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 .
In view of the appeal brief filed on April 27th, 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new grounds of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
{ 4 }
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 17th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, and 16-26 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed August 19th, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the support assembly” in ln. 4-5 should be revised to “the plurality of support assemblies” or “a support assembly of the plurality of support assemblies” to retain consistency of terms.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a plurality of ground-engaging elements in claim 1, ln. 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. It will be interpreted that a plurality of ground-engaging elements are wheels or tracks, as described in Paragraphs 0037 and 0040 of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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, 6-7, 9, 21-22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowley (US 20180177177 A1) in view of Weidenbach et al. (US 20200029548 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Crowley discloses a system (34, Fig. 1), comprising:
a chassis (12, Fig. 1) of an agricultural machine (10, Fig. 1);
a plurality of ground-engaging elements (14, Fig. 1) supporting the chassis (12, Fig. 1) above a ground surface (shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0019);
a plurality of support assemblies (22, 24, Fig. 1) supporting the chassis (12, Fig. 1) on the ground-engaging elements (14, Fig. 1), each support assembly (22, 24, Fig. 1) comprising a height adjustment actuator (suspension modules 22 include height adjustment components, such as one or more actuators for raising and lowering the chassis 12, Paragraph 0025) and a width adjustment actuator (front and rear axles 24 can include mechanisms, such as telescoping axles, for adjusting the track width of the wheels 14 to accommodate different spacing needs for row crops, Paragraph 0022);
a transversely extending applicator boom (36, Fig. 1); and
a controller (not explicitly shown, but operator can control functions of the vehicle 10 through a control environment in the cab, Paragraph 0024) configured to:
adjust the height adjustment actuators in response to the crop canopy height (operator may remotely control operation of suspension modules 22 to raise and lower the chassis through user interface elements in the cab, Paragraph 0031); and
adjust the width adjustment actuators to adjust a track width of the machine (operator can control functions of the vehicle 10 through a control environment in the cab, including adjusting the track width of the wheels 14 through the telescoping axles, Paragraphs 0022, 0024).
However, Crowley does not disclose a canopy sensor mounted to the applicator boom and configured to detect a crop canopy height relative to the chassis and a controller configured to automatically adjust the height adjustment actuators in response to the crop canopy height.
Weidenbach teaches a canopy sensor (180, Fig. 1B) mounted to the applicator boom (130, 130A, 130B, shown in Fig. 1B) and configured to detect a crop canopy height relative to the chassis (100, proximity sensors 180 are coupled to at least one of the chassis 100 and the booms 130, and measure a distance between the sensors 180 and an object, Figs. 1A-4, Paragraph 0036); and
a controller (175, Fig. 1B) configured to:
automatically adjust the height adjustment actuators in response to the crop canopy height (suspension control circuit 175 communicates with the suspension elements 140 to direct and facilitate change in the suspension elements 140 according to kinematic characteristics, such as a distance between the sensors 180 and an object, Paragraphs 0035-0036).
Crowley and Weidenbach are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural application machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the canopy sensor and the controller taught in Weidenbach’s system to Crowley’s system, to have the motivation of facilitating measuring the distance between the system and an object to determine movement caused by uneven terrain and control movement based on determined kinematic characteristics (Weidenbach, Paragraphs 0005, 0036).
Regarding claim 6, Crowley, as modified by Weidenbach, discloses the system of claim 1. Weidenbach further teaches the controller (175, Fig. 1B) is configured to automatically adjust the height adjustment actuators (150, 150A, 150B, suspension elements 140 can be used as actuators, 150A and 150B are not explicitly shown in the drawings, but there can be one or more actuators, Figs. 1A-4, Paragraphs 0031, 0034) to maintain a clearance between the chassis (100, Figs. 1A-4) and the crop canopy above a predetermined minimum chassis clearance (suspension control circuit 175 operates actuators to maintain a specific gap range between the agricultural implement 110, which the chassis 100 is located on, and the terrain, Paragraph 0063).
With respect to claim 7, Crowley, as modified by Weidenbach, discloses the system of claim 6. Weidenbach further teaches the controller (175, Fig. 1B) is configured to automatically adjust the height adjustment actuators to maintain the clearance within a predetermined chassis clearance range (suspension control circuit 175 operates actuators to maintain a specific gap range between the agricultural implement 110, which the chassis 100 is located on, and the terrain, Paragraph 0063).
With respect to claim 9, Crowley, as modified by Weidenbach, discloses the system of claim 1. Crowley further discloses a liquid holding tank (32, Fig. 1);
a delivery system for applying contents of the holding tank (34, Fig. 1); and
a plurality of nozzles spaced along the applicator boom (not explicitly shown, but booms 36 can support spray nozzles to apply contents of the tank to a crop, Paragraph 0023), wherein the nozzles are fluidly connected to the delivery system (not explicitly shown, but booms 36 can support spray nozzles to apply contents of the tank to a crop through delivery system 34, Paragraph 0023).
With respect to claim 21, Crowley, as modified by Weidenbach, discloses the system of claim 1. Weidenbach teaches the agricultural application machine (entire structure, Fig. 1A) further comprising another crop canopy sensor (180A, 180B, Fig. 1B) mounted to one of the plurality of support assemblies (140, 140A, 140B, 140C, 140D, 141, 142, 150, proximity sensors 180 are coupled to at least one of the chassis 100 and the booms 130, and measure a distance between the sensors 180 and an object, Figs. 1A-4, Paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 22, Crowley discloses an apparatus (34, Fig. 1), comprising:
a chassis (12, Fig. 1) of an agricultural machine (10, Fig. 1);
wheels (14, Fig. 1) supporting the chassis (12, Fig. 1), the wheels (14, Fig. 1) having a track width (Paragraph 0022);
a plurality of support assemblies (22, 24, Fig. 1) supporting the chassis (12, Fig. 1) on the wheels (14, Fig. 1), the support assembly (22, 24, Fig. 1) comprising a height adjustment actuator (suspension modules 22 include height adjustment components, such as one or more actuators for raising and lowering the chassis 12, Paragraph 0025) and a width adjustment actuator (front and rear axles 24 can include mechanisms, such as telescoping axles, for adjusting the track width of the wheels 14 to accommodate different spacing needs for row crops, Paragraph 0022);
a transversely extending applicator boom (36, Fig. 1); and
a controller (not explicitly shown, but operator can control functions of the vehicle 10 through a control environment in the cab, Paragraph 0024) configured to:
adjust the height adjustment actuators in response to the crop canopy height (operator may remotely control operation of suspension modules 22 to raise and lower the chassis through user interface elements in the cab, Paragraph 0031); and
adjust the width adjustment actuators to adjust the track width of the machine (operator can control functions of the vehicle 10 through a control environment in the cab, including adjusting the track width of the wheels 14 through the telescoping axles, Paragraphs 0022, 0024).
However, Crowley does not disclose a canopy sensor mounted to the applicator boom and configured to detect a crop canopy height relative to the chassis and a controller configured to automatically adjust the height adjustment actuators in response to the crop canopy height.
Weidenbach teaches a canopy sensor (180, Fig. 1B) mounted to the applicator boom (130, 130A, 130B, shown in Fig. 1B) and configured to detect a crop canopy height relative to the chassis (100, proximity sensors 180 are coupled to at least one of the chassis 100 and the booms 130, and measure a distance between the sensors 180 and an object, Figs. 1A-4, Paragraph 0036); and
a controller (175, Fig. 1B) configured to:
automatically adjust the height adjustment actuators in response to the crop canopy height (suspension control circuit 175 communicates with the suspension elements 140 to direct and facilitate change in the suspension elements 140 according to kinematic characteristics, such as a distance between the sensors 180 and an object, Paragraphs 0035-0036).
Crowley and Weidenbach are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural application machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the canopy sensor and the controller taught in Weidenbach’s apparatus to Crowley’s apparatus, to have the motivation of facilitating measuring the distance between the system and an object to determine movement caused by uneven terrain and control movement based on determined kinematic characteristics (Weidenbach, Paragraphs 0005, 0036).
Regarding claim 24, Crowley, as modified by Weidenbach, discloses the apparatus of claim 22. Weidenbach further teaches the controller (175, Fig. 1B) is configured to automatically adjust the height adjustment actuators (150, 150A, 150B, suspension elements 140 can be used as actuators, 150A and 150B are not explicitly shown in the drawings, but there can be one or more actuators, Figs. 1A-4, Paragraphs 0031, 0034) to maintain a clearance between the chassis (100, Figs. 1A-4) and the crop canopy above a predetermined minimum chassis clearance (suspension control circuit 175 operates actuators to maintain a specific gap range between the agricultural implement 110, which the chassis 100 is located on, and the terrain, Paragraph 0063).
With respect to claim 25, Crowley, as modified by Weidenbach, discloses the apparatus of claim 24. Weidenbach further teaches the controller (175, Fig. 1B) is configured to automatically adjust the height adjustment actuators to maintain the clearance within a predetermined chassis clearance range (suspension control circuit 175 operates actuators to maintain a specific gap range between the agricultural implement 110, which the chassis 100 is located on, and the terrain, Paragraph 0063).
With respect to claim 26, Crowley, as modified by Weidenbach, discloses the apparatus of claim 22. Crowley further discloses a liquid holding tank (32, Fig. 1);
a delivery system for applying contents of the holding tank (34, Fig. 1); and
a plurality of nozzles spaced along the applicator boom (not explicitly shown, but booms 36 can support spray nozzles to apply contents of the tank to a crop, Paragraph 0023), wherein the nozzles are fluidly connected to the delivery system (not explicitly shown, but booms 36 can support spray nozzles to apply contents of the tank to a crop through delivery system 34, Paragraph 0023).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowley (US 20180177177 A1) in view of Weidenbach et al. (US 20200029548 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sullivan (US 20190104721 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Crowley, as modified by Weidenbach, discloses the system of claim 1. However, Crowley and Weidenbach do not teach the canopy sensor comprises at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of a radar, a laser range sensor, and a camera.
Sullivan teaches a system (100, Fig. 1) comprising the canopy sensor (344, Fig. 3) comprises at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of a radar, a laser range sensor, and a camera (sensors can be a laser-based crop height sensor, Paragraph 0048).
Crowley, Weidenbach, and Sullivan are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural application machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the canopy sensor taught in Sullivan’s system to Crowley’s system, as modified by Weidenbach, to have the motivation of providing an effective way to provide electrical communication to the controller to detect a distance between two objects (Sullivan, Paragraph 0048).
Claims 5 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowley (US 20180177177 A1) in view of Weidenbach et al. (US 20200029548 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Disberger et al. (US 20210212249 A1).
In regards to claim 5, Crowley, as modified by Weidenbach, discloses the system of claim 1. However, Crowley and Weidenbach do not teach the controller is configured to adjust the height adjustment actuators in unison.
Disberger teaches a system (10, Fig. 1) comprising the controller (18, Fig. 3) is configured to adjust the height adjustment actuators (30, Fig. 5) in unison (control system 18 can simultaneously operate a plurality of actuators of a coupling assembly 16 to control multiple orientation parameters, Paragraph 0091).
Crowley, Weidenbach, and Disberger are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural application machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the controller and the height adjustment actuators taught in Disberger’s system to Crowley’s system, as modified by Weidenbach, to have the motivation of providing various ways to perform agricultural operations to increase the efficiencies of performing agricultural operations (Disberger, Paragraphs 0003, 0091).
In regards to claim 23, Crowley, as modified by Weidenbach, discloses the apparatus of claim 22. However, Crowley and Weidenbach do not teach the controller is configured to adjust the height adjustment actuators in unison.
Disberger teaches an apparatus (10, Fig. 1) comprising the controller (18, Fig. 3) is configured to adjust the height adjustment actuators (30, Fig. 5) in unison (control system 18 can simultaneously operate a plurality of actuators of a coupling assembly 16 to control multiple orientation parameters, Paragraph 0091).
Crowley, Weidenbach, and Disberger are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural application machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the controller and the height adjustment actuators taught in Disberger’s apparatus to Crowley’s apparatus, as modified by Weidenbach, to have the motivation of providing various ways to perform agricultural operations to increase the efficiencies of performing agricultural operations (Disberger, Paragraphs 0003, 0091).
Claims 11-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidenbach et al. (US 20200029548 A1) in view of Crowley (US 20180177177 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Weidenbach discloses a method (1000, Fig. 10) comprising:
detecting a crop canopy height relative to a chassis (100, Figs. 1A-4) of an agricultural machine (entire system, Fig. 1A) using a canopy sensor (180, Fig. 1B) mounted to an applicator boom (130, 130A, 130B, proximity sensors 180 are coupled to at least one of the chassis 100 and the booms 130, and measure a distance between the sensors 180 and an object, Figs. 1A-4, Paragraph 0036); and
automatically adjusting a plurality of height adjustment actuators (150, 150A, 150B, suspension elements 140 can be used as actuators, 150A and 150B are not explicitly shown in the drawings, but there can be one or more actuators, Figs. 1A-4, Paragraphs 0031, 0034) with a controller (175, Fig. 1B) to adjust a height of the chassis in response to the crop canopy height (suspension control circuit 175 communicates with the suspension elements 140 to direct and facilitate change in the suspension elements 140 according to kinematic characteristics, such as a distance between the sensors 180 and an object, Paragraphs 0035-0036).
However, Weidenbach does not disclose the method comprising adjusting a width adjustment actuator of the agricultural machine to adjust a track width of the machine.
Crowley teaches adjusting a width adjustment actuator of the agricultural machine to adjust a track width of the machine (operator can control functions of the vehicle 10 through a control environment in the cab, including adjusting the track width of the wheels 14 through the telescoping axles, Paragraphs 0022, 0024).
Weidenbach and Crowley are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural application machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Crowley’s method to Weidenbach’s method, to have the motivation to accommodate for different spacing needs for row crops (Crowley, Paragraph 0022).
In regards to claim 12, Weidenbach, as modified by Crowley, discloses the method of claim 11. Weidenbach further discloses automatically adjusting a plurality of height adjustment actuators (150, 150A, 150B, suspension elements 140 can be used as actuators, 150A and 150B are not explicitly shown in the drawings, but there can be one or more actuators, Figs. 1A-4, Paragraphs 0031, 0034) comprises maintaining a predetermined minimum chassis clearance between the chassis (100, Figs. 1A-4) and the crop canopy (suspension control circuit 175 operates actuators to maintain a specific gap range between the agricultural implement 110, which the chassis 100 is located on, and the terrain, Paragraph 0063).
In regards to claim 13, Weidenbach, as modified by Crowley, discloses the method of claim 12. Weidenbach further discloses the automatically adjusting the plurality of height adjustment actuators (150, 150A, 150B, suspension elements 140 can be used as actuators, 150A and 150B are not explicitly shown in the drawings, but there can be one or more actuators, Figs. 1A-4, Paragraphs 0031, 0034) with the controller (175, Fig. 1B) to adjust the height of the chassis comprises maintaining a predetermined minimum chassis clearance between the chassis (100, Figs. 1A-4) and the crop canopy within a predetermined chassis clearance range (suspension control circuit 175 operates actuators to maintain a specific gap range between the agricultural implement 110, which the chassis 100 is located on, and the terrain, Paragraph 0063).
With respect to claim 17, Weidenbach, as modified by Crowley, discloses the method of claim 11. Weidenbach further discloses detecting a crop canopy height relative to the chassis (100, Figs. 1A-4) of the machine (entire structure, Fig. 1A) comprises detecting the crop canopy height using both the canopy sensor (180, Fig. 1B) mounted to the applicator boom (130, 130A, 130B, shown in Fig. 1B) and another canopy sensor (180A, 180B, there are a plurality proximity sensors to measure the gap between the agricultural implement 110, which chassis 100 is placed on, and the terrain 120, Fig. 1B, Paragraph 0063).
Claim 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidenbach et al. (US 20200029548 A1) in view of Crowley (US 20180177177 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Rosa et al. (US 20140074360 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Weidenbach, as modified by Crowley discloses the method of claim 11. However, Weidenbach and Crowley do not teach the method comprising detecting a crop canopy height relative to the chassis of the machine further comprises detecting a crop canopy height ahead of the chassis.
Rosa teaches a method of controlling a chassis height (700, Fig. 10, Claim 10) of an agricultural application machine (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprising detecting a crop canopy height relative to the machine further comprises detecting a crop canopy height ahead (sensors 120 can be used to detect the height of the boom 102 with respect to the ground or other object and can be forward-looking sensors that obtain measurements ahead of the application vehicle or an angle with respect to the vertical, Paragraphs 0023-0025).
Weidenbach, Crowley, and Rosa are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for agricultural application machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the method taught by Rosa to Weidenbach’s method, as modified by Crowley, to have the motivation of allowing the machine to detect an object ahead of the machine to allow for more precise adjustments of the machine based on the received information from the sensors (Rosa, Paragraphs 0023-0025).
Regarding claim 19, Weidenbach, as modified by Crowley, discloses the system of claim 1. However, Weidenbach and Crowley do not teach a forward-facing sensor.
Rosa teaches a system (entire structure, Fig. 1) further comprising a forward-facing sensor (120, Fig. 1) configured to measure the crop canopy height ahead (sensors 120 can be used to detect the height of the boom 102 with respect to the ground or other object and can be forward-looking sensors that obtain measurements ahead of the application vehicle or an angle with respect to the vertical, Paragraphs 0023-0025).
Weidenbach, Crowley, and Rosa are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural application machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the forward-facing sensor taught in Rosa’s system to Weidenbach’s system, as modified by Crowley, to have the motivation of allowing the machine to detect an object ahead of the machine to allow for more precise adjustments of the machine based on the received information from the forward-facing sensors (Rosa, Paragraphs 0023-0025).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidenbach et al. (US 20200029548 A1) in view of Crowley (US 20180177177 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 20210390284 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Weidenbach, as modified by Crowley, discloses the method of claim 17. However, Weidenbach and Crowley do not teach the another canopy sensor is mounted to a roof of a cab carried by the chassis.
Smith teaches a method (Paragraph 0005) comprising the another canopy sensor (102, Fig. 2) is mounted to a roof of a cab (20, shown in Fig. 2) carried by the chassis (12, shown in Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0022, 0028).
Weidenbach, Crowley, and Smith are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for agricultural application machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the method taught by Smith to Weidenbach’s method, as modified by Crowley, to have the motivation of allowing the machine to detect an object in front of the machine by placing the sensor in a suitable location (Smith, Paragraph 0028).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidenbach et al. (US 20200029548 A1) in view of Crowley (US 20180177177 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Rosa et al. (US 20140074360 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 20210390284 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Weidenbach, as modified by Crowley and Rosa, discloses the system of claim 19. However, Weidenbach, Crowley, and Rosa do not teach the forward-facing sensor is mounted to a roof of a cab carried by the chassis.
Smith teaches a system (10, Figs. 1-2) comprising the sensor (102, Fig. 2) is mounted to a roof of a cab (20, shown in Fig. 2) carried by the chassis (12, shown in Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0022, 0028).
Weidenbach, Crowley, Rosa, and Smith are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural application machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the sensor taught in Smith’s system to Weidenbach’s system, as modified by Crowley and Rosa, to have the motivation of allowing the machine to detect an object in front of the machine by placing the sensor in a suitable location (Smith, Paragraph 0028).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Appeal Brief, filed April 27th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, and 16-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Crowley (US 20180177177 A1) in view of Weidenbach et al. (US 20200029548 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights