DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 17/726,003 filed on February 18, 2026 in which claims 1, 10, and 16 were amended and claim 20 was cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 18, 2026 has been entered.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-19 are pending, of which claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and claims 1, 3-7, and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitations “wherein the actuator is configured to move the linkage arm relative to the frame to alter a position of the gauge wheel relative to the frame and a position of the disk opener relative to the gauge wheel to control the furrow depth” at lines 11-12 and “wherein the actuator is configured to adjust the position of the disk opener relative to the gauge wheel position to control the furrow depth” at line 24. (Emphasis added). The statements that the movement of the linkage arm is “to alter a position of the gauge wheel relative to the frame” and that both the positioning and adjustment of the disk opener relative to the gauge wheel is “to control the furrow depth” appears to be a statements of the intended use of the movement, positioning, and adjustment. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the activation of the first actuator is independent of the activation of the second actuator to allow variable furrow depths across the first and second row units” in the final two lines of the claim. (Emphasis added). The statement that the adjustment is “to allow variable furrow depths across the first and second row units” appears to be a statement of the intended use of the actuator. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, this claim includes the claim limitation “wherein altering a position of the first disk opener relative to the first frame or altering a position of the first disk opener relative to the first frame is at least based in part on data provided by the soil sensor indicative of soil composition” in the final lines. (Emphasis added).
The duplication of the only option, “altering a position of the first disk opener relative to the first frame” is a clear typographical error that creates two conflicting interpretations.
First, this may be interpreted as “wherein altering a position of the first disk opener relative to the first frame is at least based in part on data provided by the soil sensor indicative of soil composition.”
Second, this may be interpreted as “wherein altering a position of the first disk opener relative to the first frame or altering a position of the second disk opener relative to the second frame is at least based in part on data provided by the soil sensor indicative of soil composition.”
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB 2017) (precedential) (affirming the holding in Ex parte Miyazaki).
Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Regarding claims 17-19, these claims depend on claim 16 above and, therefore, inherit the rejection of that claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tevs et al., US Publication 2017/0086349 (hereinafter Tevs), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated April 2, 2025 in view of Jensen et al., US Patent 6,701,857, as cited on the Information Disclosure Statement dated April 21, 2022, as applied to the instant claims, and in further view of Stanhope et al., US Publication 2020/0045869 (hereinafter Stanhope), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated April 2, 2025.
Regarding claim 1, Tevs discloses a system for a planting implement having one or more row units, the system comprising “a frame supporting a row unit, the row unit configured to operably couple with a toolbar through one or more links” (Tevs ¶¶ 16-17, Fig. 1) by disclosing a plurality of row units 105, shown to be physically connected to a crossbar in Fig. 1 as part of a structure (i.e., a frame) shown as machine 100. When compared to Applicant’s Fig. 1, which discloses the claimed subject matter (Spec. ¶ 33), these components appear the same. Tevs further discloses individual frames within each row unit as part of this structure as well. (Tevs ¶ 26). Additionally, Tevs discloses “a disk opener rotatably coupled to the frame, the disk opener configured to form a furrow within a field across which the planting implement is traveling” (Tevs ¶ 20) by including trench opener 21, which may be one or more disks, to form or open a furrow. Further, Tevs discloses “a soil sensor configured to capture data …” (Tevs ¶ 30, see also ¶ 61) by sensing terrain material, such as soil, that is used in calculating the depth, which is then used to alter the position of the disk opener for the reasons discussed below. Moreover, Tevs discloses “a depth sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected furrow depth of the furrow.” (Tevs ¶ 31). Likewise, Tevs discloses “a computing system communicatively coupled to the actuator.” (Tevs ¶ 38 and Fig. 4). Tevs also discloses “the computing system being configured to: receive the data indicative of the detected furrow depth of the furrow; and activate the actuator to alter the position of the disk opener relative to the frame based on a deviation of the detected furrow depth of the furrow from a defined furrow depth range and the soil …” (Tevs ¶¶ 29, 41) by receiving signals from the depth sensors and controlling the depth of the trench opener, based on the soil conditions, in response to the calculated depth. In addition, Tevs discloses “a gauge wheel arm pivotably coupled to the frame.” (Tevs ¶ 26). In addition, Tevs discloses “a gauge wheel rotatably coupled to the gauge wheel arm, wherein the gauge wheel is configured to roll along a surface of the field.” (Tevs ¶ 25, see also ¶¶ 22-24). Furthermore, Tevs discloses “the gauge wheel is configured to … set a penetration depth of the disk opener relative to the frame” (Tevs ¶ 26) where the gauge wheel positions is used to determine the trench depth. Finally, Tevs discloses “wherein the actuator is configured to adjust the position of the disk opener relative to the gauge wheel position to control the furrow depth” (Tevs ¶¶ 41, 81, 92) where the trench depth calculation component calculates a trench depth based on the relative distance between the trench opener and the capacitive sensor (Tevs ¶ 81) and where the capacitive sensor is a component of the trench depth sensor (Tevs ¶ 92), meaning that the calculated distance of the trench opener (i.e., the disk opener) is relative to the trench depth sensor (i.e., the gauge wheel position) because it includes the capacitive sensor. This calculation is used to control (i.e., actuate) the depth of the trench openers.
Tevs does not appear to explicitly disclose “an actuator supported on the frame of the row unit operably coupled with the disk opener and configured to alter a position of the disk opener relative to the frame” or “a wobble bracket configured to engage a gauge wheel arm; a soil sensor configured to capture data indicative of a soil composition; a linkage arm coupled to the wobble bracket, wherein the actuator is configured to move the linkage arm relative to the frame to alter a position of the gauge wheel relative to the frame and a position of the disk opener relative to the gauge wheel to control a furrow depth” or “activate the actuator to alter the position of the disk opener relative to the frame based on a deviation of the detected furrow depth of the furrow from a defined furrow depth range and the soil composition.”
However, Jensen discloses a row unit based crop planting system including “an actuator supported on the frame of the row unit operably coupled with the disk opener and configured to alter a position of the disk opener relative to the frame.” (Jensen col. 6, ll. 6-65, Fig. 1). Specifically, Jensen discloses that it well known in the prior art to have a disc 21 that is mounted to an adjustable arm controlled by hydraulic cylinder 14 that controls the position of the disc relative to the frame.
Tevs and Jensen are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of row units for agricultural vehicles.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tevs and Jensen before him or her to modify the disk of Tevs to be movable relative to the frame, as taught by Jensen.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Tevs teaches the “base device” for controlling a row unit with disk based furrowing components. Further, Jensen teaches the “known technique” of including a disk movable relative to the frame that is applicable to the base device of Tevs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
The combination of Tevs and Jensen does not appear to explicitly disclose “a wobble bracket configured to engage a gauge wheel arm; a soil sensor configured to capture data indicative of a soil composition; a linkage arm coupled to the wobble bracket, wherein the actuator is configured to move the linkage arm relative to the frame to alter a position of the gauge wheel relative to the frame and a position of the disk opener relative to the gauge wheel to control a furrow depth” or “activate the actuator to alter the position of the disk opener relative to the frame based on a deviation of the detected furrow depth of the furrow from a defined furrow depth range and the soil composition.”
However, Stanhope discloses an apparatus for adjusting the down force of a row unit in order to control the depth of a furrow further including “a wobble bracket configured to engage the gauge wheel arm” (Stanhope ¶ 30 and Fig. 3) where “wobble bracket 66” (i.e., a wobble bracket) is configured to engage “wheel retention arm 58” (i.e., the gauge wheel arm). Additionally, Stanhope discloses “a soil sensor configured to capture data indicative of a soil composition” (Stanhope ¶ 48) in the form of “soil composition sensor(s) 218.” Further, Stanhope discloses “a linkage arm coupled to the wobble bracket, wherein the actuator is configured to move the linkage arm relative to the frame to alter a position of the gauge wheel relative to the frame” (Stanhope ¶ 30) where pivot arm 68 is “coupled with the depth control linkage arm 64” (i.e., a link arm coupled to the wobble bracket, see annotated image below) and “adjusts an axial position of the linkage arm 64, thereby rotating the gauge wheel linkage 54 to raise or lower the gauge wheels 52.” By raising and lowering the gauge wheels 52, they are being moved relative to the row unit frame 22. Moreover, Stanhope discloses “wherein the actuator is configured to move the linkage arm relative to the frame to alter … a position of the disk opener relative to the gauge wheel to control a furrow depth” (Stanhope ¶¶ 29, 31) where adjustment of the height of the gauge wheels, which is controlled by gauge wheel linkage 54, determines the depth (i.e., position to control the furrow depth).
PNG
media_image1.png
773
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Finally, Stanhope discloses “activate the actuator to alter the position of the disk opener relative to the frame based on a deviation of the detected furrow depth of the furrow from a defined furrow depth range and the soil composition” (Stanhope ¶ 59, see also ¶¶ 52-66, Fig. 5) where the soil composition sensors are used to adjust (i.e., alter) the downforce applied to the implement.
Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of generating furrows in soil.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope before him or her to modify the trench opener of Tevs and Jensen to include the wobble bracket of Stanhope.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). The combination of Tevs and Jensen differs from the claimed invention by failing to discuss the manner in which the gauge wheel is connected to the actuator in place of the claimed wobble bracket. Further, Stanhope teaches that the use of a wobble bracket in this situation was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the wobble bracket of Stanhope because the gauge wheel must be connected to the actuator in some manner.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses “a user interface operably coupled with the computing system.” (Tevs ¶ 39). Further, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses “wherein the defined furrow depth range is received through the user interface” (Tevs ¶ 42) where the user interface may receive input through input mechanism 477 to control the depth of the furrow.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses “a controller operably coupled with the actuator and the computing system, wherein the computing system activates the actuator by providing instructions to the controller and the controller manipulates the actuator based on the instructions provided by the computing system.” (Tevs ¶ 38).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses “wherein the depth sensor is further coupled with the controller.” (Tevs Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses “wherein one or more subsequent modifications of the actuator is performed based on the data from the depth sensor that is provided to the controller.” (Tevs ¶ 41).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses “wherein the one or more subsequent modifications are performed without additional instructions from the computing system” (Tevs ¶ 41) where the control may be either automatic (i.e., without additional instructions from the computing system) or based on operator input.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses “wherein the depth sensor is configured as a ground-penetrating radar unit” (Tevs ¶¶ 31, 62) where a portion of the depth sensor is mounted on the trench opener disk (Tevs ¶ 62), meaning that it penetrates the ground and further indicating that the sensor may be a micropower impulse radar. (Tevs ¶ 31).
Regarding claim 16, Tevs discloses a system for a planting implement, the system comprising “a toolbar; … a first row unit coupled to the toolbar.” (Tevs Fig. 1). Additionally, Tevs discloses “a soil sensor configured to capture data indicative of a soil …” (Tevs ¶ 30, see also ¶ 61) by sensing terrain material, such as soil, that is used in calculating the depth, which is then used to alter the position of the disk opener for the reasons discussed below. Further, Tevs discloses “the first row unit comprising: a first frame.” (Tevs ¶ 21 and Fig. 1). Moreover, Tevs discloses “a first disk opener rotatably coupled to the first frame, the first disk opener configured to form a first furrow within a field across which the planting implement is traveling” (Tevs ¶ 20) by including trench opener 21, which may be one or more disks, to form or open a furrow. Likewise, Tevs discloses “a first depth sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected furrow depth of the first furrow” (Tevs ¶¶ 18, 26, 41) by detecting a depth of a row (Tevs ¶ 42), which may be any of the multiple row units (i.e., the first row unit, Tevs ¶ 18), using a gauge wheel pivotably coupled to the frame using pivot arm 230. (Tevs ¶ 26). Tevs also discloses “a first gauge wheel pivotably coupled to a first gauge wheel arm, the first gauge wheel configured to roll along a surface of the field and set a penetration depth of the first disk opener” (Tevs ¶¶ 23-26) where the trench depth component may be a gauge wheel that is connected to the frame via a pivot arm (i.e., a gauge wheel arm) that engages the ground for the purpose of determining the trench depth. Tevs also discloses “… alter a position of the first disk opener relative to the first gauge wheel by pivoting the first gauge wheel arm pivotably coupled to the first frame” (Tevs ¶¶ 26, 41) by detecting a depth of a row and altering the position of the disk opener (Tevs ¶ 41) using a gauge wheel pivotably coupled to the frame using pivot arm 230. (Tevs ¶ 26). The separate movement of the disk opener and the gauge wheel means that they are naturally moving “relative” to each other. In addition, Tevs discloses “a second row unit coupled to the toolbar; the second row unit comprising: a second frame.” (Tevs ¶ 21 and Fig. 1). Furthermore, Tevs discloses “a second disk opener rotatably coupled to the second frame, the second disk opener configured to form a second furrow within a field across which the planting implement is traveling” (Tevs ¶ 20) by including trench opener 21, which may be one or more disks, to form or open a furrow. Moreover, Tevs discloses “a second depth sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected furrow depth of the second furrow” (Tevs ¶¶ 18, 41) by detecting a depth of a row (Tevs ¶ 42), which may be any of the multiple row units (i.e., the second row unit, Tevs ¶ 18). Likewise, Tevs discloses moving “a second gauge wheel by pivoting a second gauge wheel arm pivotably coupled to the second frame; and a second gauge wheel pivotably coupled to second gauge wheel arm, the second gauge wheel configured to roll along a surface of the field and set a penetration depth of the second disk opener” (Tevs ¶¶ 23-26) where the trench depth component may be a gauge wheel that is connected to the frame via pivot arm 230 that engages the ground for the purpose of determining the trench depth. Tevs also discloses “a computing system operably coupled with the first row unit and the second row unit, the computing system being configured to: activate the first actuator to alter a position of the first disk opener relative to the first gauge wheel; and activate the second actuator to alter a position of the second disk opener relative to the second gauge wheel” (Tevs ¶ 41) by receiving signals from the depth sensors and controlling the depth of the trench opener in response to the calculated depth. Additionally, Tevs discloses “wherein the activation of the first actuator is independent of the activation of the second actuator to allow variable furrow depths across the first and second row units” (Tevs ¶ 21) where each row unit comprises a separate trench opener, meaning that each row unit is independent of the others. Finally, Tevs discloses “wherein altering a position of the first disk opener relative to the first frame or altering a position of the first disk opener relative to the first frame is at least based in part on data provided by the soil sensor …” (Tevs ¶¶ 29, 41) by receiving signals from the depth sensors and controlling the depth of the trench opener, based on the soil conditions, in response to the calculated depth.
Tevs does not appear to explicitly disclose “a soil sensor configured to capture data indicative of a soil composition;” “a first actuator configured to alter a position of the first disk opener relative to the first gauge wheel by pivoting the first gauge wheel arm pivotably coupled to the first frame;” “a second actuator configured to alter a position of the second disk opener relative a second gauge wheel;” or “wherein altering a position of the first disk opener relative to the first frame or altering a position of the first disk opener relative to the first frame is at least based in part on data provided by the soil sensor indicative of soil composition.”
However, Jensen discloses a row unit based crop planting system including “a first actuator configured to alter a position of the first disk opener relative to the first gauge wheel by pivoting the first gauge wheel arm pivotably coupled to the first frame” and “a second actuator configured to alter a position of the second disk opener relative a second gauge wheel.” (Jensen col. 6, ll. 6-col. 7, l. 16, Fig. 1). Specifically, Jensen discloses that it well known in the prior art to have a “disc 21” that is connected to “support and adjustment mechanism 27” that, itself, is connected to “depth control wheel 25” (i.e., a gauge wheel). Jensen then discloses that rotation of “support and adjustment mechanism 27 “set[s] the distance between the bottom most surface of the depth control wheel and the bottom most surface of the disc,” which is adjusting the position of the disk opener relative to the gauge wheel. This process is controlled by “hydraulic cylinder 14,” which is an actuator within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Jensen also discloses that multiple planer units may be used (Jensen col. 1, ll. 37-52), meaning that there would be first and second actuators with first and second disk openers and first and second gauge wheels.
Tevs and Jensen are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of row units for agricultural vehicles.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tevs and Jensen before him or her to modify the disk of Tevs to be movable relative to the frame, as taught by Jensen.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Tevs teaches the “base device” for controlling a row unit with disk based furrowing components. Further, Jensen teaches the “known technique” of including a disk movable relative to the frame that is applicable to the base device of Tevs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
The combination of Tevs and Jensen does not appear to explicitly disclose “a soil sensor configured to capture data indicative of a soil composition” or “wherein altering a position of the first disk opener relative to the first frame or altering a position of the first disk opener relative to the first frame is at least based in part on data provided by the soil sensor indicative of soil composition.”
However, Stanhope discloses “a soil sensor configured to capture data indicative of a soil composition” (Stanhope ¶ 48) in the form of “soil composition sensor(s) 218.” Finally, Stanhope discloses “wherein altering a position of the first disk opener relative to the first frame or altering a position of the first disk opener relative to the first frame is at least based in part on data provided by the soil sensor indicative of soil composition” (Stanhope ¶ 59, see also ¶¶ 52-66, Fig. 5) where the soil composition sensors are used to adjust (i.e., alter) the downforce applied to the implement.
Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of generating furrows in soil.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope before him or her to modify the trench opener of Tevs and Jensen to include the soil sensor of Stanhope.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). The combination of Tevs and Jensen differs from the claimed invention by failing to discuss the manner in which the soil sensor works. Further, Stanhope teaches that the use of a soil sensor for detecting soil composition was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the soil sensor of Stanhope for the soil sensor of Tevs and Jensen because such a substation would merely require swapping one sensor for the other.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 16 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses “receive the data indicative of the detected depth of the first furrow from the first depth sensor” (Tevs ¶¶ 18, 41) by detecting a depth of a row (Tevs ¶ 42), which may be any of the multiple row units (i.e., the first row unit, Tevs ¶ 18). Further, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses “receive the data indicative of the detected depth of the second furrow from the second depth sensor” (Tevs ¶¶ 18, 41) by detecting a depth of a row (Tevs ¶ 42), which may be any of the multiple row units (i.e., the second row unit, Tevs ¶ 18).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses “wherein the first depth sensor is positioned within the first row unit and the second depth sensor is positioned within the second row unit.” (Tevs ¶ 21 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 16 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein a vertical position of the first row unit relative to the toolbar is varied from a vertical position of the second row unit relative to the toolbar.”
However, Stanhope discloses an apparatus for adjusting the down force of a row unit in order to control the depth of a furrow further including “wherein a vertical position of the first row unit relative to the toolbar is varied from a vertical position of the second row unit relative to the toolbar.” (Stanhope ¶ 24 and Fig. 2).
Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of generating furrows in soil.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope before him or her to modify the row units of Tevs and Jensen to include the ability for each row unit to be adjusted vertically in relation to the toolbar of Stanhope.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that the ability to adjust the vertical position of each row unit provides the advantage of allowing the apparatus to operate on land of varying height.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tevs in view of Stanhope.
Regarding claim 10, Tevs discloses a method for an agricultural operation, the method comprising “receiving a first defined furrow depth range for a first row unit” (Tevs ¶¶ 18, 42) by using multiple row units (i.e., a first row unit, Tevs ¶ 18) and where a user may input a depth into the user interface. (Tevs ¶ 42). Additionally, Tevs discloses “receiving, from a first depth sensor, data indicative of a first detected furrow depth of a first furrow” (Tevs ¶¶ 18, 41) by detecting a depth of a row (Tevs ¶ 42), which may be any of the multiple row units (i.e., the first row unit, Tevs ¶ 18). Further, Tevs discloses “wherein a position of a first gauge wheel relative to a first frame of the first row unit sets a depth to which a first disk opener penetrates a soil to define the first detected furrow depth being formed by the first row unit” (Tevs ¶ 26) where the position of a gauge wheel is controlled relative to the frame is raised or lowered to control the depth of the cutting wheel. Moreover, Tevs discloses “comparing, with a computing system, the first defined furrow depth range to the first detected furrow depth of the first furrow” (Tevs ¶ 41) by controlling the depth of the trench opener. This must necessarily “compare” the actual depth to the desired depth or the control component would not know to change the depth. Likewise, Tevs discloses “altering, with a first actuator operably coupled with the computing system, a position of a first disk opener of the first row unit based on the first detected furrow depth of the first furrow varying from the first defined furrow depth range, wherein the first actuator is supported on the first frame of the first row unit” (Tevs ¶¶ 23, 41, Fig. 2) by receiving signals from the depth sensors and controlling the depth of the trench opener in response to the calculated depth, this must be “based on the first detected furrow depth of the first furrow varies from the first defined furrow depth range” because, otherwise, the depth would not be adjusted. (Tevs ¶ 41). Tevs discloses that the depth controlling system is part of trench depth component 220 (Tevs ¶ 23), which is shown to be supported on the frame of the row unit. (Tevs Fig. 2). Likewise, Tevs discloses “the first row unit … is configured to … alter a position of the first disk opener relative to the first gauge wheel to control the first furrow depth” (Tevs ¶ 30, see also ¶ 61) by sensing terrain material, such as soil, that is used in calculating the depth, which is then used to alter the position of the disk opener for the reasons discussed above. Finally, Tevs discloses “wherein the altering is based on a deviation and data from a first soil sensor …” (Tevs ¶ 29) where the operation is also based on the soil conditions.
Tevs does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first row unit “is configured to move a first linkage arm coupled to a first wobble bracket to pivot a first gauge wheel arm to alter a position of the first disk opener relative to the first gauge wheel to control the first furrow depth, and wherein the altering is based on a deviation and data from a first soil sensor indicative of soil composition.”
However, Stanhope discloses a method for an agricultural operation including a first row unit (Stanhope Abstract) that “is configured to move a first linkage arm coupled to a first wobble bracket to pivot a first gauge wheel arm to alter a position of the first disk opener relative to the first gauge wheel to control the first furrow depth” (Stanhope ¶¶ 29-31) where pivot arm 68 is “coupled with the depth control linkage arm 64” (i.e., a link arm coupled to the wobble bracket, see annotated image below) and “adjusts an axial position of the linkage arm 64, thereby rotating the gauge wheel linkage 54 to raise or lower the gauge wheels 52.” By raising and lowering the gauge wheels 52, they are being moved relative to the row unit frame 22. Stanhope continues that the adjustment of the height of the gauge wheels, which is controlled by gauge wheel linkage 54, determines the depth (i.e., position to control the furrow depth).
PNG
media_image1.png
773
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Finally, Stanhope discloses “wherein the altering is based on a deviation and data from a first soil sensor indicative of soil composition” (Stanhope ¶¶ 48, 59, see also Fig. 5) in the form of “soil composition sensor(s) 218” that is used to adjust (i.e., alter) the downforce applied to the implement.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tevs and Stanhope before him or her to modify the trench opener of Tevs to include the wobble bracket and soil sensor of Stanhope.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Tevs differs from the claimed invention by failing to discuss the manner in which the gauge wheel is connected to the actuator in place of the claimed wobble bracket and by adjusting the gauge wheel based on a different type of soil sensor. Further, Stanhope teaches that the use of a wobble bracket and soil composition sensor in this situation was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the wobble bracket of Stanhope because the gauge wheel must be connected to the actuator in some manner.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Tevs and Stanhope discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 10 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tevs and Stanhope discloses “wherein altering the position of the disk opener of the first row unit when the first detected furrow depth of the first furrow varies from the first defined furrow depth range further comprises providing instructions from the computing system to a first controller associated with the first row unit, and wherein the first controller is configured to manipulate the first actuator.” (Tevs ¶ 38).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tevs in view of Stanhope, as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Jensen.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tevs and Stanhope discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 10 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tevs and Stanhope discloses “receiving a second defined furrow depth range for a second row unit (Tevs ¶¶ 18, 42) by using multiple row units (i.e., a second row unit, Tevs ¶ 18) and where a user may input a depth into the user interface. (Tevs ¶ 42). Further, the combination of Tevs and Stanhope discloses “receiving, from a second depth sensor, data indicative of a second detected furrow depth of a second furrow” (Tevs ¶¶ 18, 41) by detecting a depth of a row (Tevs ¶ 42), which may be any of the multiple row units (i.e., the second row unit, Tevs ¶ 18). Moreover, the combination of Tevs and Stanhope discloses “comparing, with the computing system, the second defined furrow depth range to the second detected furrow depth of the second furrow” (Tevs ¶ 41) by controlling the depth of the trench opener. This must necessarily “compare” the actual depth to the desired depth or the control component would not know to change the depth. Finally, the combination of Tevs and Stanhope discloses “altering, with a second actuator operably coupled with the computing system, a position of a second disk opener of the second row unit when the second detected furrow depth of the second furrow varies from the second defined furrow depth range” (Tevs ¶ 41) by receiving signals from the depth sensors and controlling the depth of the trench opener in response to the calculated depth, this must be “when the second detected furrow depth of the second furrow varies from the second defined furrow depth range” because, otherwise, the depth would not be adjusted.
The combination of Tevs and Stanhope does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the position of the second disk opener relative to a second frame is varied from the position of the first disk opener relative to the first frame.”
However, Jensen discloses a row unit based crop planting system including “wherein the position of the second disk opener relative to a second frame is varied from the position of the first disk opener relative to the first frame.” (Jensen col. 6, ll. 6-65, Fig. 1). Specifically, Jensen discloses that it well known in the prior art to have a disc 21 that is mounted to an adjustable arm controlled by hydraulic cylinder 14 that controls the position of the disc relative to the frame. Jensen further discloses the presence of a plurality of these units, with each one having its own adjustable arm, meaning that the disk of each unit would vary from the other units over uneven ground.
Tevs, Stanhope, and Jensen are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of row units for agricultural vehicles.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tevs, Stanhope, and Jensen before him or her to modify the disk of Tevs, Stanhope, to be movable relative to the frame, as taught by Jensen.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Tevs, Stanhope, and Stanhope teaches the “base device” for controlling a row unit with disk based furrowing components. Further, Jensen teaches the “known technique” of including a disk movable relative to the frame that is applicable to the base device of Tevs and Stanhope. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Tevs, Stanhope, and Jensen discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tevs, Stanhope, and Jensen discloses “wherein the first defined furrow depth range and the second defined furrow depth range are received from a user interface operably coupled with the computing system” (Tevs ¶ 42) where the user interface may receive input through input mechanism 477 to control the depth of the furrow.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Tevs, Stanhope, and Jensen discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tevs, Stanhope, and Jensen discloses “wherein the first defined furrow depth range and the second defined furrow depth range are received from an electronic device operably coupled with the computing system” (Tevs ¶ 42) where user interface 475 is an electronic device coupled to the computing system.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Tevs, Stanhope, and Jensen discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tevs, Stanhope, and Jensen discloses “wherein the first defined furrow depth range and the second defined furrow depth range are determined based on one or more look-up tables.” (Stanhope ¶¶ 2-3, 27, 43). Specifically, Stanhope discloses that furrows are dug (Stanhope ¶ 27), which have their dept controlled by controlling the down force applied to the mechanism. (Stanhope ¶¶ 2-3). Stanhope then discloses that the appropriate amount of down force is determined for one or more look-up tables. (Stanhope. ¶ 43).
Tevs, Stanhope, and Jensen are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of generating furrows in soil.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tevs, Stanhope, and Jensen before him or her to modify the depth determination of Tevs to include the look-up tables of Stanhope.
The motivation for doing so would have been that the advantages are “obvious” (Stanhope ¶ 5) and recognized in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 18, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, Applicant argues Tevs fails to disclose several claimed limitations because “[d]ue to the fixed relationship between the opener 210 and the frame 205, the downforce applied to the frame 205 of the whole row unit 200, every component fixedly coupled thereto is pressed deeper into the ground, including the trench opener 210. (Remarks 9-10). The examiner disagrees.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “every component [of Tevs] fixedly coupled thereto is pressed deeper into the ground, including the trench opener 210”) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Specifically, nothing in the present claim requires any components to not be “pressed deeper into the ground” or any “fixed relationship between the opener 210 and the frame 250.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, respectively, Applicant argues that these claims are allowable for depending on claim 10. (Remarks 10-11). Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant first argues that the combination of Tevs and Jensen fails to disclose certain limitations of the claim, followed by a brief characterization of each of these references. (Remarks 11-12). The examiner disagrees.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Instead, Applicant merely restates claim limitations, characterizes the references, and then concludes that the prior art “does not disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the features set forth in amended claim 16.” (Remarks 12). Applicant present no reasons why Applicant believes that this is the case. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues that “as the elements set forth in amended claim 16 are not disclosed, suggested, or otherwise rendered obvious by Tevs et al. and Jensen et al., the Office Action cannot explain why a POSITA at the time of invention would have been motivated to combine Tevs et al. and Jensen et al. in the manner proposed in the Office Action to arrive at the claimed invention.” (Remarks 13). The examiner disagrees for the reasons discussed in the updated rejection to claim 16 above.
Regarding the rejection of claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that these claims are allowable for depending on claim 16. (Remarks 14). Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant first argues the combination of Tevs and Stanhope fails to disclose several limitations, followed by a characterization of each reference. (Remarks 14-16). The examiner disagrees.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Instead, Applicant merely restates claim limitations, characterizes the references, and then concludes that the limitations of claim 1 “are not disclosed, suggested, or otherwise rendered obvious by Tevs et al., Jensen et al., or Stanhope et al.” (Remarks 16). Applicant present no reasons why Applicant believes that this is the case. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 3-7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that these claims are allowable for depending on claim 16. (Remarks 16). Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662