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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 04/27/2023 and 07/03/2024 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. SE2051267-9, filed on 10/30/2020.
Status of Application
Claims 15-20 and 22-32 are pending.
Claims 15 and 25 are the independent claims.
Claims 29-32 are new.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 12/01/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: “configiured” should be rewritten to “configured”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 15-20 and 22-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20120227992-A1 (“Henry”) in view of US-20200100420-A1 to Sporrer et. al. (“Sporrer”).
Regarding claim 15, Henry teaches an agricultural implement for soil working, comprising (Henry Abstract):
a frame (Henry ref 44 “left frame section”),
a number of ground-engaging tools carried by the frame (Henry ref 20 “ground engaging tools” and Fig. 1),
at least one rolling ground support, whose height position is adjustable relative to the frame (Henry Abstract “varying a height of a ground engaging wheel.”),
a height sensor for contact-free measuring of the height position of the frame relative to a ground surface (Henry ref 50, 52 “sensor” and [0017]), and
a controller including a processing unit (Henry ref 38 “control unit” & Fig. 3-4), arranged to receive a signal from the height sensor and to control the height position of the rolling ground support (Henry Abstract),
wherein the agricultural implement further comprises:
a tool position sensor arranged to measure the orientation of said tool in relation to the frame (Henry Fig. 2 and ref 50, 52 “sensor” and [0017] and [0018] “Consequently, the fluid control unit may adjust the position of each ground engaging wheel to maintain the frame section 44 at a desired height and at a desired orientation (e.g., substantially parallel to the soil surface), thereby maintaining the ground engaging tools 20 at a desired penetration depth. For example, if the first and second sensors 50 and 52 indicate that the front of the frame section 44 is higher than the rear of the frame section, the fluid control unit may adjust fluid flow to the depth control cylinders, thereby lowering the first ground engaging wheel and/or raising the second ground engaging wheel.” & [0013] “the sensor 40 is configured to measure rotation of the arm 30 relative to the frame 18, thereby enabling the fluid control unit 38 to determine ground engaging tool penetration depth”),
wherein the controller is arranged to receive a signal from the tool position sensor and to calculate a work depth for said resilient suspended tool based on the signal from the height sensor and based on the signal from the tool position sensor (Henry [0018] “the fluid control unit may adjust the position of each ground engaging wheel to maintain the frame section 44 at a desired height and at a desired orientation (e.g., substantially parallel to the soil surface), thereby maintaining the ground engaging tools 20 at a desired penetration depth.” & [0028] “As previously discussed, certain implements 10 include multiple frame sections having multiple sensors. In such embodiments, the controller 116 may receive signals from each sensor, and compute the penetration depth of ground engaging tools of each frame section”);
and wherein each of the tools is selected from a group consisting of a cultivator tine, a harrow tine, a levelling implement, a plough share, a harrow disc, a breaking-up disc, a furrow-opener, a seed disc, a fertilizer opener and a hoeing tool. (Henry [0010] “each ground engaging tool 20 includes a shank 22 and a tillage point 24. As will be appreciated, alternative ground engaging tools 20, such as coulters, disc blades and/or tines, may be employed in alternative embodiments.”)
Henry does not teach that at least one of the tools is resilient relative to the frame. However, Sporrer teaches that at least one of the tools is resilient relative to the frame (Sporrer Fig. 1A-1B and [0034] “Biasing member 132 can be an extending arm portion that is made of a resilient material (such as a spring metal or other material) so that it biases the distal end into contact with surface 138.” & [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Henry to incorporate the teachings of Sporrer such that at least one of the tools is resilient relative to the frame. Doing so would allow the tool to bias the distal end into contact with the surface (Sporrer [0034]).
Regarding claim 16, Henry as modified by Sporrer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 15. Henry further discloses that the controller is configured to control the height position of the rolling ground support based on the signal from the height sensor and based on the signal from the tool position sensor (Henry [0018] “the fluid control unit may adjust the position of each ground engaging wheel to maintain the frame section 44 at a desired height and at a desired orientation (e.g., substantially parallel to the soil surface), thereby maintaining the ground engaging tools 20 at a desired penetration depth.”).
Regarding claim 17, Henry as modified by Sporrer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 15. Henry further discloses that the implement further comprises at least one height position sensor for the rolling ground support, wherein the controller is arranged to receive a signal from the height position sensor and to calculate the work depth also based on the signal from the height position sensor (Henry Fig. 2 and [0018] – [0020]).
Regarding claim 18, Henry as modified by Sporrer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 15. Henry further discloses that the height sensor comprises at least one sensor selected from a group consisting of an ultrasonic sensor, a radar sensor and an optical sensor (Henry [0017]).
Regarding claim 19, Henry as modified by Sporrer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 15. Henry further discloses that the tool position sensor comprises at least one sensor selected from a group consisting of an ultrasonic sensor, a radar sensor, a light sensor, an angle sensor, a material load sensor and a camera-based sensor (Henry [0017]).
Regarding claim 20, Henry as modified by Sporrer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 15. Henry further discloses that the implement further comprises a towing device, configured to be connected to a tractor vehicle using a tow bar or via a pair of lifting arms of a three-point linkage (Henry Fig. 1 and ref 14 and [0010]).
Regarding claim 22, Henry as modified by Sporrer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 15. Henry further discloses that the agricultural implement, on one and the same frame section, comprises at least two laterally separated height sensors and/or at least two laterally separated tool position sensors, wherein the controller is configured to calculate the work depth based on signals from at least one of said at least two laterally separated height sensors and based on at least one of said at least two laterally separated tool position sensors (Henry Fig. 2 and [0019]).
Regarding claim 23, Henry as modified by Sporrer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 15. Henry further discloses that the agricultural implement comprises at least two frame sections, which are moveable in relation to each other, wherein at least two of the frame sections have a height sensor and/or a tool position sensor, wherein the controller is configured to calculate said work depth for each of the frame sections (Henry Fig. 2 and [0017] & [0019]).
Regarding claim 24, Henry as modified by Sporrer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 23. Henry further discloses that at least two of the frame sections have a rolling ground support associated with each respective frame section, and wherein the controller is configured to individually control the height position of the rolling ground support of the respective frame sections (Henry Fig. 2 and [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 25, Henry teaches:
a frame (Henry ref 44 “left frame section”),
a number of ground-engaging tools carried by the frame (Henry ref 20 “ground engaging tools” and Fig. 1),
and at least one rolling ground support, whose height position is adjustable relative to the frame (Henry Abstract “varying a height of a ground engaging wheel.”);
measuring a distance between the frame and a ground surface (Henry ref 50, 52 “sensor” and [0017]),
measuring the orientation of at least one of said tools relative to the frame (Henry Fig. 2 and ref 50, 52 “sensor” and [0017] and [0018] “Consequently, the fluid control unit may adjust the position of each ground engaging wheel to maintain the frame section 44 at a desired height and at a desired orientation (e.g., substantially parallel to the soil surface), thereby maintaining the ground engaging tools 20 at a desired penetration depth. For example, if the first and second sensors 50 and 52 indicate that the front of the frame section 44 is higher than the rear of the frame section, the fluid control unit may adjust fluid flow to the depth control cylinders, thereby lowering the first ground engaging wheel and/or raising the second ground engaging wheel.” & [0013] “the sensor 40 is configured to measure rotation of the arm 30 relative to the frame 18, thereby enabling the fluid control unit 38 to determine ground engaging tool penetration depth”),
and based on said distance and said orientation, calculating the work depth of the tool (Henry [0018] “the fluid control unit may adjust the position of each ground engaging wheel to maintain the frame section 44 at a desired height and at a desired orientation (e.g., substantially parallel to the soil surface), thereby maintaining the ground engaging tools 20 at a desired penetration depth.” & [0028] “As previously discussed, certain implements 10 include multiple frame sections having multiple sensors. In such embodiments, the controller 116 may receive signals from each sensor, and compute the penetration depth of ground engaging tools of each frame section”).
and wherein each of the tools is selected from a group consisting of a cultivator tine, a harrow tine, a levelling implement, a plough share, a harrow disc, a breaking-up disc, a furrow-opener, a seed disc, a fertilizer opener and a hoeing tool. (Henry [0010] “each ground engaging tool 20 includes a shank 22 and a tillage point 24. As will be appreciated, alternative ground engaging tools 20, such as coulters, disc blades and/or tines, may be employed in alternative embodiments.”)
Henry does not teach a method for determining a work depth of a soil-working agricultural implement, comprising: providing an agricultural implement. However, Sporrer teaches a method for determining a work depth of a soil-working agricultural implement, comprising: providing an agricultural implement (Sporrer claims 14-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Henry to incorporate the teachings of Sporrer such that a method for determining a work depth of a soil-working agricultural implement, comprising: providing an agricultural implement is disclosed. Doing so would allow the operating depth to be controlled and maintained (Sporrer [0003]).
Regarding claim 26, Henry as modified by Sporrer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 25. Henry further discloses that the method further comprises controlling said height position based on said distance and said orientation (Henry [0018] “the fluid control unit may adjust the position of each ground engaging wheel to maintain the frame section 44 at a desired height and at a desired orientation (e.g., substantially parallel to the soil surface), thereby maintaining the ground engaging tools 20 at a desired penetration depth.”).
Regarding claim 27, Henry as modified by Sporrer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 25. Henry further discloses that the method further comprises measuring a height position for the rolling ground support relative to the frame and calculating the work depth also based on said position of the rolling ground support (Henry Fig. 2 and [0018] – [0020]).
Regarding claim 28, Henry as modified by Sporrer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 25. Sporrer further discloses that at least one of said measurements can be carried out continuously, intermittently or triggered by a predetermined event (Sporrer [0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Sporrer to Henry as modified by Sporrer such that at least one of said measurements can be carried out continuously, intermittently or triggered by a predetermined event. Doing so would allow for constant corrections to be made during usage (Sporrer [0088]).
Regarding claim 29, Henry as modified by Sporrer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 25. Henry further discloses controlling and maintaining the work depth of at least one of the ground engaging tools at a desired depth by controlling the height of the frame relative to the rolling ground support (Henry [0003] “configured to automatically adjust a height of an implement frame to maintain a user-selectable penetration depth of ground engaging tools… The depth control cylinder is configured to adjust a penetration depth of the ground engaging tool by varying a height of the ground engaging wheel relative to the frame.” and [0018] “Consequently, the fluid control unit may adjust the position of each ground engaging wheel to maintain the frame section 44 at a desired height and at a desired orientation”).
Regarding claim 30, Henry as modified by Sporrer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 25. Henry further discloses controlling the work depth of at least one of the ground engaging tools based on the calculated work depth of the tool (Henry [0018] “the fluid control unit may adjust the position of each ground engaging wheel to maintain the frame section 44 at a desired height and at a desired orientation (e.g., substantially parallel to the soil surface), thereby maintaining the ground engaging tools 20 at a desired penetration depth.”).
Regarding claim 31, Henry as modified by Sporrer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 15. Henry further discloses that the controller is configiured to control and maintain the work depth of at least one of the ground engaging resilient tools at a desired work depth by controlling the height of the frame relative to the ground support (Henry [0003] “configured to automatically adjust a height of an implement frame to maintain a user-selectable penetration depth of ground engaging tools… The depth control cylinder is configured to adjust a penetration depth of the ground engaging tool by varying a height of the ground engaging wheel relative to the frame.” and [0018] “Consequently, the fluid control unit may adjust the position of each ground engaging wheel to maintain the frame section 44 at a desired height and at a desired orientation”).
Regarding claim 32, Henry as modified by Sporrer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 15. Henry further discloses that, based on signals received from the height sensor and signals received from the position sensor, the controller is configured to control the work depth of at least one of the ground engaging resilient tools (Henry Claim 16 “plurality of sensors communicatively coupled to the controller and configured to output signals indicative of the respective penetration depth of each ground engaging tool; wherein the controller is configured to automatically adjust each depth control valve based on the signals to maintain a user-selectable penetration depth.” and [0018]-[0020] “For example, if the first and second sensors 50 and 52 indicate that the front of the frame section 44 is higher than the rear of the frame section, the fluid control unit may adjust fluid flow to the depth control cylinders, thereby lowering the first ground engaging wheel and/or raising the second ground engaging wheel.”).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 12/01/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Applicant remarks:
Therefore, sensors 50 and 52 do not measure the orientation of a ground engaging tool relative to the frame. As noted on pg. 6 of the Office Action, the sensors 50 and 52 in reality are "a height sensor for contact-free measuring of the height position of the frame relative to a ground surface". Here, the Examiner cites reference numbers 50 and 52 of Henry and 1 0017 of Henry.
A person of ordinary skill in the art understands that a ground engaging resilient tool during operation can move independently of the frame. That is, as the implement is moved through the field, the ground engaging resilient tool can flex when engaging stones, roots, increases in soil compaction, or variations in depth or moisture causing uneven resistance. As the Examiner notes, Henry does not even include a resilient ground engaging tool (such as a plow, tine, etc.), but even if Henry did disclose such, Henry provides no sensors or means that measure the orientation of a resilient ground engaging tool relative to the frame. Simply measuring the height of the frame says nothing about the continuous orientation of a resilient ground engaging tool relative to the frame of an agricultural implement.
For these reasons alone, claim 15 is novel and non-obvious. That is, neither Henry nor Sporrer disclosed a tool position sensor arranged to measure the orientation of the tool in relation to the frame of the agricultural implement.
Applicant does note that the Examiner acknowledges that Henry does not disclose a ground engaging resilient tool, that is a tool that is resilient relative to the frame. The Examiner points to Sporrer and maintains that Sporrer teaches at least one of the tools is resilient relative to the frame in the Sporrer reference. See Office Action, pg. 7. The Examiner points to 1 0034 and Figures 1A-1B of Sporrer. T 0034 describes a ground-following device 130 which is biased against the surface of the ground by a biasing member 132. Respectfully, the ground-following device 130 of Sporrer is not what a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider as being a ground engaging resilient tool as described in amended claim 15. The ground-following device 130 of Sporrer is a ground reference skid, that is a trailing skid or gauge skid. The purpose of the ground-following device is to float on a soil surface and provide a distinct and reflective surface 134 for contact-free height sensor 106 to indicate a distance. By letting the ground-following device be biased against and practically float on the soil surface, the indicating surface 134 may indicate a true ground height independent of debris or residues in a soil surface. Without ground-following device 130, it is possible for a signal from the height sensor 106 to be disturbed by debris or residue and give a false height signal. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the ground- following device 130 of Sporrer as being a ground engaging tool. The term "tool" as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of an agricultural implement generally means a structure that enters the soil, such as a tine, shank, disc or similar soil working member.
Office Response:
Please see the updated mapping of Henry for clarification. Specifically [0018] “Consequently, the fluid control unit may adjust the position of each ground engaging wheel to maintain the frame section 44 at a desired height and at a desired orientation (e.g., substantially parallel to the soil surface), thereby maintaining the ground engaging tools 20 at a desired penetration depth. For example, if the first and second sensors 50 and 52 indicate that the front of the frame section 44 is higher than the rear of the frame section, the fluid control unit may adjust fluid flow to the depth control cylinders, thereby lowering the first ground engaging wheel and/or raising the second ground engaging wheel.” & [0013] “the sensor 40 is configured to measure rotation of the arm 30 relative to the frame 18, thereby enabling the fluid control unit 38 to determine ground engaging tool penetration depth”.
Resilient was not defined in the prior claims, so the office referred to applicant’s specification for the definition, hence why Sporrer was brought in to teach that defintion. But since applicant has now listed examples in the remarks and brought in claim 21, it is clear what applicant meant and it is also clear that Henry discloses such tools. Keep in mind that the tools are part of the frame section as noted in [0015] and Fig. 2. The two sensors are measuring the height of the frame sections in relation to each other, and the tools are a part of the frame. Orientation by definition means the relative physical position or direction or something, which height is included in that definition. [0013] also discloses a different orientation as it is measuring rotation in relation to the frame.
Therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments for this limitation.
The office has updated the mapping to Sporrer, using the same cited paragraphs, to clarify that ref 132 biasing member was what the office used for the resilient tool. Additionally, thanks to applicant listing examples of resilient tools in the remarks and adding claim 21 into the independent claim, it is clear what applicant means and that Henry also discloses those same resilient tools.
While the office believes that applicant is trying to claim something different from the prior art, it is the Office’s stance that the prior art still reads on the current amendments and all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain. Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).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 JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: 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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666