DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 .
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 01/16/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the previous rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the instant rejection.
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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cozza et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2021/0084805A1 (hereinafter, Cozza), in view of Peterson et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2010/0319941A1 (hereinafter, Peterson).
Regarding Claim 1, Cozza describes an agricultural system (agricultural machine, Cozza, Paragraphs 0022-0023 and Figure 1) comprising:
-an implement including a frame assembly (frame assembly, Cozza, Paragraph 0025 and Figure 1);
-a leveler operably coupled with the frame assembly (leveler attached to the frame assembly, Cozza, Paragraph 0024 and Figure 1);
-a leveler actuator operably coupled with the leveler and the frame assembly, the leveler actuator configured to alter a position of the leveler relative to the frame assembly (leveler actuator to alter the position of the leveler relative to the frame assembly, Cozza, Paragraph 0028 and Figure 1); and
-a computing system communicatively coupled to the leveler actuator, the computing system including a processor and associated memory, the memory storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor, configure the computing system (processor and memory to operate a desired program of instruction, Cozza, Paragraph 0038) to:
-receive soil data indicative of a soil type (receiving soil data, which can indicate soil type, Cozza, Paragraphs 0039-0040);
-receive levelness data indicative of a measured levelness of a field (receive data of field, wherein the data can indicate the levelness of the field, Cozza, Paragraph 0040);
-receive a defined soil levelness (receive a defined soil levelness, Cozza, Paragraph 0040); and …
Cozza does not specifically disclose the system to include determin[ing] a defined leveler actuator position based at least partially on the soil type, the measured levelness of the field, and the defined soil levelness.
Peterson discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Peterson describes an agricultural system that includes determining an actuator position of a leveler based, in part, on the soil type, the levelness of the field, and the defined soil levelness (Peterson, Paragraphs 0020-0025 and Figure 6).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Cozza to include determining a defined leveler actuator position based at least partially on the soil type, the measured levelness of the field, and the defined soil levelness., as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Peterson.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because implementing a leveling system allows for the system to achieve desired results such as a constant depth, which is desired in the field of art (Peterson, Paragraphs 0019-0020 and 0005).
Regarding Claim 2, Cozza, as modified, describes the agricultural system of claim 1, further comprising: a field sensor configured to capture data indicative of one or more conditions of the field (sensor to capture data of the field, Cozza, Paragraph 0039).
Regarding Claim 3, Cozza, as modified, describes the agricultural system of claim 2, wherein the soil data is indicative of the soil type is provided by the field sensor (soil data, which can indicate soil type via the sensors, Cozza, Paragraph 0039).
Regarding Claim 4, Cozza, as modified, describes the agricultural system of claim 2, wherein the levelness data is indicative of the measured levelness of the field (levelness data is indicative of the measured levelness of the field (e.g., determining surface irregularities like ridges and valleys, Cozza, Paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claim 5, Cozza, as modified, describes the agricultural system of claim 1, further comprising: a user interface, wherein the soil data is provided to the computing system through the user interface (user interface, wherein data can be displayed to the operator, Cozza, Paragraph 0061).
Regarding Claim 6, Cozza, as modified, describes the agricultural system of claim 1, further comprising: a location device, wherein the soil data is based at least partially on a position of the implement within the field, as determined by the location device, and a correlated soil map (soil data is based, in part, on the position of the implement within the field, which is determined by the location device, Cozza, Paragraphs 0039-0040 and 0061).
Regarding Claim 9, Cozza, as modified, describes the agricultural system of claim 1, further comprising: a display operably coupled with the computing system, the computing system configured to illustrate information related to at least one of the soil type, the measured levelness of the field, and the defined soil levelness (user interface, wherein desired data can be displayed to the operator (e.g., soil type, measured levelness of the field, and defined soil levelness), Cozza, Paragraphs 0061).
Regarding Claim 10, Cozza, as modified, describes the agricultural system of claim 1, further comprising: an implement sensor configured to detect one or more implement settings associated with the implement (agricultural system determines type of implement based on sensor information, this is needed to determine height functions, Cozza, Paragraphs 0039-0040 and 0061).
Regarding Claim 11, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim. See also controlling the actuators of Cozza in Paragraphs [0048 and 0063].
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 9 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 16, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim. See also controlling the actuators of Cozza in Paragraphs [0048 and 0063].
Regarding Claim 17, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 18, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 19, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 20, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Claims 7, 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cozza et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2021/0084805A1 (hereinafter, Cozza), in view of Peterson et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2010/0319941A1 (hereinafter, Peterson), in further view of Barrick et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2018/0303022A1 (hereinafter, Barrick).
Regarding Claim 7, Cozza, as modified, describes the agricultural system of claim 1.
Cozza does not specifically disclose the system to include a position sensor operably coupled with the leveler actuator, the position sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected position of the leveler relative to the frame assembly.
Barrick discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Barrick describes an agricultural system which determines, with a positional sensor, input data indicative of the position of the tool (e.g., leveler) relative to the frame assembly (Barrick, Paragraphs 0016-0017).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Cozza to include a position sensor operably coupled with the leveler actuator, the position sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected position of the leveler relative to the frame assembly, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Barrick.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because detecting the position between the working implant and the frame allows for desired adjustments (e.g., tilting) that can increase overall agricultural results (i.e., yields) (Barrick, Paragraph 0011).
Regarding Claim 8, Cozza, as modified, describes the agricultural system of claim 7, wherein the computing system is further configured to: generate instructions to alter a position of the leveler through actuation of the leveler actuator when a detected leveler position varies from the defined leveler actuator position (adjusting the position based on position varying, Cozza, Paragraphs 0044 and 0076 and Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 14, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
