DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 07/23/2026. Claims 11, 15, and 18 were previously canceled. With the filed amendment, claims 3, 5, 8, and 10 are also canceled. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-21 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendment filed 07/23/2026 has been entered and applicant’s arguments filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim objection:
Applicant has argued that the objection to claim 19 is overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the objection accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant has argued that the combination of Arnett and Schoeny fails to teach that the computing system “controls a force being applied to the first tillage tool based on the determined at least one of the soil type, the soil texture, or the presence of the subsurface soil compaction layer within the first portion of the field and independently of the second tillage tool” and also “controls a force being applied to the second tillage tool based on the determined at least one of the soil type, the soil texture, or the presence of the subsurface soil compaction layer within the second portion of the field and independently of the first tillage tool” as required by the amended independent claims. Specifically, applicant has argued that the previous “Office action seemingly admits that Arnett fails to disclose independently adjusting the force being applied to different tillage tools.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that Schoeny was cited for teaching claim 5 due to the limitation specifically requiring the computing system to control forces being applied to a first basket assembly and a second basket assembly. Arnett teaches the amended limitations, as they do not require the forces to specifically be applied to these basket assemblies. Specifically, see Arnett ¶¶ 199-200, which teach that the controller can “automatically control operation of one or more components of the tillage implement 100 based on the one or more soil quality parameters. For instance, the controller 116 may automatically control operation of the tillage implement 100 by adjusting a speed of the tillage implement 100 and/or adjusting a position of the ground-engaging tools of the tillage implement 100. Examples of adjusting a position of the ground-engaging tools includes shifting a depth at which the ground-engaging tools are embedded in the ground and/or shifting a gang angle of the ground-engaging tools. … multiple tools may be shifted separately from each other to permit depth adjustments of each tool independently of the other tools.” Additionally, Arnett ¶ 82 teaches that adjusting the depth can involve changing a down force: “the furrow closing process may be modified by changing a closing wheel parameter, such as down force (which may affect the final depth of the seed, depending on how well the closing wheels bring soil back over the seed to close the furrow).” Accordingly, Arnett teaches the argued limitation and the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been maintained.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-21 are each rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnett et al. (US 2020/0352088 A1), hereinafter referred to as Arnett, in view of Schoeny et al. (US 2020/0037491 A1), hereinafter referred to as Schoeny.
Regarding claim 1:
Arnett discloses the following limitations:
“A tillage implement, comprising: a frame extending in a lateral direction between a first side of the frame and a second side of the frame, the frame including a first frame section configured to be moved across a first portion of a field, the frame further including a second frame section spaced apart from the first frame section in the lateral direction, the second frame section configured to be moved across a second portion of the field; a first tillage tool supported on the first frame section, the first tillage tool configured to engage soil within the first portion of the field; a second tillage tool supported on the second frame section, the second tillage tool configured to engage soil within the second portion of the field.” (Arnett ¶¶ 91-93 and FIG. 7 reproduced below disclose a tillage implement 100 comprising a main frame 102 that includes several frame sections that are configured to be pulled across a field. Also, Arnett ¶¶ 142 and 150 disclose groups of soil-engaging tools such as coulter blades 110, 112 and harrow assemblies 144 that are distributed among the frame sections as shown in FIG. 7 below. It can be seen that when the tillage implement is moved forward, the tools of each frame section can perform work in different sections of the field.)
PNG
media_image1.png
697
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“a first sensor configured to generate data indicative of [a soil characteristic] within the first portion of the field; a second sensor configured to generate data indicative of the [soil characteristic] within the second portion of the field; and a computing system communicatively coupled to the first sensor and the second sensor, wherein the computing system: determines the [soil characteristic] within the first portion of the field based on the data generated by the first sensor; determines the [soil characteristic] within the second portion of the field based on the data generated by the second sensor.” (Arnett ¶ 154 and FIG. 10A reproduced below disclose that each frame section has sensors 113, 114, and 115 that are coupled to controller 116 and may be used to obtain information and provide feedback to the controller 116 for initiating adjustments to implement operating parameters. Arnett ¶ 93 disclose that the sensors 113, 114, and 115 can be configured to measure characteristics such as height, residue, and soil temperature, respectively.)
PNG
media_image2.png
738
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“controls a force being applied to the first tillage tool based on the determined [soil characteristic] within the first portion of the field and independently of the second tillage tool; and controls a force being applied to the second tillage tool based on the determined [soil characteristic] within the second portion of the field and independently of the first tillage tool.” (Arnett ¶¶ 199-200: “Embodiments of the controller 116 are also configured to automatically control operation of one or more components of the tillage implement 100 based on the one or more soil quality parameters. For instance, the controller 116 may automatically control operation of the tillage implement 100 by adjusting a speed of the tillage implement 100 and/or adjusting a position of the ground-engaging tools of the tillage implement 100. Examples of adjusting a position of the ground-engaging tools includes shifting a depth at which the ground-engaging tools are embedded in the ground and/or shifting a gang angle of the ground-engaging tools. … multiple tools may be shifted separately from each other to permit depth adjustments of each tool independently of the other tools.” Additionally, Arnett ¶ 82: “Modification of the furrow forming process may include adjustments associated with one or more furrow parameters, such as furrow width, furrow depth, and furrow quality. For instance, the furrow forming process may be modified by changing at least one of an opener down force, a seed firmer down pressure, and a row cleaner/residue mover position or force. Yet further, the controller may be configured to control at least one parameter associated with a furrow closing process. For instance, the furrow closing process may be modified by changing a closing wheel parameter, such as down force (which may affect the final depth of the seed, depending on how well the closing wheels bring soil back over the seed to close the furrow).”)
Arnett does not explicitly disclose the soil characteristic being “at least one of a soil type, a soil texture, or a presence of a subsurface soil compaction layer.” However, Schoeny does teach this limitation. (Schoeny ¶ 30: “when performing a tillage operation using a tillage implement, the monitored field condition(s) may be associated with a given condition(s) that provides useful information for adjusting and/or improving the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the tillage operation, such as residue coverage, residue size, clod size, seedbed depth, soil compaction (e.g., severity and/or depth), weed management (e.g., location, type, population, and/or maturity), etc. … suitable field conditions that may be monitored in accordance with aspects of the present subject matter using the disclosed sensor(s) 120 may include, but are not limited to, soil roughness or profile, moisture content, soil color, soil composition or type, residue coverage, clod size, organic matter content, soil texture, soil compaction or hardness, depth of soil layers and locations of interlayer boundaries, plant/weed presence, soil porosity, and/or the like.”)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 1, consistent with the specification, the limitations related to “at least one of a soil type, a soil texture, or a presence of a subsurface soil compaction layer” are each treated as alternative limitations. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Although all three of the alternative options have been addressed here, only one of the three is actually required by the claim.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Arnett by using sensors to measure soil type, texture, and compaction and controlling the tillage tools based on this sensor data as taught by Schoeny, because this modification amounts to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., a soil type sensor, soil texture sensor, or soil compaction sensor) for another (i.e., any of sensors 113-115 of Arnett) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could have replaced any of sensors 113-115 of Arnett with a soil type sensor, soil texture sensor, or soil compaction sensor as taught by Schoeny to achieve the predictable result of identifying whether control of each of the tillage tools should be adjusted to account for the soil type, soil texture, or soil compaction. Arnett ¶ 93 discloses that the sensors 113-115 can be configured to measure height, residue, and soil temperature, and Arnett ¶ 184 discloses that the sensors 113-115 could also be used to measure a smoothness/roughness value of the ground. Any of the sensors of Arnett could have been replaced with a similar sensor to measure different metrics like soil type, soil texture, or soil compaction as taught by Schoeny.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Arnett and Schoeny teaches “The tillage implement of claim 1,” and Arnett also teaches “wherein the first tillage tool comprises a first shank and the second tillage tool comprises a second shank.” (Arnett ¶¶ 200-201: “multiple tools may be shifted separately from each other to permit depth adjustments of each tool independently of the other tools. Adjusting the position of a ground-engaging tool may also involve adjusting a shank angle relative to the ground.”)
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Arnett and Schoeny teaches “The tillage implement of claim 1,” and Arnett also teaches “wherein the first tillage tool comprises a first basket assembly and the second tillage tool comprises a second basket assembly.” (Arnett FIG. 10A illustrates a basket assembly 146 for each tillage tool.)
Regarding claim 6:
Arnett discloses “A system for controlling an operation of a tillage implement.” (Arnett ¶ 199: “Embodiments of the controller 116 are also configured to automatically control operation of one or more components of the tillage implement 100 based on the one or more soil quality parameters.”)
The remaining limitations of claim 6 are taught by the combination of Arnett and Schoeny using the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 7 and 9:
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 2 and 4 above, respectively.
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Arnett and Schoeny teaches “The system of claim 6,” and Schoeny additionally teaches “wherein the at least one of the soil type, the soil texture, or the presence of the subsurface soil compaction layer is the presence of the subsurface soil compaction layer.” (Schoeny ¶ 30 teaches the soil characteristic being the presence of the subsurface soil compaction layer as explained regarding claim 1 above.)
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Arnett and Schoeny teaches “The system of claim 6,” and Schoeny also teaches “wherein the at least one of the soil type, the soil texture, or the presence of the subsurface soil compaction layer is the soil type.” (Schoeny ¶ 30 teaches the soil characteristic being the soil type as explained regarding claim 1 above.)
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Arnett and Schoeny teaches “The system of claim 6,” and Schoeny also teaches “wherein the at least one of the soil type, the soil texture, or the presence of the subsurface soil compaction layer is the soil texture.” (Schoeny ¶ 30 teaches the soil characteristic being the soil texture as explained regarding claim 1 above.)
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Arnett and Schoeny teaches “The system of claim 6,” and Arnett also teaches “wherein: the first portion of the field is positioned forward of the first tillage implement frame section relative to a direction of travel of the tillage implement; and the second portion of the field is positioned forward of the second tillage implement frame section relative to the direction of travel.” (Arnett ¶ 164: “The temperature sensors 115a are configured to measure temperature of the ground (e.g., by taking a temperature image of the soil) along the front end 120a of the implement 100.” Further, Arnett FIG. 10A shows sensors 113, 114, and 115 for each frame section aligned along the front of the tillage implement, and Arnett ¶ 193 discloses that “controller 116 is also configured to receive height information from sensors 113a,113c,113d to level frame sections of the tillage implement 100 from side to side. Preferably, the controller 116 is configured to compare the front height value from the front sensor 113a of the central section 120 and the height values from the sensors 113c,d of the wing sections 122a,122b,124a,124b to determine an actual (i.e., measured) side-to-side level value of the main frame 102.”)
Regarding claims 17 and 19-21:
Claim 17 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 6 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 19-21 are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 12-14 above, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zemenchik (US 10,959,367 B2) col. 11 ll. 31-53 disclose that an “agricultural tillage implement 14 includes three finishing assemblies 30, and the agricultural implement control system 40 includes three finishing assembly actuators 44, each configured to control the downforce of a respective finishing assembly 30 (e.g., based on the length of the leveling reel, to establishing a substantially uniform leveling reel downforce across the width of the agricultural tillage implement, etc.). … the agricultural implement controller 48 may be configured to independently control the downforce applied to the soil by each finishing assembly.”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights