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
This office action is in response to application with case number 17/880,904 filed on 08/04/2022 in which claims 1-20 are originally presented for examination.
Claims 1, 5, 7-10, 14, and 18 are amended.
Claim 4 is canceled. Claims 19-20 are previously canceled.
Claims 21 and 22 are new.
Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-18, and 21-22 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 08/14/2025 in response to the Non-Final office action mailed on 05/14/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Objections: The objections are withdrawn, as the claim amendments properly addressed the informalities recited in the Non-Final office action.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101: The rejections of claims 1-18 for being patent ineligible are withdrawn, as the amended claims have properly addressed the rejections recited in the Non-Final office action.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, Applicant has amended the independent claim and the amendment has changed the scope of the original application. Therefore, the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “the respective sensors holders” in claim 1, line 18 should be “the respective sensor holders.”
The limitation “physically sets the determined optimized absolute working depth” in claim 1, lines 26-27 is unclear since the original disclosure does not provide sufficient detail to support the limitation. The Office has interpreted the limitation as “sets the determined optimized absolute working depth in any physical way” for examining purposes.
The limitation “a plurality of sensor” in claim 22, line 1 should be “a plurality of sensors.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a combination control assembly physically sets the determined optimized absolute working depth” in lines 26-27 (emphasis added). The specification states “A combination control assembly 14 may set the determined optimized working depth 7 for the soil cultivation process on the agricultural attachment 3” in paragraph [0047] and “setting the working depth 7 using the combination control assembly 14 need not be comprehensive. It may moreover be provided that some machine parameters that help determine the working depth 7 may be manually adjusted by user 16. It may then be provided that the user 16 enters the set machine parameters into the combination control assembly 14, or the combination control assembly 14 determines these machine parameters in a different way” in paragraph [0052]. However, nothing in the original disclosure states how the combination control assembly 14 “physically” sets the working depth 7.
Therefore, claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art.
Claims 2-3, 5-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on the rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10-11, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vennemann (US 2022/0030756 A1) in view of Winter et al. (US 4600060 A) further in view of Fujii et al. (JP S61256215 A). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of the Fujii et al. reference, a copy of which is attached to this Office Action as also indicated in the 892 form.
Regarding claim 1, Vennemann discloses a method for planning and performing a soil cultivation process of a field using an agricultural combination, wherein the agricultural combination comprises an agricultural production machine and a respective soil cultivating agricultural attachment (Vennemann at FIG. 1 and para. [0050]: “FIG. 1 shows a tractor 2, to which an agricultural implement 4 is attached. The agricultural implement 4 is equipped with a retrofitting kit 3. The retrofitting kit 3 consists of a portable computer unit 6 as well as of a number of implement-specific components 5”), the method comprising:
accessing an expert model (Vennemann at para. [0010]: “Data can be exchanged with external manufacturer-bound or manufacturing-bound expert systems via the radio module”; para. [0035]: “Expert system-supported regulating parameters can also form the basis for control commands”);
accessing soil data of a field, the soil data being location-dependent (Vennemann at para. [0017]: “The soil moisture, mineral contents, quality parameters of the respective available agriculturally grown or harvested fruit or the like can also be detected by means of corresponding sensors” “the sensors have to be placed at completely different locations of an implement and in different numbers, depending on arrangement and width of the working elements of an implement, in order to function optimally”);
determining, using a sensor assembly, (Vennemann at para. [0041]: “the retrofitting kit has a sensor for capturing the actual working depth of the grubber or of the compact disc harrow, the sensor is connected to the portable computer unit”), wherein the sensor assembly includes a sensor for sensing measured data relating to attachment (Vennemann at para. [0041]: “the retrofitting kit has a sensor for capturing the actual working depth of the grubber or of the compact disc harrow, the sensor is connected to the portable computer unit”), (Vennemann at para. [0041]: “the portable computer unit has a software, via which the sensor value and/or a control signal derived from the sensor value can be transmitted to the control electronics of the tractor and/or via a communication module to another external computer”), ((Vennemann at para. [0041]: “The sensor provides for a current or ongoing comparison of the working depth during the grubbing to a previously planned actual value, and control variables for the height adjustment, which is implemented, for example, by the tractor, result from the comparison” “The feature combination provides for an automatic working depth guidance for a grubber or a compact disc harrow”));
determining, using a planning control assembly and the expert model, one or more recommended actions for the soil cultivation process from the soil data of the field (Vennemann at para. [0035]: “the portable computer unit has a software, which can be operated in an automatic mode, wherein in the automatic mode, the software transmits control commands, which are relevant for the operation of the agricultural implement, to the control electronics of the tractor” “Expert system-supported regulating parameters can also form the basis for control commands, which are transmitted to the control electronics of the tractor, for example if the sensors and the evaluation algorithms of the expert system recognize the work quality attained with the current settings as not being optimal during the soil cultivation, fertilization, or seed placement, and if adaptations and settings are required”), wherein the planning control assembly determines, based on the soil data, an optimized (Vennemann at para. [0017]: “the quality of a soil cultivation performed by means of the agricultural implement can be evaluated by means of cameras with image evaluation and/or ultrasound, and the impacts of changes of process parameters, such as setting angle and working depth of working tools can be evaluated and controlled and/or displayed by means of such sensors. The soil moisture, mineral contents, quality parameters of the respective available agriculturally grown or harvested fruit or the like can also be detected by means of corresponding sensors”; para. [0041]: “The sensor provides for a current or ongoing comparison of the working depth during the grubbing to a previously planned actual value, and control variables for the height adjustment, which is implemented, for example, by the tractor, result from the comparison” “The feature combination provides for an automatic working depth guidance for a grubber or a compact disc harrow”); and
performing the one or more recommended actions for the soil cultivation process (Vennemann at para. [0067]: “The software stored on the central computer 30 makes it possible that the portable computer unit 6 and the agricultural implement 4 are operated in an automatic mode”), wherein at least one of the one or more recommended actions comprises, responsive to the planning control assembly determining the optimized (Vennemann at para. [0041]: “The sensor provides for a current or ongoing comparison of the working depth during the grubbing to a previously planned actual value, and control variables for the height adjustment, which is implemented, for example, by the tractor, result from the comparison” “an actuator can also be controlled directly at the agricultural implement if it is possible to use said actuator to adjust the working depth”); and
wherein one or both of:
the planning control assembly determines the optimized (Vennemann at para. [0035]: “An automated digging and lowering function can be realized, for example at the headland, in the case of imminent overloading of components or partial area-specific variations of the working depth, for example during soil cultivation, the fertilization, or the seed placement”).
However, Vennemann does not explicitly state an absolute working depth,
a sensor holder mounted at a mounting position of the respective soil cultivating agricultural attachment, and a sensor control assembly, when the sensor is in a state of being mounted at the mounting position of the sensor holder, the sensor records measurement data during the soil cultivation process relating to the absolute working depth of the respective soil cultivating agricultural attachment,
wherein different respective soil cultivating agricultural attachments have respective sensor holders at respective mounting positions,
using the same sensor when inserted in the respective sensors holders of the different respective soil cultivating agricultural attachments,
the sensor control assembly determines a mounting-position-independent working depth from the measured data.
In the same field of endeavor, Winter et al. teaches an absolute working depth (Winter et al. at col. 2, ln. 50-56: “The depth of penetration of the tools is dependent upon the height of the implement
frame above the ground, and as this height changes, the smoothing tool will rock about its pivotal connection with the main frame. The angle between the main frame and the trailing implement provides an indication of the depth of penetration of the tools”; col. 5, ln. 38-44: “When a press wheel assembly is utilized as the ground-level sensing portion of the system, preferably the individual press wheels are spring loaded downwardly so that each wheel may follow surface irregularities independently of the other wheels to provide an accurate average depth across the width of the press wheel assembly”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vennemann by utilizing the absolute working depth as taught by Winter et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. is to provide accurate detection of working depth (see Winter et al. at col. 7, ln. 60 - col. 8, ln. 8).
However, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. does not explicitly state a sensor holder mounted at a mounting position of the respective soil cultivating agricultural attachment, and a sensor control assembly, when the sensor is in a state of being mounted at the mounting position of the sensor holder, the sensor records measurement data during the soil cultivation process relating to the absolute working depth of the respective soil cultivating agricultural attachment,
wherein different respective soil cultivating agricultural attachments have respective sensor holders at respective mounting positions,
using the same sensor when inserted in the respective sensors holders of the different respective soil cultivating agricultural attachments,
the sensor control assembly determines a mounting-position-independent working depth from the measured data.
In the same field of endeavor, Fujii et al. teaches a sensor holder mounted at a mounting position of the respective soil cultivating agricultural attachment (Fujii et al. at para. [0001]: “a work implement sensor 1 is attached to the side of the rotary tiller R, which feeds back the inclination angle of the work implement and reads the correlation with the signal from the main machine center 17 attached to the agricultural tractor side in a control circuit within the controller C”), and a sensor control assembly (Fujii et al. at para. [0001]: “a work implement sensor 1 is attached to the side of the rotary tiller R, which feeds back the inclination angle of the work implement and reads the correlation with the signal from the main machine center 17 attached to the agricultural tractor side in a control circuit within the controller C”), when the sensor is in a state of being mounted at the mounting position of the sensor holder, the sensor records measurement data during the soil cultivation process relating to the absolute working depth of the respective soil cultivating agricultural attachment (Fujii et al. at para. [0001]: “In a work implement inclination angle control device for a rotary tiller or the like attached to an agricultural tractor, a work implement sensor for detecting the inclination angle on the work implement side can be attached and detached from the work implement side with a single touch”),
wherein different respective soil cultivating agricultural attachments have respective sensor holders at respective mounting positions (Fujii et al. at para. [0001]: “The object of the present invention is to configure a sensor that is attached to the working machine side of a working machine inclination angle control device so that it can be attached and detached with a single touch, and so that even if the working machine is changed from a rotary tiller to another working machine, it can be quickly replaced without tools” ),
using the same sensor when inserted in the respective sensors holders of the different respective soil cultivating agricultural attachments (Fujii et al. at para. [0001]: “The detachable structure of the work machine sensor 1 shown in Figs. 8 to 11 will now be described. The upper surface of the sensor bracket 6 is a horizontal surface, and the sensor guide 3 is fixed thereon. The sensor guide 3 is formed with a notch 3a, into which a one-touch mounting spring 5 of one sensor 4 is fitted”),
the sensor control assembly determines a mounting-position-independent working depth from the measured data (Fujii et al. at para. [0001]: “a work implement sensor for detecting the inclination angle on the work implement side can be attached and detached from the work implement side with a single touch” “a work implement sensor 1 is attached to the side of the rotary tiller R, which feeds back the inclination angle of the work implement and reads the correlation with the signal from the main machine center 17 attached to the agricultural tractor side in a control circuit within the controller C” “The controller C is housed in a control box 18, and adjustment dials and switches are arranged on the top surface of the control box 18. The position sensor 9 and the control valve 2o are control units for performing normal tillage depth control”; Since the depth control is based on the inclination angle of the work implement, the tillage depth control is independent from the mounting position of the inclination angle sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. by using the same sensor as taught by Fujii et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. is to provide a work implement sensor that is detachable and easily replaceable (see Fujii et al. at para. [0001]). Specifically, it is obvious to one skilled in the art that the reusable/adaptable sensor that is attachable to and detachable from different working machines as taught by Fujii et al. is applicable to the soil cultivating agricultural attachments of Vennemann. Moreover, a compatible sensor that can be positioned on the respective holders is well known in the art (see Schadow et al. (US 2017/0230735 A1)).
Office Note: The Office interprets the term “absolute working depth” as “depth measured relative to the ground” (see Specification as originally filed at para. [0041]). The office interprets the term “mounting-position-independent working depth” as “any working depth that does not rely on the mounting position” (see “independent,” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/independent. Accessed 5/5/2025.)
Regarding claim 5, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. teaches the method of claim 1.
Fujii et al. further teaches wherein the sensor is reversibly mounted in respective sensor holders at a respective mounting position on a plurality of soil cultivating agricultural attachments (Fujii et al. at para. [0001]: “The object of the present invention is to configure a sensor that is attached to the working machine side of a working machine inclination angle control device so that it can be attached and detached with a single push, and so that even if the working machine is changed from a rotary tiller to another working machine, it can be quickly replaced without tools”); and
wherein the sensor, being mounted on the respective soil cultivating agricultural attachment via the respective sensor holders, is used to determine the working height of respective ones of the plurality of soil cultivating agricultural attachments (Fujii et al. at para. [0001]: “a work implement sensor for detecting the inclination angle on the work implement side”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. by adding the reversibly mounted sensor as taught by Fujii et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. is to provide a work implement sensor that is detachable and easily replaceable (see Fujii et al. at para. [0001]). Specifically, it is obvious to one skilled in the art that the reusable/adaptable sensor that is attachable to and detachable from different working machines as taught by Fujii et al. is applicable to the soil cultivating agricultural attachments of Vennemann. Moreover, a compatible sensor that can be positioned on the respective holders is well known in the art (see Schadow et al. (US 2017/0230735 A1)).
Regarding claim 6, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. teaches the method of claim 5.
Vennemann further discloses wherein the sensor comprises a contact-free distance sensor that functions based on at least one of electromagnetic waves, or acoustic waves, or mechanical sensing (Vennemann at para. [0053]: “The sensors 10 can be, for example, speed, laser, or ultrasonic sensors. Cameras, which are coupled to an image evaluation software, are also possible as sensor 10”); and
wherein the distance sensor comprises:
a radar sensor, a lidar sensor, an optical sensor, or an ultrasonic sensor (Vennemann at para. [0053]: “The sensors 10 can be, for example, speed, laser, or ultrasonic sensors. Cameras, which are coupled to an image evaluation software, are also possible as sensor 10”); or
a force sensor or position sensor, on a component touching ground in which the component comprises at least one a sensing bracket, a grinding skid or a support roller.
Regarding claim 7, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. teaches the method of claim 1.
Vennemann further discloses wherein the planning control assembly determines, based on a working depth using the expert model, at least one additional optimized setting of the respective soil cultivating agricultural attachment (Vennemann at para. [0010]: “Data can be exchanged with external manufacturer-bound or manufacturing-bound expert systems via the radio module”; para. [0035]: “Expert system-supported regulating parameters can also form the basis for control commands, which are transmitted to the control electronics of the tractor, for example if the sensors and the evaluation algorithms of the expert system recognize the work quality attained with the current settings as not being optimal during the soil cultivation, fertilization, or seed placement, and if adaptations and settings are required”; para. [0041]: “The sensor provides for a current or ongoing comparison of the working depth during the grubbing to a previously planned actual value, and control variables for the height adjustment, which is implemented, for example, by the tractor, result from the comparison”); and
wherein the at least one additional optimized setting comprises a cutting width of a plow (Vennemann at para. [0039]: “the retrofitting kit has a sensor for capturing the actual working width of the plow and/or for capturing an angle of rotation, the sensor is connected to the portable computer unit”).
Regarding claim 10, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. teaches the method of claim 1.
Vennemann further discloses wherein the planning control assembly considers target specifications of competing goals when determining the optimized working depth (Vennemann at para. [0035]: “the portable computer unit has a software, which can be operated in an automatic mode, wherein in the automatic mode, the software transmits control commands, which are relevant for the operation of the agricultural implement, to the control electronics of the tractor” “An automated digging and lowering function can be realized, for example at the headland, in the case of imminent overloading of components or partial area-specific variations of the working depth, for example during soil cultivation, the fertilization, or the seed placement”); and
wherein the target specifications include one or more of: a minimum fuel consumption; maximum speed for performing the soil cultivation process (Vennemann at para. [0035]: “the forward driving speed of the tractor, the speed of the power take-off shaft, the capacity of the hydraulic pump, or the like can thus be influenced, for example, via this automatic function”); minimization of cost of the soil cultivation process; or maximization of work quality (Vennemann at para. [0035]: “Expert system-supported regulating parameters can also form the basis for control commands, which are transmitted to the control electronics of the tractor, for example if the sensors and the evaluation algorithms of the expert system recognize the work quality attained with the current settings as not being optimal during the soil cultivation, fertilization, or seed placement, and if adaptations and settings are required”).
Regarding claim 11, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. teaches the method of claim 1.
Vennemann further discloses wherein the soil data comprise one or more of: a crop sequence of the field; environment data; soil type data; or soil condition data (Vennemann at para. [0046]: “the sensor for capturing the work quality is an optical, radar, and/or ultrasonic sensor for analyzing the crumb structure of the soil”).
Regarding claim 21, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. teaches the method of claim 1.
Vennemann further discloses wherein both of:
the planning control assembly determines the optimized (Vennemann at para. [0035]: “An automated digging and lowering function can be realized, for example at the headland, in the case of imminent overloading of components or partial area-specific variations of the working depth, for example during soil cultivation, the fertilization, or the seed placement”; para. [0041]: “the retrofitting kit has a sensor for capturing the actual working depth of the grubber or of the compact disc harrow, the sensor is connected to the portable computer unit”; The sensor data regarding the actual working depth is dependent on its mounting position).
Winter et al. further teaches the absolute working depth (Winter et al. at col. 2, ln. 50-56: “The depth of penetration of the tools is dependent upon the height of the implement frame above the ground, and as this height changes, the smoothing tool will rock about its pivotal connection with the main frame. The angle between the main frame and the trailing implement provides an indication of the depth of penetration of the tools”; col. 5, ln. 38-44: “When a press wheel assembly is utilized as the ground-level sensing portion of the system, preferably the individual press wheels are spring loaded downwardly so that each wheel may follow surface irregularities independently of the other wheels to provide an accurate average depth across the width of the press wheel assembly”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. by utilizing the absolute working depth as taught by Winter et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. is to provide accurate detection of working depth (see Winter et al. at col. 7, ln. 60 - col. 8, ln. 8).
Fujii et al. further teaches the sensor control assembly determines the mounting-position-independent working depth from the measured data (Fujii et al. at para. [0001]: “a work implement sensor for detecting the inclination angle on the work implement side can be attached and detached from the work implement side with a single touch” “a work implement sensor 1 is attached to the side of the rotary tiller R, which feeds back the inclination angle of the work implement and reads the correlation with the signal from the main machine center 17 attached to the agricultural tractor side in a control circuit within the controller C” “The controller C is housed in a control box 18, and adjustment dials and switches are arranged on the top surface of the control box 18. The position sensor 9 and the control valve 2o are control units for performing normal tillage depth control”; Since the depth control is based on the inclination angle of the work implement, the tillage depth control is independent from the mounting position of the inclination angle sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. by using the same sensor as taught by Fujii et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. is to provide a work implement sensor that is detachable and easily replaceable (see Fujii et al. at para. [0001]).
Office Note: The Office interprets the term “absolute working depth” as “depth measured relative to the ground” (see Specification as originally filed at para. [0041]). The office interprets the term “mounting-position-independent working depth” as “any working depth that does not rely on the mounting position” (see “independent,” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/independent. Accessed 5/5/2025.)
Regarding claim 22, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. teaches the method of claim 1.
Vennemann further discloses wherein the sensor assembly includes a plurality of sensor used to determine at least one of a longitudinal angle or a transverse angle of the respective soil cultivating agricultural attachment (Vennemann at para. [0039]: “the retrofitting kit has a sensor for capturing the actual working width of the plow and/or for capturing an angle of rotation, the sensor is connected to the portable computer unit”; para. [0053]: “The used sensors 10 are in each case designed so as to match, in order to be able to fulfill the control purpose, for which they are installed on the agricultural implement 4”).
Claims 2-3, 9, 12-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. and Ehlert et al. (EP 3626038 A1). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of the Ehlert et al. reference, a copy of which is attached to this Office Action as also indicated in the 892 form.
Regarding claim 2, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Vennemann does not explicitly state wherein the one or more recommended actions comprise a recommendation as to whether the soil cultivation process should include one or both of a cultivator or plow.
Nevertheless, Vennemann at least suggests the idea of agricultural implements can be selected from, for example, a plow, a grubber, a compact disc harrow, a rotary harrow, a seeder, or some other implement for soil cultivation (see Vennemann at para. [0068]).
In the same field of endeavor, Ehlert et al. teaches wherein the one or more recommended actions comprise a recommendation as to whether the soil cultivation process should include one or both of a cultivator or plow (Ehlert et al. at para. [0045]: “The agricultural work order can also be soil cultivation, for example plowing, cultivating, harrowing or the like, or the application of pesticides or fertilizers”; para. [0049]: “After completion of the agricultural work order, the said information, in particular in the form of the map, can be used here and preferably also for at least one subsequent agricultural work order”; para. [0052]: “After the start 8 of the process sequence, work and environmental parameters, for example the agricultural work order, the type and/or type of agricultural work machine 1 and the attachment or working unit 2 and the current crop condition and/or condition of the field are determined”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. by adding the recommended actions as taught by Ehlert et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. and Ehlert et al. is to provide optimized performance, efficiency, and quality of an agricultural machine (see Ehlert et al. at para. [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 3, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. teaches the method of claim 1.
Vennemann further discloses wherein the one or more recommended actions include:
one or more parameters of soil cultivation including a working depth (Vennemann at para. [0017]: “the quality of a soil cultivation performed by means of the agricultural implement can be evaluated by means of cameras with image evaluation and/or ultrasound, and the impacts of changes of process parameters, such as setting angle and working depth of working tools can be evaluated and controlled and/or displayed by means of such sensors”).
However, Vennemann does not explicitly state a type of soil cultivation.
In the same field of endeavor, Ehlert et al. teaches a type of soil cultivation (Ehlert et al. at para. [0045]: “The agricultural work order can also be soil cultivation, for example plowing, cultivating, harrowing or the like, or the application of pesticides or fertilizers”; para. [0049]: “After completion of the agricultural work order, the said information, in particular in the form of the map, can be used here and preferably also for at least one subsequent agricultural work order”; para. [0052]: “After the start 8 of the process sequence, work and environmental parameters, for example the agricultural work order, the type and/or type of agricultural work machine 1 and the attachment or working unit 2 and the current crop condition and/or condition of the field are determined”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. by adding the type of soil cultivation as taught by Ehlert et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. and Ehlert et al. is to provide optimized performance, efficiency, and quality of an agricultural machine (see Ehlert et al. at para. [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 9, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. teaches the method of claim 1.
Fujii et al. further teaches the same sensor including one or more sensors of the sensor assembly (Fujii et al. at para. [0001]: “The object of the present invention is to configure a sensor that is attached to the working machine side of a working machine inclination angle control device so that it can be attached and detached with a single touch, and so that even if the working machine is changed from a rotary tiller to another working machine, it can be quickly replaced without tools”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. by using the same sensor as taught by Fujii et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. is to provide a work implement sensor that is detachable and easily replaceable (see Fujii et al. at para. [0001]).
However, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. does not explicitly state wherein the soil data has at least partially been determined in previous soil cultivation processes using
wherein the soil data has at least partially been determined in previous soil cultivation processes using at least one of the same sensor of the sensor assembly on different attachments.
In the same field of endeavor, Ehlert teaches wherein the soil data has at least partially been determined in previous soil cultivation processes using (Ehlert at para. [0044]: “machine parameters and, if necessary, at least some working parameters and/or environmental parameters can be recorded via the respective sensor”; para. [0049]: “After completion of the agricultural work order, the said information, in particular in the form of the map, can be used here and preferably also for at least one subsequent agricultural work order”); and
wherein the soil data has at least partially been determined in previous soil cultivation processes using at least one of the same sensor of the sensor assembly on different attachments (Ehlert et al. at para. [0052]: “After the start 8 of the process sequence, work and environmental parameters, for example the agricultural work order, the type and/or type of agricultural work machine 1 and the attachment or working unit 2 and the current crop condition and/or condition of the field are determined”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. by adding the soil data has at least partially been determined in previous soil cultivation processes as taught by Ehlert et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. and Ehlert et al. is to provide optimized performance, efficiency, and quality of an agricultural machine (see Ehlert et al. at para. [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 12, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. teaches the method of claim 11.
However, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. does not explicitly state wherein the crop sequence of the field comprises one or more of current crops; past crops; intermediate crops; or planned crops; and
wherein the environment data comprises climate data including one or more of temperatures or precipitation levels.
In the same field of endeavor, Ehlert et al. teaches wherein the crop sequence of the field comprises one or more of current crops; past crops; intermediate crops; or planned crops (Ehlert et al. at para. [0043]: “The respective environmental parameter is in particular selected from the group comprising the terrain profile of the field and/or the current lane F<sub>1</sub>, the size of the field, the current weather data, the GPS position data, the current crop type, the current population variety, the current crop quality of the field and/or the current lane F<sub>1</sub> (moisture, density, height), the current soil quality of the field and/or the current lane F<sub>1</sub> (moisture, density, soil type, soil condition), and/or the history of the field and/or the current lane F<sub>1</sub>, in particular the or a previous crop type, population variety, crop quality and/or soil quality”); and
wherein the environment data comprises climate data including one or more of temperatures or precipitation levels (Ehlert et al. at para. [0043]: “the current weather data”; “Weather” means “the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness,” and thus it is apparent that the weather data of Ehlert et al. teaches “one or more of temperatures or precipitation levels” (see “weather,” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weather. Accessed 5/5/2025.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. by adding the crop sequence and the environment data as taught by Ehlert et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. and Ehlert et al. is to provide optimized performance, efficiency, and quality of an agricultural machine (see Ehlert et al. at para. [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 13, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. does not explicitly state wherein the location-dependent soil data includes driving lane data;
wherein the driving lane data comprises combination data on combinations used in driving lanes including one or more of: wheel loads; tire dimensions; tire pressures; or soil condition while driving.
In the same field of endeavor, Ehlert et al. teaches wherein the location-dependent soil data includes driving lane data;
wherein the driving lane data comprises combination data on combinations used in driving lanes including one or more of: wheel loads; tire dimensions; tire pressures; or soil condition while driving (Ehlert et al. at para. [0009]: “The fundamental consideration is that the agricultural machine, while carrying out an agricultural work order, for example plowing or mowing a field, records operating parameters related to the agricultural work order at the respective processing point, for example environmental parameters relating to the crop quality and/or soil quality at the respective processing point that is currently being passed through, and/or machine parameters such as driving speed and/or output drive power at this point, and uses these operating parameters to infer the corresponding operating parameters in another field area that has not yet been passed through”; para. [0043]: “The respective environmental parameter is in particular selected from the group comprising … the current soil quality of the field and/or the current lane F<sub>1</sub> (moisture, density, soil type, soil condition)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. by adding the driving lane data as taught by Ehlert et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. and Ehlert et al. is to provide optimized performance, efficiency, and quality of an agricultural machine (see Ehlert et al. at para. [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 14, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Vennemann in view of Winter et al. further in view of Fujii et al. does not explicitly state wherein the location-dependent soil data comprise one or more of: work process data on one or both of past soil cultivating processes or past crop cultivating processes; and
wherein the work process data comprise data on:
one or both of working depths or the agricultural attachments from the past soil cultivation processes;
data on fertilizations;
plant protection measures;
or rains from past field cultivation processes.
In the same field of endeavor, Ehlert et al. teaches wherein the location-dependent soil data comprise one or more of: work process data on one or both of past soil cultivating processes or past crop cultivating processes (Ehlert et al. at para. [0048]: “The control device 5, in particular its computer, is here and preferably also configured to generate a map of the surroundings, in particular lane- or distance-dependent, based on the detected operating parameters, which map contains the information on the basis of which the predictive control is carried out”); and
wherein the work process data comprise data on:
one or both of working depths or the agricultural attachments from the past soil cultivation processes;
data on fertilizations (Ehlert et al. at para. [0045]: “The agricultural work order can also be soil cultivation, for example plowing, cultivating, harrowing or the like, or the application of pesticides or fertilizers”);
plant protection measures (Ehlert et al. at para. [0045]: “The agricultural work order can also be soil cultivation, for example plowing, cultivating, harrowing or the like, or the application of pesticides or fertilizers”);
or rains from past field cultivation processes.
It would have b