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 .
This is a non-final rejection in response to Applicant’s amendment of 18 June 2026. Claims 1-2, 4-17 and 20-23 are currently pending, as discussed below. Claims 3, 18 and 19 are canceled.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Amendments and arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-2, 4-14 and 21-23 is persuasive and rejection has been withdrawn.
Amendments and arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-14 and 21-23 is moot in view of amendments. Examiner reformulates 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-14 and 21-23 in view of amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Height adjustment logic in claims 1 and 20
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for logic:
"It will be noted that the above discussion has described a variety of different systems, components and/or logic. It will be appreciated that such systems, components and/or logic can be comprised of hardware items (such as processors and associated memory, or other processing components, some of which are described below) that perform the functions associated with those systems, components and/or logic. In addition, the systems, components and/or logic can be comprised of software that is loaded into a memory and is subsequently executed by a processor or server, or other computing component, as described below. The systems, components and/or logic can also be comprised of different combinations of hardware, software, firmware, etc., some examples of which are described below. These are only some examples of different structures that can be used to form the systems, components and/or logic described above. Other structures can be used as well.", [¶ 80]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.\
Claims 1-2, 21, 22, and 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200337200 A1) in view of Rozendaal; Dennis L. et al. (US 6076611 A) and Sporrer et al. (US20210227742A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Smith teaches, an agricultural planter (Fig. 1 depicts an agricultural implement 10 which may be configured as a planter, see at least, ¶19, Smith), comprising: a frame; a set of frame support elements supporting the frame (Fig. 1 depicts an frame 32 and plurality of wheels 36 supporting the frame, ¶23, Smith); a rockshaft pivotally coupled to the frame (Fig. 2 depicts a rockshaft 46 movable relative to the toolbar 40, ¶25, Smith); a plurality of row units operably coupled to the rockshaft and movable relative to the set of frame support elements to change a depth of engagement of the plurality of row units with the ground over which the agricultural planter travels (Fig. 2 depicts a plurality of row units 42 is ganged together with the toolbar 40 and rockshaft 46 and actuator 102 rotates the rockshaft 46 relative to the toolbar 40 which adjusts the down pressure applied to the row units 42 disc openers 44, see at least ¶ 25, Smith), wherein each row unit, of the plurality of row units, comprises: a row unit linkage that movably couples the row unit to the rockshaft (Fig. 2 depicts each row unit has a frame member or backbone 50 which is adjustably coupled to the toolbar 40 and rockshaft 46 by upper and lower links 52, 54 ,see at least ¶ 26, Smith); one or more openers (disc openers 44 ,see at least ¶ 25, Smith), and a row unit downforce actuator configured to apply a downforce on the row unit (Fig. 2 depicts row unit actuators 108, see at least ¶ 27, Smith); a rockshaft actuator configured to drive movement of the rockshaft and the plurality of row units relative to the frame (Fig. 2 depicts the actuator 102 that controls the movement of the rockshaft 46 and rotate the rockshaft 46 relative to the toolbar which may adjust the down pressure applied to the disk openers 44 of the various row units 42, see at least ¶ 25, Smith); and ground engaging element height adjustment logic configured to: determine an adjustment to the rockshaft actuator and control the rockshaft actuator to control height of the plurality of row units relative to ground based on the determined adjustment to the rockshaft actuator (controller 116 may be configured to initiate instructions to the rockshaft actuator 102 and/or the row unit actuators 108 to adjust the down pressure applied to the penetration depths of the associated disk openers 44, see at least ¶ 44, Smith).
Smith does not explicitly teach a rockshaft position detector configured to detect a position of the rockshaft; a ground sensor operably coupled to the agricultural planter and configured to provide a ground distance signal indicative of a distance from the ground sensor to the ground at a position ahead of the plurality of row units relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural planter; and ground engaging element height adjustment logic configured to: determine an adjustment to the rockshaft actuator based on: the detected position of the rockshaft relative to frame and the ground distance signal indicative of a distance from the ground sensor to the ground at a position ahead of the plurality of row units;
Rozendaal, directed to a depth control system for controlling the working depth of an implement teaches a rockshaft position detector configured to detect a position of the rockshaft and ground engaging element height adjustment logic configured to: determine an adjustment to the rockshaft actuator based on: the detected position of the rockshaft relative to frame the desired working depth (Claim 1 depicts: a monitor for receiving an input signal corresponding to the rotational position of a rockshaft on an implement, and for providing an output signal for positioning a frame supporting wheel at a predetermined position relative to an implement frame where the actual position of the tools 12, 14 is determined by the rotational position of the rockshaft 22 and sensed by the position sensor 34. The position of the rockshaft 22 is preset by the position selected by the knob 80, see at least, ¶Col 4, line 64-67 – Col 5 line 1-15, and Claim 1, Rozendaal).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith to include the teachings of Rozendaal which teaches a rockshaft position detector configured to detect a position of the rockshaft and ground engaging element height adjustment logic configured to: determine an adjustment to the rockshaft actuator based on: the detected position of the rockshaft relative to frame the desired working depth since they are both related to agricultural planters and incorporation of the teachings of Rozendaal would accurately set the desired working depth of the tools.
Sporrer, directed to sensing and controlling the height of a portion of a machine relative to the ground teaches, a ground sensor operably coupled to the agricultural planter and configured to provide a ground distance signal indicative of a distance from the ground sensor to the ground at a position ahead of the plurality of row units relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural planter; and ground engaging element height adjustment logic configured to: determine an adjustment to the actuator based on: the detected position of the subframe relative to frame and the ground distance signal indicative of a distance from the ground sensor to the ground at a position ahead of the plurality of row units (Fig. 1A depicts sensor 106 generates a sensor signal indicative of a distance from sensor 106 to the level indicating surface 134 (in contact with the ground) and sends the sensor signal to the height determination system 136 which determines the height of the frame relative to the ground surface and determines operating depth of the ground-engaging tools/disks which it knows based on the relative position of the tools to the frame. Additional sensor 125 senses the offset of subframe 110 relative to main frame 120 and is used to determine operating depth of the tools and send a control signal to actuator 124 to automatically adjust the operating depth of the ground-engaging tools, see at least ¶ 37, Sporrer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith and Rozendaal to include the teachings of Sporrer to control the rockshaft actuator using the height determination system of Sporrer to communicate the operating depth and send a control signal to the rockshaft actuator to automatically adjust the operating depth of the row units. Doing so would automatically adjust the operating depth of the ground-engaging tools if they are outside of the threshold, without further operator involvement (¶ 37, Sporrer)
Regarding Claim 2, Smith in view of Rozendaal and Sporrer teaches, the agricultural planter of claim 1, wherein the one or more openers comprise a plurality of opener discs (the plurality of row units may be discs, see at least, ¶54, Smith).
Regarding Claim 21, Smith, Rozendaal, Sporrer teaches, the agricultural planter of claim 1.
Rozendaal, directed to A depth control system for controlling the working depth of an implement further teaches wherein the position of the rockshaft comprises an angular position of the rockshaft relative to the frame (a position sensor mounted to the frame of the implement senses the rotational position (angular position) of the rock shaft relative to the frame since the sensor is mounted to the frame, see at least, ¶Col 2 Line 14-16, Rozendaal).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith, Rozendaal, Sporrer to incorporate the teachings of Rozendaal which wherein the position of the rockshaft comprises an angular position of the rockshaft relative to the frame since they are both related to depth control of agricultural implements and incorporation of the teachings of Rozendaal would increase the accuracy of setting the desired working depth.
Regarding Claim 22, Smith, Rozendaal, Sporrer teaches, the agricultural planter of claim 21.
Rozendaal, directed to a depth control system for controlling the working depth of an implement further teaches, wherein rockshaft includes a structural portion having a first end coupled to the frame and a second end coupled to the plurality of row units, wherein the structural portion extends in a rearward direction, relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural planter, and the angular position comprises the angular position of the structural portion, that extends in the rearward direction, relative to the frame (Fig .1, 2, 3 and 4 depict position sensor 34 is used to detect the rotational position of the rock shaft 22 which extends in a rearward direction, see at least, ¶Col 3 Line 32-67 – Col 4 Line 12-41, Rozendaal).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith, Rozendaal, Sporrer to incorporate the teachings of Rozendaal which wherein rockshaft includes a structural portion having a first end coupled to the frame and a second end coupled to the plurality of row units, wherein the structural portion extends in a rearward direction, relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural planter, and the angular position comprises the angular position of the structural portion, that extends in the rearward direction, relative to the frame since they are both related to depth control of agricultural implements and incorporation of the teachings of Rozendaal would increase the accuracy of setting the desired working depth.
Regarding Claim 23, Smith, Rozendaal, Sporrer teaches, the agricultural planter of claim 22.
Rozendaal, directed to a depth control system for controlling the working depth of an implement further teaches, wherein the structural portion of the rockshaft is configured to rotate about a rotation axis that is perpendicular to the direction of travel (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 depict rock shaft 22 for rotational movement about an axis perpendicular to the direction of travel, see at least, ¶Col 3 line 20 - 31, Rozendaal).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith, Rozendaal, Sporrer to incorporate the teachings of Rozendaal which teaches wherein the structural portion of the rockshaft is configured to rotate about a rotation axis that is perpendicular to the direction of travel since they are both related to depth control of agricultural implements and incorporation of the teachings of Rozendaal would increase the accuracy of setting the desired working depth.
Claims 4, and 9-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200337200 A1) in view of Rozendaal; Dennis L. et al. (US 6076611 A) and Sporrer et al. (US20210227742A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 21, 22 and 23 and further in view of Achen et al. (US 20150264857 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Smith in view of Rozendaal and Sporrer teaches, the agricultural planter of claim 1.
Smith in view of Rozendaal and Sporrer does not explicitly teach wherein the ground sensor is operably mounted to the rockshaft.
Achen, directed to an agricultural planter further teaches wherein the ground sensor is operably mounted to the rockshaft (Fig. 6 and 7 depict ground sensors 62 operably connected to the linkage 42 and the sensor could be placed on or at a toolbar to which the row unit is attached, see at least ¶ 65, Achen).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith, Rozendaal and Sporrer to include the teachings of Achen to attach the ground sensor of Achen to the rockshaft of Smith which is operably attached to the row units since they are both related to height adjustment logic for agricultural planters and incorporation of the teachings of Achen would help the planter maintain uniform furrow depth.
Regarding Claim 9, Smith, Rozendaal and Sporrer teaches, The agricultural planter of claim 1.
Smith, Rozendaal and Sporrer does not explicitly teach wherein the ground sensor comprises an indirect sensor configured to indirectly measure the distance from the ground sensor to the ground, wherein the adjustment to the rockshaft actuator is determined based on the indirect sensor.
Achen, directed to an agricultural planter teaches, wherein the ground sensor comprises an indirect sensor configured to indirectly measure the distance from the ground sensor to the ground, wherein the adjustment to the rockshaft actuator is determined based on the indirect sensor (the sensors on the gauge wheels measure the ground indirectly through pressure and the measurement is utilized by the linear actuator 49 to provide sufficient amount of downforce pressure to the row unit, see at least [¶59, Fig. 2, Achen]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith, Rozendaal, Sporrer and Achen to incorporate the teachings of Achen to use the indirect sensor of Achen to adjust the rockshaft actuator of Smith since it is intended for height control of agricultural implements and incorporation of the teachings of Achen would increase the utility of the overall system by adapting to the softening of the ground and by apply less force to adapting to the pressure of the soil.
Regarding Claim 10, Smith, Rozendaal, Sporrer and Achen teaches, The agricultural planter of claim 4.
Smith teaches adjustment to the rockshaft actuator is determined based on the sensor signal indicative of the downforce applied by the row unit downforce actuator (adjustment of the down pressure applied to the penetration depths of one or more disks by controlling the rockshaft actuator 102 and/or the row unit actuators 108, instructing the actuators 102 and 108 to adjust the down pressure applied to the disk openers, see at least [¶44, Smith]).
Achen, directed to an agricultural planter teaches, wherein the ground sensor includes a pressure sensor configured to generate a sensor signal indicative of a downforce applied by the row unit downforce actuator (linear actuator 98 is the row unit downforce actuator in combination with the springs 61 and pressure sensors on the gauge wheels maintains a down force pressure on the row unit to maintain the depth of the trench, see at least [¶64, 85, Achen]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith, Rozendaal, Sporrer and Achen to incorporate the teachings of Achen which teaches wherein the ground sensor includes a pressure sensor configured to generate a sensor signal indicative of a downforce applied by the row unit downforce actuator since they are both related to agricultural planters and Smith would need to read the pressure is on the row unit in order to adjust the pressure applied by the actuators. Incorporation of the teachings of Achen would increase the utility of the overall system by adapting each row unit to respond to the softening of the ground and apply less force by adapting to the pressure detected to plant at the desired depth of the soil.
Claims 15 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200337200 A1) in view of Sporrer et al. (US20210227742A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Smith teaches, a method of providing predictive implement height control for a planter having a set of ground row units movably mounted to a rockshaft and movable to change a depth of engagement of the ground row units with the ground over which the planter travels (Fig. 2 depicts a plurality of row units 42 is ganged together with the toolbar 40 and rockshaft 46 and actuator 102 rotates the rockshaft 46 relative to the toolbar 40 which adjusts the down pressure applied to the row units 42 disc openers 44, see at least ¶ 25, Smith), each ground row unit having a row unit linkage that movably couples the ground row unit to the rockshaft (Fig. 2 depicts each row unit has a frame member or backbone 50 which is adjustably coupled to the toolbar 40 and rockshaft 46 by upper and lower links 52, 54 ,see at least ¶ 26, Smith), one or more openers (disc openers 44, see at least ¶ 25, Smith), and a row unit downforce actuator (Fig. 2 depicts row unit actuators 108, see at least ¶ 27, Smith), the method comprising: controlling a rockshaft cylinder to actuate the rockshaft based on the row unit height adjustment (controller 116 may be configured to initiate instructions to the rockshaft actuator 102 and/or the row unit actuators 108 to adjust the down pressure applied to the penetration depths of the associated disk openers 44, see at least ¶ 44, Smith).
Smith does not explicitly teach obtaining at least one ground-based measurement using a ground sensor located at a position in front of at least one ground row unit of the set of ground row units; calculating a row unit height adjustment based on the at least one ground-based measurement.
Sporrer, directed to sensing and controlling the height of a portion of a machine relative to the ground teaches, obtaining at least one ground-based measurement using a ground sensor located at a position in front of at least one ground row unit of the set of ground row units; calculating a row unit height adjustment based on the at least one ground-based measurement (Fig. 1A depicts sensor 106 generates a sensor signal indicative of a distance from sensor 106 to the level indicating surface 134 (in contact with the ground) and sends the sensor signal to the height determination system 136 which determines the height of the frame relative to the ground surface and determines operating depth of the ground-engaging tools/disks which it knows based on the relative position of the tools to the frame. Additional sensor 125 senses the offset of subframe 110 relative to main frame 120 and is used to determine operating depth of the tools and send a control signal to actuator 124 to automatically adjust the operating depth of the ground-engaging tools, see at least ¶ 37, Sporrer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith to include the teachings of Sporrer to control the rockshaft actuator using the height determination system of Sporrer to communicate the operating depth and send a control signal to the rockshaft actuator to automatically adjust the operating depth of the row units. Doing so would automatically adjust the operating depth of the ground-engaging tools if they are outside of the threshold, without further operator involvement (¶ 37, Sporrer)
Regarding Claim 17, Smith in view of Sporrer teaches, The method of claim 15.
Sporrer, directed to sensing and controlling the height of a portion of a machine relative to the ground teaches, wherein the at least one ground-based measurement is obtained from an indirect sensor that indirectly determines distance from the ground sensor to the ground, wherein the row unit height adjustment is determined based on the indirect sensor (Fig. 1A depicts sensor 106 generates a sensor signal indicative of a distance from sensor 106 to the level indicating surface 134 (in contact with the ground) and sends the sensor signal to the height determination system 136 which determines the height of the frame relative to the ground surface and determines operating depth of the ground-engaging tools/disks which it knows based on the relative position of the tools to the frame and is used to determine operating depth of the tools and send a control signal to actuator 124 to automatically adjust the operating depth of the ground-engaging tools, see at least ¶ 37, Sporrer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith to include the teachings of Sporrer which teaches wherein the at least one ground-based measurement is obtained from an indirect sensor that indirectly determines distance from the ground sensor to the ground, wherein the row unit height adjustment is determined based on the indirect sensor. Doing so would automatically adjust the operating depth of the ground-engaging tools if they are outside of the threshold, without further operator involvement (¶ 37, Sporrer)
Claim 16 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200337200 A1) in view of Sporrer et al. (US20210227742A1) as applied to claims 5 and 17 and further in view of Achen et al. (US 20150264857 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Smith in view of Sporrer teaches, The method of claim 15.
Smith in view of Sporrer does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one ground-based measurement is obtained from a direct sensor.
Achen, directed to an agricultural planter teaches wherein the at least one ground-based measurement is obtained from a direct sensor (ground distance sensor 101 directly determines the distance between the sensor and the ground in front of the toolbar, ¶ 87, Achen).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith and Sporrer to include the teachings of Achen which teaches wherein the at least one ground-based measurement is obtained from a direct sensor since they are both related to agricultural planters and incorporation of the teachings of Achen would help the planter maintain uniform furrow depth.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200337200 A1) in view of Achen et al. (US 20150264857 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Smith teaches, a planter comprising: a frame; a set of wheels supporting the frame (Fig. 1 depicts a frame 32 and plurality of wheels 36 supporting the frame, ¶23, Smith); a rockshaft coupled to the frame (Fig. 2 depicts a rockshaft 46 movable relative to the toolbar 40, ¶25, Smith); a plurality of row units movably coupled to the rockshaft (Fig. 2 depicts a plurality of row units 42 is ganged together with the toolbar 40 and rockshaft 46, see at least ¶ 25, Smith), each row unit, of the plurality of row units, comprising: a set of opener discs (disc openers 44 ,see at least ¶ 25, Smith), and an individual row unit downforce actuator configured to apply a downforce to the row unit (Fig. 2 depicts row unit actuators 108, see at least ¶ 27, Smith); a rockshaft actuator that controls a position of the rockshaft relative to the frame (Fig. 2 depicts actuator 102 rotates the rockshaft 46 relative to the toolbar 40 which adjusts the down pressure applied to the row units 42 disc openers 44 and row unit actuators 108, see at least ¶ 25-27, Smith); and row unit height adjustment logic, the row unit height adjustment logic being configured to: provide a control output to the rockshaft actuator to provide closed loop height control of each row unit relative to ground based on the downforce applied to the row unit (controller 116 may be configured to initiate instructions to the rockshaft actuator 102 and/or the row unit actuators 108 to adjust the down pressure applied to the penetration depths of the associated disk openers 44, see at least ¶ 44, Smith).
Smith does not explicitly teach; a pressure sensor operably coupled to the planter and configured to provide a pressure signal indicative of the downforce applied to the row unit; and row unit height adjustment logic coupled to the pressure sensor
Achen, directed to an agricultural planter teaches, a pressure sensor operably coupled to the planter and configured to provide a pressure signal indicative of the downforce applied to the row unit; and row unit height adjustment logic coupled to the pressure sensor (linear actuator 98 is the row unit downforce actuator in combination with the springs 61 and pressure sensors on the gauge wheels maintains a down force pressure on the row unit to maintain the depth of the trench, see at least [¶64, 85, Achen]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Achen which teaches a pressure sensor operably coupled to the planter and configured to provide a pressure signal indicative of the downforce applied to the row unit; and row unit height adjustment logic coupled to the pressure sensor since they are both related to agricultural planters and Smith would need to read the pressure is on the row unit in order to adjust the pressure applied by the actuators. Incorporation of the teachings of Achen would increase the utility of the overall system by adapting each row unit to respond to the softening of the ground and apply less force by adapting to the pressure detected to plant at the desired depth of the soil.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200337200 A1) in view of Rozendaal; Dennis L. et al. (US 6076611 A) and Sporrer et al. (US20210227742A1) and Achen et al. (US 20150264857 A1) as applied to claims 4 and 9-10 and further in view of Fanshier et al. (US 20210315148 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Smith, Rozendaal, Sporrer and Achen teach, The agricultural planter of claim 4.
Smith, Rozendaal, Sporrer and Achen does not explicitly teach wherein the ground sensor is selected from the group consisting of an ultrasonic sensor, a lidar sensor, and a radar sensor.
Fanshier directed to agricultural implement having a row unit position sensors and rotatable frame further teaches, wherein the ground sensor is selected from the group consisting of an ultrasonic sensor, a lidar sensor, and a radar sensor (Fig. 1 depicts at least one sensor 142 or 144 may be used to determine a position of a row unit 126 relative to the ground, the sensors may include a non-contact depth sensor for example ultrasonic transducer, lidar, radar, etc., see at least ¶27, Fanshier).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith in view of Rozendaal and Sporrer to incorporate the teachings of Fanshier which teaches wherein the ground sensor is selected from the group consisting of an ultrasonic sensor, a lidar sensor, and a radar sensor since they are both related to agricultural planters and incorporation of the teachings of Fanshier would increase versatility of the overall system by utilizing alternative distance measuring sensors .
Claim 6, 12 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200337200 A1) in view of Rozendaal; Dennis L. et al. (US 6076611 A) and Sporrer et al. (US20210227742A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 21, 22, and 23 and further in view of Fanshier et al. (US 20210315148 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Smith in view of Rozendaal and Sporrer teaches, The agricultural planter of claim 1.
Smith in view of Rozendaal and Sporrer does not explicitly teach wherein the ground sensor includes a position sensor configured to measure an angle a mechanism that varies with distance to ground
Fanshier directed to agricultural implement having a row unit position sensors and rotatable frame further teaches wherein the ground sensor includes a position sensor configured to measure an angle of a mechanism that varies with distance to ground (Fig. 1 depicts the sensor 142, 144, 145 may be a rotary sensor configured to measure an angle of an element of the parallel linkage 130 or toolbar 104 relative to the ground, see at least ¶27, Fanshier).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith in view of Rozendaal and Sporrer to incorporate the teachings of Fanshier which teaches wherein the ground sensor includes a position sensor configured to measure an angle of a mechanism that varies with distance to ground since they are both related to agricultural planters and incorporation of the teachings of Fanshier would increase versatility of the overall system by utilizing alternative distance measuring sensors .
Regarding Claim 12, Smith in view of Rozendaal and Sporrer teaches, The agricultural planter of claim 1.
Smith in view of Rozendaal and Sporrer does not explicitly teach wherein the ground sensor is configured to detect relative motion between a towing machine and the agricultural planter.
Fanshier directed to agricultural implement having a row unit position sensors and rotatable frame further teaches, wherein the ground sensor is configured to detect relative motion between a towing machine and the agricultural planter (Figs. 2-5 depict the tractor 102 (towing machine) with a ground sensor 142, 144 and 145, detecting the relative motion of the implement 120 (agricultural planter), see at least, ¶30, Fig. 2-5, Fanshier).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith in view of Rozendaal and Sporrer to incorporate the teachings of Fanshier which teaches wherein the ground sensor is configured to detect relative motion between a towing machine and the agricultural planter since they are both related to agricultural planters and incorporation of the teachings of Fanshier would increase the utility of the overall system adjusting the angle of the planter to remain a parallel orientation to the ground in a case where while the towing machine pulls the planter over a hill or uneven terrain.
Regarding Claim 13, Smith in view of Rozendaal, Sporrer and Fanshier teaches, The agricultural planter of claim 12.
Fanshier, directed to agricultural implement having a row unit position sensors and rotatable frame further teaches, wherein the relative motion includes at least one of pitch, yaw, and roll (field elevation/slope measurement provides a pitch measurement to the lift system, see at least, ¶30, Fig. 2-5, Fanshier).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Smith in view of Rozendaal, Sporrer and Fanshier to further incorporate the teachings of Fanshier which teaches wherein the relative motion includes at least one of pitch, yaw, and roll since they are both related to agricultural planters and incorporation of the teachings of Fanshier would increase the utility of the overall system adjusting the angle of the planter to remain a parallel orientation to the ground in a case where while the towing machine pulls the planter over a hill or uneven terrain.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200337200 A1) in view of Rozendaal; Dennis L. et al. (US 6076611 A), Sporrer et al. (US20210227742A1) and Achen et al. (US 20150264857 A1) as applied to claims 4, and 9-10 and further in view of Hodel et al. (US 20220272888A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Smith, Rozendaal, Sporrer and Achen teaches, The agricultural planter of claim 4.
Smith, Rozendaal, Sporrer and Achen does not explicitly teach wherein the ground sensor is configured to sense a position of a gauge wheel operably mounted to a row unit, the gauge wheel having an angle that varies with distance to ground, and wherein the adjustment to the rockshaft actuator is determined based on the position of the gauge wheel.
Hodel, directed to implements and methods of planting agricultural fields teaches, wherein the ground sensor is configured to sense a position of a gauge wheel operably mounted to a row unit, the gauge wheel having an angle that varies with distance to ground, and wherein the adjustment to the rockshaft actuator is determined based on the position of the gauge wheel (Fig. 2 depicts a row unit 200 with a wheel 230 coupled to an angle sensor 226 that varies with distance to the ground, see at least, ¶38, Fig. 2, Hodel).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith, Rozendaal, Sporrer and Achen to incorporate the teachings of Hodel to control the rockshaft of Smith using the on the row unit gauge wheel sensor of Hodel since they are both related to agricultural planters Smith would need to know the current position of the row unit in order calculate a height adjustment of the rockshaft. Incorporation of the teachings of Hodel would increase the accuracy of planting depth measurements.
Regarding Claim 8, Smith, Rozendaal, Sporrer and Achen teaches, The agricultural planter of claim 4.
Smith, Rozendaal, Sporrer and Achen does not explicitly teach wherein the ground sensor includes a plurality of gauge wheels, one leading and one trailing, and wherein the ground distance signal is based on the plurality of gauge wheels being out of plane.
Hodel, directed to implements and methods of planting agricultural fields teaches, wherein the ground sensor includes a plurality of gauge wheels (Fig. 1 depicts a pair of gauge wheels 132, see at least, ¶28, Fig.1), and a plurality of depth sensors, one leading and one trailing, and wherein the ground distance signal is based on the plurality of depth being out of plane (Fig. 2 depicts row unit 200 with depth sensors 232 (leading) and 234 (trailing) which measures the distance in front of and behind the row unit and compare them to confirm that the opening disks 211 and firming wheels 214 are operating as expected, comparison of the front and back depth sensors is interpreted as being in or out of plane, see at least, ¶39-40, Hodel).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith, Rozendaal, Sporrer and Achen to incorporate the teachings of Hodel which teaches wherein the ground sensor includes a plurality of gauge wheels, and a plurality of depth sensors, one leading and one trailing and replace the depth sensors with leading and trailing gauge wheels since Hodel teaches that the depth sensor may be used instead of the angle sensor 226 and the wheel 230, since Hodel teaches that the mechanisms are interchangeable they are both related to agricultural planters and incorporation of the teachings of Hodel would increase accuracy of the overall system by confirming the correct operation of the opening discs 212 and firming wheels, and detecting that the two ground measurements are in-plane and smooth before the tool runs over the soil and after it passes.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200337200 A1) in view of Rozendaal; Dennis L. et al. (US 6076611 A) and Sporrer et al. (US20210227742A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 21, 22, and 23 and further in view of Boriack et al. (US 20190021213 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Smith, Rozendaal, and Sporrer teaches, the agricultural planter of claim 1.
Smith, Rozendaal, and Sporrer does not explicitly teach, wherein the ground sensor includes a sensor mounted to a draft tube in front of a main-frame.
Boriack, directed to a folding agricultural toolbar teaches, wherein the ground sensor includes a sensor mounted to a draft tube in front of a main-frame (see at least [¶31, Fig. 6, Boriack]: “The planting implements 10 may also include various position sensors located on the toolbars 14, 16 and/or draft tubes 18, 20”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith, Rozendaal, and Sporrer to incorporate the teachings of Boriack which teaches wherein the ground sensor includes a sensor mounted to a draft tube in front of a main-frame since they are both related to agricultural planters and incorporation of the teachings of Boriack would increase the effectiveness of the overall system by detecting the positioning of the planter with ground in order to control and verify the depth adjustment of the connected row units so that the seeds can be planted at a consistent desired depth the ground while the planter travels over varying terrain.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200337200 A1) in view of Rozendaal; Dennis L. et al. (US 6076611 A), Sporrer et al. (US20210227742A1) and Fanshier et al. (US 20210315148 A1) as applied to claims 6, 12 and 13 and further in view of Holoubek et al. (US 20220061202 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Smith in view of Rozendaal, Sporrer and Fanshier teaches, The agricultural planter of claim 12.
Smith in view of Rozendaal, Sporrer and Fanshier does not explicitly teach, wherein the ground sensor is a gyroscope mounted to the towing machine.
Holoubek, directed to directed to an automated hitch to adjust the orientation of an agricultural planter implement teaches, wherein the ground sensor is a gyroscope mounted to the towing machine (Fig. 1A: tilt sensor 13 is mounted on the tractor or towing machine, see at least [¶63, Fig. 1A, Holoubek]: “Exemplary tilt sensors 13 may include inertial measurement units (“IMUs”), gyroscopes, and accelerometers, or other known devices configured to detect one or more of yaw, pitch and/or roll”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Smith in view of Rozendaal, Sporrer and Fanshier to incorporate the teachings of Holoubek which teaches wherein the ground sensor is a gyroscope mounted to the towing machine since they are both related to agricultural planters and incorporation of the teachings of Holoubek would increase the effectiveness of the overall system by detecting the pitch of the planter with the towing machine in order to adjust the angle of the planter so that the seeds can be planted at a consistent desired depth the ground while the towing machine pulls the planter over a hill.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights