para. 0042). A change in the direction of the load being transmitted through the shank assembly results in the load detected being very low (i.e., approaching, at, and/or below zero) and below the load threshold. Thus, the computing system (including 82) of Harmon is configured to determine the installation status of the shank attachment member "based on" a change in the direction of the load being transmitted through the shank assembly.
Regarding claim 27, Harmon teaches the computing system (including 82) configured to determine the installation status of the shank attachment member through the comparison of a sensed load to a threshold (as set forth above), wherein the sensed load having a vertically downwardly oriented component exceeding the threshold indicates presence and an operable working condition, while the sensed load dropping below the threshold during a change to the load having a vertically upwardly oriented component (as experienced during breakage or while broken) indicates a change in presence or absence (see para. 0050). Thus, Harmon is configured to determine the installation status of the shank attachment member "based on" the change as claimed.
Regarding claim 30, Harmon teaches the method of claim 18, as set forth above, wherein determining when a change in the installation status of the shank attachment member occurs based at least in part on a direction of the load transmitted through the shank assembly comprises determining when a change in the installation status of the shank attachment member occurs based on a change in the magnitude of the load transmitted through the shank assembly in a given direction (see paras. 0042-0043 and 0048-0050, wherein the load applied and sensed is in a given direction).
Regarding claim 31, Harmon teaches the method of claim 18, as set forth above, including determining (as in step 206) a change in the installation status of the shank attachment member occurs when the load detected by the load sensor (including 66) falls below the load threshold (see paras. 0042 and 0050). Since a change in the direction of the load being transmitted through the shank assembly results in the load detected being very low (i.e., approaching, at, and/or below zero) and below the load threshold, the method of Harmon is configured to determine when a change in the installation status of the shank attachment member occurs "based on" a change in the direction of the load as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-24 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: "Applicant respectfully submits that Harmon does not disclose or render obvious the above-described recitations. As stated in the previous response, Harmon does not describe or suggest the determination of the installation status of a shank attachment member based at least in part on a direction of the load." (See Remarks of 12/10/2025, labeled p. 9.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because, as previously recited in the Final Rejection of 10/21/2025, Harmon discloses the comparison of a load applied through a pivot member to a load threshold, and a non-zero load applied through the pivot member (e.g., a load above the threshold) has a direction. As such, Harmon teaches a computing system configured to determine the installation status of a shank attachment assembly by detecting a reduction in the magnitude of the load in a specific direction (that of the load applied). Thus, Harmon is configured to provide a determination of "the installation status of the shank attachment member based at least in part on a direction of the load" as argued as the load applied through the pivot member is transmitted through the shank assembly and has a directional component of consequence. Further, Harmon discloses a threshold at substantially zero in para. 0042 (and in doing so, at least suggests or implies a load at zero) and discloses detection of the load applied below the threshold. A load applied at or below zero has a different directional component than that above zero.
Applicant continues: "The most recent office action cited paragraphs [0042] and [0048]-[0050] of Harmon which teach how to determine when a shear pin has failed based on a load falling below a threshold. The threshold in Harmon is selected 'to correspond to a load indicative of a low-load condition.' See Harmon, paras. [0042] and [0049] (emphasis added). In one embodiment, the threshold corresponds to a load equal to or less than 25% of an expected load. In another embodiment, the threshold corresponds to a substantially zero load plus a given tolerance. Neither described embodiment suggests using a direction of the load to determine whether the shear pin has broken. Considering Harmon's emphasis on monitoring when a load falls below a threshold, thereby indicating a low-load condition, Harmon arguably only monitors the overall magnitude of the load. While it was noted in paragraph 40 of the Office Action that 'a load applied at or below zero has a different directional component than that above zero,' the Harmon disclosure does not mention detecting when a load reaches zero or falls below zero. Harmon only teaches selecting a threshold corresponding to a 'substantially zero load' which is 'a zero load plus a given tolerance.' See Harmon, paras. [0042] and [0049] (emphasis added). In other words, that given tolerance is not exactly at zero or in the negative, giving no indication of a change in direction." (See Remarks of 12/10/2025, labeled pp. 8-9.)
First and foremost, Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because regardless of whether Harmon teaches detecting when a load at zero, detecting different directions or a change in direction is not claimed. Second, Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because one skilled in the art would recognize a "substantially zero load" to include a load of zero. In para. 0042, Harmon recites: "In this regard, the term 'substantially zero load' may correspond to a zero load plus a given tolerance that takes into account any minimal loads that may be transmitted through the pivot member(s) 62, 65, 67, 69 following failure of the shear pin 58." (Emphasis added.) And in para. 0049, Harmon recites: "In a further embodiment, the predetermined load threshold may be selected to correspond to a substantially zero load (e.g., a zero load plus a given tolerance that takes into account any minimal loads that may be transmitted through the pivot member(s) 62, 65, 67, 69 following a failure of the shear pin 58)." (Emphasis added.) That a "substantially zero load" may correspond to a zero load plus a given tolerance, or that a zero load plus a given tolerance is an example of a "substantially zero load" indicates the term having a broader scope, which one skilled in the art would recognize to include a load at zero (since the term itself includes "substantially zero"). Additionally, it is noted that "zero load" conditions are generally known within the art to be zero OR a nominal value, as taught by Schoeny et al. (US 2021/0003470; see para. 0061).
Applicant argues: "Additionally, to the extent that a load inherently has a directional quality, Harmon does not indicate that the load sensors are capable of measuring a direction of a load. This distinction of the pending application's load sensor detecting both a magnitude and a direction of a load allows for the computing system to determine the installation status of the shank attachment member based on the magnitude and the direction of the load. Harmon, on the other hand, does not determine shear pin failure or point loss based on the direction of the load because there is no indication that the direction of the load is even sensed at all. That is, an undetected direction of a load cannot be a factor in shear pin failure or point loss. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the presently submitted independent claims patentably define over the cited prior art." (See Remarks of 12/10/2025, labeled p. 9.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because a load sensor "measuring a direction of a load" or "detecting both a magnitude and a direction of a load" is not claimed. The claims themselves do not indicate "that the direction of the load is even sensed at all." Rather, claims 1, and 11 much more broadly recite "a load sensor ... being configured to generate data indicative of a magnitude and a direction of a load" transmitted through a shank assembly. Similarly, claim 18 recites "receiving, with a computing system, data indicative of a magnitude and a direction of a load being transmitted through the shank assembly;" in lines 7-8. The broader recitations of the claims are considered to be taught by Harmon as indicated in the rejection above.
As similarly stated in the Final Rejection of 10/21/2025, Examiner notes that the claim language discussed above (and interpretation thereof) is broader than what is disclosed in the instant specification. However, the claims do not provide the same level of detail regarding the sensing (or measuring or detecting) of a direction of a load. Furthermore, a reading of the specification provides no evidence to indicate that these limitations must be importing into the claims to give meaning to the disputed terms. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064. As such, to require specific details for using the direction to determine installation status not positively recited in the claim would require improperly imparting limitations from the specification into the claims, in direct contradiction of paras. 0015 and 0052 in the instant specification.
Regarding dependent claims, Applicant argues: "For example, dependent claims 26, 29, and 31 directed to determining the installation status of the shank attachment member based on a change in the direction of the load are not taught in the prior art. Dependent claim 27 which claims that the computing system determines the installation status of the shank attachment member based on the sensed load having a vertically downwardly oriented component or a vertically upwardly oriented component is also not taught in the prior art. As stated above, Harmon does not teach sensing a load at or below zero and does not otherwise indicate that the load sensor is capable of detecting a direction of the load. Without detecting a direction of the load, a change in the direction cannot be determined." (See Remarks of 12/10/2025, labeled pp. 9-10.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because the computing system of Harmon is configured to determine the installation status of the shank attachment member "based on" a change in direction of the load as claimed, when experiencing such a change in direction, as explained in the rejection above. Although Harmon does not explicitly recite a load being at or below zero, Harmon teaches determining the installation status when the load detected by the sensor (including 66) drops below the load threshold (see para. 0042), and "below" is not limited to positive values. Further, "detecting a direction of the load" and determining "a change in the direction" are not claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Tiede et al. (US 6,041,582) teaches load sensors for sensing both magnitude and direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/JFM/3/23/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671