DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 17/726,003 filed on June 8, 2026 in which claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 16 were amended; claims 4 and 7 were canceled; and claims 21-25 were added.
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, 5, 6, 9-19, and 21-25 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitations “an actuator supported on the frame of the row unit and operably coupled with the disk opener and configured to alter a position of the disk opener relative to the frame” at lines 7-8; “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” at lines 14-16; and “provide instructions to 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” at lines 24-26. (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 10 recites the limitation “wherein the first actuator is supported on the first frame of the first row unit and 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” in the final two lines of the claim.
This appears to recite that the use of the linkage arm is “to alter a position” in order “to control” the furrow depth. “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 “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” at lines 13-14, “a second actuator configured to alter a position of the second disk opener relative to the second gauge wheel by pivoting the second gauge wheel arm pivotably coupled to the second frame” at lines 25-27, and “the first actuator is independent of the activation of the second actuator to allow variable furrow depths across the first and second row units” at lines 35-37. (Emphasis added).
The statement that the actuators are “to alter a position” and 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. § 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, 5, 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, comprising a controller” (Tevs ¶¶ 56, 68) by disclosing that processing unit 820 (i.e., a controller) “comprise[s] processors from previous FIGS” (Tevs ¶ 68) and indicating that such included processors may be part of the row unit in Fig. 7. (Tevs ¶ 56). Thus, the controller is at least partially part of the row unit. However, even assuming such processors were separate, such a modification would be obvious because Tevs teaches a controller as part of the row unit and it is well understood that “[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Additionally, Tevs discloses “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). Further, 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. Moreover, 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 and set a penetration depth of the disk opener relative to the frame” (Tevs ¶ 26, see also Tevs ¶¶ 22-25) where the gauge wheel positions is used to determine the trench depth.
Likewise, 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. Tevs also discloses “a depth sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected furrow depth of the furrow.” (Tevs ¶ 75). In addition, Tevs discloses “a computing system that is remote from the row unit.” (Tevs ¶ 75). Furthermore, Tevs discloses “the computing system … configured to: receive the data indicative of the detected furrow depth of the furrow and the data indicative of the soil …; and provide instructions to 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.
Moreover, Tevs discloses “wherein the controller of the row unit is operably coupled with the actuator and the computing system” (Tevs Fig. 4) which shows the connections between each of these elements. Finally, Tevs discloses “wherein the computing system activates the actuator by providing the instructions to the controller and the controller manipulates the actuator based on the instructions provided by the computing system” (Tevs ¶ 41) where the system transmits signals (i.e., instructions) to control the various components of the system, which includes the actuators.
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; a wobble bracket configured to engage a gauge wheel arm, the gauge wheel arm pivotably coupled to the frame;” “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; a soil sensor configured to capture data indicative of a soil composition;” “a computing system that is remote from the row unit and is configured to: receive the data indicative of the detected furrow depth of the furrow and the data indicative of the soil composition;” or “provide instructions to 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.
In addition, Jensen discloses many of the limitations disclosed by Tevs. For example, Jensen discloses a system for a planting implement having one or more row units, the system comprising “a frame supporting a row unit comprising a controller, the row unit configured to operably couple with a toolbar through one or more links; (Jensen col. 6, ll. 6-65, col. 10, l. 56-col. 11, l. 19) by disclosing a seed channel opener (i.e., a row unit) with frame (Jensen col. 6, ll. 6-65) and further indicating the presence of a micro-controller. (Jensen col. 10, l. 56-col. 11, l. 19). Further, Jensen 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” (Jensen col. 6, ll. 41-43) by including “a seed channel opener 21 in the form of a rotatable disc (sometimes referred to hereinafter as disc 21).” Moreover, Jensen 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 and set a penetration depth of the disk opener relative to the frame” (Jensen col. 6, ll. 48-50) where depth control wheel is shown in Fig. 11 to be mounted to an arm, and is configured to roll over the ground to maintain the proper depth (i.e., sets a penetration depth) of the disc. Likewise, Jensen discloses “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” (Jensen col. 7, ll. 17-38) where the hydraulic cylinders (i.e., the actuators) rotate the rock and cast arms in order to set the depth of the disc relative to the control wheel. Jensen also discloses “a depth sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected furrow depth of the furrow … receive the data indicative of the detected furrow depth of the furrow …” (Jensen col. 9, l. 55-col. 10, l. 7) where the depth is detected using a pressure sensor, making the pressure sensor a depth sensor.
Additionally, Jensen discloses “a computing system …” (Jensen col. 10, ll. 56-58) where the electronic control unit 100 is a computing system. Furthermore, Jensen discloses “provide instructions to 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 …” (Jensen col. 10, l. 56-col. 11, l. 47) where output signals are sent to the PID to control the depth of the channel, which is within a range of output values. Finally, Jensen discloses “wherein the controller of the row unit is operably coupled with the actuator and the computing system, and wherein the computing system activates the actuator by providing the instructions to the controller and the controller manipulates the actuator based on the instructions provided by the computing system” (Jensen col. 10, l. 56-col. 11, l. 19) where the electronic control unit 100 sends output signals to the PID that controls the valve controller 104 (i.e., the controller for the actuators) to perform the instructions.
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, the gauge wheel arm pivotably coupled to the frame;” “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; a soil sensor configured to capture data indicative of a soil composition;” “a computing system that is remote from the row unit and is configured to: receive the data indicative of the detected furrow depth of the furrow and the data indicative of the soil composition;” or “provide instructions to 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, the gauge wheel arm pivotably coupled to the frame” (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), which is pivotably coupled to the frame via “pivotal attachment 56.”
Additionally, 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. Further, 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
Moreover, 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.” Likewise, Stanhope discloses “a computing system that is remote from the row unit and is configured to: receive the data indicative of the detected furrow depth of the furrow and the data indicative of the soil composition” (Stanhope ¶¶ 31, 37, 40) where the computing system may be part of the work vehicle (i.e., remote from the row unit, Stanhope ¶ 40) and the system determines the penetration depth of the opening discs 32 (i.e., data indicative of the detected furrow depth of the furrow, Stanhope ¶ 31) and soil composition data (Stanhope ¶ 37). Finally, Stanhope discloses “provide instructions to 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.
In addition, Stanhope discloses many of the limitations disclosed by Tevs and Jensen. For example, Stanhope discloses “a system for a planting implement having one or more row units, the system comprising: a frame supporting a row unit comprising a controller” (Stanhope ¶ 24, 41) by giving an example of a controller controlling the row unit, meaning that the row unit comprises the controller (Stanhope ¶ 41) and stating that a frame supports the row unit (Stanhope ¶ 24). Additionally, Stanhope discloses “the row unit configured to operably couple with a toolbar through one or more links.” (Stanhope ¶ 22, Fig. 1). Further, Stanhope 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.” (Stanhope ¶ 27). Moreover, Stanhope discloses “an actuator supported on the frame of the row unit and operably coupled with the disk opener and configured to alter a position of the disk opener relative to the frame” (Stanhope ¶¶ 25, 27, Figs. 1-2) where down force actuator 28 is coupled to the frame and applies down force to adjust the position of the row unit (Stanhope ¶ 25, Figs. 1-2), which includes opening discs 32. (Stanhope ¶ 27). Thus, by altering the position of the row unit, the position of the components of the row unit, such as opening discs 32, is also altered. Likewise, Stanhope 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 and set a penetration depth of the disk opener relative to the frame” (Stanhope ¶ 29) where the depth of the opening discs is controlled by gauge wheels 52 that are “rotatably mounted.”
Stanhope also discloses “a depth sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected furrow depth of the furrow” (Stanhope ¶ 31) where the height of the gauge wheels is measured to determine the penetration depth of the opening discs (i.e., a detected furrow depth of the furrow). By measuring the height of the gauge wheels, the system is “sensing” the depth. In addition, Stanhope discloses “wherein the controller of the row unit is operably coupled with the actuator and the computing system” (Stanhope ¶¶ 40-41) where the controller is operably coupled to the computer system via a communications circuit and the actuator via control valves 208. Finally, Stanhope discloses “wherein the computing system activates the actuator by providing the instructions to the controller and the controller manipulates the actuator based on the instructions provided by the computing system” (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 5, 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 further coupled with the controller.” (Tevs Fig. 4).
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.” (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 “a first row unit coupled to the toolbar.” (Tevs Fig. 1). Moreover, Tevs discloses “the first row unit comprising: a first frame.” (Tevs ¶ 21 and Fig. 1). Likewise, 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. Tevs also 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).
In addition, Tevs 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. Furthermore, Tevs 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. Moreover, Tevs discloses “a first controller operably coupled with the first actuator” (Tevs ¶¶ 56, 68) by disclosing that processing unit 820 (i.e., a controller) “comprise[s] processors from previous FIGS” (Tevs ¶ 68) and indicating that such included processors may be part of the row unit in Fig. 7. (Tevs ¶ 56). Thus, the controller is at least partially part of the row unit. However, even assuming such processors were separate, such a modification would be obvious because Tevs teaches a controller as part of the row unit and it is well understood that “[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Likewise, Tevs discloses “a second row unit coupled to the toolbar, the second row unit comprising: a second frame.” (Tevs ¶ 21 and Fig. 1). Tevs also 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.
Additionally, 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). Further, Tevs discloses “a second gauge wheel pivotably coupled to a 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. Moreover, Tevs discloses “a second controller operably coupled with the second actuator” (Tevs ¶¶ 17, 56, 68) by disclosing a plurality of row units (Tevs ¶ 17) that each include a processing unit 820 (i.e., a controller) “comprise[s] processors from previous FIGS” (Tevs ¶ 68) and indicating that such included processors may be part of the row unit in Fig. 7. (Tevs ¶ 56). Thus, the controller is at least partially part of the row unit. However, even assuming such processors were separate, such a modification would be obvious because Tevs teaches a controller as part of the row unit and it is well understood that “[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Likewise, Tevs discloses “a computing system operably coupled with the first row unit and the second row unit, the computing system being remote from the first row unit and the second row unit.” (Tevs ¶ 38 and Fig. 4). Tevs also discloses “a computing system … being configured to: providing instructions to activate the first actuator to alter a position of the first disk opener relative to the first gauge wheel; and providing instructions to 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.
In addition, 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. Furthermore, Tevs discloses “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 …” (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. Finally, Tevs discloses “wherein the computing system activates the first actuator by providing the instructions to the first controller and the first controller manipulates the first actuator based on the instructions provided by the computing system; and wherein the computing system activates the second actuator by providing the instructions to the second controller and the second controller manipulates the second actuator based on the instructions provided by the computing system” (Tevs ¶ 41) where the system transmits signals (i.e., instructions) to control the various components of the system, which includes the actuators.
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 to the second gauge wheel by pivoting the second gauge wheel arm pivotably coupled to the second frame;” or “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.”
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.
In addition, Jensen discloses many of the limitations disclosed by Tevs. For example, Jensen discloses system for a planting implement, the system comprising “a toolbar” (Jensen col. 7, l. 52-col. 8, l. 11) by describing the connection between the units and the tractors using a fixed frame, which a person of ordinary skill would understand to be acting as a toolbar. Further, Jensen “a first row unit coupled to the toolbar, the first row unit comprising: a first frame” (Jensen col. 6, ll. 6-65) by disclosing a seed channel opener (i.e., a row unit) with frame. Moreover, Jensen 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” (Jensen col. 6, ll. 41-43) by including “a seed channel opener 21 in the form of a rotatable disc (sometimes referred to hereinafter as disc 21).” Likewise, Jensen discloses “a first depth sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected furrow depth of the first furrow” (Jensen col. 9, l. 55-col. 10, l. 7) where the depth is detected using a pressure sensor, making the pressure sensor a depth sensor. Jensen 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” (Jensen col. 6, ll. 48-50) where depth control wheel is shown in Fig. 11 to be mounted to an arm, and is configured to roll over the ground to maintain the proper depth (i.e., sets a penetration depth) of the disc.
Additionally, Jensen discloses “first controller operably coupled with the first actuator” (Jensen col. 10, l. 56-col. 11, l. 19) where a microcontroller of the electronic control unit 100 sends output signals to the PID that controls the valve controller 104 (i.e., the controller for the actuators) to perform the instructions, meaning that the controller is “operably coupled” to the actuator via the connecting lines. Furthermore, Jensen discloses “a second row unit coupled to the toolbar, the second row unit comprising: a second frame” (Jensen col. 6, ll. 6-65) by disclosing a seed channel opener (i.e., a row unit) with frame and that there may be a plurality (i.e., a second) of the units. Moreover, Jensen 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” (Jensen col. 6, ll. 41-43) by including “a seed channel opener 21 in the form of a rotatable disc (sometimes referred to hereinafter as disc 21).” Likewise, Jensen discloses “a second depth sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected furrow depth of the second furrow” (Jensen col. 9, l. 55-col. 10, l. 7) where the depth is detected using a pressure sensor, making the pressure sensor a depth sensor. Jensen also discloses “a second gauge wheel pivotably coupled to a 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” (Jensen col. 6, ll. 48-50) where depth control wheel is shown in Fig. 11 to be mounted to an arm, and is configured to roll over the ground to maintain the proper depth (i.e., sets a penetration depth) of the disc.
In addition, Jensen discloses “a second controller operably coupled with the second actuator” (Jensen col. 10, l. 56-col. 11, l. 19) where a microcontroller of the electronic control unit 100 sends output signals to the PID that controls the valve controller 104 (i.e., the controller for the actuators) to perform the instructions, meaning that the controller is “operably coupled” to the actuator via the connecting lines. Further, Jensen discloses “a computing system operably coupled with the first row unit and the second row unit” (Jensen col. 10, ll. 56-58) where the electronic control unit 100 is a computing system. Moreover, Jensen discloses “the computing system … being configured to: providing instructions to activate the first actuator to alter a position of the first disk opener relative to the first gauge wheel; and providing instructions to activate the second actuator to alter a position of the second disk opener relative to the second gauge wheel” (Jensen col. 10, l. 56-col. 11, l. 47) where output signals are sent to the PID to control the depth of the channel, which is within a range of output values. Likewise, Jensen 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” (Jensen col. 6, ll. 31-34) where the plurality of units are independent units. Finally, Jensen discloses “wherein the computing system activates the first actuator by providing the instructions to the first controller and the first controller manipulates the first actuator based on the instructions provided by the computing system; and wherein the computing system activates the second actuator by providing the instructions to the second controller and the second controller manipulates the second actuator based on the instructions provided by the computing system.” (Jensen col. 10, l. 56-col. 11, l. 19) where the electronic control unit 100 sends output signals to the PID that controls the valve controller 104 (i.e., the controller for the actuators) to perform the instructions.
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;” and “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.”
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.” Additionally, Stanhope discloses “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” (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.
In addition, Stanhope discloses many of the limitations disclosed by Tevs and Jensen. For example, Stanhope discloses “a system for a planting implement, the system comprising: a toolbar.” (Stanhope ¶ 22). Further, Stanhope discloses “a first row unit coupled to the toolbar.” (Stanhope ¶ 22, Fig. 1). Moreover, Stanhope discloses “the first row unit comprising: a first frame.” (Stanhope ¶ 24). Likewise, Stanhope 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.” (Stanhope ¶ 27). Stanhope also discloses “a first depth sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected furrow depth of the first furrow” (Stanhope ¶ 31) where the height of the gauge wheels is measured to determine the penetration depth of the opening discs (i.e., a detected furrow depth of the furrow). By measuring the height of the gauge wheels, the system is “sensing” the depth.
Additionally, Stanhope 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” (Stanhope ¶ 29) where the depth of the opening discs is controlled by gauge wheels 52 that are “rotatably mounted.” Furthermore, Stanhope discloses “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” (Stanhope ¶¶ 25, 27, Figs. 1-2) where down force actuator 28 is coupled to the frame and applies down force to adjust the position of the row unit (Stanhope ¶ 25, Figs. 1-2), which includes opening discs 32. (Stanhope ¶ 27). Thus, by altering the position of the row unit, the position of the components of the row unit, such as opening discs 32, is also altered. Moreover, Stanhope discloses “a first controller operably coupled with the first actuator” (Stanhope ¶ 41) by giving an example of a controller controlling the row unit, meaning that the row unit comprises the controller. Likewise, Stanhope discloses “a second row unit coupled to the toolbar” (Stanhope ¶ 23) by including a plurality of row units, each configured in the same manner.
In addition, Stanhope discloses “the second row unit comprising: a second frame.” (Stanhope ¶ 24). Further, Stanhope 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.” (Stanhope ¶ 27). Moreover, Stanhope discloses “a second depth sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected furrow depth of the second furrow” (Stanhope ¶ 31) where the height of the gauge wheels is measured to determine the penetration depth of the opening discs (i.e., a detected furrow depth of the furrow). By measuring the height of the gauge wheels, the system is “sensing” the depth. Likewise, Stanhope discloses “a second gauge wheel pivotably coupled to a 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” (Stanhope ¶ 29) where the depth of the opening discs is controlled by gauge wheels 52 that are “rotatably mounted.” Stanhope also discloses “a second controller operably coupled with the second actuator” (Stanhope ¶ 41) by giving an example of a controller controlling the row unit, meaning that the row unit comprises the controller.
Additionally, Stanhope discloses “a computing system operably coupled with the first row unit and the second row unit.” (Stanhope ¶ 39). Furthermore, Stanhope discloses “the computing system … being configured to: providing instructions to activate the first actuator to alter a position of the first disk opener relative to the first gauge wheel; and providing instructions to activate the second actuator to alter a position of the second disk opener relative to the second gauge wheel, 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” (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. Finally, Stanhope discloses “wherein the computing system activates the first actuator by providing the instructions to the first controller and the first controller manipulates the first actuator based on the instructions provided by the computing system; and wherein the computing system activates the second actuator by providing the instructions to the second controller and the second controller manipulates the second actuator based on the instructions provided by the computing system” (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 “the first row unit comprising a first controller ” (Tevs ¶¶ 56, 68) by disclosing that processing unit 820 (i.e., a controller) “comprise[s] processors from previous FIGS” (Tevs ¶ 68) and indicating that such included processors may be part of the row unit in Fig. 7. (Tevs ¶ 56). Thus, the controller is at least partially part of the row unit. However, even assuming such processors were separate, such a modification would be obvious because Tevs teaches a controller as part of the row unit and it is well understood that “[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Further, 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). Moreover, 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. Likewise, Tevs discloses “comparing, with a computing system that is remote from the first row unit, the first defined furrow depth range to the first detected furrow depth of the first furrow” (Tevs ¶¶ 41, 75 and Fig. 4) 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 (Tevs ¶ 41). Tevs discloses that the computing system may include one or more remote computers. (Tevs ¶ 75). Tevs also discloses “providing instructions, with the computing system, to the first controller of the first row unit based on the first detected furrow depth of the first furrow varying from the first defined furrow depth range and data from a soil sensor indicative of 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. Finally, Tevs discloses “altering, with an element operably coupled with the first controller, a position of a first disk opener of the first row unit based on instructions provided to the first controller by the computing system … 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.
Tevs does not appear to explicitly disclose “providing instructions, with the computing system, to the first controller of the first row unit based on the first detected furrow depth of the first furrow varying from the first defined furrow depth range and data from a soil sensor indicative of soil composition” or “wherein the first actuator is supported on the first frame of the first row unit and 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.”
However, Stanhope discloses a method for an agricultural operation, the method comprising “providing instructions, with the computing system, to the first controller of the first row unit based on the first detected furrow depth of the first furrow varying from the first defined furrow depth range and data from a 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. Additionally, Stanhope discloses “altering, with a first actuator operably coupled with the first controller, a position of a first disk opener of the first row unit based on instructions provided to the first controller by the computing system, wherein the first actuator is supported on the first frame of the first row unit and 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
Further, Stanhope discloses many of the limitations disclosed by Tevs. For example, Stanhope discloses “receiving, from a first depth sensor, data indicative of a first detected furrow depth of a first furrow ” (Stanhope ¶ 31) where the height of the gauge wheels is measured to determine the penetration depth of the opening discs (i.e., a detected furrow depth of the furrow). By measuring the height of the gauge wheels, the system is “sensing” the depth. Moreover, Stanhope 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” (Stanhope ¶ 59, see also ¶¶ 52-66, Fig. 5) where the downforce that applied to the implement is adjusted.
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 “the second row unit comprising a second controller” (Tevs ¶¶ 17, 56, 68) by disclosing a plurality of row units that each include a processing unit 820 (i.e., a controller) “comprise[s] processors from previous FIGS” (Tevs ¶ 68) and indicating that such included processors may be part of the row unit in Fig. 7. (Tevs ¶ 56). Thus, the controller is at least partially part of the row unit. However, even assuming such processors were separate, such a modification would be obvious because Tevs teaches a controller as part of the row unit and it is well understood that “[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Moreover, 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). Likewise, 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. The combination of Tevs and Stanhope also discloses “providing instructions, with the computing system, to the second controller of the second row unit based on the second detected furrow depth of the second furrow varying from the second defined furrow depth range and data from 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. Finally, the combination of Tevs and Stanhope discloses altering, with a second actuator operably coupled with the second controller, a position of a second disk opener of the second row unit based on the instructions provided to the second controller by the computing system” (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 “based on” instructions 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 and Stanhope 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.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tevs in view of Jenssen and Stanhope, as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and in further view of Kock et al., US Publication 2018/0168094 (hereinafter Koch), as evidenced by Achen et al., PCT/US2012/035585 published as WO 2012/1494151 (hereinafter Achen).
Regarding claim 21, 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 does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the defined furrow depth range is based on an agricultural product being deposited within the field.”
However, Koch discloses a row unit management system that sets a furrow depth, “wherein the defined furrow depth range is based on an agricultural product being deposited within the field” (Achen ¶ 10) where the depth of the furrow is set based on the characteristics associated with the planting seeds.
Tevs, Jensen, Stanhope, and Koch are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of row unit management systems.
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, Stanhope, and Koch before him or her to modify the furrow depth range of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope to include the depth range based on seed characteristics of Koch.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more accurate depth of the furrow based on the particular needs of the seeds being planted, thereby improving the growth of the seeds due to better planting conditions for those particular seeds.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope discloses “wherein the user interface is displayed on a remote electronic device.” (Tevs ¶¶ 74-75, see also Stanhope ¶ 51) where the user interface may be on a remote computer 880.
The combination of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the remote electronic device is communicably coupled with the computing system via wireless communication.”
However, Koch discloses a row unit management system including a user interface on a remote electronic device “wherein the remote electronic device is communicably coupled with the computing system via wireless communication” (Koch ¶ 265) where the user interface may be on a tablet or smartphone and may be connected via wireless networks.
Tevs, Jensen, Stanhope, and Koch are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of row unit management systems.
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, Stanhope, and Koch before him or her to modify the user interface of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope to be wireless as disclosed by Koch.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the usability of the system by allowing the controller to control the row unit from anywhere, including places without wired network access.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tevs in view of Jensen and Stanhope, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Grataloup, US Patent 4,594,951 (hereinafter Grataloup).
Regarding claim 22, 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 does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the computing system is further configured to provide instructions to activate the actuator to alter the position of the disk opener relative to the frame based on an orientation of the row unit relative to a flat position.”
However, Grataloup discloses that it is well-known in the field of row units to adjust the depth (i.e., position) of the disk opener relative to the frame based on the row unit being on level ground (i.e., in a flat position). (Grataloup Claim 8).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that when Grataloup was combined with Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope, the computer based position control of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope would be relative to a flat ground position, as disclosed by Grataloup. Therefore, the combination of Tevs, Jensen, Stanhope, and Grataloup at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “wherein the computing system is further configured to provide instructions to activate the actuator to alter the position of the disk opener relative to the frame based on an orientation of the row unit relative to a flat position,” rendering it obvious.
Tevs, Jensen, Stanhope, and Grataloup are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of row unit control.
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, Stanhope, and Grataloup before him or her to modify the position control of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope to be based on the relative position when on flat ground, as disclosed by Grataloup.
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, Jensen, and Stanhope teaches the “base device” for using a computer to control the position of the disc openers of a row unit. Further, Grataloup teaches the “known technique” of controlling the position of a disc opener relative to the row unit being on flat ground that is applicable to the base device of Tevs, Jensen, 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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tevs in view of Stanhope, as applied to claim10 above, and in further view of McMahan et al., US Publication 2021/0337723 (hereinafter McMahan).
Regarding claim 24, 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 comparing comprises comparing, with the computing system and the first controller, the first defined furrow depth range to the first detected furrow depth of the first furrow” (Tevs ¶ 41 and Fig. 4) 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 (Tevs ¶ 41)
The combination of Tevs and Stanhope does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the method further comprises: performing, with the first controller, one or more subsequent modifications of the first actuator without additional instructions from the computing system based on the first detected furrow depth of the first furrow varying from the first defined furrow depth range.”
However, McMahon discloses a method for controlling a series of row units (McMahon ¶ 55) including the step of “performing, with the first controller, one or more subsequent modifications of the first actuator without additional instructions from the computing system based on the first detected furrow depth of the first furrow varying from the first defined furrow depth range.” (McMahon ¶ 109). Specifically, McMahon discloses that the intelligent controls of the tractor may be communicated to the tractor so that when a network connection is lost, the tractor can continue to perform the instructions. Thus, when there is no network connection, the tractor continues to control all functions “without additional instructions from the computing system,” as claimed.
Tevs, Stanhope, and McMahon are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of methods for controlling row units.
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 McMahon before him or her to modify the control method of Tevs and Stanhope to include the ability to work offline of McMahon.
The motivation for doing so would have been that it provides reliable outcomes for farmers (McMahon ¶ 19) by allowing the operations to continue even when no network connection is available.
Claims 6 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tevs in view of Jensen and Stanhope, as applied to claims 5 and 16 above, and in further view of McMahan.
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 the controller performs one or more subsequent modifications of the actuator … based on the deviation of the detected furrow depth of the furrow from the defined furrow depth range” (Tevs ¶ 29) where adjustments (i.e., one or more subsequent modifications) are made based on changes in the trench depth in order to maintain a constant trench depth (i.e., a defined furrow depth range). Because the controller controls all actions, this is “performed” by the controller within the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim.
However, McMahon discloses a system for controlling a series of row units (McMahon ¶ 55) including “wherein the controller performs one or more subsequent modifications of the actuator without additional instructions from the computing system.” (McMahon ¶ 109). Specifically, McMahon discloses that the intelligent controls of the tractor may be communicated to the tractor so that when a network connection is lost, the tractor can continue to perform the instructions. Thus, when there is no network connection, the tractor continues to control all functions “without additional instructions from the computing system,” as claimed.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when McMahon was combined with Jensen, and Stanhope, the modifications based on the deviation of the detected furrow depth of the furrow from the defined depth range would still be performed in the event of a network outage, as taught by McMahon Tevs, Jensen, Stanhope, and McMahon at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “wherein the controller performs one or more subsequent modifications of the actuator without additional instructions from the computing system based on the deviation of the detected furrow depth of the furrow from the defined furrow depth range,” rendering this limitation obvious.
Tevs, Jensen, Stanhope, and McMahon are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of systems for controlling row units.
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, Stanhope, and McMahon before him or her to modify the control system of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope to include the ability to work offline of McMahon.
The motivation for doing so would have been that it provides reliable outcomes for farmers (McMahon ¶ 19) by allowing the operations to continue even when no network connection is available.
Regarding claim 25, 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 the first controller performs one or more subsequent modifications of the first actuator without additional instructions from the computing system based on the detected depth of the first furrow varying from a first defined furrow depth range; and wherein the second controller performs one or more subsequent modifications of the second actuator without additional instructions from the computing system based on the detected depth of the second furrow varying from a second defined furrow depth range.”
However, McMahon discloses a system for controlling a plurality of row units (McMahon ¶ 55) including the step of “wherein the first controller performs one or more subsequent modifications of the first actuator without additional instructions from the computing system based on the detected depth of the first furrow varying from a first defined furrow depth range; and wherein the second controller performs one or more subsequent modifications of the second actuator without additional instructions from the computing system based on the detected depth of the second furrow varying from a second defined furrow depth range.” (McMahon ¶ 109). Specifically, McMahon discloses that the intelligent controls of the tractor may be communicated to the tractor so that when a network connection is lost, the tractor can continue to perform the instructions for each row unit. Thus, when there is no network connection, the tractor continues to control all functions “without additional instructions from the computing system,” as claimed.
Tevs, Jensen, Stanhope, and McMahon are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of systems for controlling row units.
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, Stanhope, and McMahon before him or her to modify the control system of Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope to include the ability to work offline of McMahon.
The motivation for doing so would have been that it provides reliable outcomes for farmers (McMahon ¶ 19) by allowing the operations to continue even when no network connection is available.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 8, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 9) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims 1, 3, 5, 9-19, and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant first argues “Tevs, Jensen, nor Stanhope, nor any combination of such references discloses or renders obvious” the newly included amendments that “a row unit comprises a controller;” “a computing system that is remote from the row unit is configured to: receive data indicative of the detected furrow depth of the furrow and data indicative of the soil composition; and provide instructions to 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” and “the controller of the row unit is operably coupled with the actuator and the computing system, and the computing system activates the actuator by providing the instructions to the controller and the controller manipulates the actuator based on the instructions provided by the computing system.” (Remarks 10). Applicant continues by explaining why it is believed that the Tevs reference fails to disclose these limitations, particularly focusing on the presence of a controller. (Remarks 10). The examiner disagrees.
As discussed above, at least Tevs and Stanhope disclose these features. For instance, Tevs discloses the existence of a processor that includes a controller at each row unit that performs each actuation (Tevs ¶¶ 56, 68); Jensen discloses the controller at col. 10, l. 56-col. 11, l. 19; while Stanhope discloses a row unit controller at ¶ 41. Although not explicitly argued Tevs, Jensen, and Stanhope teach the other newly amended limitations for the reasons discussed in the rejection above. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed June 8, 2026, with respect to the rejections of amended claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Remarks 11) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Tevs, Jensen, Stanhope, and McMahon.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
1 Incorporated by reference at Koch ¶ 102
Prosecution Insights