DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-13, 16-17, and 19-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (US Publication 2022/0295688 A1) in view of Henry (US Publication 2021/0048290 A1, here within “Henry 2”) and in further view of Rains et al. (US Publication 2023/0263083 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Henry teaches an agricultural implement, comprising: a frame (Henry: Para. 7; a frame); a ground-penetrating tool configured to penetrate soil within a field to a penetration depth (Henry: Para. 7; the shank configured to penetrate soil within a field to a penetration depth); an actuator configured to adjust the penetration depth of the ground- penetrating tool (Henry: Para. 28; the implement may include one or more ground-penetrating tool actuators); ….. a soil sensor configured to generate data indicative of a location of a compaction layer within the field (Henry: Para. 51; receive location data from the location sensor; relative positioning between the soil sensor(s) and the location sensor, the computing system may geo-locate each identified compaction layer within the field); and ….. , wherein the computing system: analyzes the data generated by the soil sensor to determine a position of a bottom surface of the compaction layer (Henry: Para. 34; current may, in turn, vary with the parameters of the compaction layer e.g., the position of the top and/or bottom surfaces, thickness, density); controls an operation of the actuator such that a tip of the ground- penetrating tool is positioned at an initial penetration depth below the determined bottom surface of the compaction layer (Henry: Para. 50; instruct the actuator(s) to adjust the penetration depth(s) of the tip(s) of the shank(s) such that the tip(s) is positioned below the bottom surface of the identified compaction layer) ……. ; and adjusts the position of the bottom surface of the compaction layer determined by the soil sensor by the offset (Henry: Para. 21; when a compaction layer is identified, the penetration depth(s) of the tool(s) may be adjusted to ensure that the tool(s) penetrate through the compaction layer).
Henry doesn’t explicitly teach a force sensor configured to generate data indicative of a force being applied to the ground-penetrating tool by the soil; …… a computing system communicatively coupled to the force sensor and the soil sensor ….. determines a direction of the force being applied to the ground- penetrating tool based on the data generated by the force sensor ……… receives the data generated by the force sensor ……….. ; determines a direction of the force being applied to the ground-penetrating tool ……….. based on the data received from the force sensor; determines an offset based on the direction of the force.
However Henry 2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a force sensor configured to generate data indicative of a force being applied to the ground-penetrating tool by the soil (Henry 2: Para. 30; the secondary sensor(s) may correspond to or include one or more accelerometers, rotation sensors, load sensor(s); load sensor(s) may be used to detect load(s) (e.g., stress or strain) on the associated ground surface engaging tool) ….. a computing system communicatively coupled to the force sensor and the soil sensor (Henry 2: Para. 17, 30; a computing system may obtain vision-based data of the field from a vision sensor coupled to an agricultural implement and secondary data from a non-vision-based or secondary sensor coupled to a ground engaging tool; the load sensor(s) may be used to detect load(s) on the associated ground surface engaging tool) ….. determines a direction of the force being applied to the ground- penetrating tool based on the data generated by the force sensor (Henry 2: Para. 30, 51; one or more non-vision-based sensors configured to provide an indication of displacement or movement of an associated surface engaging tool; movement of the associated ground surface engaging tool (e.g., as the tine(s) deflect and/or as the basket(s) move up and down along the field surface) ……… ; determines an offset based on the direction of the force (Henry 2: Para. 30; accelerometer(s) may be used to detect the acceleration or movement of the associated ground surface engaging tool e.g., as the tine(s) deflect).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the compaction layer detecting and mapping in Henry (Henry: Para. 51) with the secondary sensor vision correcting taught in Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29) with a reasonable expectation of success because calibrating the results of the vision-based sensor data through the use of load information from the ground engaging tools of the implement as taught by Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29, 30).
Henry and Henry 2 don’t explicitly teach when the tip of the ground-penetrating tool is positioned at the initial penetration depth below the determined bottom surface of the compaction layer ……… when the tip of the ground-penetrating tool is positioned at the initial penetration depth below the determined bottom surface of the compaction layer.
However Rains, in the same field of endeavor, teaches when the tip of the ground-penetrating tool is positioned at the initial penetration depth below the determined bottom surface of the compaction layer (Rains: Para. 4, 5, 28; detect soil density in at least a portion of the target area defined by a range of detection angles measured relative to a line normal to the ground; amount of actuator force is applied to the agricultural implement) ……… when the tip of the ground-penetrating tool is positioned at the initial penetration depth below the determined bottom surface of the compaction layer ……… when the tip of the ground-penetrating tool is positioned at the initial penetration depth below the determined bottom surface of the compaction layer (Rains: Para. 4, 5, 28; detect soil density in at least a portion of the target area defined by a range of detection angles measured relative to a line normal to the ground; amount of actuator force is applied to the agricultural implement).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the compaction layer detecting and mapping in Henry (Henry: Para. 51) with the secondary sensor vision correcting taught in Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29) and the soil-density sensing devices indicates a change in soil density taught in Rains (Rains: Para. 50) with a reasonable expectation of success because adjusting the downward force of the row unit based on real time soil density data as taught by Rains (Rains: Para. 31).
Regarding claim 2, Henry doesn’t explicitly teach determines when the direction of the force being applied to the ground- penetrating tool is upward in a vertical direction; and adjusts a parameter associated with determining the location of the compaction layer when the direction of the force is upward in the vertical direction.
However Henry 2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determines when the direction of the force being applied to the ground- penetrating tool is upward in a vertical direction (Henry 2: Para. 25, 51; non-vision-based sensors configured to provide an indication of displacement or movement of an associated surface engaging tool; actuators coupled to the frame for raising or lowering the frame relative to the ground, thereby allowing the penetration depth and/or the down pressure of the shanks and ground engaging tines to be adjusted); and adjusts a parameter associated with determining the location of the compaction layer when the direction of the force is upward in the vertical direction (Henry 2: Para. 31, 51; displacement or movement-related parameters associated with the surface engaging tools (e.g., the acceleration or movement of the tine(s) and/or basket(s), the angular movement or pivoting of the basket(s), and/or the load(s) on the tine(s)) may be indicative of or otherwise associated with surface conditions of the field; non-vision-based sensors configured to provide an indication of displacement or movement of an associated surface engaging tool).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the compaction layer detecting and mapping in Henry (Henry: Para. 51) with the secondary sensor vision correcting taught in Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29) with a reasonable expectation of success because calibrating the results of the vision-based sensor data through the use of load information from the ground engaging tools of the implement as taught by Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29, 30).
Regarding claim 3, Henry teaches the agricultural implement of claim 2, wherein the parameter associated with determining the location of the compaction layer comprises at least one of the penetration depth of the ground-penetrating tool or an analysis technique being used when analyzing the data generated by the soil sensor (Henry: Para. 34; as the vehicle/implement travels across the field, the compaction layer may induce a current within the coil(s); current may, in turn, vary with the parameters of the compaction layer e.g., the position of the top and/or bottom surfaces, thickness, density; any suitable sensor(s) or sensing device(s) configured to capture data associated with the soil).
Regarding claim 4, Henry teaches the agricultural implement of claim 1, wherein the soil sensor comprises a non-contact-based soil sensor (Henry: Para. 6; a non-contact-based sensor configured to capture data indicative of a subsurface soil layer).
Regarding claim 5, Henry teaches the agricultural implement of claim 4, wherein the soil sensor comprises a ground-penetrating radar sensing device and an electromagnetic induction sensing device (Henry: Para. 20; the non-contact-based sensor may include a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) sensing device and an electromagnetic induction (EMI) sensing device).
Regarding claim 6, Henry teaches a system for determining soil compaction layer location during an operation of an agricultural implement, the system comprising: a ground-penetrating tool configured to penetrate soil within a field to a penetration depth (Henry: Para. 7; the shank configured to penetrate soil within a field to a penetration depth); an actuator configured to adjust the penetration depth of the ground- penetrating tool (Henry: Para. 28; the implement may include one or more ground-penetrating tool actuators); ….. a soil sensor configured to generate data indicative of a location of a compaction layer within the field (Henry: Para. 51; receive location data from the location sensor; relative positioning between the soil sensor(s) and the location sensor, the computing system may geo-locate each identified compaction layer within the field); and ….. analyzes the data generated by the soil sensor to determine a position of a bottom surface of the compaction layer (Henry: Para. 34; current may, in turn, vary with the parameters of the compaction layer e.g., the position of the top and/or bottom surfaces, thickness, density); controls an operation of the actuator such that a tip of the ground- penetrating tool is positioned at an initial penetration depth below the determined bottom surface of the compaction layer (Henry: Para. 50; instruct the actuator(s) to adjust the penetration depth(s) of the tip(s) of the shank(s) such that the tip(s) is positioned below the bottom surface of the identified compaction layer) …….. ; and adjusts the position of the bottom surface of the compaction layer determined by the soil sensor by the offset (Henry: Para. 21; when a compaction layer is identified, the penetration depth(s) of the tool(s) may be adjusted to ensure that the tool(s) penetrate through the compaction layer).
Henry doesn’t explicitly teach a force sensor configured to generate data indicative of a force being applied to the ground-penetrating tool by the soil ….. a computing system communicatively coupled to the force sensor and the soil sensor, wherein the computing system ….. receives the data generated by the force sensor……. ; determines a direction of the force being applied to the ground-penetrating tool when the tip of the ground-penetrating tool is positioned at the initial penetration depth below the determined bottom surface of the compaction layer based on the data received from the force sensor; determines an offset based on the direction of the force (Henry 2: Para. 30; accelerometer(s) may be used to detect the acceleration or movement of the associated ground surface engaging tool e.g., as the tine(s) deflect).
However Henry 2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a force sensor configured to generate data indicative of a force being applied to the ground-penetrating tool by the soil (Henry 2: Para. 30; the secondary sensor(s) may correspond to or include one or more accelerometers, rotation sensors, load sensor(s); load sensor(s) may be used to detect load(s) (e.g., stress or strain) on the associated ground surface engaging tool) ….. a computing system communicatively coupled to the force sensor and the soil sensor, wherein the computing system (Henry 2: Para. 17, 30; a computing system may obtain vision-based data of the field from a vision sensor coupled to an agricultural implement and secondary data from a non-vision-based or secondary sensor coupled to a ground engaging tool; the load sensor(s) may be used to detect load(s) on the associated ground surface engaging tool) ….. receives the data generated by the force sensor (Henry 2: Para. 30; load sensor(s) may be used to detect load(s) on the associated ground surface engaging tool) ……. ; determines a direction of the force being applied to the ground-penetrating tool (Henry 2: Para. 25, 51; non-vision-based sensors configured to provide an indication of displacement or movement of an associated surface engaging tool; actuators coupled to the frame for raising or lowering the frame relative to the ground, thereby allowing the penetration depth and/or the down pressure of the shanks and ground engaging tines to be adjusted) ……….. based on the data received from the force sensor (Henry 2: Para. 30, 51; one or more non-vision-based sensors configured to provide an indication of displacement or movement of an associated surface engaging tool; movement of the associated ground surface engaging tool (e.g., as the tine(s) deflect and/or as the basket(s) move up and down along the field surface); the load sensor(s) may be used to detect load(s) on the associated ground surface engaging tool); determines an offset based on the direction of the force (Henry 2: Para. 30; accelerometer(s) may be used to detect the acceleration or movement of the associated ground surface engaging tool e.g., as the tine(s) deflect).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the compaction layer detecting and mapping in Henry (Henry: Para. 51) with the secondary sensor vision correcting taught in Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29) with a reasonable expectation of success because calibrating the results of the vision-based sensor data through the use of load information from the ground engaging tools of the implement as taught by Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29, 30).
Henry and Henry 2 don’t explicitly teach when the tip of the ground-penetrating tool is positioned at the initial penetration depth below the determined bottom surface of the compaction layer …….. when the tip of the ground-penetrating tool is positioned at the initial penetration depth below the determined bottom surface of the compaction layer.
However Rains, in the same field of endeavor, teaches when the tip of the ground-penetrating tool is positioned at the initial penetration depth below the determined bottom surface of the compaction layer (Rains: Para. 4, 5, 28; detect soil density in at least a portion of the target area defined by a range of detection angles measured relative to a line normal to the ground; amount of actuator force is applied to the agricultural implement) ……… when the tip of the ground-penetrating tool is positioned at the initial penetration depth below the determined bottom surface of the compaction layer (Rains: Para. 4, 5, 28; detect soil density in at least a portion of the target area defined by a range of detection angles measured relative to a line normal to the ground; amount of actuator force is applied to the agricultural implement).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the compaction layer detecting and mapping in Henry (Henry: Para. 51) with the secondary sensor vision correcting taught in Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29) and the soil-density sensing devices indicates a change in soil density taught in Rains (Rains: Para. 50) with a reasonable expectation of success because adjusting the downward force of the row unit based on real time soil density data as taught by Rains (Rains: Para. 31).
Regarding claim 7, Henry doesn’t explicitly teach determines when the direction of the force being applied to the ground- penetrating tool is upward in a vertical direction; and adjusts a parameter associated with determining the location of the compaction layer when the direction of the force is upward in the vertical direction.
However Henry 2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determines when the direction of the force being applied to the ground- penetrating tool is upward in a vertical direction (Henry 2: Para. 25, 51; non-vision-based sensors configured to provide an indication of displacement or movement of an associated surface engaging tool; actuators coupled to the frame for raising or lowering the frame relative to the ground, thereby allowing the penetration depth and/or the down pressure of the shanks and ground engaging tines to be adjusted); and adjusts a parameter associated with determining the location of the compaction layer when the direction of the force is upward in the vertical direction (Henry 2: Para. 31, 51; displacement or movement-related parameters associated with the surface engaging tools (e.g., the acceleration or movement of the tine(s) and/or basket(s), the angular movement or pivoting of the basket(s), and/or the load(s) on the tine(s)) may be indicative of or otherwise associated with surface conditions of the field; non-vision-based sensors configured to provide an indication of displacement or movement of an associated surface engaging tool).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the compaction layer detecting and mapping in Henry (Henry: Para. 51) with the secondary sensor vision correcting taught in Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29) with a reasonable expectation of success because calibrating the results of the vision-based sensor data through the use of load information from the ground engaging tools of the implement as taught by Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29, 30).
Regarding claim 8, Henry teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the parameter associated with determining the location of the compaction layer comprises at least one of the penetration depth of the ground-penetrating tool or an analysis technique being used when analyzing the data generated by the soil sensor (Henry: Para. 34; as the vehicle/implement travels across the field, the compaction layer may induce a current within the coil(s); current may, in turn, vary with the parameters of the compaction layer e.g., the position of the top and/or bottom surfaces, thickness, density; any suitable sensor(s) or sensing device(s) configured to capture data associated with the soil).
Regarding claim 9, Henry teaches the system of claim 7, ….. within a predetermined distance from a soil type boundary within the field (Henry: Para. 50-51; a field map identifying one or more locations within the field at which the subsurface soil layer is identified as a compaction layer; control the penetration depth(s) of one or more ground-penetrating tools of the implement such that the tool(s) penetrate through the identified compaction layer).
Henry doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the computing system determines when the agricultural implement is positioned ….. when the direction of the force is upward in the vertical direction.
However Henry 2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the computing system determines when the agricultural implement is positioned (Henry 2: Para. 39; calibrate or correct the initial field surface conditions determined from the vision-based data received from the vision sensor(s) based on the secondary data received from the secondary sensor(s)) ….. when the direction of the force is upward in the vertical direction (Henry 2: Para. 25, 51; non-vision-based sensors configured to provide an indication of displacement or movement of an associated surface engaging tool; actuators coupled to the frame for raising or lowering the frame relative to the ground, thereby allowing the penetration depth and/or the down pressure of the shanks and ground engaging tines to be adjusted).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the compaction layer detecting and mapping in Henry (Henry: Para. 51) with the secondary sensor vision correcting taught in Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29) with a reasonable expectation of success because calibrating the results of the vision-based sensor data through the use of load information from the ground engaging tools of the implement as taught by Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29, 30).
Regarding claim 10, Henry teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the computing system adjusts an analysis technique being used when analyzing the data generated by the soil sensor when the agricultural implement is positioned within the predetermined distance from the soil type boundary (Henry: Para. 47; comparing the determined thickness to a predetermined thickness value; when the determined thickness is equal to or falls below to the predetermined thickness value, the computing system may identify the subsurface soil layer as a compaction layer).
Regarding claim 11, Henry teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the computing system controls the operation of the actuator such that the penetration depth of the tip of the ground-penetrating tool is adjusted from the initial penetration depth to a calibrated penetration depth (Henry: Para. 8, 48; determining, with the computing system, a thickness of the subsurface soil layer in a vertical direction based on the received non-contact-based sensor data; includes identifying, with the computing system, the subsurface soil layer; controlling, with the computing system, the penetration depth of the ground-penetrating tool based on the identification of the subsurface soil layer).
Regarding claim 12, Henry and Henry 2 don’t explicitly teach determines the direction of the force being applied to the ground-penetrating tool based on the data generated by the force sensor after the ground-penetrating tool is positioned at the calibrated penetration depth; and determines when the direction of the force being applied to the ground- penetrating tool is upward in the vertical direction after the ground-penetrating tool is positioned at the calibrated penetration depth.
However Rains, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determines the direction of the force being applied to the ground-penetrating tool based on the data generated by the force sensor after the ground-penetrating tool is positioned at the calibrated penetration depth (Rains: Para. 50, 54; change in soil density, the control device can determine (e.g., based on received data and a stored program) how the actuator force can be adjusted to account for the change in density; actuator adjustment command can be based at least upon the data indicative of the soil density detected throughout the area of interest (e.g., target area), along with ground speed, position detection; if soil density decreases, the soil may be less difficult to penetrate with ground working tools and, as a result, less force may be needed to reach the target depth); and determines when the direction of the force being applied to the ground- penetrating tool is upward in the vertical direction after the ground-penetrating tool is positioned at the calibrated penetration depth (Rains: Para. 50, 54; change in soil density, the control device can determine (e.g., based on received data and a stored program) how the actuator force can be adjusted to account for the change in density; actuator adjustment command can be based at least upon the data indicative of the soil density detected throughout the area of interest (e.g., target area), along with ground speed, position detection; if soil density decreases, the soil may be less difficult to penetrate with ground working tools and, as a result, less force may be needed to reach the target depth).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the compaction layer detecting and mapping in Henry (Henry: Para. 51) with the secondary sensor vision correcting taught in Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29) and the soil-density sensing devices indicates a change in soil density taught in Rains (Rains: Para. 50) with a reasonable expectation of success because adjusting the downward force of the row unit based on real time soil density data as taught by Rains (Rains: Para. 31).
Regarding claim 13, Henry teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the computing system ….. adjusts the determined position of the bottom surface of the compaction layer by the offset (Henry: Para. 21; when a compaction layer is identified, the penetration depth(s) of the tool(s) may be adjusted to ensure that the tool(s) penetrate through the compaction layer).
Henry doesn’t explicitly teach determines an offset between the calibrated penetration depth of the ground- penetrating tool and the initial penetration depth of the ground-engaging tool when the direction of the force being applied to the ground-penetrating tool is upward in the vertical direction.
However Henry 2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determines an offset between the calibrated penetration depth of the ground- penetrating tool and the initial penetration depth of the ground-engaging tool when the direction of the force being applied to the ground-penetrating tool is upward in the vertical direction (Henry 2: Para. 25, 51; non-vision-based sensors configured to provide an indication of displacement or movement of an associated surface engaging tool; actuators coupled to the frame for raising or lowering the frame relative to the ground, thereby allowing the penetration depth and/or the down pressure of the shanks and ground engaging tines to be adjusted).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the compaction layer detecting and mapping in Henry (Henry: Para. 51) with the secondary sensor vision correcting taught in Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29) with a reasonable expectation of success because calibrating the results of the vision-based sensor data through the use of load information from the ground engaging tools of the implement as taught by Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29, 30).
Regarding claim 14, Henry teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the soil sensor comprises a non-contact-based soil sensor (Henry: Para. 6; a non-contact-based sensor configured to capture data indicative of a subsurface soil layer).
Regarding claim 15, Henry teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the soil sensor comprises a ground- penetrating radar sensing device and an electromagnetic induction sensing device (Henry: Para. 20; the non-contact-based sensor may include a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) sensing device and an electromagnetic induction (EMI) sensing device).
Regarding claim 16, Henry teaches a method for determining soil compaction layer location during an operation of an agricultural implement, the agricultural implement including a ground-penetrating tool configured to penetrate soil within a field to a penetration depth and an actuator configured to adjust the penetration depth of the ground- penetrating tool, the method comprising: receiving, with a computing system, soil sensor data indicative of a location of a compaction layer within the field from a soil sensor (Henry: Para. 51; receive location data from the location sensor; relative positioning between the soil sensor(s) and the location sensor, the computing system may geo-locate each identified compaction layer within the field); analyzing, with the computing system, the received soil sensor data to determine a position of a bottom surface of the compaction layer (Henry: Para. 34; current may, in turn, vary with the parameters of the compaction layer e.g., the position of the top and/or bottom surfaces, thickness, density); controlling, with the computing system, an operation of the actuator such that a tip of the ground-penetrating tool is positioned at an initial penetration depth below the determined bottom surface of the compaction layer (Henry: Para. 50; instruct the actuator(s) to adjust the penetration depth(s) of the tip(s) of the shank(s) such that the tip(s) is positioned below the bottom surface of the identified compaction layer) ……… ; and adjusts the position of the bottom surface of the compaction layer determined by the soil sensor by the offset (Henry: Para. 21; when a compaction layer is identified, the penetration depth(s) of the tool(s) may be adjusted to ensure that the tool(s) penetrate through the compaction layer).
Henry doesn’t explicitly teach receiving, with the computing system, force sensor data indicative of a force being applied to the ground-penetrating tool by the soil ……… ; determining, with the computing system, a direction of the force being applied to the ground-penetrating tool …….. based on the received force sensor data; determines an offset based on the direction of the force.
However Henry 2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving, with the computing system, force sensor data indicative of a force being applied to the ground-penetrating tool by the soil (Henry 2: Para. 30; the secondary sensor(s) may correspond to or include one or more accelerometers, rotation sensors, load sensor(s); load sensor(s) may be used to detect load(s) (e.g., stress or strain) on the associated ground surface engaging tool) ……… ; determining, with the computing system, a direction of the force being applied to the ground-penetrating tool based on the received force sensor data (Henry 2: Para. 30, 51; one or more non-vision-based sensors configured to provide an indication of displacement or movement of an associated surface engaging tool; movement of the associated ground surface engaging tool (e.g., as the tine(s) deflect and/or as the basket(s) move up and down along the field surface); the load sensor(s) may be used to detect load(s) on the associated ground surface engaging tool) ………… based on the received force sensor data (Henry 2: Para. 30, 51; one or more non-vision-based sensors configured to provide an indication of displacement or movement of an associated surface engaging tool; movement of the associated ground surface engaging tool (e.g., as the tine(s) deflect and/or as the basket(s) move up and down along the field surface); the load sensor(s) may be used to detect load(s) on the associated ground surface engaging tool); determines an offset based on the direction of the force (Henry 2: Para. 30; accelerometer(s) may be used to detect the acceleration or movement of the associated ground surface engaging tool e.g., as the tine(s) deflect).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the compaction layer detecting and mapping in Henry (Henry: Para. 51) with the secondary sensor vision correcting taught in Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29) with a reasonable expectation of success because calibrating the results of the vision-based sensor data through the use of load information from the ground engaging tools of the implement as taught by Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29, 30).
Henry and Henry 2 don’t explicitly teach when the tip of the ground penetration tool is positioned at the initial penetration depth below the determined bottom surface of the compaction layer ……. when the tip of the ground penetration tool is positioned at the initial penetration depth below the determined bottom surface of the compaction layer.
However Rains, in the same field of endeavor, teaches when the tip of the ground penetration tool is positioned at the initial penetration depth below the determined bottom surface of the compaction layer (Rains: Para. 4, 5, 28; detect soil density in at least a portion of the target area defined by a range of detection angles measured relative to a line normal to the ground; amount of actuator force is applied to the agricultural implement) …….. when the tip of the ground penetration tool is positioned at the initial penetration depth below the determined bottom surface of the compaction layer (Rains: Para. 4, 5, 28; detect soil density in at least a portion of the target area defined by a range of detection angles measured relative to a line normal to the ground; amount of actuator force is applied to the agricultural implement).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the compaction layer detecting and mapping in Henry (Henry: Para. 51) with the secondary sensor vision correcting taught in Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29) and the soil-density sensing devices indicates a change in soil density taught in Rains (Rains: Para. 50) with a reasonable expectation of success because adjusting the downward force of the row unit based on real time soil density data as taught by Rains (Rains: Para. 31).
Regarding claim 17, Henry doesn’t explicitly teach determining, with the computing system, when the direction of the force being applied to the ground-penetrating tool is upward in a vertical direction; and adjusting, with the computing system, a parameter associated with determining the location of the compaction layer when the direction of the force is upward in the vertical direction.
However Henry 2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining, with the computing system, when the direction of the force being applied to the ground-penetrating tool is upward in a vertical direction (Henry 2: Para. 25, 51; non-vision-based sensors configured to provide an indication of displacement or movement of an associated surface engaging tool; actuators coupled to the frame for raising or lowering the frame relative to the ground, thereby allowing the penetration depth and/or the down pressure of the shanks and ground engaging tines to be adjusted); and adjusting, with the computing system, a parameter associated with determining the location of the compaction layer when the direction of the force is upward in the vertical direction (Henry 2: Para. 31, 51; displacement or movement-related parameters associated with the surface engaging tools (e.g., the acceleration or movement of the tine(s) and/or basket(s), the angular movement or pivoting of the basket(s), and/or the load(s) on the tine(s)) may be indicative of or otherwise associated with surface conditions of the field; non-vision-based sensors configured to provide an indication of displacement or movement of an associated surface engaging tool).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the compaction layer detecting and mapping in Henry (Henry: Para. 51) with the secondary sensor vision correcting taught in Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29) with a reasonable expectation of success because calibrating the results of the vision-based sensor data through the use of load information from the ground engaging tools of the implement as taught by Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29, 30).
Regarding claim 18, Henry teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the parameter associated with determining the location of the compaction layer comprises at least one of the penetration depth of the ground-penetrating tool or an analysis technique being used when analyzing the data generated by the soil sensor (Henry: Para. 34; as the vehicle/implement travels across the field, the compaction layer may induce a current within the coil(s); current may, in turn, vary with the parameters of the compaction layer e.g., the position of the top and/or bottom surfaces, thickness, density; any suitable sensor(s) or sensing device(s) configured to capture data associated with the soil).
Regarding claim 19, Henry teaches the method of claim 17, ….. within a predetermined distance from a soil type boundary within the field (Henry: Para. 50-51; a field map identifying one or more locations within the field at which the subsurface soil layer is identified as a compaction layer; control the penetration depth(s) of one or more ground-penetrating tools of the implement such that the tool(s) penetrate through the identified compaction layer).
Henry doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising determining, with the computing system, when the agricultural implement is positioned ….. when the direction of the force is upward in the vertical direction.
However Henry 2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising determining, with the computing system, when the agricultural implement is positioned (Henry 2: Para. 39; calibrate or correct the initial field surface conditions determined from the vision-based data received from the vision sensor(s) based on the secondary data received from the secondary sensor(s)) ….. when the direction of the force is upward in the vertical direction (Henry 2: Para. 25, 51; non-vision-based sensors configured to provide an indication of displacement or movement of an associated surface engaging tool; actuators coupled to the frame for raising or lowering the frame relative to the ground, thereby allowing the penetration depth and/or the down pressure of the shanks and ground engaging tines to be adjusted).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the compaction layer detecting and mapping in Henry (Henry: Para. 51) with the secondary sensor vision correcting taught in Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29) with a reasonable expectation of success because calibrating the results of the vision-based sensor data through the use of load information from the ground engaging tools of the implement as taught by Henry 2 (Henry 2: Para. 29, 30).
Regarding claim 20, Henry teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising adjusting, with the computing system, an analysis technique being used when analyzing the data generated by the soil sensor when the agricultural implement is positioned within the predetermined distance from the soil type change within the field (Henry: Para. 26; the data captured by the soil sensor may be used to identify a detected subsurface soil layer as either a compaction layer or the B-horizon; sensor has a field of view or sensor detection range directed towards a portion of the field adjacent to the vehicle/implement).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s attorney argues that the priors arts do not teach claim 1 and 6’s “determines an offset based on the direction of the load.”
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Henry 2 teaches various secondary sensors. Henry 2 teaches accelerometers used to detect the acceleration or movement of the associated ground surface engaging tool such as the movement of the tines as they deflect. The rotation sensors used to detect the angular position of the associated ground surface engaging tool which one of ordinary skill in the art could use to determine the direction and amount of the deflection. The load sensors used to detect load of stress or strain on the associated ground surface engaging tool as the tines bend or flex (Henry 2: Para. 30).
Henry 2 teaches accelerometers, rotation sensors, and load sensors providing displacement or movement data associated ground surface engaging tool using actuators to adjust the penetration depth (Henry 2: Para. 30, 51). Henry 2 teaches a cultivator with adjustable penetration depths to till or break the soil over the implement to create a seedbed (Henry 2: Para. 22).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the movement, deflection, rotation, strain and stress measurements of the ground surface engaging tool determines an offset based on the direction of the force. Then adjusts the penetration depth beneath a compaction layer in order to till or to break the soil for an agricultural operation.
The applicant next argues that the prior arts do not teach claims 1 and 6’s “adjusts the position of the bottom surface of the compaction layer determined by the soil sensor by the offset.”
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Henry teaches determining the thickness of a subsurface soil layer allows for identification of the layer as either a compaction layer or the B-horizon (Henry: Para. 21). Henry teaches a tillage implement with sensor located compaction layer boundaries (top, bottom, thickness, density) in order to control the penetration depth based on the identification of the subsurface soil layer (Henry: Para. 7, 34). Henry teaches when a compaction layer is identified, the penetration depth of the tool is adjusted to ensure that the tool penetrate through the compaction layer, thereby breaking up the compaction layer (Henry: Para. 21).
The applicant next argues that claim 16, which has been similarly amended to claims 1 and 6, is not taught by the prior arts.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, the examiner addresses the arguments directed to claims 1 and 6 above. The responses would similarly apply to claim 16.
The applicant’s arguments have failed to point out the distinguishing characteristics of the amended claim language over the prior art. For the above reasons, Henry’s tillage implement in view of Henry 2’s force sensor to create Rains’ soil density map reads on applicant’s determining the compaction layer location during agricultural implement operation. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 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 date of this final action.
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
