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 07 August 2025. Claims 1-2, 4-17 and 20 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Amendments to claim 1 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103, applicant has amended claims 1 and 15 and Examiner agrees that Rozendaal and Smith do not teach all the amended claim 1 and 15. Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection for claims 1-19 set forth in office action of June 26 2025 but is moot in view of new obviousness rejection necessitated by the amendments. Examiner disagrees with applicant's argument concerning the rationale to combine Achen and Smith for independent claim 20. Both Achen and Smith teach methods of controlling the depth of planting seeds and Achen does not restrict the use of Smith's rockshaft, for Achen's linkage. Therefore, examiner sustains 103 rejection for independent claim 20.
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, 4, 9-10, 15-17 and 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 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 row units with the ground over which the agricultural planter travels, each row unit having a set of opener discs (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 row unit also having an individual row unit downforce actuator (Fig. 2 depicts row unit actuators 108, see at least ¶ 27, Smith); a rockshaft actuator that drives movement of 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, see at least ¶ 25, Smith); and ground engaging element height adjustment logic that is configured to control the rockshaft actuator to control height of the row units relative to ground (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 ground sensor operably coupled to the agricultural planter and configured to provide a ground distance signal indicative of a distance from the 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 that is configured to receive the ground distance signal.
Achen, directed to an agricultural planter teaches, a ground sensor operably coupled to the agricultural planter and configured to provide a ground distance signal indicative of a distance from the 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 that is configured to receive the ground distance signal (Fig. 12 depicts ground sensor 101 using foresight technology positioned on the front side of the toolbar 96 which determines that a change in height of one or more of the row units should be made and communicates to the linear actuator of the row unit, see at least ¶ 83-85, 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 include the teachings of Achen which teaches a ground sensor operably coupled to the agricultural planter and configured to provide a ground distance signal indicative of a distance from the 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 that is configured to receive the ground distance signal since they are both related to agricultural planters and incorporation of the teachings of Achen would help the planter maintain uniform furrow depth.
Regarding Claim 2, Smith in view of Achen teaches, the agricultural planter of claim 1, wherein the ground engaging tools include a plurality of discs (the row units may be discs, see at least, ¶54, Smith).
Regarding Claim 4, Smith in view of Achen teaches, the agricultural planter of claim 1, 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 which is interpreted as a rockshaft, 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 to include the teachings of Achen which teaches wherein the ground sensor is operably mounted to the rockshaft since they are both related to agricultural planters and incorporation of the teachings of Achen would help the planter maintain uniform furrow depth.
Regarding Claim 9, Smith in view of Achen teaches, The agricultural planter of claim 4.
Achen, directed to an agricultural planter teaches, wherein the ground sensor is an indirect sensor (the sensors on the gauge wheels measure the ground indirectly through pressure, see at least [¶59, Fig. 2, Achen]: “Furthermore, sensors could be placed at the gauge wheels 47 to measure the pressure of the gauge wheels as they move through the field”).
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 Achen to incorporate the teachings of Achen which teaches wherein the ground sensor is an indirect sensor since they are both related to agricultural planters 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 in view of Achen teaches, The agricultural planter of claim 4.
Achen, directed to an agricultural planter teaches, wherein the ground sensor includes a pressure sensor operably coupled to an individual row hydraulic downforce cylinder (Fig. 12: linear actuator 98, see at least [¶64, 85, Achen]: “the combination of the linear actuator 59 and springs 61 can work with sensors on the gauge wheels or other portions of the row unit 50 in order to provide and maintain a down force pressure on the row unit to maintain the depth of the trench … a movement of the linear actuator will adjust the height of the row unit provided by the actuator to the row unit 95. It should also be appreciated that, while a linear actuator 98 is shown and described with regard to the row unit 95 of FIG. 12, other types of actuators, included but not limited to, hydraulic, pneumatic, and the like may be included or used alone or in combination with one another”).
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 Achen to incorporate the teachings of Achen which teaches wherein the ground sensor includes a pressure sensor operably coupled to an individual row hydraulic downforce cylinder since they are both related to agricultural planters and 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 by apply less force by adapting to the pressure detected to plant at the desired depth of the soil.
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 row units with the ground over which the planter travels, each row unit having a set of opener discs (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 row unit also having an individual 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 row unit of the set ground row units; calculating a row unit height adjustment based on the ground-based measurement; and controlling a row unit to actuate the rockshaft based on the row unit height adjustment.
Achen, directed to an agricultural planter teaches, obtaining at least one ground-based measurement using a ground sensor located at a position in front of at least one row unit of the set ground row units; calculating a row unit height adjustment based on the ground-based measurement; and controlling a row unit to actuate the rockshaft based on the row unit height adjustment (Fig. 12 depicts ground sensor 101 using foresight technology positioned on the front side of the toolbar 96 which determines that a change in height of one or more of the row units should be made and communicates to the linear actuator of the row unit, see at least ¶ 83-85, 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 include the teachings of Achen which teaches obtaining at least one ground-based measurement using a ground sensor located at a position in front of at least one row unit of the set ground row units; calculating a row unit height adjustment based on the ground-based measurement; and controlling a row unit to actuate the rockshaft based on the row unit height adjustment since they are both related to agricultural planters and incorporation of the teachings of Achen would help the planter maintain uniform furrow depth.
Regarding Claim 16, Smith in view of Achen teaches, The method of claim 15.
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 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.
Regarding Claim 17, Smith in view of Achen teaches, The method of claim 15.
Achen, directed to an agricultural planter teaches, wherein the at least one ground-based sensor is obtained from an indirect sensor (the sensors on the gauge wheels measure the ground indirectly through pressure, see at least [¶59, Fig. 2, Achen]: “Furthermore, sensors could be placed at the gauge wheels 47 to measure the pressure of the gauge wheels as they move through the field”).
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 Achen to incorporate the teachings of Achen which teaches wherein the at least one ground-based sensor is obtained from an indirect sensor since they are both related to agricultural planters and 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 by apply less force by adapting to the pressure detected to plant at the desired depth of the soil.
Regarding Claim 20, Smith teaches, a planter comprising: a frame; a set of wheels supporting the frame (Fig. 1 depicts an 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, each row unit having a set of opener discs, each row unit also having an individual row unit downforce actuator; a rockshaft actuator that controls a position of the rockshaft relative to the frame (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 and row unit actuators 108, see at least ¶ 25-27, Smith); and 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 (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 ground sensor operably coupled to the planter and configured to provide a ground distance signal at a location in front of the plurality of row units; and row unit height adjustment logic coupled to the ground sensor, the row unit height adjustment logic being configured to receive the ground distance signal and provide a control output to the rockshaft actuator to provide closed loop height control of each row unit relative to ground.
Achen, directed to an agricultural planter teaches, a ground sensor operably coupled to the planter and configured to provide a ground distance signal at a location in front of the plurality of row units; and row unit height adjustment logic coupled to the ground sensor, the row unit height adjustment logic being configured to receive the ground distance signal and provide a control output to the rockshaft actuator to provide closed loop height control of each row unit relative to ground (Fig. 12 depicts ground sensor 101 using foresight technology positioned on the front side of the toolbar 96 which determines that a change in height of one or more of the row units should be made and communicates to the linear actuator of the row unit, see at least ¶ 83-85, 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 include the teachings of Achen which teaches a ground sensor operably coupled to the planter and configured to provide a ground distance signal at a location in front of the plurality of row units; and row unit height adjustment logic coupled to the ground sensor, the row unit height adjustment logic being configured to receive the ground distance signal and provide a control output to the rockshaft actuator to provide closed loop height control of each row unit relative to ground since they are both related to agricultural planters and incorporation of the teachings of Achen would help the planter maintain uniform furrow depth.
Claims 5-6 and 12-13 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) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, 15-17 and 20 and further in view of Fanshier et al. (US 20210315148 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Smith in view of Achen, The agricultural planter of claim 4.
Smith in view of 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 Achen 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 .
Regarding Claim 6, Smith in view of Achen teaches, The agricultural planter of claim 4.
Smith in view of Achen 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 Achen 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 Achen teaches, The agricultural planter of claim 1.
Smith in view of Achen 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 Achen 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 Achen 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, Achen 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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200337200 A1) in view of Achen et al. (US 20150264857 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, 15-17 and 20 and further in view of Hodel et al. (US 20220272888A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Smith in view of Achen teaches, The agricultural planter of claim 4.
Smith in view of Achen does not explicitly teach wherein the ground sensor includes a gauge wheel operably mounted to a row unit, the gauge wheel having an angle that varies with distance to ground, and wherein the ground distance signal is received from a position sensor coupled to the gauge wheel.
Hodel, directed to implements and methods of planting agricultural fields teaches, wherein the ground sensor includes a gauge wheel operably mounted to a row unit, the gauge wheel having an angle that varies with distance to ground, and wherein the ground distance signal is received from a position sensor coupled to 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 in view of Achen to incorporate the teachings of Hodel which teaches wherein the ground sensor includes a gauge wheel operably mounted to a row unit, the gauge wheel having an angle that varies with distance to ground, and wherein the ground distance signal is received from a position sensor coupled to the gauge wheel since they are both related to agricultural planters and incorporation of the teachings of Hodel would increase the accuracy of planting depth measurements.
Regarding Claim 8, Smith in view of Achen teaches, The agricultural planter of claim 4.
Rozendaal in view of Smith 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, Ref2).
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 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 Achen et al. (US 20150264857 A1) as applied to claims1-2, 4, 9-10, 15-17 and 20 and further in view of Boriack et al. (US 20190021213 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Smith in view of Achen teaches, The agricultural planter of claim 1.
Smith in view of Achen 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 implement 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 in view of Achen 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 Achen et al. (US 20150264857 A1) and Fanshier et al. (US 20210315148 A1) as applied to claims 5-6 and 12-13 and further in view of Holoubek et al. (US 20220061202 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Smith in view of Achen and Fanshier teaches, The agricultural planter of claim 12.
Smith in view of Achen 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 Achen 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