DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Application No. 18/073,231 filed on 12/01/2022 were examined. Examiner filed a non-final rejection on 11/20/2024.
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 02/19/2025. Claims 1, 3, 6 - 9, 11, 13, 16 - 18 were amended. Claims 2, 4-5, 12 and 14-15 were cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13 and 16-20 were examined. Examiner filed a final rejection on 05/28/2025.
Applicant filed an RCE on 08/27/2025. Claims 1, 6 - 8, 11 and 17 were amended. Claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13 and 16-20 were examined. Examiner filed a non-final rejection on 09/25/2025.
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 12/22/2025. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16-18 were amended. Claims 9-10 and 19-20 were cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 13 and 16-18 are presently pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Interview request: Applicant’s request for an interview has been fully considered. An interview will be granted if deemed necessary to advance prosecution.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 101: applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “Remarks”) have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The previously given claim rejections under 35 USC 101 are withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102: Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 with respect to Schroeder (US 20230380318 A1) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder (US 20230380318 A1) in view of Dasika et al. (US20210080586A1), hereinafter referred to as Schroeder and Dasika respectively.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Schroeder discloses A system for monitoring the condition of discs of agricultural implements (“In one aspect, the present subject matter is directed to a system for monitoring disc conditions of an agricultural implement.” [0006]), the system comprising:
a plurality of discs (“In one aspect, the present subject matter is directed to a system for monitoring disc conditions of an agricultural implement.” [0006]), configured to be supported relative to an agricultural implement (“As illustrated in FIG. 2, each disc gang assembly 44 includes a toolbar 48 coupled to the implement frame 28 and a plurality of harrow discs 46 supported by the toolbar 48 relative to the implement frame 28.” [0027]);
and an electronic computing device communicatively coupled to the surface profile sensor, the computing device including a processor and memory (“Thus, in several embodiments, the computing system 110 may include one or more processor(s) 112 and associated memory device(s) 114 configured to perform a variety of computer-implemented functions.” [0040]), the computing device being configured to monitor the data received from the surface profile sensor and determine an operating condition of one or more of the plurality of discs based at least in part on the surface profile of the aft portion of the field (“In several embodiments, the computing system 110 may be configured to monitor the density of the sub-surface features within the field based on the data received from the sub-surface density sensor(s) 80. Specifically, in one embodiment, the computing system 110 may be communicatively coupled to the sub-surface density sensor(s) 80 (e.g., via a wired or wireless connection) to allow the density-related data associated with the measured densities of the sub-surface features included within the sensor's field of view 82 (e.g., the sub-surface features associated with a given lateral section of the field, such as lateral section 88 (FIG. 3)) to be transmitted to the computing system 110, including density data associated with both the sub-surface portions 46A of the discs 46 and the surrounding soil included within the sensor's field of view 82. The density data received from the sensor(s) 80 may be used by the computing system 110 to monitor a sub-surface density profile across the lateral section of the field encompassed by the sensor's field of view, which may then be analyzed to infer or identify an operating condition of one or more of the discs 46 that are or should be located within the lateral section of the field” [0042])
wherein the computing device is further configured to initiate a control action based on the determined operating condition of the one or more of the plurality of discs (“In addition, the method includes initiating, with the computing system, a control action upon the determination of the operating condition of the at least one disc.” [0007])
wherein the control action comprises generating an operator notification associated with the operating condition of the one or more of the plurality of discs or adjusting an operation of at least one of the agricultural implement or a work vehicle towing the agricultural implement (“Upon the detection of a damaged, missing, or plugged disc, the computing system may be configured to automatically initiate a control action, such as by generating an operator notification and/or by automatically adjusting the operation of the implement.” [0021])
Schroeder does not explicitly teach a surface profile sensor having a field of view of a post-worked portion of a field located rearward of the plurality of discs relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement, wherein the surface profile sensor is configured to generate, during performance of an agricultural operation, data indicative of a surface profile of the post-worked portion of the field.
However, Dasika does teach a surface profile sensor having a field of view of a post-worked portion of a field located rearward of the plurality of discs relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement, wherein the surface profile sensor is configured to generate, during performance of an agricultural operation, data indicative of a surface profile of the post-worked portion of the field (”a second vision-based sensor (104) B may be coupled to the rear of the implement (12) such that the vision-based sensor (104) B has a field of view (108) that allows it to capture vision data of an adjacent area or portion of the field disposed aft of the implement (12)” [0031]; “the vision-based sensor(s) may be configured to output light pulses from a light source (e.g., a laser outputting a pulsed laser beam) and detect the reflection of each pulse off the soil surface. Based on the time of flight of the light pulses, the specific location (e.g., 2-D or 3-D coordinates) of the soil surface relative to the vision-based sensor(s) may be calculated” [0030]). Both Schroeder and Dasika teach systems for monitoring conditions of agricultural implements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Schroeder to also include a surface profile sensor having a field of view of a post-worked portion of a field located rearward of the plurality of discs relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement, wherein the surface profile sensor is configured to generate, during performance of an agricultural operation, data indicative of a surface profile of the post-worked portion of the field/an aft-portion of the field located rearward of the plurality of discs relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement, as taught by Dasika, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods of monitoring disc conditions by providing direct surface profile feedback from the post-worked field portion (e.g., via clod size analysis as a proxy for disc performance), enabling detection of deviations indicative of disc issues without requiring sub-surface penetration views [With regard to this reasoning, see at least Dasika [0030]-[0031]].
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Schroeder discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the surface profile sensor comprises one of a LIDAR device, a camera, a radar sensor or an ultrasound sensor (“For instance, in one embodiment, each sub-surface density sensor 80 may correspond to a ground penetrating radar (GPR) configured to generate data associated with the density of sub-surface features within the field.” [0032]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Schroeder discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is configured to determine the operating condition of the one or more of the plurality of discs by comparing the field profile of the post-worked portion of the surface to a baseline surface profile (“As will be described in greater detail below with reference to FIGS. 4 and 5A-5C, the sub-surface density profile may be analyzed to identify or infer the operating condition of each respective disc 46 encompassed within the lateral section 88. Specifically, when the discs 46 are operating normally (i.e., when the discs 46 are not damaged, missing, or plugged), it is generally expected that a baseline sub-surface density profile will be defined across the lateral section 88 of the field that includes both high-density areas (e.g., at the expected locations of the sub-surface portions 46A of the discs 46) and low density areas (e.g., at the locations of the soil). As a result, by establishing a baseline sub-surface density profile that defines the expected shapes, profiles, dimensions, and/or relative positioning of the high density areas and the low density areas, it may be determined when disc is damaged (e.g., bent or broken), missing, or plugged.” [0036]).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Schroeder discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the operating condition comprises a damaged condition and wherein the computing device is configured to determine that a disc of the plurality of discs is experiencing the damaged condition when data received from the surface profile sensor indicates a cyclical deviation in the surface profile relative to a baseline surface profile for a section of the field aligned with the disc in the direction of travel of the agricultural implement (“As such, the computing system may be configured to identify changes in one or more of the high density areas and/or the low density area(s) (e.g., changes in the shape, dimensions, and/or profile of the high/low density areas and/or changes in the relative positions/distances between high/low density areas) to identify a damaged, missing, or plugged disc. Upon the detection of a damaged, missing, or plugged disc, the computing system may be configured to automatically initiate a control action, such as by generating an operator notification and/or by automatically adjusting the operation of the implement.” [0021]).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Schroeder discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the operating condition comprises a missing condition and wherein the computing device is configured to determine that a disc of the plurality of discs is missing when data received from the surface profile sensor indicates a constant deviation in the surface profile relative to a baseline surface profile for a section of the surface aligned with the disc in the direction of travel of the agricultural implement (“As such, the computing system may be configured to identify changes in one or more of the high density areas and/or the low density area(s) (e.g., changes in the shape, dimensions, and/or profile of the high/low density areas and/or changes in the relative positions/distances between high/low density areas) to identify a damaged, missing, or plugged disc. Upon the detection of a damaged, missing, or plugged disc, the computing system may be configured to automatically initiate a control action, such as by generating an operator notification and/or by automatically adjusting the operation of the implement.” [0021]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AA/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668