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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18-27 filed on 01/12/2026 are presently examined. Claims 1, 6, 16, and 19 have been amended. Claim 3 is newly cancelled. Claims 3-4, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17 are cancelled. Claim 27 is new.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Double patenting rejection is maintained, but is no longer provisional.
Regarding claims 1 and 16 rejections under 35 USC 103 and 102, respectively, Applicant’s arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive. The 35 USC 102 rejection is replaced with 35 USC 103.
detecting a furrow depth indicative of a depth of a furrow opened by a furrow opener on the row unit;
based on the row unit down force, the weight value, the reaction force, and the furrow depth, generating a soil strength metric with a soil strength value that represents at least one of soil resistance or soil compaction
Applicant’s arguments in regard to dependent claim 3 are unpersuasive. Applicant argues Hamilton does not detect a furrow depth. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to set the gage wheels at the correct depth, the depth of the furrow would have to be determined, at least simultaneously. In order to set a depth of a tool, one would also have to sense or determine the depth of the tool itself in order to determine when it’s at the correct depth. Hamilton may not explicitly state the use of a sensor, but it is inherent in Hamilton’s invention. In claim 19, reference Walter is used for an explicit furrow depth sensor.
Regarding claims 19 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments filed 01/12/2026 are unpersuasive in regards to the detection of furrow depth and the soil metric based on the furrow depth, see above for representative response to arguments regarding basing the soil metric on the detected furrow depth. New amendment including a depth sensor changes the scope of the invention and new reference Walter teaches a depth sensor to capture furrow depth.
Regarding new claim 27, new reference Sauder teaches determining the weight of the row unit when it is lifted out of the ground.
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 1-2, 5-6, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maro (US 20180042171 A1) in view of Hamilton (US 20170367251 A1) and Stanhope (US 20200060068 A1), hereinafter referred to as Maro, Hamilton, and Stanhope, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Maro discloses A computer implemented method of controlling an agricultural machine comprising a row unit ([claim 11] “A method of controlling a mobile machine” [claim 17] “A row unit of a planting machine”), the computer implemented comprising:
detecting a row unit down force applied to the row unit by a down force actuator ([0006] “downforce being measured come from the applied downforce, that is applied by the downforce actuator to the row unit” [0017] “a row unit on a planter may sense the downforce acting on the row unit.” [0095] “a downforce actuator that exerts a downforce on the row unit”);
obtaining a weight value representing a self weight of the row unit ([FIG. 2] row unit includes a frames supporting a plurality of row unit components [0022] “The downforce (which includes force 154 exerted by actuator 110 plus the force due to gravity acting on row unit 106 and indicated by arrow 117)” [FIG. 2] arrow 117 is based on the force of gravity caused by the general row unit assembly 106 including its frame. [0039] “the weight sensed by scale or weight sensor 306 is also a force that is being sensed. The weight sensed by sensor 306 may thus be influenced by any accelerations applied to the portion of mobile machine 300 that is being weighed.” The mass of the product is also included in the weight, and as it changes either in quantity or acceleration, that is accounted for. But the weight of the assembly including its frame is included in the arrow 117.);
sensing, by a gage wheel reaction force sensor, a first reaction force imparted by ground on a gage wheel of the row unit ([0088] “sensing a reaction force indicative of a downforce exerted by the gauge wheel of the row unit, on the ground engaged by the gauge wheel.”);
controlling the agricultural machine based on the soil strength value ([0038] “Once the corrected downforce value, indicated by the corrected downforce sensor signal, is obtained, then control signal generator logic 218 illustratively generates an action signal or control signal based upon the corrected downforce value. This is indicated by block 278 in FIG. 4. In one example, the action or control signal is a downforce actuator control signal to control the downforce applied by downforce actuators 110. This is indicated by block 280 in the flow diagram of FIG. 4. In another example, it can be a speed control signal that controls the speed of the towing vehicle 224”).
Maro fails to explicitly disclose detecting a furrow depth indicative of a depth of a furrow opened by a furrow opener on the row unit, ([0024] “the double disc opener 136 opens a furrow in the soil, seeds are dropped through seed tube 142, and closing wheels 140 close the soil. Gauge wheels 138 control the depth of the furrow.”). Mario teaches the intent to control the depth of the furrow, but not the explicit detection of the depth of the furrow.
However, Hamilton teaches detecting a furrow depth indicative of a depth of a furrow opened by a furrow opener on the row unit ([0018] “The gauge wheel depth control linkage 26 permits the gauge wheels 28 to be adjustably positioned (e.g., vertically adjusted) relative to the furrow openers 24 to adjust the depth setting corresponding to the depth of the trench or furrow (as cut by the furrow openers 24).” [0024] “the depth may be computed by the depth adjust software 60 based on the direct or indirectly sensed soil moisture or change in soil content (indicating hardness or softness of soil) at a time corresponding to receiving the sensor input.”). Hamilton understands the positional relationship of the gage wheels relative to the furrow openers and adjusts the depth corresponding to the depth of the furrow as cut by the furrow openers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Hamilton’s teaching of detecting and calculating a depth with a sensor. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide the detected depth information to the processor in order to make adjustments in downforce to form the furrow at a desired depth ([0017] “The down force applied by the actuable device 22 provides a sufficient amount of force to enable insertion of furrow openers 24 (e.g., double disc furrow or trench openers) into the soil to form a furrow or trench of desired depth.”).
Maro discloses based on the row unit down force, the self weight measure, and the gage wheel reaction force, generating a soil strength metric with a soil strength value (According to applicant’s Equations 1 through 6 in specification, soil strength value is calculated by the sum of forces of the row unit down force, self weight, and gage wheel reaction force. Therefore, the resultant value is in units of force for soil strength. Maro teaches using the sum of forces and an adjusted weight to determine a “corrected down force,” which is then used for controlling the row unit. [0022] “The downforce (which includes force 154 exerted by actuator 110 plus the force due to gravity acting on row unit 106 and indicated by arrow 117) is offset by upwardly directed forces acting on closing wheels 140 (from ground 162, and as indicated by arrow 114) and double disc opener 136 (again from ground 162, and indicated by arrow 116). The remaining force (the sum of the force vectors indicated by arrows 154 and 117, minus the sum of the force vectors exerted on double disc opener 136 and closing wheel 140 and indicated by arrows 114 and 116 and the force on any other ground engaging component on the row unit, not shown), is the differential force indicated by arrow 160, and this force acts on gauge wheels 148.” The corrected downforce then corrects for vertical acceleration of the row unit by using the reaction force [0033] “correcting the sensor signal generated by gauge wheel downforce sensor 118 for accelerations sensed by acceleration sensor 122.” Gage wheel reaction force being the first reaction force, and double disc opener and closing wheels being at least two of the second reaction force. This corrected downforce is equal and opposite to the reaction forces from the soil. The soil resistance, or strength metric, is based on this corrected downforce. Therefore, the soil strength metric is based on the sum of forces determined and measured above including the all reaction forces from the ground onto the row unit components.).
Maro fails to explicitly disclose generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the furrow depth ([0004] “In some systems, an operator can address this by increasing the downforce on the row unit. However, depending upon the different types of soil conditions, this can actually be detrimental. For example, if the downforce is too high … the seed depth can be too great.” [0005] “The planter is controlled in an attempt to ensure that enough downforce is applied to maintain a constant planting depth” Maro intends to determine the correct downforce to apply in order to maintain a constant depth. The calculation of the corrected downforce of the sum of forces acting on the row unit does not explicitly use the detection of depth.).
However, Hamilton teaches generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the furrow depth ([0016] “Reference to down force margin includes an amount of additional down force applied to a row unit that is beyond that required to achieve penetration (e.g., by furrow openers) to a desired planting depth, the additional weight carried by gauge wheels. The soil provides a resistance to the penetration. Thus, the sum of the weight of the row unit and the down force, with the soil resistance subtracted from the sum, equates to a down force margin (e.g., target down force margin).” Thus Hamilton teaches the sum of forces acting on the row unit depends on the planting or furrow depth.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Hamilton’s teaching of determination of a downforce margin based on the sum of forces additionally based on the planting depth. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a depth detector and the respective determination of down force margin based on the planting depth in order to have a corrected downforce that provides a consistent planting depth (Maro [0005] “The planter is controlled in an attempt to ensure that enough downforce is applied to maintain a constant planting depth”).
Maro fails to explicitly disclose generating, based on forces, a soil strength metric with a soil strength value that represents at least one of soil resistance or soil compaction.
However, Stanhope teaches generating, based on forces, a soil strength metric with a soil strength value ([0049] “the controller 114 may include a look-up table, suitable mathematical formula, and/or algorithms stored within its memory 118 that correlates the magnitude of the braking force(s) and the change(s) in the rotational speed(s) to the force(s) exerted on the rolling ground engaging component(s) by the soil.”) that represents at least one of soil resistance or soil compaction ([0002] “the soil exerts a force or a rolling resistance on the rolling ground engaging components. Such force may be indicative of one or more characteristics of the soil” … [0050] “such as the soil density, the soil plasticity, soil moisture, soil texture, the soil cohesion, and/or other inferential characteristics of the soil, based on the force(s) exerted on the rolling ground engaging component(s) by the soil.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Stanhope’s teaching of generating the soil force value which includes soil resistance and density based on detected forces. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to generate the soil resistance and density characteristics of the soil in order to automatically control the implement based on the soil forces falling outside ranges ([0019] “the controller may also be configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the implement or an associated work vehicle, such as the downforce being applied to the rolling ground engaging component(s) and/or the ground speed of the work vehicle, based on the determined force(s).”).
Regarding claim 2, Maro fails to explicitly disclose The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the soil strength metric comprises a soil compaction metric that represents soil compaction; or a soil resistance metric that represents soil resistance.
However, Stanhope teaches the soil strength metric comprises a soil compaction metric that represents soil compaction ([0002] “the soil exerts a force or a rolling resistance on the rolling ground engaging components. Such force may be indicative of one or more characteristics of the soil” … [0050] “such as the soil density …based on the force(s) exerted on the rolling ground engaging component(s) by the soil.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Stanhope’s teaching of generating the soil force value which includes soil resistance and density based on detected forces. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to generate the soil density and cohesion characteristics in order to automatically control the implement based on the soil forces falling outside ranges ([0019] “the controller may also be configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the implement or an associated work vehicle, such as the downforce being applied to the rolling ground engaging component(s) and/or the ground speed of the work vehicle, based on the determined force(s).”).
Regarding claim 5, Maro discloses The computer implemented method of claim 1, and further comprising: detecting a force on a furrow closer on the row unit as a furrow closer force, wherein generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value comprises: generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the furrow closer force ([0022] “The remaining force (the sum of the force vectors indicated by arrows 154 and 117, minus the sum of the force vectors exerted on double disc opener 136 and closing wheel 140 and indicated by arrows 114 and 116 and the force on any other ground engaging component on the row unit, not shown), is the differential force indicated by arrow 160, and this force acts on gauge wheels 148.” [0024] “Gauge wheels 138 can include the gauge wheel load sensor 118, that senses the load exerted (generally indicated by arrow 160) on the gauge wheels 138.” Therefore, Maro teaches that the equation used to calculated the corrected downward force, which is the soil strength value, is based on forces including the force felt by the gauge wheels, which includes and depends on the force acted on the closing wheel 140, arrows 114 and 116. Thus, the equation to calculate the soil strength value is based on the detected closing wheel forces.).
Regarding claim 6, Maro discloses The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the row unit includes a row unit frame supporting the one or more row unit components, and the weight value represents at least a weight of the row unit frame ([FIG. 2] row unit includes a frames supporting a plurality of row unit components [0022] “The downforce (which includes force 154 exerted by actuator 110 plus the force due to gravity acting on row unit 106 and indicated by arrow 117)” [FIG. 2] arrow 117 is based on the force of gravity caused by the general row unit assembly 106 including its frame. [0039] “the weight sensed by scale or weight sensor 306 is also a force that is being sensed. The weight sensed by sensor 306 may thus be influenced by any accelerations applied to the portion of mobile machine 300 that is being weighed.” The mass of the product is also included in the weight, and as it changes either in quantity or acceleration, that is accounted for. But the weight of the assembly including its frame is included in the arrow 117. Further, while Maro’s weight sensor also helps with accelerations of the material in the tank, the weight at least also includes the frame.).
Regarding claim 22, Maro discloses The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the weight value representing the self weight of the row unit comprises detecting, by a self weight detector, a self weight measure representing the self weight of the row unit ([FIG. 2] row unit includes a frames supporting a plurality of row unit components [0022] “The downforce (which includes force 154 exerted by actuator 110 plus the force due to gravity acting on row unit 106 and indicated by arrow 117)” [FIG. 2] arrow 117 is based on the force of gravity caused by the general row unit assembly 106 including its frame. [0039] “the weight sensed by scale or weight sensor 306 is also a force that is being sensed. The weight sensed by sensor 306 may thus be influenced by any accelerations applied to the portion of mobile machine 300 that is being weighed.” The mass of the product is also included in the weight, and as it changes either in quantity or acceleration, that is accounted for. But the weight of the assembly including its frame is included in the arrow 117. Further, while Maro’s weight sensor also helps with accelerations of the material in the tank, the weight at least also includes the frame.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maro in view of Hamilton and Stanhope, further in view of Basset (US 20220000002 A1), hereafter referred to as Bassett.
Regarding claim 7, Maro fails to disclose The computer implemented method of claim 1, and further comprising: detecting a force on a row cleaner on the row unit as a row cleaner force, wherein generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value comprises: generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the row cleaner force.
However, Bassett teaches detecting a force on a row cleaner on the row unit as a row cleaner force, wherein generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value comprises: generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the row cleaner force ([0296] “a soil-hardness-sensing unit that includes … a row cleaner actuator 5008, a row cleaner pressure transducer 5009” [0298] “The signals from the position sensors, the load sensors, and the pressure transducers of all the components are fed simultaneously into the row unit controller 5022 … After all sensor signals are received, the controller 5022 generates output signals that produce any desired changes in the position and/or pressure of all the system actuators.” [0289] “as ground hardness increases, the actuator must increase down force to push with more force against the hard ground.” Bassett teaches the sensing of a soil hardness, or a soil strength value, is based on the use of multiple similar components shared with Maro and also the row cleaner actuator and pressure transducer.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Bassett’s teaching of the detecting soil hardness by intaking all pressure and force sensors including the row cleaner and row cleaner pressure detector. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use the force on the row cleaner in the sum of forces calculated by Maro which determines the soil strength and the resulting total downwards force to use in order to improve yields and reduce costs (Bassett [0263] “By permitting remote down force adjustment of each row-clearing unit (or group of units), including the ability to quickly release all down force and let the row cleaner quickly rise, e.g., when approaching a wet spot in the field, one can significantly increase the planter productivity or acres planted per day, thereby improving yields and reducing costs of production.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maro in view of Hamilton and Stanhope, further in view of Radtke et al. (US 20200396894 A1), hereafter referred to as Radtke.
Regarding claim 8, Maro fails to explicitly teach The computer implemented method of claim 1 and further comprising: detecting a rotational force exerted on the row unit by pulling the row unit with a towing vehicle, the rotational force having an upward component in a direction away from the ground, wherein generating a soil strength metric with a soil strength value comprises: generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value to account for the upward component of the rotational force. According to applicant’s specification paragraph [0063] “Draft force processor 274 can calculate the rotational force, and the upward component of the draft force, and/or rotational position of row unit 106 and/or rotational position of the other components on row unit 106 based on an output from sensor 265, based on the output from draft force sensor 260, based on the speed of the row unit 106” where [0059] “Draft force sensor 260 illustratively senses the draft force needed to pull row unit 106 through the soil” and [0059] “Rotational position sensor 265 senses the rotational position of row unit 106.”
However, Radtke teaches detecting a rotational force exerted on the row unit by pulling the row unit with a towing vehicle, the rotational force having an upward component in a direction away from the ground ([claim 7] “an angle sensor disposed to measure an angle of said frame member relative to said main frame; and (iv) a sensor disposed to measure an applied load on a component of said trench closing sensor.” A load applied on an object at an angle other than purely horizontal will have an upward component) wherein generating a soil strength metric with a soil strength value comprises: generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value to account for the upward component of the rotational force ([0166] “control of the amount of force to actuator 259 can be based on input from one or more of the trench closing sensor, the angle sensor, a force sensor 261,” This load is included in the sum of forces to determine the soil strength value [0197] “For example, if the downforce sensor 238 measures a change in force indicating that the soil is harder and sends a signal to the downforce control system 214 to increase the downforce to the row unit 200, the same signal can be sent to the actuator 259 to also increase the downforce applied by the actuator 259.” [0192] “As the hardness of soil changes, more or less pressure is needed to maintain the same amount of closing. In harder soils, an increase in pressure may be needed to obtain the same amount of closing, and in softer soils, a decrease in pressure may be used.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Radtke’s teaching of use an angle sensor to determine the rotational position of the frame along with the load sensor to measure the upwards force applied during towing. When the row unit travels over uneven ground, the upwards and downwards movement will cause the force applied from towing to not be horizontal, causing some upwards direction forces. Maro intends to find the corrected downforce by summing the relevant forces acting on the row unit. Maro intends to find the corrected downforce by summing the relevant forces acting on the row unit, and is open to additional data points (FIG. 4 block 276 “other”)One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to improve the accuracy of Maro’s corrected down force, which is the soil strength value, by using an angle sensor and load sensor for detecting the angle of the row unit assembly and its respective load from towing in order to find the upwards force caused by the towing force acting at an angle. This would enable Maro to implement a correct downforce against the soil strength.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maro in view of Hamilton, Stanhope, and Radtke, further in view of Schoeny et al. (US 20190373797 A1), hereafter referred to as Schoeny.
Regarding claim 10, Maro fails to explicitly disclose The computer implemented method of claim 8 wherein detecting the rotational force comprises: detecting travel speed of the row unit; and detecting the rotational force based on the travel speed of the row unit.
However, Schoeny teaches detecting travel speed of the row unit; and detecting the rotational force based on the travel speed of the row unit ([0027] “draft sensor (e.g., to detect deflection due to forces on ground engaging components)” [0018] “a desired level of down force may be dependent on the speed at which the row unit 16 is pulled across the field. For example, as speed increases, the ground engaging tools may have a tendency to rise out of the ground due to the interaction between the soil and the tool. Consequently, a greater down force may be applied during higher speed operation.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Schoeny’s teaching of the interaction (force) causing the tool to rise out of the ground depending on the speed of the row unit. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to maintain the balance of forces including the force causing the tool to rise out of the ground in order to ensure a consistent tool depth by increasing downforce to counter the upwards rotational force ([0018] “to ensure that the ground engaging tools remain at a desired depth.”).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maro in view of Hamilton and Stanhope, further in view of Koch et al. (US 20220330476 A1), hereafter referred to as Koch.
Regarding claim 12, Maro fails to explicitly disclose The computer implemented method of claim 1 and further comprising: detecting a force on a colter wheel on the row unit as a colter wheel force wherein generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value comprises: generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the colter wheel force.
However, Koch teaches detecting a force on a colter wheel on the row unit as a colter wheel force ([0075] “illustrated in FIG. 15, includes a coulter arm 1200 attached to row unit 200 with a coulter 1202 attached to coulter arm 1200 with axle 1203. At axle 1203, a force sensor 1204, such as downforce sensor 238, measures the force that coulter 1202 transmits to axle 1203.”) wherein generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value comprises: generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the colter wheel force force ([0076] “A coulter 1308 is rollingly mounted to coulter arm 1303. A gauge wheel arm 1305 is pivotably connected to coulter arm 1303, and a gauge wheel 1307 is rollingly mounted to gauge wheel arm 1305. An angle sensor 1306 is disposed at the pivoting connection between gauge wheel arm 1305 and coulter arm 1303 … force device 1304 applies a known force to coulter 1308. As the hardness of the soil changes, gauge wheel arm 1305 will rotate, and angle sensor 1306 measures the amount of rotation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Koch’s teaching of detecting a coulter wheel force. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use the force against the coulter wheel near the gauge wheel in order to calculate an accurate corrected downforce on Maro’s row unit caused by any additional “other” forces (Maro FIG. 4 block 276) contributing to upward direction loads.
Regarding claim 14, Maro fails to explicitly disclose The computer implemented method of claim 1 and further comprising: detecting a force on a seed firmer on the row unit as a seed firmer force,
However, Koch teaches detecting a force on a seed firmer on the row unit as a seed firmer force.
([0082] “the seed firmer appurtenance 290 includes a pressure sensing drum 3010 secured within the body of the firmer”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Koch’s teaching of detecting a seed firmer force. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use the force against the seed firmer in order to calculate an accurate corrected downforce on Maro’s row unit caused by any additional “other” forces (Maro FIG. 4 block 276) contributing to upward direction loads.
Maro fails to explicitly disclose wherein generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value comprises generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the seed firmer force.
However, Koch teaches wherein generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value comprises: generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the seed firmer force ([0082] “the seed firmer appurtenance 290 includes a pressure sensing drum 3010 secured within the body of the firmer which results in outwardly bulging drum heads 3012 as best viewed from the front elevation view of FIG. 17A. The drum heads 3012 may move together or independently. A pressure transducer (not shown) may be disposed within the drum 3010 to measure the pressure exerted against the drum heads 3012 by the soil” Koch is measuring the “soil strength” pressure against the seed firmer.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Koch’s teaching of detecting a seed firmer force. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use the pressure against the seed firmer pressure sensor to indicate the strength or force caused by the soil against the seed firmer in order to calculate an accurate corrected downforce on Maro’s row unit caused by any additional “other” forces (Maro FIG. 4 block 276) contributing to upward direction loads.
Claims 16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maro in view of Hamilton.
Regarding claim 16, Maro discloses An agricultural system with a row unit including a row unit frame supporting at least one row unit component, the agricultural system comprising:
a self weight detector configured to detect a self weight measure representing a self weight of the row unit, the self weight including at least the row unit frame ([0022] “The downforce (which includes force 154 exerted by actuator 110 plus the force due to gravity acting on row unit 106 and indicated by arrow 117)” [FIG. 2] arrow 117 is based on the force of gravity caused by the general row unit assembly 106 including its frame. [0039] “the weight sensed by scale or weight sensor 306 is also a force that is being sensed. The weight sensed by sensor 306 may thus be influenced by any accelerations applied to the portion of mobile machine 300 that is being weighed.” The mass of the product is also included in the weight, and as it changes either in quantity or acceleration, that is accounted for. But the weight of the assembly including its frame is included in the arrow 117. So while the weight sensor is also used to cancel out the influence on weight from acceleration of material, it also includes at least the weight of the frame as well.);
at least one processor ([0031] “one or more processors”); and
a memory that stores computer executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform steps ([0041] “the systems, components and/or logic can be comprised of software that is loaded into a memory and is subsequently executed by a processor”), comprising:
detecting a row unit down force applied to the row unit by a down force actuator ([FIG. 2] row unit has a frame supporting a plurality of row unit components [0006] “downforce being measured come from the applied downforce, that is applied by the downforce actuator to the row unit” [0017] “a row unit on a planter may sense the downforce acting on the row unit.” [0095] “a downforce actuator that exerts a downforce on the row unit”);
detecting a force imparted by ground on a gage wheel as a gage wheel reaction force ([0033] “that gauge wheel downforce sensor 118 generates a downforce sensor signal 118 indicative of the sensed downforce being applied to gauge wheels 138. This signal is detected by system 210, as indicated by block 240 in FIG. 4. The signal, as discussed above, can be generated by a gauge wheel load sensor 242, which can be a strain gauge 244, or which can be a wide variety of other sensors 246.”);
controlling the agricultural system based on the soil strength value ([0038] “Once the corrected downforce value, indicated by the corrected downforce sensor signal, is obtained, then control signal generator logic 218 illustratively generates an action signal or control signal based upon the corrected downforce value. This is indicated by block 278 in FIG. 4. In one example, the action or control signal is a downforce actuator control signal to control the downforce applied by downforce actuators 110. This is indicated by block 280 in the flow diagram of FIG. 4. In another example, it can be a speed control signal that controls the speed of the towing vehicle 224”).
Maro fails to explicitly disclose detecting a furrow depth indicative of a depth of a furrow opened by a furrow opener on the row unit, ([0024] “the double disc opener 136 opens a furrow in the soil, seeds are dropped through seed tube 142, and closing wheels 140 close the soil. Gauge wheels 138 control the depth of the furrow.”). Mario teaches the intent to control the depth of the furrow, but not the explicit detection of the depth of the furrow.
However, Hamilton teaches detecting a furrow depth indicative of a depth of a furrow opened by a furrow opener on the row unit ([0018] “The gauge wheel depth control linkage 26 permits the gauge wheels 28 to be adjustably positioned (e.g., vertically adjusted) relative to the furrow openers 24 to adjust the depth setting corresponding to the depth of the trench or furrow (as cut by the furrow openers 24).” [0024] “the depth may be computed by the depth adjust software 60 based on the direct or indirectly sensed soil moisture or change in soil content (indicating hardness or softness of soil) at a time corresponding to receiving the sensor input.”). Hamilton understands the positional relationship of the gage wheels relative to the furrow openers and adjusts the depth corresponding to the depth of the furrow as cut by the furrow openers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Hamilton’s teaching of detecting and calculating a depth with a sensor. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide the detected depth information to the processor in order to make adjustments in downforce to form the furrow at a desired depth ([0017] “The down force applied by the actuable device 22 provides a sufficient amount of force to enable insertion of furrow openers 24 (e.g., double disc furrow or trench openers) into the soil to form a furrow or trench of desired depth.”).
Maro discloses generating a soil strength metric with a soil strength value based on the row unit down force, the self weight measure, and the gage wheel reaction force (According to applicant’s Equations 1 through 6 in specification, soil strength value is calculated by the sum of forces of the row unit down force, self weight, and gage wheel reaction force. Therefore, the resultant value is in units of force for soil strength. Maro teaches using the sum of forces and an adjusted weight to determine a “corrected down force,” which is then used for controlling the row unit. [0022] “The downforce (which includes force 154 exerted by actuator 110 plus the force due to gravity acting on row unit 106 and indicated by arrow 117) is offset by upwardly directed forces acting on closing wheels 140 (from ground 162, and as indicated by arrow 114) and double disc opener 136 (again from ground 162, and indicated by arrow 116). The remaining force (the sum of the force vectors indicated by arrows 154 and 117, minus the sum of the force vectors exerted on double disc opener 136 and closing wheel 140 and indicated by arrows 114 and 116 and the force on any other ground engaging component on the row unit, not shown), is the differential force indicated by arrow 160, and this force acts on gauge wheels 148.” The corrected downforce then corrects for vertical acceleration of the row unit by using the reaction force [0033] “correcting the sensor signal generated by gauge wheel downforce sensor 118 for accelerations sensed by acceleration sensor 122.” Gage wheel reaction force being the first reaction force, and double disc opener and closing wheels being at least two of the second reaction force. This corrected downforce is equal and opposite to the reaction forces from the soil. The soil resistance, or strength metric, is based on this corrected downforce. Therefore, the soil strength metric is based on the sum of forces determined and measured above including the all reaction forces from the ground onto the row unit components.).
Maro fails to explicitly disclose generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the furrow depth ([0004] “In some systems, an operator can address this by increasing the downforce on the row unit. However, depending upon the different types of soil conditions, this can actually be detrimental. For example, if the downforce is too high … the seed depth can be too great.” [0005] “The planter is controlled in an attempt to ensure that enough downforce is applied to maintain a constant planting depth” Maro intends to determine the correct downforce to apply in order to maintain a constant depth. The calculation of the corrected downforce of the sum of forces acting on the row unit does not explicitly use the detection of depth.).
However, Hamilton teaches generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the furrow depth ([0016] “Reference to down force margin includes an amount of additional down force applied to a row unit that is beyond that required to achieve penetration (e.g., by furrow openers) to a desired planting depth, the additional weight carried by gauge wheels. The soil provides a resistance to the penetration. Thus, the sum of the weight of the row unit and the down force, with the soil resistance subtracted from the sum, equates to a down force margin (e.g., target down force margin).” Thus Hamilton teaches the sum of forces acting on the row unit depends on the planting or furrow depth.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Hamilton’s teaching of determination of a downforce margin based on the sum of forces additionally based on the planting depth. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a depth detector and the respective determination of down force margin based on the planting depth in order to have a corrected downforce that provides a consistent planting depth (Maro [0005] “The planter is controlled in an attempt to ensure that enough downforce is applied to maintain a constant planting depth”).
Regarding claim 18, Maro fails to explicitly disclose The agricultural system of claim 16 and further comprising: receiving an indication of a detected furrow depth indicative of a depth of a furrow opened by a furrow opener on the row unit ([[0024] “the double disc opener 136 opens a furrow in the soil, seeds are dropped through seed tube 142, and closing wheels 140 close the soil. Gauge wheels 138 control the depth of the furrow.”). Mario teaches the intent to control the depth of the furrow, but not the explicit detection of the depth of the furrow.
However, Hamilton teaches receiving an indication of a detected furrow depth indicative of a depth of a furrow opened by a furrow opener on the row unit ([0018] “The gauge wheel depth control linkage 26 permits the gauge wheels 28 to be adjustably positioned (e.g., vertically adjusted) relative to the furrow openers 24 to adjust the depth setting corresponding to the depth of the trench or furrow (as cut by the furrow openers 24).”) ([0024] “the depth may be computed by the depth adjust software 60 based on the direct or indirectly sensed soil moisture or change in soil content (indicating hardness or softness of soil) at a time corresponding to receiving the sensor input.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Hamilton’s teaching of detecting and calculating a depth with a sensor. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide the detected depth information to the processor in order to make adjustments in downforce to form the furrow at a desired depth ([0017] “The down force applied by the actuable device 22 provides a sufficient amount of force to enable insertion of furrow openers 24 (e.g., double disc furrow or trench openers) into the soil to form a furrow or trench of desired depth.”).
Maro fails to explicitly disclose generating a soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the detected furrow depth ([0004] “In some systems, an operator can address this by increasing the downforce on the row unit. However, depending upon the different types of soil conditions, this can actually be detrimental. For example, if the downforce is too high … the seed depth can be too great.” [0005] “The planter is controlled in an attempt to ensure that enough downforce is applied to maintain a constant planting depth” Maro intends to determine the correct downforce to apply in order to maintain a constant depth. The calculation of the corrected downforce of the sum of forces acting on the row unit does not explicitly use the detection of depth.).
However, Hamilton teaches generating a soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the detected furrow depth ([0016] “Reference to down force margin includes an amount of additional down force applied to a row unit that is beyond that required to achieve penetration (e.g., by furrow openers) to a desired planting depth, the additional weight carried by gauge wheels. The soil provides a resistance to the penetration. Thus, the sum of the weight of the row unit and the down force, with the soil resistance subtracted from the sum, equates to a down force margin (e.g., target down force margin).” Thus Hamilton teaches the sum of forces acting on the row unit depends on the planting or furrow depth.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Hamilton’s teaching of determination of a downforce margin based on the sum of forces additionally based on the planting depth. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a depth detector and the respective determination of down force margin based on the planting depth in order to have a corrected downforce that provides a consistent planting depth (Maro [0005] “The planter is controlled in an attempt to ensure that enough downforce is applied to maintain a constant planting depth”).
Regarding claim 23, Maro discloses the agricultural system of claim 16, wherein the self weight detector comprises a weight sensor that senses the self weight of the row unit to generate the self weight measure ([0022] “The downforce (which includes force 154 exerted by actuator 110 plus the force due to gravity acting on row unit 106 and indicated by arrow 117)” [FIG. 2] arrow 117 is based on the force of gravity caused by the general row unit assembly 106 including its frame. [0039] “the weight sensed by scale or weight sensor 306 is also a force that is being sensed. The weight sensed by sensor 306 may thus be influenced by any accelerations applied to the portion of mobile machine 300 that is being weighed.” The mass of the product is also included in the weight, and as it changes either in quantity or acceleration, that is accounted for. But the weight of the assembly including its frame is included in the arrow 117. So while the weight sensor is also used to cancel out the influence on weight from acceleration of material, it also includes at least the weight of the frame as well.).
Claims 19, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maro in view of Hamilton and Walter et al. (US 20200281111 A1), hereafter referred to as Walter.
Regarding claim 19, Maro discloses An agricultural system, comprising:
a row unit comprising:
a row unit frame supporting a plurality of row unit components ([FIG. 2] see row unit with frame supporting a plurality of row unit components)
a down force actuator applying a row unit down force to the row unit on a field; and a down force detector detecting the row unit down force ([0006] “downforce being measured come from the applied downforce, that is applied by the downforce actuator to the row unit” [0017] “a row unit on a planter may sense the downforce acting on the row unit.” [0095] “a downforce actuator that exerts a downforce on the row unit”);
a furrow opener configured to open a furrow ([0024] “the double disc opener 136 opens a furrow in the soil);
a first reaction force detector configured to detect a first reaction force imparted by ground on a first row unit component of the plurality of row unit components, the first row unit component comprising a gage wheel ([0033] “that gauge wheel downforce sensor 118 generates a downforce sensor signal 118 indicative of the sensed downforce being applied to gauge wheels 138. This signal is detected by system 210, as indicated by block 240 in FIG. 4. The signal, as discussed above, can be generated by a gauge wheel load sensor 242, which can be a strain gauge 244, or which can be a wide variety of other sensors 246.”);
a second reaction force detector configured to detect a second reaction force imparted by the ground on a second row unit component of the plurality of row unit components (broadest reasonable interpretation would be that a second reaction force on another row unit component is “based on” or merely influenced by the down force, weight, and first reaction force. This would happen to any of the reaction forces. If down force is increased, all reaction forces would be affected; if weight changes, so would the reaction forces. [0022] “The downforce (which includes force 154 exerted by actuator 110 plus the force due to gravity acting on row unit 106 and indicated by arrow 117) is offset by upwardly directed forces acting on closing wheels 140 (from ground 162, and as indicated by arrow 114) and double disc opener 136 (again from ground 162, and indicated by arrow 116) … the differential force indicated by arrow 160, and this force acts on gauge wheels 148.”);
at least one processor; and memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the agricultural system to: obtain a self weight of the row unit, the self weight representing at least a weight of the row unit frame ([FIG. 2] row unit includes a frames supporting a plurality of row unit components [0022] “The downforce (which includes force 154 exerted by actuator 110 plus the force due to gravity acting on row unit 106 and indicated by arrow 117)” [FIG. 2] arrow 117 is based on the force of gravity caused by the general row unit assembly 106 including its frame. [0039] “the weight sensed by scale or weight sensor 306 is also a force that is being sensed. The weight sensed by sensor 306 may thus be influenced by any accelerations applied to the portion of mobile machine 300 that is being weighed.” The mass of the product is also included in the weight, and as it changes either in quantity or acceleration, that is accounted for. But the weight of the assembly including its frame is included in the arrow 117.); determine a third reaction force, imparted by the ground on one or more of the row unit components, based on the row unit down force, the self weight of the row unit, the first reaction force, and the second reaction force (broadest reasonable interpretation would be that a second reaction force on another row unit component is “based on” or merely influenced by the down force, weight, and first reaction force. This would happen to any of the reaction forces. If down force is increased, all reaction forces would be affected; if weight changes, so would the reaction forces. [0022] “The downforce (which includes force 154 exerted by actuator 110 plus the force due to gravity acting on row unit 106 and indicated by arrow 117) is offset by upwardly directed forces acting on closing wheels 140 (from ground 162, and as indicated by arrow 114) and double disc opener 136 (again from ground 162, and indicated by arrow 116) … the differential force indicated by arrow 160, and this force acts on gauge wheels 148.”);
generate a control signal that controls the agricultural system based on the soil strength value ([0038] “Once the corrected downforce value, indicated by the corrected downforce sensor signal, is obtained, then control signal generator logic 218 illustratively generates an action signal or control signal based upon the corrected downforce value. This is indicated by block 278 in FIG. 4. In one example, the action or control signal is a downforce actuator control signal to control the downforce applied by downforce actuators 110. This is indicated by block 280 in the flow diagram of FIG. 4. In another example, it can be a speed control signal that controls the speed of the towing vehicle 224”).
Maro fails to explicitly disclose a depth sensor configured to detect a furrow depth indicative of a depth of the furrow.
However, Walter teaches a depth sensor configured to detect a furrow depth indicative of a depth of the furrow ([abstract] “ground view sensor is operable to sense the furrow and generate depth signals corresponding to actual sensed depth of the furrow” [0028] “the depth signal indicating a depth less than a set point depth … depth signal indicating a depth greater than the set point depth.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Walter’s teaching of a furrow depth sensor. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a furrow depth sensor in order to adjust the downforce in response to the current depth being above or below a set depth due to changing soil conditions (Walter [0028] “downforce is increased in response to the depth signal indicating a depth less than a set point depth … downforce is decreased in response to the depth signal indicating a depth greater than the set point depth”).
Maro discloses based on the row unit down force, the self weight of the row unit, the first reaction force, the second reaction force, generate a soil strength metric with a soil strength value (According to applicant’s Equations 1 through 6 in specification, soil strength value is calculated by the sum of forces of the row unit down force, self weight, and gage wheel reaction force. Therefore, the resultant value is in units of force for soil strength. Maro teaches using the sum of forces and an adjusted weight to determine a “corrected down force,” which is then used for controlling the row unit. [0022] “The downforce (which includes force 154 exerted by actuator 110 plus the force due to gravity acting on row unit 106 and indicated by arrow 117) is offset by upwardly directed forces acting on closing wheels 140 (from ground 162, and as indicated by arrow 114) and double disc opener 136 (again from ground 162, and indicated by arrow 116). The remaining force (the sum of the force vectors indicated by arrows 154 and 117, minus the sum of the force vectors exerted on double disc opener 136 and closing wheel 140 and indicated by arrows 114 and 116 and the force on any other ground engaging component on the row unit, not shown), is the differential force indicated by arrow 160, and this force acts on gauge wheels 148.” The corrected downforce then corrects for vertical acceleration of the row unit by using the reaction force [0033] “correcting the sensor signal generated by gauge wheel downforce sensor 118 for accelerations sensed by acceleration sensor 122.” Gage wheel reaction force being the first reaction force, and double disc opener and closing wheels being second and third reaction forces. The corrective downforce is based on all forces.)
Maro fails to explicitly disclose generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the furrow depth ([0004] “In some systems, an operator can address this by increasing the downforce on the row unit. However, depending upon the different types of soil conditions, this can actually be detrimental. For example, if the downforce is too high … the seed depth can be too great.” [0005] “The planter is controlled in an attempt to ensure that enough downforce is applied to maintain a constant planting depth” Maro intends to determine the correct downforce to apply in order to maintain a constant depth. The calculation of the corrected downforce of the sum of forces acting on the row unit does not explicitly use the detection of depth.).
However, Hamilton teaches generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the furrow depth ([0016] “Reference to down force margin includes an amount of additional down force applied to a row unit that is beyond that required to achieve penetration (e.g., by furrow openers) to a desired planting depth, the additional weight carried by gauge wheels. The soil provides a resistance to the penetration. Thus, the sum of the weight of the row unit and the down force, with the soil resistance subtracted from the sum, equates to a down force margin (e.g., target down force margin).” Thus Hamilton teaches the sum of forces acting on the row unit depends on the planting or furrow depth.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Hamilton’s teaching of determination of a downforce margin based on the sum of forces additionally based on the planting depth. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a depth detector and the respective determination of down force margin based on the planting depth in order to have a corrected downforce that provides a consistent planting depth (Maro [0005] “The planter is controlled in an attempt to ensure that enough downforce is applied to maintain a constant planting depth”).
Regarding claim 20, Maro discloses The agricultural system of claim 19 and further comprising:
a furrow closer ([0024] “closing wheels 140 close the soil.”); and
a furrow closer force detector detecting a force on the furrow closer on the row unit as a furrow closer force ([0022] “The downforce (which includes force 154 exerted by actuator 110 plus the force due to gravity acting on row unit 106 and indicated by arrow 117) is offset by upwardly directed forces acting on closing wheels 140 (from ground 162, and as indicated by arrow 114) and double disc opener 136 (again from ground 162, and indicated by arrow 116).”),
wherein the agricultural system is configured to generate the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the furrow closer force ([0022] “The remaining force (the sum of the force vectors indicated by arrows 154 and 117, minus the sum of the force vectors exerted on double disc opener 136 and closing wheel 140 and indicated by arrows 114 and 116 and the force on any other ground engaging component on the row unit, not shown), is the differential force indicated by arrow 160, and this force acts on gauge wheels 148.” [0024] “Gauge wheels 138 can include the gauge wheel load sensor 118, that senses the load exerted (generally indicated by arrow 160) on the gauge wheels 138.” Therefore, Maro teaches that the equation used to calculated the corrected downward force, which is the soil strength value, is based on forces including the force felt by the gauge wheels, which includes and depends on the force acted on the closing wheel 140, arrows 114 and 116. Thus, the equation to calculate the soil strength value is based on the detected closing wheel forces.).
Regarding claim 26, Maro discloses the agricultural system of claim 19, wherein the second row unit component comprises at least one of: a furrow closer ([0022] “The downforce (which includes force 154 exerted by actuator 110 plus the force due to gravity acting on row unit 106 and indicated by arrow 117) is offset by upwardly directed forces acting on closing wheels 140 (from ground 162, and as indicated by arrow 114)”) closing wheels being the furrow closer.); a row cleaner, a colter wheel, or a seed firmer.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maro in view of Hamilton and Walter, further in view of Beaujot (US 20120125244 A1), hereafter referred to as Beaujot.
Regarding claim 21, Maro fails to disclose The agricultural system of claim 19, wherein the agricultural system is configured to:
generate a plurality of soil strength metrics for a plurality of geographic locations, wherein each respective soil strength metric, of the plurality of soil strength metrics, corresponds to a respective geographic location, of the plurality of geographic locations, and
is generated based on a respective row unit down force at the respective geographic location and a respective gage wheel reaction force at the respective geographic location; and
generate the soil strength map to represent the plurality of soil strength metrics at the plurality of geographic locations.
However, Beaujot teaches generate a plurality of soil strength metrics for a plurality of geographic locations, wherein each respective soil strength metric, of the plurality of soil strength metrics, corresponds to a respective geographic location, of the plurality of geographic locations ([FIGs 5 and 6] [0037-0039]), and
is generated based on a respective row unit down force at the respective geographic location and a respective gage wheel reaction force at the respective geographic location ([0028-0035] general description of forces present as depicted in [FIG 1]. [0036] “To provide the required mapping function, a bias element sensor 73 is operative to measure the total bias force FT by sensing the pressure in the hydraulic cylinder 15, and an external guidance system 75, such as a receiver for global positioning signals, is operative to determine a location of the frame 9 as it moves through the field. A microprocessor 77 is operative to receive information from the bias element sensor 73 and external guidance system 75 and is operative to plot the total bias force FT against the location of the frame 9 as the frame moves along the ground to form a map showing hardness of the soil as indicated by a varying value of the total bias force FT.”); and
generate a soil strength map to represent the plurality of soil strength metrics at the plurality of geographic locations ([FIGs 5 and 6] [0016] “changing hardness is measured and plotted with location information from an external guidance system such that a map is saved of soil hardness as it varies across a field.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Beaujot’s teaching of mapping locations of determined soil in a field. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to generate a map of soil hardness data in order to section the field into zones with consistent characteristics to increase efficiency in the use of crop inputs ([0003] “The agronomic characteristics of agricultural land can vary quite drastically across a field, and mapping the field into zones that have more consistent characteristics allows for increased efficiency in the use of crop inputs.”).
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maro in view of Hamilton, further in view of Leimkuehler et al. (US 20190183036 A1), hereinafter referred to as Leimkuehler.
Regarding claim 24, Maro fails to explicitly disclose the agricultural system of claim 16, wherein the self weight detector detects the self weight measure stored in a data store.
However, Leimkuehler teaches the self weight detector detects the self weight measure stored in a data store ([0006] “It is generally known that the total downforce acting on a row unit comprises the weight of the row unit plus the weight of any commodities thereon or thereat, plus any addition downforce provided by a system, such as through an actuator.” The weight of the row unit itself would be predefined or known.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Leimkuehler’s teaching of using the known weight of the row unit. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to utilize the known weight of the row unit itself in order to know if the force required is less than the weight of the row units themselves or even to lift them out of the ground ([0056] “the ability to provide up force by the down force assembly 40 also will allow for the row unit to be generally lifted or else relieved of its weight. This can be used when there is to be less weight than the row units themselves being needed by the field or other ground conditions, or even when the row units are to be lifted from the ground.”).
Regarding claim 25, Maro discloses The agricultural system of claim 16, wherein
detecting the row unit down force comprises detecting the row unit down force applied to the row unit by the down force actuator during a current operation of row unit on a field;
detecting the force imparted by ground on the gage wheel comprise detecting the force imparted by ground on the gage wheel during the current operation.
Maro fails to explicitly disclose the self weight measure is defined prior to the current operation of the row unit on the field.
However, Leimkuehler teaches the self weight measure is defined prior to the current operation of the row unit on the field ([0006] “It is generally known that the total downforce acting on a row unit comprises the weight of the row unit plus the weight of any commodities thereon or thereat, plus any addition downforce provided by a system, such as through an actuator.” The weight of the row unit itself would be predefined or known, and that would have to occur before operating on the field.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Leimkuehler’s teaching of using the known weight of the row unit. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to utilize the known weight of the row unit itself in order to know if the force required is less than the weight of the row units themselves or even to lift them out of the ground ([0056] “the ability to provide up force by the down force assembly 40 also will allow for the row unit to be generally lifted or else relieved of its weight. This can be used when there is to be less weight than the row units themselves being needed by the field or other ground conditions, or even when the row units are to be lifted from the ground.”).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maro in view of Hamilton, further in view of Sauder et al. (US 20120186503 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sauder.
Maro fails to explicitly disclose The agricultural system of claim 16 and further comprising: lifting the row unit out of the ground; and detecting, by the self weight detector, the self weight measure while the row unit is lifted.
However, Sauder teaches lifting the row unit out of the ground; and detecting, by the self weight detector, the self weight measure while the row unit is lifted ([0021] “row unit dead load is understood to be the mass of the entire row unit and any accessories mounted thereon. Therefore, the row unit dead load remains substantially constant and would include the mass of the row unit frame 20” [0041] “the load sensor 116 senses zero when the gauge wheels are raised above the soil such that Fd=Fa” [0021] “term "actual gauge wheel downforce" Fa (FIGS. 3 and 4) refers to the dead load … ”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maro with Sauder’s teaching of determining the dead load of the row unit wherein the load sensor is set to sense zero when the gauge wheels are raised above the soil. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to know the dead load of the row unit in order to dynamically control the actuator to maintain desired downforce during operation (Sauder [abstract] “dynamically control fluid flow to the downforce actuator to maintain balance between the actual gauge wheel downforce and a desired gauge wheel downforce during planting operations.”).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. US 12543615 B1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘615), which was previously copending application 18/056,935, in view of Hamilton and Stanhope.
Regarding claim 1, ‘615 discloses A computer implemented method of controlling an agricultural machine comprising a row unit, the computer implemented method comprising: detecting a row unit down force applied to the row unit by a down force actuator ([claim 1] “A computer implemented method of controlling a row unit, comprising: detecting a row unit downforce applied to the row unit by a downforce actuator”);
obtaining a weight value representing a self weight of the row unit ([claim 2] “identifying a self-weight of the row unit, the self-weight including at least a weight of a frame of the row unit”);
sensing, by a gage wheel reaction force sensor, a first reaction force imparted by ground on a gage wheel of the row unit ([claim 5] “detecting a force imparted on a gage wheel of the row unit”);
controlling the agricultural machine based on the soil strength value ([claim 1] “modifying an operational state of the row unit based on the soil strength value; and controlling the row unit to perform an action on a worksite with the modified operational state”).
‘615 fails to explicitly disclose detecting a furrow depth indicative of a depth of a furrow opened by a furrow opener on the row unit.
However, Hamilton teaches detecting a furrow depth indicative of a depth of a furrow opened by a furrow opener on the row unit ([0018] “The gauge wheel depth control linkage 26 permits the gauge wheels 28 to be adjustably positioned (e.g., vertically adjusted) relative to the furrow openers 24 to adjust the depth setting corresponding to the depth of the trench or furrow (as cut by the furrow openers 24).” [0024] “the depth may be computed by the depth adjust software 60 based on the direct or indirectly sensed soil moisture or change in soil content (indicating hardness or softness of soil) at a time corresponding to receiving the sensor input.”). Hamilton understands the positional relationship of the gage wheels relative to the furrow openers and adjusts the depth corresponding to the depth of the furrow as cut by the furrow openers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ‘615 with Hamilton’s teaching of detecting and calculating a depth with a sensor. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide the detected depth information to the processor in order to make adjustments in downforce to form the furrow at a desired depth ([0017] “The down force applied by the actuable device 22 provides a sufficient amount of force to enable insertion of furrow openers 24 (e.g., double disc furrow or trench openers) into the soil to form a furrow or trench of desired depth.”).
‘615 discloses based on the row unit down force, the weight value, the reaction force, a soil strength metric with a soil strength value ([claim 6] “detecting a force imparted on closing wheels of the row unit and wherein generating the soil strength metric comprises generating the soil strength metric based, at least, on the row unit downforce, the draft force, the self-weight, the force imparted on the gage wheel, and the force imparted on the closing wheels.”).
‘615 fails to explicitly disclose generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the furrow depth.
However, Hamilton teaches generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the furrow depth ([0016] “Reference to down force margin includes an amount of additional down force applied to a row unit that is beyond that required to achieve penetration (e.g., by furrow openers) to a desired planting depth, the additional weight carried by gauge wheels. The soil provides a resistance to the penetration. Thus, the sum of the weight of the row unit and the down force, with the soil resistance subtracted from the sum, equates to a down force margin (e.g., target down force margin).” Thus Hamilton teaches the sum of forces acting on the row unit depends on the planting or furrow depth.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ‘615 with Hamilton’s teaching of determination of a downforce margin based on the sum of forces additionally based on the planting depth. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a depth detector and the respective determination of down force margin based on the planting depth in order to have a corrected downforce that provides a consistent planting depth (Hamilton [0016] “amount of additional down force applied to a row unit that is beyond that required to achieve penetration”).
‘615 fails to explicitly disclose a soil strength value that represents at least one of soil resistance or soil compaction.
However, Stanhope teaches generating, based on forces, a soil strength metric with a soil strength value ([0049] “the controller 114 may include a look-up table, suitable mathematical formula, and/or algorithms stored within its memory 118 that correlates the magnitude of the braking force(s) and the change(s) in the rotational speed(s) to the force(s) exerted on the rolling ground engaging component(s) by the soil.”) that represents at least one of soil resistance or soil compaction ([0002] “the soil exerts a force or a rolling resistance on the rolling ground engaging components. Such force may be indicative of one or more characteristics of the soil” … [0050] “such as the soil density, the soil plasticity, soil moisture, soil texture, the soil cohesion, and/or other inferential characteristics of the soil, based on the force(s) exerted on the rolling ground engaging component(s) by the soil.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify copending Application No. 18/056,935 with Stanhope’s teaching of generating the soil force value which includes soil resistance and density based on detected forces. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to generate the soil resistance and density characteristics of the soil in order to automatically control the implement based on the soil forces falling outside ranges ([0019] “the controller may also be configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the implement or an associated work vehicle, such as the downforce being applied to the rolling ground engaging component(s) and/or the ground speed of the work vehicle, based on the determined force(s).”).
Regarding claim 2, ‘615 fails to explicitly disclose The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the soil strength metric comprises a soil compaction metric that represents soil compaction; or a soil resistance metric that represents soil resistance.
However, Stanhope teaches the soil strength metric comprises a soil compaction metric that represents soil compaction ([0002] “the soil exerts a force or a rolling resistance on the rolling ground engaging components. Such force may be indicative of one or more characteristics of the soil” … [0050] “such as the soil density …based on the force(s) exerted on the rolling ground engaging component(s) by the soil.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ‘615 with Stanhope’s teaching of generating the soil force value which includes soil resistance and density based on detected forces. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to generate the soil density and cohesion characteristics in order to automatically control the implement based on the soil forces falling outside ranges ([0019] “the controller may also be configured to adjust one or more operating parameters of the implement or an associated work vehicle, such as the downforce being applied to the rolling ground engaging component(s) and/or the ground speed of the work vehicle, based on the determined force(s).”).
Regarding claim 5, ‘615 discloses this in claim 6.
Regarding claim 6, ‘615 discloses this in claim 2.
Regarding claim 22, ‘615 discloses this in claim 2.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-7 of ‘615 in view of in view of Hamilton and Stanhope.
Regarding claim 7, ‘615 discloses this in claim 7.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 of ‘615 in view of in view of Hamilton and Stanhope.
Regarding claim 12, ‘615 discloses this in claim 8.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 of ‘615 in view of in view of Hamilton and Stanhope.
Regarding claim 14, ‘615 discloses this in claim 9.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of ‘615 in view of in view of Hamilton and Stanhope, further in view of Radtke et al. (US 20200396894 A1), hereafter referred to as Radtke.
Regarding claim 8 ‘615 fails to disclose The computer implemented method of claim 1 and further comprising: detecting a rotational force exerted on the row unit by pulling the row unit with a towing vehicle, the rotational force having an upward component in a direction away from the ground, wherein generating a soil strength metric with a soil strength value comprises: generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value to account for the upward component of the rotational force.
However, Radtke teaches detecting a rotational force exerted on the row unit by pulling the row unit with a towing vehicle, the rotational force having an upward component in a direction away from the ground ([claim 7] “an angle sensor disposed to measure an angle of said frame member relative to said main frame; and (iv) a sensor disposed to measure an applied load on a component of said trench closing sensor.” A load applied on an object at an angle other than purely horizontal will have an upward component) wherein generating a soil strength metric with a soil strength value comprises: generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value to account for the upward component of the rotational force ([0166] “control of the amount of force to actuator 259 can be based on input from one or more of the trench closing sensor, the angle sensor, a force sensor 261,” This load is included in the sum of forces to determine the soil strength value [0197] “For example, if the downforce sensor 238 measures a change in force indicating that the soil is harder and sends a signal to the downforce control system 214 to increase the downforce to the row unit 200, the same signal can be sent to the actuator 259 to also increase the downforce applied by the actuator 259.” [0192] “As the hardness of soil changes, more or less pressure is needed to maintain the same amount of closing. In harder soils, an increase in pressure may be needed to obtain the same amount of closing, and in softer soils, a decrease in pressure may be used.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ‘615 with Radtke’s teaching of use an angle sensor to determine the rotational position of the frame along with the load sensor to measure the upwards force applied during towing. When the row unit travels over uneven ground, the upwards and downwards movement will cause the force applied from towing to not be horizontal, causing some upwards direction forces. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to improve the accuracy of ‘615’s soil strength value by using an angle sensor and load sensor for detecting the angle of the row unit assembly and its respective load from towing in order to find the upwards force caused by the towing force acting at an angle.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of ‘615 in view of in view of Hamilton and Stanhope, further in view of Schoeny et al. (US 20190373797 A1), hereafter referred to as Schoeny.
Regarding claim 10, ‘615 fails to explicitly disclose The computer implemented method of claim 8 wherein detecting the rotational force comprises: detecting travel speed of the row unit; and detecting the rotational force based on the travel speed of the row unit.
However, Schoeny teaches detecting travel speed of the row unit; and detecting the rotational force based on the travel speed of the row unit ([0027] “draft sensor (e.g., to detect deflection due to forces on ground engaging components)” [0018] “a desired level of down force may be dependent on the speed at which the row unit 16 is pulled across the field. For example, as speed increases, the ground engaging tools may have a tendency to rise out of the ground due to the interaction between the soil and the tool. Consequently, a greater down force may be applied during higher speed operation.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ‘615 with Schoeny’s teaching of the interaction (force) causing the tool to rise out of the ground depending on the speed of the row unit. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to maintain the balance of forces including the force causing the tool to rise out of the ground in order to ensure a consistent tool depth by increasing downforce to counter the upwards rotational force ([0018] “to ensure that the ground engaging tools remain at a desired depth.”).
Claims 16, 18, and 23-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 5 of ‘615, in view of Hamilton.
Regarding claim 16, ‘615 discloses An agricultural system with a row unit including a row unit frame supporting at least one row unit component, the agricultural system comprising:
a self weight detector configured to detect a self weight measure representing a self weight of the row unit, the self weight including at least the row unit frame ([claim 2] “identifying a self-weight of the row unit, the self-weight including at least a weight of a frame of the row unit”);
at least one processor; and a memory that stores computer executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform steps, comprising:
detecting a row unit down force applied to the row unit by a down force actuator ([claim 1] “detecting a row unit downforce applied to the row unit by a downforce actuator;”);
detecting a force imparted by ground on a gage wheel as a gage wheel reaction force ([claim 5] “detecting a force imparted on a gage wheel of the row unit”);
and controlling the agricultural system based on the soil strength value ([claim 1] “modifying an operational state of the row unit based on the soil strength value; and controlling the row unit to perform an action on a worksite with the modified operational state”).
‘615 fails to explicitly disclose detecting a furrow depth indicative of a depth of a furrow opened by a furrow opener on the row unit.
However, Hamilton teaches detecting a furrow depth indicative of a depth of a furrow opened by a furrow opener on the row unit ([0018] “The gauge wheel depth control linkage 26 permits the gauge wheels 28 to be adjustably positioned (e.g., vertically adjusted) relative to the furrow openers 24 to adjust the depth setting corresponding to the depth of the trench or furrow (as cut by the furrow openers 24).” [0024] “the depth may be computed by the depth adjust software 60 based on the direct or indirectly sensed soil moisture or change in soil content (indicating hardness or softness of soil) at a time corresponding to receiving the sensor input.”). Hamilton understands the positional relationship of the gage wheels relative to the furrow openers and adjusts the depth corresponding to the depth of the furrow as cut by the furrow openers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ‘615 with Hamilton’s teaching of detecting and calculating a depth with a sensor. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide the detected depth information to the processor in order to make adjustments in downforce to form the furrow at a desired depth ([0017] “The down force applied by the actuable device 22 provides a sufficient amount of force to enable insertion of furrow openers 24 (e.g., double disc furrow or trench openers) into the soil to form a furrow or trench of desired depth.”).
‘615 discloses based on the row unit down force, the weight value, the gage wheel reaction force, a soil strength metric with a soil strength value ([claim 6] “detecting a force imparted on closing wheels of the row unit and wherein generating the soil strength metric comprises generating the soil strength metric based, at least, on the row unit downforce, the draft force, the self-weight, the force imparted on the gage wheel, and the force imparted on the closing wheels.”).
‘615 fails to explicitly disclose generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the furrow depth.
However, Hamilton teaches generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the furrow depth ([0016] “Reference to down force margin includes an amount of additional down force applied to a row unit that is beyond that required to achieve penetration (e.g., by furrow openers) to a desired planting depth, the additional weight carried by gauge wheels. The soil provides a resistance to the penetration. Thus, the sum of the weight of the row unit and the down force, with the soil resistance subtracted from the sum, equates to a down force margin (e.g., target down force margin).” Thus Hamilton teaches the sum of forces acting on the row unit depends on the planting or furrow depth.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ‘615 with Hamilton’s teaching of determination of a downforce margin based on the sum of forces additionally based on the planting depth. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a depth detector and the respective determination of down force margin based on the planting depth in order to have a corrected downforce that provides a consistent planting depth (Hamilton [0016] “amount of additional down force applied to a row unit that is beyond that required to achieve penetration”).
generating a soil strength metric with a soil strength value based on the row unit down force, the self weight measure, and the gage wheel reaction force ([claim 5] “generating the soil strength metric based, at least, on the row unit downforce … the self-weight, and the force imparted on the gage wheel.”);
Regarding claim 18, ‘615 fails to explicitly disclose The agricultural system of claim 16 and further comprising: receiving an indication of a detected furrow depth indicative of a depth of a furrow opened by a furrow opener on the row unit: and generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the detected furrow depth.
However, Hamilton teaches receiving an indication of a detected furrow depth indicative of a depth of a furrow opened by a furrow opener on the row unit ([0018] “The gauge wheel depth control linkage 26 permits the gauge wheels 28 to be adjustably positioned (e.g., vertically adjusted) relative to the furrow openers 24 to adjust the depth setting corresponding to the depth of the trench or furrow (as cut by the furrow openers 24).” [0024] “the depth may be computed by the depth adjust software 60 based on the direct or indirectly sensed soil moisture or change in soil content (indicating hardness or softness of soil) at a time corresponding to receiving the sensor input.”). Hamilton understands the positional relationship of the gage wheels relative to the furrow openers and adjusts the depth corresponding to the depth of the furrow as cut by the furrow openers.
However, Hamilton teaches generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the detected furrow depth ([0016] “Reference to down force margin includes an amount of additional down force applied to a row unit that is beyond that required to achieve penetration (e.g., by furrow openers) to a desired planting depth, the additional weight carried by gauge wheels. The soil provides a resistance to the penetration. Thus, the sum of the weight of the row unit and the down force, with the soil resistance subtracted from the sum, equates to a down force margin (e.g., target down force margin).” Thus Hamilton teaches the sum of forces acting on the row unit depends on the planting or furrow depth.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ‘615 with Hamilton’s teaching of determination of a downforce margin based on the sum of forces additionally based on the furrow planting depth. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to detect the depth at which the furrow opener is at and adjust the furrow opener until it is at the correct depth in order to plant at the desired depth (Hamilton [0016] “that required to achieve penetration (e.g., by furrow openers) to a desired planting depth”).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, ‘615 discloses this in at least claim 11.
Regarding claim 25, ‘615 discloses The agricultural system of claim 16, wherein
detecting the row unit down force comprises detecting the row unit down force applied to the row unit by the down force actuator during a current operation of row unit on a field ([claim 10] “a row unit that has a downforce actuator configured to apply a row unit downforce to the row unit”);
detecting the force imparted by ground on the gage wheel comprise detecting the force imparted by ground on the gage wheel during the current operation ([claim 13] “a gage wheel force detector configured to detect a force imparted on a gage wheel of the row unit”).
the self weight measure is defined prior to the current operation of the row unit on the field ([claim 11] “a self-weight identifier configured to identify a self-weight of the row unit, wherein the self-weight includes at least a weight of a frame of the row unit.” The weight of the row unit itself would be predefined or known, and that would have to occur before operating on the field.).
Claims 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10, 11, 13, and 17 of ‘615 in view of Maro, Hamilton, and Walter.
Regarding claim 19: ‘615 discloses An agricultural system, comprising:
a row unit frame supporting a plurality of row unit components ([claim 17] “a seed firmer force detector configured to detect a force imparted on a seed firmer of the row unit … the force imparted on the gage wheel, the force imparted on the closing wheels, the force imparted on the row cleaner, the force imparted on the colter, and the force imparted on the seed firmer.” These are a plurality of components supported on the row unit frame.)
a down force actuator applying a row unit down force to the row unit on a field; and a down force detector detecting the row unit down force ([claim 10] “a row unit that has a downforce actuator configured to apply a row unit downforce to the row unit, a downforce detector configured to detect the row unit downforce applied to the row unit by the downforce actuator”);
a first reaction force detector configured to detect a first reaction force imparted by ground on a first row unit component of the plurality of row unit components, the first row unit component comprising a gage wheel ([claim 13] “a gage wheel force detector configured to detect a force imparted on a gage wheel of the row unit”);
a second reaction force detector configured to detect a second reaction force imparted by the ground on a second row unit component of the plurality of row unit components ([claim 17] “the force imparted on the closing wheels”);
at least one processor: and memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor, wherein the instructions when executed, cause the agricultural system to: obtain a self weight of the row unit, the self weight representing at least a weight of the row unit frame ([claim 11] “a self-weight identifier configured to identify a self-weight of the row unit, wherein the self-weight includes at least a weight of a frame of the row unit.”);
generate a control signal that controls the agricultural system based on the soil strength value ([claim 10] “a control system configured to control the row unit to perform an action on a worksite with an operational state based on the soil strength value.”).
‘615 claims 10-17 do not disclose at least one processor: and memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor.
However, Maro teaches at least one processor: and memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor ([0041] “the systems, components and/or logic can be comprised of software that is loaded into a memory and is subsequently executed by a processor or server, or other computing component, as described below.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ‘615 with Maro’s teaching of a processor and memory with instructions executable by the processor. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use this hardware in order to deploy the agricultural system onto a general purpose computer ([0046] “computing environment in which elements of the systems shown in FIG. 3 or 5, or parts of them, (for example) can be deployed. With reference to FIG. 6, an example system for implementing some embodiments includes a general-purpose computing device in the form of a computer 810.”).
‘615’s claims fails to explicitly recite a furrow opener configured to open a furrow.
However, Maro teaches a furrow opener configured to open a furrow ([0024] “the double disc opener 136 opens a furrow in the soil).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ‘615 with Maro’s teaching of a furrow opener. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a furrow opener on an agricultural machine in order to cut rows to plant seeds ([0024] “seeds are dropped through seed tube 142, and closing wheels 140 close the soil”).
‘615 fails to explicitly disclose a depth sensor configured to detect a furrow depth indicative of a depth of the furrow.
However, Walter teaches a depth sensor configured to detect a furrow depth indicative of a depth of the furrow ([abstract] “ground view sensor is operable to sense the furrow and generate depth signals corresponding to actual sensed depth of the furrow” [0028] “the depth signal indicating a depth less than a set point depth … depth signal indicating a depth greater than the set point depth.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ‘615 with Walter’s teaching of a furrow depth sensor. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a furrow depth sensor in order to adjust the downforce in response to the current depth being above or below a set depth due to changing soil conditions (Walter [0028] “downforce is increased in response to the depth signal indicating a depth less than a set point depth … downforce is decreased in response to the depth signal indicating a depth greater than the set point depth”).
‘615 discloses based on the row unit down force, the self weight of the row unit, the first reaction force, the second reaction force, generate a soil strength metric with a soil strength value ([claim 17] “generate the soil strength metric based, at least, on the row unit downforce, the draft force, the force imparted on the gage wheel, the force imparted on the closing wheels, the force imparted on the row cleaner, the force imparted on the colter, and the force imparted on the seed firmer.” Any of the row cleaner, colter, or seed firmer could be a third reaction force.).
‘615 fails to explicitly disclose generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the furrow depth.
However, Hamilton teaches generating the soil strength metric with the soil strength value based on the furrow depth ([0016] “Reference to down force margin includes an amount of additional down force applied to a row unit that is beyond that required to achieve penetration (e.g., by furrow openers) to a desired planting depth, the additional weight carried by gauge wheels. The soil provides a resistance to the penetration. Thus, the sum of the weight of the row unit and the down force, with the soil resistance subtracted from the sum, equates to a down force margin (e.g., target down force margin).” Thus Hamilton teaches the sum of forces acting on the row unit depends on the planting or furrow depth.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ‘615 with Hamilton’s teaching of determination of a downforce margin based on the sum of forces additionally based on the planting depth. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a depth detector and the respective determination of down force margin based on the planting depth in order to have a corrected downforce that provides a consistent planting depth (Hamilton [0016] “additional down force applied to a row unit that is beyond that required to achieve penetration (e.g., by furrow openers) to a desired planting depth”).
Claims 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 10, 11, 13, and 17 of ‘615 in view of Maro, Hamilton, and Walter.
Regarding claim 20, ‘615 discloses this in at least claim 6.
Claims 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-11, 13, and 17 of ‘615 in view of Maro, Hamilton, and Walter.
Regarding claim 26, ‘615 discloses this in claim 9.
Claims 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10, 11, 13, and 17 of ‘615 in view of Maro, Hamilton, and Walter, and further in view of Beaujot (US 20120125244 A1), hereafter referred to as Beaujot.
Regarding claim 21, ‘615 fails to explicitly disclose The agricultural system of claim 19, wherein the agricultural system is configured to generate a plurality of soil strength metrics for a plurality of geographic locations, wherein each respective soil strength metric, of the plurality of soil strength metrics, corresponds to a respective geographic location, of the plurality of geographic locations, and is generated based on a respective row unit down force at the respective geographic location and a respective gage wheel reaction force at the respective geographic location; and generate a soil strength map to represent the plurality of soil strength metrics at the plurality of geographic locations.
However, Beaujot teaches generate a plurality of soil strength metrics for a plurality of geographic locations, wherein each respective soil strength metric, of the plurality of soil strength metrics, corresponds to a respective geographic location, of the plurality of geographic locations ([FIGs 5 and 6] [0037-0039]), and
is generated based on a respective row unit down force at the respective geographic location and a respective gage wheel reaction force at the respective geographic location ([0028-0035] general description of forces present as depicted in [FIG 1]. [0036] “To provide the required mapping function, a bias element sensor 73 is operative to measure the total bias force FT by sensing the pressure in the hydraulic cylinder 15, and an external guidance system 75, such as a receiver for global positioning signals, is operative to determine a location of the frame 9 as it moves through the field. A microprocessor 77 is operative to receive information from the bias element sensor 73 and external guidance system 75 and is operative to plot the total bias force FT against the location of the frame 9 as the frame moves along the ground to form a map showing hardness of the soil as indicated by a varying value of the total bias force FT.”); and
generate a soil strength map to represent the plurality of soil strength metrics at the plurality of geographic locations ([FIGs 5 and 6] [0016] “changing hardness is measured and plotted with location information from an external guidance system such that a map is saved of soil hardness as it varies across a field.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ‘615 with Beaujot’s teaching of mapping locations of determined soil in a field. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to generate a map of soil hardness data in order to section the field into zones with consistent characteristics to increase efficiency in the use of crop inputs ([0003] “The agronomic characteristics of agricultural land can vary quite drastically across a field, and mapping the field into zones that have more consistent characteristics allows for increased efficiency in the use of crop inputs.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668