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.
This Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 05/01/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the limitation “based on said distance and said deflection, calculating the work depth of the tool” in claim 25 and all of claim 26 has no support on how the work depth of the tool is calculated or how the height is controlled based on deflection. The closest written description in the specification found was pg. 1, II. 20-25; pg. 7, II. 31-33; pg. 8, II. 1-2; and pg. 3, II. 9-13. However, none of those parts describe any of the limitations mentioned above. Additionally, while there is support for “orientation” and using orientation to calculate depth in the specification and in the previous set of claims, orientation and deflection are not the same thing.
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”), further in view of US-20200100419-A1 (“Stanhope”).
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]).
Henry as modified by Sporrer does not explicitly teach that at least one of the ground engaging tools is resilient and deflectable relative to the frame in response to the ground engaging tool engaging obstacles or loads in the grounds and that the implement further comprises a tool position sensor arranged to measure the deflection of said tool in relation to the frame. However, Stanhope teaches that at least one of the ground engaging tools is resilient (Stanhope [0012] “While a spring 38 is coupled to each tillage point assembly 28 in the illustrated embodiment, in other embodiments, another suitable biasing element (e.g., a pneumatic cylinder, a hydraulic cylinder, a resilient material, etc.) may be coupled to at least one tillage point assembly.”) and deflectable relative to the frame in response to the ground engaging tool engaging obstacles or loads in the grounds (Stanhope [0012] “each tillage point assembly 28 is configured to move from a working state (e.g., in which the tillage point is positioned at the target depth) to a deflected state in response to contact with an obstruction in the field (e.g., a rock, a stump, etc.).”) and that the implement further comprises a tool position sensor arranged to measure the deflection of said tool in relation to the frame (Stanhope [0017] “at least one position sensor may be configured to output a signal indicative of whether the respective tillage point assembly is in the working state (e.g., corresponding to the state of the forward and center tillage point assemblies) or in the deflected state (e.g., corresponding to the state of the rearward tillage point assembly)… the deflected state corresponds to any position of the tillage point assembly (e.g., any position of the tillage point of the tillage point assembly) that is more than a threshold distance above the working state (e.g., at which the tillage point of the tillage point assembly is positioned at the target depth).”).
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 Stanhope to Henry as modified by Sporrer such that at least one of the ground engaging tools is resilient and deflectable relative to the frame in response to the ground engaging tool engaging obstacles or loads in the grounds and that the implement further comprises a tool position sensor arranged to measure the deflection of said tool in relation to the frame. Doing so would allow for the controller to determine whether performance of a ground engaging tool of the implement is below a threshold performance (Stanhope [0003]).
Regarding claim 16, Henry as modified by Sporrer and Stanhope 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 and Stanhope 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 and Stanhope 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 and Stanhope 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 and Stanhope 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 and Stanhope 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 and Stanhope 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 and Stanhope 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]).
Henry as modified by Sporrer does not explicitly teach that at least one of the ground engaging tools is resilient and deflectable relative to the frame in response to the ground engaging tool engaging obstacles or loads in the grounds, measuring the deflection of at least one of said tool relative to the frame, and based on said deflection, calculating the work depth of the tool. However, Stanhope teaches that at least one of the ground engaging tools is resilient (Stanhope [0012] “While a spring 38 is coupled to each tillage point assembly 28 in the illustrated embodiment, in other embodiments, another suitable biasing element (e.g., a pneumatic cylinder, a hydraulic cylinder, a resilient material, etc.) may be coupled to at least one tillage point assembly.”) and deflectable relative to the frame in response to the ground engaging tool engaging obstacles or loads in the grounds (Stanhope [0012] “each tillage point assembly 28 is configured to move from a working state (e.g., in which the tillage point is positioned at the target depth) to a deflected state in response to contact with an obstruction in the field (e.g., a rock, a stump, etc.).”), measuring the deflection of at least one of said tools relative to the frame (Stanhope [0017] “at least one position sensor may be configured to output a signal indicative of whether the respective tillage point assembly is in the working state (e.g., corresponding to the state of the forward and center tillage point assemblies) or in the deflected state (e.g., corresponding to the state of the rearward tillage point assembly)… the deflected state corresponds to any position of the tillage point assembly (e.g., any position of the tillage point of the tillage point assembly) that is more than a threshold distance above the working state (e.g., at which the tillage point of the tillage point assembly is positioned at the target depth).”), and based on said deflection, calculating the work depth of the tool (Stanhope [0017] “the deflected state corresponds to any position of the tillage point assembly (e.g., any position of the tillage point of the tillage point assembly) that is more than a threshold distance above the working state (e.g., at which the tillage point of the tillage point assembly is positioned at the target depth). For example, the deflected state of the tillage point assembly may correspond to a position of the tillage point assembly in which the tillage point is more than about 1 cm, more than about 2 cm, more than about 3 cm, more than about 5 cm, or more than about 10 cm above the target depth 36. The controller may receive the signal output by the position sensor and determine the performance based on the position of the tillage point assembly. For example, the controller may determine that the performance of the rearward tillage point assembly is below the threshold performance because the rearward tillage point assembly is in the deflected state.”).
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 Stanhope to Henry as modified by Sporrer such that at least one of the ground engaging tools is resilient and deflectable relative to the frame in response to the ground engaging tool engaging obstacles or loads in the grounds, measuring the deflection of at least one of said tool relative to the frame, and based on said deflection, calculating the work depth of the tool. Doing so would allow for the controller to determine whether performance of a ground engaging tool of the implement is below a threshold performance (Stanhope [0003]).
Regarding claim 26, Henry as modified by Sporrer and Stanhope 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.”). Stanhope further discloses controlling said height position based on said deflection (Stanhope [0012] “each tillage point assembly 28 is configured to move from a working state (e.g., in which the tillage point is positioned at the target depth) to a deflected state in response to contact with an obstruction in the field (e.g., a rock, a stump, etc.).”).
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 Stanhope to Henry as modified by Sporrer and Stanhope such that the method further comprises controlling said height position based on said deflection. Doing so would allow for the controller to determine whether performance of a ground engaging tool of the implement is below a threshold performance (Stanhope [0003]).
Regarding claim 27, Henry as modified by Sporrer and Stanhope 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 and Stanhope 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 and Stanhope 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 and Stanhope 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 and Stanhope 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 and Stanhope teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 15. Henry further discloses that the controller is configured 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 and Stanhope 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 tool 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 05/01/2026; 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. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, new 112(a) rejections appear in the office action. No support could be found for the limitations/claims listed under the 112(a) rejection and while the office acknowledges the specification citations applicant listed in the remarks, it does not show how depth is calculated based on the deflection, as well as how height is controlled based on the deflection.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights