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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application. By way of a response filed 13 October 2025, claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20 have been amended. The amendments have overcome the objection to claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the reference used to reject many claims under 35 USC 102, Henry, does not disclose an oblique angle defined between the longitudinal axes of two support arms in a plane defined by longitudinal and transverse directions relative to a farm implement. This language is largely new to the independent claim.
The rejection of claim 3 in the previous office action discusses how figure 2 of Henry might show the damper 110 (which reads on a second support arm) descending down from the support arm 108 (which reads on a first support arm) at an angle to the vertical – basically, the damper would be coming out of the page. It is not clear if this is the intent of figure 2 because the figure is 2-dimensional. The rejection of 3 in the previous office action combined Underwood with Henry to show that crop sensor mounts with support arms descending at an angle to the vertical are known in the art.
The combination of these references would not necessarily show an oblique angle between the two support arms in the horizontal plane if the two arms were static. But the damper arm is not a static length and so will sometimes form an oblique angle in the horizontal plane with the support arm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (US 2019/0360552 hereinafter Henry ) in view of Underwood et al. (US 2024/0029429 hereinafter Underwood).
With respect to claim 1, Henry discloses an agricultural implement (in the abstract, Henry discloses a tillage implement, which reads on an agricultural implement), comprising:
a frame extending in a longitudinal direction between a forward end of the frame and an aft end of the frame, the frame further extending in a transverse direction between a first side of the frame and a second side of the frame, the transverse direction extending perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (in figure 1, Henry discloses frame 16 that extends along a lateral direction 24 and a longitudinal direction 18 – the lateral direction 24 reads on the claim’s transverse direction, which is shown in figure 1 of the application as element 38; in figure 1, Henry discloses that the lateral and longitudinal directions are perpendicular to one another);
a ground-engaging tool supported on the frame (in figure 1 and paragraph 19, Henry discloses shanks 38, which is supported by the frame and are pulled through the soil, which is a type of ground engagement);
a sensor configured to generate data indicative of a field parameter (in figure 1 and paragraph 23, Henry discloses sensors 102A and 102B that capture data about the field, such as vision-based data, which reads on a field parameter); and
a sensor support assembly configured to support the sensor relative to the frame (in figure 2 and paragraph 26-29, Henry discloses sensor 102 supported by a series of elements including support arm 108 and damper 110), the sensor support assembly comprising:
a first support arm extending along a longitudinal axis of the first support arm from a first end of the first support arm to a second end of the first support arm (in figure 2 and paragraph 29, Henry discloses support arm 108 that has a forward end 112 and an aft end 118, where the forward end reads on the first end and the aft end reads on the second end), the first end of the first support arm coupled to the frame (in figure 2, Henry discloses forward end 112 coupled to post 114 which is in turn coupled to the frame 30 – this claim interpretation follows applicant’s own broad but reasonable convention that manifests in claim 5 where coupling two elements together does not require that the elements be directly coupled to each other), the second end of the first support arm coupled to the sensor (in figure 2, Henry discloses that the aft end of the support arm is connected to the sensor 102 at pivot 120); and
a second support arm extending along a longitudinal axis of the second support arm from a first end of the second support arm to a second end of the second support arm (in figure 2, Henry discloses that damper 110 extends between the frame 30 and support arm 108), the first end of the second support arm coupled to the frame (in figure 2, Henry discloses that the damper 110 connects with frame 30 at pivot 122), the second end of the second support arm coupled to the sensor (in figure 2, Henry discloses that the damper 110 connects with the support arm 108 at pivot 124 – the support arm 108 connects with the sensor 102 at pivot 102 – again, applicant’s intended interpretation of coupling elements does not necessitate that they be directly coupled together),
wherein an oblique angle is defined between the longitudinal axis of the first support arm and the longitudinal axis of the second support arm (in figure 2, Henry discloses support arm 108 and damper 110 intersecting to form an angle that is clearly not ninety degrees and thus oblique).
Henry further suggests the location where the first support arm attaches is spaced transversely apart from the second location where the second support arm attaches (in figure 2, Henry discloses the attachment point to the frame 30 for the support arm 108 seemingly in the middle of the post 114 while the attachment point to the frame for the damper 110 is at pivot 122 which is shown on the outer lateral side of the frame 30; these locations are seemingly spaced apart in the transverse or lateral direction, except that this is a 2-dimensional representation and thus might just be an optical illusion, like never-ending flights of stairs). Henry does not necessarily disclose that that the oblique angle is oblique in a plane defined by the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction.
However, Underwood definitively discloses the first location is spaced apart from the second location in the transverse direction [for support arms of an agricultural sensor array] (in figure 1, Underwood discloses a sensor stand that is mounted to an agricultural vehicle; the stand includes a number of legs, such as the two diagonally rising legs to the right of the figure; as shown in figure 2, these legs extend across the transverse extent of the agricultural vehicle).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the transversely spaced arms of Underwood with the likely transversely spaced arms of Henry because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be that the sensor stand would have transversely spaced attachment points that better resist swaying (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Because the length of the damper in Henry is variable, the angle in the horizontal plane between the support arm and the damper will not always (if ever) be 90 degrees; an angle that is neither 90 degrees nor a multiple thereof is oblique. As such, Henry in view of Underwood renders obvious an oblique angle in a plane defined by the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction.
With respect to the other independent claim 17, Henry discloses a tillage implement (in the abstract, Henry discloses a tillage implement), comprising:
a frame extending in a transverse direction between a first side of the frame and a second side of the frame (in figure 1, Henry discloses frame 16 that extends along a lateral direction 24 and a longitudinal direction 18 – the lateral direction 24 reads on the claim’s transverse direction, which is shown in figure 1 of the application as element 38);
a vertical tillage tool supported on the frame (in figure 1 and paragraph 19, Henry discloses shanks 38, which are supported by the frame and are pulled through the soil; the shanks read on a vertical tillage tool);
a sensor configured to generate data indicative of a field parameter (in figure 1 and paragraph 23, Henry discloses sensors 102A and 102B that capture data about the field, such as vision-based data, which reads on a field parameter); and
a sensor support assembly configured to support the sensor relative to the frame (in figure 2 and paragraph 26-29, Henry discloses sensor 102 supported by a series of elements including support arm 108 and damper 110), the sensor support assembly comprising:
a first support arm extending along a longitudinal axis of the first support arm from a first end of the first support arm to a second end of the first support arm (in figure 2 and paragraph 29, Henry discloses support arm 108 that has a forward end 112 and an aft end 118, where the forward end reads on the first end and the aft end reads on the second end), the first end of the first support arm coupled to the frame (in figure 2, Henry discloses forward end 112 coupled to post 114 which is in turn coupled to the frame 30 – this claim interpretation follows applicant’s own broad but reasonable convention that manifests in claim 5 where coupling two elements together does not require that the elements be directly coupled to each other), the second end of the first support arm coupled to the sensor (in figure 2, Henry discloses that the aft end of the support arm is connected to the sensor 102 at pivot 120); and
a second support arm extending along a longitudinal axis of the second support arm from a first end of the second support arm to a second end of the second support arm (in figure 2, Henry discloses that damper 110 extends between the frame 30 and support arm 108), the first end of the second support arm coupled to the frame (in figure 2, Henry discloses that the damper 110 connects with frame 30 at pivot 122), the second end of the second support arm coupled to the sensor (in figure 2, Henry discloses that the damper 110 connects with the support arm 108 at pivot 124 – the support arm 108 connects with the sensor 102 at pivot 102 – again, applicant’s intended interpretation of coupling elements does not necessitate that they be directly coupled together),
wherein an oblique angle is defined between the longitudinal axis of the first support arm and the longitudinal axis of the second support arm (in figure 2, Henry discloses support arm 108 and damper 110 intersecting to form an angle that is clearly not ninety degrees and thus oblique).
Henry further suggests the location where the first support arm attaches is spaced transversely apart from the second location where the second support arm attaches (in figure 2, Henry discloses the attachment point to the frame 30 for the support arm 108 seemingly in the middle of the post 114 while the attachment point to the frame for the damper 110 is at pivot 122 which is shown on the outer lateral side of the frame 30; these locations are seemingly spaced apart in the transverse or lateral direction, except that this is a 2-dimensional representation and thus might just be an optical illusion, like never-ending flights of stairs). Henry does not necessarily disclose that that the oblique angle is oblique in a plane defined by the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction.
However, Underwood definitively discloses the first location is spaced apart from the second location in the transverse direction [for support arms of an agricultural sensor array] (in figure 1, Underwood discloses a sensor stand that is mounted to an agricultural vehicle; the stand includes a number of legs, such as the two diagonally rising legs to the right of the figure; as shown in figure 2, these legs extend across the transverse extent of the agricultural vehicle).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the transversely spaced arms of Underwood with the likely transversely spaced arms of Henry because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be that the sensor stand would have transversely spaced attachment points that better resist swaying (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Because the length of the damper in Henry is variable, the angle in the horizontal plane between the support arm and the damper will not always (if ever) be 90 degrees; an angle that is neither 90 degrees nor a multiple thereof is oblique. As such, Henry in view of Underwood renders obvious an oblique angle in a plane defined by the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction.
With respect to claims 2 and 18, Henry in view of Underwood discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 17, respectively. Henry in view of Underwood further discloses the first end of the first support arm is coupled to the frame at a first location and the first end of the second support arm is coupled to the frame at a second location, the first location being different than the second location (in figure 2, Henry discloses the frame attachment points of the support arm 108 and the damper 110 being at different locations on the frame; note that the support arm is coupled to the frame at pivot 116 via the post 114).
With respect to claims 3 and 19, Henry in view of Underwood discloses the limitations of claims 2 and 18 respectively. Henry in view of Underwood further discloses the first location is spaced apart from the second location in the transverse direction (in figure 1, Underwood discloses a sensor stand that is mounted to an agricultural vehicle; the stand includes a number of legs, such as the two diagonally rising legs to the right of the figure; as shown in figure 2, these legs extend across the transverse extent of the agricultural vehicle).
With respect to claims 4 and 20, Henry in view of Underwood discloses the limitations of claims 2 and 18, respectively. Henry in view of Underwood further discloses the first location is positioned forward of the second location relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement and along the longitudinal direction (in figure 2, Henry discloses the direction of travel of the vehicle as direction 18; note in figure 1, that there is a sensor 102A on the front side and sensor 102B on the back side; as such, either direction of travel will have one of those sensor’s frame attachment points as the first location forward of the second location; in this case, sensor 102B will have the first attachment point 116 forward of the second attachment point 122).
With respect to claim 16, Henry in view of Underwood discloses the limitations of claim 1. Henry in view of Underwood further discloses the sensor comprises a LiDAR sensor (in paragraph 24, Henry discloses that the sensor 102 can be a LIDAR sensor).
Claims 5-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry in view of Underwood as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Zemenchik (US 2015/0305228).
With respect to claim 5, Henry in view of Underwood discloses the limitations of claim 1. Henry in view of Underwood does not disclose a mounting arm coupled between the first and second support arms and the sensor in a vertical direction.
However, Zemenchik a mounting arm coupled between the first and second support arms and the sensor in a vertical direction (in figure 4, Zemenchik discloses a support arm 52 that combines with second support arm 68 to mount a sensor 28 – the combination of the support arm and second support arm reads on the mounting arm – as made clear in applicant’s figures as well as claim 6, the mounting arm is meant to include bending or foldable arms).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to modify the sensor support of Henry by adding the folding support arms of Zemenchik between Henry’s (in view of Underwood) support arm 108 and the sensor 102 with the motivation of “enabling movement of the mounting assembly from a stored position to an operation position” (Zemenchik paragraph 23) and to “enable the mounting assembly to lower the [sensor] toward the surface of an agricultural field” (Zemenchik paragraph 23).
With respect to claim 6, Henry in view of Underwood and Zemenchik discloses the limitations of claim 5. Henry in view of Underwood and Zemenchik further discloses a hinge positioned between a first portion of the mounting arm and a second portion of the mounting arm such that the sensor is movable between an operational position and a stowed position (in figure 4, the support arms of Zemenchik are connected at a pivoting axis 66, which reads on a hinge; as disclosed in paragraph 23 of Zemenchik, the pivot allows the sensor to move between an active and a stored position).
With respect to claim 7, Henry in view of Underwood and Zemenchik discloses the limitations of claim 6. Henry in view of Underwood and Zemenchik further discloses an actuator configured to automatically move the sensor between the operational position and the stowed position (in figure 4 and paragraph 32, Zemenchik discloses actuator 74 that drives the second support arm to rotate).
With respect to claim 8, Henry in view of Underwood and Zemenchik discloses the limitations of claim 6. Henry in view of Underwood and Zemenchik further discloses the ground-engaging tool comprises a vertical tillage tool, the sensor being positioned aft of the vertical tillage tool when the sensor is positioned at the operational position (in figure 1, Henry discloses tillage implement 10; in the same figure, sensor 102B is always located aft of the tillage machinery – the modification taught by Zemenchik will extend the sensor aft and down, maintaining the sensor being positioned aft of the tillage tools).
With respect to claim 10, Henry in view of Underwood and Zemenchik discloses the limitations of claim 5. Henry in view of Underwood and Zemenchik has yet to be shown to disclose a bracket coupled to [the] mounting arm.
However, Underwood discloses a bracket coupled to [the] mounting arm (in paragraph 37, Underwood discloses using brackets to construct a mount for sensors that will go on an agricultural vehicle).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the brackets of Underwood with the structure of Henry in view of Zemenchik because each element would merely perform the same function as it does separately. The predictable result would be a structure that is held together by brackets, which give easy to use, secure connections (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Note that using brackets in this manner with the pivot points of Henry would mean that the pivot points are provided on the brackets.
With respect to claim 11, Henry in view of Zemenchik and Underwood discloses the limitations of claim 10. Henry in view of Zemenchik and Underwood has yet to disclose a brace extending along a longitudinal axis of the brace from a first end of the brace to a second end of the brace, the first end of the brace coupled to the frame, the second end of the brace coupled to the bracket.
However, Underwood discloses a brace extending along a longitudinal axis of the brace from a first end of the brace to a second end of the brace, the first end of the brace coupled to the frame, the second end of the brace coupled to the bracket (in figure 1, Underwood discloses a sensor stand that has four legs, each extending downward in a direction transverse to the forward direction of the vehicle on which the stand is mounted – any of the four legs reads on a brace with the others forming the basic support – for the purposes of this office action, the taller, left leg specifically reads on the brace; the bottom ends of all four legs are all coupled to the frame of the vehicle, as shown in figure 2; as discussed with respect to claim 10 and in paragraph 37 of Underwood, the arms and brace are connected by brackets; the linear nature of the legs gives each a longitudinal axis).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the brace leg extending transversely as taught by Underwood with the sensor mount taught by Henry in view of Underwood and Zemenchik because each element would merely perform the same function as it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be a bracing strut extending transversely downward from a location proximal to the sensor to the frame, thereby providing the system with lateral stability against swaying (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). To maintain the vibration dampening intended by Henry, the brace leg would need to be a damper, the benefits of which Henry has taught.
With respect to claim 12, Henry in view of Zemenchik and Underwood discloses the limitations of claim 11. Henry in view of Zemenchik and Underwood further discloses the first end of the first support arm is coupled to the frame at a first location; the first end of the second support arm is coupled to the frame at a second location; and the first end of the brace is coupled to the frame at a third location, the third location being spaced apart from the first and second locations in the transverse direction (as previously discussed with respect to claim 2, in figure 2, Henry discloses the frame attachment points of the support arm 108 and the damper 110 being at different locations on the frame; note that the support arm is coupled to the frame at pivot 116 via the post 114; furthermore, Underwood discloses all of the legs coupling with the frame at different locations; as such, the combination of claim 11 would include the frame connections being spaced apart as in claim 12).
With respect to claim 13, Henry in view of Zemenchik and Underwood discloses the limitations of claim 12. Henry in view of Zemenchik and Underwood further discloses the third location is positioned aft of the first location relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement along the longitudinal direction (in figure 1, Underwood discloses the tall left leg extending due laterally and downward from the highest point on the sensor stand; as applied to the combination of references, this lateral direction puts the third location aft of the first location).
With respect to claim 14, Henry in view of Zemenchik and Underwood discloses the limitations of claim 12. Henry in view of Zemenchik and Underwood further discloses the oblique angle corresponds to a first oblique angle (definitional); and a second oblique angle is defined between the longitudinal axis of the first support arm and the longitudinal axis of the brace in the plane defined by the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction, the second oblique angle being different than the first oblique angle (the angle formed by the intersection of the first and second support arms, now labeled the first oblique angle is discussed in relation to claim 1; the intersection of the support arm 108 from Henry with the added brace of Underwood will form an oblique angle that is different that the first oblique angle because it is at a different location; to understand why the angle is oblique, note that the support arm 108 is rising from the frame at an angle and will be meeting the brace at roughly location 12 in figure 1 of Underwood – the brace leg and its mirror define a plane, and only lines that enter that plane at a right angle will be non-oblique to the brace).
With respect to claim 15, Henry in view of Zemenchik and Underwood discloses the limitations of claim 11. Henry in view of Zemenchik and Underwood has yet to disclose the second end of the brace is positioned above the second ends of the first and second support arms in the vertical direction.
However, Underwood discloses the second end of the brace is positioned above the second ends of the first and second support arms in the vertical direction (in figure 1, Underwood discloses a vertical bar that provides an higher platform for the sensors; the brace leg is affixed at the height of the top of this vertical bar).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the sensor mounting arm of Zemenchik with vertical bar of Underwood because each element would merely perform the same function that it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be a taller sensor system offering a different range of views for the sensor with the brace attaching at the highest stable point, as shown in Underwood’s first figure (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry in view of Underwood and Zemenchik as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Neitemeier et al. (US 2020/0084965 hereinafter Neitemeier).
With respect to claim 9, Henry in view of Underwood and Zemenchik discloses the limitations of claim 5. Henry in view of Underwood and Zemenchik does not disclose a shield coupled to the mounting arm, the shield configured to shield the sensor from solar radiation.
However, Neitemeier discloses a shield coupled to the mounting arm, the shield configured to shield the sensor from solar radiation (in paragraph 18, Neitemeier discloses a sun shield at least partially shading a camera – again, by applicants broad and reasonable interpretation of coupling, the sun shield and camera in Neitemeier do not need to be directly coupled to one another to read on being coupled).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to modify the sensor of Henry in view of Underwood and Zemenchik by adding a sun screen as taught by Neitemeier with the motivation to “prevent . . . the camera from being ‘dazzled’ directly by sunlight [because ‘dazzling’ will] detract from the accuracy and reliability of the evaluation [based on the camera’s images]” (Neitemeier, paragraph 18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hunt, II et al. (US 2024/0357968 – likely not prior art) discloses a sensor support system that is implemented in an agricultural harvester. Barrick (US 2021/0056721) discloses a sensor support module 106 for an agricultural vehicle in figure 2.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS JAMES MEISLAHN whose telephone number is (703)756-1925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 EST M-Th, M-F.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. 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.
/DOUGLAS J MEISLAHN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights