DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 25 February 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 1-18 are pending in this application.
Claims 19-20 are cancelled.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “Described herein,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Response to Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 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 1-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuber et al. (US Publication 2020/0082478 A1) in view of Hodel et al. (US Publication 2022/0272888 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stuber teaches a method, comprising the following steps: moving an agricultural implement through a crop field (Stuber: Para. 23; first monitoring system preferably collects data during a first operation (e.g., a planting operation)), the implement including a toolbar (Stuber: Para. 12; row unit is preferably pivotally connected to the toolbar by a parallel linkage) and ……… relative to the ground (Stuber: Para. 13; linear extension of the actuator is related to the depth of the trench) as the implement moves through the crop field (Stuber: Para. 23; collects data during a first operation (e.g., a planting operation) and stores data (e.g., spatial planting data) collected during the first operation), ……….. ; detecting, by the toolbar position sensor, a sensed position of the toolbar (Stuber: Para. 13; encoder is preferably configured to generate a signal related to the linear extension of the actuator) relative to the ground (Stuber: Para. 13; linear extension of the actuator is related to the depth of the trench) while the implement moves through the crop field (Stuber: Para. 23; collects data during a first operation (e.g., a planting operation) and stores data (e.g., spatial planting data) collected during the first operation); …………… ; matching, by the computing system, the geographic location of the crop field with a location entity of a model for a toolbar position map of the crop field, wherein the location entity corresponds to the geographic location (Stuber: Para. 28, Abstract; dynamically displaying a visual correlation between previous data collected from a previous agricultural operation and the current data); and associating, by the computing system, the sensed position of the toolbar relative to the ground to the location entity of the model (Stuber: Para. 32; the monitor preferably associates the data gathered at a live location (e.g., the current location of the implement) during the second operation with a bitmap value at bitmap coordinates corresponding to the live location).
Stuber doesn’t explicitly teach a toolbar position sensor located on the toolbar for detecting a position of the toolbar ……… receiving, by a computing system, the sensed position of the toolbar relative to the ground from the toolbar position sensor at a geographic location of the crop field while the agricultural implement moves through the crop field ………. the toolbar supporting a plurality of ground-engaging row units, each of the ground-engaging row units configured to work crops or soil and to move vertically independent of the toolbar and each other.
However Hodel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a toolbar position sensor located on the toolbar for detecting a position of the toolbar (Hodel: Para. 39; depth sensor is shown attached to the draw bar) ……… receiving, by a computing system, the sensed position of the toolbar relative to the ground from the toolbar position sensor at a geographic location of the crop field while the agricultural implement moves through the crop field (Hodel: Para. 11, 26; operating row units; row unit frame pivotally connected to a toolbar by a parallel linkage enabling each row unit to move vertically independently of the toolbar; row unit frame operably supports one or more hoppers) ………. the toolbar supporting a plurality of ground-engaging row units, each of the ground-engaging row units configured to work crops or soil and to move vertically independent of the toolbar and each other (Hodel: Para. 53-54; target depth may selected to be uniform throughout an entire field; determining a height of a row unit frame relative to a surface of soil; height may be sensed with one or more sensors carried by the draw bar and/or the row unit; height may then be compared with the target depth).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the correlation charts (Stuber: Para. 28) with toolbar sensor measured height (Hodel: Para. 39, 54) with a reasonable expectation of success because the an actively measured row unit height with vertical adjustment allows for a selected target depth to be uniform throughout an entire field (Hodel: Para. 53-55).
Regarding claim 2, Stuber teaches the method of claim 1, comprising repeating, by the computing system, the steps of claim 1 for a plurality of geographic locations of the crop field (Stuber: Para. 28; correlation charts are preferably repeatedly or continuously populated with data accumulated during the harvest operation).
Regarding claim 3, Stuber teaches the method of claim 2, comprising: rendering, by a mapping application of the computer system, the toolbar position map to be displayed in a graphical user interface, based on the model for the toolbar position map (Stuber: Para. 26-27; monitor is preferably configured to display a map screen; displays a value of planting data corresponding to the location of the combine harvester; annotations preferably indicate the locations of each combine row unit when using a combine having a header), wherein the toolbar position map shows at least a plurality of sensed positions of the toolbar at a plurality of location entities of the model corresponding to geographic locations of the crop field where sensing of the plurality of sensed positions of the toolbar occurred (Stuber: Para. 12, 26; a toolbar operatively supporting multiple row units; as the combine traverses the field, a combine annotation preferably indicates the current location of the combine within the map; annotations preferably indicate the locations of each combine row unit).
Regarding claim 4, Stuber teaches the method of claim 3, comprising rendering, by the mapping application of the computing system, the toolbar position map to be displayed along with a yield map of the crop field (Stuber: Para. 27; monitor is preferably configured to display a map screen including live yield map window; displays a value of planting data corresponding to the location (the “current location”) of the combine harvester (indicated on the map by the annotation)).
Regarding claim 5, Stuber teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the rendering of the toolbar position map comprises combining the toolbar position map with the yield map (Stuber: Para. 12, 27; display a map screen including live yield map window and an array of planting data windows; each planting data window preferably displays a value of planting data corresponding to the location (the “current location”) of the combine harvester).
Regarding claim 6, Stuber teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the combining of the maps comprises the toolbar position map overlapping the yield map, or vice versa (Stuber: Para. 12, 27; a toolbar operatively supporting multiple row units; display a map screen including live yield map window and an array of planting data windows; each planting data window preferably displays a value of planting data corresponding to the location (the “current location”) of the combine harvester).
Regarding claim 7, Stuber teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the rendering of the toolbar position map comprises rendering the toolbar position map to be positioned adjacent to the yield map (Stuber: Para. 12, 27; a toolbar operatively supporting multiple row units; display a map screen including live yield map window and an array of planting data windows; each planting data window preferably displays a value of planting data corresponding to the location (the “current location”) of the combine harvester).
Regarding claim 8, Stuber teaches the method of claim 1, comprising: repeating, by the computing system, the steps of claim 1 for a plurality of geographic locations of the crop field (Stuber: Para. 28; correlation charts are preferably repeatedly or continuously populated with data accumulated during the harvest operation such that the operator may navigate to the correlation screen in order to view correlated data for all of the harvest data (e.g., acreage, yield, and moisture) accumulated thus far during the operation); and rendering, by a mapping application of the computing system, a topographic map to be displayed in a graphical user interface, based on the model for the toolbar position map and a set of correlations between toolbar positions and three-dimensional qualities of a surface of a crop field (Stuber: Para. 33; geo-referenced positions preferably correspond to the positions of the combine header row units; each planting map tile preferably includes multiple sets of planting data (e.g., population, singulation, downforce, depth, moisture, temperature) collected during the planting operation at a single set of coordinates; display tiles illustrated in FIG. 1 preferably comprise visual representations of one or more sets of spatial data in a map tile).
Regarding claim 9, Stuber teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the topographic map shows the three-dimensional qualities of the surface of the crop field at a plurality of location entities of the model corresponding to geographic locations of the crop field where sensing of the positions of the toolbar occurred (Stuber: Para. 33; geo-referenced positions preferably correspond to the positions of the combine header row units; each planting map tile preferably includes multiple sets of planting data (e.g., population, singulation, downforce, depth, moisture, temperature) collected during the planting operation at a single set of coordinates; display tiles illustrated in FIG. 1 preferably comprise visual representations of one or more sets of spatial data in a map tile).
Regarding claim 10, Stuber teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the three-dimensional qualities comprise a plurality of different elevations higher or lower than a baseline elevation of the crop field (Stuber: Para. 15, 33; ach row unit including the drives, the seed sensors, the GPS receiver, the downforce sensors, the valves, the depth adjustment actuator, the depth actuator encoders, and the solenoid valves; planting data (e.g., population, singulation, downforce, depth, moisture, temperature) collected during the planting operation at a single set of coordinates).
Regarding claim 11, Stuber teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the plurality of different elevations comprise a plurality of heights above sea level (Stuber: Para. 15, 33; ach row unit including the drives, the seed sensors, the GPS receiver, the downforce sensors, the valves, the depth adjustment actuator, the depth actuator encoders, and the solenoid valves; planting data (e.g., population, singulation, downforce, depth, moisture, temperature) collected during the planting operation at a single set of coordinates).
Regarding claim 18, Stuber teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the agricultural implement is a planter (Stuber: Para. 12; a tractor drawing an agricultural implement, e.g., a planter), and wherein the method comprises sensing, by a rotary sensor, the position of the toolbar of the agricultural implement at the geographic location of the crop field while the agricultural implement moves through the crop field (Stuber: Para. 15, 33; geo-referenced positions preferably correspond to the positions of the combine header row units; each planting map tile preferably includes multiple sets of planting data collected during the planting operation at a single set of coordinates; depth actuator encoders).
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuber et al. (US Publication 2020/0082478 A1) in view of Hodel et al. (US Publication 2022/0272888 A1) and in further view of Bassett (US Publication 2025/0160235).
Regarding claim 12, Stuber and Hodel don’t explicitly teach wherein the toolbar comprises a vertically contouring toolbar, and wherein the vertically contouring toolbar (VCT) comprises a set of sections that are adjustable to different respective positions vertically.
However Bassett, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the toolbar comprises a vertically contouring toolbar, and wherein the vertically contouring toolbar (VCT) comprises a set of sections that are adjustable to different respective positions vertically (Bassett: Para. 120; agricultural planters, seeders, fertilizer applicators, tillage equipment and the like become wider with more row units on each frame, often 36 30-inch rows or 54 20-inch rows on a single 90-foot wide toolbar, each row unit can float vertically independently of every other row unit).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the correlation charts taught in Stuber (Stuber: Para. 28) with toolbar sensor measured height (Hodel: Para. 39, 54) and the independently vertically floating row units taught in Bassett (Bassett: Para. 120) with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying the position and the angular displacement between the individually controlled row units as taught by Bassett (Bassett: Para. 313-314) would be complementary information added to Stuber’s correlated charts.
Regarding claim 13, Stuber teaches the method of claim 12, comprising ………… associating, by the computing system, the determined position distribution to the location entity of the model corresponding to the geographic location of the crop field (Stuber: Para. 33; geo-referenced positions preferably correspond to the positions of the combine header row units; each planting map tile preferably includes multiple sets of planting data (e.g., population, singulation, downforce, depth, moisture, temperature) collected during the planting operation at a single set of coordinates; display tiles illustrated in FIG. 1 preferably comprise visual representations of one or more sets of spatial data in a map tile).
Stuber and Hodel don’t explicitly teach receiving, by the computing system, a sensed position relative to the ground of a first section of the set of sections of the VCT at the geographic location of the crop field while the agricultural implement moves through the crop field; receiving, by the computing system, a sensed position relative to the ground of a second section of the set of sections of the VCT at the geographic location of the crop field while the agricultural implement moves through the crop field, at approximately the same time of the receiving of the sensed position of the first section of the set of sections of the VCT; determining, by the computing system, a position distribution of the set of sections of the VCT based on the received position of the first section and the received position of the second section.
However Bassett, in the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving, by the computing system, a sensed position relative to the ground of a first section of the set of sections of the VCT at the geographic location of the crop field while the agricultural implement moves through the crop field (Bassett: Para. 313, 331, Fig. 69; the position can include an angular displacement or distance (e.g., height relative to earth) between the soil-engaging tool, on one hand, and ground or a reference structure on the row planting unit; graphical representation of the condition on the map; position sensors); receiving, by the computing system, a sensed position relative to the ground of a second section of the set of sections of the VCT at the geographic location of the crop field while the agricultural implement moves through the crop field, at approximately the same time of the receiving of the sensed position of the first section of the set of sections of the VCT (Bassett: Para. 314; the video display displays in real time as the row units are moved along the earth, row monitor graphical representations that indicate deviations of measured values from target values for different actuators on each of the row units); determining, by the computing system, a position distribution of the set of sections of the VCT based on the received position of the first section and the received position of the second section (Bassett: Para. 312-313; graphical user interfaces shown and described herein enable the operator to separately monitor at least one measurable parameter for each such tool on the row unit; the position can include an angular displacement or distance (e.g., height relative to earth) between the soil-engaging tool, on one hand, and ground or a reference structure on the row planting unit).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the correlation charts taught in Stuber (Stuber: Para. 28) with toolbar sensor measured height (Hodel: Para. 39, 54) and the independently vertically floating row units taught in Bassett (Bassett: Para. 120) with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying the position and the angular displacement between the individually controlled row units as taught by Bassett (Bassett: Para. 313-314) would be complementary information added to Stuber’s correlated charts.
Regarding claim 14, Stuber and Hodel don’t explicitly teach wherein the determined position distribution comprises respective indications of the sensed position of the first section and the second section of the set of sections of the VCT.
However Bassett, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the determined position distribution comprises respective indications of the sensed position of the first section and the second section of the set of sections of the VCT (Bassett: Para. 314; the video display displays in real time as the row units are moved along the earth, row monitor graphical representations that indicate deviations of measured values from target values for different actuators on each of the row units).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the correlation charts taught in Stuber (Stuber: Para. 28) with toolbar sensor measured height (Hodel: Para. 39, 54) and the independently vertically floating row units taught in Bassett (Bassett: Para. 120) with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying the position and the angular displacement between the individually controlled row units as taught by Bassett (Bassett: Para. 313-314) would be complementary information added to Stuber’s correlated charts.
Regarding claim 15, Stuber teaches the method of claim 13, comprising repeating, by the computing system, the steps of claim 13 for a plurality of geographic locations of the crop field (Stuber: Para. 28; correlation charts are preferably repeatedly or continuously populated with data accumulated during the harvest operation such that the operator may navigate to the correlation screen in order to view correlated data for all of the harvest data (e.g., acreage, yield, and moisture) accumulated thus far during the operation).
Regarding claim 16, Stuber teaches the method of claim 15, comprising rendering, by a mapping application of the computing system, the toolbar position map to be displayed in a graphical user interface, based on the model for the toolbar position map (Stuber: Para. 33; geo-referenced positions preferably correspond to the positions of the combine header row units; Each planting map tile preferably includes multiple sets of planting data (e.g., population, singulation, downforce, depth, moisture, temperature) collected during the planting operation at a single set of coordinates; display tiles illustrated in FIG. 1 preferably comprise visual representations of one or more sets of spatial data in a map tile).
Stuber and Hodel don’t explicitly teach wherein the toolbar position map shows at least a plurality of determined position distributions of the set of sections of the VCT at a plurality of location entities of the model corresponding to geographic locations of the crop field where sensing of the positions of the first section and the second section of set of sections occurred.
However Bassett, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the toolbar position map shows at least a plurality of determined position distributions of the set of sections of the VCT at a plurality of location entities of the model corresponding to geographic locations of the crop field where sensing of the positions of the first section and the second section of set of sections occurred (Bassett: Para. 314; the video display displays in real time as the row units are moved along the earth, row monitor graphical representations that indicate deviations of measured values from target values for different actuators on each of the row units).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the correlation charts taught in Stuber (Stuber: Para. 28) with toolbar sensor measured height (Hodel: Para. 39, 54) and the independently vertically floating row units taught in Bassett (Bassett: Para. 120) with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying the position and the angular displacement between the individually controlled row units as taught by Bassett (Bassett: Para. 313-314) would be complementary information added to Stuber’s correlated charts.
Regarding claim 17, Stuber and Hodel don’t explicitly teach sensing, by a first rotary sensor, the position of the first section of the set of sections of the VCT at the geographic location of the crop field while the agricultural implement moves through the crop field; and sensing, by a second rotary sensor, the position of the second section of the set of sections of the VCT at the geographic location of the crop field while the agricultural implement moves through the crop field.
However Bassett, in the same field of endeavor, teaches sensing, by a first rotary sensor, the position of the first section of the set of sections of the VCT at the geographic location of the crop field while the agricultural implement moves through the crop field (Bassett: Para. 313; a minimum of one sensor is provided for each soil-engaging tool in each row; vertical position of the tool relative to the surface of the soil, angular position of the tool relative to a fixed reference structure, pressure on the tool, geographic location or position of the tool e.g., GPS coordinates); and sensing, by a second rotary sensor, the position of the second section of the set of sections of the VCT at the geographic location of the crop field while the agricultural implement moves through the crop field (Bassett: Para. 313; a minimum of one sensor is provided for each soil-engaging tool in each row; vertical position of the tool relative to the surface of the soil, angular position of the tool relative to a fixed reference structure, pressure on the tool, geographic location or position of the tool e.g., GPS coordinates).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the correlation charts taught in Stuber (Stuber: Para. 28) with toolbar sensor measured height (Hodel: Para. 39, 54) and the independently vertically floating row units taught in Bassett (Bassett: Para. 120) with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying the position and the angular displacement between the individually controlled row units as taught by Bassett (Bassett: Para. 313-314) would be complementary information added to Stuber’s correlated charts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663