DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments filed 12/22/2025.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 8 and 14 have been canceled.
Claims 21 and 22 are new claims.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-22 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/6/2026 and 1/14/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Due to the amendments filed 12/22/2025, the objection of claim 20 has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
In regards to pages 11-12 of the Remarks filed 12/22/2025 with respect to claim 1, Applicant’s arguments 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. Specifically, a new reference has been applied to teach the amended feature.
In regards to pages 12-13 of Remarks with respect to claim 11, upon further consideration of the applied prior art, the combination of Czapka and Sauder teach the amended features, as discussed in detail in the rejection below.
In regards to page 19 of the Remarks with respect to claim 19, upon further search and consideration, the Examiner has determined claim 19 to include allowable subject matter.
Examiner’s Note
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
Due to the amendments filed 12/22/2025, allowable subject matter has been provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czapka et al. (US 2018/0208058 A1), hereinafter Czapka, in view of Yokoyama (US 2017/0322550 A1), hereinafter Yokoyama.
Claim 1
Czapka discloses the claimed agricultural system (see Figures 1-3) comprising:
one or more job quality sensors (i.e. sensors 84, 86, and 88) configured to detect a value of each job quality characteristic of a plurality of job quality characteristics of a job performed by a mobile agricultural machine (i.e. system 100 in Figure 3, depicted as a work vehicle 10 towing a planter 12 in Figure 1) (see ¶0038, with respect to Figure 2, regarding seed sensors 84 that provide an indication of the seed distribution and/or spacing of the seeds as the row unit 28 is actively planting, down force sensors 86 that monitor the down force being applied through the row unit 28 which may be indicative of the current depth and/or spacing at which the seeds are being planted, and vibration sensors 88 (accelerometers) mounted to a given component of the row unit 28 that provides an indication of current spacing and/or depth of the seeds being deposited by row unit 28);
a speed sensor (i.e. speed sensor 120) configured to detect a travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine (see ¶0044, with respect to Figure 3, regarding that the speed sensor 120 monitors the current ground speed of the work vehicle 10);
one or more processors (i.e. processors 106, 110 in Figure 3);
a data store configured to store computer executable instructions (see ¶0041, with respect to memory devices 108, 112).
Czapka further discloses that when executed by the one or more processors, the computer executable instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to:
determine an optimal travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine based on the value of each job quality characteristic of the plurality of job quality characteristics, detected by the one or more job quality sensors, and a respective job quality characteristic value threshold for each job quality characteristic of the plurality of job quality characteristics (see ¶0055, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that a speed control request is adjusted when the operating parameters differ from the threshold values, where the operating parameters are defined as a down force detected via down force sensors 86, vibration detected via vibration sensors 88, and seed-related parameter detected via seed sensors 84, as discussed in ¶0054); and
generate, based, at least, on the determined optimal travel speed and the detected travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine, a control signal to control the agricultural system (see ¶0055, regarding that the adjusted speed control request is transmitted to the vehicle controller to cause the current ground speed to be increased or decreased between predetermined maximum and minimum speed values for the work vehicle when the operating parameters differ from the threshold values defined as including a slippage parameter threshold in ¶0053, where the speed measurements provided by the speed sensor 120 are used as feedback by the vehicle controller 102, as described in ¶0044).
Czapka does not further disclose that the processor is configured to receive a limit input that defines a limit factor, external to the agricultural system, that corresponds to an operation of another agricultural machine other than mobile agricultural machine, such that the “optimal travel speed” is further determined based on the limit factor. However, it would be obvious to incorporate an additional agricultural machine that performs tilling work, such that the mobile agricultural machine of Czapka, defined as a planter in ¶0025, follows the additional agricultural machine in order to perform the known sequence of agricultural operations in which seeding work is performed after tilling work, in light of Yokoyama, and the “optimal travel speed” of Czapka is further limited by the operation of the additional agricultural machine.
Specifically, Yokoyama teaches an agricultural work vehicle 1B, defined as performing seeding work with a seeding machine 240 in ¶0076-0077 (similar to the mobile agricultural machine taught by Czapka) that is controlled to work at an optimum work speed (similar to the optimal travel speed taught by Czapka) (see ¶0080, regarding agricultural work vehicle 1 is controlled to work at the optimum work speed, which is calculated from the past and current weather information, field information, work information, work machine information, and farm product information). Yokoyama further teaches the known technique of receiv[ing] a limit input that defines a limit factor, external to work vehicle 1B (similar to the agricultural system taught by Czapka), that corresponds to an operation of another agricultural machine (i.e. work vehicle 1A, defined as performing tilling work with rotary tilling device 24 in ¶0076, with respect to Figure 7) and adjusting the optimum work speed of work vehicle 1B based on the limit factor (see ¶0090, regarding that one of the work vehicles is defined as a standard vehicle and the other as an auxiliary vehicle, such that when the distance between the work vehicles, as determined from the positions acquired by satellite positioning systems on the vehicles, is outside a set range, the auxiliary vehicle is controlled to change the speed; Figure 7, depicting work vehicle 1B as following vehicle 1A for combined tilling and seeding work, as described in ¶0076). The “limit input” may be reasonably taught by the position acquired by the satellite positioning system on work vehicle 1A, such that the calculated distance between the work vehicles 1A and 1B act as a “limit factor” for work vehicle 1B.
Since the systems of Czapka and Yokoyama are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining a travel speed for a planter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the one or more processors of Czapka to further receive a limit input that defines a limit factor, external to the agricultural system, that corresponds to an operation of another agricultural machine other than mobile agricultural machine, so as to further determine an optimal travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine based on the limit factor, in the same manner that the optimum work speed of a planter of Yokoyama is adjusted based on a distance between the planter and a leading work machine that performs tilling operations, with the predictable result of performing tilling and seeding work in an efficient manner (¶0075 of Yokoyama) while preventing excess separation and/or collision between the work vehicles (¶0094 of Yokoyama).
Claim 2
Czapka further discloses that the mobile agricultural machine comprises a mobile agricultural planting machine (i.e. planter 12) that includes an assistive seed delivery mechanism that is configured to physically move to carry a seed from a seed metering system to an outlet through which the seed is to travel to be delivered to a furrow (see ¶0035-0037, regarding the embodiment in which an electric drive seed delivery system is included for delivering seeds to the furrow), wherein the plurality of job characteristics comprises two or more of:
implement ride quality (see ¶0038, regarding that the vibration sensors 88 (accelerometers) monitor the vibrational motion of the row unit 28 as the planter 12 is being traversed across a field, which may provide an indication of the current spacing and/or depth of the seeds being deposited by the row unit 28, where excessive vibration may result in an uneven distribution of the seeds, increased variations in the depth of the furrow, and/or increased variations in the amount of soil packed over the furrow);
percent ground contact (see ¶0060, regarding that ground contact percentage for row units 28 are estimated from sensor data from the down force sensors 86 and/or vibration sensors 88);
applied down force (see ¶0038, regarding that the down force sensors 86 monitor the down force being applied through the row unit 28 indicative of the current depth and/or spacing at which the seeds are being planted);
seed singulation (see ¶0069, regarding that the current seed singulation is monitored via the seed sensors 84);
seed spacing (see ¶0038, regarding that seed sensors 84 provides an indication of the spacing of the seeds as the row unit 28 is actively planting); and
seed population (see ¶0067, regarding that the current seed population is monitored via the seed sensors 84).
Only two of the above limitations taught by Czapka is required to be taught by prior art.
Claim 4
Czapka further discloses that the computer executable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors are configured to cause the one or more processors to further:
obtain one or more system limits (see ¶0050, regarding the operator-selected settings (or system default settings) that define minimum and maximum speed values, for example); and
generate the control signal based on the determined optimal travel speed, the detected travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine, and the one or more system limits (see ¶0055, regarding that the adjusted speed control request is transmitted to the vehicle controller to cause the current ground speed to be increased or decreased between the predetermined maximum and minimum speed values for the work vehicle when the operating parameters differ from the threshold values, such that speed measurements provided by the speed sensor 120 is used as feedback by the vehicle controller 102, as described in ¶0044).
Claim 5
Czapka further discloses that the one or more system limits comprise an operator preferred or user preferred travel speed threshold (see ¶0050, regarding that operator-selected settings (or system default settings) that define minimum and maximum speed values) and wherein the computer executable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors are configured to cause the one or more processors to further:
generate the control signal based on the determined optimal travel speed, the detected travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine, and the operator preferred or user preferred travel speed threshold (see ¶0055, regarding that the adjusted speed control request is transmitted to the vehicle controller to cause the current ground speed to be increased or decreased between the predetermined maximum and minimum speed values for the work vehicle when the operating parameters differ from the threshold values, such that speed measurements provided by the speed sensor 120 are used as feedback by the vehicle controller 102, as described in ¶0044).
Claim 22
Yokoyama further teaches that seeding work (similar to the job taught by Czapka) is performed by work vehicle 1B, described as an agricultural work vehicle that performs seeding work with seeding machine 240 in ¶0076 (similar to the mobile agricultural machine taught by Czapka) at a worksite (see Figure 7, depicting worksite H in which work vehicle 1B performs seeding work), and the operation of the other agricultural machine comprises an agricultural operation at the worksite (see ¶0076, with respect to Figure 7, regarding that agricultural work vehicle 1A performs tilling work with rotary tilling device 24).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czapka in view of Yokoyama, and in further view of Verhaeghe et al. (US 2013/0008324 A1), hereinafter Verhaeghe.
Claim 3
While Czapka teaches the “control signal” causes direct control of the travel speed of the agricultural vehicle (see ¶0055 of Czapka), Czapka does not teach the “control signal” to control an interface mechanism to display an interface display representing the determined optimal travel speed. However, providing the speed-related control signal of Czapka to a user interface for display would be obvious in light of Verhaeghe.
Specifically, Verhaeghe teaches an agricultural machine provided with a control system (similar to the one or more processors taught by Czapka) for automatically implementing recommendations (see ¶0030) that include a recommended driving speed (see ¶0075, regarding that the control system recommends changes in driving speed, e.g., 9 km/h to 7 km/h) (similar to the control of the agricultural system taught by Czapka) that comprises control an interface mechanism to display an interface display representing a recommended driving speed (similar to the determined optimal travel speed taught by the combination of Czapka and Yokoyama) (see ¶0073, with respect to Figure 2, regarding the display of a warning message W and question Q in combination with an OK button or CANCEL button for the user to confirm or discard a change, where the recommendations may pertain to decreasing the driving speed, e.g., from 9 km/h to 7 km/h, as described in ¶0075).
In Czapka, speed control is provided for a planter-type agricultural machine. In Verhaeghe, speed control is provided for a baler-type agricultural machine. However, it is the technique of providing a similar speed control signal to an interface mechanism for display that is modified by Verhaeghe; therefore, the particular type of agricultural machine does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Czapka, Yokoyama, and Verhaeghe are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing speed control for an agricultural machine, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control of the agricultural system of Czapka to comprise control of an interface mechanism to display an interface display representing the determined optimal travel speed, in light of Verhaeghe, with the predictable result of only implementing speed changes that are sanctioned by the operator (¶0073 of Verhaeghe).
Claim 7
Verhaeghe further teaches that the interface display comprises a speed optimization display portion (see box in upper right corner of display 1 in Figure 2) that includes a graphical element that indicates a recommendation and a textual display element that indicates the recommendation (see Figure 2, depicting the display of “text” and “graphics” on display 1, as further described with respect to recommended changes in ¶0073, which may pertain to recommended changes to driving speed, as described in ¶0075-0077), the graphical display element interactable to cause the agricultural baler (similar to the mobile agricultural system taught by Czapka) to change the travel speed of the agricultural baler (see ¶0075-0077, regarding examples in which the control system provides recommendations to change the driving speed to meet the target weight; ¶0048, regarding that the control system implements the recommendations only after they have been sanctioned by the operator).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czapka in view of Yokoyama and Verhaeghe, and in further view of Sauder et al. (US 2014/0191857 A1), hereinafter Sauder.
Claim 10
The combination of Czapka, Yokoyama, and Verhaeghe does not further disclose that the interface display further comprises a job quality display portion that simultaneously includes a plurality of job quality characteristic indicators, each job quality characteristic indicator indicating a respective job quality characteristic, and a plurality of job quality indicators, each of the plurality of job quality indicators associated with a respective one of the plurality of job quality characteristic indicators and indicating the value of the respective job quality characteristic relative to the respective job quality characteristic threshold value for the respective job quality characteristic. However, Czapka teaches the incorporation of user interface 122 that includes a display for the operator during speed control (see ¶0045), and therefore, it would be obvious to incorporate detected “job quality characteristics” with their associated thresholds into the display during speed control of Czapka, in light of Sauder.
Specifically, Sauder teaches a planter monitor system 100 incorporated into a planter 10 (similar to the mobile agricultural machine taught by Czapka) that includes a visual display 1002 and user interface 1004 (similar to the user interface 122 described in ¶0045 Czapka) (see ¶0022-0023) that interfaces with seed sensors 200, load sensors 300, inclinometers 400, vertical accelerometers 500, horizontal accelerometers 600, or any other sensor for monitoring the planter or the environment that may affect planting operations (similar to the sensors used for detecting a plurality of job quality characteristics taught by Czapka) (see ¶0023). Sauder further teaches a job quality display portion (i.e. level 1 screen 1010, depicted in Figure 5) that simultaneously includes a plurality of job quality characteristic indicators (see Figure 5, depicting a plurality of windows 1012, 1014, 1016, 1018, 1020, and 1026, described in ¶0042), each job quality characteristic indicator indicating a respective job quality characteristic (e.g., seed population (1012), singulation (1014), skips/multiples (1016), good spacing (1018), smooth ride (1020), and a downforce (1026)), and a plurality of job quality indicators, each of the plurality of job quality indicators associated with a respective one of the plurality of job quality characteristic indicators (see Figure 5, depicting the indicators in each of the plurality of windows 1012, 1014, 1016, 1018, 1020, and 1026) and indicating the value of the respective job quality characteristic (see Figure 5, depicting the numeric seed population value 110, described as based on detections from seed sensors 200 in ¶0044-0049, the numeric percent singulation value 1122, described as based on detections from the seed sensors 200 in ¶0056-0057, percentage of skips 1124 and multiples 1126, described as based on detections from seed sensors in ¶0057, percent good spacing value 1140, described as calculated based on detections from seed sensors in ¶0097 and ¶0057, smooth ride percentage value 1154, described as based on detections from vertical accelerometer 500 in ¶0102-0103, and average downforce value 1174 and ground contact parameter 1172, described as based on detections from load sensors 300 in ¶0113) relative to the respective job quality characteristic threshold value for the respective job quality characteristic (see ¶0051-0053, regarding the visual alarm on seed population window 1012 when the seed population value 110 falls outside of population deviation limits 1342; ¶0091-0092, regarding the visual alarm on singulation window 1014 when the percent singulation value 1122 falls outside of the singulation deviation limits 1350; ¶0095, regarding the visual alarm on skips/mults window 1016 when the percent skips or percent mults exceed predefined limits; ¶0098-0099, regarding the visual alarm on the good spacing window 1018 when the percent good spacing value 1140 falls below a predetermined deviation limit; ¶0104-0105, regarding the visual alarm on the smooth ride window 1020 when the smooth ride percentage falls below a predetermined deviation limit).
In Czapka, the speed of the agricultural machine is actively controlled. In Sauder, recommendations including speed are presented to an operator on a display for manual control. However, it is the technique of using the monitored job quality characteristics of Czapka to be additionally provided in an organized manner with respective thresholds on a display that is modified by Sauder; therefore, the additional active control operations of Czapka do not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Czapka, Verhaeghe, and Sauder are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing an agricultural machine with a user interface including a display, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interface display of the combination of Czapka and Verhaeghe to further comprise a job quality display portion that simultaneously includes a plurality of job quality characteristic indicators, each job quality characteristic indicator indicating a respective job quality characteristic, and a plurality of job quality indicators, each of the plurality of job quality indicators associated with a respective one of the plurality of job quality characteristic indicators and indicating the value of the respective job quality characteristic relative to the respective job quality characteristic threshold value for the respective job quality characteristic, in light of Sauder, with the predictable result of providing the operator with real-time data that motivates the operator to take prompt corrective action (¶0008 of Sauder).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czapka in view of Yokoyama, and in further view of Zink et al. (US 2020/0375086 A1), hereinafter Zink.
Claim 6
The combination of Czapka and Yokoyama does not further disclose that the computer executable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors are configured to cause the one or more processors to further:
obtain one or more environmental limits, wherein the one or more environmental limits comprise at least one of: a weather characteristic, a border of a worksite, or a soil condition of the worksite; and
generate a control signal based on the determined optimal travel speed, the detected travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine, and the one or more environmental limits.
However, the use of “environmental limits” for generating an optimal travel speed of a similar agricultural system is known and would obvious to incorporate into system of Czapka, in light of Zink.
Specifically, Zink teaches an agricultural machine defined as any kind of machine suitable for agricultural use (see ¶0022), e.g., for the distribution of seeds (see ¶0024) (similar to the agricultural system taught by Czapka) configured with a work program stored in a machine management system (similar to the one or more processors taught by Czapka) for controlling, regulating, and parameterizing an operational speed (similar to the control signal taught by Czapka) (see ¶0018). Zink further teaches that the machine management system is configured to obtain one or more environmental limits (i.e. environment-specific load limit), wherein the one or more environmental limits comprise at least one of a weather characteristic or border of a worksite (see ¶0043-0045, regarding that environment-specific load limits defined as geographic data such as boundaries, climatic conditions such as weather, etc., are transmitted to the machine management system from a database, e.g., data cloud), and control the agricultural vehicle with the operational speed (see ¶0018-0019) while providing a display device that is signal-connected to the machine management system (see ¶0039) (similar to generating the control signal taught by the combination of Czapka and Verhaeghe) based on the operational speed (similar to the determined optimal travel speed taught by Czapka), sensed feedback of the operational speed for regulation, as described in ¶0027 (similar to the detected travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine taught by Czapka), and the one or more environmental limits (see ¶0012-0013, regarding that the operational speed of the agricultural machine is controlled, regulated and/or parameterized such that the environment-specific load limits are not exceeded).
In Czapka, seed-related parameters and slippage values are used as conditions for generating an optimal travel speed of the agricultural vehicle. In Zink, a variety of different load limits, including environmental limits, are used as conditions for generating an optimal travel speed of the agricultural vehicle. However, Czapka further teaches that any other suitable parameters for adjusting ground speed may be used (see ¶0053); therefore, it would be reasonable to incorporate the environmental limits of Zink into the parameters of Czapka.
Since the systems of Czapka and Zink are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining a travel speed of an agricultural vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the one or more processors of Czapka to further obtain one or more environmental limits and thus generate the control signal based on the determined optimal travel speed, the detected travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine, and the one or more environmental limits, in the same manner that the environment-specific load limits of Zink are used to determine and control an operational speed of the agricultural machine, with the predictable result of advantageously providing provisions for consideration of environment-specific load limits while performing efficient and optimized agricultural work (¶0008-0009 of Zink).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czapka in view of Sauder.
Claim 11
Czapka discloses the claimed computer implemented method (see Figures 4-11) of optimizing a travel speed of a mobile agricultural machine (i.e. system 100 in Figure 3, depicted as a work vehicle 10 towing a planter 12 in Figure 1), the computer implemented method comprising:
detecting a value of each of a plurality of job quality characteristics (see ¶0038, with respect to Figure 2, regarding seed sensors 84 that provide an indication of the seed distribution and/or spacing of the seeds as the row unit 28 is actively planting, down force sensors 86 that monitor the down force being applied through the row unit 28 which may be indicative of the current depth and/or spacing at which the seeds are being planted, and vibration sensors 88 (accelerometers) mounted to a given component of the row unit 28 that provides an indication of current spacing and/or depth of the seeds being deposited by row unit 28);
detecting a travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine (see ¶0044, with respect to Figure 3, regarding that the speed sensor 120 monitors the current ground speed of the work vehicle 10);
determine an optimal travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine based on the value of each of the plurality of job quality characteristics and a respective job quality characteristic threshold value for each of the plurality of job quality characteristics (see ¶0055, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that a speed control request is adjusted when the operating parameters differ from the threshold values, where the operating parameters are defined as a down force detected via down force sensors 86, vibration detected via vibration sensors 88, and seed-related parameter detected via seed sensors 84, as discussed in ¶0054);
generating a control signal to control an interface mechanism of the mobile agricultural machine (see ¶0055, regarding that the adjusted speed control request is transmitted to the vehicle controller to cause the current ground speed to be increased or decreased between predetermined maximum and minimum speed values for the work vehicle, where the speed measurements provided by the speed sensor 120 is used as feedback by the vehicle controller 102, as described in ¶0044).
While Czapka teaches the “control signal” causes direct control of the travel speed of the agricultural vehicle (see ¶0055), Czapka does not teach the “control signal” to simultaneously display a plurality of sets of indicators, each set of indicators, of the plurality of sets of indicators, corresponding to a respective job quality characteristic of the plurality of job quality characteristics and including a job quality characteristic indicator, a job quality characteristic value indicator, and a job quality status indicator, wherein the job quality characteristic indicator of each set textually indicates the respective job quality characteristic of the set, wherein the job quality characteristic value indicator of each set indicates the detected value of the respective job quality characteristic of the set, and wherein the job quality status indicator of each set indicates a relationship between the detected value of the respective job quality characteristic of the set and the respective job quality characteristic threshold value corresponding to the respective job quality characteristic of the set, and a speed optimization status indicator that collectively represents the relationships between the detected values of the plurality of job quality characteristics and the respective job quality characteristic threshold values, and a speed optimization status indicator that is generated based on the travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine and the determined optimal travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine. However, Czapka teaches the incorporation of a user interface 122 that includes a display for the operator during speed control (see ¶0045), and therefore, it would be obvious to incorporate detected “job quality characteristics” with their associated thresholds and an indicator of the optimal travel speed with respect to the current travel speed into the display during speed control of Czapka, in light of Sauder.
Specifically, Sauder teaches a planter monitor system 100 incorporated into a planter 10 (similar to the mobile agricultural machine taught by Czapka) that includes a visual display 1002 and user interface 1004 (similar to the user interface 122 described in ¶0045 Czapka) (see ¶0022-0023) that interfaces with seed sensors 200, load sensors 300, inclinometers 400, vertical accelerometers 500, horizontal accelerometers 600, or any other sensor for monitoring the planter or the environment that may affect planting operations (similar to the sensors used for detecting a plurality of job quality characteristics taught by Czapka) (see ¶0023). Sauder further teaches a level 1 screen 1010 displayed as the default screen (see ¶0042, with respect to Figure 5) that simultaneously display[s] a plurality of sets of indicators (see Figure 5, depicting a plurality of windows 1012, 1014, 1016, 1018, 1020, and 1026, described in ¶0042), each set of indicators, of the plurality of sets of indicators, corresponding to a respective job quality characteristic of a seed population (1012), singulation (1014), skips/multiples (1016), good spacing (1018), smooth ride (1020), and a downforce (1026) (similar to the plurality of job quality characteristics taught by Czapka) and including a job quality characteristic indicator, a job quality characteristic value indicator, and a job quality status indicator (see Figure 5, depicting the indicators in each of the plurality of windows 1012, 1014, 1016, 1018, 1020, and 1026), wherein the job quality characteristic indicator of each set textually indicates the respective job quality characteristic of the set (see Figure 5, depicting the text indicators that include population, singulation, skips/multiples, good spacing, smooth ride, and downforce), wherein the job quality characteristic value indicator of each set indicates the detected value of the respective job quality characteristic of the set (see Figure 5, depicting the numeric seed population value 110, described as based on detections from seed sensors 200 in ¶0044-0049, the numeric percent singulation value 1122, described as based on detections from the seed sensors 200 in ¶0056-0057, percentage of skips 1124 and multiples 1126, described as based on detections from seed sensors in ¶0057, percent good spacing value 1140, described as calculated based on detections from seed sensors in ¶0097 and ¶0057, smooth ride percentage value 1154, described as based on detections from vertical accelerometer 500 in ¶0102-0103, and average downforce value 1174 and ground contact parameter 1174, described as based on detections from load sensors 300 in ¶0113), wherein the job quality status indicator of each set indicates a relationship between the detected value of the respective job quality characteristic of the set and the respective job quality characteristic threshold value corresponding to the respective job quality characteristic of the set (see ¶0051-0053, regarding the visual alarm on seed population window 1012 when the seed population value 110 falls outside of population deviation limits 1342; ¶0091-0092, regarding the visual alarm on singulation window 1014 when the percent singulation value 1122 falls outside of the singulation deviation limits 1350; ¶0095, regarding the visual alarm on skips/mults window 1016 when the percent skips or percent mults exceed predefined limits; ¶0098-0099, regarding the visual alarm on the good spacing window 1018 when the percent good spacing value 1140 falls below a predetermined deviation limit; ¶0104-0105, regarding the visual alarm on the smooth ride window 1020 when the smooth ride percentage falls below a predetermined deviation limit).
Sauder further teaches the known technique of generating a speed optimization status indicator based on the velocity 1168 collected by GPS unit 100 of the planter (similar to the travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine taught by Czapka) and the predefined speed limits (similar to the determined optimal travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine taught by Czapka), such that the speed optimization status indicator is simultaneously displayed with the “plurality of sets of indicators” in Figure 5 (see ¶0106-0108, regarding speed window 1022 displays the velocity 1168 of the planter, such that speed window 1022 provides visual alerts to the operator if the speed falls below or exceeds predefined limits). Saunder is applied to teach the technique of indicating compliance with a target speed on a display comprising a “plurality of sets of indicators” defined by the claim; therefore, the particular method of determining the target speed in Saunder does not influence this combination.
In Czapka, the speed of the agricultural machine is actively controlled. In Sauder, recommendations including speed are presented to an operator on a display for manual control. However, it is the technique of using the monitored job quality characteristics of Czapka to be additionally provided in an organized manner with respective thresholds on a display that is modified by Sauder; therefore, the additional active control operations of Czapka do not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Czapka and Sauder are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing a planter with a user interface including a display, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control signal of Czapka to simultaneously display a plurality of sets of indicators, each set of indicators, of the plurality of sets of indicators, corresponding to a respective job quality characteristic of the plurality of job quality characteristics and including a job quality characteristic indicator, a job quality characteristic value indicator, and a job quality status indicator, wherein the job quality characteristic indicator of each set textually indicates the respective job quality characteristic of the set, wherein the job quality characteristic value indicator of each set indicates the detected value of the respective job quality characteristic of the set, and wherein the job quality status indicator of each set indicates a relationship between the detected value of the respective job quality characteristic of the set and the respective job quality characteristic threshold value corresponding to the respective job quality characteristic of the set, and a speed optimization status indicator that collectively represents the relationships between the detected values of the plurality of job quality characteristics and the respective job quality characteristic threshold values, and a speed optimization status indicator, where the speed optimization status indicator is generated based on the travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine and the determined optimal travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine, in light of Sauder, with the predictable result of providing the operator with real-time data that motivates the operator to take prompt corrective action (¶0008 of Sauder).
Claim 12
Czapka further discloses that the mobile agricultural machine comprises a mobile agricultural planting machine (i.e. planter 12) (see ¶0035-0037, regarding the embodiment in which an electric drive seed delivery system is included for delivering seeds to the furrow) and wherein detecting the value of each of the plurality of job quality characteristics comprises two or more of:
implement ride quality (see ¶0038, regarding that the vibration sensors 88 (accelerometers) monitor the vibrational motion of the row unit 28 as the planter 12 is being traversed across a field, which may provide an indication of the current spacing and/or depth of the seeds being deposited by the row unit 28, where excessive vibration may result in an uneven distribution of the seeds, increased variations in the depth of the furrow, and/or increased variations in the amount of soil packed over the furrow);
percent ground contact (see ¶0060, regarding that ground contact percentage for row units 28 are estimated from sensor data from the down force sensors 86 and/or vibration sensors 88);
applied down force (see ¶0038, regarding that the down force sensors 86 monitor the down force being applied through the row unit 28 indicative of the current depth and/or spacing at which the seeds are being planted);
seed singulation (see ¶0069, regarding that the current seed singulation is monitored via the seed sensors 84);
seed spacing (see ¶0038, regarding that seed sensors 84 provides an indication of the spacing of the seeds as the row unit 28 is actively planting); and
seed population (see ¶0067, regarding that the current seed population is monitored via the seed sensors 84).
Only two of the above limitations taught by Czapka is required to be taught by prior art.
Claim 13
Czapka, as modified by Sauder, further discloses obtaining one or more system limits (see ¶0050, regarding that operator-selected settings (or system default settings) that define minimum and maximum speed values, for example) and wherein generating the control signal further comprises:
generating the control signal based on the determined optimal travel speed, the detected travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine, and the one or more system limits (see ¶0055, regarding that the adjusted speed control request is transmitted to the vehicle controller to cause the current ground speed to be increased or decreased between the predetermined maximum and minimum speed values for the work vehicle when the operating parameters differ from the threshold values, such that speed measurements provided by the speed sensor 120 is used as feedback by the vehicle controller 102, as described in ¶0044).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czapka in view of Sauder, and in further view of Zink.
Claim 15
Czapka further discloses obtaining one or more environmental limits (see ¶0050, regarding that operator-selected settings (or system default settings) that define slip parameter settings), wherein generating the control signal further comprises:
generating a control signal based on the determined optimal travel speed, the detected travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine, and the one or more environmental limits (see ¶0061, with respect to the embodiment of Figure 6, regarding that the increased or reduced speed request is transmitted to the vehicle controller 102 based on the comparison of the current slip ratio of the work vehicle 10 to the set slip ratio threshold, such that speed measurements provided by the speed sensor 120 is used as feedback by the vehicle controller 102, as described in ¶0044).
A slip ratio threshold is used to indicate whether the wheels are slipping more than desired (see ¶0061) and thus, may reasonably pertain to “environmental” limits. In case wheel slip cannot be interpreted as “environmental,” Zink is applied in combination with Czapka to more clearly teach the use of “environmental limits” for generating an optimal travel speed of a similar agricultural system.
Specifically, Zink teaches an agricultural machine defined as any kind of machine suitable for agricultural use (see ¶0022), e.g., for the distribution of seeds (see ¶0024) (similar to the mobile agricultural machine taught by Czapka) configured with a work program stored in a machine management system for controlling, regulating, and parameterizing an operational speed (see ¶0018). Zink further teaches obtaining one or more environmental limits (i.e. environment-specific load limit) (see ¶0043-0045, regarding that environment-specific load limits defined as geographic data such as boundaries, climatic conditions such as weather, etc., are transmitted to the machine management system from a database, e.g., data cloud), and control the agricultural vehicle with an operational speed (see ¶0018-0019) while providing a display device that is signal-connected to the machine management system (see ¶0039) (similar to generating the control signal taught by the combination of Czapka and Verhaeghe) based on the operational speed (similar to the determined optimal travel speed taught by Czapka), sensed feedback of the operational speed for regulation, as described in ¶0027 (similar to the detected travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine taught by Czapka), and the one or more environmental limits (see ¶0012-0013, regarding that the operational speed of the agricultural machine is controlled, regulated and/or parameterized such that the environment-specific load limits are not exceeded).
In Czapka, seed-related parameters and slippage values are used as conditions for generating an optimal travel speed of the agricultural vehicle. In Zink, a variety of different load limits, including environmental limits, are used as conditions for generating an optimal travel speed of the agricultural vehicle. However, Czapka further teaches that any other suitable parameters for adjusting ground speed may be used (see ¶0053); therefore, it would be reasonable to incorporate the environmental limits of Zink into the parameters of Czapka.
Since the systems of Czapka and Zink are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining a travel speed of an agricultural vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Czapka to further obtain one or more environmental limits and thus generate the control signal based on the one or more environmental limits, in the same manner that the environment-specific load limits of Zink are used to determine and control an operational speed of the agricultural machine, with the predictable result of advantageously providing provisions for consideration of environment-specific load limits while performing efficient and optimized agricultural work (¶0008-0009 of Zink).
Claim 16
While the combination of Czapka and Sauder teach generating the control signal based on the determined optimal travel speed and the detected travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine, as discussed in the rejection of claim 11, the combination of Czapka and Sauder does not further disclose receiving a limit input that defines a limit factor external to an environment of the mobile agricultural system, and wherein generating the control signal further comprises:
generating the control signal based on the limit factor external to the environment of the mobile agricultural machine.
However, Zink teaches an agricultural machine defined as any kind of machine suitable for agricultural use (see ¶0022), e.g., for the distribution of seeds (see ¶0024) (similar to the mobile agricultural machine taught by Czapka) configured with a work program stored in a machine management system for controlling, regulating, and parameterizing an operational speed (see ¶0018). Zink further teaches receiving a limit input (i.e. environment-specific load limit) that defines a limit factor external to an environment of the agricultural machine (see ¶0043-0045, regarding that environment-specific load limits defined as geographic data including boundaries, climatic conditions including weather, etc., are transmitted to the machine management system from a database, e.g., data cloud) and controlling the agricultural vehicle with an operational speed (see ¶0018-0019) while providing a display device that is signal-connected to the machine management system (see ¶0039) (similar to generating the control signal taught by Czapka) based on the limit factor external to the environment of the agricultural machine (see ¶0012-0013, regarding that the operational speed of the agricultural machine is controlled, regulated and/or parameterized such that the environment-specific load limits are not exceeded).
In Czapka, seed-related parameters and slippage values are used as conditions for generating an optimal travel speed of the agricultural vehicle. In Zink, a variety of different load limits, including a limit factor external to the agricultural machine, are used as conditions for generating an optimal travel speed of the agricultural vehicle. However, Czapka further teaches that any other suitable parameters for adjusting ground speed may be used (see ¶0053); therefore, it would be reasonable to incorporate the limit factor external to the agricultural machine of Zink into the parameters of Czapka.
Since the systems of Czapka and Zink are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining a travel speed of an agricultural vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Czapka to further receive a limit input that defines a limit factor external to an environment of the mobile agricultural machine and thus generate the control signal based on the limit factor external to the environment of the agricultural system, in the same manner that the environment-specific load limit that include boundaries and weather of Zink is transmitted to the agricultural machine via a data cloud for generating an operational speed of the agricultural machine, with the predictable result of advantageously providing provisions for consideration of environment-specific load limits while performing efficient and optimized agricultural work (¶0008-0009 of Zink) .
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czapka in view of Sauder, and in further view of Verhaeghe.
Claim 17
Sauder, in combination with Czapka, does not further teach that the control signal further controls the interface mechanism to simultaneously display a graphical display element that indicates a recommendation and is interactable to cause the mobile agricultural machine to change the travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine. However, incorporating additional controls into the display interface of Sauder would be obvious, in light of Verhaeghe.
Specifically, Verhaeghe teaches an agricultural machine provided with a control system for automatically implementing recommendations (see ¶0030) that include a recommended driving speed (see ¶0075, regarding that the control system recommends changes in driving speed, e.g., 9 km/h to 7 km/h) (similar to the control signal taught by the combination of Czapka and Zink) that is additionally provided to control display 1 (similar to the interface mechanism taught by the combination of Czapka and Sauder) to display a graphical display element that indicates a recommendation and is interactable to cause the agricultural machine to change the driving speed (similar to the travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine taught by Czapka) (see ¶0073, with respect to Figure 2, regarding the display of a warning message W and question Q in combination with an OK button or CANCEL button for the user to confirm or discard a change, where the recommendations may pertain to decreasing the driving speed, e.g., from 9 km/h to 7 km/h, as described in ¶0075), where the “recommendation” is displayed simultaneously with other parameters (see Figure 2).
In Sauder, the interface display is provided for a planter-type agricultural machine. In Verhaeghe, the interface display is provided for a baler-type agricultural machine. However, it is the technique of displaying a graphical display element that indicates a recommendation and is interactable to cause an agricultural machine to change an operating parameter that is modified by Verhaeghe; therefore, the particular type of agricultural machine does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Sauder and Verhaeghe are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing an interface display for an agricultural machine, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control signal of Czapka to additionally control the interface mechanism to simultaneously display a graphical display element that indicates a recommendation and is interactable to cause the mobile agricultural machine to change the travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine, in light of Verhaeghe, with the predictable result of only implementing speed changes that are sanctioned by the operator (¶0073 of Verhaeghe).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 9, the closest prior art of record, Czapka, Henry (US 2016/0152424 A1), hereinafter Henry, and Cash et al. (US 2013/0311050 A1), hereinafter Cash, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed limit factor comprises, at least, an arrival time of a tender machine, in light of the overall claim.
Specifically, Henry teaches the known technique of controlling the speed of an air seeding system 102 (similar to the “mobile agricultural machine” taught by Czapka) in which a filling system 122 (i.e. “tender machine”) limits the speed of the air seeding system 102 (see ¶0046, with respect to Figures 6A and 6B). However, an “arrival time” of the filling system 122 is not considered in determining the travel speed of the air seeding system 102.
Cash teaches the known technique of providing locations and times at which a farm work vehicle (similar to the “mobile agricultural machine” taught by Czapka) will need services to a support vehicle (i.e. “tender machine”) (see ¶0034), such that the support vehicle can plan its service rendezvous (see ¶0030), and does not teach any speed control operations of the farm work vehicle with respect to a determined arrival time of the support vehicle.
No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to further limit the “limit factor” to include an arrival time of a tender machine for determining an optimal travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine in combination with the value of each job quality characteristic and respective job quality characteristic value threshold, in light of the overall claim.
With respect to claim 18, the closest prior art of record, Czapka and Saunder, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed speed optimization status indicator comprises:
a first visual state based on a determination that all respective job quality characteristic threshold value of the plurality of job quality characteristics is satisfied, and
a second visual state when the respective job quality characteristic threshold value of at least one job quality characteristic, of the plurality of job quality characteristics, is not satisfied, in light of the overall claim.
Specifically, claim 11, from which claim 18 depends, defines the “speed optimization status indicator” as generated based on the travel speed and determined optimal travel speed of the mobile agricultural vehicle. While Saunder teaches visual alerts when the velocity of the planter (i.e. “mobile agricultural vehicle”) falls outside of a predefined window with respect to speed window 1022 depicted in Figure 5 (see ¶0107), Saunder fails to teach this indicator as including the “first visual state” representative of all respective job quality characteristic threshold value of the plurality of job quality characteristics being satisfied and the “second visual state” as representative of when the respective job quality characteristic threshold value of at least one job quality characteristic, of the plurality of job quality characteristics, is not satisfied, as claimed. No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach this claimed feature in light of the overall invention.
Claims 19-21 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record, Czapka, Henry, and Cash, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed agricultural system comprising:
one or more job quality sensors, each of the one or more job quality sensors configured to detect a respective job quality characteristic value of a job performed by a mobile agricultural machine;
a speed sensor configured to detect a travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine; and
a control system configured to:
determine an arrival time of a tender machine;
determine an optimal travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine based on:
the arrival time of a tender machine,
the one or more respective job quality characteristic values, detected by the one or more job quality sensors, and
a respective job quality characteristic value threshold for each of the one or more respective job quality characteristic values; and
generate, based, at least, on the determined optimal travel speed and the detected travel speed of the mobile agricultural machine, a control signal to control the agricultural system.
As similarly discussed with respect to claim 9, Henry teaches the known technique of controlling the speed of an air seeding system 102 (similar to the “mobile agricultural machine” taught by Czapka) in which a filling system 122 (i.e. “tender machine”) limits the speed of the air seeding system 102 (see ¶0046, with respect to Figures 6A and 6B). However, an “arrival time” of the filling system 122 is not considered in determining the travel speed of the air seeding system 102.
Cash teaches the known technique of providing locations and times at which a farm work vehicle (similar to the “mobile agricultural machine” taught by Czapka) will need services to a support vehicle (i.e. “tender machine”) (see ¶0034), such that the support vehicle can plan its service rendezvous (see ¶0030), and does not teach any speed control operations of the farm work vehicle with respect to a determined arrival time of the support vehicle.
No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention, in which the optimal travel speed is determined from the combination of arrival time of a tender machine, job quality characteristic values detected by job quality sensors, and respective job quality characteristic value threshold for each of the one or more respective job quality characteristic values, in light of the overall claim. The claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Stanhope et al. (US 2020/0156470 A1) teaches a similar agricultural machine that controls its speed based on job quality characteristics detected by sensors, and Eichhorn et al. (US 2019/0254223 A1) teaches a similar agricultural machine that controls actuators based on job quality characteristics detected by sensors and their respective set points.
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 Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights