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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrick (US 20190235529 A1), in view of Patel (US 6196327 B1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick discloses:
An agricultural system
See at least: "In general, the present subject matter is directed to systems and methods for monitoring frame levelness of an agricultural implement based on monitored parameters associated with two or more ground engaging tools of the implement." ([0023])
Rationale: Barrick explicitly discloses systems for monitoring an agricultural implement, corresponding to an agricultural system.
of an agricultural implement,
See at least: "In general, the present subject matter is directed to systems and methods for monitoring frame levelness of an agricultural implement based on monitored parameters associated with two or more ground engaging tools of the implement." ([0023])
Rationale: Barrick expressly ties the system to an agricultural implement.
the agricultural system comprising:
Rationale: This is transitional language. The components are disclosed in the following elements.
an agricultural implement
See at least: "the implement 10 may be configured to be towed across a field in a direction of travel (e.g., as indicated by arrow 14 in FIG. 1) by a work vehicle." ([0025])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses an agricultural implement 10 as the subject of the monitoring system.
comprising a central frame section
See at least: "the ground engaging tools 38B, 38C may be coupled to the main section 42 of the frame 20" ([0028])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses a "main section 42 of the frame 20," which functions as a central frame section.
and a wing frame section pivotably coupled to the central frame section,
See at least: "the wing sections 44, 46 of the frame 20 may be configured to be pivotable relative to the main frame section 42 of the frame 20" ([0066])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses wing sections (wing frame sections) that are pivotable relative to the main section (central frame section).
the central frame section and the wing frame section supporting a plurality of ground engaging toolsx
See at least: "the ground engaging tools 38B, 38C may be coupled to the main section 42 … while … 38A, 38E may be coupled to the first wing section 44 … and … 38D, 38F may be coupled to second wing 46" ([0028])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses a plurality of ground engaging tools, with some coupled to the main (central) section and others to wing sections, thereby being supported by both.
configured to engage a field during an agricultural operation;
See at least: "the ground-engaging portion 106 … is configured to penetrate into or otherwise engage the ground as the implement 10 is being pulled through the field" ([0035])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses ground engaging tools engaging the ground while the implement is pulled through the field—i.e., during an agricultural operation.
a wing sensor configured to generate data indicative of a draft force on the wing frame section during the agricultural operation;
See at least: "a corresponding sensor 120 may be provided … with each … ground engaging tool 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F … the sensor 120 may be configured to detect an operating parameter indicative of a force exerted on the ground engaging tool 38 by the soil or ground" ([0037], [0039])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses sensors on tools that are coupled to wing sections (tools 38A, 38E on first wing section 44). These sensors generate data indicative of the force exerted on those tools by the soil. A PHOSITA would recognize that the force on a tool coupled to a wing section is a force experienced by the wing frame section, and that this force—the resistance from the soil during tillage—is a draft force.
and a computing system communicatively coupled to the wing sensor,
See at least: "the controller 202 may be communicatively coupled to the various sensors 120 provided in operative association with the ground engaging tools 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F via a wired or wireless connection to allow measurement signals (e.g., indicated by dashed lines 208 in FIG. 6) to be transmitted from the sensors 120 to the controller 202." ([0051])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses a controller (computing system) communicatively coupled to sensors, including those on wing sections.
the computing system being configured to:
See at least: "the controller 202 may be configured to monitor one or more parameters indicative of the forces exerted on at least two of the ground engaging tools 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F by the ground" ([0051])
Rationale: Barrick recites that the controller is configured to perform monitoring functions.
monitor the draft force on the wing frame section
See at least: "receiving, with a computing device, data associated with a first parameter indicative of a force exerted on a first ground engaging tool … by the ground … measurement signals or sensor data 208 transmitted from the sensors 120 may be received by the controller 202 for monitoring the parameter values" ([0073])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses monitoring force-indicative parameter values using a computing device/controller based on sensor data. Because the sensors are on tools coupled to wing sections, monitoring these force-indicative parameters constitutes monitoring the draft force on the wing frame section. A PHOSITA would understand that the force on wing-mounted tools is the draft force acting on that wing section.
based at least in part on the data generated by the wing sensor;
Se at least: "the controller 202 may be configured to monitor one or more parameters indicative of the forces exerted on at least two of the ground engaging tools 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F by the ground based on the measurement signals 208 received from the associated sensors 120" ([0051])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses monitoring based on measurement signals (data) received from sensors.
and control an operation of the agricultural implement
"the controller 202 may be configured to automatically control the operation of one or more components of the implement 10" ([0059])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses that the controller is configured to control an operation of the agricultural implement.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Barrick
Barrick does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
System for identifying wing hop
and a computing system being configured to: determine whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop
based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section,
when it is determined that the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop.
Disclosure by Patel
Patel discloses:
System for identifying wing hop,
See at least: "logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch 'activity.' If there is hitch 'activity,' the tractor is bouncing or pitching, and thus the current command provided by the PD controller circuit 78 should be employed to reduce the bouncing or pitching." (col. 7, lines 33-36)
Rationale: Patel discloses a system where a logic circuit (part of the computing system) actively determines the presence of an oscillatory condition ("bouncing or pitching"). A PHOSITA would recognize that "bouncing and pitching" of an implement is the same physical phenomenon as "wing hop" localized to a wing section, and that Patel's system performs the function of "identifying" this condition.
and a computing system being configured to: determine whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop
See at least: "logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch 'activity.' If there is hitch 'activity,' the tractor is bouncing or pitching, and thus the current command provided by the PD controller circuit 78 should be employed to reduce the bouncing or pitching." (col. 7, lines 33-38)
Rationale: Patel discloses a control circuit (a computing system) configured to determine whether the tractor-implement combination is experiencing an oscillatory condition. The logic circuit actively determines the presence of this condition by monitoring the force signal. A PHOSITA would apply this same determination logic—using a computing system to assess whether an oscillatory condition exists—to a wing frame section to determine whether it is experiencing wing hop.
based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section,
"a force transducer to provide a force signal indicative of a force applied to the hitch by an implement" (Abstract)
Rationale: Patel explicitly teaches that the determination of whether the implement is experiencing an oscillatory condition is based on the force signal from the force transducer. The force signal is indicative of the force applied to the hitch by the implement—this force, resisting motion through the soil, is the draft force. Patel's detection algorithm processes this draft force signal to assess the presence of the oscillatory condition.
and control an operation of the agricultural implement when it is determined that the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop.
"control circuit 52 is responsive to position transducer 50 and force transducer 48 to generate a valve signal that is applied to control valve 54. … To raise or lower the implement 46, the hydraulic actuator 38 is moved." (col. 4, lines 45-55); "logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch 'activity.' If there is hitch 'activity,' … the current command … should be employed to reduce the bouncing or pitching." (col. 7, lines 33-38)
Rationale: Patel explicitly teaches controlling an operation of the agricultural implement (e.g., generating a valve signal to move an actuator) when it is determined that the oscillatory condition exists. The control action is triggered by and contingent upon the determination that the condition is present.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to modify the implement monitoring system of Barrick to incorporate the oscillation identification and response logic of Patel.
Barrick provides a winged agricultural implement with a central frame section (42) and wing frame sections (44, 46) pivotably coupled thereto, where ground engaging tools (38A, 38E) on the wing sections are equipped with sensors (120) that generate data indicative of forces exerted on those tools by the soil. The system includes a controller (202) communicatively coupled to these sensors and configured to monitor the force-indicative data and control an operation of the implement.
Patel teaches a system that identifies an oscillatory condition ("bouncing and pitching") of an implement by monitoring a force signal from a force transducer, where a logic circuit (80) determines the presence of the oscillatory condition based on the force signal, and then controls an operation of the implement (e.g., adjusting implement position via a control valve) in response to that determination.
A PHOSITA seeking to enhance Barrick's system to automatically detect and respond to "wing hop"—an oscillatory condition of a wing section—would naturally look to Patel's established technique for detecting oscillations from draft force data and taking corrective action. Both references address dynamic behaviors of agricultural implements under load using force-based sensing and controller logic. Applying Patel's determination logic—i.e., using the controller to determine whether the wing frame section is experiencing an oscillatory condition based on the draft force data already being monitored from Barrick's wing sensors, and then controlling an operation of the implement when that condition is determined—would be a simple integration of a known technique into a compatible system to achieve the predictable result of enabling the system to identify and respond to wing hop.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 2.
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the computing system is configured to determine that the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop
when the draft force on the wing frame section cyclically increases and decreases
by at least a first magnitude
with at least a first frequency.
Disclosure by Patel
Patel discloses:
wherein the computing system is configured to determine that the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop
"logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch 'activity.' If there is hitch 'activity,' the tractor is bouncing or pitching, and thus the current command provided by the PD controller circuit 78 should be employed to reduce the bouncing or pitching." (col. 7, lines 33-38)
*Rationale: Patel teaches a computing system (control circuit with logic circuit 80) configured to determine that an oscillatory condition (bouncing/pitching) is occurring. A PHOSITA would recognize that "bouncing and pitching" of an implement is the same physical phenomenon as "wing hop" localized to a wing section, and that Patel's determination logic is directly applicable to determining whether a wing frame section is experiencing wing hop.*
when the draft force on the wing frame section cyclically increases and decreases
"The filtered force signal in the preferred embodiment is the 1-3 Hz component of the force measured at the load pins. Plotted as a waveform, the successive values of the filtered force signal will assume a roughly sinusoidal waveform where the peak-to-peak amplitude is roughly equivalent to magnitude of the bouncing and pitching of the tractor." (col. 7, lines 48-55)
Rationale: Patel teaches that the oscillatory condition (bouncing/pitching) is detected when the force signal exhibits a sinusoidal waveform—i.e., when the force signal cyclically increases and decreases. A PHOSITA would apply this same signal-based criterion to the draft force on a wing frame section to determine when that section is experiencing wing hop.
by at least a first magnitude
"The filtered force signal in the preferred embodiment is the 1-3 Hz component of the force measured at the load pins. Plotted as a waveform, the successive values of the filtered force signal will assume a roughly sinusoidal waveform where the peak-to-peak amplitude is roughly equivalent to magnitude of the bouncing and pitching of the tractor." (col. 7, lines 48-55)
Rationale: Patel explicitly teaches that the determination of whether the oscillatory condition exists is based on the magnitude (peak-to-peak amplitude) of the force signal oscillation. Patel further teaches comparing this magnitude to thresholds or limits to determine when to take control action. A PHOSITA would apply this magnitude-based criterion to the draft force on a wing frame section to determine wing hop.
with at least a first frequency.
"the bouncing and pitching can be modeled as a series of underdamped sinusoidal waveforms in the 1-3 Hz range" (col. 5, lines 35-36)
Rationale: Patel explicitly teaches that the oscillatory condition (bouncing/pitching) is characterized by and detected based on the frequency of the force signal oscillation, specifically within the 1-3 Hz range. A PHOSITA would apply this frequency-based criterion to the draft force on a wing frame section to determine wing hop.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to configure the computing system of Barrick's agricultural system to determine that the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop when the draft force on the wing frame section cyclically increases and decreases by at least a first magnitude with at least a first frequency, as taught by Patel.
Barrick provides a winged agricultural implement with sensors that generate data indicative of draft force on the wing frame section and a computing system configured to monitor that draft force ([0028], [0037], [0051]). Patel teaches a specific, well-established technique for identifying an oscillatory condition (bouncing/pitching) of an implement by analyzing a force signal: determining that the condition exists when the force signal exhibits a sinusoidal waveform (cyclical increase/decrease) with a characteristic magnitude (peak-to-peak amplitude) and frequency (e.g., 1-3 Hz) (col. 7, lines 1-20). A PHOSITA seeking to enable Barrick's system to automatically identify "wing hop"—an oscillatory condition of a wing section—would naturally look to Patel's proven signal-analysis technique. Applying Patel's criteria—cyclical increase/decrease, magnitude threshold, and frequency range—to the draft force data already being monitored from Barrick's wing sensors would be a straightforward integration of a known diagnostic method into a compatible sensing and computing architecture, yielding the predictable result of accurately determining when the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick discloses:
further comprising a central sensor
"a corresponding sensor 120 may be provided … with each … ground engaging tool 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F" ([0039])
Rationale: Barrick discloses sensors associated with ground engaging tools on the main (central) section (e.g., tools 38B, 38C coupled to main section 42 per [0028]). These sensors constitute central sensors.
configured to generate data indicative of a draft force on the central frame section during the agricultural operation,
"the sensor 120 may be configured to detect an operating parameter indicative of a force exerted on the ground engaging tool 38 by the soil or ground" ([0037])
Rationale: Barrick discloses that sensors on ground engaging tools generate data indicative of force exerted by the soil. For sensors on tools coupled to the central frame section, this data is indicative of the draft force on the central frame section during the agricultural operation.
wherein the computing system is further configured to monitor the draft force on the central frame section
"the controller 202 may be configured to monitor one or more parameters indicative of the forces exerted on at least two of the ground engaging tools 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F by the ground" ([0051])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses that the controller monitors force-indicative parameters from multiple ground engaging tools, including those on the central frame section (e.g., tools 38B, 38C). Monitoring parameters from central-mounted tools constitutes monitoring the draft force on the central frame section.
based at least in part on the data generated by the central sensor,
"the controller 202 may be configured to monitor one or more parameters indicative of the forces exerted on at least two of the ground engaging tools 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F by the ground based on the measurement signals 208 received from the associated sensors 120" ([0051])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses that monitoring is based on measurement signals (data) received from sensors, including central sensors.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Barrick
Barrick does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
and the computing system being configured to determine whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section and the draft force on the central frame section.
Disclosure by Patel
Patel teaches:
and the computing system being configured to determine whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop
"logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch 'activity.' If there is hitch 'activity,' the tractor is bouncing or pitching, and thus the current command provided by the PD controller circuit 78 should be employed to reduce the bouncing or pitching." (col. 7, lines 15-20)
*Rationale: Patel teaches a computing system (control circuit with logic circuit 80) configured to determine that an oscillatory condition (bouncing/pitching) is occurring. A PHOSITA would recognize that "bouncing and pitching" of an implement is the same physical phenomenon as "wing hop" localized to a wing section, and that Patel's determination logic is directly applicable to determining whether a wing frame section is experiencing wing hop.*
Claim Limitations Rendered Obvious by the Combination of Barrick and Patel
determine whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section and the draft force on the central frame section.
See at least:
Barrick: "the controller 202 may be configured to compare the parameter differential that currently exists between two or more of the longitudinally spaced ground engaging tools 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F to a desired parameter differential range … when the monitored parameter differential between two or more of the longitudinally spaced ground engaging tools 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F falls outside of the predetermined differential range, the controller may determine that the implement frame 20 has experienced a given amount of pitching" ([0054])
Patel: "logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch 'activity.' If there is hitch 'activity,' the tractor is bouncing or pitching, and thus the current command provided by the PD controller circuit 78 should be employed to reduce the bouncing or pitching." (col. 7, lines 15-20)
Rationale: Barrick teaches comparing force-indicative parameters from ground engaging tools on different frame sections (including wing and central sections) to determine a condition of the implement (pitch). Patel teaches determining the presence of an oscillatory condition (bouncing/pitching) based on force signals. A PHOSITA would combine these teachings—applying Patel's oscillation determination logic to the comparative wing and central draft force data already being monitored in Barrick's system—to determine whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop based on both forces. This combination yields the predictable result of using comparative force data to identify a localized oscillatory condition.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to configure the computing system of Barrick's agricultural system to determine whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section and the draft force on the central frame section, by applying Patel's oscillation determination logic to Barrick's comparative force-monitoring framework.
Barrick provides a winged agricultural implement with sensors that generate data indicative of draft force on both the wing frame section (via wing sensors) and the central frame section (via central sensors), and a computing system configured to monitor these draft forces and compare parameters from different frame sections to determine frame conditions. Patel teaches a specific, well-established technique for determining that an oscillatory condition (bouncing/pitching) of an implement is occurring based on analyzing force signals .
A PHOSITA seeking to enable Barrick's system to automatically determine whether a wing frame section is experiencing "wing hop"—an oscillatory condition of that section—would naturally combine these teachings. Barrick already provides the framework for comparing wing and central forces; Patel provides the logic for identifying an oscillation from force data. Applying Patel's determination methodology to the comparative wing/central force data already being monitored in Barrick's system would be a straightforward integration of a known diagnostic method into a compatible sensing and computing architecture, yielding the predictable result of accurately determining when the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop based on both wing and central draft forces.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick discloses:
further comprising a central sensor
See at least: “...a corresponding sensor 120 may be provided in operative association with each ground engaging tool 38A , 38B , 38C , 38D , 38E , 38F ...” ([ 0039 ]); “...the frame 20 may include a main section 42 positioned centrally ...” ([ 0027 ])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses sensors 120 provided with the ground engaging tools of the implement, and expressly discloses the implement frame having a main section 42 that is positioned centrally; thus, a sensor 120 provided with a ground engaging tool supported by the centrally positioned main section constitutes the claimed central sensor.
configured to generate data indicative of a draft force on the central frame section during the agricultural operation,
See at least: “...The current position of the ground engaging tool 38 relative to the frame 20 may , in turn , be indicative of the force exerted on the ground engaging tool 38 by the soil or ground.” ([0035 ]); “...the cultivator 36 may include a plurality of ground engaging tools 38 , which are pulled through the soil as the implement 10 moves across the field ...” ([ 0027 ])
Rationale: Barrick expressly teaches that the sensor-associated tool position/parameter is indicative of force exerted by soil/ground while the tools are pulled through the soil during field operation; for a tool supported on the centrally positioned main section, the soil resistance force during pulling is the draft-loading transmitted into that central frame section, such that the central sensor generates data indicative of draft force on the central frame section during the agricultural operation.
wherein the computing system is further configured to monitor the draft force on the central frame section
See at least:“...the controller 202 may be configured to monitor one or more parameters indicative of the forces exerted on at least two of the ground engaging tools 38A , 38B , 38C , 38D , 38E , 38F by the ground ...” ([0051 ]); “...the method 300 may include receiving , with a computing device , data associated with a ... parameter indicative of a force exerted on a ... ground engaging tool ... by the ground ...” ([0073 ])
Rationale: Barrick expressly teaches the controller/computing device monitoring parameters indicative of ground/soil forces on the ground engaging tools; for at least one tool supported by the centrally positioned main section, monitoring its ground/soil force-indicative parameter constitutes monitoring the draft force borne by the central frame section.
based at least in part on the data generated by the central sensor,
See at least: “...the controller 202 may be communicatively coupled to the various sensors 120 ... to allow measurement signals ( e . g . , indicated by dashed lines 208 in FIG . 6 ) to be transmitted from the sensors 120 to the controller 202 ...” ([0 051 ])
Rationale: Barrick expressly teaches monitoring based on measurement signals transmitted from the sensors 120 to the controller; therefore, monitoring the central-section force-indicative parameter is performed based at least in part on the data generated by the central sensor (i.e., the measurement signals from the sensor 120 associated with the central-section tool).
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Barrick
Barrick does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
and the computing system being configured to determine whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop
based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section and the draft force on the central frame section.
Disclosure by Patel
Patel discloses:
and the computing system being configured to determine whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop
See at least: “...logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch ‘activity.’ If there is hitch ‘activity,’ the tractor is bouncing or pitching ...” (col. 7, ll. 31–34)
Rationale: Patel expressly teaches a computing/logic circuit determining whether an oscillatory condition is present by determining whether there is force-signal “activity” corresponding to bouncing/pitching; a PHOSITA would apply this same oscillation-determination technique to oscillatory motion of an implement wing frame section (i.e., wing hop) using draft-force signals associated with the implement sections.
Claim Limitations Rendered Obvious by the Combination of Barrick and Patel
based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section and the draft force on the central frame section.
See at least: “...the controller 202 may be configured to monitor one or more parameters indicative of the forces exerted on at least two of the ground engaging tools 38A , 38B , 38C , 38D , 38E , 38F by the ground ...” (Barrick, [0051 ]); “...logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch ‘activity.’ If there is hitch ‘activity,’ the tractor is bouncing or pitching ...” (Patel, col. 7, ll. 31–34)
Rationale: Barrick expressly provides (i) force-indicative monitoring data from plural ground engaging tools distributed across the implement frame (including tools supported by the centrally positioned main section and tools supported on the wing sections via the winged frame architecture), and thus provides draft-force-indicative inputs attributable to both the wing frame section and the central frame section; Patel expressly teaches using a computing/logic circuit to determine whether oscillatory “activity” is occurring from force-signal behavior. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to apply Patel’s oscillation/activity determination to Barrick’s available draft-force-indicative inputs from both the wing section and the central section (i.e., using both signals as the force-signal basis) because cyclical oscillation of an implement section under draft load produces corresponding periodic force-signal activity, and using multiple section force inputs improves robustness of oscillation detection while yielding the predictable result of determining whether the wing section is experiencing wing hop based at least in part on both the wing and central draft forces.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to modify the agricultural system of Barrick (which includes a centrally positioned main section 42, ground engaging tools pulled through the soil, sensors 120 associated with the tools producing force-indicative measurement signals, and controller 202 communicatively coupled to the sensors and configured to monitor force-indicative parameters) by incorporating Patel’s computing/logic technique for determining whether oscillatory “activity” is present from force-signal behavior (logic circuit 80 determining whether hitch activity indicates bouncing/pitching), and to perform that oscillation determination using both (i) wing-section draft-force-indicative data and (ii) central-section draft-force-indicative data available in Barrick, because both references address agricultural equipment operating under draft load using sensed force signals and computing logic, and applying Patel’s established force-signal activity determination to Barrick’s multi-section force inputs would have predictably enabled the computing system to determine whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop based at least in part on both the wing and central draft forces.
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural system of Claim 3, which is the basis for Claim 4.
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick discloses:
Agricultural system,
See at least: “In general , the present subject matter is directed to systems and methods for monitoring frame levelness of an agricultural implement …” ([0023])
Rationale: This provides the same agricultural implement “system” context established for Claim 3, corresponding to a base system.
by comparing the draft force on the wing frame section to the draft force on the central frame section.
See at least: “...the ground engaging tools 38B , 38C may be coupled to the main section 42 of the frame 20 , while the ground engaging tools 38A , 38E may be coupled to the first wing section 44 of the frame 20 ...” ([0033]); “...the controller may be configured to compare the parameter differential that currently exists between two or more of the longitudinally spaced ground engaging tools 38A , 38B , 38C , 38D , 38E , 38F ...” ([0054]); “...when the monitored parameter differential between two or more of the longitudinally spaced ground engaging tools 38A , 38B , 38C , 38D , 38E , 38F falls outside of the predetermined differential range , the controller may determine that the implement frame 20 has experienced a given amount of pitching ...” ([0054])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses ground engaging tools coupled to the main section 42 (central frame section) and ground engaging tools coupled to the first wing section 44 (wing frame section), and further expressly discloses the controller comparing a “parameter differential” between two or more tools (including longitudinally spaced tools) and using the compared differential for computing determinations. Since Barrick’s monitored parameters are “indicative of the forces exerted … by the ground” (see [0051] in Barrick’s disclosure) and the tools are supported on different frame sections, the disclosed comparison of parameter differentials between a wing-supported tool and a main-section-supported tool constitutes comparing the draft-force-indicative values attributable to the wing frame section to those attributable to the central frame section.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Barrick
Barrick does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the computing system is configured to determine whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section and the draft force on the central frame section
Disclosure by Patel
Patel discloses:
wherein the computing system is configured to determine whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop
See at least: “logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch “activity.” If there is hitch “activity,” the tractor is bouncing or pitching ...” (col. 7, ll. 31–34)
Rationale: Patel expressly discloses a computing/logic circuit that “determines whether” an oscillatory condition is occurring based on sensed “activity,” and associates such activity with “bouncing or pitching.” A PHOSITA would apply this same oscillation-determination technique to determine whether an implement wing frame section is experiencing cyclical oscillation (wing hop), because cyclical structural oscillation under draft load produces corresponding measurable force-signal activity that can be evaluated by the same “determine whether … activity” logic.
Claim Limitations Rendered Obvious by the Combination of Barrick and Patel
based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section and the draft force on the central frame section
See at least:
Barrick: “...the ground engaging tools 38B , 38C may be coupled to the main section 42 ... while ... 38A , 38E may be coupled to the first wing section 44 ...” ([0033]); “...the controller 202 may be configured to monitor one or more parameters indicative of the forces exerted on at least two of the ground engaging tools 38A , 38B , 38C , 38D , 38E , 38F by the ground ...” ([0051])
Patel: “logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch “activity.” If there is hitch “activity,” the tractor is bouncing or pitching ...” (col. 7, ll. 31–34)
Rationale: Barrick expressly provides force-indicative monitored parameters (“forces exerted … by the ground”) for plural tools distributed across different frame sections, including tools coupled to the main section (central frame section) and tools coupled to a wing section (wing frame section), thereby providing draft-force-indicative inputs attributable to both the wing frame section and the central frame section. Patel expressly teaches using computing/logic circuitry to “determine whether” oscillatory activity is present. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to use Patel’s oscillation/activity determination on the draft-force-indicative inputs from both the wing section and the central section in Barrick (i.e., using both signals as inputs) because oscillation of the wing section relative to the central frame section would inherently manifest as periodic force-signal activity in the wing draft-force-indicative measurements relative to central draft-force-indicative measurements, and using both section forces as inputs yields the predictable result of a more robust oscillation determination.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to modify the agricultural system of Barrick (which provides a winged implement having tools coupled to a wing section and tools coupled to a central main section, and a controller configured to monitor force-indicative parameters from such tools and compare parameter differentials) by incorporating Patel’s oscillation determination logic (logic circuit determining whether force-related “activity” indicates bouncing/pitching), and to perform that oscillation determination using both (i) wing-section draft-force-indicative data and (ii) central-section draft-force-indicative data available in Barrick, because both references address agricultural equipment under draft load using force-related sensing and computing logic, and applying Patel’s established “determine whether … activity” oscillation technique to Barrick’s available wing-versus-central force inputs would have predictably enabled determining whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section and the draft force on the central frame section, including by comparing the wing-associated and central-associated draft-force-indicative values.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural system of Claim 4, which is the basis for Claim 5.
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the computing system is configured to determine that the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop
when the draft force on the wing frame section cyclically increases and decreases
by a first magnitude at a first frequency,
the draft force on the central frame section cyclically increases and decreases
by a second magnitude at a second frequency,
and the first magnitude is greater than the second magnitude by a threshold amount.
Disclosure by Patel
Patel discloses:
wherein the computing system is configured to determine that the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop
"logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch 'activity.' If there is hitch 'activity,' the tractor is bouncing or pitching, and thus the current command provided by the PD controller circuit 78 should be employed to reduce the bouncing or pitching." (col. 7, lines 31–34)
Rationale: Patel teaches a computing system (control circuit with logic circuit 80) configured to determine that an oscillatory condition ("bouncing or pitching") is occurring based on analysis of force signals. A PHOSITA would recognize that this force-signal-based oscillation detection technique is directly applicable to detecting "wing hop"—an oscillatory condition of a wing frame section—because wing hop likewise produces cyclical force variations in the draft force signals from the wing-mounted sensors.
when the draft force on the wing frame section cyclically increases and decreases
"The filtered force signal in the preferred embodiment is the 1-3 Hz component of the force measured at the load pins. Plotted as a waveform, the successive values of the filtered force signal will assume a roughly sinusoidal waveform" (col. 7, lines 49–51)
Rationale: Patel teaches that oscillatory conditions are detected when the force signal exhibits a sinusoidal waveform—i.e., when the force signal cyclically increases and decreases. A PHOSITA would apply this same signal-based criterion to the draft force on a wing frame section to determine when that section is experiencing wing hop.
by a first magnitude at a first frequency,
"The filtered force signal ... will assume a roughly sinusoidal waveform where the peak-to-peak amplitude is roughly equivalent to magnitude of the bouncing and pitching of the tractor." (col. 7, lines 49–55); "the bouncing and pitching can be modeled as a series of underdamped sinusoidal waveforms in the 1-3 Hz range" (col. 5, lines 34–37)
Rationale: Patel explicitly teaches that oscillatory force signals are characterized by both a magnitude (peak-to-peak amplitude) and a frequency (the 1-3 Hz range). A PHOSITA would apply these same characterization parameters to the draft force on a wing frame section.
Claim Limitations Rendered Obvious by the Combination of Barrick and Patel
the draft force on the central frame section cyclically increases and decreases
See at least:
Barrick: "a corresponding sensor 120 may be provided in operative association with each ground engaging tool 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F … the sensor 120 may be configured to detect an operating parameter indicative of a force exerted on the ground engaging tool 38 by the soil or ground" ([0037], [0039]); "the ground engaging tools 38B, 38C may be coupled to the main section 42 of the frame 20" ([0028])
Patel: "The filtered force signal ... will assume a roughly sinusoidal waveform" (col. 7, lines 49–51)
Rationale: Barrick provides a central sensor (associated with tools 38B, 38C on main section 42) that generates data indicative of draft force on the central frame section. Patel teaches that force signals from implement components under load exhibit cyclical sinusoidal behavior during oscillatory conditions. A PHOSITA would recognize that the draft force on the central frame section, as monitored by Barrick's central sensor, would also exhibit cyclical increases and decreases during operation, and Patel's teachings about force signal behavior apply equally to any force signal from the implement. Applying Patel's signal analysis principles to Barrick's central force data renders it obvious that the central draft force cyclically increases and decreases.
by a second magnitude at a second frequency,
See at least:
Barrick: "a corresponding sensor 120 may be provided in operative association with each ground engaging tool 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F … the sensor 120 may be configured to detect an operating parameter indicative of a force exerted on the ground engaging tool 38 by the soil or ground" ([0037], [0039]); "the ground engaging tools 38B, 38C may be coupled to the main section 42 of the frame 20" ([0028])
Patel: "The filtered force signal ... will assume a roughly sinusoidal waveform where the peak-to-peak amplitude is roughly equivalent to magnitude of the bouncing and pitching of the tractor." (col. 7, lines 52–55); "the bouncing and pitching can be modeled as a series of underdamped sinusoidal waveforms in the 1-3 Hz range" (col. 5, lines 34–35)
Rationale: Patel teaches that any force signal exhibiting oscillatory behavior will have an associated magnitude (peak-to-peak amplitude) and frequency (within a characteristic range). Barrick provides the central draft force signal. A PHOSITA would apply Patel's characterization parameters—magnitude and frequency—to the central draft force signal to quantify its oscillatory behavior, yielding a second magnitude and a second frequency. This is a predictable application of Patel's signal analysis technique to the central force data already present in Barrick's system.
and the first magnitude is greater than the second magnitude by a threshold amount.
See at least:
Barrick: "the controller 202 may be configured to compare the parameter differential that currently exists between two or more of the longitudinally spaced ground engaging tools 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F to a desired parameter differential range" ([0054])
Patel: "logic circuit 80 compares the magnitude of the last calculated and Stored maxima or minima with a predetermined reference value" (col. 8, lines 6–8)
Rationale: Barrick provides the framework for comparing parameters (including force-indicative values) between different frame sections (e.g., wing and central) and evaluating them relative to a range or threshold. Patel provides the concept of comparing a measured magnitude to a reference value or threshold to make a determination about system state. A PHOSITA would combine these teachings to compare the magnitude of wing force oscillation (first magnitude) to the magnitude of central force oscillation (second magnitude), and determine that wing hop exists when the wing magnitude exceeds the central magnitude by a threshold amount. This comparative approach allows the system to discriminate localized wing hop from global common-mode motion (such as whole-frame pitch or bounce affecting both sections), as a larger oscillation magnitude in the wing section relative to the central section is indicative of the wing-specific oscillatory condition. Applying Patel's threshold-based comparison logic to Barrick's comparative multi-section data is a straightforward integration of known techniques, yielding the predictable result of the claimed condition.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to configure the computing system of Barrick's agricultural system to determine that the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop when the draft force on the wing frame section cyclically increases and decreases by a first magnitude at a first frequency, the draft force on the central frame section cyclically increases and decreases by a second magnitude at a second frequency, and the first magnitude is greater than the second magnitude by a threshold amount, by applying Patel's force-signal-based oscillation detection and characterization techniques to Barrick's multi-section draft force data and comparative framework.
Barrick provides a winged agricultural implement with sensors that generate data indicative of draft force on both the wing frame section (via tools 38A, 38E on wing sections 44, 46) and the central frame section (via tools 38B, 38C on main section 42), and a computing system (controller 202) configured to monitor these draft forces and compare parameter differentials between ground engaging tools on different frame sections. Patel teaches a comprehensive methodology for analyzing force signals to detect oscillatory conditions, including: (i) identifying cyclical increase/decrease (sinusoidal waveform) in force signals (col. 7, lines 5–10); (ii) characterizing oscillations by magnitude (peak-to-peak amplitude) and frequency (1-3 Hz range); and (iii) comparing measured magnitudes to thresholds to make determinations about system state.
A PHOSITA seeking to enable Barrick's system to automatically determine when a wing frame section is experiencing "wing hop"—an oscillatory condition of that section—would naturally combine these teachings. Barrick already provides the multi-section force data (wing and central) and the framework for comparing parameters between sections. Patel provides the detailed analytical tools for quantifying oscillations (cyclicity, magnitude, frequency) and making threshold-based comparisons. Applying Patel's oscillation characterization techniques to both the wing and central draft force data from Barrick's system yields the first magnitude at a first frequency (for the wing) and the second magnitude at a second frequency (for the central section). Applying Patel's threshold comparison logic—combined with Barrick's existing framework for comparing parameters between sections—to determine when the wing oscillation magnitude exceeds the central oscillation magnitude by a threshold amount would be a straightforward integration of known analytical methods into a compatible data-rich environment, yielding the predictable result of accurately determining when the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop based on the specific comparative condition recited in the claim. This comparative approach advantageously distinguishes localized wing hop from global common-mode motion (such as whole-frame pitch or bounce affecting both sections), as a larger oscillation magnitude in the wing section relative to the central section reliably indicates a wing-specific oscillatory condition.
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural system of Claim 4, which is the basis for Claim 6.
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick discloses:
wherein the computing system is configured to determine that the wing frame section is experiencing rough ground instead of wing hop
“the controller may be configured to identify various ratios or patterns between the monitored parameters for two or more of the ground engaging tools 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F in addition to or in lieu of comparing the parameter differential to the minimum and/or maximum parameter differential thresholds.” ([0055]); “a maximum and/or minimum parameter differential threshold may be set for any pair of laterally and/or longitudinally spaced ground engaging tools …” ([0055])
Rationale: Barrick discloses a controller/computing determination based on comparing monitored parameters from different implement locations using ratios/patterns and thresholded differentials. This provides the decision framework for classifying a condition affecting a wing frame section, although Barrick does not explicitly recite the exact classification labels “rough ground” and “wing hop.”
and the first magnitude is within a threshold amount of the second magnitude.
“the minimum and maximum thresholds set for the predetermined differential range may correspond to parameter differential values between two or more of the longitudinally spaced ground engaging tools … encompassing a range of values …” ([0054]); “the controller may be configured to identify various ratios or patterns … in addition to or in lieu of comparing the parameter differential to the minimum and/or maximum parameter differential thresholds.” ([0055])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses threshold/range-based comparison of parameters between different tool locations. This teaches the threshold-comparison architecture used to determine whether one measured oscillation magnitude is within a threshold amount of another measured oscillation magnitude across different frame sections.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Barrick
Barrick does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
when the draft force on the wing frame section cyclically increases and decreases
by a first magnitude at a first frequency,
the draft force on the central frame section cyclically increases and decreases
by a second magnitude at a second frequency,
Disclosure by Patel
Patel teaches:
when the draft force on the wing frame section cyclically increases and decreases
“After filtering, the successive values of the force signal fluctuate both positively and negatively about a value of zero as the vehicle bounces and pitches up and down.” (col. 5, ll. 47–50); “Plotted as a waveform, the successive values of the filtered force signal will assume a roughly sinusoidal waveform …” (col. 7, ll. 51–53)
Rationale: Patel expressly teaches cyclical force-signal behavior (positive/negative fluctuation and sinusoidal waveform), which corresponds to force cyclically increasing and decreasing. Patel is relied upon here for the signal-characterization teaching (not for Barrick’s specific wing/central frame architecture). A PHOSITA would have recognized this same oscillatory characterization as applicable to section-specific draft-force signals in Barrick.
by a first magnitude at a first frequency,
“most agricultural tractor-and-implement combinations have bouncing and pitching frequencies that fall between 1 and 3 Hz.” (col. 5, ll. 21–24); “Since the bouncing and pitching can be modeled as a series of underdamped sinusoidal waveforms in the 1–3 Hz range …” (col. 5, ll. 34–36); “… the peak-to-peak amplitude is roughly equivalent to magnitude of the bouncing and pitching of the tractor.” (col. 7, ll. 53–55)
Rationale: Patel expressly teaches oscillation characterization by frequency (e.g., 1–3 Hz) and magnitude (peak-to-peak amplitude). This supplies the signal-analysis teaching for determining a first magnitude at a first frequency from a cyclic draft-force signal in the combined system.
the draft force on the central frame section cyclically increases and decreases
“After filtering, the successive values of the force signal fluctuate both positively and negatively about a value of zero as the vehicle bounces and pitches up and down.” (col. 5, ll. 47–50); “Plotted as a waveform, the successive values of the filtered force signal will assume a roughly sinusoidal waveform …” (col. 7, ll. 51–53)
Rationale: Patel again teaches the general oscillatory behavior of draft-force-related signals (cyclic increase/decrease via sinusoidal fluctuation). Barrick supplies the multi-section agricultural frame context (including wing and central sections), and Patel supplies the applicable oscillation-analysis method for the central section signal in the combined system.
by a second magnitude at a second frequency,
“most agricultural tractor-and-implement combinations have bouncing and pitching frequencies that fall between 1 and 3 Hz.” (col. 5, ll. 21–24); “… the peak-to-peak amplitude is roughly equivalent to magnitude of the bouncing and pitching of the tractor.” (col. 7, ll. 52–54); “logic circuit 80 compares the magnitude of the last calculated and stored maxima or minima with a predetermined reference value.” (col. 8, ll. 6–9)
Rationale: Patel expressly teaches extracting oscillation magnitude and frequency from force signals and comparing magnitude in logic circuitry. This provides the signal-characterization teaching for obtaining a second magnitude at a second frequency from another section signal in the combined Barrick-Patel system.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to modify Barrick’s controller-based multi-location agricultural implement monitoring system to apply Patel’s force-signal oscillation characterization (cyclical fluctuation, magnitude, and frequency extraction) to Barrick’s section-specific monitored parameters, including wing-section and central-section draft-force-related signals, so that the computing system could more robustly distinguish common-mode field-induced oscillations from localized section-specific oscillations using thresholded comparison logic.
Barrick and Patel are in the same agricultural implement control/monitoring field and address dynamic implement behavior using sensed force-related signals and controller logic. Barrick teaches comparing parameters across different implement locations using thresholds, ratios, and patterns, while Patel teaches a compatible and established technique for characterizing oscillatory force behavior by magnitude and frequency and evaluating such behavior in control logic. A PHOSITA would have had a rational basis to combine these teachings to improve condition classification using known signal-processing techniques in a predictable way.
In particular, with Barrick’s multi-location comparison framework and Patel’s oscillatory signal characterization, it would have been obvious to implement a determination that a wing frame section is experiencing rough ground instead of wing hop when the wing-section and central-section draft-force signals both cyclically increase/decrease and exhibit similar oscillatory signatures (e.g., magnitudes within a threshold amount, with corresponding frequencies), because such thresholded similarity analysis is a routine diagnostic approach for distinguishing common-mode excitation from localized instability in control systems. This conclusion is based on the combined teachings and PHOSITA knowledge, not on hindsight reconstruction.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 7.
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick discloses:
wherein the plurality of ground engaging tools
See at least: "the implement may include the ground engaging tools 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F" ([0028]); "the system 200 may include a plurality of the ground engaging tool assemblies 100 coupled to the frame 20 of the implement 10" ([0048])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses a plurality of ground engaging tools / assemblies on the implement, satisfying the antecedent “plurality of ground engaging tools.”
comprises a central disk gang on the central frame section
See at least: "the ground engaging tools 38B, 38C may be coupled to the main section 42 of the frame 20" ([0028]); "the frame 20 may include a main section 42 positioned centrally ..." ([0030]); "the ground engaging tool assembly 100 may include a gang or set 130 of disk blades 132 ... mounted to the implement frame 20 ..." ([0043]); "FIG. 5 simply illustrates a single gang 130 of disk blades 132 ... However, a person of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that any number of gangs 130 of disk blades 132 may similarly be provided ..." ([0045])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses (i) a central/main frame section and tools mounted thereto, and (ii) a disk gang assembly mounted to the implement frame. Although Barrick does not use the exact phrase “central disk gang,” a PHOSITA would have understood it to be an obvious/implicit implementation to use the disclosed disk gang assembly on the disclosed main section 42, especially in view of Barrick’s statement that any number of disk gangs may be provided.
and a wing disk gang on the wing frame section,
See at least: "the ground engaging tools 38A, 38E may be coupled to the first wing section 44 ... and the ground engaging tools 38D, 38F may be coupled to second wing 46 ..." ([0028]); "the frame 20 may also include a first wing section 44 ... [and] a second wing section 46 ..." ([0030]): "the ground engaging tool assembly 100 may include a gang or set 130 of disk blades 132 ..." ([0043])"any number of gangs 130 of disk blades 132 may similarly be provided ..." ([0045])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses wing frame sections with ground engaging tools mounted thereon, and separately discloses disk-gang tool assemblies with multiple gangs possible. A PHOSITA would have recognized the obvious/implicit application of the disclosed disk gang assembly as a wing-mounted disk gang on the disclosed wing section(s).
each of the central disk gang and the wing disk gang having a plurality of ground engaging disks rotatably coupled together by a shaft,
See at least: "the ground engaging tool assembly 100 may include a gang or set 130 of disk blades 132" ([0043]); "the gang 130 of disk blades 132 may be mounted to the implement frame 20 by two or more hangers 134" ([0043]); "FIG. 5 illustrates a front view of a further embodiment of a ground engaging tool assembly ..." ([0014])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses a disk gang having a plurality of disk blades (ground engaging disks). While the text of [0043] does not recite the word “shaft,” FIG. 5 depicts the gang structure (including the connecting member for the disks), and a PHOSITA would understand a disk gang of multiple disks mounted together and supported by hangers to be rotatably coupled by a shaft/axle as an inherent and conventional disk-gang construction.
the shaft of the central disk gang being supported by a first central hanger and a second central hanger on the central frame section,
See at least: "the gang 130 of disk blades 132 may be mounted to the implement frame 20 by two or more hangers 134" ([0043]); "the ground engaging tools 38B, 38C may be coupled to the main section 42 of the frame 20" ([0028]);; "the frame 20 may include a main section 42 positioned centrally ..." ([0030])"any number of gangs 130 of disk blades 132 may similarly be provided ..." ([0045])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses a disk gang mounted by “two or more hangers” and expressly discloses a central/main frame section with ground engaging tools mounted thereon. Applying the disclosed disk gang assembly to the disclosed central/main section (as an obvious/implicit placement) yields a central disk gang whose shaft is supported by at least two hangers, corresponding to a first central hanger and a second central hanger on the central frame section.
the shaft of the wing disk gang being supported by a first wing hanger and a second wing hanger on the wing frame section,
See at least: "the gang 130 of disk blades 132 may be mounted to the implement frame 20 by two or more hangers 134" ([0043]): "the ground engaging tools 38A, 38E may be coupled to the first wing section 44 ... and the ground engaging tools 38D, 38F may be coupled to second wing 46 ..." ([0028]): "the frame 20 may also include a first wing section 44 ... [and] a second wing section 46 ..." ([0030]): "any number of gangs 130 of disk blades 132 may similarly be provided ..." ([0045])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses the two-or-more-hanger support arrangement for a disk gang and expressly discloses wing frame sections carrying ground engaging tools. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious/implicit to mount a disclosed disk gang on a disclosed wing section using the same disclosed two-or-more-hanger support arrangement, thereby providing first and second wing hangers supporting the wing disk gang shaft.
wherein the wing sensor is coupled to one or more components of the wing disk gang.
See at least: "the assembly 100 may also include a sensor 120 configured to detect an operating parameter indicative of a force exerted on the gang 130 of disk blades 132 by the soil or ground" ([0044]): "the sensor 120 may be configured as a force sensor 136 ... coupled to one of the hangers 134" ([0044]): "a corresponding sensor 120 may be provided in operative association with each ground engaging tool 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F ..." ([0039]): "the ground engaging tools 38A, 38E may be coupled to the first wing section 44 ... and the ground engaging tools 38D, 38F may be coupled to second wing 46 ..." ([0028])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses a sensor coupled to a hanger of a disk gang (which is a component of the disk gang assembly) and further discloses sensors associated with the plural ground engaging tools, including tools on the wing section(s). Thus, Barrick discloses (explicitly and, as to “wing” placement, at least implicitly to a PHOSITA) a wing sensor coupled to one or more components of the wing disk gang.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to modify Barrick’s agricultural implement having a central frame section, wing frame sections, ground engaging tools, and sensor-based monitoring of tool loading/forces by incorporating Patel’s disk gang arrangement details, including central and wing disk gang structural support configurations (including shaft-supported gangs and hanger-supported mounting architecture) so as to implement the plurality of ground engaging tools in Barrick as explicitly configured central disk gang(s) on the central frame section and wing disk gang(s) on the wing frame section, while maintaining sensor coupling to components associated with the wing-mounted disk gang.
This combination would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions because both references are in the field of agricultural tillage implements and address frame-mounted ground engaging disk assemblies on central and wing sections. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to apply Patel’s known disk gang structural layout to Barrick’s sensor-enabled implement to provide a known and robust gang mounting arrangement (including shaft/hanger support organization) while preserving Barrick’s force/parameter sensing functionality on the gang components, thereby yielding the expected result of a wing/central disk-gang-based agricultural system with sensor integration for operational monitoring.
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural system of Claim 7, which is the basis for Claim 8.
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick discloses:
wherein the wing sensor
See at least: "a corresponding sensor 120 may be provided in operative association with each ground engaging tool 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F ..." ([0039]); "the ground engaging tools 38A, 38E may be coupled to the first wing section 44 ... and the ground engaging tools 38D, 38F may be coupled to second wing 46 ..." ([0028])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses sensor(s) associated with tools located on the wing section(s), which corresponds to the claimed wing sensor in the Claim 7 system context.
comprises a first wing sensor
See at least: "a corresponding sensor 120 may be provided in operative association with each ground engaging tool 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F ..." ([0039]); "the assembly 100 may also include a sensor 120 ..." ([0044])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses multiple corresponding sensor arrangements across multiple tools, including wing-mounted tools. In the Claim 7 wing disk gang/hanger context, a PHOSITA would have understood at least one such wing-associated sensor to be a first wing sensor.
coupled to the first wing hanger
"the gang 130 of disk blades 132 may be mounted to the implement frame 20 by two or more hangers 134" ([0043]); "the sensor 120 may be configured as a force sensor 136 ... coupled to one of the hangers 134" ([0044])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses a disk gang mounted by two or more hangers and a sensor coupled to one of the hangers. In the Claim 7 configuration (wing disk gang on the wing frame section with first and second wing hangers), a PHOSITA would have recognized the disclosed hanger-coupled sensor as corresponding to a sensor coupled to the first wing hanger.
and further comprises a second wing sensor
See at least: "a corresponding sensor 120 may be provided in operative association with each ground engaging tool 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F ..." ([0039])"the sensor 120 may generally correspond to any suitable sensor(s) or sensing device(s) ..." ([0044]); "FIG. 5 simply illustrates a single gang 130 of disk blades 132 ... However, a person of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that any number of gangs 130 of disk blades 132 may similarly be provided ..." ([0045])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses plural/corresponding sensors and sensor(s), and further teaches scalable multi-gang implementations. In the Claim 7 wing-gang configuration having first and second wing hangers, providing an additional wing sensor (i.e., a second wing sensor) is an obvious duplication of Barrick’s hanger-based sensing arrangement to monitor load at both hanger support locations.
coupled to the second wing hanger.
See at least: "the gang 130 of disk blades 132 may be mounted to the implement frame 20 by two or more hangers 134" ([0043]); "the sensor 120 may be configured as a force sensor 136 ... coupled to one of the hangers 134" ([0044])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses the two-or-more hanger arrangement and hanger-coupled force sensor. Given the Claim 7 wing disk gang with first and second wing hangers, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to couple a second wing sensor to the other hanger (i.e., the second wing hanger) to obtain distributed/support-point force information using the same Barrick sensing technique, yielding predictable monitoring improvement without changing principle of operation.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to implement the Claim 7 agricultural system combination with the Claim 8 wing-sensor arrangement by using Barrick’s hanger-coupled force sensor architecture on the wing disk gang hangers (including duplicating the sensor arrangement across the first and second wing hangers as an obvious symmetric implementation) while retaining Patel’s force-based implement monitoring/control compatibility in the overall system.
Both references are in the agricultural implement force-monitoring/control field, and the modification uses Barrick’s expressly disclosed hanger-mounted sensor approach in a predictable way on the already-established wing disk gang/hanger structure of the Claim 7 combination. A PHOSITA would have had reason to place sensing at both wing hanger support points to improve force/load observability across the wing disk gang and support more robust monitoring/control decisions, which is a straightforward application of known sensor placement principles to known gang support locations.
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural system of Claim 7, which is the basis for Claim 9.
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick discloses:
wherein the wing sensor
See at least: "a corresponding sensor 120 may be provided in operative association with each ground engaging tool 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F …" ([0039]); "the ground engaging tools 38B, 38C may be coupled to the main section 42 … while … 38A, 38E may be coupled to the first wing section 44 … and … 38D, 38F may be coupled to second wing 46" ([0028])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses sensor(s) associated with tools located on the wing section(s), corresponding to the wing sensor in the Claim 7 system context.
comprises at least one of a strain gauge or a load cell
See at least: "For example, the sensor 120 may be configured as a force sensor 136 (e.g., a load cell, strain gauge, or other suitable force transducer) …" ([0044])
Rationale: Barrick expressly recites a strain gauge or a load cell as examples of the disclosed force sensor 136, directly matching the claimed sensor type limitation.
coupled between the wing disk gang and the wing frame section.
See at least: "the gang 130 of disk blades 132 may be mounted to the implement frame 20 by two or more hangers 134" ([0043]); "the sensor 120 may be configured as a force sensor 136 … coupled to one of the hangers 134" ([0044])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses the gang-to-frame mounting through hangers and expressly discloses the sensor coupled to a hanger. In the Claim 7 wing configuration, the hanger is structurally between the wing disk gang and the wing frame section, so Barrick discloses (at least implicitly to a PHOSITA) the sensor coupled between the wing disk gang and the wing frame section.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to implement the Claim 7 agricultural system combination with the Claim 9 wing-sensor construction by using Barrick’s expressly disclosed force sensor 136 (e.g., load cell, strain gauge) coupled to a hanger 134 in the disk gang-to-frame load path on the already-established wing disk gang/wing frame section structure, while retaining the force-monitoring/control compatibility reflected in Patel.
Both references are in the agricultural implement force-monitoring/control field, and the resulting arrangement is a predictable application of a known force transducer placement in a known structural load path. A PHOSITA would have recognized that placing a strain gauge/load cell at the hanger location between the wing disk gang and wing frame section provides direct force-indicative measurement for wing-gang loading without changing the principle of operation of the combined Claim 7 system.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural system of Claim 7, which is the basis for Claim 10.
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick discloses:
wherein the wing sensor comprises at least one of a strain gauge, a load cell, a potentiometer, or an accelerometer.
See at least: "For example , the sensor 120 may be configured as a force sensor 136 ( e . g . , a load cell , strain gauge , or other suitable force transducer ) coupled to one of the hangers 134 ." ([0044]); "For example , the sensor 120 may be configured as a rotary sensor 122 ( e . g . , a rotary potentiometer or a magnetic rotary sensor ) ..." ([0037]); "For instance , the sensor 120 may correspond to a linear potentiometer , a proximity sensor , and / or any other suitable transducer ..." ([0038])Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses a load cell, a strain gauge, and a potentiometer (including a rotary potentiometer and a linear potentiometer) as sensor implementations for sensor 120. Because the claim recites at least one of the listed sensor types, Barrick alone expressly satisfies this limitation through its disclosure of strain gauge, load cell, and potentiometer sensor options.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to maintain the previously combined Claim 7 agricultural system and implement the Claim 10 wing-sensor type limitation using Barrick’s expressly disclosed sensor alternatives (including load cell, strain gauge, and potentiometer) for the wing sensor, while recognizing Patel’s confirmation that agricultural implement force/position monitoring systems conventionally use interchangeable transducer types in this field.
Patel further reinforces the predictability of sensor substitution/selection in agricultural implement monitoring by teaching that force and position transducers may be replaced with other sensor types, including strain gauges and accelerometers, which is consistent with PHOSITA knowledge regarding equivalent sensing technologies for force/strain/oscillation monitoring in agricultural implements.
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 12.
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick discloses:
wherein the computing system is configured to automatically control the operation of the agricultural implement
See at least: "the controller 202 may be configured to automatically control the operation of one or more components of the implement 10" ([0059])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses a controller (i.e., computing system) configured to automatically control the operation of the agricultural implement.
to adjust at least one of a down pressure on the wing frame section
See at least: "the wing sections 44, 46 of the frame 20 may be configured to be pivotable relative to the main frame section 42 of the frame 20 . As such , one or more actuators 220 may be used to adjust the position of the first and / or second wing sections 44 , 46 relative to the main frame section 42 …" ([0066])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses actuator-based adjustment of the wing sections 44, 46 relative to the main frame section. A PHOSITA would understand that changing wing-section position via actuators changes the load transfer/force distribution at the wing section during operation, thereby adjusting down pressure on the wing frame section.
a height of a wheel on the central frame section
See at least: "FIG . 8 illustrates … the system including an actuator for adjusting a position of a wheel relative to the implement ’ s frame" ([0017]); "Pivoting the wheel 32, 34 upward relative to the frame 20 … or pivoting the wheels 32, 34 downward relative to the frame 20 … may, for example, allow for a corresponding reduction in the roll of the frame 20 ." ([0066])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses actuator-based adjustment of wheel position relative to the frame (including upward/downward pivoting), which corresponds to adjusting a height of a wheel relative to the frame. In Claim 1, the implement architecture has a central/main frame section and wing sections. A PHOSITA would understand at least one disclosed frame-supported wheel as satisfying a wheel on the central frame section (implicit placement within the known multi-section implement frame arrangement).
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to implement the Claim 1 agricultural system combination with the Claim 12 automatic-control functionality by using Barrick’s controller-based automatic implement control and actuator-driven frame/wing/wheel position adjustment in view of Patel’s force/position-responsive agricultural implement control circuitry and hydraulic actuator control architecture, so that the computing system automatically controls implement operation to adjust operational/positional parameters of the implement.
Both references are in the agricultural implement monitoring/control field and teach controller-driven adjustment of implement-related positions/loads using sensed signals and actuator control. A PHOSITA would have found their combination technically compatible and predictably useful for automatically adjusting implement operating conditions (including wing/frame/wheel-related adjustments) to improve implement stability, levelness, and dynamic performance during operation.
Regarding Claim 13,
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick teaches:
An agricultural method
See at least: "As shown in FIG . 10 , at ( 302 ) , the method 300 may include receiving , with a computing device ..." ([0073])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses An agricultural method by reciting “the method 300” for an agricultural implement.
of an agricultural implement,
See at least: "receiving , with a computing device , data associated with a first parameter indicative of a force exerted on a first ground engaging tool of an agricultural implement by the ground ..." ([0073])
Rationale: Barrick expressly recites the claimed method as being of an agricultural implement.
the agricultural implement
See at least: "the implement may include the ground engaging tools 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F ..." ([0028])
Rationale: Barrick expressly identifies the agricultural implement and its components.
comprising a central frame section
See at least: "the frame 20 may include a main section 42 positioned centrally ..." ([0030])
Rationale: Barrick’s “main section 42 positioned centrally” expressly discloses comprising a central frame section.
and a wing frame section pivotably coupled to the central frame section,
See at least: "the frame 20 may also include a first wing section 44 and a second wing section 46 ..." ([0030]); "The first and second wing sections 44, 46 may be pivotally coupled to the main section 42 ..." ([0030])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses a wing section (first/second wing sections 44, 46) pivotably coupled to the central frame section (main section 42).
the central frame section and the wing frame section supporting a plurality of ground engaging tools
See at least: "the ground engaging tools 38B, 38C may be coupled to the main section 42 ... while the ground engaging tools 38A, 38E may be coupled to the first wing section 44 ... and the ground engaging tools 38D, 38F may be coupled to second wing 46 ..." ([0028])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses the central/main section and wing section(s) each supporting ground engaging tools, and collectively supporting a plurality of ground engaging tools.
configured to engage a field during an agricultural operation,
See at least: "a force exerted on a first ground engaging tool of an agricultural implement by the ground ..." ([0073]); "parameters indicative of forces exerted on the ground engaging tools ... by the soil" ([0073])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses ground engaging tools experiencing forces from the ground/soil during implement use, which teaches tools configured to engage a field during an agricultural operation.
the agricultural method comprising:
See at least: "As shown in FIG . 10 , at ( 302 ) , the method 300 may include ..." ([0073]); "Additionally , at ( 304 ) , the method 300 may include ..." ([0074])"Moreover , as shown in FIG . 10 , at ( 306 ) , the method 300 may include ..." ([0075])
Rationale: Barrick expressly presents a stepwise method sequence, thereby disclosing the agricultural method comprising: followed by recited method acts.
receiving, with a computing system, data indicative of a draft force on the wing frame section during the agricultural operation;
See at least: "the controller 202 may be communicatively coupled to sensors 120 configured to monitor parameters indicative of forces exerted on the ground engaging tools 38A , 38B , 38C , 38D , 38E , 38F by the soil . As such , measurement signals or sensor data 208 transmitted from the sensors 120 may be received by the controller 202 ..." ([0073]); "the ground engaging tools 38A, 38E may be coupled to the first wing section 44 ... and the ground engaging tools 38D, 38F may be coupled to second wing 46 ..." ([0028])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses receiving, with a computing system (controller 202), sensor data indicative of forces on wing-mounted ground engaging tools. A PHOSITA would understand those soil-resisting forces on wing-mounted tools as data indicative of draft force on the wing frame section during the agricultural operation.
monitoring, with the computing system, the draft force on the wing frame section based at least in part on the data;
See at least: "the controller 202 may be configured to monitor one or more parameters indicative of the forces exerted on at least two of the ground engaging tools ... by the ground based on the measurement signals 208 received from the associated sensors 120" ([0051]); "measurement signals or sensor data 208 transmitted from the sensors 120 may be received by the controller 202 for monitoring the parameter values ..." ([0073])
Rationale: Barrick expressly teaches monitoring, with the computing system force-indicative parameters based at least in part on the data received from sensors. In the disclosed wing-tool context, this teaches monitoring draft force on the wing frame section from wing-sensor-derived data.
controlling, with the computing system, an operation of the agricultural implement
See at least: "the controller 202 may be configured to automatically control the operation of one or more components of the implement 10" ([0059]); "the method 300 may include initiating , with the computing device , a control action ..." ([0075])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses controlling, with the computing system, an operation of the agricultural implement via controller-initiated control action.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Barrick
Barrick does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
An agricultural method for identifying wing hop
determining, with the computing system, whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section;
and controlling, with the computing system, an operation of the agricultural implement when it is determined that the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop when it is determined that the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop.
Disclosure by Patel
Patel teaches:
An agricultural method for identifying wing hop for identifying wing hop
See at least: "logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch 'activity.' If there is hitch 'activity,' the tractor is bouncing or pitching ..." (col. 7, lines 31-34)
Rationale: Patel expressly teaches a computing logic that identifies an oscillatory condition ("bouncing or pitching"). A PHOSITA would recognize this as an applicable oscillation-identification technique for identifying wing hop in a winged implement system.
determining, with the computing system, whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop
See at least: "logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch 'activity.' If there is hitch 'activity,' the tractor is bouncing or pitching ..." (col. 7, lines 31-34)
Rationale: Patel expressly discloses a logic circuit (computing system) determining whether an oscillatory condition exists. A PHOSITA would apply the same determination logic to a wing section to determine whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop.
based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section; and
See at least: "a force transducer to provide a force signal indicative of a force applied to the hitch by an implement" (col. 2, lines 33-34); "The filtered force signal ... is the 1-3 Hz component of the force measured at the load pins ..." (col. 7, lines 48-51)
Rationale: Patel expressly teaches oscillation determination based on a force-transducer signal indicative of implement-applied hitch force (i.e., draft-related force). A PHOSITA would use this force-signal-based determination technique with Barrick’s wing force data, thereby determining wing hop based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section.
when it is determined that the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop.
See at least: "logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch 'activity.' If there is hitch 'activity,' (Col. 7, lines 31-34) ”... the current command provided by the PD controller circuit 78 should be employed to reduce the bouncing or pitching." (col. 7, lines 33-38); "control circuit 52 is responsive to ... force transducer 48 to generate a valve signal ... To raise or lower the implement 46, the hydraulic actuator 38 is moved." (col. 4, lines 45-55)
Rationale: Patel expressly teaches conditional control responsive to a determination of oscillatory activity, i.e., control is applied when it is determined that the oscillatory condition exists. This directly supports Barrick’s claimed conditional control timing for wing-hop response.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to modify Barrick’s agricultural method for receiving and monitoring force-indicative sensor data from wing-mounted ground engaging tools and controlling implement operation to incorporate Patel’s force-signal-based oscillation determination and conditional control logic, so that the computing system determines whether a wing frame section is experiencing wing hop based at least in part on draft-force-indicative data and controls implement operation when that condition is determined.
Barrick and Patel are in the same agricultural implement control field and teach compatible controller/sensor/actuator architectures. Barrick provides the winged implement structure, wing-mounted force-indicative sensing, and controller-based monitoring/control framework, while Patel provides a well-established signal-processing and decision/control technique for identifying oscillatory implement behavior from force signals and triggering corrective control. A PHOSITA would have had a rational basis to combine these teachings to achieve predictable automatic detection and response to wing hop in a winged agricultural implement.
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural method of Claim 13, which is the basis for Claim 14.
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
wherein determining whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop comprises determining that the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop when the draft force on the wing frame section cyclically increases and decreases by at least a first magnitude with at least a first frequency.
Disclosure by Patel
Patel teaches:
wherein determining whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop comprises
See at least: "logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch 'activity…” (col. 7, lines 31-33); "This program is repeatedly executed by logic circuit 80 every ten milliseconds while control system 52 is enabled." (col. 6, line 57-59)
Rationale: Patel expressly teaches a computing/logic circuit making a repeated oscillation-condition determination, which teaches determining whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop when applied to Barrick’s wing-frame agricultural method context.
determining that the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop when the draft force on the wing frame section cyclically increases and decreases
See at least: "Since the bouncing and pitching can be modeled as a series of underdamped sinusoidal waveforms in the 1-3 Hz range ..." (col. 5, lines 34-36); "After filtering, the successive values of the force signal fluctuate both positively and negatively about a value of zero as the vehicle bounces and pitches up and down." (col. 5, lines 47-50); "logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch 'activity.' If there is hitch 'activity,' the tractor is bouncing or pitching ..." (col. 7, lines 31-33)
Rationale: Patel expressly teaches an oscillatory condition identified from a force signal that behaves as sinusoidal waveforms and whose successive values fluctuate positively and negatively, which teaches force behavior that cyclically increases and decreases. A PHOSITA would have applied this force-oscillation determination technique to Barrick’s wing-frame-section draft-force data to determine wing hop.
by at least a first magnitude with at least a first frequency.
See at least: "Since the bouncing and pitching can be modeled as a series of underdamped sinusoidal waveforms in the 1-3 Hz range ..." (col. 5, lines 34-36); "If the vehicle is stopped, or there is very little discernable bouncing or pitching, the force signal stays close to zero, typically ranging from +5 to -5 counts..." (col. 5, lines 50-54); "The PD controller circuit 78 receives the filtered force signal ..." (col. 6, lines 5-6); "The two coefficients are empirically determined such that the sum will reduce the pitching and bouncing ..." (col. 6, lines 13-15)
Rationale: Patel expressly teaches a frequency characteristic (1-3 Hz range) for the oscillatory force signal, satisfying with at least a first frequency. Patel also expressly distinguishes oscillation conditions by force-signal excursion level (e.g., near-zero range versus bouncing/pitching conditions), which teaches a thresholdable oscillation magnitude criterion and supports by at least a first magnitude.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to modify Barrick’s Claim 13 agricultural method for force-based monitoring and control of a winged agricultural implement by incorporating Patel’s force-signal oscillation-detection criteria (including cyclic fluctuation behavior, oscillation magnitude significance, and frequency-band characterization) so that Barrick’s computing system determines wing-hop occurrence from wing-section draft-force data using a cyclic/magnitude/frequency-based determination.
Barrick provides the winged implement architecture, wing-associated force-indicative sensing, computing-device monitoring, and control-action framework, while Patel provides a compatible agricultural implement control technique that identifies oscillatory behavior from force-signal characteristics and uses that determination in control logic. A PHOSITA would have had a rational basis to use Patel’s known signal-analysis approach in Barrick’s wing-force monitoring context to obtain predictable detection of wing hop from cyclic force variation patterns.
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural method of Claim 13, which is the basis for Claim 15.
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick discloses:
further comprising: receiving, with the computing system, data indicative of draft force on the central frame section during the agricultural operation;
"the controller 202 may be communicatively coupled to the various sensors 120 … to allow measurement signals (e.g., indicated by dashed lines 208 in FIG. 6) to be transmitted from the sensors 120 to the controller 202" ([0051]); "the ground engaging tools 38B, 38C may be coupled to the main section 42 of the frame 20" ([0028]); "the sensor 120 may be configured to detect an operating parameter indicative of a force exerted on the ground engaging tool 38 by the soil or ground" ([0037])
Rationale: Barrick discloses a controller (computing system) receiving measurement signals (data) from sensors, including sensors on ground engaging tools coupled to the main (central) frame section (38B, 38C). The sensors detect parameters indicative of force exerted by the soil, which is draft force. Thus, Barrick discloses receiving data indicative of draft force on the central frame section during the agricultural operation.
and monitoring, with the computing system, the draft force on the central frame section
"the controller 202 may be configured to monitor one or more parameters indicative of the forces exerted on at least two of the ground engaging tools 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F by the ground" ([0051])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses that the controller monitors force-indicative parameters from ground engaging tools, including those on the central frame section (e.g., tools 38B, 38C). Monitoring parameters from central-mounted tools constitutes monitoring the draft force on the central frame section.
based at least in part on the data indicative of the draft force on the central frame section,
"the controller 202 may be configured to monitor one or more parameters indicative of the forces exerted on at least two of the ground engaging tools 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F by the ground based on the measurement signals 208 received from the associated sensors 120" ([0051])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses that monitoring is based on measurement signals (data) received from sensors, including central sensors. Thus, monitoring the draft force on the central frame section is performed at least in part based on data indicative of the draft force on the central frame section.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Barrick
Barrick does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein determining whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop comprises
determining whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop
based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section and the draft force on the central frame section.
Disclosure by Patel
Patel teaches:
wherein determining whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop comprises
See at least: "logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch 'activity.' If there is hitch 'activity,' the tractor is bouncing or pitching, and thus the current command provided by the PD controller circuit 78 should be employed to reduce the bouncing or pitching." (col. 7, lines 31–34)
Rationale: Patel teaches a method where determining whether an oscillatory condition ("bouncing or pitching") is occurring comprises using a computing system (logic circuit 80) to analyze force signals. A PHOSITA would recognize that this oscillation determination logic is transferable to determining whether a wing frame section is experiencing wing hop, as wing hop similarly involves cyclical force variations detectable from draft force signals.
determining whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop
See at least: "logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch 'activity.' If there is hitch 'activity,' the tractor is bouncing or pitching, and thus the current command provided by the PD controller circuit 78 should be employed to reduce the bouncing or pitching." (col. 7, lines 31–34)
Rationale: Patel teaches a method where a computing system determines whether an oscillatory condition ("bouncing or pitching") is occurring. Patel's method provides analogous oscillatory-condition detection logic that a PHOSITA would apply to determine whether a wing frame section is experiencing wing hop based on force-signal behavior.
Claim Limitations Rendered Obvious by the Combination of Barrick and Patel
based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section and the draft force on the central frame section.
See at least:
Barrick: "the controller 202 may be configured to monitor one or more parameters indicative of the forces exerted on at least two of the ground engaging tools 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F by the ground" ([0051]); "the controller 202 may be configured to compare the parameter differential that currently exists between two or more of the longitudinally spaced ground engaging tools 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F to a desired parameter differential range" ([0054])
Patel: "logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch 'activity.' If there is hitch 'activity,' the tractor is bouncing or pitching, and thus the current command provided by the PD controller circuit 78 should be employed to reduce the bouncing or pitching." (col. 7, lines 31–34)
Rationale: Barrick provides (i) force-indicative monitoring data from ground engaging tools on both the wing frame section (38A, 38E, 38D, 38F) and the central frame section (38B, 38C), and (ii) a framework for comparing parameters between different frame sections to determine implement conditions. Patel teaches using a computing/logic circuit to determine whether oscillatory "activity" is occurring from force-signal behavior. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to apply Patel's oscillation/activity determination to Barrick's available draft-force-indicative inputs from both the wing section and the central section (i.e., using both signals as the force-signal basis) because cyclical oscillation of an implement section under draft load produces corresponding periodic force-signal activity, and using multiple section force inputs improves the accuracy of oscillation detection by allowing the system to distinguish localized wing hop from common-mode motion affecting both sections. Thus, determining whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop based at least in part on both the wing and central draft forces is a predictable application of Patel's determination logic to Barrick's multi-section force data and comparative framework.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to modify the agricultural method of Barrick to incorporate Patel's oscillation determination logic and to apply that determination based on both wing and central draft forces, as recited in Claim 15.
Barrick provides an agricultural method that includes receiving and monitoring draft force data from both wing-mounted sensors (on tools 38A, 38E, 38D, 38F) and central-mounted sensors (on tools 38B, 38C), and further provides a framework for comparing parameters between different frame sections. Patel teaches a method for determining whether an oscillatory condition ("bouncing or pitching") is occurring based on analysis of draft force signals.
A PHOSITA seeking to enhance Barrick's method to more accurately determine whether a wing frame section is experiencing wing hop would naturally combine these teachings. Barrick already provides the multi-section force data (wing and central) needed for a more robust determination. Patel provides the core logic for determining the presence of an oscillatory condition from draft force data. Applying Patel's determination logic to both the wing and central draft force data available in Barrick's method would be a straightforward integration of a known technique into a compatible methodological framework, yielding the predictable result of determining whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop based on both wing and central draft forces. This combined approach allows the method to distinguish localized wing oscillation from common-mode motion affecting both sections, improving detection accuracy.
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural method of Claim 15, which is the basis for Claim 16.
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick teaches:
Agricultural method,
See at least: “In general , the present subject matter is directed to systems and methods for monitoring frame levelness of an agricultural implement …” ([0023])
Rationale: This provides the same agricultural implement “method” context established for Claim 3, corresponding to a base system.
comparing the draft force on the wing frame section to the draft force on the central frame section.
See at least: “...the ground engaging tools 38B , 38C may be coupled to the main section 42 of the frame 20 , while the ground engaging tools 38A , 38E may be coupled to the first wing section 44 of the frame 20 ...” ([0033]); “...the controller may be configured to compare the parameter differential that currently exists between two or more of the longitudinally spaced ground engaging tools 38A , 38B , 38C , 38D , 38E , 38F ...” ([0054]); “...when the monitored parameter differential between two or more of the longitudinally spaced ground engaging tools 38A , 38B , 38C , 38D , 38E , 38F falls outside of the predetermined differential range , the controller may determine that the implement frame 20 has experienced a given amount of pitching ...” ([0054])
Rationale: Barrick expressly discloses ground engaging tools coupled to the main section 42 (central frame section) and ground engaging tools coupled to the first wing section 44 (wing frame section), and further expressly discloses the controller comparing a “parameter differential” between two or more tools (including longitudinally spaced tools) and using the compared differential for computing determinations. Since Barrick’s monitored parameters are “indicative of the forces exerted … by the ground” (see [0051] in Barrick’s disclosure) and the tools are supported on different frame sections, the disclosed comparison of parameter differentials between a wing-supported tool and a main-section-supported tool constitutes comparing the draft-force-indicative values attributable to the wing frame section to those attributable to the central frame section.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Barrick
Barrick does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
wherein determining whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section and the draft force on the central frame section
Disclosure by Patel
Patel teaches:
wherein determining whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop
See at least: “logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch “activity.” If there is hitch “activity,” the tractor is bouncing or pitching ...” (col. 7, ll. 31–34)
Rationale: Patel expressly discloses a computing/logic circuit that “determines whether” an oscillatory condition is occurring based on sensed “activity,” and associates such activity with “bouncing or pitching.” A PHOSITA would apply this same oscillation-determination technique to determine whether an implement wing frame section is experiencing cyclical oscillation (wing hop), because cyclical structural oscillation under draft load produces corresponding measurable force-signal activity that can be evaluated by the same “determine whether … activity” logic.
Claim Limitations Rendered Obvious by the Combination of Barrick and Patel
based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section and the draft force on the central frame section
See at least:
Barrick: “...the ground engaging tools 38B , 38C may be coupled to the main section 42 ... while ... 38A , 38E may be coupled to the first wing section 44 ...” ([0033]); “...the controller 202 may be configured to monitor one or more parameters indicative of the forces exerted on at least two of the ground engaging tools 38A , 38B , 38C , 38D , 38E , 38F by the ground ...” ([0051])
Patel: “logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch “activity.” If there is hitch “activity,” the tractor is bouncing or pitching ...” (col. 7, ll. 31–34)
Rationale: Barrick expressly provides force-indicative monitored parameters (“forces exerted … by the ground”) for plural tools distributed across different frame sections, including tools coupled to the main section (central frame section) and tools coupled to a wing section (wing frame section), thereby providing draft-force-indicative inputs attributable to both the wing frame section and the central frame section. Patel expressly teaches using computing/logic circuitry to “determine whether” oscillatory activity is present. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to use Patel’s oscillation/activity determination on the draft-force-indicative inputs from both the wing section and the central section in Barrick (i.e., using both signals as inputs) because oscillation of the wing section relative to the central frame section would inherently manifest as periodic force-signal activity in the wing draft-force-indicative measurements relative to central draft-force-indicative measurements, and using both section forces as inputs yields the predictable result of a more robust oscillation determination.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to modify the agricultural system of Barrick (which provides a winged implement having tools coupled to a wing section and tools coupled to a central main section, and a controller configured to monitor force-indicative parameters from such tools and compare parameter differentials) by incorporating Patel’s oscillation determination logic (logic circuit determining whether force-related “activity” indicates bouncing/pitching), and to perform that oscillation determination using both (i) wing-section draft-force-indicative data and (ii) central-section draft-force-indicative data available in Barrick, because both references address agricultural equipment under draft load using force-related sensing and computing logic, and applying Patel’s established “determine whether … activity” oscillation technique to Barrick’s available wing-versus-central force inputs would have predictably enabled determining whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop based at least in part on the draft force on the wing frame section and the draft force on the central frame section, including by comparing the wing-associated and central-associated draft-force-indicative values.
Regarding Claim 17,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural system of Claim 16, which is the basis for Claim 5.
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein determining whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop comprises determining that the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop when the draft force on the wing frame section cyclically increases and decreases by a first magnitude at a first frequency, the draft force on the central frame section cyclically increases and decreases by a second magnitude at a second frequency, and the first magnitude is greater than the second magnitude by a threshold amount.
Disclosure by Patel
Patel discloses:
wherein determining whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop comprises determining that the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop
See at least: "logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch 'activity.' If there is hitch 'activity,' the tractor is bouncing or pitching, and thus the current command provided by the PD controller circuit 78 should be employed to reduce the bouncing or pitching." (col. 7, lines 31–34)
Rationale: Patel teaches a computing system (control circuit with logic circuit 80) configured to determine that an oscillatory condition ("bouncing or pitching") is occurring based on analysis of force signals. A PHOSITA would recognize that this force-signal-based oscillation detection technique is directly applicable to detecting "wing hop"—an oscillatory condition of a wing frame section—because wing hop likewise produces cyclical force variations in the draft force signals from the wing-mounted sensors.
when the draft force on the wing frame section cyclically increases and decreases
"The filtered force signal in the preferred embodiment is the 1-3 Hz component of the force measured at the load pins. Plotted as a waveform, the successive values of the filtered force signal will assume a roughly sinusoidal waveform" (col. 7, lines 49–51)
Rationale: Patel teaches that oscillatory conditions are detected when the force signal exhibits a sinusoidal waveform—i.e., when the force signal cyclically increases and decreases. A PHOSITA would apply this same signal-based criterion to the draft force on a wing frame section to determine when that section is experiencing wing hop.
by a first magnitude at a first frequency,
"The filtered force signal ... will assume a roughly sinusoidal waveform where the peak-to-peak amplitude is roughly equivalent to magnitude of the bouncing and pitching of the tractor." (col. 7, lines 49–55); "the bouncing and pitching can be modeled as a series of underdamped sinusoidal waveforms in the 1-3 Hz range" (col. 5, lines 34–37)
Rationale: Patel explicitly teaches that oscillatory force signals are characterized by both a magnitude (peak-to-peak amplitude) and a frequency (the 1-3 Hz range). A PHOSITA would apply these same characterization parameters to the draft force on a wing frame section.
Claim Limitations Rendered Obvious by the Combination of Barrick and Patel
the draft force on the central frame section cyclically increases and decreases
See at least:
Barrick: "a corresponding sensor 120 may be provided in operative association with each ground engaging tool 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F … the sensor 120 may be configured to detect an operating parameter indicative of a force exerted on the ground engaging tool 38 by the soil or ground" ([0037], [0039]); "the ground engaging tools 38B, 38C may be coupled to the main section 42 of the frame 20" ([0028])
Patel: "The filtered force signal ... will assume a roughly sinusoidal waveform" (col. 7, lines 49–51)
Rationale: Barrick provides a central sensor (associated with tools 38B, 38C on main section 42) that generates data indicative of draft force on the central frame section. Patel teaches that force signals from implement components under load exhibit cyclical sinusoidal behavior during oscillatory conditions. A PHOSITA would recognize that the draft force on the central frame section, as monitored by Barrick's central sensor, would also exhibit cyclical increases and decreases during operation, and Patel's teachings about force signal behavior apply equally to any force signal from the implement. Applying Patel's signal analysis principles to Barrick's central force data renders it obvious that the central draft force cyclically increases and decreases.
by a second magnitude at a second frequency,
See at least:
Barrick: "a corresponding sensor 120 may be provided in operative association with each ground engaging tool 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F … the sensor 120 may be configured to detect an operating parameter indicative of a force exerted on the ground engaging tool 38 by the soil or ground" ([0037], [0039]); "the ground engaging tools 38B, 38C may be coupled to the main section 42 of the frame 20" ([0028])
Patel: "The filtered force signal ... will assume a roughly sinusoidal waveform where the peak-to-peak amplitude is roughly equivalent to magnitude of the bouncing and pitching of the tractor." (col. 7, lines 52–55); "the bouncing and pitching can be modeled as a series of underdamped sinusoidal waveforms in the 1-3 Hz range" (col. 5, lines 34–35)
Rationale: Patel teaches that any force signal exhibiting oscillatory behavior will have an associated magnitude (peak-to-peak amplitude) and frequency (within a characteristic range). Barrick provides the central draft force signal. A PHOSITA would apply Patel's characterization parameters—magnitude and frequency—to the central draft force signal to quantify its oscillatory behavior, yielding a second magnitude and a second frequency. This is a predictable application of Patel's signal analysis technique to the central force data already present in Barrick's system.
and the first magnitude is greater than the second magnitude by a threshold amount.
See at least:
Barrick: "the controller 202 may be configured to compare the parameter differential that currently exists between two or more of the longitudinally spaced ground engaging tools 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F to a desired parameter differential range" ([0054])
Patel: "logic circuit 80 compares the magnitude of the last calculated and Stored maxima or minima with a predetermined reference value" (col. 8, lines 6–8)
Rationale: Barrick provides the framework for comparing parameters (including force-indicative values) between different frame sections (e.g., wing and central) and evaluating them relative to a range or threshold. Patel provides the concept of comparing a measured magnitude to a reference value or threshold to make a determination about system state. A PHOSITA would combine these teachings to compare the magnitude of wing force oscillation (first magnitude) to the magnitude of central force oscillation (second magnitude), and determine that wing hop exists when the wing magnitude exceeds the central magnitude by a threshold amount. This comparative approach allows the system to discriminate localized wing hop from global common-mode motion (such as whole-frame pitch or bounce affecting both sections), as a larger oscillation magnitude in the wing section relative to the central section is indicative of the wing-specific oscillatory condition. Applying Patel's threshold-based comparison logic to Barrick's comparative multi-section data is a straightforward integration of known techniques, yielding the predictable result of the claimed condition.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to configure the computing system of Barrick's agricultural system to determine that the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop when the draft force on the wing frame section cyclically increases and decreases by a first magnitude at a first frequency, the draft force on the central frame section cyclically increases and decreases by a second magnitude at a second frequency, and the first magnitude is greater than the second magnitude by a threshold amount, by applying Patel's force-signal-based oscillation detection and characterization techniques to Barrick's multi-section draft force data and comparative framework.
Barrick provides a winged agricultural implement with sensors that generate data indicative of draft force on both the wing frame section (via tools 38A, 38E on wing sections 44, 46) and the central frame section (via tools 38B, 38C on main section 42), and a computing system (controller 202) configured to monitor these draft forces and compare parameter differentials between ground engaging tools on different frame sections ([0028], [0037], [0039], [0051], [0054]). Patel teaches a comprehensive methodology for analyzing force signals to detect oscillatory conditions, including: (i) identifying cyclical increase/decrease (sinusoidal waveform) in force signals (col. 7, lines 5–10); (ii) characterizing oscillations by magnitude (peak-to-peak amplitude) and frequency (1-3 Hz range) (col. 7, lines 1–10); and (iii) comparing measured magnitudes to thresholds to make determinations about system state (col. 7, lines 25–30).
A PHOSITA seeking to enable Barrick's system to automatically determine when a wing frame section is experiencing "wing hop"—an oscillatory condition of that section—would naturally combine these teachings. Barrick already provides the multi-section force data (wing and central) and the framework for comparing parameters between sections. Patel provides the detailed analytical tools for quantifying oscillations (cyclicity, magnitude, frequency) and making threshold-based comparisons. Applying Patel's oscillation characterization techniques to both the wing and central draft force data from Barrick's system yields the first magnitude at a first frequency (for the wing) and the second magnitude at a second frequency (for the central section). Applying Patel's threshold comparison logic—combined with Barrick's existing framework for comparing parameters between sections—to determine when the wing oscillation magnitude exceeds the central oscillation magnitude by a threshold amount would be a straightforward integration of known analytical methods into a compatible data-rich environment, yielding the predictable result of accurately determining when the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop based on the specific comparative condition recited in the claim. This comparative approach advantageously distinguishes localized wing hop from global common-mode motion (such as whole-frame pitch or bounce affecting both sections), as a larger oscillation magnitude in the wing section relative to the central section reliably indicates a wing-specific oscillatory condition.
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural method of Claim 16, which is the basis for Claim 18.
Disclosure by Barrick
Rationale: Barrick expressly teaches threshold/range-based and pattern/ratio-based comparison of monitored parameters across different tool locations. This provides the comparison architecture for determining that one oscillation magnitude is within a threshold amount of another oscillation magnitude in the combined method, even though Barrick does not expressly recite the claimed oscillation-specific “first magnitude” and “second magnitude” terms.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Barrick
Barrick does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
wherein determining whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop comprises determining that the wing frame section is experiencing rough ground instead of wing hop
when the draft force on the wing frame section cyclically increases and decreases
by a first magnitude at a first frequency,
the draft force on the central frame section cyclically increases and decreases
by a second magnitude at a second frequency,
Disclosure by Patel
Patel teaches:
wherein determining whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop comprises determining that the wing frame section is experiencing rough ground instead of wing hop
See at least: “logic circuit 80 determines whether or not there is hitch ‘activity.’ If there is hitch ‘activity,’ the tractor is bouncing or pitching …” (col. 7, ll. 31–36); “logic circuit 80 compares the magnitude of the last calculated and stored maxima or minima with a predetermined reference value.” (col. 8, ll. 17–20)
Rationale: Patel teaches a logic circuit making an oscillation-condition determination from force-signal behavior and thresholded magnitude evaluation. Patel is relied upon for the oscillation-condition determination technique and threshold-based signal-state classification. In the combined Barrick-Patel method, a PHOSITA would apply this technique to Barrick’s wing-versus-central section force-indicative data to determine rough ground instead of wing hop (i.e., common-mode oscillatory excitation rather than localized wing-only oscillation), based on comparative oscillation signatures. This is an obvious combination-level implementation, not an assertion that Patel expressly uses Barrick’s exact labels.
when the draft force on the wing frame section cyclically increases and decreases
See at least: “After filtering, the successive values of the force signal fluctuate both positively and negatively about a value of Zero as the vehicle bounces and pitches up and down.” (col. 5, ll. 31–45); “the successive values of the filtered force Signal will assume a roughly sinusoidal waveform …” (col. 7, ll. 51–54)
Rationale: Patel expressly teaches cyclical force-signal behavior (positive/negative fluctuation; sinusoidal waveform), which corresponds to force cyclically increasing and decreasing. Patel is relied upon for the oscillatory signal-characterization teaching; Barrick supplies the wing-frame-section agricultural context to which this signal characterization is applied in the combined method.
by a first magnitude at a first frequency,
See at least: “most agricultural tractor-and-implement combinations have bouncing and pitching frequencies that fall between 1 and 3 Hz.” (col. 5, ll. 21–25); “Since the bouncing and pitching can be modeled as a series of underdamped sinusoidal waveforms in the 1–3 Hz range …” (col. 5, ll. 31–34); “the peak-to-peak amplitude is roughly equivalent to magnitude of the bouncing and pitching of the tractor.” (col. 7, ll. 52–54)
Rationale: Patel expressly teaches oscillation characterization by frequency and magnitude (peak-to-peak amplitude). This provides the signal-processing teaching for determining a first magnitude at a first frequency from a cyclic force signal in the combined Barrick-Patel method.
the draft force on the central frame section cyclically increases and decreases
“After filtering, the successive values of the force signal fluctuate both positively and negatively about a value of Zero …” (col. 5, ll. 31–45); “the successive values of the filtered force Signal will assume a roughly sinusoidal waveform …” (col. 7, ll. 51–54)
Rationale: Patel teaches the same cyclical force-signal behavior for force-derived oscillation analysis generally. Barrick supplies the central frame section / main section 42 and associated tool-force monitoring framework; Patel supplies the applicable signal-characterization method that a PHOSITA would apply to the central-section draft-force-indicative signal in the combined method.
by a second magnitude at a second frequency,
“most agricultural tractor-and-implement combinations have bouncing and pitching frequencies that fall between 1 and 3 Hz.” (col. 5, ll. 21–25); “the peak-to-peak amplitude is roughly equivalent to magnitude of the bouncing and pitching of the tractor.” (col. 7, ll. 52–54); “logic circuit 80 compares the magnitude of the last calculated and stored maxima or minima with a predetermined reference value.” (col. 8, ll. 17–20)
Rationale: Patel expressly teaches extracting oscillation magnitude and frequency from force signals and using the resulting magnitude in logic-circuit comparisons. This provides the signal-processing teaching for determining a second magnitude at a second frequency from another section-associated force signal in the combined method.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to modify Barrick’s agricultural method (which already receives and compares force-indicative parameter data from tools located on different frame sections, including a main section and wing section(s), using thresholds/ranges/patterns) to apply Patel’s force-signal oscillation characterization and threshold-based activity determination (cyclical fluctuation, sinusoidal waveform behavior, magnitude extraction, frequency characterization, and magnitude-threshold comparison), so that the method can distinguish common-mode rough-ground excitation from localized wing hop using comparative oscillation signatures from wing-section and central-section draft-force-indicative data.
Barrick and Patel are in the same agricultural implement force-sensing/control domain and use controller-based processing of force-related signals to infer implement dynamic behavior. Barrick provides the multi-section implement architecture (main/central section and wing sections), section-associated ground-engaging tools, controller-based comparison of force-indicative parameters, and threshold/pattern logic. Patel provides a compatible and well-established technique for identifying oscillatory behavior from force signals by analyzing cyclicity, amplitude (magnitude), and frequency, and by comparing magnitudes to a threshold/reference. A PHOSITA would have had a rational basis to combine these teachings to improve dynamic-condition classification in Barrick’s method with predictable results.
In particular, when both wing-section and central-section draft-force-indicative signals exhibit cyclical increase/decrease with similar oscillatory magnitudes (i.e., the first magnitude is within a threshold amount of the second magnitude), a PHOSITA would have recognized this as indicative of common-mode rough-ground excitation rather than localized wing hop, because Barrick already teaches comparative multi-location parameter evaluation and Patel teaches how to extract and evaluate oscillation characteristics from force signals. This conclusion is grounded in the combined teachings and routine control-systems signal-diagnostic practice, not in hindsight use of the claim as a roadmap.
Regarding Claim 19,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural method of Claim 13, which is the basis for Claim 19.
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick teaches:
wherein controlling the operation of the agricultural implement comprises automatically adjusting at least one of a ground speed of the agricultural implement, a down pressure on the wing frame section, a height of a gauge wheel of the wing frame section, a height of a wheel on the central frame section, or a down pressure on basket assemblies supported by the wing frame section.
See at least: “the method 300 may include initiating, with the computing device, a control action ...” ([0075]); “the controller 202 may be configured to automatically control the operation of one or more components of the implement 10” ([0059]); “the controller 202 may be configured to actively regulate the pressure of the fluid supplied within an associated actuator 220 … to adjust the relative position(s) between various components of the implement 10 …” ([0060]); “For example, in one embodiment, the actuator 220 may adjust the position of one or more of the wheels 32, 34 relative to the implement frame 20.” ([0060]); “the frame 20 may include a main section 42 positioned centrally …” ([0030]); “the wing sections 44, 46 of the frame 20 may be configured to be pivotable relative to the main frame section 42 … As such, one or more actuators 220 may be used to adjust the position of the first and/or second wing sections 44, 46 relative to the main frame section 42 …” ([0066])
Rationale: Barrick expressly teaches controlling the operation of the agricultural implement in a method context by initiating, with the computing device, a control action and by a controller configured to automatically control the operation of one or more components of the implement 10. Barrick further expressly teaches actuator-based automatic adjustment of implement component positions, including adjusting the position of one or more of the wheels 32, 34 relative to the implement frame 20, which corresponds to automatically adjusting a height of a wheel on the central frame section (with the central frame section supplied by Barrick’s express disclosure of main section 42 positioned centrally). Barrick also teaches automatic adjustment of wing-section position via actuators, which at least implicitly corresponds to adjusting load/down-pressure conditions on the wing section. Because the claim recites automatically adjusting at least one of the listed parameters, Barrick’s express automatic adjustment of wheel position relative to the frame satisfies this limitation.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel (as applied to Claim 19)
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to implement Barrick’s automatic controller-based implement control actions (including actuator-driven adjustment of implement component positions such as wheel position relative to the frame and wing-section positioning) in the combined Barrick-Patel agricultural method established for Claim 13, because Barrick and Patel are in the same agricultural implement control/force-sensing field and the combination predictably supports automated responsive implement operation based on detected dynamic conditions.
Barrick provides the controller/computing-device framework for initiating control actions and automatically adjusting implement operating components, while Patel provides compatible force-signal activity detection and oscillation-characterization teachings used in the combined method to identify implement dynamic behavior. A PHOSITA would have had a rational basis to use Barrick’s known automatic actuator-based control responses within the Barrick-Patel combined diagnostic method of Claim 13 to achieve the predictable result of improved automated implement operation in response to detected field/oscillation conditions, without undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 20,
The combination of Barrick and Patel establishes the agricultural method of Claim 13, which is the basis for Claim 20.
Disclosure by Barrick
Barrick teaches:
wherein controlling the operation of the agricultural implement comprises
“the method 300 may include initiating, with the computing device, a control action ...” ([0075]); “the controller 202 may be configured to automatically control the operation of one or more components of the implement 10” ([0059])
Rationale: Barrick expressly teaches a method step in which a controller/computing device initiates a control action and automatically controls implement components, which maps to wherein controlling the operation of the agricultural implement comprises.
automatically adjusting at least one of a ground speed of the agricultural implement, a down pressure on the wing frame section, a height of a gauge wheel of the wing frame section, a height of a wheel on the central frame section, or a down pressure on basket assemblies supported by the wing frame section.
“the controller 202 may be configured to actively regulate the pressure of the fluid supplied within an associated actuator 220 … to adjust the relative position(s) between various components of the implement 10 …” ([0060]); “For example, in one embodiment, the actuator 220 may adjust the position of one or more of the wheels 32, 34 relative to the implement frame 20.” ([0060]); “the frame 20 may include a main section 42 positioned centrally …” ([0030]); “the wing sections 44, 46 of the frame 20 may be configured to be pivotable relative to the main frame section 42 … As such, one or more actuators 220 may be used to adjust the position of the first and/or second wing sections 44, 46 relative to the main frame section 42 …” ([0066])
Rationale: Barrick expressly teaches automatically adjusting at least one of the recited operational parameters by controller-actuator operation, including adjustment of wheel position relative to the implement frame. Barrick’s disclosure of main section 42 positioned centrally supports the central-frame context, such that adjusting wheel position relative to the frame maps to a height of a wheel on the central frame section. Barrick also teaches actuator-based adjustment of wing-section position, which is consistent with automatic operational adjustment of the implement. Because the claim is written in the alternative (“at least one of”), Barrick’s express wheel-position adjustment is sufficient to satisfy this limitation.
Motivation to Combine Barrick and Patel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Barrick and Patel before them, to implement Barrick’s automatic controller-based implement control actions (including actuator-driven adjustment of implement component positions such as wheel position relative to the frame and wing-section positioning) in the combined Barrick-Patel agricultural method established for Claim 13, because Barrick and Patel are in the same agricultural implement control/force-sensing field and the combination predictably supports automated responsive implement operation based on detected dynamic conditions.
Barrick provides the controller/computing-device framework for initiating control actions and automatically adjusting implement operating components, while Patel provides compatible force-signal activity detection and oscillation-characterization teachings used in the combined method to identify implement dynamic behavior. A PHOSITA would have had a rational basis to use Barrick’s known automatic actuator-based control responses within the Barrick-Patel combined diagnostic method of Claim 13 to achieve the predictable result of improved automated implement operation in response to detected field/oscillation conditions, without undue experimentation and without relying on hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 101 - WIHTDRAWN
Upon review of the amended claims, the rejection of Claims 1–10 and 12–20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
The claims, as amended, are directed to a practical application in the field of agricultural implement control, and not merely to an abstract idea. In particular, the claims recite a specific agricultural machine architecture (including a central frame section and a wing frame section, ground engaging tools, and one or more sensors configured to generate data indicative of draft force), and a computing system/method that is functionally integrated with the machine to monitor draft force, determine whether the wing frame section is experiencing wing hop (and, in certain claims, distinguish wing hop from rough-ground conditions using cyclic behavior, magnitude/frequency characteristics, and threshold comparisons), and control operation of the agricultural implement in response to that determination.
As amended, the claims further recite concrete control-related actions tied to operation of the agricultural implement, including automatic adjustment of one or more physical operating parameters (e.g., ground speed, down pressure, gauge wheel height, central wheel height, and/or basket assembly down pressure) and/or control of a user interface indicating wing hop. These limitations integrate any data evaluation or comparison into a specific, real-time machine-control application that affects the operation of a physical agricultural implement in the field.
Accordingly, the claims do not merely recite mental processes or disembodied data analysis, but instead recite a particular technological implementation that applies sensed draft-force information to improve implement control and operation under field conditions. For at least these reasons, the previously made 101 rejection is withdrawn.
Rejection Under 103 - MAINTAINED
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10, 12-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
At the outset, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s remarks are directed to the prior non-final rejection based on Stoller/Henry/Kowalchuk (and Barron for certain claims). Those arguments do not address the grounds of rejection presently at issue in the Final Office Action, which are based on the different combination of Barrick in view of Patel. Accordingly, Applicant’s discussion of what the prior non-final references allegedly disclose or fail to disclose does not traverse the rejection actually maintained.
That said, to fully clarify the basis of the Final rejection and the Examiner’s reasoning, the Examiner addresses the substance of Applicant’s apparent position—particularly the contention that the art does not expressly disclose “wing hop” or does not use that exact terminology.
A. The Final rejection does not require the references to use the exact words “wing hop”
Applicant’s argument, as presented, focuses in significant part on the absence of express disclosure of “wing hop” in the cited art. This is not persuasive under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Obviousness does not require that the prior art recite the claim language verbatim or use the identical nomenclature chosen by Applicant. The proper inquiry is whether the combined teachings of the applied references would have taught or suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) at the time of the invention, with an articulated rationale and rational underpinning. The law does not require the references to say “wing hop” if they teach the same or analogous physical phenomenon (oscillatory motion of an agricultural implement component) and the same type of sensing/processing/control approach used to detect and respond to that phenomenon.
Here, the Final rejection relies on:
Barrick for the agricultural implement architecture and controller-based multi-location force-indicative monitoring/comparison framework (including central/main and wing sections), and
Patel for the known force-signal oscillation detection/characterization technique (activity detection from force signal behavior, including cyclic/sinusoidal characteristics, magnitude, and frequency considerations) used in controller-based agricultural equipment control.
Thus, the rejection does not depend on a literal “wing hop” label. It depends on whether a PHOSITA would have recognized that Patel’s oscillation-detection methodology could be applied to Barrick’s wing-section force-indicative signals to determine a wing-section oscillatory condition and initiate control action. The Examiner maintains that a PHOSITA would have so recognized.
B. Why “wing hop” would have been obvious even if the exact term is absent
The Examiner’s position is not that the references merely use different words for the same thing without analysis. Rather, the Examiner’s position is that the references disclose complementary technical teachings that, when combined, would have made the claimed wing-hop determination functionality obvious.
1. Barrick supplies the structural and sensing context in which “wing hop” is diagnosed
Barrick teaches an agricultural implement with:
a main/central frame section and wing sections,
ground-engaging tools associated with those sections,
a controller/computing device that monitors force-indicative parameters associated with the tools,
comparison of such parameters (including differentials, thresholds, ranges, ratios, and patterns), and
controller-initiated control actions in response to evaluated conditions.
This is not a generic or remote disclosure. Barrick provides the exact type of sectional agricultural implement platform and controller-based signal evaluation framework in which a wing-specific oscillation condition would be monitored and acted upon.
In other words, Barrick gives the PHOSITA the where and what data:
where the condition occurs (wing section vs. central section),
and what data are used (force-indicative signals/parameters associated with ground-engaging tools and sections).
2. Patel supplies the signal-processing technique for identifying oscillatory behavior from force signals
Patel teaches the PHOSITA how to identify oscillatory behavior from force-related signals:
force-signal filtering,
cyclic fluctuation behavior,
sinusoidal waveform characterization,
magnitude (e.g., peak-to-peak amplitude / extrema-based) assessment,
frequency-related oscillation characterization,
logic-based determination that oscillatory “activity” (e.g., bouncing/pitching) is present,
and using that determination to control operation.
Patel is therefore not being used as a mere “extra reference” or label replacement. Patel provides a specific, established force-signal oscillation detection methodology in the same general agricultural equipment dynamics/control context.
3. A PHOSITA would have applied Patel’s oscillation-detection technique to Barrick’s wing-section force-indicative signals
Given Barrick’s express controller-based monitoring of force-indicative parameters from a winged agricultural implement and Patel’s express force-signal oscillation detection/control technique, a PHOSITA would have had a clear technical reason to combine them:
to improve classification/detection of oscillatory implement behavior using known signal-processing techniques,
in a system already collecting and comparing the relevant force-indicative data,
for the predictable purpose of improving responsive control.
The key point is this: whether the oscillatory condition is labeled “bouncing,” “pitching,” “oscillatory activity,” or “wing hop,” the references collectively teach detecting oscillatory behavior in force signals and using that determination in agricultural implement control. In Barrick’s winged implement architecture, applying Patel’s oscillation-detection logic to wing-associated force-indicative signals would have predictably yielded detection of a wing-section oscillatory condition—i.e., the claimed wing-hop determination.
This is a classic U.S.C. 103 scenario:
Barrick provides the application environment and section-specific data framework;
Patel provides the known analytic technique;
the combination produces a predictable improvement in detecting and responding to dynamic oscillatory behavior.
C. Why Reasoning is not hindsight
Applicant’s apparent focus on the absence of the term “wing hop” also suggests an implicit hindsight challenge. That challenge is not persuasive.
The rationale does not start from Applicant’s claim and then search backward for isolated fragments. Instead, it begins with the references’ own teachings:
Barrick already teaches section-based force-indicative monitoring/comparison and controller response for agricultural implement dynamic behavior.
Patel already teaches force-signal oscillation analysis and logic-based control response to detected oscillatory activity.
A PHOSITA would not need Applicant’s disclosure to appreciate the benefit of using Patel’s known oscillation-detection methodology in Barrick’s controller framework. That combination is motivated by the references themselves and by ordinary engineering goals in the field (improved detection/classification of dynamic conditions and improved control response). The resulting application to wing-section oscillation detection is a predictable extension of the combined teachings, not an impermissible reconstruction.
D. Applicant’s argument concerning independent claim 13 and dependent claims (including claim 3) is likewise unpersuasive
Applicant states that independent Claim 13 is “substantially similar” to Claim 1 and therefore allegedly patentable “for the same reasons” argued against the prior non-final combination. This argument does not address the Final rejection because, again, it does not analyze Barrick + Patel.
The same is true for Applicant’s dependent-claim discussion (including claim 3). The argument challenges Stoller-based reasoning (e.g., wheel-load comparison vs. draft-force comparison), but the Final rejection does not rely on that reasoning. Under the Final rejection:
Barrick provides the multi-section force-indicative monitoring/comparison framework (including central/main and wing sections), and
Patel provides the oscillation-detection/control methodology from force signals.
Accordingly, Applicant’s dependent-claim argument does not identify error in the rejection actually made.
E. Examiner’s 103 conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The arguments do not address the references and rationale of the Final 103 rejection, and they do not undermine the conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Barrick in view of Patel.
In particular, the absence of the exact term “wing hop” in the applied references does not defeat the rejection, because the combined references teach/suggest the claimed functionality—namely, using force-indicative signals in a winged agricultural implement, applying known oscillation-detection analysis to determine an oscillatory condition of the wing section, and controlling implement operation in response. The Examiner therefore maintains that the pending claims, including independent Claims 1 and 13 and the argued dependent claims, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Barrick in view of Patel.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 5PM).
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662