DETAILED ACTION
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
This Final action is in reply to the application 18165396 amendment filed on 12/19/2025.
Claim 7 is canceled
Claims 8 and 20 are allowable
Claims 1 - 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/09/2026 was fully considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Response to arguments
Response to 102The applicant is arguing that SCHULTES teaches a sensor and GLENNON discloses another sensor, and because the sensors are not in one reference, the applicant states they can’t be rendered obvious. This examiner does not find the applicants arguments persuasive as the examiner states that GLENNON and SHULTE both disclose of controlling agricultural implements using down force, force sensors and position sensors were known and their combination would have improved accuracy and performance in varying soil conditions. As stated in the rejection below, the combination of GLENNON and SHULTE would have been obvious because the combining of prior art elements according to known methods yield predictable results. ( MPEP 2143 rationale C). Additionally, Schulte teaches that the use of force detection on ground engaging elements can be useful in improving individual unit precision control so as to prevent damage (Col 1, Lines 17-31).
Additionally the examiner states that amended claim 1 requiring the controller to determine corrective action is not persuasive because the applicant is requiring elements that not part of the claim.The examiner states that the applicant would need to add in more functional limitations of the two sensors that would be needed for working together such as a specific outcome. Having sensors that are unique to the controller would providing functional support for the applicants claim. Therefore the examiner does not find the applicants arguments persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1- 5, 9 – 14, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 2020029485 – Glennon e t al. hereinafter as GLENNON in view of US Patent 11246254 – Schulte et al. hereinafter as SCHULTERegarding Claim 1, 10 and 18 :
GLENNON discloses:
A control system and associated method of use (Fig. 2 control system 12)for a surface engaging unit(fig. 1 ), comprising:
a source of fluid; (fig. 2 Fluid source)
a cylinder actuator(fig. 1 – cylinder actuator 22) comprising (i) a cylinder( cylinder, para. 0017), (ii) a piston movable within the cylinder and configured to be coupled to a surface engaging implement of the surface engaging unit,(piston rod 56 moves with cylinder, para. 0017) and (iii) a chamber within the cylinder configured to receive fluid to apply a fluid force on the piston;( fluid to actuator to drive piston para. 0017)
a proportional control valve configured to control fluid flow from the source of fluid to the chamber; (proportional control valve, para. 0018)
a position sensor ( para. 0027 – position sensor 128 ) coupled to the cylinder actuator and configured to provide position sensor information indicative of a position of the piston; (para. 0027 - wherein the position sensor is to monitor the position of the piston rod 56)
a controller having access to a desired surface engagement position for the surface engaging implement, wherein the controller is configured to perform operations comprising: receiving the position sensor information from the position sensor, and based on the position sensor information, ( receiving position sensor information )sending a valve command signal ( para. 0033 – raise control valve) to the proportional control valve to vary pressure level of fluid provided to the chamber of the cylinder, thereby changing the fluid force applied to the piston to achieve the desired surface engagement position. ( proportional control valve control the fluid rate and raise actuator and they raises ground engaging tools relative to soil).
GLENNON discloses of the control valve system that has a controller and proportional control valve ( proportional control valve para. 0018) based on position based feedback( para. 0027 - position sensor information configured to monitor the position of the piston rod 56),
SHULTE discloses of a force sensor coupled to the piston and configured to provide force sensor information indicative of an actual force applied by the piston on the surface engaging implement, the valve command signal to the proportional control valve to vary pressure level of fluid provided to the chamber of the cylinder is based on and the force sensor information. ( col 2 line 63 – col 3 line 3 - force feedback sensor 70 )
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention of GLENNON disclosing a control valve system that has a controller and proportional control valve based on position based feedback to combine with SHULTE’s control valve system that has a force sensor coupled to the piston and configured to provide force sensor information indicative of an actual force applied by the piston on the surface engaging implement, the valve command signal to the proportional control valve to vary pressure level of fluid provided to the chamber of the cylinder is based on and the force sensor information. GLENNON and SHULTE both disclose of controlling agricultural implements using down force, force sensors and position sensors were known and their combination would have improved accuracy and performance in varying soil conditions. This combination of GLENNON and SHULTE would have been obvious because the combining of prior art elements according to known methods yield predictable results. ( MPEP 2143 rationale C).
Examiner notes that as it relates specifically to Claim 10, Glennon further discloses the control unit is configured to use as part of a machine system with a plurality of row units, wherein at least one row unit of the plurality comprises a surface engaging implement (rows of blades 24 may be arranged as part of the general implement 10; Paragraph 0011).
Regarding Claim 2, and 11:
GLENNON discloses of a proportional control valve with a cylinder actuator, SCHULTE discloses:
2. The control system of claim 1, wherein the cylinder actuator is a double-acting cylinder actuator(Double acting cylinder, col 2 line 32 – 36), wherein the piston divides an inner space of the cylinder to a first chamber and a second chamber, wherein the proportional control valve controls fluid flow to the second chamber( proportional control valve, col 2 line 32 – 45), wherein the control system further comprises: a pressure control valve disposed between the source of fluid and the first chamber, ( pressure control valve 60) wherein the pressure control valve is configured to receive fluid from the source of fluid and provide fluid to the first chamber at a substantially constant pressure level such that fluid in the first chamber applies a constant fluid force in a first direction on the piston, wherein fluid in the second chamber applies the fluid force on the piston in a second direction, opposite the first direction, wherein the controller sends the valve command signal to the proportional control valve to vary pressure level of fluid in the second chamber to change the fluid force acting on the piston in the second direction, thereby changing a net force applied to the piston. ( where in the force between a first chamber and a second chamber determines the resultant down force of which changes the net force applied to piston, col 2 line 32 – 65)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the cylinder actuator with proportional control valve of SOLAJA for wherein the cylinder actuator is a double-acting cylinder actuator, wherein the piston divides an inner space of the cylinder to a first chamber and a second chamber, wherein the proportional control valve controls fluid flow to the second chamber, wherein the control system further comprises: a pressure control valve disposed between the source of fluid and the first chamber, wherein the pressure control valve is configured to receive fluid from the source of fluid and provide fluid to the first chamber at a substantially constant pressure level such that fluid in the first chamber applies a constant fluid force in a first direction on the piston, wherein fluid in the second chamber applies the fluid force on the piston in a second direction, opposite the first direction, wherein the controller sends the valve command signal to the proportional control valve to vary pressure level of fluid in the second chamber to change the fluid force acting on the piston in the second direction, thereby changing a net force applied to the piston as taught by SCHULTE. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of one cylinder actuator mechanism for another to produce the predictable result of improving soil depth for ground engaging tools (MPEP 2143, subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 3 and 12:
GLENNON / SHULTE discloses claim 2:SHULTE discloses the double acting cylinder as taught in claim 2, wherein the cylinder actuation system further comprises:
3. The control system of claim 2, further comprising: a fluid reservoir, wherein the pressure control valve is a pressure reducing-relieving valve comprising( fig. 3 proportional upforce valve 60) : (i) an inlet port that is fluidly-coupled to the source of fluid, (fig. 3 – inlet to valve 60) (ii) an outlet port that is fluidly coupled to the first chamber,(fig. 3 – outlet of valve 60 – line 44 to actuator 40) and (iii) a drain port that is fluidly-coupled to the fluid reservoir, wherein the pressure control valve is configured to reduce pressure level of fluid received at the inlet port and provide fluid having a reduced pressure level via the outlet port to the first chamber,(fig. 3 – valve 60 reduce the supply pressure from source 30, reduce pressure to the actuator chamber) and wherein the pressure control valve is configured to relieve fluid at the outlet port to the drain port when pressure level at the outlet port exceeds the reduced pressure level. ((fig. 3 – valve 60 provide relief function if chamber pressure rises above certain value, excess fluid vented through drain port)
Regarding Claim 4 and 13:
GLENNON / SHULTE discloses claim 2:
SHULTE discloses the double acting cylinder as taught in claim 2.
4. The control system of claim 2, further comprising:
a pilot-operated valve disposed between the pressure control valve and the first chamber (fig. 2 – valve 90), wherein the pilot-operated valve has a pilot port that is fluidly-coupled to second chamber of the cylinder actuator( col 3 line 25 – 35 – pilot pressure from 44 controls when valve 90 actuates, wherein the pilot-operated valve is configured to operate in (i) a first state, wherein fluid is allowed to flow from the pressure control valve through the pilot-operated valve to the first chamber,(fig.2 pilot pressure from 44 below threshold 90 fluid flow from valve 50 to first chamber 42) and (ii) a second state when pressure level of fluid in the second chamber and at the pilot port reaches a threshold pressure level at which the pilot-operated valve blocks fluid flow to the first chamber. ( fig 2 the valve 90 will activated when pressure on the second side of the cylinder 40- reaches a max threshold)
Regarding Claim 5 and 14:
GLENNON / SHULTE discloses claim 2:
SHULTE discloses the double acting cylinder as taught in claim 2.
5. The control system of claim 2, further comprising:
an electrically-actuated valve disposed between the pressure control valve and the first chamber( fig. 3 , valve 90’ is an electrically operated directional valve ) wherein the electrically-actuated valve is configured to operate in a first state, wherein the electrically-actuated valve blocks fluid flow to the first chamber,(fig.3 valve 90’ remains closed until actuated by ecu 80.) wherein the controller is configured to perform further operations comprising: sending a signal to the electrically-actuated valve to operate the electrically-actuated valve in a second state, wherein the electrically-actuated valve allows fluid flow to the first chamber. ( fig.3 and col 3 line 25 – 35 ecu 80 connected to valve 90’ , ecu 80 send signal to valve 90’ shifts open. Flow fluid from valve 50 – go to chamber 42)
Regarding Claim 9 and 17
GLENNON disclose of claim 1
9. The control system of claim 1, wherein the position sensor comprises (i) a magnet coupled to the piston and movable therewith, and (ii) a magnetic sensor mounted to the cylinder and configured to measure magnetic field intensity as the piston and the magnet move, and provide a signal to the controller indicative of the magnetic field intensity, and wherein the controller determines the position of the piston based on the signal from the magnetic sensor. (para. 0027 – wherein a LVDT uses magnetic principles.)
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 2020029485 – Glennon e t al. hereinafter as GLENNON in view of US Patent 11246254 – Schulte et al. hereinafter as SCHULTE in view of 20140116735 – Bassett et al. hereinafter as BASSETT
Regarding Claim 6 and 15:
GLENNON / SHULTE discloses of a cylinder actuator for a surface engaging implement, BASSETT discloses:
wherein the cylinder actuator is a single-acting cylinder actuator having a spring that applies a biasing force on the piston in a first direction, (fig. 46a para. 0244 and 245 – where in there is a spring biased single acting cylinder 2622) wherein fluid in the chamber applies the fluid force on the piston in a second direction, opposite the first direction, wherein the controller sends the valve command signal to the proportional control valve to vary pressure level of fluid in the chamber to change the fluid force acting on the piston in the second direction, thereby changing a net force applied to the piston. (fig. 46a para. 0244 and 245 – where in there is a spring biased single acting cylinder 2622)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the cylinder actuator for a surface engaging implement of GLENNON / SHULTE for the cylinder actuator wherein the cylinder actuator is a single-acting cylinder actuator having a spring that applies a biasing force on the piston in a first direction, wherein fluid in the chamber applies the fluid force on the piston in a second direction, opposite the first direction, wherein the controller sends the valve command signal to the proportional control valve to vary pressure level of fluid in the chamber to change the fluid force acting on the piston in the second direction, thereby changing a net force applied to the piston as taught by BASSETT. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of one known Cylinder actuator for another to produce the predictable result of a ground engaging implement with downforce (MPEP 2143, subsection I, B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 and 20 are objected to.
While agricultural implement with position sensor and force sensors to determine force or pressure to apply on an implement are known ( GLENNON and SHULTE) such references do not disclose the specifics regarding the detail of determining a first difference between the desired surface engagement position and the position of the piston indicated by the position sensor information, generating, based on the first difference, a reference force command, and determining a second difference between the reference force command and the actual force indicated by the force sensor information, wherein the sending the valve command signal to the proportional control valve is based on the second difference. Such a modification would require too significant of a redesign and would constitute an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CA 3009363 – BASSETT – agricultural planting system with automatic depth control with pressure sensors and position sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-9511. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 5712720547. 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.
/A.H.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671